Recently we were catching up with some clients in our London office and discussing the potential implications of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 2025. What became clear from our conversations was that many businesses are grappling with similar issues as they prepare for implementation of this very significant new piece of employment legislation.
Below is a brief snapshot of the three key issues that businesses had questions about, together with our key takeaways.
The Home Office has issued a consultation on a draft Code of practice for employers on avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working. The draft Code is not materially different from the current version (last updated in 2022) except in relation to one key area (which we expand on below). In our view, many employers already have a good grasp of the Code’s principal aim of avoiding unlawful discrimination against candidates and employees when carrying out right to work checks.
State and local legislatures were active throughout the first quarter of 2026 in passing employment laws and ordinances concerning topics such as youth employment, workplace electronic monitoring, and noncompete agreements, to name a few.
As always, our team will continue to monitor these and other state employment law developments. If you have questions or need guidance, please reach out to your SPB contact for more information or assistance with compliance.
This May, join us for a four‑part webinar series focused on timely US labor and employment law developments affecting employers. Each session offers one hour of practical insights. Choose the sessions most relevant to your needs, or join us for the full series.
This complimentary series is designed for HR leaders, in‑house counsel, compliance teams and business leaders overseeing employment policies.
Each webinar is pending 1.0 hours of general CLE credit in Arizona, California, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Texas. SHRM and HRCI accreditation are also pending. Additional CLE credits may be available. Squire Patton Boggs is an accredited CLE provider in New York and California.
On February 6, 2026, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement and further address the 2024 amendments to California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). These proposed regulations represent the next phase of reform and are intended, as the LWDA explains, to “make more transparent and effective the administrative requirements and procedures under PAGA” and to provide “better guidance and clarity to employees and employers concerning their respective rights and obligations.”
In recent years workplace leave policies and related legal frameworks have expanded to address a broader range of employee needs, including bereavement, pregnancy loss and paid family leave.
Against this backdrop, legislators also are increasingly recognizing the personal and emotional significance of companion animals. As that recognition continues to expand, employers may be seeing early signs of a broader legal shift extending into the workplace, reflected in emerging proposals for pet care and pet bereavement leave laws.
From 1 December, the Acas early conciliation period was extended from six to twelve weeks. The intention was clear: to ease growing administrative pressures on Acas at a time of rising demand. But while the extension may give Acas more breathing space, it raises a broader question for employers and employees alike – does more time meaningfully improve early resolution, or does it simply prolong uncertainty in a system already struggling to cope?
On March 11, 2026, Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson signed a law prohibiting employers from requiring employees to have tracking chips implanted beneath their skin as condition of employment. Washington now joins Arkansas, California, Missouri and ten other states which have passed similar laws, all addressing advances in workplace surveillance technology.
Although rare, from time to time an employer may sue a current or former employee who makes negative public comments about the employer. In such cases, the employer may allege that the employee’s comments constitute defamation or tortiously interfered with the employer’s business relationships.
Not surprisingly, the threat of litigation can have a substantial deterrent effect, not only upon the employee threatened with litigation but on their colleagues as well. As a result, employees may choose not to speak publicly, even with respect to matters of public concern.
Last week, in the wake of International Women’s Day, the Flemish government approved a – very partial – implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive.
The bulk of the transposition work is still to be done by the federal government and the social partners in the National Labour Council, and on these fronts, things are still awfully quiet.
But the three regions in Belgium also have (limited) powers in this matter. These powers include the authority to impose sanctions on companies which do not comply with their obligations as imposed by the Directive.
