Compliance Round Up – OSHA Extends Heat Enforcement, ICE Rewrites I-9 Rules, and Virginia Advances Paid Leave (April 2026)

Headshot of Jennifer Kieswetter
Written By
Jennifer Kiesewetter
Published On: April 21, 2026

Jenny Kiesewetter is a practicing ERISA and employee benefits attorney who partners with HR teams on a wide range of workplace compliance matters — from benefit-plan obligations to day-to-day HR policies and regulatory requirements. Her guidance helps employers spot risks early, navigate regulatory change, and make informed decisions that support both employees and the organization.

—

An OSHA inspector walks in. Your HR team is deep into an I-9 audit. And Virginia just sent paid leave legislation back for more work — again. That is April 2026. Employers are dealing with several developments from the past few weeks, and some come with tighter timelines than expected.

These changes require more than a policy update. HR, legal, and payroll teams need to coordinate quickly, often with limited lead time. You cannot always wait for perfect clarity, so employers need to make informed decisions quickly. Here is what your team needs to know.

Federal News

Effective Date: April 10, 2026

What’s Changing:

OSHA allowed its prior National Emphasis Program (NEP) for heat hazards to expire in early April 2026, then reissued an updated version effective April 10, 2026, extending the program for another five years. The revised NEP expands the scope of targeted industries and refines how inspections start and proceed.

The updated program broadens enforcement beyond traditional outdoor sectors like construction and agriculture. The program expands beyond traditional outdoor industries to include certain indoor and service-sector environments, such as warehousing, transportation, and workplaces where employees face elevated heat exposure risks.

OSHA also reinforced its inspection approach during elevated heat conditions. The agency prioritizes inspections on high-heat days, including when the heat index rises and when the National Weather Service issues heat advisories or warnings. During inspections, compliance officers document and assess environmental conditions such as heat index, humidity, and workload demands to assess potential violations.

The five-year term provides some predictability, but it also means this enforcement posture is not going away anytime soon.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review your heat illness prevention program against the revised program requirements and update it if needed.
  • If your industry is newly on the targeted list, expect proactive OSHA inspections, not just complaint-driven ones.
  • Verify you have protocols for water, shade, rest breaks, and acclimatization for new employees and those returning from extended leave.
  • Train supervisors to recognize heat illness symptoms and know how to respond before an OSHA officer shows up.

Effective Date: Report released April 6, 2026 (mid-year litigation data reported)

What’s Changing?

In its April 2026 update, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported strong enforcement results, including approximately $660 million in recoveries for nearly 18,000 individuals through administrative enforcement and litigation in fiscal year 2025. The agency continues to pursue litigation, with a focus on discrimination, harassment, and systemic cases.

The EEOC also continues to bring cases under newer laws such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), signaling ongoing attention to pregnancy-related accommodations and related protections. The Commission now operates with a restored quorum and is aligning enforcement activity with current leadership priorities.

What This Means for HR:

  • Treat EEOC charges as potential litigation from the outset. Strong documentation and consistent responses matter.
  • Review accommodation practices under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to confirm compliance.
  • Revisit discrimination and harassment policies and training, particularly where patterns could create systemic risk.
  • Assess open charges early with counsel and align your strategy with the agency’s continued focus on enforcement.

Effective Date: April 14, 2026

What’s Changing?

On April 14, 2026, the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) released Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2026-01 and directed investigators on how to prioritize and conduct ERISA enforcement activity.

The bulletin directs EBSA staff to focus enforcement resources on cases involving significant participant harm and clear fiduciary breaches, with particular emphasis on the duty of loyalty. That duty requires fiduciaries to act solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. The guidance also instructs investigators to base enforcement actions on statutory text, established regulations, and existing case law, rather than novel legal theories. For significant matters, EBSA requires coordination with national leadership to promote consistency across regions. The bulletin also introduces internal timeframes for investigations, with shorter targets for routine matters and longer timelines for more complex cases.

The guidance reinforces how EBSA evaluates investment decisions, including decisions that involve environmental, social, or governance (ESG) factors. Fiduciaries must base investment decisions on financial considerations tied to the plan’s objectives. When fiduciaries consider ESG-related factors, they must tie those factors to documented financial analysis and cannot let them override the plan’s financial interests.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review investment committee processes and confirm that all decisions reflect documented, participant-focused financial analysis.
  • If your plan includes ESG-related investments, confirm that the rationale ties directly to risk, return, or other financial considerations.
  • Strengthen fiduciary documentation. Clear records of decision-making provide the strongest defense under a duty-of-loyalty framework.
  • Expect more structured investigations. While the timelines are internal targets, EBSA is signaling a more disciplined approach to case management.

Effective Date: March 16, 2026

What’s Changing?

On March 16, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) updated its Form I-9 inspection fact sheet. While the update does not formally change the legal framework, it reflects a more stringent enforcement posture around I-9 compliance.

ICE continues to distinguish between technical or procedural violations, which may be corrected, and substantive violations, which can result in immediate fines. However, the agency’s current approach suggests a narrower view of what qualifies as a correctable error. Employers should expect closer scrutiny of incomplete or inconsistent information, particularly in Sections 1 and 2.

Civil penalties remain significant, ranging from $288 to $2,861 per form, depending on the nature of the violation and prior history.

What This Means for HR:

  • Do not rely on the 10-day correction window as a safety net. Many errors may not qualify for cure.
  • Audit Forms I-9 proactively, focusing on completeness and consistency across Sections 1 and 2.
  • Pay close attention to document information, signatures, and required fields.
  • Review electronic I-9 systems to confirm audit trails and signature protocols meet ICE expectations.

Trending State News

Effective Date: Introduced February 12, 2026; advancing through the California legislature

What’s Changing?

California Assembly Bill 1898, introduced on February 12, 2026, would impose new notice and transparency obligations on employers that use artificial intelligence and automated decision systems in the workplace. Lawmakers last amended the bill on March 20, 2026, and continue to revise key provisions as it moves through the legislative process.

The bill targets tools that assist with or influence employment decisions, including systems that generate scores, classifications, or recommendations, as well as certain workplace monitoring technologies. Employers would need to provide advance written notice to affected workers before using covered tools and provide additional disclosures at hire and upon material changes.

The proposal has drawn active feedback from employer groups and technology stakeholders, particularly around the breadth of the definition of covered tools and the operational burden of compliance. Lawmakers are continuing to evaluate potential amendments, and key elements, including timing, scope, and enforcement, can change as the bill moves forward.

The bill also reflects a broader trend in California toward regulating workplace technology, with a focus on transparency, worker awareness, and the use of data in employment decisions.

What This Means for HR:

  • Identify tools that influence hiring, performance, scheduling, or discipline, but avoid overclassifying standard software until definitions are clearer.
  • Prepare for advance notice and disclosure requirements if the bill moves forward.
  • Coordinate with legal, HR, and IT teams to understand how tools function and what data they rely on.
  • Monitor amendments closely. Scope and compliance obligations are still evolving.

Effective Date: Legislation passed March 13, 2026; Governor proposed amendments April 13, 2026; General Assembly reconvenes April 22, 2026

What’s Changing: 

Virginia lawmakers passed legislation on March 13, 2026, that would establish a statewide Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) insurance program along with a paid sick leave requirement.

On April 13, 2026, Governor Abigail Spanberger proposed amendments rather than signing the bills as passed. The amendments scale back and phase in key components of both programs, with a focus on reducing immediate employer burden and revisiting funding and administrative structure. The proposals also signal potential changes tied to employer size and program design.

The General Assembly will reconvene on April 22 to consider those amendments. Lawmakers are still reviewing the legislation, so key details — including benefit levels, contribution structure, and accrual requirements — can still change before final enactment.

What This Means for HR:

  • Watch the April 22 reconvening closely. If amendments are adopted and the bills are signed, implementation timelines will matter immediately.
  • Begin modeling payroll contribution costs now, even before the final terms are set — the core structure of a payroll-funded insurance program is unlikely to change significantly.
  • Review leave tracking systems and policies to assess what adjustments paid sick leave compliance would require.
  • If your workforce includes Virginia employees, brief benefits and payroll teams as soon as the bills are signed.

Around the Courts

Effective Date: April 7, 2026 (decided); McKee Foods Corp. v. BFP Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

What’s Changing:

On April 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that ERISA preempts two Tennessee laws regulating pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) involving McKee Foods Corporation’s self-funded health plan. The ruling matters beyond Tennessee because it reinforces ERISA’s preemptive reach when a state law dictates network structure or cost-sharing design for a self-funded plan.

The case involved McKee Foods, the Tennessee-based maker of Little Debbie snack cakes, which sponsors a self-funded ERISA plan and works with a PBM to administer prescription drug benefits. Tennessee enacted two sets of PBM provisions. One set required any willing pharmacy to gain access to the network on the same terms as other pharmacies. The other barred financial incentives that steer participants toward certain pharmacies, including through different copays across network pharmacies.

The Sixth Circuit held that both sets of provisions impermissibly connect to ERISA plans. The court found that the any-willing-provider rules mandate a particular network structure and govern a central matter of plan administration. It also found that the anti-steering incentive provisions interfere with plan benefit design because cost-sharing arrangements are an integral part of how plans structure pharmacy benefits. The court also concluded that states cannot force self-funded plans to adopt Tennessee-specific rules through laws saved from preemption as insurance regulation.

Many states have enacted or are considering similar PBM laws. This decision signals that self-funded plan sponsors have strong grounds to challenge those efforts when they interfere with plan design or administration.

Tennessee tried to dictate how a self-funded ERISA plan structures its pharmacy network. The Sixth Circuit made clear that ERISA preemption prevents that.

What This Means for HR:

  • Employers with self-funded health plans have stronger support for challenging state laws that try to dictate pharmacy network structure or participant cost-sharing.
  • If your plan uses preferred pharmacy incentives or network restrictions, this decision supports treating those features as core plan design choices.
  • Review PBM contracts and plan documents to make sure they clearly show that network and cost-sharing terms reflect plan design decisions. That documentation matters if a state attempts to regulate around ERISA.
  • Expect more litigation in this area. States continue to regulate PBM practices, and this decision provides a roadmap for ERISA preemption arguments.

—

The information contained in this site is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter.