The PrestigePEO Perspective – February 2026

Healthcare costs continue to climb, placing growing pressure on business budgets and long-term planning. For many employers, annual renewals bring uncertainty, frustration, and complex financial trade-offs.

Learn how businesses are regaining stability through pooled benefits models, predictable pricing, and expert HR support from PrestigePEO.

Employment laws are evolving rapidly across Southeast states, and businesses can’t afford to be caught off guard. This webinar replay delivers practical insights into legislative changes and compliance considerations you need to know for 2026.

Tune in for expert guidance tailored to employers navigating today’s legal landscape.

Premium employee benefits are no longer optional—they’re essential for attracting and retaining top talent. PrestigePEO gives businesses access to Fortune 500-level benefits at competitive rates, backed by expert support and seamless administration.

We help you create a benefits strategy that strengthens your ability to hire, engage, and retain the people who drive your business forward.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) was enacted in 1988 and provides protection to hourly and salaried workers and requirements for employers in the event of major layoffs and certain plant closings.

Generally, the WARN Act applies to businesses with one hundred (100) or more full-time employees; employees who have been with a company for less than six (6) months, and those who work part-time hours of twenty (20) or fewer hours per week do not count toward the 100-employee threshold. The Act is nuanced and can be triggered by multiple business scenarios. Most often, triggering events include layoffs of five hundred (500) or more employees at a site of employment; a worksite closure impacting a minimum of fifty (50) people; or planned layoffs of one-third of the employees at a single site of employment, if that 33% impacts a minimum of fifty (50) employees. The WARN Act does not explicitly address remote work, creating ambiguity in assessing WARN Act triggering events.

A single site of employment has been defined extensively within the WARN Act. It outlines the varying possibilities of physical location, which count toward a single site of employment, and includes a subsection for workers who do not continuously work outside of an office to complete their duties:

“For workers whose primary duties require travel from point to point, who are out stationed, or whose primary duties involve work outside any of the employer’s regular employment sites (e.g., railroad workers, bus drivers, salespersons), the single site of employment to which they are assigned as their home base, from which their work is assigned, or to which they report will be the single site in which they are covered for WARN purposes.” 20 CFR §693.3(i)(6).

For many remote employees, the work they are assigned originates from one of their employer’s office locations, and as such, there is the potential for such remote employees to qualify towards employee counts under the WARN Act. It is important for employers to regularly review their headcount to help determine WARN Act applicability.

If it is determined that the WARN Act is triggered, employers must provide employees with specific notice with information based on the best information available to the employer at the time. Notice under the WARN Act must include:

“(1) The name and address of the employment site where the plant closing or mass layoff will occur, and the name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information;

(2) A statement as to whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and, if the entire plant is to be closed, a statement to that effect;

(3) The expected date of the first separation and the anticipated schedule for making separations;

(4) The job titles of positions to be affected and the names of the workers currently holding affected jobs.” 20 CFR §639.7(c)

The expected date of the closure or mass layoff must be either a specific date or a fourteen-day period during which the closure or mass layoffs are expected to occur. Employers should note that state WARN Acts may impose additional requirements.

Navigating workforce reductions involves more than operational planning; it requires careful attention to evolving federal and state compliance obligations. Missteps in WARN Act requirements can expose businesses to significant legal and financial consequences.

PrestigePEO helps employers proactively manage complex employment regulations, workforce transitions, and compliance risk through expert Human Resources guidance and integrated support.

If your organization is evaluating workforce changes or seeking greater confidence in compliance, PrestigePEO is here to help.

A patchwork of pay transparency laws continues to expand nationwide, building on trends we highlighted in our 2025 compliance update. Multi-state employers face a complex landscape of pay transparency requirements, which vary by jurisdiction. These laws vary significantly in scope, applicability thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms.

To stay compliant, employers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions, should reassess compensation structures, job posting practices, and internal pay governance policies. Penalties range from modest fines to substantial penalties and, in some cases, private class action lawsuits.

Below is a summary of key developments to help you stay informed and compliant:

• California: Effective January 1, 2026, the definition of pay scale is revised to mean “a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire.” Additionally, the right to obtain relief is limited to a total of six years.
• Colorado: The state of Colorado continues to be at the forefront of pay transparency enforcement. Fines range from $1,000 to $6,000 per violation, with total penalties exceeding $500,000. The division has also required employers to implement compliance monitoring and reporting for a set time period following a citation.
• Delaware: Effective September 26, 2027, Delaware employers with 26 or more employees will be required to include a pay range and general description of benefits and other compensation in job postings, before an offer, and upon request from a prospective employee.
• Massachusetts: Massachusetts’s Wage Transparency Act became effective on October 29, 2025. Employers with twenty-five or more employees in Massachusetts must disclose pay ranges in job postings, to applicants, and to current employees upon request. Employers have a two-business-day cure period for first-time violations through October 29, 2027.
• Rhode Island: Effective January 1, 2026, all employers are required to provide written pay notice to new employees upon request, at hire, and upon role change.
• Washington: Private employers with 15 or more employees are required to include a salary range or fixed wage, other compensation, and specific benefit disclosures in job postings. Employers have a five-business-day cure period for first-time violations through July 27, 2027.

As pay transparency requirements continue to expand, employers must ensure their compensation practices, job postings, and internal policies align with evolving regulations. Noncompliance can result in financial penalties, reputational risk, and increased legal exposure.

PrestigePEO helps businesses navigate complex, ever-changing employment regulations through expert HR guidance, compliance support, and workforce strategy advisory services.

If your organization operates across multiple jurisdictions or is seeking greater confidence in compensation compliance, PrestigePEO is here to help.

On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, previously issued in 2024. This decision by the EEOC comes in the wake of Executive Order 14168 issued in January 2025, and the ruling of Texas, et al. v. EEOC, No. 2:24-CV-173 (N.D. Tex.) on May 15, 2025. While this ruling may impact the EEOC’s interpretation of federal antidiscrimination and harassment laws, this ruling does not change, repeal, or modify existing federal laws pertaining to antidiscrimination or those prohibiting unlawful harassment.

At the time it was issued in April 2024, the intent of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace was as an instrument to convey the EEOC’s stance on legal issues pertaining to unlawful harassment, and it included various examples of what could be deemed unlawful harassment. The guidance did not only cover harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender, and/or gender identity, but also harassment predicated on age, disability, genetic information, national origin, religion, race, and/or color.

Executive Order 14168 defines terms such as “Sex”, “Female”, “Male”, “Gender Ideology”, and “Gender Identity” and further instructed federal agencies to enforce laws pursuant to the narrow definitions of male and female contained in the Order. The Executive Order did not explicitly challenge the EEOC’s 2024 guidance, but it created a pathway for it to be challenged in court. In Texas, et al. v. EEOC, No. 2:24-CV-173 (N.D. Tex.), the Court vacated portions of the 2024 EEOC Guidance that pertained to sex, gender identity, harassment based on sexual orientation, and harassment based on gender identity.

What does this mean for employers?

The EEOC released a press release on January 23, 2026, announcing the vote to rescind the 2024 Harassment Guidance. In it, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas provided a quote stating:

Rescinding this guidance does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment … Federal employment laws against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting those laws, remain firmly in place … The agency will continue to be dedicated to preventing and remedying unlawful harassment.

This press release and comment from Chairperson Lucas show a commitment by the EEOC to investigate claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Additionally, there are numerous states with state-specific antidiscrimination, harassment, and retaliation laws, along with state agencies to investigate violations of those state laws.

Workplace harassment regulations and agency interpretations may shift, but employer responsibilities and potential legal exposure remain unchanged. Maintaining compliant policies and preventive practices remains essential.

PrestigePEO partners with businesses to reduce compliance uncertainty and strengthen workplace risk management strategies.

Connect with us to learn how we help employers stay protected in an evolving regulatory environment.