Workplace Laws and Regulations

Subscribe to Workplace Laws and Regulations

As employers continue to monitor the legal challenges against the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule banning most non-compete agreements, they should not overlook similar efforts by other federal agencies and/or state legislatures to limit and/or prohibit the use and enforcement of non-compete agreements between employers and employees.

To that end, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) has primed itself to take its own swing at non-compete agreements. On October 7, 2024, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a 17-page memo focused on the use of overly broad non-compete agreements. It expands on her May 30, 2023 memo, in which she opined that non-compete agreements tended to chill an employee’s rights to engage in concerted activity protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, including advocating for improved working conditions through concerted efforts to obtain employment with other employers or carry out concerted threats of resignation.Continue Reading The non-compete agreement showdown: After the FTC’s final rule setback, the NLRB gears up to tackle non-compete agreements

Massachusetts lawmakers had a busy 2024 and have ushered in several new measures to take effect in the coming months. As Massachusetts employers close out 2024 and look toward the new year, they should keep the following key dates in mind:

  • November 21, 2024: Massachusetts earned sick time expands to cover physical or mental health
…

Now that Governor Gavin Newsom’s September 30th deadline to approve or veto legislative bills has passed, California employers can begin preparing for the new laws that will affect their workplaces next year. The recent legislative session has yielded strengthened protections for workers in a diverse array of subject areas, including but not limited to union organization, freelance work, anti-discrimination, paid family leave, and artificial intelligence. The new laws go into effect January 1, 2025. To help employers stay ahead of the curve, we have highlighted the most significant employment laws signed into law below. We encourage employers to consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance.Continue Reading California employment law legislative update: What employers need to know for 2025

Since Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana in 2016, employers navigated the murky waters of drug testing applicants and employees who hold medical marijuana cards amid a lack of clarity in the law regarding these issues.

On September 24, 2024, a new law went into effect in the City of Pittsburgh that provides a guiding beacon for employers in this area. The law protects individuals holding medical marijuana cards from employment discrimination in the workplace based on their cannabis use for medically approved purposes. In other words, the law makes medical marijuana cardholders a protected class under local law.Continue Reading Rolling out new rights: Pittsburgh’s bold move on medical marijuana in the workplace

The government’s plans for unfair dismissal to become a day-one right (subject to reasonable use of probationary periods) create an uncertain time for employers, particularly those currently taking on new hires or entering into fixed term contracts. While we await detail of the government’s plans, we take a brief look at the history of the qualifying period and the transitional arrangements which have applied, the latter potentially indicative of what the arrangements will be this time around.

The right not to be unfairly dismissed has been part of established UK employment law since 1971 and is currently legislated for in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Although there are some exceptions, the right has always been subject to a qualifying period of service, i.e., that the employee must have been working for their employer for a prescribed period of time before they have unfair dismissal rights.Continue Reading Transition arrangements for a change in unfair dismissal qualification

The most significant UK employment law reform for 30 years includes radical plans for unfair dismissal rights to be available from day one of employment. When this was announced before the election, the government indicated that this would not prevent the “fair and transparent” use of probationary periods to assess new hires, and the Financial Times reported last week that employers will be able to engage new staff on probationary periods of up to six months, allowing them to be dismissed more easily in this time. 

This, naturally, raises the question as to how a six-month probationary period will sit alongside a day-one right. The answer to that question remains unclear. Continue Reading Day-one unfair dismissal rights and a six-month probationary period – how will that work?

With the 2024 election in full swing in the U.S., employers should anticipate political discussions and activity in the workplace. From employees taking time off from work to vote to expressing their political opinions during work, employers should remember a few key points related to their employees’ rights to eliminate potential issues in the workplace.Continue Reading Election season: Key reminders for employers

During vacation periods or times of high project workloads and tight deadlines, working overtime may be necessary to cover for absent colleagues or manage increased workload. These situations can lead to legal challenges, especially when disputes arise regarding overtime performance and compensation. Such conflicts are often the result of uncertainties in employment contracts.Continue Reading Overtime compensation in Germany: Staying compliant to avoid legal challenges

In July of this year, a Texas federal district court judge denied the state of Texas’ request to vacate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) most recent guidance relating to gender identity discrimination. In doing so, the federal court held that the state could not bring the challenge in a previously filed lawsuit regarding prior EEOC guidance but, instead, must file a new lawsuit.

The state of Texas first took issue with the EEOC’s 2021 guidance, which required bathroom, dress code, and pronoun accommodations for employees based on gender identity. Texas filed suit against the EEOC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, requesting the court vacate the 2021 guidance (2021 Lawsuit). On October 1, 2022, the court vacated the 2021 guidance and issued a declaratory judgment that the guidance was unlawful on several grounds, holding that it: (1) was contrary to law because Title VII, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, does not require employers to provide accommodations regarding bathrooms, dress codes, or pronoun usage based on gender identity; and (2) unlawfully extended Bostock’s “non-discrimination holding” beyond statutory limits imposed by Congress. The EEOC did not appeal the district court’s judgment.Continue Reading Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination

Earlier this month, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) updated its warning notice on the appropriate use of non-disclosure agreements (NDA), creating increased regulatory obligations for lawyers advising on, drafting and negotiating settlement agreements.

The updated warning notice reflects principles set out in existing Acas guidance which applies to anyone involved in settlement agreements. Whilst the warning notice only applies to those regulated by the SRA, i.e., law firms and lawyers (including in-house lawyers), it will be interesting to see whether the changes, which effectively give teeth to certain principles in the guidance as they apply to lawyers, have a wider impact on market practice approach to NDAs in settlement agreements. Failure by lawyers to comply with the SRA warning notice can result in them facing disciplinary action by the SRA for breach of their regulatory obligations.Continue Reading New SRA requirements for dealing with NDAs: Impact on settlement agreements