Employment Law and Labour Law

Whistleblower protection has evolved significantly since the UN Convention Against Corruption in 2003, yet the scope of protections and rewards varies dramatically across jurisdictions. From the robust reward systems in the United States and South Korea to the EU's protection-focused directive and emerging programs in Ghana, countries have taken vastly different approaches to encouraging and safeguarding those who expose wrongdoing.

New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) is one of the broadest whistleblower statutes in the country, but employers have tools to defend against claims that fail to meet specific legal requirements. The Appellate Division's recent decision in Sloan v. Cape Regional Medical Center illustrates how CEPA's identification requirement operates in practice, demonstrating when plaintiffs must cite specific legal authorities and what happens when they cannot.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ 2025 Dodd-Frank Report examines how the post-2008 financial regulatory landscape has performed under renewed stresses, such as bank failures and crypto-asset collapses.

New Jersey employers now face a critical new administrative requirement: reporting all employee separations to the state Department of Labor within seven days, regardless of whether the departing employee files for unemployment benefits. This mandate represents a significant departure from previous practice and carries substantial penalties for noncompliance, with fines reaching $500 or 25% of withheld unemployment benefits per violation.

Massachusetts employers must provide written notice to all employees within 48 hours of receiving an ICE Notice of Inspection or request to review I-9 forms and other employment records, unless federal law requires otherwise.

On June 29, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an important decision in Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., Docket No. A-1008-24, addressing representative wage-and-hour actions and the applicable statutes of limitations under New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL), Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is reportedly preparing to cut employer response deadlines in half—from 30 days to just 15 days—while simultaneously restricting extension requests. This procedural shift could fundamentally alter how organizations investigate workplace discrimination charges and prepare their defenses, particularly in complex cases involving multiple employees or extensive documentation.

On June 29, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an important decision in Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., Docket No. A-1008-24, addressing representative wage-and-hour actions and the applicable statutes of limitations under New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL), Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL).

A federal court has awarded Blake Lively over $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs under California's new anti-SLAPP statute after dismissing a defamation claim brought against her for speaking out about workplace harassment. This landmark ruling marks the first fee award under California Civil Code section 47.1, which protects communications about sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation—raising critical questions about the financial risks employers face when responding to workplace allega

A recent California lawsuit alleges that AI-based employee selection tools discriminated against workers on protected leave and those with disabilities during a reduction in force. The case highlights critical legal risks for employers deploying AI in high-stakes employment decisions, particularly around how AI systems handle productivity metrics for employees who are absent or working under accommodations.

When workforce reductions happen in multiple waves across related corporate entities, how does federal law treat them in the aggregate? The recent Ubisoft layoffs at Red Storm Entertainment in North Carolina illustrate critical compliance questions under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act that every employer must understand before implementing workforce changes.

A federal district court ruling in Tennessee has determined that fully remote employees do not establish a "single site of employment" under the federal WARN Act, creating uncertainty for employers navigating workforce reductions in an increasingly remote-first business environment. With lower courts divided on this issue and no appellate guidance yet available, the legal landscape for WARN Act compliance in distributed workforces remains unsettled and fact-dependent.