Little League is back, which means the full production is back too — walk-up songs that make no sense for a 5-year-old, parents treating warmups like Game 7, and car rides home that somehow turn into life lessons.

It’s my fourth year of coaching, so I figured I’d seen it all … I had not. 8:00 a.m. T-ball. Mostly kids age 4 or 5. And … no snacks. That is not an exaggeration. At first, it was confusion — kids checking the dugout like they’d missed an announcement. Then suspicion. Then full-blown conspiracy theories. Someone accused the other team of stealing the snacks. Another suggested the parents “forgot on purpose.” It was chaos. Tiny, emotional, completely irrational chaos. And underneath it, something very real: disappointment, frustration, and a bunch of kids who didn’t quite know what to do with those feelings.

Standing there, it hit me that these moments sneak up on you. They don’t come with a warning label. One minute everything’s normal and the next you’re in the middle of something that matters, and you’re hoping you respond the right way.

That feeling doesn’t stay on the field. In the workplace, it just looks different. It might be someone saying they’re done. Or showing up in a way that feels off. The reality is you don’t have to be an expert to respond well. But you also can’t ignore it.

Here are three things for employers to consider so they can support people while still meeting legal responsibilities. Because even if you didn’t sign up to be the first line of response in someone else’s hard moment … sometimes, you are.

1. Train managers

Train managers to notice when something’s off — because they usually see it first. If someone’s disappearing, slipping, or saying things that feel heavier than normal, don’t ignore it. Check in like a human, not a detective, and loop in HR rather than trying to play therapist. And remember that providing support doesn’t mean prying — stick to what matters and leave the diagnoses to someone else.

2. Consider ADA/leave obligations

When employee mental health comes into play, you’re immediately in ADA, FMLA, and state law territory whether you planned on it or not. That can include leave, schedule changes, or other accommodations — handled through an interactive process rather than assumptions. HR should step in early when attendance or performance starts to slip. Substance use issues can also overlap here — sometimes qualifying as a disability. But employers still must maintain a safe workplace, meaning there’s a clear line between an underlying condition, lawful medication use, treatment participation, and actual impairment on the job.

3. Develop internal procedures

You need a clear internal process for handling workplace crises — and people need to know it exists before something happens. In some states, most employers are required to have workplace violence prevention plans, and even beyond that OSHA expects action when there’s a known risk. The best move is a simple written plan that outlines who to call, when to involve emergency services or resources like 988, and when to loop in legal counsel.

Whether it’s an 8 a.m. T-ball game unraveling over missing snacks or something far more serious unfolding in the workplace, you’re often not reacting to the obvious moment but to what’s underneath it. Managers and HR teams don’t need to have all the answers in real time, but they do need a clear process, basic training, and the confidence to respond instead of freeze. Because in the end, your role isn’t to solve everything but rather to recognize when something is off, slow things down, and connect people to the right support before a small moment turns into something much bigger.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post The dugout rule for workplace crises: notice, respond, support | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Finally, after months of waiting, my Girl Scout Cookie order was delivered by my cousin … 70 boxes. This has been going on now for seven years. You see, seven years ago I foolishly made a statement that I would “up my order each year.” What I thought was a couple-year commitment to copious amounts of Thin Mints and Samoas turned out to be a lie. I had no idea she’d still be selling cookies while in high school. But alas, I am likely her top customer (and if I am not, then she needs to do a better job upselling me) and the exact type of “client” that companies seek to protect through non-competition agreements. And that’s really the point.

Because at its core, every non-compete is trying to do the same thing: protect relationships like this one. Predictable. Repeat. Built over time. The kind of customer you don’t want to walk out the door the minute an employee does. Unfortunately for employers, Washington just set an expiration date for non-competes. Under a new law signed March 23 by Gov. Bob Ferguson, employers won’t be able to use them starting in June 2027 — and they’ll also have to provide specific notices by October 2027. Outlined below is a summary of the new law and three things you can do to prepare.

The law

Starting June 30, 2027, non-competes in Washington don’t just become limited — they effectively disappear. Existing agreements become null and void for Washington-based workers, including independent contractors. The law defines non-competition as any agreement “that prohibits or restrains an employee or independent contractor from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.” The definition also covers any agreement “that directly or indirectly prohibits the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer;” or “that threatens, demands, requires, or otherwise effectuates that an individual return, repay, or forfeit any right, benefit, or compensation, as a consequence of the individual engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.”

There are two narrow carve-outs. First, if the non-competition agreement is tied to the sale of a business — and the person involved is buying, selling, or transferring at least a 1 percent ownership interest — it can still hold. Second, the law clarifies that non-solicitation, confidentiality, and certain training repayment pacts are allowed. However, the law requires the non-solicitation agreements be narrowly construed and meet its specified definition. Failure to work with counsel and narrowly construe a non-solicitation agreement could result in a court ruling the non-solicitation agreement is actually a non-competition agreement, which is void under this law.

Three action items

Employers also have an affirmative obligation. By Oct. 1, 2027, they need to notify both current and former employees (and contractors) who are still subject to these agreements that they are no longer enforceable.

1. Audit your agreements. Go find everything: employment agreements, offer letters, policies — anything with restrictive language. Identify the non-competes, flag the non-solicits, and figure out who’s sitting under what and who will need to be sent a notice that their non-compete is void.
2. Fix it. Ask yourself which restrictive covenants need to be updated and whether there are any current employees you need to get under an enforceable non-solicitation agreement. Work with counsel to create an agreement that can be enforceable after June 2027.
3. Don’t play with fire. Employers face significant exposure if they threaten to enforce, attempt to enforce, or really enforce a prohibited non-compete.

I’ve spent seven years accidentally fueling my cousin’s cookie empire, and I’m still showing up for every box. It turns out that the Washington Legislature (and possibly Oregon’s in the future) does not want companies’ restrictive covenants to keep growing unchecked the same way. Washington is saying protect your relationships. But don’t try to lock people out of work, because if you do, someone’s going to legally be able to come for those Thin Mints … and your clients.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post Thin Mints and non-competes: attention needed | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Over the past few months, I have had the distinct pleasure of reliving my kids’ love of Harry Potter through the ears (audiobooks) and eyes (movies, after we finish a book). While they are captivated by the schools, magic and characters, they are most captivated by the potential. For so long, their shows (“The Creature Cases,” “Bluey,” or “Trash Truck”) followed a linear path of joy. But with Harry Potter, anything is possible (my wife has told me they are WAY too young for “Game of Thrones”). The sense of the unknown, both good and bad, is how many employers feel about AI. So, consider this my Quirrell moment: “Troll — in the dungeons — thought you ought to know.” Outlined below are three use cases for AI in the workplace and the associated pros/cons.

Employee retention

Pros: Employers can use AI-driven information obtained during exit interviews, performance reviews or day-to-day meetings to help proactively identify the factors that contribute to resignations. By analyzing variables such as timing of pay increases, training opportunities, promotions, management changes, and employee engagement patterns, companies can better understand what drives turnover. Companies can use these predictive models to assess an employee’s risk of departure and enable timely, proactive intervention.

Cons: AI-driven retention tools present several risks, including false positives and embedded bias, and may overlook important human nuances. They also raise significant privacy and security concerns, as large volumes of sensitive employee data must be collected, stored, and often shared with third-party vendors, increasing both trust and cybersecurity risks. Additionally, as I have flagged in past updates, litigation is cropping up when companies use AI in hiring decisions. Letting AI make a retention decision without meaningful human oversight can expose companies to lawsuits.

Performance reviews

Pros: The biggest “pro” is that a performance review or write-up exists. There is real exposure in the workplace when supervisors fail to document issues or when supervisors fail to provide meaningful feedback. Using AI for performance reviews and disciplinary write-ups can promote consistency, reduce administrative burden, and identify performance trends across teams using objective data.

Cons: Overreliance on AI may overlook context, embed bias from historical data, raise privacy concerns, and be only as good as the data that supervisors actually include. (What good is a performance review if a supervisor fails to document verbal warnings?) Like all things in AI, risk exists when automated assessments influence employment decisions without meaningful human oversight.

Job advancement

Pros: AI-driven career management can broaden internal mobility by identifying transferable skills, creating data-informed career pathways, and surfacing talent from nontraditional backgrounds who might otherwise be (by the company or themselves) overlooked.

Cons: These systems rely heavily on historical workforce data that may embed bias, misinterpret skills without proper context, and create legal or employee relations risks if predictive models influence promotion decisions without transparent standards and human oversight.

Like magic at Hogwarts, AI in the workplace holds remarkable promise — but only if approached with wisdom, guardrails, and a steady hand on the wand. Employers who acknowledge both the wonder and the risk can harness its power thoughtfully, rather than react to it in fear. Just as Harry and Ron didn’t defeat the troll with theory but with action and human instinct, AI works best when guided by active human oversight — not left to swing the club on its own.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post AI — in the dungeons — thought you ought to know | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

“That was a catch!” screamed my neighbor who is a diehard Bills fan (it’s unclear why; he is not from Buffalo, is too young to have appreciated the Jim Kelly era, and is not some heir to a folding table fortune). As a fan of Brandin Cooks, I had to agree with him. We both stood shocked as the play was ruled an interception and the Denver Broncos took over possession. How could a player have the ball and be down by contact but not considered “down?” It caused whiplash and forced us to reassess what we consider a catch.

A similar sense of whiplash may confront employers should other circuit courts follow the Eleventh Circuit’s heightened criticism of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Outlined below is a quick reminder of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the criticism of it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and why it matters to employers.

Background

The McDonnell Douglas framework states that once the employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer must offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action, and the burden then returns to the employee to show that the reason is merely pretext for discrimination.

Court’s criticism

The Eleventh Circuit, in its latest opinion, made clear that while an employer’s legitimate business reason remains relevant, it is no longer sufficient, standing alone, to dispose of a case at summary judgment. Under the “convincing mosaic” standard, courts are required to evaluate the totality of the evidence — including suspicious timing, shifting explanations, disparate treatment of similarly situated employees, and ambiguous remarks — without forcing the analysis into rigid, step-by-step frameworks.

As a result, employers should expect increased scrutiny of circumstantial evidence, greater difficulty obtaining early dismissal of discrimination and retaliation claims, and more cases proceeding to trial — even where performance or policy violations are at issue.

Three best practices for employers

To manage risk under this evolving standard, employers should stick to the basics: be clear on expectations, be consistent in how rules are applied, and document everything as if someone else will be reading it later.

1. Get clear on roles and expectation. Tight job descriptions, documented expectations, and objective metrics make decisions easier to explain — and harder to second-guess later.
2. Be boringly consistent. Courts love comparators. If one policy violation triggers an investigation or discipline, make sure you’re doing the same thing for everyone and not just the squeaky wheels.
3. Document like litigation is inevitable (because it is). Performance feedback, investigation notes, and contemporaneous emails are your best defense when someone claims the action came out of nowhere or was retaliatory.

The folks in the replay booth eventually moved on, but the rule didn’t change — and neither did the standard everyone would be arguing about on the next play. That’s the real parallel here. While the McDonnell Douglas framework has not been completely thrown out, recent decisions signal that courts may start watching employment decisions with a sharper eye and less patience for technical shortcuts.

Employers shouldn’t wait for the call to be overturned. Now is the time to tighten expectations, apply rules consistently, and document decisions as if they’ll be replayed in slow motion — because if this trend spreads, they will be.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post What counts as a catch? Replay review of McDonnell Douglas | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

For the past year, AI regulation has looked a lot like a group chat with no admin. States are firing off their own rules, Congress is typing and deleting, and employers are left scrolling and wondering which message really matters. The Trump administration is now trying to end that chaos with a sweeping executive order aimed at reining in state-level AI regulation.

On paper, the goal is simplicity: one national framework instead of 50 different ones. In practice, it’s a much heavier lift. The order pushes federal agencies to challenge state laws and even hints at tying compliance to federal funding. That approach may appeal to businesses craving predictability, but it also tees up serious political resistance and legal questions. And those questions are likely to determine whether this order reshapes AI governance — or just becomes another opening gambit in a long fight between President Trump and certain states. Outlined below is a quick summary of what the executive order is trying to do and what steps employers should take.

Goals of the executive order

It is important to remember that all current and pending state and local AI laws remain enforceable — at least until a court blocks them through injunction or Congress passes a federal law that preempts the others. At this stage, the goals of the executive order are to:

• direct the Commerce Department to identify “onerous” state AI laws and refer select statutes to the Department of Justice for potential challenge,
• create a DOJ “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge certain state AI laws as unconstitutional, preempted, or otherwise unlawful,
• signal the use of federal leverage — particularly broadband funding and potentially other discretionary grants — to discourage states from enacting or enforcing disfavored AI laws,
• set the stage for Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission actions that could preempt or override certain state-level AI requirements, and
• press Congress to enact a federal framework that would expressly preempt state AI regulation.

Employer’s action items

As in all things employment law, it is better to be proactive than reactive. To that end, here are some steps for employers to put them in the best position to respond quickly should Congress choose to act.

1. Stay the course on state-law compliance. Don’t be an ostrich; comply with all state and local AI laws.
2. Build (or update) an internal inventory of AI tools. Pay particular attention to tools used in hiring, promotion, monitoring, scheduling, productivity scoring, sentiment or voice analysis, safety prediction, and other high-stakes employment decisions.
3. Strengthen AI governance and documentation. Even if a federal standard ultimately emerges, employers will benefit from data-retention plans, bias testing protocols, human-in-the-loop controls, clear vendor documentation, and risk assessments for sensitive use cases.
4. Review and update vendor contracts. Make sure agreements allow flexibility if state laws remain in force or a new federal framework takes shape.
5. Watch the federal timeline — and Congress. Key near-term milestones include the DOJ AI Task Force, the Commerce Department’s “onerous law” list, and the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment policy notice, all expected in early 2026. Congressional action, meanwhile, remains uncertain.

For now, this is not the moment to mute notifications. The federal government may be trying to take control of the chat, but the states are still actively posting, enforcing, and setting the rules employers must follow. Until a court kicks someone out of the thread — or Congress finally pins a message to the top — the smartest move is to keep up with every conversation that matters. That means complying with state laws, tightening AI governance, and making sure your vendors can pivot when the tone inevitably changes. The next few months will bring louder messages from the federal government, but they won’t end the debate. Like most group chats, this one isn’t going quiet anytime soon.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post Muted notifications not recommended: federal AI regulation | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

About six years ago, my friends realized that there were no weddings left to serve as meetups for us. In pursuit of continued friendship, I started a group chat that led to planning yearly golf outings. The end of the government shutdown feels exactly like when the golf group chat jolts back to life after a year hiatus. It’s no longer radio silence — no tee time debates, no sandbagger accusations, and no one pretending to be Mark Nelsen and opining on whether a rain jacket is necessary (it always is).

When a government shutdown ends, employers experience the same reality every time: the lights come up, the agencies power on, and long-dormant obligations wake up and start knocking. Outlined below is a quick summary of: 1, mechanics of the restart; 2, impacted agency charges; and 3, the National Labor Relations Board backlog.

Mechanics of the restart

With federal funding restored, the “nonessential” functions that went dark during the shutdown will slowly come back online. But agencies now face a significant backlog, and it will take time to work through stalled investigations, audits, applications, and compliance reviews. While I anticipate officials will focus first on higher-risk or higher-visibility matters, it does not mean employers are out of the woods. Instead, you should take time during this slight lull to review postponed enforcement activities as well as gear up for agencies to resume their outreach, inspections, investigations, and litigation.

EEOC’s next steps

During the shutdown, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s operations largely halted. Investigations ceased, litigation moved forward only when required by court order, online submissions were not processed, mediations were canceled, and staff were unavailable to respond to inquiries. The end of the shutdown obviously means all will resume.

The interesting wrinkle is that the EEOC is more powerful than it was before the shutdown. This is because the appointment of a third commissioner restored full power to the group and (for the first time since January) it will be able to carry out its regulatory functions, publish enforcement guidance, and advance major litigation initiatives. In response, employers should: 1, determine how and when any EEOC hearings were rescheduled; 2, work with counsel to extend any deadlines that occurred during the shutdown period; and 3, expect proposals to regulate private-sector DEI programs.

NLRB backlog

During the shutdown, the NLRB largely halted its operations. Filing deadlines — including briefs and appeals — were tolled, unfair labor practice hearings before administrative law judges were postponed, and representation elections and related hearings were put on hold. That said, the six‑month statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges remained in effect. Yet even with the lift of the shutdown the NLRB is still limited with only one active board member (two more are needed for the NLRB to issue a decision). In response, employers should: 1, calculate filing deadlines that were likely tolled during the shutdown; 2, review postponed matters and be ready for action; 3, prepare for a surge in activity as unions move quickly to file new petitions; and 4, monitor upcoming NLRB appointments, as a restored quorum may lead to rapid, policy-shifting decisions.

Much like the group chat suddenly demanding deposits, flight confirmations, and someone to volunteer as the “weather guy,” the government’s restart gives you very little lead time before these new obligations could fall into your lap. Employers should take this opportunity to review pending matters, reinforce compliance, and prepare for renewed agency activity. If you need support navigating what comes next, we’re ready to help.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post As the government reopens, notifications start rolling in | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Last month, we got some bad news about my mom’s health. This sent everything into a tailspin both emotionally and practically. The news came just days before our family’s 37th annual Oktoberfest celebration. In the blink of an eye, we went from being the social hosts (the ones who get to show up at my parents’ house and make sure everyone else has fun) to being the actual hosts — cooking, cleaning, organizing, and managing logistics.

Overwhelmed, we did what any parents would do in that situation: we delegated. “Clean all the rooms,” we told our kids, without explanation. My son was shocked — “This isn’t our house!” My daughter was outraged — “This isn’t our mess!” And then, in perfect sibling unity, they declared that only the grandparents had authority to issue such orders.

It was, in many ways, our own Trump v. Slaughter moment. We thought we had full executive power as the acting heads of household, but the children claimed statutory independence — protected by years of precedent and informal household law. Like the president trying to remove an FTC commissioner, I discovered my removal power was, well … nonexistent.

I learned what every parent (and presumably president) eventually does: sometimes you hold all the responsibility but none of the power. Or at least, that is effectively what the Supreme Court will decide in Trump v. Slaughter when it will weigh: 1, whether laws that restrict the president’s ability to fire FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers (and if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled); and 2, whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office. This case will impact the Federal Trade Commission, independent agencies, and employers.

Impact on the FTC

While the current makeup of the FTC likely minimizes the short-term impact, the long-term impact is that the FTC would become more politicized. Its enforcement priorities could swing more drastically with each administration.

Impact on independent agencies

Federal courts would strike down removal protections for members of other independent agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Impact on employers

While my kids cleaning my parents’ house has no bearing on employers, the ruling in Trump v. Slaughter will. These three things could impact employers if Trump wins: 1, agencies like the FTC, NLRB or EEOC will likely become more politicized; 2, following elections there will likely be more rapid shifts on rules related to noncompetes, worker classification, AI use, and labor right; and 3, potential for Robespierre-esque political firings could undermine agencies’ ability to recruit and retain qualified employees because of fears of instability of such positions.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post U.S. Supreme Court to look closely at separation of powers | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

As summer winds down, I look forward with excitement to the school year. It produces new friendships, football, and “recaps” from my kids (theirs alone to share) about each day.

During the summer, I have a vague idea of the activities, adventures, or people they are seeing. But when school is in session, every day is a new day. Maybe they are learning about sharks, the Oregon trail, or getting spelling tests that I would certainly fail.

And as I look forward, I am reminded of the silly shtick my daughter and I engaged in all last year. I asked who she played with and what they did. No matter her answer, I would ask how Shaboozey was doing. She would say that person was not real and then I would play Spotify and inform her that Shaboozey was very real. This would cause some confusion and self-doubt as to whether this country music star was in her pre-school, because in her mind, he is real and they do listen to music, so maybe he was playing up in the loft?

While a fake reality about one of my daughter’s favorite musicians has no known (current) downside, the same is not true related to GenAI in the workplace. Here are three examples of potential hallucinations in the workplace: 1, chatbots that make unauthorized promises can inadvertently bind you to false obligations; 2, fabricated citations, inaccurate policies, or misapplied legal analysis may expose you to sanctions or lawsuits; and 3, hallucinated outputs pose a serious risk of slipping into public-facing disclosures or regulatory filings, creating compliance and reputational concerns.

That begs the question as to what to do when the hallucinations seem real. The key is to create a process to help minimize your company’s exposure through this five-step process:

1. Require human oversight. Review GenAI outputs before publishing, especially in legal, HR, compliance, or other high-stakes contexts.
2. Train for hallucination awareness. Teach employees to spot red flags (i.e., overconfidence or missing links) and verify outputs (check for fake citations) with independent sources.
3. Adopt safe AI tools and practices. Avoid vague queries and instead use structured prompts with clear context to reduce hallucinations.
4. Monitor and govern AI use. Track and label AI-generated content, conduct regular audits, and assign an oversight role or committee to update policies and handle incidents.
5. Set boundaries and transparency rules. Limit GenAI to drafting (not final authority) for sensitive content, disclose AI involvement when appropriate, and define company-wide usage policies.

Just as my daughter needed to separate her real classmates from the imagined presence of Shaboozey in the loft, we need to separate AI’s creative fictions from reliable facts. The difference is that while a child’s confusion is endearing (or at least that is what I tell myself), hallucinations within your company’s policies, procedures, hiring strategy, or workflow carry very real consequences. My daughter knows Shaboozey isn’t hiding in the loft, and you need to make sure your company knows when AI is hiding fiction in your work and call it out before it becomes costly.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post Artificial intelligence, accuracy and the Shaboozey shuffle | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A few months ago, we took the family to visit the in-laws in Washington. After hours of deliberation, I was able to convince the in-laws to head out to my favorite burger shop (and the main reason we go up to visit). When we got there, the employees were explaining that we were lucky to get burgers because they were about to go on strike. My wife immediately noted that I could help them with the strike. That conversation did not get far as I had to correct her by saying I work for the good guys – the employers (fortunately we already had our food by then).

On our way home, my son asked what a strike was. I told him it was like that time he did not have school for a month after Halloween. He then asked, if they are not working, are they getting money? At the time, the answer to that was it depends. But starting in 2026 there will be more clarity. Outlined below is a look at the background, the prior law, the new law, and the impact this law will have.

Background: On June 24, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek signed Senate Bill 916 into law, allowing striking workers to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits beginning in 2026.

Oregon’s current law: Workers do not get unemployment benefits when they are out of work due to an active labor dispute at their workplace, including strikes but excluding employer lockouts. There is a very limited exception when the individual is essentially not involved in the dispute in any way.

Oregon’s Jan. 1, 2026 law: The new law will remove the labor dispute disqualification, allowing both striking and locked-out workers to receive unemployment benefits (provided they are otherwise eligible). Striking workers will be eligible to receive up to 10 weeks of benefits, starting after a two‑week waiting period. If they receive back pay as part of a strike resolution, they must repay the benefits.

Impact: SB 916 is notable for extending unemployment benefits to striking workers in both the private and public sectors. According to Oregon Public Broadcasting, Oregon is the first state to offer benefits to picketing public employees — who are barred from striking in most states. This law aims to create a more balanced starting point for both sides amid the factors that lead to strikes and sustain them.

So, the next time I’m up north and craving those burgers (likely), my son might ask again (unlikely unless I were to become a LinkedIn or Instagram influencer) if striking workers get paid. And now, thanks to Oregon’s new law, I will have an answer. At least until he follows up with an indeterminate number of “whys” to all my answers.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post From burgers to unemployment benefits: a strike story | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek just signed into law two bills that will soon change employers’ obligations regarding applicants and new hires. When these new laws take effect, employers will need to rethink how they collect applicant data to strip away age-related information and share more pay-related information with new hires. Let’s look over what we know about these two laws, what’s still up in the air, and best practices for anticipated compliance.

House Bill 3187

This will amend state law to change how and when employers may request age-related information from applicants.

Requirements

The law cracks down on age-related questions early in the hiring process. Employers will be prohibited from asking applicants their age, date of birth, and when they attended or graduated from any educational institution.

This prohibition applies to any applicants who have not yet received an initial interview. If an employer does not conduct initial interviews, this information may only be requested after a conditional offer has been made.

While the law provides an exception if such a request is made pursuant to “bona fide occupational qualifications,” this exception is very narrow.

Compliance methods

Most standard application forms have blank spaces for date of birth and educational history. Employers in Oregon will need to revise their applicant forms to remove date of birth requests and date information regarding an applicant’s past education. Employers who use third-party recruiters or websites should coordinate with those providers to ensure compliance. Keep in mind that the law prohibits employers only from requesting or requiring disclosure of this information. If applicants voluntarily provide age information, such as on a resume, then there is no violation.

Enforcement and penalties

As part of ORS 659A.030, violations will create exposure to employee lawsuits that allow for recovery of both damages and attorney fees. Employers should ensure appropriate steps are taken to be ready by September because penalties for noncompliance are steep.

Effective date

This law is scheduled to take effect 91 days after the current legislative assembly adjourns. That occurred on June 27; I expect this law to take effect on Sept. 26, 2025.

Senate Bill 906

This will amend state law to require employers to disclose extensive information about payroll practices to new-hire employees.

Requirements

SB 906 will require employers to provide new employees with written explanations of:

• the regular pay period,

• all pay rates for which employees may be eligible,

• all benefit deductions and contributions,

• all deductions that may apply,

• the purpose of each deduction that may be made,

• allowances claimed as part of minimum wage,

• employer-provided benefits that may appear on an employee’s paystub, and

• descriptions and definitions of all payroll codes used for pay rates and deductions.

Unanswered questions

Compliance with the new law will likely require disclosure of significantly more payroll information than most employers currently share. The law’s use of the terms “may apply” and “all” necessitates disclosure of information that hypothetically could apply to a specific employee. The language provides a clue in that the descriptions “need not be written in complete sentences.” Until we receive further guidance from the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), however, it is unclear what level of detail this law requires.

Compliance methods

Fortunately, SB 906 does not require employers to hand-deliver personalized documents to each individual new hire. The bill specifies that employers can comply by making the information easily accessible to all employees. This could include providing a link to a website with the information or physically posting the documents in a shared workspace area. The bill also instructs BOLI to make available a model compliance document that employers can use as a starting point.

Enforcement and penalties

There is no private right of action for violations of this state statute, meaning employees cannot personally sue for breaches. Instead, BOLI may take enforcement action and levy a civil penalty of $500 for a violation.

Effective date

The law will take effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers’ interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or smscott@fisherphillips.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post From birth dates to pay disclosures: new rules for employers | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.