Labor & Employment Developments Blog

An often overlooked benefit provided by private-sector employers is paid federal and state holidays. Though many do so, private-sector employers generally are not required to: close, provide paid time off, pay a holiday premium, or treat holiday hours as “hours worked” for overtime calculations.

On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at clarifying when multiple entities may be considered “joint employers” under federal wage and hour laws. If finalized, the rule would create a single, more uniform standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and align that analysis with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), marking a significant step toward consistency across these statutes.

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”).