Employment Law and Labour Law

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.

As companies like Cisco, Amazon, and Meta announce layoffs while simultaneously reporting record profits, a troubling pattern emerges: are these workforce reductions truly driven by AI automation, or is something else at play? This analysis examines the phenomenon of "AI-washing" and explores whether artificial intelligence is genuinely replacing workers or simply serving as a convenient justification for cost-cutting measures that free up capital for future technology investments.

Criminal background check restrictions, popularly known as “ban the box” laws, are back in the news. The city of San Francisco has expanded its Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO)...

What factors must vocational experts consider when assessing a nurse's ability to return to work after injury or disability? This comprehensive analysis explores the educational requirements...

Chemical manufacturers and downstream users face critical compliance deadlines as OSHA's updated Hazard Communication Standard requires comprehensive revisions to safety data sheets, workplace labels, and employee training programs. The 2024 rule aligns U.S. standards with the UN's Globally Harmonized System Revision 7, introducing significant changes to hazard classifications, confidentiality provisions, and requirements for compressed gases and pressurized products.

Between July 2011 and June 2014, California-based Perfectus Aluminum Inc., Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC, and four affiliated warehousing companies imported more than 2.2 million aluminum extrusions from China.

The U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) extended the potential reach of SOX whistleblower coverage to private companies whose subsidiaries are partially owned by a publicly traded company. It also confirmed that reports to external auditors and concerns raised through an employee’s ordinary job duties may constitute protected activity.

AI-generated applications, deepfakes, and new background check requirements are changing how employers vet candidates. This episode explores common vetting mistakes, compliance considerations under the FCRA and EEOC guidance, and practical strategies for implementing effective background check processes that balance legal risk with business needs.

AI-driven productivity monitoring tools are creating new legal challenges for employers, particularly around privacy requirements and New York City's Automated Employment Decision Tool law. This discussion explores how workplace monitoring technologies that measure employee productivity can inadvertently trigger bias audit requirements and other compliance obligations, even when not explicitly used for hiring or promotion decisions.

Illinois has expanded workplace protections under the Human Rights Act to include menopause-related conditions, requiring employers to prevent discrimination and provide reasonable accommodations. Starting January 1, 2027, employers with one or more employees must update their policies, handbooks, and workplace notices to comply with these new requirements.

A federal lawsuit against Sirius XM alleges that its AI-powered applicant screening tool discriminates against African American job seekers by using data points like zip codes and school history as proxies for race. The case tests whether employers can be held liable under Title VII when algorithmic hiring systems produce discriminatory outcomes, even when using seemingly neutral criteria.