Recent Blog Posts

Written by Ellen Essman, J.D., Senior Research Associate with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Note:  We welcome Ellen Essman to the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program.  Ellen worked with us previously, and has returned to assist with covering legislation and serving as the Education Director for our Ohio Farm Resolution Services agricultural mediation program. 

The Ohio General Assembly is currently considering several bills that would affect agriculture, farmers, livestock producers, sellers of homemade foods, landowners, and students participating in FFA or 4-H.  Here is an update on the bills we are following, including a few updates on bills we mentioned in our last legislative blog post.

H.B. 10 – Imitation meat and egg products

As we reported in our previous legislative blog post, H.B. 10 would prohibit the sale of foods that are “misbranded” as meat or egg products. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin), H.B. 10 defines “misbranded” meat and egg products as those that: contain manufactured-protein food products or fabricated-egg products, are offered for sale by a food processing establishment, and have a package label that includes certain “meat” or “egg” terms.  A food processing establishment that sells misbranded meat and egg products would be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day.  The bill would also require Ohio agencies to request a USDA exemption of cultivated-protein food products and fabricated-egg products from eligibility under SNAP and WIC food programs and would require Ohio school districts and state institutions of higher education to adopt policies preventing the purchase of cultivated-protein food products or foods misbranded as meat or egg products. H.B. 10 is still being deliberated in the House Agriculture Committee. At the bill’s most recent hearing on May 28, there was no opponent or proponent testimony.

H.B. 65 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

The Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 65 on April 2, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on April 8. The bill had its first hearing in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on May 27, where sponsors by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) testified on its behalf.  The sponsors cited the importance of agriculture to Ohio’s economy, and the long tradition of agriculture in Ohio as the catalysts for introducing this bill. The act proposes the following official designations:

• “FFA Week” as the week ending with the last Saturday in February.
• “4-H Week” as the week ending with the second Saturday of March.
• “Agriculture Day” on March 21.
• "National Farmers Market Week" as the first full week of August.
• “Ohio Stormwater Awareness Week” as the first week of October.
• “Farmer’s Day” on October 12
• “Ohio Soil Health Week” as the second full week of November, to celebrate and raise awareness for the importance of soil health and in honor of the birthday of soil pioneer and advocate David Brandt.

H.B. 65 had its second hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on June 3, with no in-person testimony. 

H.B. 125 – Excused school absences for 4-H and FFA programs

Introduced in the House on February 24 by sponsors Rep. Thomas Hall (R-Middletown) and Rep. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria), H.B. 125 has since had three hearings in the House Education Committee.  The bill would require school districts to grant excused absences for participation in scheduled 4-H and FFA activities or programs to students in grades K-12, and to allow those students to make up any school work missed as a result of that absence. In order to verify absences for 4-H or FFA activities, the school must receive written documentation from 4-H or FFA educators. The bill would not allow for excused absences for 4-H activities during state testing or when a student has been disciplined by, suspended, or expelled from school.

H.B. 134 – Microenterprise home kitchen operation

A bi-partisan bill would add Ohio to the small but growing list of states that have adopted “food freedom laws” to loosen regulations on the sale of homemade foods.  Sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus), H.B. 134 would create a new “microenterprise home kitchen operation” registration that would broaden the types of foods a person could produce at home and sell directly to customers. Ohio law currently allows a person to sell certain “cottage foods” and “home bakery” foods with minimal regulation but requires producers of other foods to produce the foods in a commercial kitchen and operate under state and local food licenses.  H.B. 134 would remove those requirements and allow a registered microenterprise home kitchen operation to produce and sell any homemade foods (except those containing alcohol or drugs), including items such as canned goods and hot meals.  The annual $25 registration would require an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure the microenterprise home kitchen operation meets requirements in the law regarding operations, food safety, storage and preparation, and sales and delivery of the food.  H.B. 134 received its second hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on April 9, with two proponents testifying in support of the bill.

H. B. 201 – Allow specified hunting on landowner’s property without a permit

H.B. 201 was introduced in the House on March 26 by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark), and Dani Isaacshon (D-Cincinnati), and had its first hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee on May 7.  The bill would expand the list of relatives that may hunt and trap on an Ohio landowner’s property without purchasing a hunting license, deer or wild turkey permit, or fur taker permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. The bill would make the following changes:

• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children and grandchildren under 18 to hunt on the land without a license.  H.B. 201 would extend this to also allow parents of Ohio landowners to hunt without a license.
• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt deer and turkey on the land without obtaining permits.  H.B. 201 would also allow the landowner’s parents and grandchildren to do so.
• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt and trap fur-bearing animals on the land without a permit. H.B. 201 would expand the current law to allow an Ohio landowner’s parents and grandchildren under 18 to hunt and trap without a permit.

S.B. 60 – Veterinarian Telehealth

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, we have all become familiar with telehealth medical appointments. S.B. 60, sponsored by Sen. Shane Wilkin, (R-Hillsboro), and Sen. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City), would expand the ability to conduct telehealth appointments to veterinarians with their clients and patients (animals) under certain circumstances.  Current law requires a veterinary-client-patient (VCP) relationship to be established in-person via an examination or visit to the patient.  S.B. 60 would allow VCP relationships to be established via real time telehealth examinations.

The bill would also allow a licensed veterinarian to conduct telehealth services with a client and their animal (the patient) if:

• The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care prescribed by the law governing veterinarians equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits;
•  The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian’s name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted; and
• Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client concerning certain information, including that the veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit.

Further, the bill would place some requirements on prescribing drugs during a telehealth appointment, including:

• A veterinarian may issue an initial prescription for up to 14 days. The veterinarian may issue one refill for up to 14 days if the veterinarian sees the patient for another telehealth visit. For additional refills, the patient must visit the veterinarian in person.
• The veterinarian must notify the client that certain prescription drugs or medications may be available at a pharmacy and, if requested, the veterinarian will submit a prescription to a pharmacy of the client’s choosing; and
•  The veterinarian must not order, prescribe, or make available a controlled substance unless the veterinarian has performed an in-person physical examination of the patient.

S.B. 60 had its second committee hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on May 27.  Senators on the committee discussed amendments to the bill that would make the following changes:

• For livestock raised as food for human consumption, a VCP relationship must first be made in person before telehealth appointments would be permitted;
• However, veterinarians may give “tele-advice” prior to VCP being established in person. “Tele-advice” was described as “opinion or guidance from a veterinarian, but not a diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis;”
• An addition to the bill that it would not invalidate anything from Chapter 956 of the Ohio Revised Code, which governs dog breeding; and
• Telehealth appointments must occur in within the state where the patient is located.

In the May 27 committee hearing, several proponents of the bill also gave testimony in its favor.  Those testifying cited numerous reasons why passage of the bill would be prudent, including the state shortage of veterinary professionals, the difficulty of people living in rural areas or with a lack of resources to access veterinary care for their animals, the passage of veterinary telehealth laws in other states, and the ability for veterinarians to give faster care in the case of emergencies. They also mentioned that the law would not replace in-person veterinary appointments but instead would be another tool in a veterinarian’s arsenal to care for animals. 

On June 3, the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held their third hearing on S.B. 60.  There was no in-person testimony, and the Committee favorably reported the bill, with the May 27 changes, out of committee. 

S.B. 122 – Local authority for agricultural land zoning resolutions

This bill was introduced in late February and had its first hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee on March 5 but no hearings since that date.  S.B. 122, sponsored by Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), would eliminate the authority of townships and counties to adopt zoning resolutions for agricultural land under certain circumstances. 

The bill eliminates a township and county’s limited authority to utilize zoning to regulate any of the following in a platted subdivision or in an area consisting of 15 or more contiguous lots: 

• Agriculture on lots of one acre or less;
• Buildings or structures incident to the use of land for agricultural purposes on lots between one and five acres by setback building lines, height, and size; and
• Dairying and animal poultry husbandry on lots between one and five acres when at least 35% of the lots in the subdivision are developed with at least one building, structure, or improvement that is subject to real property taxation or that is subject to the tax on manufactured and mobile homes.

Ohio law currently prohibits regulation of agriculture, buildings or structures, and dairying and animal and poultry husbandry on lots greater than five acres. S.B. 122 would broaden that prohibition to protect agriculture on smaller lots, which would be beneficial to those practicing urban agriculture. 

S.B. 100 – Exemption from insurance regulations for nonprofit agricultural membership organizations

This bill would exempt healthcare benefits offered by “nonprofit agricultural membership organizations” from insurance regulations.  The bill passed the Senate in early April and was favorably reported out of the House Insurance Committee on May 27.  S.B. 100, sponsored by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) would define a “nonprofit agricultural membership organization” as an organization that was incorporated in Ohio on or before December 31, 1919, to promote the interests of farms and that provides contractual healthcare benefit coverage exclusively with members of the organization and their families. Healthcare benefit coverage provided by such an organization, according to the proposal, is not “insurance” and is not subject to insurance regulations. The bill would also allow the nonprofit organizations to assume or reinsure the risks arising out of healthcare benefit coverage with a company authorized to provide insurance in Ohio.

We’re excited to announce the 3rd Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, a joint effort between Ohio State University and Iowa State University. This unique event brings together professionals who are dedicated to the critical work of farm transition planning. Whether you are an attorney, accountant, financial advisor, or educator, this conference is designed to provide you with the tools, insights, and connections you need to support farm families as they plan for the future.

The conference will be held at the FFA Enrichment Center in Ankeny, Iowa. In-person registration is $325, and a virtual attendance option is available for $299. The event will take place over two days and will feature a variety of sessions focused on the legal, financial, and family dynamics of transitioning agricultural operations to the next generation.

This year’s agenda features presentations on new legal tools for the farm transition, counseling farm families through succession planning, and understanding how farm program payments impact the transition plan. Additional sessions will include a 2025 tax update for the farm transition, long-term care planning, and a discussion on the concept of fairness versus equality in farm debt. The second day of the conference will provide real-world case studies.

The Cultivating Connections Conference is more than just a learning event. It is a forum for building relationships, exchanging ideas, and strengthening the professional community dedicated to preserving the legacy and sustainability of family farms. Whether you are just entering the field or have years of experience, we invite you to join us for this important event. Come to gain valuable knowledge, share your own insights, and connect with others who are committed to helping farm families succeed across generations.

Registration is now open at: https://www.regcytes.extension.iastate.edu/cultivating/

For questions, contact Robert Moore at moore.301@osu.edu .

Guest author:  Dr. Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University.

Note:  The U.S. House of Representatives passed its budget reconciliation bill on May 22, 2025.  Prior to the bill’s passage, the budget reconciliation process required the House Agriculture Committee to reduce spending by $230 billion over the 10-year budget period. The committee’s final proposed provisions for doing so, which represents the Farm Bill attention we’ve long awaited, were included in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House. Thank you to our guest author and Farm Bill expert, Dr. Carl Zulauf, for the following summary of the House's proposed Farm Bill changes that now move over to the Senate for consideration.

1.  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

• Secretary of Agriculture shall not increase cost of the thrifty food plan based on a reevaluation or update of its composition.
• Cost of thrifty food plan indexed for CPI inflation.
• Work requirements are increased.
• Required state matching share goes from 0% currently to 5% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2028.  This cuts Federal spending without cutting program benefits.
• Matching share increases as state’s SNAP error rate increases.  Matching share can be as high as 25%.

2.  Farm Safety Net

Support Prices

• Separate program for temperate japonica rice appears to have been terminated.
• Starting with 2031 crop year, prior year reference price increased by multiplying it by 1.005.
• In no year can a reference price exceed 115% of its 2026-2030 statutory value, so adjustment does not apply if reference price escalator is at its maximum.
• For long grain and medium grain rice, marketing loans repaid at prevailing world market price.
• For upland cotton, marketing loans repaid at lowest prevailing world market price. 
• For upland cotton, a refund shall be provided to producer equal to difference between the lowest prevailing world market price and the repayment amount.
• For 2026-2031 crop years, upland cotton and extra-long staple cotton shall receive storage payments equal to the lessor of the submitted tariff rate for the marketing year or $4.90 for California and Arizona or $3.00 for other states.
• Textile mill assistance equals 3 cents / pound until July 31, 2025; 5 cents / pound thereafter.

Additional Base Acres

• Up to 30 million new base acres can be added by eligible farms. 
• Only farms that planted or prevent planted a crop over 2019-2023 can add new base acres.
• An eligible farm is a farm for which 2019-2023 crop year average program commodity acres planted or prevent planted plus lesser of (a) 15% of farm’s total acres or (b) 2019-2023 crop year average acres planted or prevent planted to commodities other than program commodities, trees, bushes, vines, grass, or pasture (including cropland that was idle or fallow) exceeds the farm’s base acres as of September 30, 2024 excluding unassigned cotton base acres. 5-year average includes years with no acres planted or prevent planted. Positive difference is farm’s potential new base acres; includes unassigned cotton base.
• New base acre are allocated among covered commodities using the ratio of 2019-2023 average acres planted or prevent planted to covered crops on the farm to the 5-year average of covered crops planted or prevent planted plus new base acres.
• If multiple covered crops were grown on a given acre in any year from 2019-2023 (other than a covered crop produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner elects which of the covered crop is included in potential new base.
• A farm’s total base acres after adding new base acres cannot exceed the farm’s total acres.
• Pro-rating occurs if total eligible new base acres exceed 30,000,000.  Each eligible farm’s new base acres is reduced by an across-the board share so new base acres total 30 milion.
• Assessment: Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported roughly 270 million base acres for 2019 crop year after excluding unassigned cotton base acres of roughly 3 million.  Sum of average National Agriculture Statistics Service planted acres plus average FSA prevent plant acres to current program crops over 2019-2023 equal roughly 264 million, implying approximately 24 million acres (264 + 30 – 270) of current non-covered crops, including unassigned cotton base acres, could be added to US base acres.  This is a major expansion of commodity program payments to current noncovered crops.

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Payment Yield

• Beginning with crop year 2026, PLC payment yields for new base acres on a farm are current PLC payment yields for the farm.  If the farm has no current payment yield for a crop, PLC payment yield for the farm is set equal to average payment yield for the county in which the farm is situated or is determined using existing methods if no PLC yield exists.

Producer Election

• Annual producer election is extended through 2031 crop year. 
• If no election is made, default choice is the same coverage for each covered commodity as existed for 2024 crop year.

Agriculture Risk Coverage

• Coverage level is increased from 86% to 90% beginning with the 2025 crop year.
• Payment cap per base acre is increased from 10% to 12.5% of the benchmark revenue beginning with the 2025 crop year.

Special Rule for Seed Cotton and Corn

• In determining the maximum payment rate for ARC-CO and PLC, the current year price can be no lower than $0.30 / pound for seed cotton and ‘$3.30 / bushel for corn.
• No marketing loan rate can be established for seed cotton.’’

Payment Limits

• Increases number of potential payment entities on a farm by expanding entities designated as qualified pass-through entities
• Increases per person payment entity from ‘$125,000 ’to ‘$155,000.
• Payment limit is indexed to CPI inflation.
• Payment limit waived if 75% or more of the average gross income of the person or legal entity is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Sugar Program

• Sets loan rate for raw cane sugar for 2025-2031 crop years at 24.00 cents / pound and for beet sugar at 136.55% of the raw cane sugar loan rate.
• Adjusts rate for storing sugar forfeited to the government.
• Changes beet sugar allotments.

Dairy Margin Coverage

• Updates production history to highest annual milk marketing during any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar years.
• Raises maximum coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds.

Livestock and Tree Loss Assistance

• Payment rate for losses due to predation is 100% of market value of affected livestock.
• Payment rate for losses due to adverse weather or disease is 75% of market value of affected livestock.
• Adds payment for unborn livestock.
• For livestock forage disaster program, changes eligibility from 8 consecutive weeks to 4 consecutive weeks or 7 of 8 consecutive weeks.  Payments can be received for 2 months of losses instead of current 1 month of losses.
• Adds assistance for losses of farm-raised fish due to piscivorous birds.
• Changes determination of normal mortality rate for tree losses and honeybee colony losses.

3. Crop Insurance

Premium Subsidy

• Sets highest coverage level at 85% for individual yield or revenue insurance, 90% for individual yield or revenue insurance aggregated across multiple commodities, and 95% for area yield or revenue insurance. 
• Increases coverage level for Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) from 86% to 90%.
• Increases premium subsidy for SCO from 65% to 80%.

Administrative and Operating (A&O) Expenses:

• Beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, an additional A&O subsidy is to be paid to insurance providers for eligible contracts.  Amount is 6% of net book premium.  Eligible contract is a crop insurance contract in an eligible State.  Excluded are catastrophic risk contracts, area-based or similar contracts; and a contract that the provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses as determined by the Corporation.  Eligible state is a state in Group 2 or Group 3 as defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for reinsurance year 2026) and eligible contract’s loss ratio exceeds 120% of total net book premium written by all approved insurance providers.  
• Beginning with 2026 reinsurance year, A&O reimbursement to approved insurance providers and agents for Specialty Crops shall be at least 17% of premium used to define loss ratio A&O reimbursements for contracts covering agricultural commodities subject to an increase during 2011-2015 reinsurance years are to be adjusted for inflation in a manner consistent with the 2011-2015 increases.  For 2026 reinsurance year, inflation adjustment shall not exceed the percentage change for the preceding reinsurance year included in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
• Increases funds for monitoring program compliance and integrity from current $0.004 billion per FY to $0.006 billion per FY plus $0.01 billion for a related statute for FY2026 and after.
• Authorizes creation of a Poultry Insurance Pilot Program.  Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi must be included.

Beginning and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers

• Extends eligibility to 10 years from 5 years.
• Increases subsidy assistance from 10 percentage points  to 15 percentage points for 1^st and 2^nd reinsurance years, 13 percentage points for 3^rd reinsurance year, 11 percentage points for 4^th reinsurance year, and 10 percentage points for 5^th - 10^th  reinsurance years.

4.  Conservation

• Authorizes funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($2.7 billion for FY2026 to $3.3 billion for FY2028 – 2031); Conservation Stewardship Program ($1.3 billion for FY2026 to $1.4 billion for FY2029 – 31); Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ($0.625 billion for FY2026 to $0.700 billion in FY2029 – 2031); and Regional Conservation Partnership Program ( $0.425 billion for FY2026 to $0.450 billion for FY2027 – 2031).
• Authorizes funds for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention ($150 million / year). Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program ($10 million / year), Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program ($15 million / year), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program ($1 million through FY2031). 

5.  Trade

• Authorizes funds through FY 2031 for trade promotion programs: Market Access Program, $0.40 billion / year; Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, $0.07 billion / year; E (Kika) De La Garza Emerging Markets Program, $0.008 billion / year; Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, $0.009 billion / year; and Priority Trade Fund, $0.0035 billion / year.
• Gives Secretary of Agriculture discretion to provide a greater allocation to a program(s) for which amount requested exceeds available funding but should try to support exports of types of commodities that funds were originally allocated.

6.  Research

• Authorizes funds for Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities, Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and Research Facilities Act.
• Extends certain provisions of Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
• Rescinds unobligated balances of Competitive Grants for Non-Federal Forest Landowners program and State and Private Forestry Conservation Programs.

7.  Energy

• Extends Biobased Markets Program and Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels through 2031.

8.  Other

• Authorizes funding for Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention, Specialty Crop Block Grants, Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, Modernization and Improvement of International Trade Technology Systems and Data Collection, National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.
• Authorized funding for Animal Disease Prevention and Management Program and Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program. 
• Extends Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund, Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, Wool Research and Promotion, and Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund through 2031.

 

The classification of workers as either independent contractors or employees has once again become a focal point of federal labor policy, reflecting the broader ideological shifts that accompany changes in presidential administrations. With the transition to new leadership in the White House, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new guidance that redefines the criteria used to determine worker status. This latest interpretation marks a departure from the 2024 Democratic rule (the “2024 Rule”), instead embracing a model more consistent with prior Republican approaches. The change has significant ripple effects for employers and workers as it influences everything from wage protections to benefits eligibility and legal liability. 

On May 1, 2025, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-1(the “2025 Bulletin”), offering updated guidance on how to assess whether a worker qualifies as an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

The 2025 Bulletin explicitly states that the WHD will no longer apply the analytical framework established by the 2024 Rule when evaluating worker classification under the FLSA. Instead, the WHD will rely on the standards set forth in Fact Sheet #13 (July 2008) and Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6 (referred to as the “2008 Guidance” and “2019 Guidance,” respectively). However, the 2025 Bulletin clarifies that the 2024 Rule remains applicable in the context of private litigation.

The History of the Independent Contractor Revolving Door
The 2025 Guidance marks the latest development in a long-running pattern of revolving labor policy, reflecting the political priorities of successive presidential administrations. The 2024 Rule had previously replaced the Trump Administration’s 2021 Rule (the “2021 Rule”), which aimed to simplify the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis under the FLSA. The 2021 Rule emphasized two “core factors” of the traditional multifactor economic realities test: (1) the nature and degree of control over the work, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. By prioritizing these elements, the Trump-era rule created a more employer-friendly framework that often favored independent contractor classification. 

The 2024 Rule reinstated the “totality of the circumstances” approach to the economic realities test, treating all factors with equal weight rather than prioritizing any single one. By doing so, the WHD assessed worker classification by holistically evaluating all six factors of the test. This broader, more balanced analysis often leaned toward classifying workers as employees, particularly in cases where multiple factors pointed to economic dependence on the employer.  

While the Trump Administration previously issued a rule emphasizing a two “core factors” approach to worker classification, neither the 2025 Bulletin nor the 2008 and 2019 Guidance documents it references adopt that framework explicitly. Instead, the 2025 Bulletin affirms the DOL’s departure from the Biden-era 2024 Rule and suggests that additional rulemaking may be forthcoming, signaling continued evolution in the DOL’s enforcement strategy. 

DOL Enforcement v. Private Litigation
It’s essential to understand the scope of the 2025 Bulletin’s applicability. As previously discussed, the 2025 Bulletin eliminates the use of the 2024 Rule in WHD investigations and classifications, even though that rule remains effective in private litigation. The distinction between these two contexts – WHD investigations and private lawsuits – centers on who initiates the action, the underlying purpose, and the legal procedures involved. 

WHD Investigation

• Initiated by: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division
• Purpose: To enforce federal labor laws, such as the FLSA, by ensuring employers comply with minimum wage, overtime, and classification rules. 
• Process: WHD investigators may conduct audits, review payroll records, and interview employees. These investigations can be random, complaint-driven, or targeted based on industry trends. 
• Outcome: If violations are found, the WHD may seek back wages, penalties, or require changes in employment practices. Employers can settle disputes administratively without going to court. 

Private Litigation

• Initiated by: An individual worker or group of workers
• Purpose: To seek compensation for alleged violations of labor laws, such as unpaid wages or misclassification. 
• Process: The case is filed in court, and both parties engage in litigation, which may include discovery, motions, and potentially a trial. 
• Outcome: A judge or jury determines liability and damages. The court may award back pay, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. 

Practical Implications
For private employment matters, employers should continue to follow the 2024 Rule, as it remains the governing standard in litigation. The 2025 Bulletin applies only in the context of WHD investigations. While future rulemaking could align the DOL’s position more closely with the 2021 Rule – potentially establishing a new nationwide standard – it is essential for employers to stay informed about ongoing developments relating to worker classification. Misclassifying a worker, even unintentionally, can lead to significant financial penalties under both federal and state laws and may jeopardize the long-term stability of your business. 

(Side note: Adding to the complexity of this situation is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and could have far-reaching implications for how the DOL approaches worker classification. However, the full impact of that ruling warrants a deeper discussion – one best served for a future blog post.)

For more information on the 2024 Rule and worker classification, check out our previous blog post here.