October updates from Trent Cotney

By Emma Peterson.

Check out the different legal topics highlighted in this month’s Cotney Brief.

Every month, Trent Cotney of Adams & Reese sends out a newsletter, the Cotney Briefs, discussing legal insights and advice for contractors. These topics can range from code changes and contract provisions to supreme court cases and more. Here’s what he talked about in his most recent newsletter.

1 – Federal DBE program changes

At the end of September, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) finalized significant changes to their Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. This program was historically created to “to increase participation by disadvantaged businesses in federally assisted highway, transit and airport projects.” This status as “disadvantaged” was previously determined based on a variety of factors, including race, ethnicity and sex. The new changes eliminate these demographic factors and instead require business owners to demonstrate “social and economic disadvantage through a personal narrative describing specific economic hardships, social barriers or denied opportunities that impeded their education, employment or business success.”

It is important to note that this change impacts both businesses already holding a DBE certification and those applying. The DOT has established December 24, 2026, as the deadline for re-evaluations of businesses already holding a DBE certification.

What this means for contractors: For contractors working on federally assisted transportation projects, it is important to review “existing DBE relationships and monitor the certification status of subcontractors.” DBE-certified contractors should promptly review the new requirements and submit documentation for re-evaluation.

2 – Venegas v. Homan case update

In the case Venegas v. Homan, Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S. citizen employed in residential construction in Alabama, is filing a lawsuit based on the actions of Department of Homeland Security officers. During two instances, Leonardo was detained while working at a construction site that the DHS officers entered without warrants. Further, on both occasions Leonardo presented his Alabama REAL ID but officers “continued holding him while attempting to verify his immigration status.”

On September 21, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock of the Southern District of Alabama ruled in Leonardo’s favor and stayed three DHS policies. As Trent explained it:

1. Immigration officers generally cannot enter nonpublic areas of private construction sites without a warrant, consent or another recognized legal justification.
2. Officers cannot detain construction workers solely based on generalized assumptions about immigration status without reasonable suspicion specific to the individual.
3. Officers cannot continue detaining workers under the challenged policy after they provide sufficient evidence of citizenship or lawful presence.

What this means for contractors: This is still a preliminary ruling, but it does reinforce that construction sites are not automatically open to DHS officers and that workers on the sites retain constitutional protections during immigration investigations. Contractors should train their teams and establish procedures for responding to immigration officers attempting to enter a jobsite, such as verifying warrants, establishing nonpublic work areas and documenting encounters.

3 – Granule loss disclaimer

In recent years, contractors have reported an uptick of homeowner complaints, warranty claims and disputes related to shingle granule loss. The granules in question are the mineral granules used on asphalt shingles to protect the asphalt from ultraviolet exposure and weathering. And, while some granule loss is natural, excessive loss is an issue that is often not connected to the installing contractor.

What this means for contractors: Contractors should ensure that their contracts explain what normal granule shedding is, what might be installation-related and what is manufacturer defects. This helps avoid unnecessary callbacks related to normal shedding and also helps establish clear responsibility for abnormal scenarios. Trent recommends including a provision like this one:

Owner acknowledges that some granule loss or shedding is a normal characteristic of asphalt shingles, particularly during and following installation and as a result of ordinary weathering and aging. Contractor does not manufacture the shingles and makes no independent warranty regarding granule adhesion or retention. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor disclaims liability for any excessive or premature granule loss (“Loss”). The Loss shall be governed exclusively by the manufacturer's written warranty, which shall constitute Owner's sole and exclusive remedy against Contractor for such product defects.

4 – AI job screening disclosures

Last but not least, Trent shared information about AI. Specifically, he shared insights into the New York Senate Bill S10290, known as the Bossware and Oppressive Technology Act. This bill would require employers using “covered automated decision-making tools,” aka AI systems, to notify applicants and employees of their use of the technology 10 business days prior to using it. Within that notice, the employer would need to “identify the use of the technology, explain the qualifications and characteristics being evaluated and describe the information the system analyzes.”

Additionally, the legislation would require independent impact assessments of these tools to evaluate for “potential discriminatory effects and other risks associated with the technology.” This is a similar requirement to the ones established under New York’s Local Law 144 from 2023, which required “employers using qualifying automated employment decision tools for hiring or promotion to conduct independent bias audits and provide advance notice to affected applicants and employees.”

What this means for contractors: Although this bill is still in committee and not yet a law, it reflects the growing legislative interest in the ways AI is being used in workplaces. Contractors should review their hiring and background screening practices, as well as those of third-party platforms they use, to understand when they might need to send notices under a law like this. Employers should also “ensure that qualified personnel independently review employment decisions rather than relying exclusively on automated recommendations” as AI-related employment legislation continues to develop.

Read more of Trent’s newsletters!