The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is the nation’s primary workplace discrimination authority. Since its establishment as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal agency has maintained jurisdiction over the investigation, mediation, and, in some instances, litigation of employment-based complaints.
Two recent developments in Congress signal potentially significant changes affecting labor law as we move further into 2026.
First, the House of Representatives passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408) on June 9, 2026. This bill would create a new process for negotiating collective bargaining agreements, in a way that significantly benefits unions. It would require employers to meet and begin bargaining with a union within 10 days after they receive a written bargaining request from a newly recognized or certified union. The parties must make “every reasonable effort” to reach an agreement during this initial period.
Italy recently introduced Decree-Law No.62/2026 which seeks to address three key areas: (i) the definition of “fair wages”; (ii) the restructuring of social security contribution exemptions as part of efforts to boost employment levels; and (iii) the protection of workers engaged through digital platforms.
The most significant change is the introduction of a new concept of a “fair wage”. Rather than setting a fixed minimum wage, the Decree defines a “fair wage” by reference to collective bargaining.
Effective performance management is not only a business necessity, but also one of the most important tools for reducing employment litigation risk. Few workplace decisions create more potential legal exposure than disciplining or terminating an employee for subjective performance-related reasons. In many cases, a lawsuit is not driven solely by the termination itself, but by poor (or non-existent) documentation, inconsistent treatment, delayed feedback or comments managers believed were harmless at the time. A poorly handled performance issue can quickly turn into claims of discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination or wage-and-hour violations. By contrast, employers that take a consistent, proactive and well-documented approach to performance management are in a much stronger position to defend their decisions and avoid costly disputes.
Below are practical steps employers can take to manage performance issues effectively while reducing legal exposure.
Italy has become one of the first EU member states to implement the Pay Transparency Directive. Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7June 2026, in accordance with the EU’s timetable. The Decree applies to both public and private sector employers, with some obligations differing depending on the size of the business.
Below we provide a short overview of the new rules for Italian employers. As can be seen from this, Italy has stayed relatively close to the wording of the Directive and has not sought to “gold plate” the provisions. Its existing national collective bargaining agreement framework also plays a key role in the new pay transparency landscape, with such agreements providing the basis for assessing key concepts such as “same work” and “work of equal value”.
We know that with only a few days to go until the Pay Transparency Directive comes into force in Continental Europe, many companies are wondering what is going to happen, bearing in mind that only two EU member states have published final legislation implementing the full provisions of the Directive.
Members of our Labour & Employment European team have, therefore, put together a short video providing details on the very latest position on local implementation in key EU jurisdictions, what it is likely to mean if a country has not yet implemented the Directive into its national law and the steps that affected companies should be taking now, bearing in mind the uncertain landscape.
For more information on the Pay Transparency Directive and how we can support your business, please also visit our dedicated Pay Transparency Resources page on our website or speak to your usual Squire Patton Boggs contact or one of our experts: Janette Lucas, Marga Caproni, Malgorzata Grzelak, Pauline Pierce, Laura Sparschuh, Chelsea Gunning or Elsa Mora.
Squire Patton Boggs’ Summer Associate Addyson Fry discusses a recent United States Supreme Court decision addressing the exemption under the Federal Arbitration Act applicable to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce.
For decades, employers have relied on arbitration agreements to manage workplace disputes efficiently and predictably. But recent United States Supreme Court decisions have steadily narrowed when those agreements can be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
By: Marga Caproni, Chelsea Gunning, Lisa Shannon, Annette Demmel, Marmare Barekati, Malgorzata Grzelak, Floriane Essling and Marion Cavalier
Following on from our blog earlier in the week concerning the ECJ’s recent decision on data subject access requests (DSARs), we take a brief look at different European countries and the role that DSARs have come to play in these jurisdictions.
In Belgium, DSARs are on the rise as a means of collecting information in preparation for a potential claim for unreasonable or discriminatory termination, or simply to put pressure on the employer to come to an agreement after termination, but this trend remains fairly modest and employers are certainly not being flooded with requests.
The Belgian Data Protection Authority has already had to rule on the excessive nature of (successive) requests, but it is generally quite accepting in this regard. Conversely, it is strict on employers: a request may be deemed excessive only if the aim is to harm the employer’s interests. The mere multitude of requests or the conflictual relationship between employer and (former) employee is not sufficient to refuse a request.
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum that materially reshapes the agency’s approach to adjustment of status (AOS), the process by which many foreign nationals apply for a green card from within the United States. Although presented as a reaffirmation of existing law, the memorandum directs immigration officers to treat AOS as a “matter of discretion” and “administrative grace” that should be used only as “extraordinary relief.” This unexpected change marks a stark departure from decades of uneventful AOS adjudications and creates significant changes for hundreds of thousands of current and future green card applicants unable to presume that completing the green card process from within the United States remains the default option.
In response to questions formulated by the German Amtsgericht of Arnsberg, the ECJ ruled that a first DSAR may be regarded as ‘excessive’, within the meaning of Article 12(5) GDPR, where the data controller demonstrates that, despite formal observance of the conditions governing DSARs, the request was made by the data subject:
