Earlier this Fall, the Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or the “FTC”) officially ceded its fight to impose a nationwide ban on employee noncompete agreements (the “Noncompete Ban”).
Continue Reading FTC Signals Shift to Targeted Enforcement of Non-Competes in the Healthcare Industry
On September 10, 2025, Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01), together with Democrat co-lead Representative Don Davis (NC-01), introduced the American Franchise Act (H.R. 5267, hereinafter “AFA”). The AFA is designed to provide consistency and clarity on when a franchisor may be considered a “joint employer” of a franchisee’s employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”). Aimed at curtailing joint employer liability and stopping the see-saw rulemaking that has plagued the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) in recent years, this legislation would potentially govern the rights of approximately five percent of all workers in the United States, or
Continue Reading Congress Introduces the “American Franchise Act” to Clarify Joint Employer Liability
Delaware Courts Continue to Scrutinize Noncompete Agreements
As previously reported (here, here and here), courts in Delaware, the once favored “employer-friendly” jurisdiction, have increasingly scrutinized and refused to enforce noncompete agreements. In recent cases, Delaware courts have continued this trend, this time focusing on forfeiture-upon-competition provisions in equity or profit incentive agreements that also include affirmative restrictive covenants. Two of these cases are Delaware Chancery Court noncompete cases. Following on the heels of the Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmation of the employee choice doctrine, three trial courts have held that forfeiture of equity results in a failure
Continue Reading Delaware Courts Limit Noncompete Enforcement in Incentive Plans
The New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”) is expanding. On October 25, 2025, the ESSTA was amended to provide additional benefits to employees. These amendments go into effect on February 22, 2026, and will require covered New York City employers to adjust practices and leave policies in several key areas, including: (i) employers must grant an additional 32 hours of unpaid leave to new employees upon hire and to all employees at the beginning of each benefit year; and (ii) employers must comply with a broader range of reasons for which employees can use time under ESSTA.
Continue Reading New York City Expands Sick Time Law
On October 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the structure and authority of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) against three constitutional challenges in NLRB v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments LLC (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds NLRB Authority and Structure – Creating Split with Fifth Circuit
The 2024–2025 California legislative session came to an official close at midnight on October 13, 2025, when Governor Newsom’s deadline to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature expired. Of the approximately 917 bills passed by the Legislature, the Governor signed 794 bills into law and vetoed 123 bills. The bills signed into law include several new employment-related laws for California employers.
Continue Reading California’s 2024-2025 Legislative Session Closes with a Host of New Employment Laws for 2026
On August 15, 2025, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 2487 into law, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/7A-102. Among other reforms going into effect on January 1, 2026, the legislation fundamentally changes how the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR” or the “Department”) processes charges of discrimination.
Continue Reading Illinois Department of Human Rights Eliminates Fact-Finding Conferences: What It Means for Charges of Discrimination
Hot flashes at work? Rhode Island says: let’s cool things down. In a historic move, the Ocean State has become the first in the nation to mandate workplace accommodations for menopause and related conditions. Yes, you read that right—menopause is now officially protected under state employment law.
Continue Reading “It’s Getting Hot in Here” – Rhode Island’s New Workplace Accommodations for Menopause
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed suit against the State of California and the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) seeking to block enforcement of Assembly Bill 288, a new law that would allow California to step into the NLRB’s shoes under certain conditions. The NLRB contends that AB 288 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Continue Reading NLRB Challenges California’s AB 288 as Preempted by Federal Law
On October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom enacted Assembly Bill No. 692 (AB 692), effectively adding Section 16608 to the Business and Professions Code and Section 926 to the Labor Code.
Continue Reading California AB 692: New Employment Contract Restrictions Effective 2026
Background
On September 4, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington about who qualifies as a “job applicant” under the pay transparency provision of Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (“EPOA”), RCW 49.58.110. The opinion has important implications for Washington employers.
Continue Reading Wanted: Job Applicants (No Strings Attached): Washington’s New Standard for Pay Posting Compliance
Last year, we reported that Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 399, codified as California Labor Code section 1137, into law. This statute bans employers from holding captive audience meetings, which are mandatory employer-sponsored meetings that discuss religious or political matters—including unionization. California is one of at least 12 states that have passed captive audience laws at the urging of labor unions.
Continue Reading Captive Audience Meetings: Prohibitions Remain on Hold
On Tuesday September 30, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 (“AB 288”), which grants a California state agency the authority to enforce federal labor law in the absence of action by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).
Continue Reading California Signs Law Granting State Agency Authority Over Private Sector Labor Disputes
As we discussed in June, the New York State Legislature passed a bill usurping the power of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) to regulate labor disputes in the private sector while the Board lacks a quorum. On September 5, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the bill into law, which became effective immediately. Unsurprisingly, shortly thereafter, NLRB Acting General Counsel William Cowen announced that the NLRB is preparing to file a lawsuit challenging the new law, which he called an attack on the “core jurisdiction” of the NLRB.
Continue Reading The NLRB Announces Its Intention to Sue Just as Governor Hochul Signs Bill Asserting Jurisdiction Over Labor Relations in New York
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (the “Age Act”) proscribes age-based discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The Age Act generally does not restrict age discrimination in employment practices, as this is the purview of a separate federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”). On August 18, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ranking of medical residents by medical schools is an “employment practice” to which the Age Act does not apply. The case, Spatz v. Regents of the University of California,
Continue Reading Age Discrimination Act—Which Proscribes Age Discrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance—Does Not Apply to Medical Residency Rankings, Ninth Circuit Panel Rules
On August 19, 2025, the Fifth Circuit upheld injunctions barring the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) from prosecuting unfair labor practice cases against SpaceX and two other companies. In its decision, a three-judge panel found the removal protections that federal labor law grants NLRB members and NLRB administrative law judges (“ALJs”) likely violate the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that being subjected to proceedings by unconstitutionally insulated officers constitutes irreparable harm, leading to preliminary injunctions blocking the NLRB cases.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rules NLRB Structure Likely Unconstitutional