Hurricane Preparedness for Florida Community Associations

6 29 Advisory Hurricanepreparedness 1200x628

Florida community associations, including condominium associations, homeowners associations, and cooperatives, have significant legal and operational responsibilities when preparing for, responding to, and recovering from hurricanes. Boards of directors and community association managers (CAMs) must understand their statutory authority and exercise sound judgment to protect association property, residents, and operations.

With the start of the Atlantic hurricane season, associations should review and update their hurricane preparedness plans well in advance of any tropical weather threat.

Hurricane Preparedness Plan Requirements

Every community association should maintain a comprehensive, written hurricane preparedness plan that is reviewed and updated annually. The plan should be tailored to the community and should be accessible to board members, management, and key vendors.

Associations should carefully draft hurricane preparedness plans to avoid creating unrealistic expectations regarding resident safety, emergency response, or property protection. Plans should clearly communicate the association’s role and remind residents that they remain responsible for their own safety and personal property.

Hurricane Plan Contents

  • Contact information for the board of directors and critical vendors, including legal counsel, landscapers, insurance agents, elevator vendors, and generator service providers
  • Site map identifying shut-off valves for gas, water, and sprinkler systems
  • Insurance claim forms and carrier contact information
  • Emergency powers and evacuation resolutions adopted by the board
  • Copies of all relevant contracts, vendor agreements, and insurance policies
  • Pre-storm photographs of buildings, trees, pumps, and common areas updated annually
  • Local emergency management contacts and resources
  • Documentation of association-owned property with photographs
  • Hurricane emergency checklist
  • Pre-storm preparation checklist

Hurricane Communication Planning

Effective communication is essential to protecting lives and property before, during, and after a storm.

  • Communicate the approved hurricane plan to residents
  • Establish an onsite command center or information distribution site
  • Post evacuation routes, fire escape routes, shelter information, and emergency contact information in common areas
  • Use multiple communication channels, including email, phone, text, and radio
  • Identify key community contacts, including CAMs, maintenance supervisors, and board leadership
  • Communicate early and frequently with residents and vendors as a storm approaches
  • Coordinate with legal counsel, property managers, county and state emergency management agencies, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

FEMA Right of Entry Requirements

FEMA requires gated or restricted-access communities to have a current Right of Entry (ROE) form on file with the applicable county before damage assessments, debris removal, or recovery operations occur. Associations should verify ROE compliance before hurricane season begins.

Testing a Hurricane Preparedness Plan 

The best way to determine whether a plan will function effectively during an emergency is to test it. Review procedures with key personnel, verbally walk through the plan, and practice drills and hold debriefing sessions after exercises or actual storm events to verify areas for improvement.

Once the governor declares a state of emergency, Florida law grants community associations broad emergency powers under Florida Statutes Section 718.1265, Section 719.128, and Section 720.316.

These powers remain available based on the circumstances affecting the community and are not necessarily tied to the duration of the state of emergency declaration.

Immediately after the storm, associations should:

  • Assess damage to common elements and association property
  • Thoroughly document all damage with photographs and video before cleanup begins
  • Secure the property to prevent further damage or unauthorized access
  • File insurance claims promptly with all carriers

Associations should avoid rushing into remediation, repair, or public adjuster contracts. Even in emergency circumstances, legal and professional review can help prevent costly disputes and unfavorable contract terms.

Hurricane preparedness is a critical operational responsibility. Associations that proactively develop, maintain, and test their plans will be better positioned to protect residents, minimize damage, and accelerate recovery.

If you need assistance reviewing or drafting a hurricane preparedness plan, emergency resolution, or vendor agreement, contact Varnum’s Condominium and Homeowners Association Law Practice Team.

This advisory was originally published in June 2022.

Multi-State Environmental Laws May Create Compliance Obligations for Manufacturers

7 13 Advisory Eenr 1200x628

States across the country are rapidly adopting environmental stewardship and producer responsibility laws that regulate how products are made, labeled, packaged, sold, recycled, and disposed of.  

These laws address issues including extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, packaging requirements, PFAS restrictions, recycled content mandates, expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam bans, compostability and recyclability labeling, battery and electronics stewardship, and volatile organic compound (VOC) reporting and restrictions. Together, they create an increasingly complex compliance landscape for manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, private-label sellers, and other businesses that distribute or sell products across state lines.

Selling Across State Lines May Trigger State Compliance Requirements

A company does not need facilities or employees in a state to be subject to these requirements. Simply selling products or packaging into a state with applicable laws may trigger compliance obligations.

States with significant environmental stewardship and producer responsibility laws include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Additional states continue to consider similar legislation, making this an evolving area of compliance.

Product and Packaging Changes May Be Necessary

Compliance requirements vary widely from state to state. Definitions, exemptions, reporting deadlines, and enforcement mechanisms often differ, meaning compliance in one jurisdiction may not satisfy another’s requirements.

As a result, companies may need to modify product formulations, packaging materials, labeling, environmental marketing claims, or supply chain practices to meet applicable state laws.

New Registration, Reporting, and Disclosure Requirements

Many state laws require companies to collect and report detailed information about their products, packaging, and manufacturing processes. For example, numerous packing EPR programs require producers to register with a state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), submit periodic reports, and pay program fees.

Gathering this information often requires coordination across procurement, operations, regulatory, and supply chain teams. Companies that prepare early will be better positioned to meet reporting deadlines and respond to customer requests.

Compliance Is Also Becoming a Business Consideration

The potential impacts extend beyond regulatory enforcement. Noncompliance may result in agency inquiries, penalties, or restrictions on the sale of products. Some states also provide mechanisms for private parties to pursue enforcement.

At the same time, customers and supply chain partners are increasingly requesting or requiring suppliers to provide packaging composition data, PFAS-free certifications, recycled-content documentation, producer responsibility information, and product formulation disclosures. In many cases the requests arise because customers must evaluate their own compliance obligations, supply chain requirements, or sustainability commitments.

Developing a Compliance Strategy

Because these laws differ significantly by state, one of the first steps is determining which requirements apply to your products, packaging, and operations. An applicability review can identify the states where obligations exist, evaluate available exemptions, assess higher risk products, and establish a practical compliance roadmap.

How Varnum Can Help

Many of these laws are already in effect, while others have approaching compliance deadlines. Companies that manufacture, import, distribute, or sell products in multiple states should evaluate their obligations now. Contact a member of Varnum’s Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Team to discuss how these laws apply to your business and develop a compliance strategy before upcoming deadlines.

EEOC Rescinds Affirmative Action Guidance for Employers

7 9 Advisory Eeoc 1200x628

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to rescind longstanding guidance addressing voluntary affirmative action plans under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the EEOC voted to rescind the interpretive guidelines titled “Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and the corresponding compliance manual. The rescission does not alter Title VII’s longstanding protections against employment discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or other protected categories.

The final rule implementing those rescissions was published on July 6, 2026, and became effective immediately.

Rescission of EEOC Affirmative Action Guidance

The EEOC originally adopted the affirmative action guidelines in 1979 to help employers and other Title VII-covered entities develop and defend voluntary affirmative action plans.

The EEOC determined that the guidance was inconsistent with its interpretation of Title VII and no longer aligned with subsequent Supreme Court decisions addressing employment discrimination and affirmative action.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas stated that the change reinforces the agency’s position that Title VII protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of race, sex, national origin, or other protected category.

Impact on Voluntary Affirmative Action Plans

The EEOC’s action does not amend Title VII or automatically invalidate all voluntary affirmative action plans. However, it represents a significant shift in the agency’s enforcement position and removes the framework employers previously relied on when developing and evaluating voluntary affirmative action plans.

The recission also means employers can no longer rely on the rescinded guidelines as a defense under Title VII for actions taken after the effective date of change.

Several issues remain unresolved, including how the EEOC’s revised position may affect existing legal standards and Supreme Court decisions addressing limited voluntary affirmative action programs under Title VII.

Compliance Considerations for Employers

Employers with voluntary affirmative action plans or related employment practices should review their programs in light of the EEOC’s updated enforcement position and applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

Employers should evaluate whether existing policies and practices remain consistent with current legal standards, including the structure and purpose of affirmative action initiatives and related recruitment, hiring, advancement, and workforce representation practices.

The rescission also reflects the broader changes in the EEOC’s enforcement priorities and interpretation of Title VII, following closely on the heels of other major enforcement decisions, such as not focusing on DEI policies, removing data reporting obligations, and rolling back use of disparate impact liability in its enforcement model. The EEOC has also issued a new National Enforcement Plan for 2025 through 2029, so employers should expect additional changes in the enforcement model.

Contact a member of Varnum’s Labor and Employment Practice Team with questions regarding affirmative action programs, the latest EEOC enforcement changes, or related employment practices.

NCAA Age-Based Eligibility Rule Faces Antitrust Challenge

7 9 Advisory Nil5in5 1200x628

On June 23, 2026, the NCAA Division I Council adopted a new eligibility model that replaces the long standing “Four-in-Five Rule.” Two days later, student athletes filed a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging the rule as an unlawful restraint of trade under federal antitrust law.

The lawsuit, Campbell v. NCAA, is one of many lawsuits filed that challenges specific features of the new rule and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages on behalf of affected athletes.

How the New NCAA Eligibility Rule Works

Under the previous rule, Division I athletes generally had four seasons of competition within a five-year period beginning with their first full-time college enrollment.

Beginning with future athletes, the NCAA will instead allow five seasons of competition within a five-year window. However, the eligibility clock begins at the earlier of:

  1. An athlete’s first full-time college enrollment; or
  2. The academic year after the athlete turns 19.

The change fundamentally shifts how eligibility is calculated for many athletes.

What the New Rule Eliminates

The new model removes several long-standing eligibility provisions. The rule eliminates redshirts in all forms. It also eliminates nearly all eligibility waivers, with only three narrow exceptions: pregnancy, active-duty military service, and official religious missions. Athletes using one of these exceptions may not participate in organized competition during that period. Injuries, transfers, junior college advancement, and other personal hardships are no longer grounds for eligibility extensions. There are no sport-specific exceptions or grace periods.

Why the NCAA Changed the Rule

According to the NCAA President Charlie Baker, the new model is intended to simplify eligibility determinations and reduce disputes that have become more common in recent years.

The NCAA also stated that the rule is designated to provide greater consistency during an era marked by increased transfer activity and litigation.

Transition Rules for Current Student Athletes

The NCAA adopted several transition provisions.

Athletes Who Exhausted Eligibility

Athletes who completed their fourth season during 2025-2026 will not receive an additional year of eligibility.

Current Student Athletes

Athletes who still have eligibility remaining after the 2025-2026 academic year, along with incoming freshmen in Fall 2026, may use whichever rule is more favorable.

Future Student Athletes

Athletes enrolling in Fall 2027 or later will be subject only to the new age-based rule.

Waiver Deadline

Requests under the former waiver process must be submitted by July 31, 2026. After that date, waivers will generally no longer be available outside the three limited exceptions.

Why the NCAA Is Being Sued

On June 25, 2026, student athletes filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging the new eligibility rule under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.

The plaintiffs argue that NCAA eligibility rules now directly affect athletes’ ability to earn compensation through name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities and revenue-sharing programs. As a result, they contend the rules should be analyzed as restrictions on a competitive labor market rather than simply eligibility standards.

Their argument builds on several recent developments, including:

  • NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the NCAA is not exempt from federal antitrust law.
  • The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement, which authorized Division I schools to share up to $20.5 million in annual revenue directly with athletes.

According to the complaint, eligibility now determines access to compensation opportunities, making restrictions on eligibility economically significant.

The Plaintiffs’ Antitrust Claims

Unreasonable Restraint of Trade

The lawsuit alleges that NCAA member institutions collectively agreed to impose an arbitrary age-based restriction that unlawfully limits athletes’ ability to compete and earn compensation. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge the rigid age-based five-year window, the three arbitrarily selected waiver exceptions, the elimination of all other waivers, and the disparate retroactive application of the rule to athletes who exhausted eligibility under the former Four-in-Five Rule.

Plaintiffs argue the rule is more restrictive than necessary to accomplish any legitimate competitive objective.

Monopolization

The complaint also alleges that the NCAA and its member schools possess monopoly power over the market for Division I student athlete services and have used that power to  depress wages, foreclosure competition in the labor marker for Division I athletes, and restrict athletes’ access to NIL and revenue-sharing compensation.

Why This Case Matters

The litigation could have significant implications for the future of college athletics.

According to the complaint, athletes who lose eligibility may lose access to revenue-sharing opportunities that can total millions of dollars per institution, along with growing NIL opportunities expected to continue expanding.

If the court strikes down the rule, the NCAA may once again be required to revise its eligibility.

What Colleges, Athletes, and Businesses Should Watch

The NCAA’s new age-based eligibility rule represents another major shift in the rapidly evolving landscape of college athletics. As the legal challenge in Campbell v. NCAA moves forward, colleges, student athletes, collectives, and businesses involved in the NIL marketplace should continue to monitor its potential impact on eligibility, compensation, and compliance.

If you have questions about how these developments may affect your institution, organization, or athletic program, contact a member of Varnum’s NIL Practice Team.

SBA Issuing Restaurant Revitalization Fund Claw Back Demands to Hotel, Motel, Resort, and Mixed-Use Restaurant Businesses

7 6 Advisory Sbaseeksrestaurantrevitalization 1200x628

The U.S. Small Business Administration appears to be conducting a broad post-award recovery campaign targeting Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) recipients that operate restaurants, bars, or food-and-beverage businesses within hotels, resorts, motels, or other mixed-use hospitality businesses. Recent notices demand repayment on the theory that hotels and motels were not eligible entities and that a restaurant within a hotel or motel needed a separate tax identification number to qualify.

The collection notices warn that the alleged debt may be referred to the U.S. Department of Treasury for offset, private collection agency referral, Department of Justice litigation referral, credit bureau reporting, and additional fees and penalties. The notices also impose short deadlines, including 15 days to request an Office of Hearings and Appeals hearing and 60 days to submit evidence that the alleged debt is not past due or legally enforceable.

Why These Demands May Be Legally Vulnerable

The SBA’s position appears to rest on informal program guidance rather than the RRF statute. The statute defines “eligible entity” to include a “restaurant,” “inn,” “tavern,” “bar,” “lounge,” and any “other similar place of business in which the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being served food or drink.” The statute does not require a separate EIN for a restaurant located within another business and does not categorically exclude hotels, motels, or resorts.

The separate tax identification number requirement appears in the SBA’s RRF Program Guide, not the statute. Unlike the Paycheck Protection Program, for which SBA issued numerous formal interim final rules, SBA administered the RRF primarily through program guidance, a knowledge base, and outreach materials.

There is also a serious question whether the RRF statute authorizes recoupment in these circumstances. Its return-of-funds provision applies to unused funds or permanent closure before the end of the covered period; it does not expressly authorize SBA to claw back fully spent funds years later from a recipient that disclosed its business structure, was approved by SBA, and used the funds for eligible expenses.

How Varnum Can Help

Affected businesses should treat these notices as urgent. The SBA’s collection notice states that it is the only notice the recipient will receive before referral to Treasury.

Varnum is assisting RRF recipients in responding to these SBA recovery demands and preserving rights before collection begins. Available options may include preparing an OHA hearing request, submitting evidence that the alleged debt is not legally enforceable, requesting SBA records, filing or supplementing an Ombudsman complaint, negotiating with SBA or Treasury, and seeking emergency relief in federal court under the APA.

Businesses that received an SBA RRF repayment demand should act quickly. Varnum can prepare the administrative response and determine whether court action is warranted to stop collection.

Supreme Court Allows DHS to End Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to move forward with terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain nationals of Haiti and Syria. The decision overturns lower court orders that had temporarily blocked the administration from ending the protections.

Temporary Protected Status is a humanitarian immigration program that allows eligible individuals from designated countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions to temporarily live and work in the United States. Similar TPS terminations have previously affected certain nationals of Afghanistan and Venezuela.

The Supreme Court’s decision may affect individuals who currently rely on TPS for immigration status or employment authorization. Individuals impacted by changes to TPS should evaluate their immigration options with qualified counsel, as eligibility for other immigration benefits or forms of relief will depend on individual circumstances.

If you have recently lost or expect to lose Temporary Protected Status, contact Varnum’s Immigration Practice Team. Depending on your circumstances, alternative immigration options may be available.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Expanded Expedited Removal Policy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may continue enforcing its expanded expedited removal policy nationwide. Under the policy, noncitizens have the burden to carry documents confirming immigration status and/or at least two years of continuous presence in the country to avoid expedited removal. The ruling overturns a lower court decision that had blocked the policy.

The decision is expected to increase DHS’ inspection of documents and use of expedited removal proceedings. Noncitizens should make multiple copies of immigration status documents to keep at home, in cars and at work in case requested.

Please contact Varnum’s Immigration Practice Team with any questions or concerns.

Estate Planning Considerations for the FIRE Community: Protecting Your Independence and Legacy

The Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) movement emphasizes living intentionally, maximizing savings, and creating the freedom to retire well before traditional retirement age. While much of the conversation centers on budgeting, investing, and lifestyle design, a crucial, but often overlooked, component is comprehensive estate planning.

Whether you plan to retire in your 30s, 40s, or 50s, early financial independence brings unique legal considerations. Creating an estate plan ensures your autonomy and intentions are preserved regardless of life’s uncertainties, allowing you to fully enjoy your hard-earned financial freedom.

Younger retirees often have a different asset structure than traditional retirees. You might hold a mix of taxable accounts, business interests, or alternative investments, some of which require specialized estate planning tools. For example, trusts can provide flexibility and control over how assets are managed and passed on, while avoiding probate court and protecting your privacy. Beneficiary designations also need to be carefully coordinated as part of your broader plan.

If you own a business or side venture, having succession plans and buy-sell agreements in place must be an essential part of your FIRE strategy. These documents coordinate with your estate plan to help manage transitions smoothly if you choose to sell, transfer, or wind down your enterprise.

Early retirees often plan for long, active retirements, but longevity brings exposure to incapacity. Creating durable powers of attorney and health care directives allows you to appoint trusted individuals to make financial and medical decisions on your behalf if you become unable to do so, ensuring those decisions align with your personal values and preferences.

Longevity also brings exposure to unforeseen risks and events. Your estate plan should include asset-protection strategies designed to preserve your independence and safeguard what you’ve built for future generations.

Finally, with a retirement that is expected to span decades, it is essential to regularly review and update your estate plan as your life evolves. Changes such as marriage, children, relocation, or changes in assets can affect how your plan operates, and these should be addressed regularly to keep your plan current and aligned with your goals.

The pursuit of a FIRE plan is about freedom, control and peace of mind. A well-crafted estate plan helps protect the assets you’ve built, support your loved ones and preserve your legacy. Consult with Varnum’s estate planning attorneys to ensure your plan aligns with your long-term goals and protects what matters most.