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/.

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

With fall approaching and school back in session, the end of 2025 is on the horizon. The beginning of the new calendar year serves as an opportune time for manufacturers to revisit their wage and hour practices for compliance with applicable state and federal law; below are several important reminders of such laws that may impact Connecticut employers.  

Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increasing to $16.94 Effective January 1, 2026

Beginning January 1, 2026, Connecticut’s minimum wage will increase from the current rate of $16.35 per hour to $16.94 per hour. The increased minimum wage is required pursuant to Public Act 19-4, which was signed by Governor Ned Lamont in 2019 and requires the state minimum wage to be adjusted annually based on data published by the U.S. Department of Labor. To prepare for the increase in minimum wage, manufacturers should determine which employees will need to receive an increase in their hourly rate to meet the new minimum wage and ensure new hires are receiving wages that are at or above minimum wage. Manufacturers with employees in multiple states should review applicable minimum wage laws to ensure compliance.

Lastly, manufacturers should ensure that their workplace posters reflect the correct minimum wage.

Exempt/Non-Exempt Status

Manufacturers should also consider conducting a review of employee salaries to ensure employees who are classified as exempt are making a salary that is at or above the salary threshold under applicable state and federal law. The current minimum salary that most executive, administrative, and professional workers must be paid in order to be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is $684 per week or $35,568 annually. Additionally, manufacturers should be aware that in other states and locales, the minimum salary thresholds are significantly higher than the FLSA threshold (such as at $1,237.50 per week or $64,350 annually in New York City).

Permitted Payroll Deductions

Manufacturers in Connecticut should consider reviewing the deductions taken from employee wages to ensure they are either taking only those deductions allowed under federal or state law, such as federal and state income tax, or that they have received special permission from the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL) to make a separate deduction, using the CTDOL’s approved form. Examples of other types of separate deductions include the costs to replace broken equipment, tools, or machinery, the cost for a required uniform, or other items necessary for employment.

Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Eligibility Expansion Continues in 2026

The Connecticut Paid Sick Leave law was amended significantly beginning January 1, 2025, expanding the scope of employers covered by the law, increasing the number of workers eligible for leave, and broadening the qualifying reasons for the use of leave, among other key changes. Currently, employers with 25 or more employees are subject to the law but starting January 1, 2026, employers with 11 or more employees in Connecticut will be subject to the law and in 2027, all employers in Connecticut will be subject to the law. To determine whether paid sick leave must be provided to workers beginning January 1, 2026, manufacturers should review their payroll for the week that contains January 1 to confirm whether they meet the 11-employee minimum threshold.

Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with these wage and hour and other important employment law issues. 

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Susan Poeton, Editor of Industry Today, one of the leading U.S. manufacturing industry trade publications, for its “Industry Insights” podcast. During the episode, Susan and I focused on three primary issues impacting manufacturing now and likely into 2026:

  1. Implications of tariffs,
  2. Supply chains under stress, and
  3. How technology is transforming how manufacturing companies operate

Drawn from my experience with clients around the globe, I share insights on how manufacturers can adapt to shifts in workforce, embrace innovation and stay competitive in a changing landscape.

Listen here:

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

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to quickly spread across the manufacturing industry, and employers are tasked with understanding and managing the impact and capabilities of this burgeoning technology. While manufacturers are using AI tools to streamline manufacturing processes, enhance productivity, improve health and safety, and create a more engaged and thriving workforce focused on high-value tasks, ChatGPT and other AI large language models (LLMs) are beginning to infiltrate other departments in the workplace, including employee communications with Human Resources, creating new challenges. Similar to how “WebMD” is often used to address and self-diagnose health issues, employees may now be turning to ChatGPT and other LLMs as advocates to advance their workplace issues.

Human Resources professionals tasked with resolving critical workforce management issues, such as administering employee leaves of absence, collecting and maintaining employee personnel information, and ensuring compliance with wage and hour laws, should be aware and remain vigilant that employees may be utilizing ChatGPT or other LLMs to communicate with Human Resources on their behalf. Human Resources professionals should carefully consider how to engage with those employees who may be using AI tools to communicate with them about legal issues with which they are unfamiliar, or even to assert legal claims.

Manufacturers should be mindful that, as with any AI tool, the ability of ChatGPT or other LLMs to produce accurate, unbiased responses is limited based on the amount of data on which it has been trained. Therefore, while an employee may be relying on ChatGPT to craft an email to send to Human Resources about leave entitlement, the information provided by the AI tool might not be accurate. Human Resources professionals should ensure that they carefully review such communications and prepare to engage the employee in a constructive dialogue regarding legal requirements and the employer’s relevant policies. A response may also require educating the employee, where the employee may be relying on inaccurate information.

In such cases, depending on the specific circumstances, employers should consider reminding employees of the employer’s policies governing the permitted use of AI tools in the workplace and the risks of using such technology. 

As the use of ChatGPT and other LLMs continues to expand together with AI tools throughout the manufacturing industry, employers are encouraged to consider ways to monitor and address employees’ use of such technologies to ensure compliance with applicable law and the employer’s policies while also strengthening employee relations.