Labor & Employment

Subscribe to Labor & Employment via RSS

As we previously reported here, here, and here, employers must navigate a rapidly evolving legal landscape as artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform the modern workplace. From federal rollbacks to aggressive state-level regulation, the use of AI in employment decisions—particularly in hiring, performance management, and surveillance—has become a focal point for lawmakers, regulators, and litigators alike. This article contains an overview of the shifting federal landscape on the use of AI at work, the state level response, and offers recommendations for employers to mitigate risk.Continue Reading Where Are We Now With the Use of AI in the Workplace?

On Tuesday May 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon, Michael H. Simon issued a decision in Casala LLC, d/b/a Bubble’s Hash and Rec Rehab Consulting LLC, d/b/a Ascend Dispensary v. Tina Kotek, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-244-SI (D.Or. May 20, 2025), striking down Oregon’s United for Cannabis Workers Act and holding that the law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) in violation of the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.Continue Reading Oregon Federal Judge Strikes Down State Law Requiring Labor Peace Agreements for Cannabis Licensure and Certification – OLCC Will No Longer Enforce State Requirement

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a favorable ruling for President Trump, staying a recent district court decision that ruled his termination of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) Member Gwynne Wilcox was unlawful. Thus, it appears that the Board again is left without statutory quorum, which under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) requires at least three members.Continue Reading Split D.C. Circuit Panel Rules Trump Can Remove Wilcox from NLRB – NLRB to Stay Without a Quorum

As Los Angeles (the “City”) grapples with the impacts of the devastating wildfires, employers are facing critical decisions about protecting their workforce while maintaining operations. While Cal/OSHA recently urged employers to protect workers from unhealthy air in Los Angeles County, this article will provide further insight on a variety of the complex legal obligations California employers must navigate during wildfire and other natural disaster emergencies.Continue Reading Navigating Employer Obligations During California’s Wildfire Disasters

Many employers are already familiar with California’s Fair Chance Act (“FCA”), which went into effect in 2018 and governs how employers may consider an applicant’s criminal history in hiring decisions. Effective October 10, 2024, San Diego County adopted its own Fair Chance Ordinance (“SDFCO”). Covered employers in the County must now comply with both the county’s SDFCO in addition to the state’s FCA.Continue Reading San Diego County Adds Local Restrictions for Covered Employers to Comply with in Addition to California’s Fair Chance Act

Yesterday, August 28th, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) (the “Antitrust Agencies”), together with the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) and National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”), signed a new agreement (the Memorandum of Understanding or “MOU”) that seeks to enhance the ability of the FTC and DOJ to investigate the impact of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets.Continue Reading U.S. Federal Antitrust Agencies Announce Cooperation Initiative with Labor Agencies in Merger Review

In Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, — Cal. App. 5th —, 2024 WL 3878448 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2024), the California Court of Appeal answered two long outstanding questions of California law concerning the enforceability of noncompetition agreements in the context of the sale of a business:Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement

As we have previously reported, from the time President Biden took office, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) began systematically reversing Trump-era policy, and shifting toward pro-union and pro-employee policies. On August 22, 2024, the Board continued that push. This time taking steps to significantly impede the ability of employers to avoid unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges without resorting to litigation. Continue Reading NLRB Will No Longer Approve Employer Proposed Consent Orders

On August 1, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Turrieta v. Lyft that substantially narrows the authority of PAGA litigants to intervene in overlapping PAGA actions. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that the courts and the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) – and not competing PAGA litigants – have primary responsibility for providing oversight of PAGA settlements.Continue Reading Intervening Authority: California Supreme Court Curbs the Authority of PAGA Litigants to Intervene in Overlapping PAGA Actions

Amidst a wave of non-compete bans sweeping California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Minnesota and, most recently, the nation via the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete prohibition, Maine Governor Janet Mills departed from this growing trend and vetoed L.D. 1496, An Act To Prohibit Noncompete Clauses (“L.D. 1496”) in April 2024. If enacted, the L.D. 1496 would have effectively foreclosed employers from entering into non-compete clauses with employees in Maine.Continue Reading Maine Governor’s Veto of Non-Compete Ban Bucks Growing Trend Among States and Federal Trade Commission

As previously discussed, on June 18, 2024, California’s political leaders announced a tentative deal to reform a number of aspects of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). On June 27, 2024, the PAGA reform bills, Senate Bill 92 and Assembly Bill 2288, were approved by the California Legislature and on July 1, 2024, Governor Newsom signed both bills into law. The PAGA reform bills contain urgency clauses such that the bills take effect upon signing. Both bills explicitly apply only to PAGA claims filed on or after June 19, 2024, or those PAGA claims for which the required notice to California’s Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) was filed on or after June 19, 2024. The PAGA reform bills add details to the previously announced key reform components of increased employee share of PAGA penalties, caps on penalties for employers who take steps to comply with the Labor Code or fix potential issues after receiving notice of a PAGA claim, and requiring the representative plaintiff to experience every alleged PAGA violation to have standing. These reform bills are likely to curb, but not eliminate PAGA litigation for California employers going forward.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Unpacking California’s Landmark PAGA Legislation