Federal labor and employment standards continue to shift as agencies revisit rules issued over the past several years. For HR professionals, staying current on these developments is critical to managing compliance risk and workforce strategy.
Doing business in California has always been a daunting task for employers because of California’s onerous regulations for employers. Now that we are nearly two months into 2026, it is important to ensure you are complying with the most recent regulations.
As the new year begins, employers once again face a shifting labor and employment legal landscape. With Congress continuing to delay adoption of a comprehensive federal paid family and medical leave framework, states and local governments have accelerated their own efforts. In 2026, several state-mandated paid leave laws will take effect for the first time, while others will expand in scope, duration, or eligibility. For employers, particularly those operating in multiple jurisdictions, these developments increase compliance obligations, administrative complexity, and litigation risk.
On November 21, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2025-69, providing guidance and clarification on the new federal income tax deductions for employee tips and certain overtime compensation taking effect in tax year 2025.
On September 29, 2025, Ohio’s version of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“Ohio WARN Act”) officially went into effect. The enactment of this law makes Ohio the latest state to join the growing list of jurisdictions with so-called “mini-WARN” statutes. Although the Ohio WARN Act closely tracks the federal WARN Act, it is not the same and introduces key ambiguities that employers must navigate carefully to avoid costly penalties.
A recent $24.75 million class action settlement in Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., marks yet another milestone in the ongoing debate over gig-economy worker classification. This settlement serves as a reminder to companies of all sizes that how they classify workers can carry significant legal and financial consequences.
Case Overview
Grubhub recently settled a decade-long class action lawsuit in California, in which a former delivery driver accused it of misclassifying him as an independent contractor rather than an employee. After years of litigation, including multiple appeals ...
Social media has become an unavoidable part of society and an unavoidable issue in the workplace. While online posts may seem personal, a single tweet, post, or comment can quickly escalate into a workplace issue. With more than 70% of Americans active on at least one social media platform, employers should ensure their social media policies are carefully drafted to protect business interests while preserving employee rights.
Recently, a federal court in the Northern District of California issued an important ruling in the closely followed Mobley v. Workday putative class action lawsuit alleging that Workday, a cloud-based software vendor specializing in financial management and human capital management, violated federal discrimination laws. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim Workday’s AI hiring platform screens out applicants over age 40 in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
Most employers understand their obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment at work, and the significant consequences that can come if such treatment is allowed to occur. But what if an employee alleges harassment not from a co-worker, but from a company’s customer or other non-employee? In a decision announced last week, the 6th Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) announced a new framework for reviewing these claims, one which conflicts with official agency guidance and other courts across the country.
Bivens v. Zep, Inc. involved claims ...
From resume screening bots to AI tools that assess facial expressions in interviews, artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how employers make decisions about candidates and employees. Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems (ADS) are reshaping the entire employment lifecycle, from the moment a job posting goes live to the day of separation.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- FLSA
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- FMLA
- Discrimination
- Telework
- Transgender Issues
- Diversity
- Social Media
- Title VII
- Coronavirus
- Employer Policies
- Religion Discrimination
- Employment Litigation
- Wage & Hour
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- NLRB
- Paid Leave Laws
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Tax Credit
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Department of Justice
- Privacy
- Compliance
- NLRA
- Supreme Court
- Arbitration
- Worker Classification
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Harassment
- Litigation
- IRS
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA
- EEOC Rescinds Anti-Harassment Guidance Addressing Transgender Protections
- The EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Employer DEI Programs in 2026
- The Commute Counts: DOL Confirms FMLA Leave Extends to Travel Time
- Expansion of State Paid Leave Laws in 2026
- Work Opportunity Tax Credit At Risk: Use It Before You Lose It
- IRS Releases Additional Guidance on New Tip and Overtime Tax Deductions for 2025
- EEOC Takes Aim at Perceived Anti-American Bias