Welcome to the last of our three posts with our look ahead to 2026—the environmental edition. If you follow this blog, you have probably sensed a trend: environmental regulation rarely moves in a straight line. This coming year will be no different. Below is a more detailed look at three areas we will be watching this year.

1. PFAS Reporting and Liability

Manufacturers will be spending more time thinking about PFAS in 2026. We have been talking about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule for years, and it is expected to become final early in 2026. As we previously reported, this rule will require manufacturers to report certain information on PFAS-containing articles going back as far as 2011. The EPA proposed some important changes to the rule at the end of 2025, including exemptions for de minimis concentrations, imported articles and chemicals used in research and development. Once the TSCA rule is finalized, it will require manufacturers to report extensive information about PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, exposures, and disposal.

In addition to the federal reporting requirement, states are getting in on the action. If your products travel into Minnesota, Minnesota’s sweeping PFAS‑in‑products statute (Amara’s Law) will require you to report products with intentionally added PFAS. By July 1, 2026, manufacturers will be required to disclose product‑specific PFAS details, including the type and amount of the PFAS in the product as well as its purpose or function.

These federal and state reporting obligations create challenges for manufacturers to dive deep into their supply chains in an attempt to gather the required information. For sectors using PFAS indirectly—such as coatings, plastics, electronics, and molded components—the data‑gathering burden may be significant.

In addition to reporting obligations, investigation and remedial obligations related to PFAS are on the rise. The EPA plans to maintain CERCLA hazardous‑substance designations for PFOA and PFOS, signaling continued expansion of PFAS‑related cost recovery and cleanup obligations. That means manufacturers with current or historical PFAS use—or who acquired property with legacy PFAS contamination—will likely face increased risk of enforcement actions or third‑party claims.

2. Water Law Uncertainty: WOTUS and NPDES Permitting Changes

Water regulation remains a challenge for many manufacturers, and 2026 won’t offer much relief. As my colleagues have previously explained, the continued regulatory back‑and‑forth regarding the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act has left manufacturers guessing as to the activities that will trigger Clean Water Act jurisdiction. This matters because facility expansions, stormwater projects, and wetlands issues all hinge on these key jurisdictional determinations.

At the same time, both EPA and states are tightening oversight of NPDES permitting for indirect discharges. Manufacturers whose wastewater enters complex conveyance systems, such as municipal treatment systems, may face additional pretreatment, sampling, monitoring, and recordkeeping obligations as regulators try to close gaps in indirect discharge oversight. Spoiler alert—PFAS are emerging in this context, too.

3. The Patchwork of State Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Laws

For manufacturers selling their products into multiple states, the growing patchwork of packaging EPR laws is quickly becoming a compliance challenge. A number of states, including Colorado, California, and Minnesota, now have packaging EPR programs, each with different definitions of producer, different covered packaging materials, and different registration and reporting deadlines. And many states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are poised to follow.

The variability in these laws makes it difficult for manufacturers looking to develop a one-size-fits-all approach. Manufacturers should stay on top of these laws and their requirements in an attempt to develop as streamlined a strategy as possible for compliance.

In late 2012, we created the Manufacturing Law Blog with the goal of providing our manufacturing clients with a holistic approach to the unique issues they face in their global operations. 

Starting in 2016, we began a tradition of dedicating our first three posts of the year to a yearly outlook from different vantage points.

Here are corporate compliance and litigation issues that manufacturers might expect to face in 2026:

  1. Tariffs are here to stay: We are all waiting to see how the United States Supreme Court rules on the legality of the “reciprocal tariffs.” There is a significant amount of activity regarding the “what ifs” surrounding the ruling, including whether companies will be able to seek refunds. What is more certain, however, is that there is no indication that the administration will return to a “low tariff” environment. The manufacturing industry will continue to be impacted by the steel and aluminum (232 tariffs) as well as other similar tariffs developed over time. We have worked with many manufacturers to mitigate their tariff exposure through various means, which will continue in 2026.
  • M&A Activity will continue to be hot for manufacturers of all sizes: In 2025, our group handled over 15 transactions; some were for corporate buyers and others were for private equity; some were acquisitions and others were sales; and some were very large in terms of transaction size and others were small. The M&A market for small to medium sized manufacturers will remain hot. The key for all businesses is to be prepared and have your advisory team in place—the competition for deals remains fierce.  
  • Business to business disputes are becoming more prevalent: Everyone always talks about lawsuits that make the news. But for many manufacturers, there are disputes that never make the headlines and, frankly, never make it to court. We are always advising companies behind the scenes as they try to enforce contractual rights or defend against them with sensitivity for business issues. Too often, lawyers forget that disputes can be opportunities to keep and expand business—just as much as it may destroy relationships. Further, if you are going to get into a contract dispute with someone, the key is to learn from it and improve the contractual language moving forward. Too many manufacturers are relying on templates and that can burn companies when enforcement is required.   

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain.

As we look ahead to 2026, several significant employment law developments and trends are on the horizon, especially with regard to local and state laws. Below are a few key issues likely to impact manufacturers in 2026:

Regulation of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employment

Employers, including human resource professionals, are increasingly turning to generative artificial intelligence (AI) to help sort applicant and employee data and make employment decisions, including related to screening and hiring. Although AI has increased efficiency in these processes, employers must ensure compliance with rapidly evolving state laws, some of which require employers to prepare risk assessments related to the use of AI in employment decision-making, provide pre-use notices to affected individuals, and provide opt-out rights. In addition to the burgeoning patchwork of state AI legislation, President Trump signed an Executive Order in December 2025, titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which, in part, sets out the Trump administration’s plan to target state AI laws which are deemed to “embed ideological bias within models.” While it remains unclear which state AI laws may run afoul of the executive order, and how the federal government’s enforcement efforts will take shape, manufacturers should stay up to date on applicable state and federal AI laws when using AI.

Expansion of State Anti-Discrimination Protections

In recent years, state anti-discrimination laws have expanded to incorporate more protected classes, including hairstyle or hair texture, immigration status, and status as a victim of family violence or sex trafficking, among others. These expansions are likely to continue at state and local levels, especially as the federal government turns its enforcement focus to unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, among others. 

Expansion of State Family and Medical Leave Programs

State family and medical leave laws and income-replacement programs continue to expand to cover more employees and provide greater benefits for a wider array of qualifying reasons. In recent years, qualifying reasons for the use of state family and medical leave programs have grown, with some providing job-protected leave in connection with prenatal care and certain pregnancy-related complications. Manufacturers should also be vigilant for changes in state income-replacement programs, including whether employees may use their accrued paid time off to supplement state paid leave benefits, and increases to the amount of benefits available and contribution amounts.

Heightened Scrutiny of Non-Compete Agreements at State Level

One of the Trump administration’s top priorities in 2025 was to roll back the Federal Trade Commission’s Biden-era “Final Rule” which would have banned nearly all non-compete agreements in employment. In executing that plan, the federal government withdrew its appeals pending before the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, after District Courts in Texas and Florida struck down the Final Rule on the grounds that the FTC did not have authority to issue it. While the federal government abandoned the non-compete ban, in the months that followed, non-compete legislation continued to percolate at the state level, and more regulation is likely to follow in 2026. A number of state non-compete statutes limit the circumstances under which non-competes can be used by employers such as limitations based on salary thresholds, non-exempt status, job duties and industry type, and geographic and temporal scope, in addition to other criteria. As these restrictions continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.

Changes at the National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board spent much of 2025 without a quorum until the Senate appointed President Trump’s nominees in December, restoring the Board’s quorum and allowing it to roll out its enforcement and rulemaking agendas in 2026. The Board is expected to swiftly begin reversing or narrowing many of the Biden-era labor protections and issuing its own binding decisions. In addition, the Board will also likely begin to process a substantial backlog of unfair labor practices charges and appeals that were left pending when the Board did not have a quorum. Manufacturers should revisit any pending matters with the NLRB and be prepared for the NLRB to renew its enforcement activities, albeit within a new landscape and focus.

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Rauchell Beckford-Anderson.

Holiday celebrations are meaningful ways to recognize employees’ annual contributions to the company; however, such celebrations can introduce safety, compliance, and cultural challenges. So, as you deck the halls and cue up the playlist, remember: a great party is about more than just fun—it is also about ensuring health and safety, an inclusive environment, and alignment with the company’s values and applicable laws.

Workplace Conduct Policies

When the music is playing and the eggnog is flowing, it’s easy for boundaries to blur and issues to arise. Therefore, employers should consider reminding employees before the event, that all company policies apply during such events (including sexual harassment and harassment policies) and that professional and appropriate behavior is expected of all employees and their guests. Employers should consider sending out clear communication before the event, such as an email or memo, that sets expectations and reinforces the importance of maintaining a safe and respectful environment. Employers should also remind supervisors that they are expected to model professional behavior. For example, supervisors and leadership should actively circulate during the event to ensure the celebration remains safe and professional.  

Managing Alcohol and Safety

A little holiday cheer can go a long way; however, in a manufacturing setting, even a small amount of alcohol can spell trouble, and lead to accidents, injuries, or costly mistakes. To minimize risks, consider avoiding alcohol at on-site events or during working hours altogether. For off-site gatherings, employers should consider implementing safeguards such as issuing drink tickets per person; limiting the kind of alcohol served (e.g., beer and wine only); serving a full meal; ensuring the focus of the event is not on the bar or alcohol but on a meal, activity, or theme; and utilizing trained bartenders who can monitor and manage service. Additionally, employers may wish to consider providing ride-share options or designated drivers to help prevent impaired driving after the event.

Participation – Mandatory v. Voluntary

Employers should consider whether to make attendance mandatory or optional and how to communicate this expectation to employees. In determining how to approach attendance, it is important for employers to understand the impact that it may have on employees, including employees who do not celebrate holidays or do not wish to attend such an event. In addition, employers should keep in mind that if attendance is mandatory, injuries and illnesses resulting from the gathering may be covered under their workers’ compensation plan.

Inclusion and Respect

In order to create an event that is inclusive of all employees, employers should consider using neutral themes such as “End of Year Celebration,” or “Holiday Gathering” that do not reference specific religious or cultural holidays. When planning food and refreshments, employers should consider offering a variety of options that accommodate various dietary restrictions, preferences, and cultural backgrounds. In addition, employers should consider the logistics and activities to ensure they are inclusive of employees who have worked at the company for many years as well as newly hired employees who may not be as familiar with their colleagues.

Takeaways

In short, employers should carefully plan their holiday events, including engaging input from stakeholders, so that the event is memorable for all the right reasons.

Below is an excerpt of an article authored by Intellectual Property + Technology member Kayla O’Leary Daly that was published in Industry Today on November 11, 2025.

Focus on negotiating key issues rather than attempting to revise the entire agreement.

Companies of all shapes and sizes, from start-ups to major corporations and across all industries, deal with major tech companies in some capacity. Your company is engaging with big tech to license the rights to use a variety of key solutions, which are critical to the smooth operation of your business. Often the pricing and nature of the solutions give the tech company more control over the agreement terms. As a result, your company will typically have to focus on key issues rather than attempting to significantly revise the entire agreement. This article identifies three key issues to be on the lookout for in these agreements and provides tips on the terms worth fighting for. Read the article.

Below is an excerpt of an article authored by Intellectual Property + Technology partner Jacqueline Pennino Scheib that was published in Corporate Counsel on November 7, 2025.

“Information technology projects frequently fail to deliver on expectations. They routinely fall short of the expected deliverables and take longer and cost more than planned. To the extent there is ‘blame’ to be placed for these failures, it is often shared by both the customer and the vendor. The good news is that a major source of these problems is miscommunication and that is an area where spending time to implement a detailed agreement can save you future heartache.”

Many manufacturers have to address technology contracts as part of their automation efforts. Read eight of the most critical clauses where Jackie recommends focusing attention here.

Below is an excerpt of an article authored by Manufacturing Law industry team partner Jennifer L. Shanley and M. Carmen Ruiz, both Immigration group members, that was published in Industry Today on October 28, 2025.

The current administration has ushered in an era of increasing immigration complexity, especially in the area of Temporary Protected Status.

What is TPS?

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a country-specific humanitarian program impacting thousands of workers across industries, including manufacturing. In fact, according to a March 2025 report, an estimated 570,000 TPS beneficiaries are working in the U.S. labor force; 70,000 of which are in the manufacturing industry.

TPS is an immigration status for foreign nationals whose home countries the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined to be unsafe due to conditions such as environmental disasters, armed conflicts, epidemics, or other extraordinary conditions.  Not only does TPS temporarily protect eligible individuals from deportation but also allows beneficiaries to work legally in the U.S. throughout the duration of their designated status, which is defined through a TPS-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

As of October 10, 2025, there are currently 12 countries designated for TPS: Burma, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. Several of these designations are the subjects of active and ongoing federal litigation, the basis of which is largely the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate various TPS designations.

In recent months, DHS has issued key updates regarding TPS extensions, redesignations, and EAD validity – all of which impact how employers complete and update Form I-9, DHS’s Employment Eligibility Verification form. Understanding how to best navigate these changes is critical for employers to ensure compliant employment practices, avoid potential penalties, and maintain workforce stability. Read the article.

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Bryce Simmons.

In a landmark move, Rhode Island has become the first state in the United States to mandate workplace accommodations for employees and applicants experiencing menopause and related medical conditions. The law became effective on June 24, 2025, amending the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, to explicitly include menopause as a protected condition. This requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for menopause, joining pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.

What the Law Requires

The new law applies to employers with four or more employees, and requires such employers to engage in a timely, interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations for individuals experiencing menopause or related conditions, such as vasomotor symptoms, commonly referred to as hot flashes and night sweats. Under the law, employers are prohibited from: (1) denying employment opportunities based on the need for menopause-related accommodations; and (2) requiring employees to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.

While the law does not yet define specific accommodations for menopause, it builds on the existing framework for pregnancy-related accommodations, which may include flexible scheduling, modified work environments, or additional breaks.

Notice and Posting Obligations

Employers subject to this new law must update their workplace postings and written notices to reflect these new rights. Specifically, they are required to:

  • Post a notice in a conspicuous location accessible to employees;
  • Provide written notice to new hires at the start of employment;
  • Notify existing employees by October 22, 2025, by providing the notice referenced below; and
  • Provide notice within 10 days of an employee reporting menopause symptoms.

The Rhode Island Commission of Human Rights has posted the updated notice requirement on their website which can be accessed here.

Implications for Employers

For manufacturers, where physical demands and environmental conditions can exacerbate menopause symptoms, this law presents both a compliance obligation and an opportunity to lead on workplace inclusivity. In the wake of this new law, Rhode Island employers should review and revise their current accommodation policies and procedures. They should also prepare to engage in individualized assessments of accommodation requests, particularly in roles involving heat exposure, shift work, or physically strenuous tasks.

This legislation reflects a growing recognition that menopause is not merely a personal health issue but a workplace equity issue. Other legislatures around the country are considering similar laws so there may be a flurry of similar state laws. Employers should review their current policies and procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with this new law. 

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain.

In recent years, certain manufacturers are requiring workers to use wearable technologies at work to increase efficiency and productivity and mitigate health and safety risks. Although the use and application of wearable technology continues to expand and change the manufacturing industry landscape, the employment law implications remain the same, and should be a key focus for manufacturers exploring use of such technology.

Wearable Technologies: What Are They?

Wearable technologies are smart devices worn by manufacturing workers that collect and transmit information and perform important efficiency and safety-focused functions.  Common wearables include smart helmets (which provide enhanced head protection, fatigue monitoring, hazard identification, and augmented reality features), vests and other smart clothing (which transmit real-time vital sign monitoring to workers to mitigate heat and stress-related health risks), and ergonomic sensors (which monitor a worker’s body position to ensure proper lifting, carrying, and transfer techniques to reduce the risk of work-related injuries). Most wearable devices incorporate global positioning system (GPS) monitoring so that the device is also able to warn workers of pertinent safety risks or make relevant recommendations based on where the worker is located within a facility with respect to lifting, sorting, and retrieving tools, equipment, finished goods, and other materials. For example, a worker retrieving materials near a highly trafficked area of a warehouse may receive an audible warning to be aware of nearby forklift or other machinery activity.

Employment Law Risks and Challenges

Notwithstanding the benefits of such technology, these devices also create legal risks and challenges of which manufacturers should be aware as they look to implement or expand the use of these technologies. First, manufacturers that monitor workers’ vital signs, such as blood pressure or heart rate, using wearable technologies, or that require workers to disclose personal health information in connection with wearing certain smart devices should be aware that such practices may implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or other federal and state laws. To provide background, the ADA limits an employer’s ability to make “disability-related inquiries” or require “medical examinations” unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Employers are also prohibited from using information collected from wearable technologies to make adverse employment decisions that impact workers based on their protected characteristics; for example, an employer may not use the biometric data, or the unique and measurable characteristic of the human body, such as heart rate variability, blood pressure fluctuations, or activity and stress levels, collected from an employee’s wearable technology to infer that the employee has a medical condition, such as diabetes, and then subject the employee to disparate treatment because of their medical condition. The ADA further requires employers to store medical information, which may include biometric data collected by a wearable device, in a confidential medical file separate from the employee’s personnel file. 

Wearable technologies also implicate various privacy, surveillance, and security related concerns as it pertains to the collection, monitoring, and storage of employee biometric information. For example, manufacturers considering the use of smart glasses, which assist workers in identifying potential safety hazards or completing a task in the most efficient manner, should be mindful that workers may inadvertently record other employees in private areas, such as a restroom or locker room, or record conversations, and thereby improperly collect information about other workers, which may implicate state privacy, workplace surveillance, or other laws. Additionally, as noted above, the ADA and state law requires that employee medical or disability-related information be stored in a separate confidential medical file. Although many wearable technologies use GPS as described above to warn workers of potential hazards, workers may view these features as an invasion of privacy as they take rest or meal breaks or use the restroom during their shift. Lastly, manufacturers should also be mindful of the importance of data security which may include certain wearable devices and the biometric information they collect. As the use of wearable technologies continues to expand and increase productivity, manufacturers should be aware of these important employment law issues that may be implicated.

Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and other important employment law issues. 

This week’s post is authored by Emilee Mooney Scott and is also available on Robinson+Cole’s Environmental Law + blog. Thank you to Emilee for contributing. Emilee is a partner in the firm’s Environmental, Energy + Telecommunications group, focusing her practice on a variety of environmental compliance and transactional matters, including the Connecticut Transfer Act and Release Based Cleanup Regulations. On March 1, 2026, the Connecticut Transfer Act will be sunset and a new set of remediation regulations will go into effect. These new regulations will be much more similar to what we see in other states (e.g., Massachusetts ch. 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan).

The Release Report series highlights key features of the new release-based cleanup regulations (referred to as “RBCRs”) so interested parties can get ready.

Background

At present, much of the environmental remediation in Connecticut is driven by the Connecticut Transfer Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134 et seq.). The Transfer Act requires site-wide environmental investigation and potential remediation when an “establishment” is “transferred.” Establishments include specifically identified types of businesses (e.g., dry cleaners, vehicle body repair shops, furniture strippers) and sites or businesses that generated 100 kg of hazardous waste in any one month since November 1980.  

Since the Transfer Act is triggered by real estate or business transfers, one could avoid the Transfer Act by avoiding becoming involved in a transfer. Unfortunately, that kills deals and chills economic development. Furthermore, many sites that have not been transferred have not been subject to clear investigation and remediation triggers, leaving contaminated sites with no obvious impetus for anyone to clean up. Both of these factors lead to a pivot away from the Transfer Act through Public Ac 20-09 and the implementing regulations that followed.

New Law

After March 1, 2026, new transfers of establishments will no longer require action under the Transfer Act. Instead, Public Act 20-09 (codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134pp et seq.) requires releases to be investigated and remediated when they occur or are discovered, not as part of a mandated site-wide program.  Specifically, § 22a-134qq provides that “[n]o person shall create or maintain a release to the land and waters of the state in violation of” the statute. 

While it appears that the word “create” will be understood in its ordinary sense, the word “maintain” deserves attention. The RBCRs provide that a person is “maintaining” a release if they own a parcel of land on or under which such release (or portion of the release) is located. If a tenant discovers an existing release, they must notify their landlord or may be deemed to be maintaining the release themselves. In other words, any business with operations in Connecticut has the potential to “create” a release, and any property owner in Connecticut has the potential to “maintain” a release on its property. 

The spill reporting regulations at R.C.S.A. 22a-450-1 et seq. set forth the procedure for reporting newly occurring releases, with the new RBCRs providing new requirements for cleanup and closure. For existing releases, obligations to investigate and remediate begin with the “discovery” of such release. The next blog post, and companion episode, in this series will discuss in more detail what it means to discover an existing release.

What’s Next?

Between now and March 1, 2026 the Release Report will be a regular feature on our Environmental Law + blog. A discussion of what it means to “discover” an existing release under Connecticut’s new regulations is available in Episode 2 with deep dives on other topics coming soon. Subscribe at: https://www.environmentallawplus.com/subscribe/.