New $100,000 H-1B Fee Won’t Apply to Employees Already in the U.S.
By Lewis M. Francis
Following a series of lawsuits challenging its validity, there has been a major move regarding President Trump’s Sept. 20, 2025, Proclamation entitled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. On Oct. 20, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) clarified on its website that the new $100k H-1B fee will not be required for change of status applications. In other words, H-1B applications filed for foreign national employees who are already in the U.S. are not subject to the fee. As a result, employers of F-1 students currently working in the U.S. on Optional Practical Training (OPT) or STEM OPT work authorization, and who are selected through the annual H-1B lottery next spring, will not have to pay $100k if the employee’s change of status application from F-1 to H-1B is approved. This will greatly ameliorate the negative effect of the new H-1B fee on existing U.S. employers of foreign national talent and foreign national students graduating from U.S. universities.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Finally Has a Quorum Again and the Department of Labor (DOL) Has New Leadership
By Kaleigh C. Boyer
On Oct. 7, 2025, the United States Senate confirmed two important labor and employment agency nominees: Brittany Panuccio to the EEOC, restoring the five-member body to quorum (three commissioners) and Andrew Rogers to lead the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage & Hour Division (WHD). The Senate’s confirmations mark a turning point. The EEOC is once again fully operational and the WHD has renewed leadership—together heightening the regulatory and enforcement landscape for workplace compliance.
Employers should expect renewed activity in issuing or revising regulations and guidance under laws such as Title VII, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and other anti-discrimination statutes. The restored majority at the EEOC signals a possible shift toward priorities, including expanded religious-accommodation enforcement; limitations on diversity and equity initiatives that consider protected traits; potential narrowing of protections around gender identity and sexual orientation; and reevaluation of the PWFA rule. Under Rogers’ leadership, the WHD may advance rulemaking on independent contractors, joint employers, overtime exemptions (especially domestic service workers) and will likely ramp up compliance-assistance tools like the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program and opinion-letter docket.
Employers should treat this as a signal to take proactive steps in their employment-law risk management, including the following action items:
- Review and update internal policies on discrimination, accommodation and harassment in anticipation of likely regulatory revisions.
- Reevaluate diversity and inclusion programs to confirm they align with Title VII requirements.
- For wage and hour compliance: examine worker classification, subcontractor and franchise arrangements and reassess internal audit and self-report programs.
- Monitor announcements from EEOC and DOL regarding future rulemaking or guidance shifts and be ready for faster-moving regulatory activity.
The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Rule Granting Work Permits to H-1B Visa Holders’ Spouses
By Kaleigh C. Boyer
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a rule that authorizes spouses of H-1B visa holders (H-4 visa holders) to work in the United States. Many H-1B visa holders’ spouses are highly skilled and, with work authorization, can contribute to the household income as well as an employer’s talent pipeline. Since 2015, over 250,000 H-4 visa holders have been granted employment authorization under this rule.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review a challenge seeking to invalidate this rule, leaving it in place, at least for now. While the rule stands, employers should continue to ensure that H-4 dependent employees’ work authorizations are valid, properly documented and that the employer is aware of the specific conditions under which the spouse is permitted to work. Neither does the Supreme Court’s decision eliminate regulatory or administrative risk. DHS could still propose changes to the H-4 spouse work-authorization program in the future. Employers should monitor regulatory developments that might affect dependents’ work eligibility as well as maintain or implement best practices for visa-dependent employees, including tracking status changes, expirations and government announcements.
Bottom line: Employers should treat this as a monitored benefit—ensuring proper onboarding and documentation of H-4 employees, maintaining internal processes to check for changing status and staying alert for any future rule changes that might affect this workforce segment.
The Ninth Circuit Revives Autistic DHS Officer’s Bias Suit
By Kaleigh C. Boyer
A former immigration officer at DHS alleges that, because he is autistic, he was terminated after his autism caused him to misremember the details of a workplace injury. DHS denied the allegations, arguing the plaintiff was fired for his “lack of candor” and factual inconsistencies in describing the events leading up to his workplace injury.
The district court initially dismissed parts of the discrimination claim on summary judgment, finding that the evidence didn’t sufficiently show the required elements of a disability-bias claim under federal law. The Ninth Circuit has now reversed that dismissal, finding that the lower court was too quick to side with DHS and that some of the plaintiff’s claims deserve further factual development.
The appellate court held that the plaintiff presented enough evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact about whether his autism qualified as a disability under the relevant statute and whether DHS may have perceived him as disabled or treated him differently because of his disability. The appellate court also found that there was enough of a factual record to question whether DHS’s stated reasons for its employment actions were possibly pretexts for discrimination — meaning, the court found the plaintiff had shown more than mere speculation and his case should go on. In short, the 9th Circuit did not decide the ultimate merits (i.e., whether discrimination occurred), but determined that dismissal at the summary judgment stage was premature for at least parts of his claim.
While this case is far from over, its current posture—and the Ninth Circuit’s position—does shed some light on potential implications for employers and employment law practitioners to be mindful of:
· Employers should be reminded that claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or analogous statutes can survive summary judgment when the record shows: 1.) an employee has a disability (or is regarded as such), 2.) adverse employment action occurred, and 3.) some indication that disability was a motivating factor or that the employer’s reason may have been a pretext.
· The decision underscores the importance of documentation and process: Ensure that employment decisions involving employees with disabilities or neurodiverse conditions are supported by clear, nondiscriminatory reasons and that accommodations are properly considered.
· Particular attention should be paid to “regarded-as” disability claims — where an employee may not have a disability as defined but is treated by the employer as if they do — because the standards can be different (sometimes easier for the employee to show), and because this ruling signals that such claims will be scrutinized.
· This case is a reminder of the risks of prematurely moving to summary judgment without a full factual record, especially in complex disability or neurodiversity contexts. Employers should review their internal investigations, disciplinary actions and termination decisions where disability and neurodiversity is implicated.
Question Corner: Navigating Pay Transparency Laws for Remote Positions
By Mitchell Lange
Q. Are we required to comply with other states’ pay transparency laws when posting remote job openings that may attract applicants from multiple states?
A. Employers who hire remote workers may be required to comply with other states’ pay transparency laws. Generally, pay transparency laws may require employers to disclose compensation-related information in job postings, such as salary ranges or benefits, to prospective or current employees. Pay transparency laws vary by state and, in some cases, by municipality, so whether a law applies to a job posting depends on where the employee will perform the work and whether the employer is covered under the applicable law.
For example, California, Colorado and Washington require remote job postings to conform with their laws if the applicant can perform the work entirely in the state. In these states, however, the employer must already have an employee working in the state for the requirements to apply. Additionally, California and Washington limit their laws to employers with 15 or more employees, while Colorado’s laws apply broadly to all employers. Minnesota’s laws, by contrast, apply to employers with 30 or more employees in Minnesota and do not necessarily extend to remote job postings.
Navigating multiple states’ pay transparency requirements can be tricky. Employers must be aware of which state or municipalities’ laws apply to their job postings and ensure compliance with the most stringent requirements when hiring remote employees.
