Introduction

On September 29, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 729 into law, creating a significant shift in reproductive health policy for employers statewide by expanding fertility insurance coverage in California. Effective January 1, 2026, SB 729 mandates that fully insured, large group health plans (those with 101 or more covered employees) must provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). These changes reflect California’s efforts to expand access to fertility care and mirror policies in select other states—which we have previously discussed here.Continue Reading California SB 729: New Fertility Coverage Mandate for Employers

The landscape of college athletics is entering uncharted territory. On June 6, 2025, final approval of the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement resolved three major antitrust lawsuits and authorized direct revenue sharing between Division 1 schools and their athletes. This development represents a major departure from the NCAA’s longstanding model of amateurism and carries significant implications for the legal status of student-athletes.Continue Reading Opening a New Playbook: How the House Settlement and NLRB Are Reshaping Labor Rights in College Sports

On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address a deepening circuit split about the process for certifying collective class actions under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). As a result, uncertainty persists for employers and employees alike, with federal courts adopting a range of standards.Continue Reading Certification Crossroads: Supreme Court Declines Review, Deepening Circuit Split on Opt-In Standards for FLSA and ADEA Class Claims

In response to concerns raised by Governor Kathy Hochul and stakeholders in the employment sector regarding ambiguities in the Trapped at Work Act, the New York Legislature has quickly introduced Chapter Amendments (A.9452/S.8822) to clarify and refine the law’s scope and application. Notably, the amendments – introduced on January 6, 2026 – would limit coverage to “employees” and carve out exceptions for tuition repayment agreements and certain non-educational repayment agreements, such as bonuses and relocation payments not tied to specific job performance, provided the employee is not terminated for reasons other than misconduct or the employer misrepresented the job’s duties and requirements. The amendments would also postpone the Act’s effective date from December 19, 2025 to December 19, 2026.Continue Reading New York Legislature Moves Quickly to Clarify The Trapped at Work Act

On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Trapped at Work Act (the “Act”), introducing sweeping new restrictions on certain employment-related repayment agreements. Effective immediately, the Act prohibits employers from requiring any worker or prospective worker to sign agreements that obligate the individual to repay moneys paid by the employer if the worker leaves before a designated period. These agreements – commonly referred to as “stay-or-pay” agreements – are now deemed unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and unenforceable under New York law.Continue Reading New York’s Trapped at Work Act: Immediate Prohibition of “Stay-or-Pay” Employment Provisions

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “EO”). This EO targets state laws addressing artificial intelligence and creates potential compliance issues employers must carefully navigate.Continue Reading What Employers Should Know About President Trump’s AI Executive Order

On November 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued important guidance confirming that religious employers are not categorically exempt from wage and hour obligations under state law. In Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, the court addressed whether the First Amendment’s ministerial exception—a doctrine barring judicial intervention in certain employment disputes involving religious organizations—precludes wage claims brought by ministers. Significantly, the court held that California’s wage and hour statutes apply to religious staff engaged in commercial activities, absent specific evidence that enforcing these laws would infringe upon core religious governance or doctrine.Continue Reading No Blanket Immunity Under the “Ministerial Exemption” for Religious Employers Under California Wage and Hour Law—Insights from Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center

Beginning January 1, 2026, Illinois employers will face expanded obligations as a result of amendments to the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (“IWTA” or “Act”) following the enactment of House Bill 3638. The amendments, which Governor JB Pritzker signed into law on August 15, 2025, significantly broaden protections for employees and impose new requirements and restrictions on settlement and termination agreements. These amendments apply to any employment contract entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2026, with the exception of collective bargaining agreements covered by federal or Illinois public labor statutes. The most impactful amendments to the IWTA are summarized below.Continue Reading Expanded Employer Obligations Under the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act Effective January 1, 2026

On December 18, 2025, the Senate confirmed President Trump’s three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”). The confirmation restores quorum for the NLRB, which was lacking for nearly an entire year. Without a quorum, the Board was unable to perform the majority of its functions, including issuing decisions.Continue Reading NLRB Regains Quorum, Trump Nominees Confirmed By Senate

Earlier this Fall, the Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or the “FTC”) officially ceded its fight to impose a nationwide ban on employee noncompete agreements (the “Noncompete Ban”).Continue Reading FTC Signals Shift to Targeted Enforcement of Non-Competes in the Healthcare Industry

Delaware Courts Continue to Scrutinize Noncompete Agreements

As previously reported (here, here and here), courts in Delaware, the once favored “employer-friendly” jurisdiction, have increasingly scrutinized and refused to enforce noncompete agreements. In recent cases, Delaware courts have continued this trend, this time focusing on forfeiture-upon-competition provisions in equity or profit incentive agreements that also include affirmative restrictive covenants. Two of these cases are Delaware Chancery Court noncompete cases. Following on the heels of the Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmation of the employee choice doctrine, three trial courts have held that forfeiture of equity results in a failure of consideration such that the affirmative restrictive covenants are unenforceable. The practical effect of these cases is to force companies to choose between forfeiture or affirmative restrictions when crafting their equity contracts with employees. We can expect further developments in Delaware noncompete law and its implications for drafting incentive units and noncompete agreements under Delaware law, as two of the three cases are now on appeal. Recent cases are discussed below.Continue Reading Delaware Courts Limit Noncompete Enforcement in Incentive Plans