The PrestigePEO Perspective – January 2026

Navigating the complexities of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn’t have to be overwhelming. Our “Guide to ACA Compliance” breaks down employer obligations, affordability rules, safe-harbor options, and reporting requirements, all in plain language and focused on small- and mid-sized businesses.

With PrestigePEO handling compliance behind the scenes, you can stay focused on running your business with confidence and peace of mind.

Dental benefits are among the most used—and most misunderstood—employee offerings. If comparing plans feels complex or time-consuming, you’re not alone.

This article explains what to consider, what drives employee satisfaction, and how PrestigePEO helps employers select cost-appropriate, impactful dental coverage with confidence.

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 11^th US Circuit Court of Appeals has again criticized the use of the McDonnell Douglass burden shifting approach to analyzing discrimination and retaliation claims and alternatively favored a “convincing mosaic” approach in its December 5, 2025, Ismael v Roundtree opinion. The 11^th Circuit believes that discrimination cases should be viewed from a totality of the circumstances approach rather than from the rigidity of the McDonnel Douglass framework. As the 11^th Circuit is a federal court, its rulings will hold some weight in relation to employment discrimination cases nationwide, but more specifically, for employers in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, as those states comprise the 11^th Circuit.

What does this mean for Employers?

Ultimately, under a totality of the circumstances approach, an employer providing a legitimate business reason for adverse action taken against an employee bringing claims of discrimination will most likely no longer be sufficient to have a lawsuit dismissed at the summary judgment stage of proceedings; where under the McDonnel Douglass burden shifting approach, the same legitimate business reason may have been sufficient to have a lawsuit dismissed at the summary judgment stage of proceedings. This would then in turn lead to more cases going to trial.

What steps can Employers take to reduce risk?

While Employers strive to maintain discrimination free workplaces, employers should also preemptively take practical steps in the workplace to mitigate future risk. Those practical steps, include but are not limited to:

• Conducting workplace anti-discrimination and harassment training. Such training provides a baseline of what is and is not acceptable in the workplace and can be conducted at varying frequency throughout the year at the discretion of the employer.
• Reviewing employee handbooks, policies, and procedures and making necessary updates as needed. Employers can use their handbook as a way to maintain consistency in treatment of employees, to outline non-position related expectations of employees, and/or to outline procedures for discipline or investigations.
• Treating employees who are similarly situated consistently by following company policy and procedure uniformly.
• Documenting essential job functions for each role, (so employees have a clear understanding of the employers’ expectations. This provides the ability to objectively conduct performance tracking and provides a baseline for employee performance reviews.
• Conducting regularly scheduled performance reviews with employees as well as regular feedback. In doing so, the employee knows where they stand, what is expected of them, and what will occur if poor performance continues.

This is not a comprehensive list but are general factors courts may look to when conducting a totality of the circumstances review of a discrimination claim. Each of the above can be bolstered by the level of documentation maintained. Documentation includes, but is not limited to, performance notes, meeting notes, call notes, emails, internal messaging boards, internal instant messaging records, and investigation notes.

Key Takeaways

Consistency and documentation are key elements for employers in defending against claims of discrimination in the workplace and are key in supporting an assertion that there is a legitimate reason for adverse action taken against an employee.

How PrestigePEO Can Help

Navigating shifting legal standards can be challenging, but you don’t have to manage it alone. PrestigePEO partners with employers to strengthen compliance, update employee handbooks, reinforce documentation practices, and deliver targeted training for managers and employees.

Our HR and compliance experts provide hands-on support to help you:

• Ensure your policies reflect current legal standards
• Train managers on consistent practices and documentation
• Prepare your business for a totality-of-circumstances review
• Reduce risk and create a more consistent, compliant workplace

Contact PrestigePEO today to learn how our compliance specialists can help protect your business and strengthen your HR foundation.

President Trump has signed a new Executive Order (EO) directing the federal government to consider litigation and slash funding for states with strict AI regulations, especially those affecting employment. The EO aims to challenge state laws through potential legal action, restrict broadband funding and other discretionary grants for non-compliant states or to otherwise influence state related AI legislation, and potentially preempt state requirements via federal agencies like the Commerce Department, DOJ, FCC, and FTC.

Key Provisions:

• The EO instructs federal agencies to identify and challenge “onerous” state AI laws.
• A DOJ AI Litigation Task Force will be created within 30 days to contest such state laws that are inconsistent with the EO.
• Within 90 days, agencies must publish AI affected laws and laws that should be referred to the DOJ’s task force, link BEAD (Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program) broadband funding eligibility to AI regulation, and consider new federal standards that may override state laws.
• Colorado’s upcoming “algorithmic discrimination” law is specifically mentioned; California, New York City, Illinois, and Virginia’s AI laws are also likely targets.

Current state and local AI laws remain enforceable until they are blocked by courts or Congress passes a preemptive federal law. Employers should continue complying with all existing requirements and prepare internal inventories of AI systems, strengthen governance and documentation, and update vendor contracts. Legal challenges to the EO based on federalism, the Spending Clause, and agency authority are expected. Congressional action remains uncertain, and some carve-outs in the EO exclude child safety and critical infrastructure from preemption. Even if state AI laws are blocked, federal and state anti-discrimination statutes still apply to employers using AI.

In summary, employers are encouraged to maintain compliance with current state AI laws, monitor federal developments, pay particular attention to the upcoming timeframes, and reinforce internal processes as the legal landscape evolves.

Contact us today to learn how PrestigePEO can help your business stay compliant and prepared as AI regulations evolve.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has finalized a regulation that will replace the existing random H-1B lottery with a weighted selection process.  These new regulations will become effective for the FY 2027 H-1B season and will take effect on February 27, 2026. This new system bases lottery entries on the wage level offered to H-1B candidates, thereby favoring higher-paid and higher-skilled workers while maintaining opportunities across all wage levels.

According to the Department of Labor’s four-tier Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) framework:

• Level IV wages: four lottery entries
• Level III wages: three entries
• Level II wages: two entries
• Level I wages: one entry

Lottery registrants are required to provide OEWS wage information during H-1B registration. Employers offering higher wages to H-1B candidates will notably increase their chances of selection. Subsequent petitions must include position details consistent with the initial registration, such as OEWS wage level, SOC code, and intended employment location(s). USCIS reserves the authority to deny or revoke petitions if subsequent filings diverge from the original registration details. While the new regulation does not mandate wage increases, it offers strong incentives for employers to raise salaries for H-1B applicants. USCIS aims to reduce abuse of the lottery system and strengthen protections for U.S. workers’ compensation and job prospects through these changes.

What Employers Need to Do Next:

Employers are encouraged to assess and review salary levels for H-1B positions in preparation for the lottery beginning in March 2026 and to consider making appropriate compensation adjustments as warranted.

H-1B requirements are becoming more complex, and misalignment between registration and petition details may lead to denials. PrestigePEO’s HR and compliance experts can help your business interpret the updated requirements, review job classifications, and align practices with federal expectations.

Contact us today to learn how PrestigePEO can help your business prepare for these changes and maintain compliance throughout the H-1B process.

Federal courts are increasingly ruling that employees do not need to provide detailed or highly specific explanations when requesting religious accommodation. In the early stages of lawsuits, courts are allowing claims to proceed even when an employee’s description of how their belief relates to the workplace request is brief or informal. This means employers should not assume a request can be dismissed just because it lacks detailed religious language or documentation. Instead, the focus shifts to how the employer evaluated the request, whether it can later support its decision, and if accommodating the employee’s religious belief would cause substantially increased costs or other significant burdens.

This legal trend is especially important for employers with remote employees. Courts are closely scrutinizing workplace policies regarding remote employees. For example, employers will face a higher hurdle in showing that accommodating a religious vaccine exemption request creates a significant operational burden when an employee has no in-person contact with coworkers, clients, or the public, or it is not essential to the job. This aligns with themes discussed in our prior article, DOJ Recognizes Occasional Telework as a Religious Accommodation, which explained that even limited or situational remote work can qualify as a reasonable accommodation under Title VII and should be evaluated on an individual basis.

The legal standard employers must meet when denying religious accommodations has also shifted. As discussed in our earlier compliance article, EEOC Raises the Bar on Religious Accommodation Compliance, employers must now demonstrate that granting an accommodation would impose a substantial burden on business operations. Minor costs, administrative inconvenience, or speculative concerns are no longer sufficient. Courts and agencies expect employers to identify real, concrete impacts and to explain why alternative solutions were not feasible.

Overall, these developments send a clear compliance message. Religious accommodation requests should be reviewed carefully, documented thoroughly, and evaluated through a meaningful, interactive process aligned with prior decisions. This is particularly true for remote roles, where the business impact of accommodation may be more difficult to justify. Employers relying on blanket policies or informal decision-making face increased litigation and enforcement risks in today’s environment.

Multistate employers should review their accommodation policies, train managers on escalation and documentation procedures, and ensure decisions are consistent across the organization.

Contact us today to learn how PrestigePEO can support your compliance efforts and strengthen your approach to managing accommodation requests.