Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Manufacturing

Manufacturing

We Understand Manufacturing

Our manufacturing lawyers represent manufacturers and distributors both nationally and internationally. Our clients range from Fortune 50 companies to privately held and/or family-owned companies that sell both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) products and services. We understand that many manufacturers operate within complex supply chains. For that reason, we have experience dealing with situations in which our clients have all, some, or no leverage in business dealings. We also have significant experience within sub-industries of manufacturing, including aerospace, medical device, chemicals, building materials, industrial manufacturers, food and beverage (including nutritional supplements), and technology. Our goal is to provide our clients with new capabilities through experience and innovation.

We Excel

Robinson+Cole was honored with the President’s “E Star” Award for Export Service in 2024 by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, in recognition of the firm’s achievement in making continuing significant contributions to an increase in U.S. exports. In 2019, the firm was presented with the President’s “E” Award, the highest recognition a person or U.S. entity can receive for making a significant contribution to the expansion of U.S. exports. The “E Star” Award is a continuing recognition of noteworthy export promotion efforts. 

We Innovate

Robinson+Cole manufacturing lawyers have earned our reputation as innovative and valuable counselors who know manufacturing. Our lawyers are on the forefront of tackling cutting edge issues facing the industry, as demonstrated by the following series of “firsts” by our team:

MLG-Logo-Web


In 2016, Robinson+Cole created the Manufacturing Law Group (MLG), a forum for in-house lawyers at manufacturing companies that operate worldwide to network with their peers, hear and give presentations on substantive legal topics of interest, and share best practices. Since its inception, the MLG has grown to include nearly 200 manufacturing professionals representing over 100 different companies throughout the United States, Europe and Asia. For more information, please contact Jeff White.

MLG-Logo-Web

Our manufacturing lawyers routinely host executive dinner roundtables for C-suite manufacturing executives of privately held manufacturers. These gatherings take place throughout the year and focus on manufacturing law and business issues specific to privately held manufacturers. For more information, please contact Jeff White.

Experience

Debt + Equity Financing for Candy Manufacturer

Represented a premium candy manufacturer in connection with a convertible note and subsequent Series B Preferred Equity financing.

Creditor Representation

Represented manufacturing company and other trade creditors in numerous national bankruptcy proceedings regarding all facets of creditor representation*

*Attorney Krepto was counsel in this representative transaction prior to joining Robinson+Cole.

Read More

Air Quality: Compliance Strategies + Assurance Systems

Regularly assist manufacturing clients in developing and implementing compliance strategies and assurance systems concerning state and federal air quality requirements relative to existing operations, and in assessing, reporting and resolving compliance issues. 

Read More

Publications

Using AI in Recruiting, Hiring or Other Employment Decisions? Beware of Connecticut’s New Law teaser
June 23, 2026

Using AI in Recruiting, Hiring or Other Employment Decisions? Beware of Connecticut’s New Law

Manufacturing Law Blog
Quota Control: Connecticut’s New Warehouse Law Has Manufacturing Impact teaser
April 30, 2026

Quota Control: Connecticut’s New Warehouse Law Has Manufacturing Impact

Manufacturing Law Blog
Driving Home the Point – Accommodating Employee Commutes teaser
March 25, 2026

Driving Home the Point – Accommodating Employee Commutes

Manufacturing Law Blog
Using AI in Recruiting, Hiring or Other Employment Decisions? Beware of Connecticut’s New Law teaser
June 23, 2026

Using AI in Recruiting, Hiring or Other Employment Decisions? Beware of Connecticut’s New Law

Manufacturing Law Blog
Quota Control: Connecticut’s New Warehouse Law Has Manufacturing Impact teaser
April 30, 2026

Quota Control: Connecticut’s New Warehouse Law Has Manufacturing Impact

Manufacturing Law Blog
Driving Home the Point – Accommodating Employee Commutes teaser
March 25, 2026

Driving Home the Point – Accommodating Employee Commutes

Manufacturing Law Blog
Reminder – Managing Leave During Flu Season teaser
February 17, 2026

Reminder – Managing Leave During Flu Season

Manufacturing Law Blog
January 29, 2026

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers

Industry Today

Labor + Employment group lawyers Abby M. Warren and Christopher A. Costain highlighted five significant labor and employment law related trends for 2026, including generative artificial intelligence and non-compete agreements. The authors suggest that as non-compete statutes “…continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.” Read the article.

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers teaser
January 13, 2026

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers

Manufacturing Law Blog
November 11, 2025

Negotiating with Big Tech: Top 3 Issues To Watch Out For

Industry Today

Focus on negotiating key issues rather than attempting to revise the entire agreement. Companies of all shapes and sizes, from start-ups to major corporations and across all industries, deal with major tech companies in some capacity. Your company is engaging with big tech to license the rights to use a variety of key solutions, which are critical to the smooth operation of your business. Often the pricing and nature of the solutions give the tech company more control over the agreement terms. As a result, your company will typically have to focus on key issues rather than attempting to significantly revise the entire agreement. This article identifies three key issues to be on the lookout for in these agreements and provides tips on the terms worth fighting for. The Right to Terminate A number one priority in negotiating any agreement should be the ability to get out of the relationship if it takes a turn for the worse. Despite what the rest of the contract terms state, you never know what could happen – the vendor could experience a major data breach, go bankrupt, or just stop providing the same caliber of services to you for whatever reason. Your company may want to stop the relationship (or at least have the leverage provided by the option to stop the relationship) and avoid having litigation as the only path forward to either correct or end the relationship. Most big tech companies will not agree to a right for you terminate for convenience at any time, however, there are other ways you may better position yourself to be able to end the agreement, if necessary. Especially for subscription-model license agreements with tech companies, it is common for the term of the subscription to automatically renew. This means that if you subscribe for a one-year term, the subscription will automatically renew at the end of that year (sometimes at the vendor’s then-current rates, which would likely be higher than what you originally agreed to), unless you provide notice within a certain amount of time before the expiration of the initial term. It is not unreasonable to push back on this and request for the agreement to renew only if you elect for renewal prior to the expiration of the initial term. There are also other termination rights you can try to work in that are not as aggressive as a right to terminate for convenience. For instance, you can negotiate for the inclusion of a termination right in the following circumstances: If the vendor upgrades or otherwise changes their software in a way that materially degrades its usefulness for your company; If the vendor is unable to provide the services for a period of time because of some unforeseeable circumstance out of its control (often referred to in contracts as a “force majeure event”); or If the service is in a downgraded state or completely unavailable to you for certain periods of time. At a bare minimum, you can request are the right to terminate if the vendor breaches the agreement or goes bankrupt, which are market standard terms. Rights and Restrictions Regarding Your Data Given the nature of the products and services they are providing, many tech companies will have access to significant amounts of your data and sometimes very sensitive data. As data continues to become more valuable (especially with advancements in artificial intelligence), we are seeing tech companies increasingly try to broaden their rights to use your data in these agreements. There is a delicate balance between ensuring the vendor has the appropriate rights they need to use your data in order to provide the contracted-for product or services, and ensuring that the vendor does not use your data for additional or unnecessary purposes. It is common to see language in a tech vendor’s agreement stating that they have the right to collect, anonymize, and aggregate your data (which can include both the data you input into their software or usage data they gather based on how you interact with their software) and use such data in a broad context, e.g., in order to improve their products and services, to train artificial intelligence, or for other commercial purposes. You can push back on this and may want to consider doing so especially if the language goes as far to say that the vendor owns that data. Push back can be “right sized” to reflect the circumstances and the amount of leverage you have and, therefore, might include rights to use only some of your data or limitations in the types of permitted uses. Many vendors will claim that their software automatically collects, gathers or tracks such information and that there is no way to “turn off” that feature for just one client. If that is the case, then you may need to assess the sensitivity of the information the vendor would have access to and the risks associated with their access and use. If the risk is too great, you may need to walk away from that vendor. Recourse for Breach Lastly, it is important that you have appropriate safeguards in place and a right to recourse for a possible breach so that you can either force vendor’s performance or collect damages for non-performance. Here are some key clauses in a tech agreement where such recourse can be incorporated: Representations and Warranties – Standard representations from a tech vendor that may be appropriate to include are: (1) that the software will function in accordance with any agreed upon specifications; (2) that it will be provided in compliance with laws; (3) that it will not contain viruses; and (4) and that your use of it will not infringe upon any third party’s intellectual property rights. Indemnification – Depending on how much of your data the tech vendor is processing or otherwise has access to, and how sensitive that data is, you may want to try to include data breaches among the claims covered by indemnification. Intellectual property infringement is also important to have covered by indemnification, and this is generally market standard so you can reasonably push for it. You can also consider other “fixes” to infringement, such as requiring the vendor to modify the software so that it is no longer infringing, obtain a license so you can still use it, or provide you with a refund. Limitations on Liability – Pick your battles carefully when it comes to carve-outs on the limitations to liability because vendors will likely push back aggressively on any proposed changes to these terms. Negotiation of the limitations on liability will be related to what you are able to negotiate for the representations and warranties, as well as indemnification. Ideally, you want breaches of representations and indemnification claims to be carved out of limitations on liability; at a minimum, it is market standard for the carve-outs to limitations on liability to include the vendor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The above summaries only scratch the surface on each topic. There are, of course, other elements of tech agreements that are important to closely consider. When you have limited leverage negotiating with bigger companies and you have to pick your battles, the three issues discussed here are important to keep in mind.

November 6, 2025

How Wearable Technology Creates Legal Risks for Manufacturers

Maufacturing.net

Abby and Chris focus on the legal risks manufacturers may face by requiring workers to use wearable technologies at work. Wearable technologies are “smart devices” such as helmets, vests or ergonomic sensors that collect and transmit information, and perform important efficiency and safety-focused functions. These technologies raise various privacy, surveillance and security concerns relating to the collection, monitoring and storage of employee biometric information. Read the article.

October 28, 2025

How To Stay I-9 Compliant in Today’s Immigration World

Industry Today

The current administration has ushered in an era of increasing immigration complexity, especially in the area of Temporary Protected Status. What is TPS? Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a country-specific humanitarian program impacting thousands of workers across industries, including manufacturing. In fact, according to a March 2025 report, an estimated 570,000 TPS beneficiaries are working in the U.S. labor force; 70,000 of which are in the manufacturing industry. TPS is an immigration status for foreign nationals whose home countries the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined to be unsafe due to conditions such as environmental disasters, armed conflicts, epidemics, or other extraordinary conditions.  Not only does TPS temporarily protect eligible individuals from deportation but also allows beneficiaries to work legally in the U.S. throughout the duration of their designated status, which is defined through a TPS-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD). As of October 10, 2025, there are currently 12 countries designated for TPS: Burma, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. Several of these designations are the subjects of active and ongoing federal litigation, the basis of which is largely the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate various TPS designations. In recent months, DHS has issued key updates regarding TPS extensions, redesignations, and EAD validity – all of which impact how employers complete and update Form I-9, DHS’s Employment Eligibility Verification form. Understanding how to best navigate these changes is critical for employers to ensure compliant employment practices, avoid potential penalties, and maintain workforce stability. Venezuela as a TPS Case Study The TPS designation for Venezuela has been extended, redesignated and terminated multiple times by DHS, highlighting how complex I-9 compliance can be for U.S. employers in the wake of federal developments and ongoing litigation. Most recently, DHS’s termination of Venezuela’s TPS designations have been the subject of an ongoing federal court battle, resulting in litigation-driven uncertainties that directly impact how employers verify their employees’ work authorization. The ongoing litigation has forced manufacturing employers to repeatedly update I-9 records and reverify work authorization for impacted employees each time DHS announcements and court rulings change the program’s validity period. As of October 3, 2025, the 2021 designation for Venezuela is slated to terminate on November 7, 2025.  This development comes from DHS Secretary Noem’s publication in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s termination of the 2021 designation. DHS Secretary Noem also terminated the 2023 designation earlier this year, where termination took effect on April 7, 2025. Shortly before it was to take effect, a federal court partially blocked the termination, preserving TPS for only a narrow carve-out of impacted individuals. On September 5, 2025, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of TPS plaintiffs, leading DHS to reinstate the 2023 Venezuela designation. However, on October 3, 2025, the U.S Supreme Court granted DHS’s request to stay the district court decision that had reinstated the 2023 designation. In other words, DHS is now permitted to consider the 2023 designation terminated as of April 2025, rendering impacted individuals deportable and without work authorization while the litigation continues. What does this mean for employers of Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries? After the Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its Venezuela TPS website to confirm that the Supreme Court had allowed the termination of the 2023 designation to “take immediate effect” and that “TPS beneficiaries who received an Employment Authorization Document on or before February 5, 2025, with a ‘Card Expires’ date of October 2, 2026, will maintain work authorization until October 2, 2026.” USCIS has not published updated guidance on the I-9 central page since the Supreme Court ruling, so additional guidance regarding its implementation of the termination may be forthcoming.1 Employers of impacted TPS beneficiaries may wish to contact immigration counsel for advice  on identifying their impacted workforce and next steps to consider. Staying current with TPS-related announcements, training HR personnel accordingly, and perhaps employing immigration compliance counsel, might be appropriate  for maintaining compliance and avoiding discriminatory practices. As DHS continues to issue new guidance and TPS designations shift with geopolitical realities, a flexible and informed compliance strategy is the best defense against risk, and the best way to support a diverse, authorized workforce. I-9 Compliance is A Moving Target, So What May Employers Consider Doing? TPS provides vital humanitarian protection — and critical workforce continuity — across domains including the manufacturing industry. But for employers, it can create a level of compliance complexity that cannot be ignored. Failure to comply with Form I-9 requirements, including the correct handling of TPS documentation and extensions, can result in civil penalties, discrimination claims, or disruption to business operations. Employers must invest in proactive education, systems updates, and consistent internal practices to stay ahead of the evolving regulatory landscape. To remain I-9 compliant, employers, HR departments, and hiring managers may want to consider utilizing an I-9 Compliance checklist, including the following: Stay Informed Directly from the Source (the federal government) ✓ Monitor updates in the Federal Register. ✓ Review Resources for Employers USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274): https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central DHS TPS Updates: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status Federal Register Notices: https://www.federalregister.gov/ E-Verify Program: https://www.e-verify.gov/ ✓ For high-impact workforce decisions, consult with legal immigration counsel. Review and Update I-9s, When Needed ✓ If an employee presents a facially expired EAD that has been auto-extended under TPS, refer to the appropriate DHS notice and ensure the expiration date matches. ✓ Update Section 2 of Form I-9 correctly, noting the extension, EAD category (TPS), and referencing the Federal Register citation. ✓ Do not reverify until the auto-extension period ends. ✓ An expired EAD with a matching auto-extension from DHS may be valid. ✓ A new EAD with updated dates and codes should be reviewed carefully for consistency. ✓ Accept only documents that meet the DHS requirements for List A, B, or C. Avoid Discriminatory Practices ✓ Ensure that all employees are treated consistently throughout the employment verification process. ✓ Be aware of potential national origin discrimination risks when asking for documentation or making employment decisions. For manufacturing employers, workforce needs are often urgent and high-volume, so the stakes of I-9 compliance are particularly high. Employers must stay current with programs like TPS and others that grant employment authorization to ensure their workforce remain authorized. Venezuela TPS is just one example of how rapidly employment eligibility rules change, illustrating just how critical investing in proactive I-9 compliance counsel and systems is.

Reminder – Managing Leave During Flu Season teaser
February 17, 2026

Reminder – Managing Leave During Flu Season

Manufacturing Law Blog
January 29, 2026

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers

Industry Today

Labor + Employment group lawyers Abby M. Warren and Christopher A. Costain highlighted five significant labor and employment law related trends for 2026, including generative artificial intelligence and non-compete agreements. The authors suggest that as non-compete statutes “…continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.” Read the article.

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers teaser
January 13, 2026

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers

Manufacturing Law Blog
November 11, 2025

Negotiating with Big Tech: Top 3 Issues To Watch Out For

Industry Today

Focus on negotiating key issues rather than attempting to revise the entire agreement. Companies of all shapes and sizes, from start-ups to major corporations and across all industries, deal with major tech companies in some capacity. Your company is engaging with big tech to license the rights to use a variety of key solutions, which are critical to the smooth operation of your business. Often the pricing and nature of the solutions give the tech company more control over the agreement terms. As a result, your company will typically have to focus on key issues rather than attempting to significantly revise the entire agreement. This article identifies three key issues to be on the lookout for in these agreements and provides tips on the terms worth fighting for. The Right to Terminate A number one priority in negotiating any agreement should be the ability to get out of the relationship if it takes a turn for the worse. Despite what the rest of the contract terms state, you never know what could happen – the vendor could experience a major data breach, go bankrupt, or just stop providing the same caliber of services to you for whatever reason. Your company may want to stop the relationship (or at least have the leverage provided by the option to stop the relationship) and avoid having litigation as the only path forward to either correct or end the relationship. Most big tech companies will not agree to a right for you terminate for convenience at any time, however, there are other ways you may better position yourself to be able to end the agreement, if necessary. Especially for subscription-model license agreements with tech companies, it is common for the term of the subscription to automatically renew. This means that if you subscribe for a one-year term, the subscription will automatically renew at the end of that year (sometimes at the vendor’s then-current rates, which would likely be higher than what you originally agreed to), unless you provide notice within a certain amount of time before the expiration of the initial term. It is not unreasonable to push back on this and request for the agreement to renew only if you elect for renewal prior to the expiration of the initial term. There are also other termination rights you can try to work in that are not as aggressive as a right to terminate for convenience. For instance, you can negotiate for the inclusion of a termination right in the following circumstances: If the vendor upgrades or otherwise changes their software in a way that materially degrades its usefulness for your company; If the vendor is unable to provide the services for a period of time because of some unforeseeable circumstance out of its control (often referred to in contracts as a “force majeure event”); or If the service is in a downgraded state or completely unavailable to you for certain periods of time. At a bare minimum, you can request are the right to terminate if the vendor breaches the agreement or goes bankrupt, which are market standard terms. Rights and Restrictions Regarding Your Data Given the nature of the products and services they are providing, many tech companies will have access to significant amounts of your data and sometimes very sensitive data. As data continues to become more valuable (especially with advancements in artificial intelligence), we are seeing tech companies increasingly try to broaden their rights to use your data in these agreements. There is a delicate balance between ensuring the vendor has the appropriate rights they need to use your data in order to provide the contracted-for product or services, and ensuring that the vendor does not use your data for additional or unnecessary purposes. It is common to see language in a tech vendor’s agreement stating that they have the right to collect, anonymize, and aggregate your data (which can include both the data you input into their software or usage data they gather based on how you interact with their software) and use such data in a broad context, e.g., in order to improve their products and services, to train artificial intelligence, or for other commercial purposes. You can push back on this and may want to consider doing so especially if the language goes as far to say that the vendor owns that data. Push back can be “right sized” to reflect the circumstances and the amount of leverage you have and, therefore, might include rights to use only some of your data or limitations in the types of permitted uses. Many vendors will claim that their software automatically collects, gathers or tracks such information and that there is no way to “turn off” that feature for just one client. If that is the case, then you may need to assess the sensitivity of the information the vendor would have access to and the risks associated with their access and use. If the risk is too great, you may need to walk away from that vendor. Recourse for Breach Lastly, it is important that you have appropriate safeguards in place and a right to recourse for a possible breach so that you can either force vendor’s performance or collect damages for non-performance. Here are some key clauses in a tech agreement where such recourse can be incorporated: Representations and Warranties – Standard representations from a tech vendor that may be appropriate to include are: (1) that the software will function in accordance with any agreed upon specifications; (2) that it will be provided in compliance with laws; (3) that it will not contain viruses; and (4) and that your use of it will not infringe upon any third party’s intellectual property rights. Indemnification – Depending on how much of your data the tech vendor is processing or otherwise has access to, and how sensitive that data is, you may want to try to include data breaches among the claims covered by indemnification. Intellectual property infringement is also important to have covered by indemnification, and this is generally market standard so you can reasonably push for it. You can also consider other “fixes” to infringement, such as requiring the vendor to modify the software so that it is no longer infringing, obtain a license so you can still use it, or provide you with a refund. Limitations on Liability – Pick your battles carefully when it comes to carve-outs on the limitations to liability because vendors will likely push back aggressively on any proposed changes to these terms. Negotiation of the limitations on liability will be related to what you are able to negotiate for the representations and warranties, as well as indemnification. Ideally, you want breaches of representations and indemnification claims to be carved out of limitations on liability; at a minimum, it is market standard for the carve-outs to limitations on liability to include the vendor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The above summaries only scratch the surface on each topic. There are, of course, other elements of tech agreements that are important to closely consider. When you have limited leverage negotiating with bigger companies and you have to pick your battles, the three issues discussed here are important to keep in mind.

November 6, 2025

How Wearable Technology Creates Legal Risks for Manufacturers

Maufacturing.net

Abby and Chris focus on the legal risks manufacturers may face by requiring workers to use wearable technologies at work. Wearable technologies are “smart devices” such as helmets, vests or ergonomic sensors that collect and transmit information, and perform important efficiency and safety-focused functions. These technologies raise various privacy, surveillance and security concerns relating to the collection, monitoring and storage of employee biometric information. Read the article.

October 28, 2025

How To Stay I-9 Compliant in Today’s Immigration World

Industry Today

The current administration has ushered in an era of increasing immigration complexity, especially in the area of Temporary Protected Status. What is TPS? Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a country-specific humanitarian program impacting thousands of workers across industries, including manufacturing. In fact, according to a March 2025 report, an estimated 570,000 TPS beneficiaries are working in the U.S. labor force; 70,000 of which are in the manufacturing industry. TPS is an immigration status for foreign nationals whose home countries the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined to be unsafe due to conditions such as environmental disasters, armed conflicts, epidemics, or other extraordinary conditions.  Not only does TPS temporarily protect eligible individuals from deportation but also allows beneficiaries to work legally in the U.S. throughout the duration of their designated status, which is defined through a TPS-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD). As of October 10, 2025, there are currently 12 countries designated for TPS: Burma, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. Several of these designations are the subjects of active and ongoing federal litigation, the basis of which is largely the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate various TPS designations. In recent months, DHS has issued key updates regarding TPS extensions, redesignations, and EAD validity – all of which impact how employers complete and update Form I-9, DHS’s Employment Eligibility Verification form. Understanding how to best navigate these changes is critical for employers to ensure compliant employment practices, avoid potential penalties, and maintain workforce stability. Venezuela as a TPS Case Study The TPS designation for Venezuela has been extended, redesignated and terminated multiple times by DHS, highlighting how complex I-9 compliance can be for U.S. employers in the wake of federal developments and ongoing litigation. Most recently, DHS’s termination of Venezuela’s TPS designations have been the subject of an ongoing federal court battle, resulting in litigation-driven uncertainties that directly impact how employers verify their employees’ work authorization. The ongoing litigation has forced manufacturing employers to repeatedly update I-9 records and reverify work authorization for impacted employees each time DHS announcements and court rulings change the program’s validity period. As of October 3, 2025, the 2021 designation for Venezuela is slated to terminate on November 7, 2025.  This development comes from DHS Secretary Noem’s publication in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s termination of the 2021 designation. DHS Secretary Noem also terminated the 2023 designation earlier this year, where termination took effect on April 7, 2025. Shortly before it was to take effect, a federal court partially blocked the termination, preserving TPS for only a narrow carve-out of impacted individuals. On September 5, 2025, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of TPS plaintiffs, leading DHS to reinstate the 2023 Venezuela designation. However, on October 3, 2025, the U.S Supreme Court granted DHS’s request to stay the district court decision that had reinstated the 2023 designation. In other words, DHS is now permitted to consider the 2023 designation terminated as of April 2025, rendering impacted individuals deportable and without work authorization while the litigation continues. What does this mean for employers of Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries? After the Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its Venezuela TPS website to confirm that the Supreme Court had allowed the termination of the 2023 designation to “take immediate effect” and that “TPS beneficiaries who received an Employment Authorization Document on or before February 5, 2025, with a ‘Card Expires’ date of October 2, 2026, will maintain work authorization until October 2, 2026.” USCIS has not published updated guidance on the I-9 central page since the Supreme Court ruling, so additional guidance regarding its implementation of the termination may be forthcoming.1 Employers of impacted TPS beneficiaries may wish to contact immigration counsel for advice  on identifying their impacted workforce and next steps to consider. Staying current with TPS-related announcements, training HR personnel accordingly, and perhaps employing immigration compliance counsel, might be appropriate  for maintaining compliance and avoiding discriminatory practices. As DHS continues to issue new guidance and TPS designations shift with geopolitical realities, a flexible and informed compliance strategy is the best defense against risk, and the best way to support a diverse, authorized workforce. I-9 Compliance is A Moving Target, So What May Employers Consider Doing? TPS provides vital humanitarian protection — and critical workforce continuity — across domains including the manufacturing industry. But for employers, it can create a level of compliance complexity that cannot be ignored. Failure to comply with Form I-9 requirements, including the correct handling of TPS documentation and extensions, can result in civil penalties, discrimination claims, or disruption to business operations. Employers must invest in proactive education, systems updates, and consistent internal practices to stay ahead of the evolving regulatory landscape. To remain I-9 compliant, employers, HR departments, and hiring managers may want to consider utilizing an I-9 Compliance checklist, including the following: Stay Informed Directly from the Source (the federal government) ✓ Monitor updates in the Federal Register. ✓ Review Resources for Employers USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274): https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central DHS TPS Updates: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status Federal Register Notices: https://www.federalregister.gov/ E-Verify Program: https://www.e-verify.gov/ ✓ For high-impact workforce decisions, consult with legal immigration counsel. Review and Update I-9s, When Needed ✓ If an employee presents a facially expired EAD that has been auto-extended under TPS, refer to the appropriate DHS notice and ensure the expiration date matches. ✓ Update Section 2 of Form I-9 correctly, noting the extension, EAD category (TPS), and referencing the Federal Register citation. ✓ Do not reverify until the auto-extension period ends. ✓ An expired EAD with a matching auto-extension from DHS may be valid. ✓ A new EAD with updated dates and codes should be reviewed carefully for consistency. ✓ Accept only documents that meet the DHS requirements for List A, B, or C. Avoid Discriminatory Practices ✓ Ensure that all employees are treated consistently throughout the employment verification process. ✓ Be aware of potential national origin discrimination risks when asking for documentation or making employment decisions. For manufacturing employers, workforce needs are often urgent and high-volume, so the stakes of I-9 compliance are particularly high. Employers must stay current with programs like TPS and others that grant employment authorization to ensure their workforce remain authorized. Venezuela TPS is just one example of how rapidly employment eligibility rules change, illustrating just how critical investing in proactive I-9 compliance counsel and systems is.

News

May 5, 2026

Kevin Daly Confirms Tariff Exemptions After Supreme Court Ruling

Manufacturing Law industry team member Kevin P. Daly was featured in the article, “Aerospace Tariffs Update,” published in Aerospace Manufacturing and Design on March 20, 2026 . In the article, Kevin clarified the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2026. “Civil aircraft parts are among the articles exempt from the new 10% global tariff issued after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The previously imposed Section 232 tariffs [of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962] on steel and aluminum are unaffected by the Supreme Court decision and the new 10% tariff and remain in place.” The article also highlighted a March 6, 2026 Robinson+Cole Legal Update, “After U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Court of International Trade Orders Path Forward,” co-authored by Kevin and his colleagues Kathleen M. Porter and Edward J. Heath.

Aerospace Manufacturing and Design
April 23, 2026

Kevin Daly Says Planning Ahead is Difficult for Businesses in Uncertain Tariff Legal Landscape

Hartford Business Journal
February 13, 2026

Jeff White Shares Legal and Commercial Trends for Manufacturing Industry in 2026

Aerospace Manufacturing and Design
May 5, 2026

Kevin Daly Confirms Tariff Exemptions After Supreme Court Ruling

Manufacturing Law industry team member Kevin P. Daly was featured in the article, “Aerospace Tariffs Update,” published in Aerospace Manufacturing and Design on March 20, 2026 . In the article, Kevin clarified the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2026. “Civil aircraft parts are among the articles exempt from the new 10% global tariff issued after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The previously imposed Section 232 tariffs [of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962] on steel and aluminum are unaffected by the Supreme Court decision and the new 10% tariff and remain in place.” The article also highlighted a March 6, 2026 Robinson+Cole Legal Update, “After U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Court of International Trade Orders Path Forward,” co-authored by Kevin and his colleagues Kathleen M. Porter and Edward J. Heath.

Aerospace Manufacturing and Design
April 23, 2026

Kevin Daly Says Planning Ahead is Difficult for Businesses in Uncertain Tariff Legal Landscape

Hartford Business Journal
February 13, 2026

Jeff White Shares Legal and Commercial Trends for Manufacturing Industry in 2026

Aerospace Manufacturing and Design
February 3, 2026

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Signal AI and Non-Compete Agreements Should Be On Manufacturers’ Radar in 2026

Industry Today
November 13, 2025

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Examine Potential Implications of Wearable Technology

Maufacturing.net
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
October 31, 2025

Jen Shanley and Carmen Ruiz Provide Roadmap for I-9 Compliance in Era of Immigration Complexity

Industry Today
September 12, 2025

Jen Shanley Recognized as a 2025 “40 Under Forty” Awardee

Hartford Business Journal
Jen Shanley Recognized as a 2025 “40 Under Forty” Awardee teaser
September 10, 2025

Jeff White Discusses Tariff Implications and Supply Chains Under Stress on Industry Today Podcast

Industry Insights
February 3, 2026

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Signal AI and Non-Compete Agreements Should Be On Manufacturers’ Radar in 2026

Industry Today
November 13, 2025

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Examine Potential Implications of Wearable Technology

Maufacturing.net
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
October 31, 2025

Jen Shanley and Carmen Ruiz Provide Roadmap for I-9 Compliance in Era of Immigration Complexity

Industry Today
September 12, 2025

Jen Shanley Recognized as a 2025 “40 Under Forty” Awardee

Hartford Business Journal
Jen Shanley Recognized as a 2025 “40 Under Forty” Awardee teaser
September 10, 2025

Jeff White Discusses Tariff Implications and Supply Chains Under Stress on Industry Today Podcast

Industry Insights

Events

Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

May 6 2026
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration's Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

Oct 22 2025
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

May 6 2026
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration's Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Navigating Legal Essentials in Distributor Agreements & IP Protection

Oct 22 2025
U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration Mastering International Distributor Success Seminar
Past

Legal Updates on Supply Chain Trends Impacting Company

Oct 14 2025
Aerospace Components Manufacturers Business Development Meeting
Past

Regulatory Changes, Supply Chain Risks, and Sanctions: Rightsizing Your Compliance Program

May 8 2025
Manufacturers Alliance Webinar, underwritten by Dow Jones Risk & Compliance
Past

Dealing with Change and Building a Sustainable Culture

May 6 2025
CBIZ Manufacturing Forum
Past

Accelerate Business Growth: Strategies for Raising Capital and Increasing Enterprise Value

Apr 10 2025
ManufactureCT's 2025 Growth Strategies
Past

Legal Updates on Supply Chain Trends Impacting Company

Oct 14 2025
Aerospace Components Manufacturers Business Development Meeting
Past

Regulatory Changes, Supply Chain Risks, and Sanctions: Rightsizing Your Compliance Program

May 8 2025
Manufacturers Alliance Webinar, underwritten by Dow Jones Risk & Compliance
Past

Dealing with Change and Building a Sustainable Culture

May 6 2025
CBIZ Manufacturing Forum
Past

Accelerate Business Growth: Strategies for Raising Capital and Increasing Enterprise Value

Apr 10 2025
ManufactureCT's 2025 Growth Strategies

Manufacturing Law Blog

The Manufacturing Law Blog remains a trendsetter in the industry, as evidenced by its placement as a top search result on Google. The Blog was one of the first in the country to address legal issues facing manufacturers and distributors and is written by experienced lawyers covering issues concerning environmental, health, and safety / OSHA, labor and employment, and corporate compliance and litigation. The Blog has received thousands of visits since its launch. Click here to subscribe.

Using AI in Recruiting, Hiring or Other Employment Decisions? Beware of Connecticut’s New Law

This article was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer, Christopher Costain. On May 29, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law comprehensive online safety legislation with significant impacts for employers, which takes effect on October 1, 2026. The law follows in the footsteps of similar legislation enacted recently around the country which creates various new compliance obligations for employers leveraging artificial intelligence tools to assist in making employment-related decisions. Employers seeking to harness the power of these new and emerging technologies should ensure compliance with this new framework. Automated Employment-Related Decision Technology The law restricts an employer’s ability to use “automated employment-related decision technology” (AEDT) to help make employment-related decisions; this is defined as any technology that processes personal data and uses computation to generate an output, prediction, ranking, recommendation, or scoring that is a substantial factor used to make or materially influence an employment-related decision, carving out common software that does not do so, such as word processing systems, spreadsheets, or other data that is purely descriptive, diagnostic, or statistical in nature. Under the law, “employment-related decision” means any decision made based on an individual’s personal data to hire, promote, discipline, or discharge such individual, or affect such individual’s terms and conditions of employment, but does not include decisions made with respect to workplace health and safety, scheduling and planning, or productivity.  Disclosure Obligations Beginning October 1, 2027, employers must inform any employee or applicant in plain language when they are interacting with an AEDT to the extent that such interaction would not be obvious to a reasonable person. The law also requires that employers using AEDT to generate an output for the purpose of making, or to use as a substantial factor in making an employment-related decision, must provide to the employee or applicant a written notice disclosing: That the employer is using an AEDT; The purpose of the AEDT and the nature of the employment-related decision; The trade name of the AEDT; The categories of personal data concerning such employee or applicant that will be analyzed by the AEDT, including how such data will be processed to reach a determination; The sources of the personal data used; and The employer’s contact information. The law does not specify when an employer’s disclosure obligations are triggered within the employment-related decision-making process, as opposed to in connection with “interactions” with an employee or applicant. However, forthcoming implementing regulations may distinguish between these situations so that employers can recognize when and which disclosure obligations are triggered. The law does not require the disclosure of trade secrets or information that is otherwise protected from disclosure by law; however, to the extent information is withheld on such basis, notice must be provided to the person from whom such information is withheld disclosing the fact that information was withheld and the basis for doing so. If AEDT developers have the information above, they must provide that information to the employer so the employer can fulfill its disclosure obligations. Interestingly, the law specifically permits employers to enter into contracts with developers of AEDT to assume the employer’s disclosure obligations under the law, so long as the contract specifically identifies which of the employer’s disclosure obligations the developer is agreeing to assume. Amendments to Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act The law amends the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act effective October 1, 2026, to provide that the use of an AEDT is not a defense to a complaint alleging a discriminatory employment practice. However, the law explicitly permits the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, or a court, to consider evidence of anti-bias testing or other proactive efforts to avoid discriminatory outcomes in making their determination. The law specifically contemplates that such evidence may include the quality, efficacy, recency, and scope of such testing or efforts, the results of those efforts, and the employer’s response thereto. Enforcement and Penalties Violations of the law constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut Uniform Trade Practices Act and may be enforced solely by the Attorney General. For violations occurring on or before December 31, 2027, the Attorney General may issue a notice of violation to an employer or developer if the violation can be cured, in which case such developer or employer shall have 60 days to cure such violation prior to the initiation of a formal action.  Importantly, the law does not provide a private right of action. Conclusion Employers deploying AEDT should be prepared to comply with the new law, including by reviewing specifically how and to what extent an AEDT is utilized within the context of the employment-related decision-making process. Employers should also be mindful that, although the use of AEDT systems cannot be used as a shield against claims of discrimination, factfinders may consider an employer’s efforts to audit such systems to ensure the preservation of fair, non-discriminatory outcomes. To that end, regular, independent, and thorough assessments of employment processes in which AEDTs are being used and appropriate remedial actions where necessary to mitigate risk will both be increasingly important under this new law.

Visit Blog

Quota Control: Connecticut’s New Warehouse Law Has Manufacturing Impact

This article was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer, Christopher Costain. In March 2026, a Connecticut bill was signed into law which sets new compliance standards for large warehouse employers that use production quotas and related metrics in assessing worker performance. Once the law goes into effect on July 1, 2026, Connecticut will become the sixth state in the country to have enacted such a law, joining California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington. For large manufacturers, the new law will significantly impact how employee performance is tracked. Who Is Covered The law defines “employer” as any commercial entity that, at any time in the prior 12 months: Employs 250 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center in Connecticut; or Employs 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in Connecticut.  Notably, the employee headcount thresholds include workers who are employed indirectly, such as through a third-party employer or temporary staffing service or agency. Covered employees are those workers who are non-exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. The law applies only to employers that operate “warehouse distribution centers,” which is defined as a warehouse or warehouse complex as contained within certain North American Industry Classification Systems Codes related to warehousing and storage, merchant wholesalers, e-commerce and mail-order merchants, couriers and delivery services, and warehouse retail establishments. Covered Quotas & Performance Standards When the law goes into effect, covered employers will be required to disclose information to workers regarding quota and work speed data performance standards. A “quota” is defined as a work performance standard under which: An employee is assigned or required to perform at a specific productivity speed, or complete a certain number of tasks, or produce a certain amount of material within a defined time period; An employee’s time spent performing tasks when a defined time period is measured, recorded, or tallied; or An employee’s performance is ranked in relation to the performance of other employees. The law also defines “work speed data” as the specific metrics collected by an employer indicating the amount of tasks performed or materials handled or produced by an employee within a period of time, and whether any amount of that time was spent not performing tasks or handling materials. Quota Disclosure & Recordkeeping Obligations The law includes several key compliance obligations for covered employers, including quota information disclosure and recordkeeping requirements: No later than August 1, 2026, for current employees, or at the time of hiring for new employees, covered employers must provide a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject, including any potential adverse employment action that may result from a failure to satisfy such quota; If a covered employer changes a quota, it must notify all employees subject to that quota before the new quota goes into effect, in addition to providing a written description of the new quota no later than two business days after the change is made; and Covered employers must maintain records of each employee’s work speed data, the aggregated work speed data for similar employees at the same warehouse distribution center, and written descriptions of quotas provided to employees, for three years.  Importantly, employers that do not assign or require quotas are not required to preserve any of the records required under the law. Employee Requests for Quota Information Under the law, current and former employees may request the following information from their employer or former employer, which must be provided within ten calendar days of receipt of such request, if the employee or former employee believes a quota violates the law: A written description of each quota to which the employee is/was subject; A copy of the employee’s personal work speed data for the prior 90 days/the 90 days prior to the employee’s separation from employment; and A copy of the aggregated work speed data for similar employees at the same warehouse distribution center for the prior 90 days/the 90 days prior to the employee’s separation from employment. Permissible Quotas & Quota Restrictions The law also prohibits employers from implementing any quotas that: Prevent compliance with meal period requirements under Connecticut law; Interfere with the use of bathroom facilities, including travel time to and from such facilities; Measure an employee’s performance over a period of time that is shorter than the employee’s workday; or Set a performance standard that is based solely on ranking the employee’s performance in relation to the performance of other employees. Anti-Retaliation & Penalties Employers are prohibited from (1) discharging, retaliating or discriminating against, or (2) taking any adverse employment action against, any employee or former employee for requesting information related to quotas to which they are subject. The law also establishes a presumption of retaliation for adverse employment actions taken within 90 days of protected activity. The presumption of retaliation can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse employment action was taken for a permissible reason or that the employee’s engagement in protected activity was not a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to take such adverse action. Employees, or the Attorney General (on behalf of a group of employees), may bring an action in the Superior Court to recover damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, employers that violate the law will be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second violation, and $3,000 for a third or any subsequent violation. Key Takeaways for Manufacturers Manufacturers who may be covered under this new law should review all existing quotas and work speed data metrics to ensure they do not violate the law (such as interfering with meal periods or monitoring employee performance for a period of time that is shorter than the employee’s workday), and ensure that records are being preserved in compliance with the law. Manufacturers should also determine whether existing quota systems are supported by written policies or descriptions, and prepare quota disclosure notices prior to the August 1, 2026, deadline. In all cases, manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with the new law and other important employment law issues. 

Visit Blog

DOJ Announces First False Claims Act Settlement for “Illegal DEI Practices”

This post was co-authored by Government Enforcement + White-Collar Defense Team lawyers Seth B. Orkand and Danielle H. Tangorre and Litigation group lawyer Mallori D. Thompson. This post was originally published as a Legal Update. On April 10, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a nearly $17.1 million settlement with IBM to resolve allegations that IBM engaged in “illegal DEI practices” and violated the False Claims Act by failing to comply with anti-discrimination requirements in federal contracts. Notably, under the settlement agreement, IBM did not admit liability and expressly denied that it engaged in the conduct alleged. This settlement, and the underlying policy initiative on which it is based, have profound implications for entities that receive federal funding or have government contracts. Background of DOJ’s Focus on DEI Programs Most federal contracts contain provisions that require contractors to certify that it will abide by federal civil rights laws and not discriminate against job applicants or employees on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. On President Trump’s first day in office, he issued two executive orders requiring every federal contract or grant award to include a clause making compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws material to payment for purposes of the False Claims Act, and a certification that the contractor/grantee “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” The orders also direct the DOJ and other government agencies to identify and investigate “egregious” DEI practitioners in key sectors, expressly including “the medical industry.”  On July 15, 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum directing aggressive DOJ enforcement against race-based, sex-based, or other DEI programs maintained by any entity receiving federal funds. This memorandum directs the DOJ Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorneys to treat receipt of any federal funds, including Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS program funds, as creating enforceable anti-discrimination compliance obligations under: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act; The False Claims Act (FCA); and Title IX The IBM settlement is the FCA resolution under DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, launched in May 2025.  IBM’s DEI-Related Conduct at Issue The DOJ alleges that IBM took race, color, national origin, and sex into account when making employment decisions, including by: bonusing employees for achieving demographic recruiting targets; using methods to identify “diverse” candidates for hiring, transfer, and promotion, including the use of “diverse interview slates,” “diverse sources,” and altering interview eligibility criteria based on protected characteristics; developing race and sex demographic goals for business units and taking race and sex into account in employment decisions to make progress toward those goals; and offering training, partnerships, mentoring, leadership development programs, and educational opportunities to employees on the basis of race or sex. Interestingly, the DOJ alleges that IBM engaged in the alleged conduct since at least January 19, 2019, to the present, meaning that DOJ is retroactively applying the Trump Administration’s current view of DEI programs to a period including the first Trump and Biden presidencies. The settlement agreement suggests that the settlement amount IBM agreed to was determined on the basis of indirect costs (overhead) that IBM allocated to its federal contracts for these practices during the period covered by the agreement.  Implications for Government Contractors and HR and Compliance Departments From a risk management perspective, this settlement is a reminder that the DOJ expressly considers DEI programs as violative of federal anti-discrimination laws. Clients that receive federal funding would be well advised to require their HR and talent teams to scrutinize DEI programs that set demographic goals and program eligibility criteria and provide incentive compensation structures on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex.  For compliance functions, the settlement also highlights the DOJ’s continued emphasis on cooperation credit in FCA resolutions. The agreement states IBM was credited for cooperation, including early disclosure of facts relevant to the investigation gathered during IBM’s independent investigation, assistance in determining damages and penalties, and voluntary remedial measures such as terminating and/or modifying certain programs, policies, or other activities described in the covered conduct. The settlement reinforces the importance of aligning employment practices with the contractor’s government contract-incorporated obligations, and ensuring internal controls can detect and escalate potential noncompliance. The agreement’s express cooperation credit language also highlights the value the DOJ places on early factual disclosure, structured internal investigations, and documented remediation.  For government contractors, the settlement is also a cost-charging cautionary tale. The DOJ’s allegations included that IBM allocated indirect costs associated with the challenged practices to federal contracts and sought reimbursement for them. Contractors should reconsider whether allocating costs associated with overhead for diversity-related employment goals should be charged to the government. What We Are Watching We anticipate that this settlement is the first of many to come during the remainder of the Trump Administration. It will undoubtedly encourage whistleblowers to come forward to report race- and sex-based DEI hiring and employment activities in the hope of obtaining a portion of the government’s settlement proceeds. We will continue to monitor how DOJ claims to satisfy the materiality element of the False Claims Act and uses the false certification theory to prosecute recipients of federal funding, such as health care entities receiving reimbursements from federal health care programs, and awardees of federal grant money required to certify compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.

Visit Blog

Winona County Victim of Cyber Attack

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued an emergency executive order on April 7, 2026, dispatching the Minnesota National Guard after Winona County requested assistance following a cyber attack disrupting its “critical systems and digital services.” The attack occurred on April 6, 2026, and is “significantly impairing the county’s ability to deliver vital emergency and municipal services.” The attackers are currently unknown, but it is further evidence of the increased threat of cyber-attacks following the war in Iran, which is the subject of a Joint Advisory issued by federal government agencies warning government agencies and critical infrastructure to prepare and prevent cyber-attacks during the war in Iran. Despite a two-week cease fire, Iran has always been a formidable cyber adversary, and it is anticipated that the cyber-attacks will continue as normal. This post was co-authored by Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team and Artificial Intelligence team chair Linn F. Freedman. The post is also being shared on our Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on developments affecting data privacy and security, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

Visit Blog

Water Treatment Facility Downed with Ransomware Attack

Critical infrastructure operators at the water treatment plant in Minot, North Dakota, were forced to resort to manual processes when its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system became inoperable as a result of a March 14, 2026, ransomware attack. The attackers are unidentified, but it comes in the wake of the war in Iran, and both Iran and China are known to lead cyber-attacks against water utilities, which often have vulnerabilities that make them easy targets. Last month, the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center, along with information sharing organizations for the auto, aviation, food, health, IT, national defense, oil and natural energy, and retail and hospitality industries issued a Joint Advisory to their members, including water facilities, warning them of increased cyberattacks from Iranian hackers, as well as physical attacks against critical infrastructure entities. The warning concluded by stating that “the threat environment is likely to remain highly volatile.” Minot’s water system provides water to approximately 80,000 users. Although the water supply and quality were not affected by the attack, operators were required to manually read gauges for 16 hours while they uninstalled the compromised SCADA system. It has taken Minot over two weeks to spin up a new server.   Since water facilities are a target for nation state cyber actors, the state of New York recently introduced cybersecurity standards for both drinking and wastewater treatment facilities. Other states will hopefully follow suit so the water supply and quality available will be less vulnerable to attack. Critical infrastructure operators should be aware of the heightened risk, prepare for an attack, and test their incident response processes through a cybersecurity tabletop exercise that is designed to address a shut down so processes can be improved and services restored as efficiently as possible. We all depend on the basic necessities of food, water, electricity, and access to financial services, all of which could be downed by an attack and dramatically impact our lives. We depend on critical infrastructure operators to have measures in place to prevent and mitigate the effects of an attack. This post was co-authored by Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team and Artificial Intelligence team chair Linn F. Freedman. The post is also being shared on our Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on developments affecting data privacy and security, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

Visit Blog

Joint Advisory Warns of Iran Cyber Actors Attacking U.S. Critical Infrastructure

Iran has always been a formidable cyber threat to the United States, but after the war in Iran commenced, the attacks are coming frequently and in full force. According to the Joint Cybersecurity Advisory issued on April 7, 2026, by the FBI, CISA, NSA, EPA, DOE, and Cyber Command, Iranian-based hackers are targeting operational technology devices connected to the internet, including programmable logic controllers (PLC). The Advisory notes that the PLC disruptions have been seen “across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious interactions with the project file and manipulation of data...resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.” The Advisory states that U.S. organizations “should urgently review the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.” If your organization is considered critical infrastructure, it is crucial to review the Advisory, including the indicators of compromise and mitigation techniques. This post was co-authored by Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team and Artificial Intelligence team chair Linn F. Freedman. The post is also being shared on our Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on developments affecting data privacy and security, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

Visit Blog

Driving Home the Point – Accommodating Employee Commutes

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain. While employers are typically aware of their obligations to engage in the interactive process in response to reasonable accommodation requests due to disability under federal and state law, employers may not be aware of one specific accommodation request that may be on the rise of late – commuting accommodations. For example, an employee may request to work remotely or under a hybrid schedule based on a medical condition. While such accommodations may be typically associated with remote or hybrid work schedule arrangements, employers may receive other requests such as changes to work schedule or hours among others. Therefore, the question remains – are employers required to accommodate requests related to their daily commute? Commuting Accommodations Under the ADA and Equivalent State Law Whether an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability in connection with their commute to work under applicable law is a legal issue that has evolved in recent years. Historically, an employee’s length and means of commute were considered outside the employer’s control and therefore, typically, employers were not required to provide reasonable accommodations with regard to employee commutes. However, court decisions in recent years, especially after COVID-19, have held that, in certain circumstances, employers may have an obligation to accommodate an employee in relation to their commute. Recent Nationwide Court Decisions and Federal Agency Guidance In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held, in EEOC v. Charter Communications, 75 F.4th 729 (7th Cir. 2023), that the employer was required to provide a schedule accommodation to an employee who experienced difficulty driving at night due to a vision impairment. The Charter Court found that, because the employee’s disability substantially interfered with his ability to travel to and from work, and because commuting to work was a prerequisite to the essential job function of attendance, the employee was entitled to a work schedule accommodation that would allow him to drive only during the daytime. The court also took note of the fact that the employee experienced difficulty in accessing the workplace because of their work schedule, over which the employer had control as it related to scheduling the employee for shifts throughout the week. The court distinguished the plaintiff’s need for a commute accommodation from other cases in which employees were not entitled to accommodations based on the fact that they lived far from the workplace, a variable that was within the employee’s control. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance in February 2026 reiterating  the Charter Court’s holding, providing that employers may be required to consider flexible work schedules to enable a qualified employee with a disability to effectively accomplish their commute and access the workplace.  Additionally, in 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, 132 F.4th242 (2d Cir. 2025), that employees may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation even if they are able to perform their essential job functions without an accommodation. Therefore, the fact that an employee is able to perform their essential job functions once they arrive at the workplace and irrespective of their commute, does not foreclose the possibility that they may be entitled to a commuting accommodation, such as a schedule adjustment so the employee may use public transportation or drive during the daytime, to allow them to get to and from work with less difficulty. Key Takeaways for Evaluating Requests for Commute Accommodations In all cases, the employee’s requested commute accommodation must be: 1) reasonable; 2) related to the employee’s ability to perform their essential job functions (as opposed to simply providing a personal benefit to the employee or eliminating a perceived inconvenience to the employee); 3) it cannot eliminate an employee’s essential job function; and 4) it cannot pose an undue hardship on the employer. Manufacturers should also consider the nature of the employee’s difficulty in commuting to work, including whether the employee or the employer have control over the variables that are causing that difficulty.  In addition to engaging in the interactive process with employees who request reasonable accommodations, manufacturers should ensure that requests for reasonable accommodations are reviewed carefully by human resources professionals, that employees are asked to clarify the nature of their request when necessary, and that employees provide sufficient medical documentation to support their request. Although employees decide where and how far away from the workplace they live, employers decide how to manage the schedule and should be prepared to review employee requests for commuting accommodations with these key legal principles in mind. Manufacturers should also consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and other important employment law issues. 

Visit Blog

Reminder – Managing Leave During Flu Season

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain. Flu season, which extends into spring, can be a particularly long season for manufacturers, especially when their workforces and workplaces are significantly impacted by the illness. Below are reminders for manufacturers about the various legal implications related to the flu and its impact on the workplace.  Paid Sick Leave Employees who contract the flu without significant medical complications may be able to use accrued paid sick leave under the law and under an employer’s policy to cover time off to seek medical treatment or to rest and recover. Many states and localities have implemented paid sick leave programs in recent years requiring employers to provide paid sick leave to employees in connection with their own illnesses in addition to providing care to family members. In addition to the new paid sick leave laws, existing laws continue to develop, expanding the qualifying reasons for the permitted use of leave and the definitions of family members who are covered by the law. Manufacturers should stay up to date with applicable paid sick leave laws and ensure compliance with changing requirements as employees seek to use their accrued leave to recover during flu season. Family and Medical Leave Although the flu generally does not trigger protections under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or its state equivalents, employees may be entitled to job-protected leave if they, or their covered family member, are suffering from a particularly severe case. Specifically, cases of the flu that involve medical complications may trigger FMLA protections if they constitute a “serious health condition,” meaning they involve either inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. Where the flu and related medical complications incapacitate an employee for more than three calendar days and require a course of continuing treatment, the employee may be entitled to leave under the FMLA. In reviewing employee requests for leave in connection with the flu, manufacturers should be aware that mere communications between an employee and a healthcare provider, such as communications through a provider messaging portal or by telephone or email, generally do not constitute continuing treatment under the FMLA. Additionally, manufacturers should keep in mind that they may require employees to submit a certification from a healthcare provider supporting the need for FMLA leave.  Reasonable Accommodations Generally, short-term illnesses such as the flu and the common cold are not considered disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and therefore do not entitle an employee to leave as a reasonable accommodation. However, short-term or temporary conditions that are sufficiently severe or involve complications may meet the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by substantially limiting one or more of the employee’s major life activities. In such rare cases, and to the extent an employee is not otherwise eligible for or has exhausted their available job-protected leave under the federal or state FMLA, employees may be eligible for leave as an accommodation under the ADA. In such cases in which an employee not otherwise eligible for leave under the FMLA requests leave as an accommodation under the ADA, manufacturers should engage in the interactive process to determine whether an accommodation is necessary. Managing Leave and Time Off During Flu Season As the 2026 flu season continues to impact business operations throughout winter and into  spring, manufacturers should ensure that managers are managing employee absence and leave consistent with their policies on attendance, absences, leave, and time off, as well as applicable law. Managers should be reminded to confer with Human Resources about these issues before taking action, to ensure such actions are consistent with the law and relevant policies. In addition, employers who suspect that there may be employee abuse of their time-off and leave policies should consult competent legal counsel to address these issues.

Visit Blog

Environmental Developments Manufacturers Should Monitor in 2026

Welcome to the last of our three posts with our look ahead to 2026—the environmental edition. If you follow this blog, you have probably sensed a trend: environmental regulation rarely moves in a straight line. This coming year will be no different. Below is a more detailed look at three areas we will be watching this year. 1. PFAS Reporting and Liability Manufacturers will be spending more time thinking about PFAS in 2026. We have been talking about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule for years, and it is expected to become final early in 2026. As we previously reported, this rule will require manufacturers to report certain information on PFAS-containing articles going back as far as 2011. The EPA proposed some important changes to the rule at the end of 2025, including exemptions for de minimis concentrations, imported articles and chemicals used in research and development. Once the TSCA rule is finalized, it will require manufacturers to report extensive information about PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, exposures, and disposal. In addition to the federal reporting requirement, states are getting in on the action. If your products travel into Minnesota, Minnesota’s sweeping PFAS‑in‑products statute (Amara’s Law) will require you to report products with intentionally added PFAS. By July 1, 2026, manufacturers will be required to disclose product‑specific PFAS details, including the type and amount of the PFAS in the product as well as its purpose or function. These federal and state reporting obligations create challenges for manufacturers to dive deep into their supply chains in an attempt to gather the required information. For sectors using PFAS indirectly—such as coatings, plastics, electronics, and molded components—the data‑gathering burden may be significant. In addition to reporting obligations, investigation and remedial obligations related to PFAS are on the rise. The EPA plans to maintain CERCLA hazardous‑substance designations for PFOA and PFOS, signaling continued expansion of PFAS‑related cost recovery and cleanup obligations. That means manufacturers with current or historical PFAS use—or who acquired property with legacy PFAS contamination—will likely face increased risk of enforcement actions or third‑party claims. 2. Water Law Uncertainty: WOTUS and NPDES Permitting Changes Water regulation remains a challenge for many manufacturers, and 2026 won’t offer much relief. As my colleagues have previously explained, the continued regulatory back‑and‑forth regarding the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act has left manufacturers guessing as to the activities that will trigger Clean Water Act jurisdiction. This matters because facility expansions, stormwater projects, and wetlands issues all hinge on these key jurisdictional determinations. At the same time, both EPA and states are tightening oversight of NPDES permitting for indirect discharges. Manufacturers whose wastewater enters complex conveyance systems, such as municipal treatment systems, may face additional pretreatment, sampling, monitoring, and recordkeeping obligations as regulators try to close gaps in indirect discharge oversight. Spoiler alert—PFAS are emerging in this context, too. 3. The Patchwork of State Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Laws For manufacturers selling their products into multiple states, the growing patchwork of packaging EPR laws is quickly becoming a compliance challenge. A number of states, including Colorado, California, and Minnesota, now have packaging EPR programs, each with different definitions of producer, different covered packaging materials, and different registration and reporting deadlines. And many states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are poised to follow. The variability in these laws makes it difficult for manufacturers looking to develop a one-size-fits-all approach. Manufacturers should stay on top of these laws and their requirements in an attempt to develop as streamlined a strategy as possible for compliance.

Visit Blog

2026 Corporate Compliance & Litigation Outlook for Manufacturers

In late 2012, we created the Manufacturing Law Blog with the goal of providing our manufacturing clients with a holistic approach to the unique issues they face in their global operations.  Starting in 2016, we began a tradition of dedicating our first three posts of the year to a yearly outlook from different vantage points. Here are corporate compliance and litigation issues that manufacturers might expect to face in 2026: Tariffs are here to stay: We are all waiting to see how the United States Supreme Court rules on the legality of the “reciprocal tariffs.” There is a significant amount of activity regarding the “what ifs” surrounding the ruling, including whether companies will be able to seek refunds. What is more certain, however, is that there is no indication that the administration will return to a “low tariff” environment. The manufacturing industry will continue to be impacted by the steel and aluminum (232 tariffs) as well as other similar tariffs developed over time. We have worked with many manufacturers to mitigate their tariff exposure through various means, which will continue in 2026. M&A Activity will continue to be hot for manufacturers of all sizes: In 2025, our group handled over 15 transactions; some were for corporate buyers and others were for private equity; some were acquisitions and others were sales; and some were very large in terms of transaction size and others were small. The M&A market for small to medium sized manufacturers will remain hot. The key for all businesses is to be prepared and have your advisory team in place—the competition for deals remains fierce.   Business to business disputes are becoming more prevalent: Everyone always talks about lawsuits that make the news. But for many manufacturers, there are disputes that never make the headlines and, frankly, never make it to court. We are always advising companies behind the scenes as they try to enforce contractual rights or defend against them with sensitivity for business issues. Too often, lawyers forget that disputes can be opportunities to keep and expand business—just as much as it may destroy relationships. Further, if you are going to get into a contract dispute with someone, the key is to learn from it and improve the contractual language moving forward. Too many manufacturers are relying on templates and that can burn companies when enforcement is required.   

Visit Blog

Firm Highlights

News
Kate Dion and Natale DiNatale Examine the Legal Questions Raised By Sorsby Injunction

Education industry team chair Kathleen Dion and Labor Relations group chair Natale DiNatale discussed the potential ramifications on the NCAA and college athletes in the article, “NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win,” published in USA Today, June 8, 2026. Kate pointed out that the injunction is a temporary measure. “This decision is only a preliminary ruling and is subject to appeal. Unless it is overturned, the injunction preserves Sorsby’s opportunity to compete this fall while the underlying case proceeds and allows him to continue preparing for a potential NFL career. For the NCAA, the ruling raises questions about the extent to which courts may review and potentially limit the enforcement of eligibility and competitive-integrity rules in individual cases.”  She continued, “It is also important to recognize that this is one state trial court decision, not a final decision on the merits, and thus its precedential value may be limited. While the court found that Sorsby demonstrated a probable right to the relief that he seeks on his breach of contract and other claims, which is a necessary element for obtaining a temporary injunction — the order does not appear to provide a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning on that issue. As a result, many of the legal questions raised by the case are likely to remain the subject of further litigation and possible appellate review.” Discussing the foundation of the claim, Natale said, “The underlying dispute looks like a claim that the NCAA failed to accommodate a disability (e.g. an ADA claim based on a gambling addiction). But, it was brought as a breach of contract claim. A contract claim can be brought and maybe kept, in state court, which is likely a friendlier forum for this athlete.” Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

News
Julianna Charpentier Recognized as an “Up & Coming Lawyer”
News
Erica Kerstein Brings Credibility and Business Perspective to New Role as Practice Group Chair

Insurance + Reinsurance group chair Erica J. Kerstein was featured in a Law.com column titled, “How I Made Practice Group Chair,” published on April 15, 2026. In the article, Erica discusses her new role as a practice group chair and how it has expanded her insight into not only the firm’s strategic vision and goals, but the reality of running a business and ensuring that current planning aligns with future goals. “The role provides a window into how individual practices fit into the firm’s overall strategy,” said Erica. “You’re thinking not just about today’s matters, but about where clients are headed, how the industry is changing, and how the firm positions itself to meet those needs.” In addition, Erica also identified “…strengthening client relationships, investing in our people, and staying ahead of emerging issues—particularly around technology and artificial intelligence in the insurance space…” as key priorities for the practice. Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Expands Philadelphia Office at Landmark Liberty Place
News
Dana Horton Ascends to Presidency of Rhode Island Bar Association
News
Robinson+Cole’s People-First Culture Recognized in Vault’s 2027 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
News
Robinson+Cole Integrates Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research into Newcode.ai Platform to Advance Secure, Verifiable Legal Research

Robinson+Cole has expanded its firmwide artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities by integrating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, the agentic AI platform implemented last year by the firm to support legal workflows across practices. With this integration, Robinson+Cole is one of only two law firms with direct access to the Deep Research API—and the only firm deploying it through Newcode.ai. Building on its 2025 partnership with Newcode.ai —making Robinson+Cole the first Am Law 200 firm to adopt the platform—the firm has continued to expand its AI capabilities as part of a broader strategy focused on secure deployment, ethical use, and seamless integration into daily legal work. The integration enables Robinson+Cole attorneys to conduct complex, multi‑step legal research and receive verifiable, citation‑backed responses grounded in trusted Thomson Reuters content. By embedding Deep Research into Newcode.ai, Robinson+Cole continues to build on its deliberate, governance‑first approach to AI adoption while delivering meaningful, practice‑ready innovation for its lawyers and clients. “Innovation at Robinson+Cole is grounded in client service, security, and practicality,” said J. Michael Wirvin, Managing Partner of Robinson+Cole. “By incorporating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, we are providing our lawyers with advanced research capabilities in a secure environment fully controlled by the firm that aligns with our standards for data governance, accuracy, and responsible AI use. This integration reflects our continued focus on adopting technology thoughtfully to support our attorneys and deliver value to our clients.” The addition of Deep Research allows attorneys to: Perform sophisticated legal research using agentic workflows that mirror real‑world legal reasoning Receive structured, verifiable responses grounded in Thomson Reuters data Streamline research processes while maintaining rigorous quality and accuracy standards Work entirely within Robinson+Cole’s firm‑controlled AI environment  “Our integration of the Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research API with Newcode represents a defining moment in our AI strategy,” said Chief Data Officer Jim Merrifield. "We are incredibly proud to be the first firm to bring this capability to life—unlocking the power of trusted legal data directly within the workflows our lawyers and business professionals rely on every day. This is exactly how we maximize our technology investments: by connecting best-in-class data sources through APIs into a unified platform, so the technology meets our people where they work, enhances their judgment, and accelerates better outcomes for our clients.” Robinson+Cole’s AI program is guided by firmwide policies, mandatory training, and ongoing oversight to ensure responsible use of emerging technologies. The firm’s approach emphasizes measured adoption, strong information governance, and alignment with client expectations, rather than one‑off experimentation. This latest enhancement underscores Robinson+Cole’s commitment to remaining forward‑thinking in its use of technology, while ensuring that innovation serves the firm’s clients, lawyers, and long‑term strategic goals.

News
Kate Dion and Natale DiNatale Examine the Legal Questions Raised By Sorsby Injunction

Education industry team chair Kathleen Dion and Labor Relations group chair Natale DiNatale discussed the potential ramifications on the NCAA and college athletes in the article, “NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win,” published in USA Today, June 8, 2026. Kate pointed out that the injunction is a temporary measure. “This decision is only a preliminary ruling and is subject to appeal. Unless it is overturned, the injunction preserves Sorsby’s opportunity to compete this fall while the underlying case proceeds and allows him to continue preparing for a potential NFL career. For the NCAA, the ruling raises questions about the extent to which courts may review and potentially limit the enforcement of eligibility and competitive-integrity rules in individual cases.”  She continued, “It is also important to recognize that this is one state trial court decision, not a final decision on the merits, and thus its precedential value may be limited. While the court found that Sorsby demonstrated a probable right to the relief that he seeks on his breach of contract and other claims, which is a necessary element for obtaining a temporary injunction — the order does not appear to provide a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning on that issue. As a result, many of the legal questions raised by the case are likely to remain the subject of further litigation and possible appellate review.” Discussing the foundation of the claim, Natale said, “The underlying dispute looks like a claim that the NCAA failed to accommodate a disability (e.g. an ADA claim based on a gambling addiction). But, it was brought as a breach of contract claim. A contract claim can be brought and maybe kept, in state court, which is likely a friendlier forum for this athlete.” Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

News
Julianna Charpentier Recognized as an “Up & Coming Lawyer”
News
Erica Kerstein Brings Credibility and Business Perspective to New Role as Practice Group Chair

Insurance + Reinsurance group chair Erica J. Kerstein was featured in a Law.com column titled, “How I Made Practice Group Chair,” published on April 15, 2026. In the article, Erica discusses her new role as a practice group chair and how it has expanded her insight into not only the firm’s strategic vision and goals, but the reality of running a business and ensuring that current planning aligns with future goals. “The role provides a window into how individual practices fit into the firm’s overall strategy,” said Erica. “You’re thinking not just about today’s matters, but about where clients are headed, how the industry is changing, and how the firm positions itself to meet those needs.” In addition, Erica also identified “…strengthening client relationships, investing in our people, and staying ahead of emerging issues—particularly around technology and artificial intelligence in the insurance space…” as key priorities for the practice. Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Expands Philadelphia Office at Landmark Liberty Place
News
Dana Horton Ascends to Presidency of Rhode Island Bar Association
News
Robinson+Cole’s People-First Culture Recognized in Vault’s 2027 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
News
Robinson+Cole Integrates Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research into Newcode.ai Platform to Advance Secure, Verifiable Legal Research

Robinson+Cole has expanded its firmwide artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities by integrating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, the agentic AI platform implemented last year by the firm to support legal workflows across practices. With this integration, Robinson+Cole is one of only two law firms with direct access to the Deep Research API—and the only firm deploying it through Newcode.ai. Building on its 2025 partnership with Newcode.ai —making Robinson+Cole the first Am Law 200 firm to adopt the platform—the firm has continued to expand its AI capabilities as part of a broader strategy focused on secure deployment, ethical use, and seamless integration into daily legal work. The integration enables Robinson+Cole attorneys to conduct complex, multi‑step legal research and receive verifiable, citation‑backed responses grounded in trusted Thomson Reuters content. By embedding Deep Research into Newcode.ai, Robinson+Cole continues to build on its deliberate, governance‑first approach to AI adoption while delivering meaningful, practice‑ready innovation for its lawyers and clients. “Innovation at Robinson+Cole is grounded in client service, security, and practicality,” said J. Michael Wirvin, Managing Partner of Robinson+Cole. “By incorporating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, we are providing our lawyers with advanced research capabilities in a secure environment fully controlled by the firm that aligns with our standards for data governance, accuracy, and responsible AI use. This integration reflects our continued focus on adopting technology thoughtfully to support our attorneys and deliver value to our clients.” The addition of Deep Research allows attorneys to: Perform sophisticated legal research using agentic workflows that mirror real‑world legal reasoning Receive structured, verifiable responses grounded in Thomson Reuters data Streamline research processes while maintaining rigorous quality and accuracy standards Work entirely within Robinson+Cole’s firm‑controlled AI environment  “Our integration of the Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research API with Newcode represents a defining moment in our AI strategy,” said Chief Data Officer Jim Merrifield. "We are incredibly proud to be the first firm to bring this capability to life—unlocking the power of trusted legal data directly within the workflows our lawyers and business professionals rely on every day. This is exactly how we maximize our technology investments: by connecting best-in-class data sources through APIs into a unified platform, so the technology meets our people where they work, enhances their judgment, and accelerates better outcomes for our clients.” Robinson+Cole’s AI program is guided by firmwide policies, mandatory training, and ongoing oversight to ensure responsible use of emerging technologies. The firm’s approach emphasizes measured adoption, strong information governance, and alignment with client expectations, rather than one‑off experimentation. This latest enhancement underscores Robinson+Cole’s commitment to remaining forward‑thinking in its use of technology, while ensuring that innovation serves the firm’s clients, lawyers, and long‑term strategic goals.

News
Kate Dion and Natale DiNatale Examine the Legal Questions Raised By Sorsby Injunction

Education industry team chair Kathleen Dion and Labor Relations group chair Natale DiNatale discussed the potential ramifications on the NCAA and college athletes in the article, “NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win,” published in USA Today, June 8, 2026. Kate pointed out that the injunction is a temporary measure. “This decision is only a preliminary ruling and is subject to appeal. Unless it is overturned, the injunction preserves Sorsby’s opportunity to compete this fall while the underlying case proceeds and allows him to continue preparing for a potential NFL career. For the NCAA, the ruling raises questions about the extent to which courts may review and potentially limit the enforcement of eligibility and competitive-integrity rules in individual cases.”  She continued, “It is also important to recognize that this is one state trial court decision, not a final decision on the merits, and thus its precedential value may be limited. While the court found that Sorsby demonstrated a probable right to the relief that he seeks on his breach of contract and other claims, which is a necessary element for obtaining a temporary injunction — the order does not appear to provide a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning on that issue. As a result, many of the legal questions raised by the case are likely to remain the subject of further litigation and possible appellate review.” Discussing the foundation of the claim, Natale said, “The underlying dispute looks like a claim that the NCAA failed to accommodate a disability (e.g. an ADA claim based on a gambling addiction). But, it was brought as a breach of contract claim. A contract claim can be brought and maybe kept, in state court, which is likely a friendlier forum for this athlete.” Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

News
Julianna Charpentier Recognized as an “Up & Coming Lawyer”
News
Erica Kerstein Brings Credibility and Business Perspective to New Role as Practice Group Chair

Insurance + Reinsurance group chair Erica J. Kerstein was featured in a Law.com column titled, “How I Made Practice Group Chair,” published on April 15, 2026. In the article, Erica discusses her new role as a practice group chair and how it has expanded her insight into not only the firm’s strategic vision and goals, but the reality of running a business and ensuring that current planning aligns with future goals. “The role provides a window into how individual practices fit into the firm’s overall strategy,” said Erica. “You’re thinking not just about today’s matters, but about where clients are headed, how the industry is changing, and how the firm positions itself to meet those needs.” In addition, Erica also identified “…strengthening client relationships, investing in our people, and staying ahead of emerging issues—particularly around technology and artificial intelligence in the insurance space…” as key priorities for the practice. Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Expands Philadelphia Office at Landmark Liberty Place
News
Dana Horton Ascends to Presidency of Rhode Island Bar Association