United States: Employment and HR

The National Labor Relations Board has reversed course on its aggressive stance against non-compete agreements and restrictive covenants following leadership changes in the Trump administration. Recent guidance memoranda signal a dramatic shift from the previous administration's position that such agreements generally violated workers' rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Employers now face a significantly more permissive regulatory environment for enforcing non-competes and separation agreement p

As employers navigate post-pandemic return-to-office policies, they face increasing requests from employees seeking remote work as a disability accommodation under the ADA. Recent federal appellate decisions provide crucial guidance on when full-time telework must be granted and when employers can require in-person attendance based on essential job functions. Understanding how courts analyze these fact-specific accommodation requests is essential for employers developing defensible remote work policies.

Minnesota's Department of Labor & Industry has finalized new rules implementing the state's Earned Sick and Safe Time Law, introducing significant clarifications for employers on attendance incentives, documentation requirements, and leave accrual calculations. These regulations establish critical distinctions between positive and negative attendance programs while addressing when employers can request medical documentation and how generous paid leave policies interact with statutory requirements.

Recent regulatory developments reshape employee benefit plan administration, from DOL guidance on Trump Accounts to Third Circuit rulings on ERISA fiduciary duties. Federal agencies finalize No Surprises Act dispute resolution procedures while CMS seeks input on pharmacy benefit manager oversight and compensation structures.

A social media trend reveals how tone and context shape workplace communication. When emails become evidence in legal proceedings, words must stand alone without the benefit of tone or facial expressions, making clarity and professionalism essential in all written workplace communications.

Two recent court developments underscore that challenges to the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) are far from over.

Recent regulatory developments reshape employee benefit plan administration, from DOL guidance on Trump Accounts to Third Circuit rulings on ERISA fiduciary duties. Federal agencies finalize No Surprises Act dispute resolution procedures while CMS seeks input on pharmacy benefit manager oversight and compensation structures.

Annual tax planning should be more than a wild scramble to meet basic tax deadlines. A proactive tax strategy should include an action plan covering tax structure, deductions, compensation strategies...

The Third Circuit's recent decision in a Quest Diagnostics ERISA case establishes crucial precedent for plan fiduciaries facing breach of duty claims over investment performance. The court's analysis centers on whether a documented, prudent process can shield fiduciaries from liability when funds underperform, and what standards courts should apply when evaluating short-term versus long-term investment results in retirement plans.

New York's Legislature has passed the "No Severance Ultimatums Act," which would impose significant new requirements on employers offering severance agreements to New York employees. The bill mandates a 21-day consideration period, a 7-day revocation window, and prohibits coercive tactics, expanding federal protections currently limited to workers aged 40 and older to nearly all New York employees. Employers must prepare for immediate implementation if Governor Hochul signs the bill, as non-compliant agreem

Bob was a solid, long-term employee. But at the company retreat, he stayed late at the bar, had a few too many drinks, and made a highly inappropriate pass at a member of the hotel staff.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that employers may lawfully terminate employees whose physical or mental conditions impair job performance, even when those conditions qualify as disabilities under state law. This landmark decision provides critical guidance for safety-sensitive positions while emphasizing the need for documented, objective evidence linking a disability to actual job impairment rather than assumptions or stereotypes.