Employment Law and Labour Law

Congress has adjourned until November as midterm elections approach, leaving critical legislative priorities unfinished. The Department of Labor's final independent contractor rule has reached OIRA for review, while Keith Sonderling has been confirmed as Secretary of Labor in the Senate's final action before recess. These developments set the stage for significant workplace policy changes in the coming months.

California Governor Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 1883, introducing significant restrictions on employer use of AI-powered surveillance technologies in the workplace. The new law specifically prohibits emotion recognition software and neural monitoring devices, joining a growing trend of states regulating electronic workplace monitoring. Employers must now navigate these restrictions while understanding the limited exceptions available for certain federally-regulated industries.

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has identified several Biden-era NLRB decisions for potential reversal under the newly reconstituted Republican-majority Board. These decisions, which previously favored labor interests, affect both unionized and non-unionized employers across various workplace issues. With the Board now operational after nearly a year without a quorum, significant changes to labor law precedent are anticipated.

Share on Twitter Print Share by Email Share Back to top By now you have likely heard that the EEOC has significantly reduced the time to respond to a notice of a pending EEOC charge. Historically, when a respondent received a notice of an EEOC charge (which are delivered via e-correspondence — so be on the lookout for e-mail from the EEOC), it typically had at least 30 days to provide a response.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently held a public hearing on its proposed rescission of EEO-1 reporting requirements. Most of the 22 individuals who spoke at the hearing asked the EEOC to retain or modernize the reporting requirements instead of eliminating them.

Laura Mitchell leads Jackson Lewis P.C.'s Workplace Analytics and Preventive Strategies Pay Equity subgroup, partnering with employers to develop policies ensuring workplace fairness. Her expertise focuses on evaluating and implementing practices that promote equitable compensation while reducing legal risks.

A federal court in New York's Northern District has issued a pivotal ruling on whether warehouse employees must be compensated for time spent walking between security checkpoints and timeclock stations. The decision examines the interplay between federal Portal-to-Portal Act limitations and New York state wage regulations, with significant implications for employers operating large distribution facilities.

New York's minimum wage will hold steady at current rates through early 2027, but Governor Hochul has proposed legislation that would tie future increases to inflation beginning March 1, 2027. Home care workers will see immediate wage increases to $19-$20 per hour starting January 1, 2027, while standard minimum wages remain at $16-$17 depending on location. Employers across the state should prepare now for potential legislative changes that could affect payroll systems and compensation structures.

California has revised its restrictions on stay-or-pay provisions through Assembly Bill 1697, postponing compliance until January 1, 2027, and expanding exceptions for retention bonuses, relocation payments, and financial services agreements. The new law permits employers to recoup advanced paid time off payments under certain conditions and removes the requirement that qualifying bonuses be offered only at the outset of employment...

A reduction in force may be driven by legitimate business needs, but an unclear selection process or inconsistent internal communications can turn a defensible decision into a jury question.

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?