With mounting uncertainty about the lack of a quorum and near term future of the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB” or the “Board”), New York State legislators are attempting to usurp the powers delegated to the Board by Congress. New York lawmakers have passed legislation that, if signed by Governor Kathy Hochul, would grant state agencies the power to enforce federal labor law. Employers could face significant challenges if this bill becomes law. Most concerning, employers could have a collective bargaining agreement imposed on them by an arbitrator.
Continue Reading New York State Looks to Take Over Labor Law Enforcement Amidst Uncertainty at the NLRB

On May 19, 2025, the New Jersey legislature followed in New York’s footsteps and introduced two bills, S.B. 4385 and S.B. 4386, seeking to significantly curtail, if not totally ban, the use of non-compete clauses in the employment relationship.
Continue Reading New Jersey Legislature Introduces Bills Calling for Sweeping Bans on Non-Compete and No-Poach Agreements

A recent decision from the Second District California Court of Appeal highlights the importance of employers making timely payments of arbitration fees and offers a glimpse of one of the several potential outcomes of a case pending before the California Supreme Court involving the same issue.
Continue Reading Another Published California Appellate Decision Finds Waiver of Right to Arbitrate Due to Untimely Payment of Fees, Ahead of California Supreme Court Ruling on Same Issue

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump temporarily halted enforcement of parts of the diversity, equity and inclusion and “gender ideology” Executive Orders – specifically, as they apply to the named plaintiffs in the case. …
Continue Reading California District Court Partially Enjoins Application of DEI and “Gender Ideology” Executive Orders Against Coalition of LGBTQIA+ Nonprofit Organizations

As we previously reported here, here, and here, employers must navigate a rapidly evolving legal landscape as artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform the modern workplace. From federal rollbacks to aggressive state-level regulation, the use of AI in employment decisions—particularly in hiring, performance management, and surveillance—has become a focal point for lawmakers, regulators, and litigators alike. This article contains an overview of the shifting federal landscape on the use of AI at work, the state level response, and offers recommendations for employers to mitigate risk.
Continue Reading Where Are We Now With the Use of AI in the Workplace?

The California Court of Appeal issued an important decision clarifying that an employee cannot recover damages for a defamation claim that is derivative of a wrongful termination claim. Defamation causes of action are often alleged by employees in tandem with and related to an underlying discrimination or wrongful termination claim. The Court in Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025) held that in order for an employee to recover defamation damages, the defamatory conduct must be based on conduct other than the conduct giving rise to the termination.
Continue Reading Court of Appeal Holds an Employee Cannot Recover Damages for Defamation Related to a Wrongful Termination Claim

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that the standard for establishing a Title VII claim is the same for all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. In doing so, the Court rejected the application of the “background circumstances” rule, which had previously required members of a majority group to meet a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII cases.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Confirms Title VII’s Standard Is the Same for Majority and Minority-Group Plaintiffs

Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further complicated the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) landscape. In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 (2024), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) rejected the so-called “headless” PAGA theory and held that every PAGA action must include both an individual and a non-individual claim even if the plaintiff disavows their own claim, thereby preventing plaintiffs from using this strategy to avoid arbitration. A conflicting decision was…
Continue Reading Will the California Supreme Court Put the Heads Back on Headless PAGA Suits?

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Member Gwynne Wilcox cannot return to work while she challenges President Donald Trump’s decision to terminate her without cause. The latest decision comes in a long line of court decisions since Trump terminated Wilcox in January 2025. The central issue revolves around 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935) limiting the President’s power to fire employees at independent agencies. …
Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides Against Reinstating Wilcox to NLRB as They Rule on Her Termination – NLRB Remains Without a Quorum

On May 1, 2025, the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Wage and Hour Division announced it would not enforce or apply the Biden-era 2024 Final Rule regarding independent contractor classification (“2024 Rule”). Specifically, the DOL directed its investigators “not to apply the 2024 Rule’s analysis” in enforcement matters. The DOL’s announcement will undoubtedly make it easier to classify workers as independent contractors at the federal level—and continues a seesaw of regulatory pull-back from Biden-era directives. While the 2024 Rule does remain in effect for private litigation and certain state-specific tests still impose higher worker classification standards than the current…
Continue Reading DOL Retracts Biden-Era Independent Contractor Classification Rule

Effective May 1, 2025, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) implemented significant revisions to AAA Employment/Workplace Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. According to the AAA, these revisions aim to improve transparency, efficiency, and fairness in the arbitration process, while also addressing the evolving needs of workplace disputes. The changes carry important practical considerations for anyone involved in employment arbitration before the AAA. Below we discuss the key updates and what they mean for litigants.
Continue Reading Major Changes to AAA Employment Arbitration Rules: What Employers and Litigants Need to Know

Effective July 1, 2025, Wyoming will restrict the enforceability of non-compete agreements. In enacting Senate Bill 107, Wyoming joins a growing list of states that have significantly restricted, or completely banned, non-compete agreements.
Continue Reading Have Employees in Wyoming? Start Preparing for the Non-Compete Ban

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” (the “Executive Order”) seeking to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”…
Continue Reading New Executive Order Aims to End Disparate Impact Liability for Discrimination