Listen to Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall’s discussion about corporate social media rights, censorship, and AI legal risks on the Greg and Dan Show.

Read a Daily Business Review analysis written by Hinshaw attorneys Jenelle La Chuisa, Wadad Barakat, and Lauren Swanson, which breaks down the two-front DEI claims landscape, the DOJ’s False Claims Act push, and the coverage terms that will impact defense and indemnity.

Hinshaw immigration partner Ian Wagreich was featured among Investment Migration Insider’s (IMI) “Investment Migration People in the News This Week” in connection with his commentary on federal immigration developments in recent Bloomberg Law and Chronicle of Higher Education media stories.

Learn who’s covered under New York City’s Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (ESSTA), new tracking/reporting rules, and compliance steps for employers.

Read key takeaways and practical compliance recommendations for plan sponsors from a recent Seventh Circuit decision underscoring the importance of strictly following plan procedures when updating beneficiary designations.

Read the practical takeaways for employers from a recent Eleventh Circuit decision that clarifies when expenses such as transportation, travel to worksites, tool collection, and waiting at a labor hall are, or are not, compensable.

DHS’s May 2025 memo points to at-home arrests based on administrative warrants (Form I-205), with unresolved questions about business entries and “exigent circumstances.” Explore what’s changed, the constitutional backdrop, and the current litigation landscape in our new alert.

Learn more about the US Department of State’s announcement of an indefinite pause on visa adjudications for nationals of 75 countries, effective January 21, 2026.

Read about the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) new final rule that fundamentally alters the H-1B cap selection process. Effective February 27, 2026, this rule replaces the traditional random lottery with a "weighted selection process" based on salary levels. 

Exempt Classification of Position of Employment Does Not Automatically Create Predominate Issue for Class CertificationA group of employees filed suit against a news organization on behalf of current, former and future non exempt employees at the company’s Los Angeles facility. The class argued that the agency’s reporters were not exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, as a result, the employer wrongfully denied them overtime compensation, as well as other issues arising under state law. The class was certified and a jury returned a $2.5 million verdict. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit originally affirmed the trial court’s ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the opinion and remanded it for reconsideration in light of the Court’s holding in Dukes v. Walmart. On remand, the court focused on whether common questions of law or fact predominated over individual issues, a requirement for the form of class action at issue. While the Ninth Circuit ultimately remanded the case to the district court, it held that predominance could not be presumed simply because the agency had a uniform policy of classifying all reporters as exempt. Rather, it was required to evaluate whether individual issues existed that would make class treatment impossible. This case creates a valuable precedent for employers that a uniform policy does not in and of itself render class treatment appropriate, and thereby offers an additional basis on which to challenge class treatment.Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740, (9th Cir., Mar. 4, 2013)

Breaking News: Florida Court Declares 104-Week Limit of Temporary Benefits Unconstitutional, Reinstates 260-Week CapThe Florida First District Court of Appeals was presented with a question of the constitutionality of the 104-week limitation on temporary indemnity benefits based on an injured worker who was not yet ready to return to work after the 104 weeks of temporary benefits, but who was not able to prove eventual permanent and total disability benefits, and therefore not entitled to indemnity benefits. The claimant’s condition left him in the not-uncommon position of exhausting his statutory benefits prior to reaching the ability to return to substantial gainful employment. As amended in 1994, the Florida Statutes allowed only 104 weeks of temporary benefits. The court, in a scathing 25-page opinion, found that the claimant was denied access to the courts and to the constitutionally granted right to the administration of justice without denial or delay, in violation of the Florida Constitution. The court found unconstitutional the 1994 change to the law, which revised entitlement to temporary benefits from 260 weeks to 104 weeks. The court therefore remanded the case, with instructions to grant the claimant additional temporary total disability benefits not to exceed 260 weeks, as would have been provided under the previous relevant statutory provision prior to the 1994 amendment of Fla. Stat. § 440.15(2)(a). The court evaluated the workers’ compensation statutes in all other states and found that more than 40 allow a minimum of 312 weeks, and only five jurisdictions limit disability to 104 weeks. The court concluded that the natural consequence of “such a system of legal redress is potential economic ruination of the injured worker, with all the terrible consequences that this portends for the worker and his or her family,” and indicated that this system of redress for injury is “not merely unfair, but is fundamentally and manifestly unjust.”  The court, however, did not strike the entire 1994 or 2003 amendments to the statute, but only severed Section 440.15(2)(a), reviving the pre-1994 statute solely as it speaks to the time-limitation on temporary disability benefits. As this is a substantive change in the law and deals with an unconstitutional statute, the decision affects all cases, regardless of the date of accident. This case has a tremendous impact on the current cases nearing the 104-week mark, as well as those currently in litigation for permanent and total disability benefits. Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, Case No. 1D12-3562 (1st DCA Feb. 28, 2013)

NLRB Recess Appointments Are Invalid