In a favorable decision for California employers, the Court of Appeal in Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 899, affirmed that employers and employees can enter into prospective, written, and revocable agreements to waive meal periods for shifts between five and six hours.[1] This ruling confirms what employers have long known regarding the legality of these agreements.
Continue Reading California Court Upholds Prospective Meal Period Waivers

On July 4, 2025, H.R.1, or what is being called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”), was signed into law, introducing major reforms in tax and employee benefits that affect businesses and their employees. OBBBA is an expansive, omnibus legislative package that combines numerous, major policy proposals across a broad range of subject areas. The overarching purpose is ostensibly to cut spending by repealing or rolling back a significant number of wide-ranging provisions. OBBBA enacts new conservative policy priorities in taxation, spending, immigration, and social policy, and substantially modifies federal spending and certain entitlement programs.
Continue Reading What Employers Should Know About the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a significant shift in its wage and hour enforcement policy, ending the longstanding practice of seeking liquidated damages in administrative, prelitigation proceedings under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This move, outlined in Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) No. 2025-3, represents a marked change in regulatory approach and has immediate implications for employers, employees, and the broader employment law community. The change is intended to bring the DOL’s enforcement activities back in line with its statutory authority while streamlining the resolution of wage and hour investigations.
Continue Reading Department of Labor Curtails Liquidated Damages in Wage and Hour Investigations

As we have previously reported, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) is likely to undergo substantial policy changes during President Trump’s second term. This process began when President Trump took the unprecedented step of firing former Board Member Gwynn Wilcox before her five-year term had expired and continued as William B. Cowen, the Acting General Counsel (“AGC”) who was appointed to replace fired Biden-era GC Jennifer Abruzzo, rescinded many of the more notable guidance memoranda Abruzzo issued during her term. The General Counsel is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and…
Continue Reading NLRB Acting General Counsel Cowen Directs Regions to Prosecute Secret Recordings of Collective Bargaining Sessions as Per Se Violations of the NLRA

Beginning September 1, 2025, Texas will significantly narrow the permissible scope of non-compete agreements with certain healthcare employees. The legislation, Senate Bill 1318 (“SB 1318” codified in Tex. Bus. Com. Code § 15.50), represents the biggest legislative adjustment to restrictive covenants in the Lone Star State in decades.
Continue Reading Texas Enacts Massive Reforms to Healthcare Provider Non-Competes

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?