Employment Law and Labour Law

California's new Senate Bill 951 amends the Cal-WARN Act to require employers to disclose when mass layoffs or relocations are substantially caused by artificial intelligence or automated technology. What specific information must employers now include in their notices, and how will these technology-driven workforce reductions be tracked and reported by state agencies?

California has enacted sweeping new legislation regulating artificial intelligence in employment decisions, from prohibiting fully automated terminations to restricting AI-powered workplace surveillance. These laws establish unprecedented requirements for human oversight, employee notification, and transparency when employers deploy automated decision systems. What do these regulations mean for companies using AI tools to manage their workforce, and how should employers prepare for compliance?

California has enacted three new laws governing employer use of artificial intelligence and automated tools in layoffs, workplace monitoring, discipline, and termination. These laws are separate from the California Consumer Privacy Act’s automated decisionmaking technology (ADMT) rules and apply more broadly to employers and public entities that are not covered by the CCPA. CCPA covered employers may need to integrate compliance with ADMT and Risk Assessment requirements (for sensitive personal information processing activities and automated decisionmaking technology).

Workplace privacy laws vary dramatically across borders, creating complex compliance challenges for multinational employers. Two privacy specialists examine how organizations can navigate the stark differences between US consent-based frameworks and international data protection regimes when managing employee and candidate information across jurisdictions.

California's new Senate Bill 951 amends the Cal-WARN Act to require employers to disclose when mass layoffs or relocations are substantially caused by artificial intelligence or automated technology. What specific information must employers now include in their notices, and how will these technology-driven workforce reductions be tracked and reported by state agencies?

Many space and defense jobs require a federal security clearance. If the government denies, delays, or revokes a clearance, an employee may be unable to continue in that role; the employer may reassign or terminate the employee. If the cleared individual is an officer of the company, revocation could jeopardize the company’s eligibility to perform cleared work. A subsequent employment claim may allege discrimination or retaliation in the clearance process or in the employer’s response.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) on September 16, 2026 released an Artificial Intelligence Supervisory Framework designed to help state financial examiners identify and understand how the bank and non-bank institutions they regulate are using artificial intelligence, assess the associated risks, and determine when a more in-depth review may be appropriate.

The traditional reception model assumed someone was physically present at a front desk. That structure is less practical for solo, virtual, hybrid, and small practices, where one person often wears every hat. Smaller firms are separating reception work from physical office presence, driven by operational necessity rather than enthusiasm for remote work itself.

A mid-sized manufacturing company facing financial turmoil after a private equity acquisition found itself struggling with employee turnover, delayed accounting, and unreliable financial reporting. When traditional support failed to deliver the hands-on assistance needed, a specialized advisory team stepped in to restore financial clarity and guide the business from crisis to profitability.

In a significant en banc decision, Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America, Inc., No. 24-10084, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overruled its four-decade-old precedent in Mason v. Continental Group, Inc., 763 F.2d 1219 (11th Cir. 1985), and found that ERISA does not require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing statutory claims—including claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

A Pennsylvania federal district court judge granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a proposed class action alleging Penn State Health mismanaged its defined-contribution retirement plans. The judge also ordered discovery into claims that the poorly performing investment options breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, a pivotal case examining whether plan participants must meet a "meaningful benchmark" requirement when challenging 401(k) investment decisions based on alleged fund underperformance. The case could fundamentally reshape how ERISA fiduciaries defend investment choices and how courts evaluate claims of imprudent fund selection in retirement plans.