Employers: if you employ humans, you employ chaos.
This issue is built for the week when someone says something wild, does something worse, and then acts shocked there is an investigation file.
This will stay practical, slightly snarky, and focused on the only thing that matters during employee drama: what can be proven.
The Federal Compliance Corner
This is the stuff that causes problems regardless of who runs Washington.
1) Overtime thresholds: enforcement is back to the 2019 salary level (for now)
After a federal court vacated the 2024 overtime rule, the U.S. Department of Labor is applying the 2019 rule’s salary level for the white-collar exemptions: $684 per week, and $107,432 per year for highly compensated employees, as reflected in current DOL guidance.
Employer move: If exemptions are being handled with “we’ve always done it this way,” or even “everyone in our industry does it this way,” fix that before the next ugly separation turns into a wage claim.
2) Noncompetes: the FTC’s attempted national ban is not happening
The FTC voted to dismiss its appeals and accede to the federal court’s vacatur of the Non-Compete Clause Rule. That means the federal blanket ban effort is effectively off the table, and employers are back to state law.
Employer move: If a one size noncompete template is being used across states, that is not standardization. That is future exhibits.
3) Form I-9: USCIS made a revised version available (check onboarding)
USCIS made a revised Form I-9 available (edition date 01/20/25, expiration 05/31/2027). USCIS also notes that some prior editions remain valid until their expiration dates, with specific guidance for employers using electronic systems.
Employer move: Quietly audit the I-9 process now, before it is audited for you.
4) Federal contractors: EO 11246 is revoked; implementing regulations are being rescinded
For employers doing federal contracting work, Executive Order 14173 revoked EO 11246, and the DOL’s OFCCP moved to rescind EO 11246’s implementing regulations.
If federal money touches the business in any way, and this paragraph reads like alphabet soup, that is the problem.
Employer move: This is one of those areas where “probably fine” is not a compliance position.
5) Heat safety: OSHA is moving the federal heat standard forward
OSHA’s heat rule-making page states the public hearing on the proposed heat standard concluded July 2, 2025, and the post‑hearing comment period for those who filed a notice to appear ended October 30, 2025.
Employer move: If you have outdoor crews or hot indoor environments, treat heat like any other safety program: policy + training + documentation.
Supreme Court: Two Decisions That Change Employer Risk Calculus
1) FLSA exemptions: the burden is “more likely than not”
In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court held the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to prove an employee is exempt from FLSA overtime and minimum wage requirements.
Why it matters during employee drama: Misclassification claims often show up right after termination, especially when the employee is mad, organized, or both.
2) 401(k) fiduciary claims: prohibited transaction cases may survive earlier
In Cunningham v. Cornell University, the Court addressed pleading burdens for ERISA prohibited transaction claims and treated exemptions as defenses for defendants to raise and prove, rather than burdens plaintiffs must plead around.
Why it matters: Even when the employer is right, it may spend longer getting to “we’re right.”
Fifth Circuit (Texas Employers): Small HR Moves Can Be “Adverse Actions”
The headline: “Adverse action” is broader than you want it to be
In Hamilton v. Dallas County (en banc), the Fifth Circuit rejected its old “ultimate employment decision” limitation and aligned the analysis more closely with Title VII’s text. That means more types of employer actions can qualify as actionable discrimination decisions.
A later Fifth Circuit decision, Smith v. Kendall, applied the post Hamilton landscape and sent parts of a case back for further proceedings after the district court evaluated claims under the old framework.
Employer move: treat these as lawsuit capable actions:
- discipline and write-ups
- schedule changes
- undesirable assignments
- revoked flexibility
- sudden “performance issues” after protected activity
Employer move: Explain it internally. If it cannot be explained cleanly on paper, it should not be done sloppily in real life.
Employee Drama Response Kit – The 2026 Court Informed Version:
The first 48 hours (how to avoid becoming Exhibit A)
1) Stabilize first.
Separate people. Shut down access if needed (keys, badges, systems). Safety beats feelings.
2) Preserve evidence like litigation is expected
Email, texts, Slack or Teams, camera footage, badge logs, time records, and prior write ups. Put a hold on deletion.
3) Pick one decision maker and one investigator
“Everyone weighs in” creates contradictions and accidental retaliation.
4) Document what is known and what is not known
Write what was reported, by whom, when, and what happens next. Avoid conclusions early.
5) Interview in an order that makes sense
Reporter, then key witnesses, then the subject employee (usually). Re interview if facts change.
6) Do not improvise discipline
Match the decision to policy, past practice, and the evidence preserved.
7) Watch retaliation timing traps
If the employee recently complained, requested leave, or asked for an accommodation: slow down and run the checklist again.
8) Close the loop.
Confirm outcomes, expectations, and follow up steps. Document it.
If all of this is done, the situation becomes boring. Boring is the goal.
WY and CO Corner (Only Because Templates Get People Sued)
Wyoming: noncompetes are broadly void (with exceptions)
Wyoming’s SF0107 created W.S. 1-23-108 and provides that contractual covenants not to compete are void, with specified exceptions and special rules for physicians, effective as stated in the bill.
Colorado: pay transparency rules are real
Colorado’s Department of Labor and Employment outlines requirements under the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, including pay transparency obligations (and related enforcement guidance exists in regulations/interpretations).
Colorado: POWR Act lowered the harassment threshold and tightened NDA/records rules
Colorado’s SB23-172, the POWR Act, redefined harassment standards, addressed nondisclosure requirements, and added record-keeping requirements.
When the Situation Is Sensitive, Messy, and Time-Sensitive
Treaty Oak’s practice focuses on investigations, misconduct response, and the legal strategy that keeps bad behavior from becoming a business-ending problem.
When the situation is delicate, the goal is not just to respond quickly. The goal is to respond in a way that will still read as disciplined and defensible in a deposition transcript six months from now.
For employers operating across Texas, Wyoming, and Colorado, early decisions often shape how expensive and distracting a workplace issue becomes. If a sensitive matter is unfolding, contact Treaty Oak Employers’ Law Group to discuss a structured response plan before small missteps become larger complications.