Effective July 1, 2025, the current Virginia statutory restriction on non-competition agreements for “low-wage employees” will expand to cover all non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This amendment, enacted through SB 1218 and signed into law on March 24, 2025, prohibits employers from entering into, enforcing, or threatening to enforce non-compete agreements with any employee classified as non-exempt under the FLSA, regardless of their earnings level.

Previously, Virginia’s non-compete ban, codified at Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8 and effective since 2020, applied only to employees earning less than the Commonwealth’s average weekly wage (currently $1,463.10 per week or $76,081.14 annually). The new amendment broadens the definition of “low-wage employee” to include all employees entitled to overtime pay, thereby covering a larger segment of the workforce.

Continue Reading Virginia expands non-compete restrictions to cover all non-exempt employees

On June 1, 2025, New Jersey officially joined 13 other states participating in the wage transparency trend. Governor Phil Murphy signed the New Jersey Pay and Benefit Transparency Act (NJPBTA or the Act) this past November, requiring employers with 10 or more employees in the state to disclose compensation and benefits information on postings for new “job postings and transfer opportunities” in New Jersey. The particulars of the Act have been discussed in greater depth in a previous blog post.

For applicable employers, any postings for New Jersey positions published on or after June 1, 2025, must include:

  • the hourly wage or salary, or a range of the hourly wage or salary for the position; and
  • a general description of benefits and other compensation programs for which the employee would be eligible.  
Continue Reading New Jersey pay transparency: How employers can remain compliant

On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which held that plaintiffs claiming anti-heterosexual workplace discrimination must provide extra evidence related to “background circumstances,” because it improperly imposed higher standards on majority-group plaintiffs alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

In Ames v. State of Ohio Department of Youth Services, a former Ohio Department of Youth Services employee alleged that she was denied a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman before being demoted and replaced by a gay man, who were both allegedly less qualified than she was. The employee then brought claims under Title VII. When the State of Ohio Department of Youth Services moved for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Ohio dismissed these claims on the grounds that the employee did not present sufficient evidence to show “‘background circumstances support[ing] the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority’ to establish the first prong of the prima facie case.”

Continue Reading Justices reject higher standard for majority-group plaintiffs asserting Title VII claims

Employment law, whether shaped by legislation or litigation, is often driven by trends. For instance, in the mid-to-late 2010’s, lawmakers across the U.S. enacted numerous bills concerning paid time off for employees, such as for sick and family leave. A more recent trend involves regulatory and legislative efforts to limit or even outright ban non-compete agreements.

In New York State, the most significant employment litigation trend over the past several years has revolved around frequency-of-pay claims under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law (NYLL). This trend emerged from a radical 2019 appellate court decision that broke from more than a century of judicial precedent.

On May 9, 2025, however, Governor Kathy Hochul approved an amendment to the NYLL that should largely put an end to the flood of frequency-of-pay lawsuits.

Continue Reading BREAKING: New York amends labor law to stymie flood of frequency-of-pay lawsuits

California is one step closer to becoming one of the first states to adopt anti-discrimination regulations regarding employer use of automated-decision technology to make employment-related decisions.

Since May 2024 the California Civil Rights Council (CRC), a branch of the Civil Rights Department, has made multiple revisions to California’s employment discrimination regulations to address employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) automated-decision systems to make employment-related decisions such as hiring, promotion, pay and benefits. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to affirm that California’s anti-discrimination laws protect employees and candidates from discrimination caused by the use of automated systems, and to define circumstances in which the use of automated systems can result in unlawful discrimination. The proposed regulations also address the use of automated systems for background checks and medical or psychological inquiries, and how that use can violate anti-discrimination laws. Additionally, the proposed regulations impose recordkeeping requirements that obligate employers to retain records that may relate to or disclose the employer’s use of automated systems to make employment decisions, including applications, personnel records, membership records, employment referral records, selection criteria, and automated-decision system data.

Continue Reading California Civil Rights Council makes final revisions to regulations that address use of AI systems in employment-related decision-making

The workplace accommodation process associated with employee health conditions can be one of the trickiest HR issues for U.S. businesses to navigate. For employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, a federal appeals court may have just added a further layer of complexity.

On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals joined a split of federal circuit courts in concluding that employees may qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) despite being able to perform the essential duties of their job without an accommodation. Moving forward, the Second Circuit will now consider the ability to perform essential functions as probative evidence of whether an accommodation should be granted rather than dispositive.

Continue Reading New York Federal Appeals Court shifts standard for assessing workplace accommodations

As the calendar turns to April 1, employers have a firm grasp of their hiring budgets to prepare for what is expected to be a sizzling summer season. Many employers, large and small, will need to ramp up hiring (e.g., hotels and hospitality, restaurants, travel, recreation) to have the extra help in place to support businesses that see a boom during the summer months.

Since spring is typically when everyone “gets the house in order,” below are some reminders and tips for employers to ensure that their work to staff up happens smoothly:

Continue Reading Spring into action: Key hiring and onboarding tips for a successful summer season

On December 11, 2024 (Cass. soc., Dec. 11, 2024, No. 23-20.716), the French Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of an employee who had sent insulting messages about the company and its executives via a company-provided cell phone. This decision appears to contrast with a previous ruling from March 6, 2024 (Cass. soc., Mar. 6, 2024, No. 22-11.016), in which the dismissal of an employee who sent racist messages via the company’s email system was deemed unfair due to the private nature of the exchanges.

In this new case, the employee had used a company-provided cell phone to send text messages to current and former employees who were engaged in litigation with the company. These messages contained homophobic insults directed at company executives. The employee was dismissed for misconduct, a decision that he challenged by arguing that his messages were private and thus could not justify disciplinary action.

Continue Reading Disciplinary dismissal for sending insulting messages via a company-provided cell phone: a shift in case law?

In our prior post, we reported that on February 21, 2025, a Maryland federal judge had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the key provisions of President Trump’s DEI-related Executive Orders (EOs). That judge later refused to stay the preliminary injunction, despite the Trump administration’s request, and clarified that the preliminary injunction applied to all federal agencies, not only those named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Continue Reading UPDATE: Fourth Circuit reinstates DEI executive orders pending appeal

In the early days of his second term, President Trump issued a series of executive orders (EO) that were aimed at reshaping the landscape of both federal and private sector policies. Two specifically targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives:

  1. EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” directs the termination of all DEI-related mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities within federal agencies. It further calls for the termination of “equity-related” grants or contracts and requires agencies to report all employees in DEI positions to the Office of Management and Budget.
  2. EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” impacts the private sector, directing the attorney general to develop a strategic enforcement plan, identifying key private entities for civil rights investigations, recommending regulatory actions, and proposing potential litigation to curb DEI practices deemed discriminatory under the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal law. It also requires federal contractors and grant recipients to eliminate DEI programs that involve race- or sex-based preferences and certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws as a condition of receiving government funding.
Continue Reading Court clarifies that DEI executive orders are temporarily blocked for all federal agencies