Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Feb 20, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent federal appeals court decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

D.C. Cir.: ‘Legacy’ regional centers were subject to Integrity Fund fee under revised EB-5 program. A holding company owning two regional centers, established by Congress to promote economic growth by creating jobs and spurring investment under the EB-5 investor-visa framework, sued the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding the agency’s notice requiring all regional centers to pay a fee established by Congress in 2022 under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA). The fees are paid into the “EB-5 Integrity Fund” for “cover[ing] expenses for the monitoring and investigation of fraud.” The holding company alleged that the two regional centers were “legacy centers” that existed prior to the RIA’s enactment, and that they were not subject to the fee. The holding company moved for summary judgment, while the USCIS sought dismissal. The district court denied the company’s motion, and granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the fee requirement set forth in Subparagraph E of the RIA—addressing the regional center program—“‘unambiguously’ applied to ‘both pre- and post-RIA regional centers.’” On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that “[p]re- and post-RIA regional centers alike are subject to the fee provision because they are all currently ‘designated’ to participate in the regional center program authorized under subparagraph (E).” The court rejected the argument that applying the fee to pre-existing centers is retroactive and affirmed the agency’s dismissal (EB5 Holdings Inc. v. Edlow, No. 24-5237 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026)).

2d Cir.: Ambiguous policy language preserves coverage for general contractor. A ceiling collapsed during a demolition project and injured three employees of the subcontractor performing the work. The workers sued the general contractor. The general contractor sought defense and indemnification under an excess liability policy obtained by the subcontractor. The excess carrier refused coverage. The general contractor and its primary insurer sought a declaratory judgment stating that the excess carrier needed to cover the general contractor. The excess carrier cross-moved for summary judgment. The court held that the policy’s coverage grant made the general contractor an additional insured because the claims arose from the subcontractor’s work. The court also held that the policy’s “Employers Liability Exclusion” was ambiguous when read with the policy’s “Separation of Insureds” clause. The majority further found that the excess insurer offered no extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity, requiring the court to construe the provision against the drafter and preserve coverage. Judge Menashi dissented and stated that the exclusion was not ambiguous and barred coverage for injuries to employees of “any insured” (Reidy Contracting Group v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., No. 24-1069 (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2026)).

10th Cir.: Bar applicant failed to preserve arguments, show entitlement to discovery. A bar applicant sued the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) and the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners alleging that testing entities denied her approved disability accommodations during the 2020 New Mexico bar exam, in violation of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. She repeatedly amended her complaint. The district court dismissed her claims against the NCBE for lack of personal jurisdiction, and her ADA claim against the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners due to sovereign immunity. The board also received summary judgment on her Rehabilitation Act claim. The applicant appealed. The Tenth Circuit noted that the applicant did not request jurisdictional discovery before the district court dismissed the NCBE for lack of personal jurisdiction, nor did she identify what discovery she sought when later trying to revive the issue. Additionally, the applicant had opposed the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners’ summary-judgment motion on her Rehabilitation Act claim without providing the affidavit or showing required under Rule 56(d). The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims against the NCBE, noting that the applicant “failed to identify any law or facts, much less new ones, to justify lifting the stay for jurisdictional discovery.” Additionally, she failed to meet Rule 56(d)’s standards and showed no basis to overcome sovereign immunity (Spann v. The National Conference of Bar Examiners, No. 24-2083 (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026)).

Cases: Immigration ContractClaims CoverageLiability EvidenceDiscovery DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Procedure AgencyNews