Labor and Employment

Subscribe to Labor and Employment via RSS

The New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”) is expanding. On October 25, 2025, the ESSTA was amended to provide additional benefits to employees. These amendments go into effect on February 22, 2026, and will require covered New York City employers to adjust practices and leave policies in several key areas, including: (i) employers must grant an additional 32 hours of unpaid leave to new employees upon hire and to all employees at the beginning of each benefit year; and (ii) employers must comply with a broader range of reasons for which employees can use time under ESSTA.Continue Reading New York City Expands Sick Time Law

On October 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the structure and authority of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) against three constitutional challenges in NLRB v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments LLC (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds NLRB Authority and Structure – Creating Split with Fifth Circuit

The 2024–2025 California legislative session came to an official close at midnight on October 13, 2025, when Governor Newsom’s deadline to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature expired. Of the approximately 917 bills passed by the Legislature, the Governor signed 794 bills into law and vetoed 123 bills. The bills signed into law include several new employment-related laws for California employers.Continue Reading California’s 2024-2025 Legislative Session Closes with a Host of New Employment Laws for 2026

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed suit against the State of California and the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) seeking to block enforcement of Assembly Bill 288, a new law that would allow California to step into the NLRB’s shoes under certain conditions. The NLRB contends that AB 288 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Continue Reading NLRB Challenges California’s AB 288 as Preempted by Federal Law

On Tuesday September 30, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 (“AB 288”), which grants a California state agency the authority to enforce federal labor law in the absence of action by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).Continue Reading California Signs Law Granting State Agency Authority Over Private Sector Labor Disputes

As we discussed in June, the New York State Legislature passed a bill usurping the power of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) to regulate labor disputes in the private sector while the Board lacks a quorum. On September 5, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the bill into law, which became effective immediately. Unsurprisingly, shortly thereafter, NLRB Acting General Counsel William Cowen announced that the NLRB is preparing to file a lawsuit challenging the new law, which he called an attack on the “core jurisdiction” of the NLRB.Continue Reading The NLRB Announces Its Intention to Sue Just as Governor Hochul Signs Bill Asserting Jurisdiction Over Labor Relations in New York

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (the “Age Act”) proscribes age-based discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The Age Act generally does not restrict age discrimination in employment practices, as this is the purview of a separate federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”). On August 18, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ranking of medical residents by medical schools is an “employment practice” to which the Age Act does not apply. The case, Spatz v. Regents of the University of California, clarifies that the decision not to accept a medical student into a residency program does not give rise to a cause of action under the Age Act.Continue Reading Age Discrimination Act—Which Proscribes Age Discrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance—Does Not Apply to Medical Residency Rankings, Ninth Circuit Panel Rules

On August 19, 2025, the Fifth Circuit upheld injunctions barring the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) from prosecuting unfair labor practice cases against SpaceX and two other companies. In its decision, a three-judge panel found the removal protections that federal labor law grants NLRB members and NLRB administrative law judges (“ALJs”) likely violate the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that being subjected to proceedings by unconstitutionally insulated officers constitutes irreparable harm, leading to preliminary injunctions blocking the NLRB cases. Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rules NLRB Structure Likely Unconstitutional

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is sharpening its focus on “salting”—the practice of union organizers seeking employment with non-union employers to facilitate organizing campaigns. On July 24, 2025, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel (“AGC”) William Cowen issued updated guidance that both clarifies and intensifies scrutiny around salting cases, altering how these matters will be investigated and litigated.[1] Employers and HR professionals should take note of this evolving landscape.Continue Reading Hold the Salt: Key Takeaways from the NLRB’s New Guidance on Union Salting

The Sunshine State just got brighter for Florida employers seeking to enforce non-compete agreements. On April 24, 2025, the Florida legislature passed the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act (the “Act”). The Act—which took effect on July 1, 2025—significantly enhances the enforceability of both non-compete and garden leave agreements in Florida. As a result, Florida may now be the most non-compete friendly state in the nation.Continue Reading Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Florida’s New Non-Compete Law Shakes Up the Sunshine State

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