april 2026

Unions Withdraw Lawsuit Over TCE Rule as EPA Prepares Revisions

Source: Pat Rizzuto, Reporter, Bloomberg Law

The United Steelworkers and AFL-CIO have withdrawn their legal challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 rule on trichloroethylene (TCE), shifting their focus to the agency’s anticipated revisions to the rule.

The dismissal, granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on March 25, 2026, reflects a broader shift in strategy. The unions indicated that, given EPA’s stated intent to revisit the TCE rule, the regulatory rulemaking process is a more appropriate venue for determining worker protection standards and acceptable exposure levels.

This case is one of several challenges involving Biden-era chemical regulations that remain active as the current administration’s EPA works to revise them.

Other parties—including PPG Industries Inc., the Alliance for a Strong Battery Sector, and the Center for Environmental Health—continue to challenge the 2024 TCE rule. Their legal briefs are due April 14.

EPA Proposes Extended Deadlines for PCE and Carbon Tetrachloride Rules

Separately, the EPA has proposed extending several compliance deadlines tied to its 2024 regulations for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride.

Perchloroethylene (PCE)

The EPA is proposing the following revised deadlines:

• Initial monitoring: extended from December 15, 2025, to June 21, 2027
• Compliance with exposure limits, establishment of regulated areas, and implementation of respiratory PPE programs: extended from March 13, 2026, to September 20, 2027
• Exposure control plans: extended from June 7, 2027, to December 20, 2027

Carbon Tetrachloride

Proposed deadline changes include:

• Initial monitoring: extended from June 11, 2026, to June 21, 2027
• Compliance with exposure limits, regulated areas, and respiratory PPE requirements: extended from September 9, 2026, to September 20, 2027

These updates apply specifically to inhalation exposure limits established under the 2024 rules. The EPA has indicated that dermal protection requirements will remain unchanged.

Reason for Extensions and Enforcement Approach

According to the EPA, the proposed deadline extensions are intended to address implementation challenges raised by industry following the release of the 2024 rules.

While current deadlines technically remain in effect until formally revised, the agency has stated that it plans to prioritize compliance efforts based on the anticipated new deadlines.

The EPA also noted that its approach aligns with a March 12, 2025, national enforcement and compliance memorandum. That guidance allows for reconsideration of prior administrative actions, including rulemakings, and requires coordination with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance before pursuing enforcement actions tied to rules under review.

What’s Next

The EPA has indicated that more comprehensive revisions to both the TCE rule and related chemical regulations are expected to be released later this summer.

The TCE case is United Steelworkers v. EPA, No. 25-01055 (3rd Cir., dismissal order issued March 25, 2026).

What This Means for Finishing Contractors

For painting, drywall finishing, and glazing contractors, these updates are less about immediate disruption and more about what’s coming next—and how prepared you are when it does.

Where These Chemicals Show Up

• Perchloroethylene (PCE): Commonly associated with cleaning and degreasing—may still appear in certain solvents or specialty products used on job sites.
• Trichloroethylene (TCE): Historically used in degreasing and adhesives; less common today, but may still be present in legacy products or specific applications.
• Carbon tetrachloride: Rare in modern construction use, but relevant in certain industrial or specialty environments.

What to Pay Attention To

• Solvent use on jobsites
  If your crews use cleaners, degreasers, or specialty coatings, it’s worth reviewing product labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) now—not later.
• Respiratory protection requirements
  The rules continue to emphasize respirator use where exposure risks exist. That means:
  • Proper respirator selection
  • Fit testing
  • Written respiratory protection programs

If these aren’t fully in place, this is where contractors will feel pressure first.

• Exposure monitoring
  Future compliance may require verifying exposure levels—not just assuming products are safe. That can mean air monitoring or documented assessments.
• Training and documentation
  It’s not just about having PPE—it’s about proving your team knows how to use it and that your program is compliant.

The Strategic Reality

• You have more time—but not less responsibility.
  Deadline extensions don’t eliminate the requirements; they delay enforcement.
• The direction is clear: tighter worker protection standards.
  Even if details shift, the long-term trend is toward more structured safety programs.
• Contractors who prepare early will have an advantage.
  Waiting until deadlines are finalized often leads to rushed decisions, higher costs, and compliance gaps.

Practical Next Steps

• Review SDS sheets for any solvents, cleaners, or coatings currently in use
• Confirm whether you have a compliant respiratory protection program in place
• Identify any gaps in training or documentation
• Talk with your suppliers about alternative products if needed

 

DC Airports Authority Prevails as Court Dismisses PLA Requirement Lawsuit

Source: Daniel Seiden, Senior Reporter, Bloomberg Law

A Virginia federal court has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) over its decision not to require project labor agreements (PLAs) on certain large construction projects.

The case, brought by the Baltimore-D.C. Metro Building and Construction Trades Council, argued that MWAA failed to follow a 2022 resolution committing to the use of PLAs on major airport projects.

On March 26, Patricia Tolliver Giles of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia heard arguments from both sides. The court dismissed the case the following day without prejudice, meaning it could potentially be refiled.

The lawsuit, filed January 30, focused on MWAA’s decision not to include PLA requirements in contracts exceeding $100 million at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport.

The trades council maintained that MWAA’s approach conflicted with its own procurement policies and prior commitments regarding PLA use. Following the dismissal, the council indicated that the ruling effectively limits legal challenges but does not prevent unions from protesting individual project solicitations. The group also signaled it expects MWAA to continue applying PLAs to projects meeting federal funding thresholds.

The dispute comes in the context of a 2022 executive order issued by Joe Biden, which requires PLAs on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more when federal funding is involved.

MWAA did not provide public comment on the ruling.

Legal representation for the trades council was provided by Sherman Dunn P.C., while MWAA was represented by in-house counsel along with Friedlander Misler PLLC.

The case is Baltimore-D.C. Metro Building and Construction Trades Council v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, No. 26-cv-296 (E.D. Va., March 27, 2026).

What This Means for Finishing Contractors

This ruling doesn’t settle the PLA issue—it shifts where and how the fight happens.

• PLA requirements remain inconsistent. Even where prior resolutions exist, owners may still attempt to move forward without PLAs on large projects, especially if enforcement is unclear.
• Legal challenges may be limited. The dismissal suggests courts may not always be the fastest or most effective path for resolving PLA disputes, particularly if procedural issues are involved.
• Bid strategy matters more. Contractors should review each solicitation carefully rather than assuming PLA requirements will apply based on past policies or federal guidance.
• Protests could increase. With unions signaling a shift toward protesting individual solicitations, contractors should be prepared for potential delays or changes during the bidding process.
• Federal funding still drives PLA use. Projects tied to federal dollars—especially over $35 million—are still likely to carry PLA requirements under current federal policy, even if enforcement varies at the local authority level.

Bottom line: don’t rely on precedent. Treat PLA requirements as a project-by-project variable and build flexibility into your bidding and staffing strategy.

 

Data Center Slowdowns Elsewhere Could Shape Opportunities in Illinois

Source: Greg Ryan, Bloomberg Law

Maine is moving toward a temporary pause on large data center projects, which would halt permits for facilities over 20 megawatts through 2027. While this is happening out of state, the reasons behind it are worth paying attention to here in Illinois.

The concerns are straightforward: rising energy demand, pressure on the electrical grid, and long-term impact on water resources. Other states are starting to look at similar restrictions or scaling back incentives.

What this means for Illinois contractors

This isn’t about Maine—it’s about where things could be heading.

• More infrastructure work—but more complexity
  Data centers drive demand for electrical upgrades, substations, and utility work. That’s opportunity. But expect longer timelines, more approvals, and tighter coordination with utilities.
• Energy constraints could affect project flow
  In areas with heavy data center activity, energy capacity becomes a limiting factor. That can delay projects or shift where they get built.
• Potential for more local projects—or more regulation
  If other states slow development, Illinois could see increased interest. But it could also mean more scrutiny here—especially around power usage and incentives.
• Expect higher expectations on sustainability
  Projects that can demonstrate efficient energy use or tie into renewable sources will likely move faster.

Bottom line

Data center construction isn’t slowing overall, but it is getting more regulated and more complicated. For contractors, that means opportunity is still there, but it’s going to require more planning, more coordination, and closer attention to policy changes.

March 2026

Insurer Seeks to Deny Coverage in Silica Exposure Death Lawsuit

Source: Olivia Alafriz, Reporter; Bloomberg Law

A Texas-based stone slab distributor is the subject of a coverage dispute after its liability insurer filed suit seeking to avoid defending or indemnifying the company in a worker death case involving alleged silica exposure.

According to a report by Bloomberg Law, the insurer, EMCASCO Insurance Co., filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The filing relates to underlying litigation brought in California state court by the family of a fabrication worker who allegedly died due to exposure to silica contained in stone products.

EMCASCO contends that a silica exclusion in the commercial general liability policy issued to Verona Marble Co. bars coverage for the claims. The insurer further argues that a pollution exclusion in the policy provides an additional basis for denying both defense and indemnity obligations.

The case reflects a broader trend of insurance coverage disputes tied to silica-related claims in the stone fabrication industry. As reported by Bloomberg Law, many of these disputes—particularly those concentrated in California federal courts—center on whether silica exclusions apply when plaintiffs also allege injuries caused by other substances.

In one recent development cited in the report, a California federal judge ruled in December that an insurer affiliated with Sompo Holdings Inc. could not avoid its duty to defend based solely on a silica exclusion, because the underlying complaints included allegations of other potentially covered injuries.

EMCASCO’s lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Verona Marble Co. in the underlying litigation.

Data Center Growth Reshaping Construction Labor Demand

Source: Edison Wu, Reporter; Bloomberg Law

Data center construction spending in the United States has surged in recent years, surpassing office construction for the first time at the end of last year, according to reporting by Bloomberg.

The shift reflects not only changing real estate priorities, but also a significant change in construction workforce demand and project composition.

Large-scale data center projects require substantially larger and more specialized workforces than traditional office buildings. A typical 500,000-square-foot office project may involve around 300 tradespeople, while a similarly sized data center project can require up to 800 workers. Mechanical and electrical trades account for approximately 70% to 80% of that workforce.

These projects are also often built in multiple phases over several years, providing more consistent work compared to many office developments. Labor organizations report that this continuity has contributed to more stable income for workers.

The rise in data center construction has been driven by increasing demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure and cloud computing. One early example occurred outside Columbus, Ohio, where Meta Platforms Inc. began developing a data center campus in 2017. According to Turner Construction Co., which led the project, additional major technology companies—including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft—subsequently planned nearby developments, reflecting a pattern in which data center projects cluster in certain regions.

For Turner Construction, data centers now represent a growing share of its work. The company completed $9.4 billion in data center projects last year, more than five times its 2020 total, and was recently selected as a contractor on a $10 billion Meta data center project in Indiana.

U.S. Census data shows that construction spending on data centers has steadily increased while office construction spending has declined. Preliminary estimates indicate that in December, spending reached approximately $3.57 billion for data centers, compared with $3.49 billion for office projects.

Data center construction also presents different technical and logistical challenges compared to office buildings. Rather than focusing on occupant space, these facilities are designed for continuous operation and typically consist of large, windowless structures housing electrical infrastructure, cooling systems, and server equipment.

Industry reporting indicates that data center campuses can span large areas and include multiple buildings, requiring extensive coordination across trades and systems. These facilities are designed with redundant electrical systems to maintain near-continuous uptime.

Construction costs have also increased. According to Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), costs rose to approximately $11 million per megawatt last year, up from $8 million per megawatt in 2020. Electrical systems represent the largest share of these costs, at roughly 38%.

At the same time, data center development has attracted significant investment interest, while office construction has slowed as vacancy rates remain elevated following pandemic-related changes in workplace use.

Some data center projects have also faced opposition from communities concerned about rising electricity demand. According to the report, this has led some policymakers to encourage data center operators to generate or pay for their own power.

The volume of data center construction remains strong. Turner Construction reports that more than one-third of its current backlog is tied to data center projects, indicating continued activity in this segment.

Immigration Crackdown Shows Limited Impact on Workforce Availability

Source: Jonelle Marte, Reporter; Bloomberg Law

One year after the implementation of stricter immigration enforcement policies, there is little evidence that reduced immigration has increased employment opportunities for U.S.-born workers, according to reporting by Bloomberg.

Estimates from researchers at the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution suggest that net migration into the United States may have been negative in 2025 for the first time in at least 50 years. During the same period, unemployment among U.S.-born workers increased, while labor force participation declined.

Economists point to a structural mismatch in the labor market. In many industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor, employers have been unable to replace those workers with U.S.-born employees. As a result, some businesses report increased difficulty filling open positions despite broader economic changes, including job losses in certain white-collar sectors.

Industries most affected include construction, leisure and hospitality, and food production—sectors that historically employ a significant share of immigrant workers. Employers in these fields report longer hiring timelines and fewer applicants.

In construction and extraction occupations specifically, the share of foreign-born workers increased from approximately 22% in 2003 to nearly 36% in 2024, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. This shift highlights the growing reliance on immigrant labor in trades and labor-intensive roles.

Reports from employers indicate that raising wages has not consistently resolved hiring challenges. In some cases, businesses have increased hourly pay but still struggled to attract applicants, particularly for temporary or physically demanding roles.

Labor economists note that the current environment reflects a longer-term divide between the types of jobs many U.S.-born workers seek and the manual labor positions that remain difficult to fill. Similar patterns were observed following pandemic-related shutdowns, when businesses struggled to rehire workers even after increasing wages, until immigration levels rebounded.

Current labor market data shows that job openings have declined to their lowest level since 2020, while overall wage growth has slowed. However, some sectors that rely more heavily on immigrant labor, including construction, continue to see relatively faster wage increases.

Some analysts suggest that over time, a reduced immigrant workforce could lead to higher wages and improved working conditions, potentially drawing more U.S.-born workers into these industries. However, they also note that barriers such as health issues, criminal records, and long-term declines in labor force participation among certain demographic groups may limit that shift.

Government data indicates that labor force participation among prime working-age individuals remains near its highest level since 2001. However, participation among U.S.-born workers has declined in recent months and is near its lowest level since 2021.

Economists also point to demographic factors, including lower birth rates and an aging population, as contributing to slower labor force growth. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests that without immigration, the working-age population would likely have begun shrinking more than a decade ago. The same analysis indicates that recent immigration restrictions reduced growth in the prime-age labor force by nearly one percentage point last year.

Job growth has also slowed. Nonfarm payrolls increased by an average of 13,000 jobs per month over the past year, a pace historically associated with periods near recession. Economists widely believe that reduced immigration has contributed to limiting both labor force growth and the rise in unemployment.

In construction specifically, labor shortages have become more pronounced. According to the Home Builders Institute, immigrants account for approximately 30% of the residential construction workforce. Industry reports indicate that immigration enforcement actions have, in some cases, disrupted job sites when workers did not report to work, contributing to delays and operational challenges.

These labor constraints are occurring even as overall demand for new housing remains subdued due to high home prices and elevated mortgage rates. Contractors are facing trade-offs between hiring more experienced workers at higher wages or bringing on less experienced workers with lower productivity.

Workforce development efforts have increased awareness of construction careers among U.S.-born workers, but industry leaders report that these efforts have not been sufficient to fully offset labor shortages. Over the long term, construction wages have declined relative to other sectors, although recent data shows wages in the industry have begun to grow faster than the national average.

In some cases, contractors report turning away work due to insufficient labor availability, underscoring ongoing workforce constraints within the industry.

February 2026

Eleventh Circuit Affirms OSHA Citations Under Multi-Employer Policy

Source: Tre’Vaughn Howard, Reporter; Bloomberg Law

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reinforces OSHA’s authority to cite multiple employers at a single jobsite — including those who do not directly supervise the workers exposed to hazards.

In FAMA Construction LLC v. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (No. 23-12346, decided February 12, 2026), the court upheld more than $153,000 in citations issued against FAMA Construction LLC following a jobsite inspection.

The Underlying Violations

The case arose after an OSHA compliance safety and health officer observed several alleged construction safety violations. Among them was a worker moving roofing materials approximately 25 feet above ground without fall protection.

OSHA cited FAMA for violations of three separate construction standards.

FAMA’s Argument on Appeal

FAMA challenged the citations, asserting that it should not be considered a controlling employer at the jobsite. The company characterized its role as primarily coordinating labor — essentially matching subcontractors with projects — rather than directly supervising the workers involved.

The company also sought to challenge OSHA’s multi-employer enforcement policy, which allows the agency to issue citations to more than one employer at a worksite if those employers either create or control hazardous conditions.

Under this policy, a controlling employer may be cited even if its own employees are not directly exposed to the hazard.

The Court’s Analysis

The Eleventh Circuit declined to review FAMA’s challenge to the multi-employer policy, noting that the company had not properly raised those objections before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Because of that procedural issue, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the argument.

The court also rejected FAMA’s claim that compliance with OSHA requirements would be economically infeasible, finding that the company failed to meet its burden of proof on that issue.

During oral arguments, Judge Ed Carnes highlighted that FAMA’s contractual relationship with the work crew reflected some level of authority over jobsite safety. The Department of Labor further argued that FAMA’s owner and co-manager acknowledged having the ability to stop unsafe work and that the company’s contract required compliance with OSHA regulations.

What This Means for Contractors

This ruling reinforces several important principles:

• Contractors with authority to control or correct unsafe conditions may be cited, even when subcontractor employees are involved
• Contract language requiring OSHA compliance can support a finding of control
• Procedural missteps in challenging OSHA policies can limit appellate review
• Claims that compliance is too costly must be supported by substantial evidence

In practical terms, companies that have the power to stop unsafe work or enforce safety standards on a jobsite should assume that OSHA may view them as a controlling employer.

Medical Marijuana Discrimination Case Against BrandSafway Dismissed

Source: Alexis Waiss; Bloomberg Law

BrandSafway Industries LLC and former employee Zosima Miller jointly dismissed, with prejudice, the remaining claims in a lawsuit alleging discrimination related to medical marijuana use. The dismissal was filed Feb. 6 in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, formally closing the case.

Miller had sued in 2022 after being terminated for violating the company’s drug policy, asserting that employees using other prescription medications were treated differently under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In March 2024, David Stewart Cercone dismissed Miller’s wrongful discharge claim, while allowing the discrimination claim to proceed until the parties later agreed to end the case.

Miller was represented by McElroy Law Firm LLC, and BrandSafway by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Case: Miller v. BrandSafway Industries LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00305 (W.D. Pa.).

 

Turning Rent Into Equity: The Push for Hybrid Paths to Homeownership

Source: Patrick Clark; Bloomberg News

As home prices and mortgage rates keep many Americans on the sidelines, housing companies and investors are experimenting with models that blur the line between renting and owning. From shared-equity arrangements to lease-purchase contracts, a growing set of approaches aims to help households build a financial stake in a home before they can qualify for a traditional mortgage.

The appeal is straightforward: for many would-be buyers, the biggest obstacle isn’t the monthly payment — it’s saving enough upfront for a down payment while rents remain high. Hybrid housing models attempt to bridge that gap by allowing residents to live in a home as renters while gradually accumulating credits or equity that can later be applied toward a purchase.

Private investment firms, homebuilders and housing-finance specialists are all exploring ways to scale these structures. Supporters argue that aligning rental payments with future ownership could expand access to housing without requiring large new government spending programs. Skeptics, however, note that earlier versions of rent-to-own housing have often struggled with inconsistent property management and low rates of tenants ultimately completing a purchase.

One of the latest large-scale concepts under discussion involves major homebuilders working with institutional investors to create portfolios of entry-level houses specifically designed for a pathway-to-ownership structure. Under versions of the proposal described by people familiar with the talks, investors would buy newly built homes and rent them to residents. After a set period — such as three years — a portion of the rent paid could be credited toward a down payment if the household chooses to buy the property.

Several large builders, including Lennar and Taylor Morrison, have participated in conversations about how such a system might work. The basic idea is to pair the construction capacity of national builders with long-term private capital seeking stable, housing-backed returns. The scale under consideration by some participants has reached into the hundreds of thousands — and potentially up to a million — homes, which would translate into hundreds of billions of dollars in housing value if fully realized.

Many details remain unresolved. People involved in the discussions say questions include how to standardize contracts, how maintenance responsibilities would be handled during the rental phase, and whether government-backed mortgage channels should play a role when residents are ready to buy. Early financial risk, under some outlines, would fall primarily on private investors rather than taxpayers.

Industry executives have been publicly signaling interest in variations of these models. A spokesperson for Taylor Morrison has indicated that the company sees promise in discussions with policymakers and market participants about expanding access to homeownership, while emphasizing that any specific framework is still in early stages.

On the investment side, large single-family rental owners have also floated similar concepts. Pretium Co-President Stephen Scherr, in a television interview earlier this year, described a structure in which a portion of monthly rent would be set aside in an account intended to help fund a future down payment. He also suggested that partnerships with builders could focus on producing smaller, lower-cost homes better suited to first-time buyers.

Homebuilders say they are ready to increase production of more affordable homes if financing and demand conditions improve. Lennar’s chief executive, Stuart Miller, has told investors that the company is positioned to supply more entry-level housing once lower borrowing costs or supportive policy measures make purchases more attainable for households.

The renewed interest in hybrid ownership comes amid a deep affordability squeeze. High mortgage rates have pushed monthly payments well above pre-pandemic levels, while a shortage of homes in many job-rich regions continues to drive up prices. Housing economists widely estimate that the US is short millions of units, particularly at the lower end of the market.

Whether large-scale rent-credit or lease-purchase programs can meaningfully narrow that gap remains uncertain. But as traditional pathways to homeownership grow steeper, the idea of converting rent into a stepping stone rather than a dead end is gaining traction across the housing industry — and attracting serious attention from both builders and Wall Street.

Fourth Circuit Rules Florida Glass Must Pay $1.5M in Pension Withdrawal Liability

Source: Jacklyn Wille, Legal Reporter; Bloomberg Law 

A Florida-based glass repair company cannot rely on a technicality in bankruptcy law to avoid paying over $1.5 million in withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension fund, the Fourth Circuit ruled Monday.

The case revolved around how a proof of claim submitted to Florida Glass of Tampa Bay Inc.’s bankruptcy by the International Painters & Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund should be treated. Florida Glass argued that the filing acted as a formal notice under federal pension law, effectively starting the clock for the fund to file a lawsuit, which would render the eventual suit untimely.

The Fourth Circuit rejected that argument. The court noted that while a proof of claim can sometimes function as formal notice under pension law, the submission in this case did not meet the standards of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA).

The court highlighted several deficiencies in the filing: it did not include the word “demand,” failed to reference the MPPAA’s dispute resolution procedures, and described the claim as “contingent,” which conflicted with the notion of a formal demand for withdrawal liability.

The court emphasized that although a notice and demand do not require a specific set of words, the combination of ambiguities and the “contingent” designation meant the pension fund’s proof of claim could not be considered a clear demand for payment after Florida Glass left the plan, according to court filings.

The ruling, which upheld a 2025 federal judge’s order in Maryland, was authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and joined by Judges James Andrew Wynn and Barbara Milano Keenan.

Tucker Arensberg PC represented the pension fund, while Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP represented Florida Glass.

The case is cited as Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Fla. Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc., 4th Cir., No. 25-01312, 1/26/26.

january 2026

BGOV Analysis of H.R. 4366: Joint Employer Definition

Source: Greg Tourial, Legislative Analyst; Bloomberg Law 

Under H.R. 4366, a business would qualify as a “joint employer” only when it exercises meaningful and direct control over another company’s workers and their employment conditions.

The legislation would formally establish a definition of joint employment—situations in which two or more businesses share responsibility for workers’ employment conditions—within both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The NLRA governs employees’ rights to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, while the FLSA sets federal labor standards such as minimum wage, overtime rules, and child labor protections.

The bill’s proposed standard would largely exclude businesses that do not directly hire, fire, supervise, or compensate workers. This would include franchisors and companies that rely on contractors, vendors, or staffing agencies, provided they do not exercise direct authority over workers.

A business would be required to comply with federal labor laws as a joint employer—and could be held legally responsible for violations—only if it directly, actually, and immediately exerts substantial control over another company’s employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment. Those factors include:

• Authority over hiring and termination
• Control of wages and employee benefits
• Day-to-day supervision of workers
• Assignment of work schedules, job roles, or tasks
• Authority to discipline employees

Supporters argue that the legislation would bring stability to labor markets by creating a clear, statutory joint employer standard that does not fluctuate based on court rulings, Labor Department regulations, or changes in the political makeup of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). They contend that the measure ensures only an employee’s true employer is held responsible for labor law compliance.

House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) stated in the committee’s report that the absence of a consistent and predictable joint employer standard creates legal uncertainty that disproportionately harms small businesses and discourages entrepreneurs from starting or expanding companies due to rising compliance costs.

Democrats on the committee opposed the bill, warning that it could weaken worker protections and reduce legal remedies in workplaces where multiple entities influence employment conditions.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the committee’s ranking member, argued in the minority views section of the report that the bill would allow companies that rely on subcontractors or temporary staffing agencies to avoid responsibility for wage violations and child labor abuses. He also said the proposal would limit unionized workers’ ability to bargain over the full scope of workplace conditions.

Background on Joint Employer Standards

According to the Education and Workforce Committee report, from the mid-1980s through 2015 the NLRB assessed joint employer status under the NLRA by evaluating whether multiple entities shared control over hiring, firing, discipline, and other key employment terms.

In 2015, the NLRB adopted a new approach in its 3–2 Browning-Ferris decision. That ruling held that a company could be considered a joint employer if it possessed the authority to control employment terms, even if it did not exercise that authority directly. The Democratic majority at the time said the previous standard no longer reflected modern labor practices, as more workers were employed through subcontractors and temporary agencies.

Business groups criticized the Browning-Ferris standard, arguing that it expanded liability and imposed new legal risks on companies that contract with other businesses.

In 2020, during the Trump administration, the NLRB issued a rule reversing the Browning-Ferris standard. The rule defines joint employers as entities that share or codetermine essential employment matters such as pay, benefits, work hours, hiring, termination, discipline, supervision, and direction.

The Biden administration’s NLRB later overturned the 2020 rule with a regulation issued in October 2023. That rule classified an employer as a joint employer if it directly or indirectly—through an intermediary—exercised control over essential employment terms of another company’s workers.

Critics said this approach was overly expansive and effectively treated nearly any company that contracts for labor as a joint employer, according to the committee report. A federal judge in Texas invalidated the rule in March 2024, and the NLRB chose not to appeal, leaving the 2020 standard largely intact.

The Education and Workforce Committee noted that the FLSA has never included a statutory definition of joint employment. As a result, the Labor Department and federal courts have historically relied on various tests to determine whether a joint employment relationship exists.

Stakeholder Positions

Supporters of the bill include the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which said in a July 11 letter to Congress that the legislation would give regulated businesses the clarity and predictability needed to comply with labor laws and make long-term plans.

More than 70 coalition members signed the letter, including the American Hotel & Lodging Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, International Franchise Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, National Franchisee Association, National Restaurant Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Opposition comes from organized labor and worker advocacy groups. The AFL-CIO stated in a July 22 news release that the bill would shield large corporations from the obligation to bargain in good faith alongside joint employers, such as small franchisees.

Additional opponents cited by committee Democrats include the National Employment Law Project, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, and the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance.

Legislative History

The House Education and Workforce Committee advanced the bill on July 23 by a 20–16 party-line vote.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) introduced the legislation, titled the Save Local Business Act, on July 14. As of January 9, the bill had two Republican cosponsors: Reps. Kevin Hern (Okla.) and Robert Onder (Mo.).

 

Bipartisan Bill Would Exclude Multiemployer Unions From Auto-Enrollment Rules

Source: Brett Samuels, Reporter;  Bloomberg Law

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation that would exempt multiemployer union plans from automatic enrollment requirements when establishing new retirement plans.

The proposal, known as the Multiemployer Plan Relief Act, was introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Moreno, along with several members of the House of Representatives. The bill would carve out an exception to the automatic enrollment mandate created under the SECURE 2.0 Act, extending relief similar to exemptions already granted to governmental and church-sponsored plans.

Supporters of the legislation argue that multiemployer unions serve industries such as construction, trucking, and other sectors where workers frequently move between employers. Because of this structure, automatic enrollment under existing law can result in workers being enrolled multiple times in different plans as they change jobs.

Klobuchar said the policy rationale behind automatic enrollment—boosting retirement savings—does not translate smoothly to multiemployer arrangements. She pointed to frequent job changes and disconnected payroll systems as factors that create administrative and logistical complications unique to these plans.

The House lawmakers sponsoring the bill include Reps. Brad Finstad, Mike Carey, Brendan Boyle, and John Larson.

The legislation has received support from the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, which has formally endorsed the measure.

 

US Homebuilder Sentiment Slips After Four-Month Run of Gains

Source: Michael Sasso, Bloomberg News 

Confidence among US homebuilders declined in January for the first time in five months, as the growing cost of sales incentives outweighed recent relief from lower mortgage rates and new housing proposals from the White House.

The housing market conditions index published by National Association of Home Builders in partnership with Wells Fargo fell by two points to 37. The reading marked the first drop since August and came in below the median forecast of 40 from economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Any reading under 50 indicates that more builders view conditions as unfavorable rather than positive.

The pullback tempers optimism that had been building in recent weeks as mortgage rates declined to some of their lowest levels in years and price growth moderated. Momentum had been evident in December, when sales of existing homes reached their strongest pace in two years. New-home purchases also climbed back to levels last seen in 2023.

Homebuilder stocks rallied earlier this month after President Donald Trump announced a series of policy initiatives intended to improve housing affordability. However, the NAHB noted that most survey responses were submitted before last week’s announcement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities to help push borrowing costs lower.

Other persistent obstacles also weighed on sentiment. The NAHB’s chief economist Robert Dietz attributed the softer reading to ongoing labor and lot shortages, along with elevated regulatory burdens and material costs that continue to pressure builders.

Those concerns showed up clearly in the survey’s outlook for the next six months. Expectations for future sales slipped below the neutral level for the first time since September. Measures of current sales activity and prospective buyer traffic had already been below that threshold and both declined further in January.

Although Trump’s policy announcements provided a short-term boost to housing-related stocks, profitability pressures remain. Alan Ratner of Zelman and Associates wrote in a January 13 research note that builders’ gross margins are still expected to fall in the first quarter, in part because of recent softness in home prices.

Affordability has improved modestly, but prices remain high by historical standards, and mortgage rates are still roughly double their 2021 levels. As a result, many builders have been forced to reduce prices or rely heavily on incentives, often by subsidizing buyers’ mortgage rates.

According to the NAHB, about 65% of builders reported using sales incentives in January, marking the 10th consecutive month above the 60% threshold. Meanwhile, 40% of respondents said they cut prices, unchanged from December.

Regionally, builder confidence declined across the South—the country’s largest homebuilding market—as well as in the Midwest and West. Sentiment improved slightly in the Northeast.

 

US Housing Construction Slows Further, Reaching Pandemic-Era Low

Source: Michael Sasso, Bloomberg News

US housing starts declined in October to their lowest level since early in the pandemic, as newly released government data—delayed by last fall’s federal shutdown—show builders continuing to pull back in response to elevated home prices and borrowing costs.

New residential construction fell 4.6% in October to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.25 million homes, according to government figures published Friday. That reading came in below the 1.33 million median estimate from economists surveyed by Bloomberg.

Single-family home construction rose 5.4% to an annual pace of 874,000, though activity remained near the weakest levels seen over the past two years. By contrast, construction of buildings with five or more units dropped nearly 26% in October, reaching its lowest level in five months.

The figures suggest builders continued to scale back during the fall, focusing on shortening build times and improving operational efficiency while waiting for buyer demand to recover. A measure of builder confidence from the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo remained subdued at 39. Readings below 50 indicate that more builders view conditions as unfavorable than favorable.

This cautious stance persists despite some easing in affordability pressures. Mortgage rates that were near 7% in May declined steadily through September and October, falling to about 6.25% earlier this month—the lowest level in more than a year. In addition, federal data through August show that prices for newly built homes declined for much of last year.

Lennar Corp. Chief Executive Officer Stuart Miller previously told investors during an earnings call that while declining interest rates had raised hopes for a housing market recovery, that improvement has yet to take hold.

In response to rising affordability concerns, President Donald Trump recently proposed barring institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes. He also called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities in an effort to push borrowing costs lower.

Building permits, which provide a signal of future construction activity, edged down 0.2% in October to an annual rate of 1.41 million, following a September increase to the highest level since April. Permits for single-family homes declined 0.5% to an annualized pace of 876,000.

Regionally, housing starts in the South—the country’s largest homebuilding market—rose modestly after dropping in September to their lowest level since May 2020. Construction activity also posted a small increase in the Midwest, while starts declined in both the Northeast and the West.

Friday’s report marked the first release of official housing construction and permit data since August, as the 43-day federal government shutdown delayed publication. The government also released postponed September figures, showing housing starts rose 1.2% that month to an annual rate of 1.31 million, while building permits increased 6.4% to 1.42 million.

Housing construction data are inherently volatile, and the report indicated there is 90% confidence that October’s monthly change ranged from a 15.8% decline to a 6.6% increase.

 

Ninth Circuit Confirms Construction Exemption for Asbestos Abatement Under Federal Pension Law

Source: Jacklyn Wille, Legal Reporter; Bloomberg Law

Walker Specialty Construction Inc. avoided more than $2.8 million in withdrawal liability after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the company’s asbestos abatement operations fall within a statutory construction-industry exemption under federal pension law.

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit held that asbestos abatement—defined as the removal or containment of asbestos-containing materials in buildings and other structures—qualifies as “building and construction” work for purposes of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). The ruling allowed Walker to invoke the construction-industry exception that shields certain employers from withdrawal liability when they leave a multiemployer pension plan.

The court explained that Congress incorporated an existing definition of the “building and construction industry” when it enacted the MPPAA. According to the panel, that definition was long established in National Labor Relations Board precedent, which recognized construction work to include repairs and alterations necessary to maintain a structure’s usability. The court characterized this as a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit.

Under the MPPAA, employers that withdraw from a multiemployer pension plan generally must pay their proportionate share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits. The statute, however, provides a narrow exemption for employers primarily engaged in construction-related work. The Ninth Circuit interpreted that exemption broadly enough to encompass asbestos remediation performed as part of maintaining or restoring buildings.

Applying that framework, the court reasoned that Walker’s removal of asbestos from walls, roofs, and floors amounted to repairing integral building components and ensuring that structures could be safely occupied. On that basis, the panel concluded the work fell squarely within the construction-industry exception.

The trustees of the Construction Industry & Laborers Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada argued that the court should not rely on NLRB interpretations in light of the US Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Supreme Court of the United States case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, stating that Loper Bright did not displace traditional tools of statutory interpretation, including consideration of settled agency usage that predated the statute’s enactment.

Judge Roopali H. Desai authored the opinion, joined by Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Eric D. Miller.

Walker Specialty Construction was represented by Fennemore Craig PC. The pension fund trustees were represented by Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.

The case is Walker Specialty Constr., Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Construction Industry & Laborers Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada, No. 24-1560 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026).

 

July 15, 2025

FCA International Takes to Capitol Hill

On July 15 and 16, 2025, 16 FCA International members—including Ken Ober Sr. and Ken Ober Jr. of Elite Painting, and Matt Anderson of Anderson Moran—participated in the annual legislative fly-in to Washington, D.C.

During the event, members met with more than 30 members of Congress and joined a policy discussion on tax reform, tariffs, and trade with the White House Office of the Public Liaison. These meetings provided a valuable platform to highlight the issues affecting subcontractors and the construction industry as a whole.

Those issues included:

• Change Orders: We support the Small Business Payment for Performance Act of 2025, which would require prompt payment to contractors for change orders. The federal government must do more to address enforcement of prompt payment to subcontractors and suppliers.
• P3 Bonding Requirements: We support the Water Infrastructure Subcontractor and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 1285 / S. 570), which seeks to affirm that existing payment and performance security requirements extend to infrastructure projects financed through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), including Public-Private Partnerships (P3s).
• Refine Tax Reform: We support efforts to restore tax rate parity for all businesses and make individual tax rates, pass-through deductions, and tax extenders permanent. We support the Main Street Tax Certainty Act (H.R. 703 / S.213), which would permanently extend Section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, we oppose the Death Tax; thereby, we support the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2025 (H.R. 1301 / S.587).
• Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2025: We support H.R. 3548, the Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2025, which would reform New York’s antiquated liability law on federally funded projects, reduce taxpayer costs, and promote more construction and jobs in New York. This legislation would preempt state law and align New York with 49 other states, which utilize a comparative negligence standard to assess fault, when injuries occur on a construction site.
• Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors: We support the tightening of laws to stop misclassification of employees as independent contractors and close loopholes for tax avoidance and payroll fraud.
• Prevailing Wage: We support prevailing wage provisions in current law, and we oppose the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act; thereby, we oppose the Davis Bacon Repeal Act (H.R. 425 / S. 100).
• House Construction Procurement Caucus: We support this caucus as a vehicle to address construction procurement policies and practices in the public and private sectors.

Week of 9-20-2024

Divisions on Funding Continue as Government Shutdown Looms

Congress has two weeks before the government shuts down without funding; negotiations have continued this week on a short-term funding package. Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) abruptly pulled his continuing resolution (CR) from a scheduled floor vote, conceding that it lacked sufficient support to pass. About a dozen Republicans have announced publicly that they will not vote for the measure, and estimates are that perhaps a dozen more will vote against it if it comes to the floor.

The Speaker has declined to pivot to a different strategy, instead tasking Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) to try to build support for the six-month funding measure that would also attach the SAVE Act, a bill that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Speaker Johnson can afford to lose only four Republican votes if his entire conference is present, perhaps a few more if some of the five moderate Democrats who previously voted for the SAVE Act decide to vote for it again. It continues to prove very difficult for Republican leadership to unite the fractious Republican conference on spending measures.

If opposition to the current CR remains entrenched, Johnson has limited options, all of which carry significant downsides. Several factions of the GOP would oppose a six-month CR that strips out the SAVE Act, including those who want to highlight voter fraud issues in advance of the election and defense hawks who insist that the military cannot continue at current funding levels for that long, and it would not attract required levels of Democratic support to overcome that vote deficit. A shorter-term CR that includes the SAVE Act would not garner sufficient Republican votes to pass on a party-line vote. Even if it could pass the House with Democratic support, it would be dead on arrival in the Senate. This could result in a politically risky government shutdown or force the House GOP to quickly backtrack from that negotiating position. A short-term CR without the SAVE Act appears to be the only viable option. However, this approach will likely lead to a Lame Duck negotiation of a bipartisan omnibus spending package, which could anger conservatives just as the conference meets to select leadership for the next Congress. Reports indicate that the House Republican leadership team is divided on strategy, with members positioning themselves to cast blame for the current situation. Whether or not House Republicans retain their majority in the next Congress, Speaker Johnson may struggle to retain his speakership.

U.S. Department of Labor’s Severe Injury Report Dashboard

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) launched its online Severe Injury Report dashboard in September. The tool is designed for users to search the DOL’s Severe Injury Report database and view trends related to workplace injuries. OSHA defines a severe injury as “an amputation, in-patient hospitalization, or loss of an eye.” The dashboard covers injury data from 2015 to 2023. The data can be broken down by NAICS code, establishment name, state, year, body part, source, nature, and events/exposure and will be regularly updated. The database does not include data from states with their own state workplace safety and health plans.

This is the first time these reports will be made publicly available, and it raises some concerns. For example, the database provides severe injury data without providing much context, enabling others to create a false or misleading picture of an employer’s workplace safety practices and record. The information can also be used by litigants, insurance companies, regulators and others for any number of reasons. That said, the dashboard will be a useful tool for companies and associations when they seek to use injury data in comments responding to OSHA rulemakings. For example, OSHA recently issued its proposed Heat Injury and Illness standard.

By using this tool, one can find that in 2023, many severe injuries in the “couriers and express delivery services” sector were due to “exposure to environmental heat.” Having access to data on the number, origin and details of industry injuries due to heat exposure could be a valuable inclusion.

 

Older Reports

FULL REPORT FOR 6-7-2024 

FULL REPORT FOR 8-9-2024

FULL REPORT FOR 9-13-2024

 

 

The Latest Illinois Prevailing Wage Act Changes Impacting ALL Finishing Contractors
Jeff Risch, partner at Amundsen Davis 

The Illinois Prevailing Wage Act (IPWA) places enormous burdens on construction contractors, developers, property owners, and public bodies throughout Illinois. It’s an extraordinarily confusing law, having been amended numerous times over the years, while being enforced by the Illinois Department of Labor (IL DOL). Two particular amendments have a profound impact on both union signatory and non-signatory finishing contractors.

New Liabilities, Fines and Penalties for Not Reporting Properly

Effective June 30, 2025, thanks to SB1344, any contracting employer subject to the IPWA—or any officer, employee, or agent of the contracting employer whose duty as the officer, employee, or agent is to file the certified payroll— that fails to file the certified payroll for any public works project as required, is now subject to a civil penalty, payable to the IL DOL, of up to $1,000 for a first offense and up to $2,000 for a second or subsequent offense no more than five years after the first offense. A second or subsequent offense that occurs more than five years after the first offense shall be considered a first offense. Each month in which a violation of the certified payroll submission occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

A finding of an offense by the IL DOL may be challenged if a request for administrative hearing is received no later than 10 business days after receipt of the notice of the offense.  The IL DOL has the burden of establishing good cause for its action. However, good cause exists if the contracting employer fails to timely submit its certified payroll as outline above. Ignorance is no excuse.

Of course, the ultimate question is whether the IL DOL will rely on the certified payroll submission offense to justify issuing a formal NOTICE OF VIOLATION. As a reminder, two separate violations occurring within a five-year period of time can result in DEBARMENT from Illinois prevailing wage projects for up to 4 years.

As a reminder… The primary obligations upon ALL contractors who engage workers in Illinois to perform covered work on an Illinois prevailing wage project generally encompass the following:

1. Pay the prevailing wage (hourly base plus annualized fringe benefits);
2. Post prevailing wage rates at the job site;
3. Serve written notice of prevailing wage obligations on subcontractors and lower tiered contractors;
4. Maintain, preserve, and submit accurate time and payroll records for five years; and
5. Submit certified payrolls to the IL DOL through the IL DOL’s online portal.

Critically, the certified payroll shall be accompanied by a statement signed by the employer or an officer, employee, or agent of the employer, which confirms that:

• He or she has examined the certified payroll records required to be submitted and such records are true and accurate;
• The hourly rate paid to each worker is not less than the general prevailing rate of hourly wages required; and
• The contractor or subcontractor is aware that filing a certified payroll that he or she knows to be false is a Class A misdemeanor.

New Mandates that Impact Apprentice Fringe Benefits

Courtesy of HB2488, effective June 30, 2025 forward, all contractors must ensure that their apprentices are paid full journeyworker fringe benefits—REGARDLESS OF THE TERMS IN THE UNDERLYING PREVAILING UNION CONTRACT.

Historically, the IL DOL has permitted all contractors to pay its bona fide apprentices, registered with the U.S. Department of Labor (“U.S. DOL”), to pay a lower apprentice hourly wage and fringe benefit scale established by the underlying apprenticeship training program and (if applicable) prevailing union contract. Some unions allowed their signatory contractors to pay a discounted hourly rate and a lower fringe benefit package. While HB2488 does not disrupt the IL DOL’s practice of permitting a discounted HOURLY RATE, it does prevent the IL DOL from applying any established discounts to the hourly FRINGE BENEFIT package. NOTE: To my knowledge, no such discount exists in the “non-union world” except as to the hourly wage rate.

There’s a bit of irony here: One of the governor’s first official acts in 2019 was to ensure wages and fringe benefits under the IPWA would be no less than the prevailing rate under the prevailing and dominant local area-wide union construction contract. Despite this, there is now a new carve-out to this mandate. It requires the prevailing wage rate to ignore any language in such contracts that allows the union signatory contractor to make a discounted contribution into fringe benefit funds for bona fide union apprentices.

In short, union signatory contractors who have signed onto or negotiated contracts with representative trade unions have just seen the terms agreed to become null and void under the new statutory change. On all projects covered under the IPWA, contractors are now forced to pay their apprentices the full fringe benefit package without taking any discount that is otherwise permissible under their negotiated union contract and union-sponsored apprenticeship training program.

Again, this change only impacts the fringe benefits portion of the prevailing wage rate—the hourly discounted rate for bona fide U.S. DOL registered apprentices still applies from all accounts. Further, under federal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage mandates, the underlying apprenticeship program and union contract will continue to affect the rates on federal prevailing wage projects.

Now the question begs… How exactly does the union contractor remit payment to the applicable fringe benefit funds if the collective bargaining agreement doesn’t reflect the prevailing wage obligations in place? The immediate answer is that all impacted union contractors need to discuss this issue with their unions and thoroughly examine their union contract(s) to ensure there’s no existing language that already accounts for this scenario. The issue comes down to the union contractor being able to make the full contribution or having to apply the value in a cash payment to the worker. As a reminder, contractors may choose to pay any shortfall on their fringe benefit obligation onto the worker’s hourly base rate—but, this may have an impact on overtime premium rates.

The Bottom Line: A More Complicated Law

There’s a lot to consider and digest with these recent changes. Also, in light of the many amendments to Illinois’ prevailing wage law, ALL contractors need to fully understand how to comply with all aspects of the IPWA. Unfortunately, it’s become even more confusing and complicated. Contractors performing work in Illinois must evaluate the impact of these new changes with competent legal counsel.