Labor and Employment

Subscribe to Labor and Employment via RSS

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 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

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

On September 10, 2025, Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01), together with Democrat co-lead Representative Don Davis (NC-01), introduced the American Franchise Act (H.R. 5267, hereinafter “AFA”). The AFA is designed to provide consistency and clarity on when a franchisor may be considered a “joint employer” of a franchisee’s employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”). Aimed at curtailing joint employer liability and stopping the see-saw rulemaking that has plagued the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) in recent years, this legislation would potentially govern the rights of approximately five percent of all workers in the United States, or approximately 8,400,000 individuals.Continue Reading Congress Introduces the “American Franchise Act” to Clarify Joint Employer Liability

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