The issue is that Mitrovich, of Allie Rose Co, didn’t come up with “Hot Girls Read.” The “Hot Girls” catchphrase goes back to the early 2000s, when the rapper Lil Wayne used it in his music. The phrase caught fire in 2019 with Megan The Stallion’s hit “Hot Girl Summer.”
Megan Thee Stallion’s summer anthem prompted countless spin-offs of the phrase, from Hot Girls Read to Hot Girls Knit to Hot Girls Lift to Hot Girls Compost. In the book corner of TikTok, memes, and merch, “Hot Girls Read” can be found on bookmarks, notepads, apparel, and more from many different creators and small businesses.
“Hot Girls Read” is hot in the BookTok community, the book-loving corner of TikTok. Don’t underestimate the power of BookTok — this community can make a book go viral overnight. If something blows up on BookTok, it usually sells out everywhere. The recent trademark controversy also proved how effective BookTok is at rallying around a cause.
Mitrovech started selling “Hot Girls Read” branded bookmarks in 2023 on her website and TikTok shop. She then filed for trademark registration of “Hot Girls Read” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under Allie Rose LLC. She registered the mark under the category of bookmarks and other stationery products, and apparel items, including t-shirts and hoodies. Interestingly, she didn’t trademark her own business name, Allie Rose Co.
After her trademark was approved, Mitrovich posted on her socials: “…but I also want to (very gently with peace and love!!!) say that I officially have the trademark for hot girls read in the following categories: bookmarks, stickers, notebook covers, book covers, notepads, sweatshirts, t-shirts, hooded sweatshirts.…so if that is you please remove those listings from ur site as soon as possible. With love!!!!!”
The book community did not take kindly to Mitrovich’s trademark, with several small businesses responding by selling merch donning phrases such as “Hot Girls Don’t Trademark Public Domain” and “Hot Girls Don’t Trademark Common F*cking Phrases.” (Common phrases are not necessarily in the public domain, but the message still stings.)
Fantasy author Michele Khalil even started a GoFundMe titled “Stand with Small Book Creators Against Trademark Abuse” to formally challenge Mitrovich’s trademark. In the GoFundMe description, Khalil states that a trademark attorney advised them to gather evidence of “Hot Girls Read” being used by other businesses prior to 2021 before filing a cancellation petition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Following the backlash, Mitrovich announced on June 8 that she surrendered her trademark registration of “Hot Girls Read.” She shared this as part of an apology video, stating, “I’m so sorry to every small business that I harmed in doing this. The decision was made more as a business strategy decision than a human being decision. And I take full accountability for that. That was entirely wrong on my end. I hear you, and I take that on the chin 100%.”
She also denied allegations that she had sent formal cease-and-desist letters and private messages to Etsy sellers. “At the end of the day, I care most about community over anything when it comes to my business,” she continued.
The comments on Mitrovich’s apology video are brutal. While some applaud her public apology, the book community at large doesn't seem quick to forgive. It’s possible this trademark faux pas could have a lasting reputational and financial impact on her business and brand.
A business owner can trademark a word, phrase, or logo for commercial use in specific categories, as Mitrovich did. While this does give you the legal right to challenge “confusingly similar” copycat products, it doesn’t grant you complete ownership of the mark in every situation. Perhaps most importantly, you’re also on the hook to enforce your trademark, which requires constant monitoring, sending cease‑and‑desist letters, and sometimes paying thousands in legal fees to pursue infringement claims. Many business owners assume that once you get a trademark, the legal journey is over. This is not true. Trademark rights require constant enforcement, and the USPTO does not do it for you.
Business owners should do more than simply search the USPTO trademark database when pursuing a trademark registration. You should also scour the internet and socials to check for prior use of the mark. So while Mitrovich technically could register a trademark for “Hot Girls Read,” she’s not the first one to use the phrase. And this means she must be ready for others to challenge it, which, as we’ve seen this week, other small business owners weren’t afraid to do.
So, should you trademark a catchphrase?
The Pros:
The Cons:
The post Plot Twist: “Hot Girls Read” Catchphrase Trademark Backfires on Influencer appeared first on .
]]>In a moment that perfectly captures the idea of “burning bridges” (and doing so with dynamite), Pelley delivered several memorable lines against his superiors in a scene worthy of prestige TV.
New executive producer Nick Bilton called his first staff meeting with the 60 Minutes team following a controversial wave of layoffs. Pelley went after Bilton, questioning his qualifications and pointing out that the staff did not trust him. He also said of editor-in-chief Bari Weiss: “She is killing ‘60 Minutes.’ She doesn’t love this place. She was brought in to destroy it, and that’s exactly what she’s doing.” According to reports, the rest of the staff applauded Pelley’s remarks.
The next day, Bilton sent Pelley a termination letter. CBS has not officially released it, but several outlets have reported its contents:
Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday's performative display of hostility-enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show ... Your antipathy toward the show’s future has been made loud and clear. And I have heard you. Therefore, your employment with CBS is terminated for cause, effective immediately.”
Immediately after being fired, Pelley issued a lengthy, sharply worded statement that doubled down. He reaffirmed his claims and accused the board and the network’s owner of ordering him to “inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story” and include “unverified claims.” He also alleged that politicians were given control over interviews and that CEO David Ellison “has thrown away the program’s reputation, apparently to gain a moment of favor with the Trump administration.”
There are ways to say goodbye — and then there are ways to tell your job goodbye.
There is the diplomatic exit: you give two weeks’ notice, smile politely while eating a cheap supermarket cake, and promise to “stay in touch” on LinkedIn. And then there is the other version — the fantasy Pelley embodied: the glorious mic-drop exit, telling leadership exactly how terrible they are.
But setting emotional catharsis aside and looking at labor law, what legal issues could such an exit entail?
The law does not require you to be nice. It also does not generally require you to give notice (though your employment contract might). You have the right to tell your boss — face-to-face or by email — why you are leaving. You can say their management is poor, that they are sinking the company, or that they lack leadership skills.
On its own, none of this is criminal. But problems may arise when your statements cross into violations of your employment contract, your actions damage company property, or you risk losing out on benefits.
There is a major difference between telling your manager, “Your management style is terrible,” and saying, “You’re a thief, a harasser, or incompetent.” Defamation is the act of making false statements that harm the reputation of a person, company, or product. Harsh opinions about someone’s performance are usually protected; specific factual accusations are more likely to be risky.
There is a fine line between free speech protected by the First Amendment and a person’s right to protect their reputation. To succeed in a defamation claim, a plaintiff generally must prove:
Many U.S. companies require employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). If you insult your boss by revealing internal data, unpublished metrics, or confidential projects, you may be breaching a contract.
Destroying company property can lead to civil liability or criminal charges, depending on the damage, intent, and state law. Common charges include:
If, on your way out, you delete company files, take client lists, or change system passwords, you may be violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Penalties can range from up to one year in minor cases to five, ten, or more years in serious cases, along with fines and civil lawsuits.
Telling your boss off is one of the most universal workplace fantasies. If all you damage is their ego and your own reputation, you may decide it's worth it. But flipping desks, shouting insults, or blasting sensitive emails across the company can have serious consequences.
If you are considering quitting — especially if you suspect you may be fired — it is worth thinking carefully and seeking legal advice. For example:
Before following in Scott Pelley’s footsteps, remember: he had nearly 40 years of experience and significant financial security. If you do not, it may be wiser to keep the fantasy to yourself and your professional reputation intact for the next one.
The post What to Know Legally Before Telling Your Boss Off Like a CBS Correspondent appeared first on .
]]>This kind of dispute is more common than many workers realize. Payroll mistakes happen. So do disagreements over holiday pay, paid time off, bonuses, advances, and final paychecks. But just because an employer says you owe money back does not mean you should assume the claim is correct.
The federal law governing wages and hours is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the FLSA, employers sometimes can try to recover money they say was paid by mistake. But that does not mean every repayment demand is valid, accurately calculated, or enforceable in the way the employer claims. And it definitely does not mean an employee should simply take the employer's word for it.
Sometimes the dispute is about a straightforward payroll error, like duplicate pay or a clerical mistake. Other times, the conflict is murkier. An employer may suddenly decide that holiday pay should not have been issued, that paid leave was granted in error, or that a bonus or wage advance must be repaid. In some cases, these claims surface only after a worker questions a paycheck or asks for unpaid wages.
Holiday pay disputes are particularly common. Many workers understandably assume holiday pay is required by law, but that's not generally true. The FLSA does not require private employers to pay workers for time not worked, including holidays. Instead, those benefits are usually governed by company policy, a written agreement, or an employment contract.
That means a lot can turn on the fine print. If an employer says a worker was not actually eligible for holiday pay because of an attendance rule, a missed shift, or some other policy, the next question is not just what the employer says now, but what the policy actually said at the time and whether the employer applied it consistently. That timing matters; even when an employer believes it made a mistake, it should still be able to show exactly what happened and how it reached the number it is demanding.
When an employer says you owe money back, the most important first step is simple: do not assume the debt is valid just because it appears in an email, letter, or payroll notice. A demand is not proof.
A careful response usually starts in writing. The employee can say they dispute the claimed overpayment and ask the employer to produce the records supporting its position, including the pay periods involved, the dates and amounts of each alleged overpayment, an explanation of how the total was calculated, and any employment contract, written agreement, or workplace policies the employer is relying on. If the employee believes they were actually underpaid, they should also include their own calculation and identify the records supporting that position.
That approach does two things at once. It creates a paper trail and forces the dispute to center on documentation rather than on pressure.
This is where things become less tidy. Federal law sets some wage-and-hour rules, but questions about paycheck deductions, final pay, and recouping overpayments are often governed by state employment law. In many states, employers face limits on when they can deduct money from an employee's wages, whether notice is required, whether written authorization is needed, and whether any deduction would push pay below minimum wage.
Final paycheck timing also varies widely across the country. Some states require immediate payment after termination, while others allow payment by the next regular payday or use different rules depending on whether the employee was fired or quit. So if an employer is withholding a final paycheck, offsetting alleged debts against an employee's wages, or making repayment demands after separation, the answer may depend heavily on state law.
Not every overpayment claim is suspicious, but some deserve closer scrutiny. Workers should be especially careful if the employer won't show its math, can't identify the pay periods involved, relies on vague references to "policy," or raises the issue only after the worker complained about unpaid wages. Those red flags don't automatically make the employer wrong, but they suggest the dispute may be more complicated than a simple payroll mistake.
For employees facing these claims, the practical steps are straightforward. Respond in writing and dispute the debt if you don't believe the employer has proven it. Ask for payroll records, dates, calculations, and any employment contract or written agreement the employer says supports the demand. Keep copies of pay stubs, schedules, handbooks, emails, and your own calculations. Check state employment law on wage deductions and final pay, because those rules often determine what an employer can actually do next. If you believe you're still owed wages, include that in your written response and consider contacting the U.S. Department of Labor or the relevant state labor agency. For complex disputes or significant amounts, consulting an employment lawyer may be advisable.
Please note: This article provides general information about employment law and is not legal advice. Every situation is unique, and the laws governing wage disputes vary by state. For advice about your specific circumstances, consult an employment lawyer in your area.
An employer's claim that an employee owes money back is not self-proving. Before paying anything, a worker should understand what the employer says was overpaid, what records support that claim, and what law or policy allegedly allows the employer to recover it. Sometimes the employer is right. Sometimes the worker is. And sometimes the real problem is that payroll records were a mess from the start.
The post Does My Employer Have the Right to Demand Money Back? appeared first on .
]]>There are many reasons people enjoy remote work. Saying goodbye to a brutal commute? Check. Not having to figure out what to wear? Check. Pets readily available for a quick break? Check. Nobody microwaving fish in the kitchen next to your cubicle? BIG check.
While working from home means you don’t have to worry about your manager glaring if you’re lingering a bit too long with your coworkers on a coffee break, it doesn’t mean that your employer isn’t monitoring your output. While privacy laws protect personal data and accounts, what remote employees do on company-owned devices, such as laptops, is generally subject to tracking and scrutiny via employee monitoring software.
Does an employer have the legal right to use tracking software on remote workers, or is it an invasion of privacy? In general, it’s legal for an employer to do so. Much depends on the details, which often focus on whether a work computer is being used and if the company has been transparent about its tracking policy. There’s no federal law that specifically outlaws remote employee monitoring, but legislation such as the Stored Communications Act (SCA) provides some privacy protections. State laws can also aid with employee privacy, but if you’re using a work device, chances are that your employer has the right to monitor every key you tap and every website you visit.
The coronavirus pandemic brought about an unprecedented change in how America worked. Due to office closures, many employees found themselves working remotely, often from home. For employers, determining whether their employees were hard at work instead of watching “The Price Is Right” was one of many headaches. Some turned to digital “productivity tools” that let an employer monitor an employee’s work hours, screen activity, and website usage on work-supplied laptops and personal computers.
As might be expected, this raised questions about employee rights and the expectation of privacy. Both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the aforementioned SCA generally prohibit employers from accessing private accounts on personal devices without an employee’s consent.
However, it’s a different story if a work device is involved. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) permits employers to monitor employee communications on employer-owned devices or systems using company software if they have either employee consent or a legitimate business reason. This includes work-related email accounts, messages, and online activity. But does that mean a company can check whether there’s too much “idle time” during your workday without violating your privacy?
Surveillance tools for tracking remote worker activity can report on a range of variables. Some, like counting keystrokes or tracking mouse activity, can seem reasonable. Others, such as taking screenshots or activating the user’s webcam to verify they’re actually in front of the device when they say they are, may seem intrusive.
Companies with remote employees should have a well-explained policy in their employee handbook. Ideally, any protocols for monitoring remote work on employer-owned devices will be transparent in their operation, minimally intrusive, and allow latitude when productivity is at or above acceptable levels. In general, if you have a personal email account on a work device, your employer can’t access it unless it’s part of the employee handbook or you’ve given consent.
There are a few very large red flags to watch out for. Your employer should make sure you’re aware of any monitoring it’s conducting. Nondisclosed monitoring is unethical and may be illegal. The company should not cross any personal boundaries either, such as examining other devices on your home WiFi network or turning on your webcam. If you’re meeting your productivity goals, it’s difficult for an employer to justify intense policing of your productivity. When your work is up to snuff and on time, why should “idle time” need to be put under a microscope? If you encounter these issues or other similar concerns, speak with your company’s HR department.
If you’re working remotely, your employer can likely monitor what you’re up to on a company device. So, how can you sidestep having your boss constantly looking over your digital shoulder? First and foremost, read your company’s employee handbook, as well as any employment contract you may have signed. Businesses that use tracking software should have a clearly defined policy for your review. If you’re meeting the requirements of your position but being nitpicked over five minutes of idle time, you may need to discuss the situation with your boss or speak with HR.
It’s also a good idea to be a little careful when using a company computer. In addition to key clicks, your employer can also track which websites you visit. If you want to visit an online casino, you’re probably better off using your own phone. Try to avoid using a work computer for online banking, personal emails, or other private information.
While it might not be an option for all remote workers, the chances of avoiding employer monitoring increase if you work on your own device. This isn’t foolproof, as your employer may require the use of company-owned software or an online portal. If you do choose to use your own device, make sure to take precautions to protect your privacy. Using a VPN is advisable if you’re logging in to a company workplace, and you should make sure to log out when you’re not actively working.
Take the time to check out your state’s employment laws as well. Many jurisdictions offer additional protections against overly intrusive monitoring. For example, California requires employers to notify workers before any monitoring can begin, while companies in Delaware and Connecticut must alert employees if they’re being monitored.
It’s off-putting to realize that your employer may be tracking every keystroke you make. While they do have some right to do so if there’s a business purpose involved, there are also lines they can’t cross. If they do, well, that’s what employment law attorneys are for.
The post Can Your Employer Legally Track Your Keystrokes and Mouse Movements While You Work From Home? appeared first on .
]]>Given that it’s tax season and many Americans will be reaching into their pockets to settle what they owe to the government, the timing of a new inspector general report seems appropriate. U.S. Taxpayers are probably not going to be thrilled to learn that a report released on April 8, 2026, by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) shows that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), despite having a program in place to assess taxes on foreign financial assets held in offshore accounts held by American citizens, performed a shockingly low number of examinations and applied even fewer penalties.
If that’s not enough to make individual taxpayers grumble, the IRS also disagreed with almost every aspect of the three recommendations made in the TIGTA report to assess and improve the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The Internal Revenue Code provisions that allow IRS employees to target nonfilers, underreporting, and noncompliance from offshore private banking accounts. Despite this, TIGTA found that the IRS has spent almost $683 million administering FATCA overall, while Campaign 896 targeted about $6.2 trillion in offshore balances but produced only about $41 million in additional tax and penalties, and left roughly $4 million in potential Form 8938 penalties unassessed.
For those scrabbling to make their payments each tax year, the failure of IRS management and the Department of the Treasury to punish those abusing the tax system is beyond maddening. Why is FATCA, which allows federal agencies to hold tax scofflaws responsible, failing so badly? And can it be saved?
Introduced in 2010, FATCA was intended to narrow the Tax Gap by making the offshore accounts of U.S. taxpayers more transparent and accountable to tax laws. Specified foreign financial accounts that met or surpassed a certain threshold were required to file Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, with their income tax return. Failure to do so resulted in a failure-to-file penalty of $10,000 per month, with a maximum of $60,000 in fines per year. It was believed that FATCA would generate around $8 billion in revenue over the fiscal years 2010-2020.
Things did not go as hoped. A 2018 TIGTA report found that the IRS repeatedly failed to follow up on failure-to-file violations and cases showing underreported income. In addition, some records from Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) failed to include correct Social Security or Taxpayer Identification numbers. As a result, the IRS launched the Offshore Private Banking Campaign (Campaign 896) in 2019. The Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, which oversees FATCA administration, was put in charge.
Campaign 896 was intended to identify qualifying accounts that failed to file Form 8938, assess the $10,000 fine for noncompliance, and open an examination to determine if additional taxes were owed by the account holder. While the information reporting aspect of Campaign 896 worked as expected, the use of additional actions to apply penalties and collect additional taxes from offshore accounts during the filing season came up short. Way short.
Of 164 taxpayers with accounts at foreign financial institutions referred for examination for either ignoring reporting requirements, having discrepancies on their income tax returns, or not bothering to file any taxes with the federal government, only 12 were actually examined. Five paid a combined total of just under $40 million in tax revenue, with another $80,000 in non-filing penalties. For these 164 noncompliant taxpayers, the average unreported foreign account balance was about $1.3 billion each.
It gets worse. There were 241 other noncompliant taxpayers who had income over the legal threshold but failed to file, with an average of $377 million in their accounts. 225 were sent an “educational” letter that required no action on the taxpayer’s part. The remaining 16 received a so-called “soft letter,” which did require a response. Under the Campaign 896 policy, those who don’t comply are to be referred for an examination. Despite receiving no responses, this did not happen in any of the cases.
In addition to its findings, the TIGTA report provided suggestions to improve FATCA results. Despite the marked failures to date, the IRS was less than enthused about the proposed policy changes.
Believing that the methodology behind FATCA is sound, TIGTA suggested that the IRS make three changes to the existing system. These were:
Aside from agreeing to evaluate the possibility of using 1099 data, the IRS disagreed with all of TIGTA’s attempts at the modernization of Campaign 896. It also questioned the assertion that the agency had left close to $4 million uncollected by failing to assess failure-to-fine penalties on identified noncompliant taxpayers.
In 2025, the IRS saw more than half its budget slashed by the Trump administration, along with massive reduction-in-force (RIF) firings that included 742 agents from the LB&I division. This, along with the agency’s current stance that it’s the legislation, not the enforcement, that's flawed, makes it unlikely that FATCA revenue will experience any significant upswing in the near future.
The post Inspector General’s Report Criticizes IRS Inaction on FATCA and Offshore Banking Accounts appeared first on .
]]>Georgia’s maternal mortality rate is among the highest in the country, with Black mothers more than three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related causes compared with white mothers. The state also fares poorly on measures such as severe maternal morbidity and cesarean delivery rates.
Over half of all counties have either no or very limited access to maternity care, and more than one‑third of Georgia’s counties are classified as “maternity care deserts” (meaning they have no obstetric providers, no birth centers, and no hospitals offering obstetric services). Hospital closures and the elimination of labor and delivery units have been major drivers of these access gaps. In rural areas, only a little more than one‑third of rural hospitals still provide obstetric services.
Given that context, midwives, especially those who provide home and birth‑center care, say Georgia underuses a crucial part of its maternity care workforce.
Georgia has adopted some of the most restrictive midwifery laws in the country, licensing certified nurse‑midwives while requiring a separate state license for non‑nurse midwives. It is generally unlawful to practice midwifery in Georgia without one of those licenses.
Direct‑entry midwives (midwives trained outside of nursing programs who typically specialize in home and birth‑center deliveries) have no state licensure pathway in Georgia and risk criminal or civil penalties if they practice. Certified nurse‑midwives (advanced practice registered nurses with graduate‑level training in midwifery and authority to provide care for low‑risk pregnancies and related reproductive health services) may only practice under written “nurse protocol agreements” with physicians.
The midwives who brought the recent lawsuit claim that those physician‑oversight contracts often require monthly payments in the hundreds of dollars and can be difficult for midwives to secure, limiting when and where certified nurse‑midwives can provide care.
Georgia’s midwifery framework turns on two main sets of state rules: the “Midwifery Statute,” which governs non‑nurse midwives, and the “nurse protocol agreement” requirements that apply to certified nurse‑midwives as advanced practice registered nurses.
Under the Midwifery Statute, it is unlawful for a licensed midwife to “attend any cases other than those of normal childbirth.” “Normal childbirth” is defined by reference to a physician’s examination finding no specified abnormalities. This law also says that midwives must practice under a physician’s direction when complications arise.
For certified nurse‑midwives, Georgia law requires a written nurse protocol agreement with a physician. That agreement is a signed document in which the physician delegates specific “medical acts”, which can include ordering drugs, medical devices, medical treatments, and diagnostic studies, and must spell out the parameters under which those acts may be performed.
These rules did not appear in a vacuum. Over the past century, Georgia’s birth care system has shifted from relying heavily on traditional and Black “granny” midwives to a model in which only certified nurse‑midwives are licensed, and all other midwives are effectively excluded from legal practice through regulatory and licensing changes. While neighboring states like Florida and Tennessee created licenses for certified professional and other direct‑entry midwives, Georgia continued to bar those midwives from lawful practice and kept physician‑agreement requirements in place for certified nurse‑midwives.
Against that backdrop, the lawsuit spotlights three midwives whose careers illustrate how Georgia’s rules play out on the ground.
Jamarah Amani is a Florida‑licensed, direct‑entry midwife and executive director of the Southern Birth Justice Network. She says a traumatic hospital birth in Georgia and the lack of any lawful pathway for community midwifery pushed her to train and practice in Florida instead, even though families in Georgia still ask her to attend their births.
Tamara Taitt, also a Florida‑licensed, direct‑entry midwife, now leads Atlanta Birth Center. She says Georgia’s refusal to license direct‑entry midwives forces experienced midwives into “birth assistant” roles and limits how many patients the center can safely serve.
The third plaintiff, certified nurse midwife Sarah Stokely, lives in Rome, Georgia, but drives more than four hours to work at a Tennessee birth practice because she cannot afford the physician protocol agreement she would need to practice as a midwife at home. Instead, she works in Georgia as a registered nurse while maintaining housing in two states to keep attending out‑of‑hospital births.
Together, the three describe careers built around low‑risk, community‑based maternity care—and a pattern in which Georgia law cuts that work off at the state line.
The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, brings only state law claims under the Georgia Constitution. The defendants are the State of Georgia itself and Georgia officials who enforce the midwifery and nursing laws, including the Georgia Board of Nursing and the Department of Public Health.
The plaintiffs say Georgia’s midwifery scheme violates the right to pursue one’s chosen profession by shutting non‑nurse midwives out of practice and making nurse‑midwives’ ability to work depend on private physicians’ approval.
They also raise equal protection claims, arguing that the state treats midwives differently from comparable providers and burdens patients who want out‑of‑hospital births without a safety‑based rationale. On top of that, they assert improper delegation of governmental power to private actors and due process violations, including vagueness, on the theory that key terms and requirements are too unclear to give fair notice.
The plaintiffs ask the court to declare core midwifery and nursing provisions unconstitutional and to bar their enforcement. Those changes would open a legal path for direct‑entry midwives, let certified nurse‑midwives practice without having to buy physician sign‑off, and could eventually draw in Georgia’s appellate courts and even the Supreme Court if the case advances far enough.
This case is not just about three midwives and some technical licensing rules; it is about whether Georgia will keep treating community‑based midwifery as something to be pushed out or as part of the solution to its maternal healthcare crisis. A win for the plaintiffs could open legal pathways for direct‑entry midwives and give certified nurse‑midwives a way to practice without obtaining physician permission, which, in turn, could make home and birth‑center care a real option for more Georgians. A loss would leave the current system in place — and leave midwives and the patients who want their care working around the same barriers described in the lawsuit.
The post Georgia Sued Over State Restrictions on Midwifery Practice appeared first on .
]]>Can investors count on a comfortable retirement funded by investments in cryptocurrency, private equity, and real estate? The Trump administration seems to think so. Whether Americans who depend on their 401(k) plans for financial security in their golden years will agree remains to be seen.
On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives.” Drafted by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the proposed rule seeks to expand access to investing in alternative assets by reducing the litigation risk fiduciaries could face when their investment decisions are challenged. It would do so by adding a new prudence framework under ERISA's fiduciary duty rules. It would use six factors to act as guidelines for investment managers and 401(k) plan fiduciaries.
Alternative investment options were the focus of President Trump’s Executive Order 14330, issued by the White House in August 2025 to roll back safeguards put in place during the Biden administration. Intended to boost the inclusion of digital assets and other asset‑allocation funds for 401(k) investors, it comes at a time when private credit investing faces serious concerns about its illiquidity. The rule may indeed become law at some point, but there’s doubt whether retirement plan participants will be eager for higher‑risk private‑market investments.
Social Security is intended to be a supplement rather than a sole source of income, which means future retirees should try to save as much money as possible. There are many types of retirement savings, but employer-sponsored 401(k) plans are the most common. Employers may make matching contributions in a safe-harbor 401(k) plan. Employee deposits can be automatically deducted from their salary and are usually tax-deferred. Many defined-contribution plans are participant-directed, which allows investors to choose how much risk they’re comfortable with.
Intended to provide a return on investment over decades rather than months, 401(k) plans have traditionally favored index funds in the stock market. These generally offer steady, low-risk returns, allowing the retirement plans of 401(k) savers to accrue significant gains over a long period. This system provides substantial tax breaks on lifetime income for the investors.
Alternative asset investments were available before the issuance of EO 14330, but hadn’t found wide acceptance or usage. Often more sophisticated, volatile, and risky than established index funds, they left fiduciaries and plan managers open to litigation from investors dissatisfied with substandard returns. The DOL’s proposed rule aims to give plan fiduciaries more comfort in offering alternative‑asset exposure in 401(k)s, but it’s unclear whether that will increase participants’ interest in investment alternatives.
As currently written, the DOL’s proposed rule removes perceived barriers for fiduciaries to consider alternative investment options, such as private equity and crypto. Fiduciaries are required to meet ERISA’s duty of prudence under the Investment Duties Regulation, which essentially says that they need to fully understand the investment opportunities and act accordingly.
The proposed regulation’s framework asserts that ERISA gives “maximum discretion and flexibility to plan fiduciaries in selecting designated investment alternatives.” This, it contends, means that “arbiters of disputes should defer to fiduciaries under a presumption of prudence.” The wording suggests that courts and mediators should assume the fiduciary acted in good faith toward their investors, provided they followed the guidelines set forth in the proposed rule. However, plan participants can still sue for breach, even if the fiduciary believed it acted in good faith. Compliance with a regulatory framework can be relevant evidence in a lawsuit, but it is not automatic immunity. It may reduce litigation risk, but it doesn't eliminate it.
So, what’s in that process intended to insulate fiduciaries? It’s comprised of six factors that must be assessed and considered in decisions about potential investment opportunities. Let’s take a look at each of them.
Fiduciaries should not be afraid to consider and implement sophisticated investment opportunities, as long as they feel that they fully understand the complexities involved. If a fiduciary doesn’t think they fully grasp the intricacies of the investment, they should consult with someone who does.
The determination of whether they have the required understanding of the risks an investment presents is fully at their own discretion. There is no safe harbor requirement to seek assistance from a financial expert if the fiduciary believes they have sufficient knowledge.
Fiduciaries have the latitude to select investments that don’t have the lowest possible fee. The proposal states that the fiduciary would not be responsible for comparing the fees and potential returns of every similar investment opportunity available, but instead must consider a “reasonable number of similar alternatives” in the market.
While fiduciaries must deliver on any promises they make about the ability to provide investors with actual funds when requested, they don’t need to offer full liquidity for plans that include alternative investment options. The proposed rule suggests that younger workers with longer investment horizon timelines better “fit the profile of an investor who can benefit from a liquidity premium.”
When considering alternative investment options, a fiduciary should consider more than expected returns. This includes fees, expenses, risk factors, and the investment horizon of the participants.
Meaningful performance benchmarks for alternative investments should be based on their historical performances. If one doesn’t exist, fiduciaries should use the history of a similar type of investment to replace the need for a meaningful benchmark. The rule states, as an unassailable principle, that no single benchmark is meaningful for all designated investment alternatives on a plan investment menu.
Fiduciaries must assess the valuation of potential alternative investments and ensure that measures are in place to meet the fund’s participants' needs. While stock index funds and some alternative assets are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the proposed rule gives fiduciaries the leeway to consider securities traded on a non-public market if they are valued by an “independent, conflict-free” process on a quarterly basis. They also retain the power to adopt “alternative valuation procedures” if a “temporary emergency” arises, as long as they act in good faith.
If the proposed rule becomes law, fiduciaries who manage their clients' accounts under these factors would be less likely to face litigation from their clients for risky choices involving alternative investments like non-fungible tokens (NFTs) or crypto.
The proposed rule for the fiduciary process is open for public comment until June 1, 2026. After the public comment period is over, the DOL and the EBSA can modify the rule, withdraw it, or proceed to a final rule. This requires at least 30 days and a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before it is finalized and published in the Federal Register.
Passage of the proposed rule does not guarantee that fund managers will immediately begin adding real estate and private equity assets to their clients’ 401(k) portfolios. Financial institutions and professionals tend to favor low-risk investments for retirement funds, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. They’re also likely to see how the new rule holds up in court if enacted.
The post DOL Proposes ERISA Rule Reducing Litigation Risk for Alternative Investments Like Crypto appeared first on .
]]>Artificial intelligence is transforming the typical workday in a variety of industries. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is no different. For years, the agency has been working with Palantir Technologies to better process tax returns and identify potential audit candidates.
While the IRS is still a relatively large agency, the number of tax returns it must process every year is staggering. In addition, the IRS has significantly fewer employees than a decade ago, particularly in enforcement roles like revenue agents. The IRS has never been able to audit all tax returns with potential issues, and its workforce reduction has led to audits at near-historic lows. Unsurprisingly, then, the IRS is increasingly focusing on audits that have the “highest value” (i.e., audits that will result in the IRS getting the most money).
That’s where AI and Palantir come in. Co-founded by Alex Karp and Peter Thiel, Palantir provides numerous data-integration and analytics platforms to government agencies worldwide. Federal agencies are Palantir's largest customer group, with government contracts accounting for approximately half of its revenue. It has long provided the government with data platforms for counterterrorism and border security operations in the U.S. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security awarded Palantir a five-year contract worth up to $1 billion.
Now, according to reporting in Wired, the IRS is exploring an increasing role for the data analytics giant in processing tax returns, conducting criminal investigations, and conducting audits.
The Selection and Analytic Platform (SNAP) is an AI tool meant to identify the highest-value cases for audits. It is currently part of a pilot program designed to streamline information from over 100 separate business systems. The idea is to let IRS analysts see relationships across taxpayers, entities, assets, and transactions.
This is not the first time the agency has partnered with Palantir. All told, Palantir has been awarded IRS contracts worth approximately $200 million since 2014. The IRS awarded up to $11.8 million in January 2025 for the SNAP program and other Palantir tools, and recently allocated just under 10% of that budget to enhance SNAP’s capabilities.
Not necessarily, and not this year in particular. It is still in its pilot program phase. Even if SNAP use expands, it’s likely the main focus will remain on large-scale fraud, not on expanding random audits of taxpayers. The IRS intends to use Palantir’s platforms to identify patterns and connections that would be hard to spot manually, like transaction flows that suggest tax evasion schemes.
This could mean analyzing transactions on payment apps like Venmo, among numerous other potential transactions. The IRS would already need to possess all the information SNAP uses. The contract specifies that SNAP can only analyze existing data.
Historically, the IRS has used the Discriminant Information Function (DIF) score to determine whether a tax return should be audited. No one outside of the IRS knows how the DIF score is calculated (to avoid helping taxpayers game the system), but it appears the IRS will use SNAP alongside existing systems like DIF, not replace it.
The benefits the IRS sees in streamlining the process to determine which returns to audit seem straightforward. However, some privacy advocates are warning about the risk of increased financial surveillance. Concerns are always raised when the federal government is using algorithms to compile data on Americans. So, is this simply a modernization effort by the IRS to get rid of obsolete legacy systems? Or is it a red flag suggesting an increasing creep toward a surveillance state?
As with the DIF, the IRS’s use of SNAP is essentially a black box. It’s not clear if the IRS is on a path to create a de facto searchable “mega database” that could be used to compile extensive federal records (or even quasi-public transaction data) on American taxpayers. Even if not, there is concern that SNAP may violate the Privacy Act of 1974.
On the other hand, previous modernization efforts at the IRS have had mixed success, largely because the IRS, despite being a nonpartisan institution, often has its priorities shifted by the current administration. The Trump administration has embraced the use of AI and other technologies across all aspects of government, but future administrations may be more leery of working with tech leaders such as Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Musk headed the Department of Government Efficiency, which kept a hiring freeze at the IRS and had 17,500 workers leave under deferred resignation programs.
For now, it remains to be seen how much the IRS will integrate Palantir tools into its existing processes.
The post IRS Seeking Increased Use of Palantir’s AI and Data Tools to Help Decide Who to Audit appeared first on .
]]>You might think that most workers are protected when they take time off with the flu or other illnesses. But actually, it’s not as straightforward as it may sound. FindLaw can help you sort through the nuances and variations behind the frequently asked question: “Does my employer have to give me sick leave?” To get a useful answer, it helps to break down the question into smaller parts.
There are generally two types of sick leave: paid and unpaid. Many major federal protections, such as the FMLA, apply to unpaid, job‑protected leave, while some state and local laws also protect certain paid sick time.
However, even if unpaid, you generally do not have a blanket legal right to stay home whenever you feel unwell. Outside of specific protections, an at‑will employer can treat unapproved absences as a disciplinary issue. The exceptions can include serious health‑condition leave, state or local sick leave laws, disability‑related accommodations, or contract/union rights.
When a sick leave or leave law does cover you, employers usually cannot punish you for using that protected time. Federal laws like the FMLA and numerous state and local paid sick leave laws prohibit employers from disciplining or retaliating against employees for taking legally protected leave, including treating that leave as an ‘occurrence’ under a no‑fault attendance policy.
Sometimes. It helps to know whether your sick time is covered by law or by the employer's written policies or promises in a handbook or contract. Regarding the former, that kind of requirement doesn’t come from one single national rule. Instead, it’s built from a patchwork of federal laws for certain kinds of medical and family leave.
There are some laws and regulations that force employers to provide paid time off (PTO). However, workers generally receive more legal protections for unpaid time off. Examples of unpaid sick leave laws include the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as state and local sick‑time laws that apply only in specific places and to certain employers.
As far as PTO, Executive Order 13706 requires many employers on covered federal contracts to provide paid sick leave to eligible workers. (Note that EO 13706 does not apply to ordinary federal government employees; it applies to employees of certain federal contractors and subcontractors working on covered contracts.)
If you want a deeper dive into how general leave laws work and when longer medical or family absences are protected, see our Guide to Leave Laws. For more on how employers commonly structure vacation, sick days, and PTO as benefits, and how those sick leave policies interact with state rules, see our article on Vacation and Sick Leave.
What if none of these laws apply to your situation, but your employer has chosen to offer sick days? Does that mean the employer can revoke or amend its sick time policy at will? Not necessarily. A statute might give you a right to sick time that your employer can’t take away, but even without a statute, an employer that clearly promises certain benefits or procedures can sometimes be held to those promises.
Courts in many states look at what an employer put in writing and how consistently it followed those rules when deciding whether employees can rely on them. Under some state laws, clear promises in a handbook or policy (like a set number of sick days, a discipline process, or “just cause” standards) can become an implied contract enforceable against the employer, especially if there’s no strong disclaimer reserving the right to change or ignore the policy. The fine print in your handbook can therefore significantly affect what your employer is legally required to do: for example, language stating it is “not a contract” and may be changed at any time. In addition to handbooks and individual contracts, a collective bargaining agreement can also define your rights, including rules for sick leave, unused‑time payouts, and related procedures.
When you’re sick, the length of time you need off matters just as much as why you’re out. A single day at home with a bad cold is very different, legally and practically, from several weeks off after surgery or for a serious health condition.
For short‑term illnesses, whether you can stay home (and get paid) often depends on your employer’s own sick leave or PTO policy, plus any state or local paid sick time rule where you work. If you’ve accrued paid sick time under a state law or company policy, you may be able to use it in small increments for minor illnesses, preventive care, routine medical care, or other basic health care needs. If there’s no law and no policy, though, your employer may be free to treat a short sick day as an unexcused absence.
Longer stretches of time off (think weeks or months) tend to fall under a different framework. Instead of “sick days,” you may be looking at medical or disability leave, such as unpaid sick leave that is job‑protected, a state family‑leave or disability program, or a private short‑term disability plan. These systems usually apply only if you meet eligibility rules and have a qualifying serious health condition, not just a routine virus. But if you do qualify for one of these leaves, you can use it not only for yourself, but also to care for a family member or domestic partner. In some states, this protection extends to time off for reasons related to domestic violence.
Paid versus unpaid time can also flip as the duration changes. Some workers can cover the first days of an illness with accrued paid sick time or PTO, then shift to unpaid but job‑protected leave, or to partial wage replacement through disability benefits. Others may have no legal right to pay, even when the law protects their job. Understanding which bucket your situation falls into (brief sick day, extended medical leave, paid, unpaid, or some combination) helps you figure out what you can realistically ask for and what the law may actually require. You generally don’t get different rights based on whether a medical condition is a physical illness or mental health-related. What matters is whether it meets the legal standard for a qualifying health condition under the specific leave law.
Employers also often want some proof that you were really sick, especially for longer or repeated absences. They may ask for a doctor’s note or proof of a medical appointment, but they shouldn’t share your information or medical diagnosis beyond those who need to know.
Knowing which rules apply to you—and which don’t—is the first step to answering whether your employer really has to let you stay home when you’re sick. If you’re facing discipline or denial of sick leave and want advice about your options, consider speaking with an employment law attorney in your area.
The post Does My Employer Have to Give Me Sick Leave? appeared first on .
]]>Taxpayers who purchased a new vehicle in 2025 can look forward to a new tax deduction on their next tax return. This new tax benefit allows taxpayers who bought and financed a qualifying vehicle after December 31, 2024, to deduct up to $10,000 of car loan interest from their taxable income.
This new car loan deduction is effective through 2028.
No, only new vehicles that meet certain criteria qualify for the tax deduction. Used vehicle loans are not eligible. Qualifying new vehicles must:
To verify a vehicle’s final assembly, use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) VIN Decoder. All you need is the vehicle label at the dealership and the vehicle identification number (VIN).
Not all taxpayers are income-eligible for the full auto loan deduction. Filers must have a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of less than:
Keep in mind that your MAGI is what’s left after certain deductions, like student loan interest and eligible retirement contributions. This means even high earners may still be eligible for the deduction.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also phases out the deduction gradually—so even if you exceed the income limits above, you may still be able to deduct some of your auto loan interest. For every $1,000 above the MAGI limit, the deduction shrinks by $200. For example, a single filer with a MAGI of $120,000 would see their allowable deduction reduced by $4,000.
The deduction is available regardless of whether you itemize or use the standard deduction.
The Trump Administration’s Big Beautiful Bill introduced other tax savings as well. Other changes, in addition to the auto loan interest deduction, boosted take-home pay for some filers and simplified how certain types of income are taxed.
Other notable updates taxpayers can benefits from in the 2025 and 2026 tax years include:
On the flip side, some clean‑energy credits were eliminated or phased out. Credits for electric vehicles are no longer available for vehicles purchased after September 30, 2025. Tax year 2025 was the last year homeowners could receive a 30% tax credit for rooftop solar, geothermal heat pumps, or battery storage.
The auto loan interest deduction and other changes give many taxpayers new ways to lower their tax bill in 2025 and beyond. As always, staying aware of which rules apply in which tax year can help you make the most of every new credit and deduction available. It also doesn’t hurt to have a good tax professional on your side to help maximize your savings.
The post New for the 2026 Tax Season: The Car Loan Interest Deduction appeared first on .
]]>