Better Late Than Never? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Continues Its Crackdown on Non-financial Misconduct in Financial Services

By Reem Al-Saady, David Whincup, Janette Lucas, Jenna Saffman and Alison Treliving on July 9, 2025 Posted in General, Misconduct

On 2 July 2025, the FCA finally issued its long-awaited next steps document (CP25/18: Tackling non-financial misconduct in financial services) on the proposed new guidance on non-financial misconduct (NFM).

The document contains two key elements:

Rule Change from 1 September 2026 – The FCA will extend its Code of Conduct Rules (COCON) to non-bank firms, following strong support from its consultation (CP23/20). This change aims to address ambiguity around conduct breaches (e.g., serious bullying or harassment) in non-banks and will bring about 37,000 additional regulated firms into scope. However, entities without a Part 4A permission (e.g., payment firms, e-money institutions, investment exchanges, and credit rating agencies) will remain outside the scope.

Consultation Open Until 10 September 2025 – The FCA is consulting on new guidance in its Handbook to help SMCR firms better understand and apply conduct rules and fitness/propriety standards. Feedback is sought by 10 September 2025, with final guidance expected by year-end.

How not to look for alternative roles for redundant employees in the UK

By David Whincup on July 2, 2025 Posted in Employment Appeal Tribunal, Employment Tribunal, Recent Cases, Recruitment, Redundancy, Unfair dismissal

Everyone knows that an essential part of a fair dismissal for redundancy is proper consideration of alternative employment, yes? But what does that mean in practice for the employer?

In Hendy Group -v- Kennedy, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has taken a look at this principle that everyone knows about and pulled out of it some faintly concerning lessons as to the extent of the obligations which it imposes.

With the NLRB Unable To Decide Cases, States Move to Fill the Void (US)

By Squire Patton Boggs on July 1, 2025 Posted in California, Legislation, New York, NLRB, Unfair Labor Practice, Unions, Worker Representation

Squire Patton Boggs Summer Associate Akshey Mulpuri discusses legislative developments in several states attempting to address the current incapacity of the National Labor Relations Board due to lack of a quorum.

Since January 27, 2025, when National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) Member Gwynne Wilcox was removed from that position, the NLRB – the federal administrative agency that oversees labor relations matters between private sector employers, employees, and labor unions – has been comprised of only two Senate-confirmed members. As a consequence, the Board has lacked the three-member quorum necessary for it to issue decisions in union representation and unfair labor practice cases. (See our blog here.)

Poland: Pay Transparency Directive Implementation From 24 December 2025

By Malgorzata Grzelak on July 1, 2025 Posted in Pay Transparency

An act partially implementing the Pay Transparency Directive has been published and will enter into force in Poland on 24 December this year.

The act focuses on the pay transparency aspects of the Directive. Implementation details for aspects of the Directive relating to job evaluation and reporting are still awaited, with the government indicating that it intends to present a more comprehensive bill following the conclusion of the work by its working group by the end of 2025.

In the meantime, here is what we know so far about how Poland will implement transparency in relation to salaries and recruitment information and what this means for employers and recruiters.

U.S. Department of Labor Reinstates Policy Prohibiting Seeking Liquidated Damages in Pre-Litigation Settlement of FLSA Wage Claims (US)

By Mike Fussell on June 30, 2025 Posted in Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage and Hour, Wages, Workers Compensation, Working Time

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL” or the “Department”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-3, in which it prohibits Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) field staff from seeking liquidated damages in pre-litigation settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims.

Employers Modifying Retiree Benefits Provided More Clarity Following SCOTUS Decision (US)

By Mike Fussell on June 24, 2025 Posted in Americans with Disability Act, Benefits, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Recent Cases, SCOTUS

Some employers offer benefits not only to their current employees, but under certain circumstances also offer certain benefits, such as health insurance, to employees who retire from working for them. Employers sometimes modify the terms of benefit policies, programs, and plans for a number of reasons, including to change coverages or eligibility requirements or to adjust contribution rates. Employers looking to make these sorts of changes, or even to discontinue certain retiree benefits, can do so now with more confidence that they won’t violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court.

New Proposed Dutch Self-Employment Legislation

By Chelsea Gunning on June 13, 2025 Posted in General, Tax

On 3 April, a new legislative proposal by the political parties VVD, D66, CDA and SGP was published for consultation. It aims to bring long-awaited clarity to the legal status of self-employed individuals in the Netherlands. It partially replaces a previous proposal by the Dutch government (Wet verduidelijking beoordeling arbeidsrelaties en rechtsvermoeden; WVBAR) which addresses similar issues but had been subject to criticism from some stakeholders, including the Dutch Council of State. The political parties submitting the new legislative proposal believe it provides for a clearer framework than the WVBAR for determining the legal status of a working relationship.

Like many other countries, The Netherlands has long struggled with the grey area between employment and self-employment. Recent rulings from the Dutch Supreme Court emphasize that the key criteria for classifying employment relationships — including the distinction between employees and the self-employed – remain primarily a legislative matter. Indeed, issues such as whether to further define what it means to be “in service of” someone, how deeply the work is embedded within an organization, or whether to introduce legal presumptions (for example, based on remuneration levels) are all currently being considered by both Dutch and European lawmakers. The Supreme Court made it clear that no further judicial developments in this area are appropriate at this time, signaling a clear need for legislative action rather than court rulings to clarify and regulate these matters.

Supreme Court Eases Burden Of Proof In “Reverse Discrimination” Claims (US)

By Laura Lawless on June 6, 2025 Posted in Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Race, Recent Cases, SCOTUS, Sexual Orientation, Title VII

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its opi n ion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, reviving a lawsuit brought by a heterosexual female employee who alleged she was discriminated against by her employer in favor of less qualified gay candidates. The decision conclusively establishes that the evidentiary burden in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases is identical as in cases brought by members of minority race, gender, and sexual orientation groups.

President Trump Announces New Travel Ban

By Samuel Mudrick on June 5, 2025 Posted in Business Immigration, Immigration, News

On June 4, 2025, President Trump announced a new travel ban through a proclamation titled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The ban, which echoes his 2017 efforts to restrict entry to the United States for nationals of certain countries deemed to be national security risks, expands the number of affected countries and divides them into two categories: Full Suspension of Entry and Partial Suspension of Entry. It will go into effect on June 9, 2025 with no announced end date.

Florida’s Employer-Friendly “CHOICE” Act Establishes New Protections for Garden Leave and Noncompete Agreements (US)

By Squire Patton Boggs on June 5, 2025 Posted in Competition, Employment Agreements, Leave, Non-compete agreements

Squire Patton Boggs Summer Associate Daniel Doherty details how new legislation in Florida will impact employers’ use of garden leave and noncompete agreements in the Sunshine State.

On April 24, 2025, Florida lawmakers passed business-friendly legislation that impacts Florida’s regulation of noncompete and garden leave agreements and expands employer enforcement power for such agreements. The bill creates the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (“CHOICE”) Act, which governs two types of agreements: (1) covered garden leave agreements and (2) covered noncompete agreements. Both types of agreements protect the confidentiality of employer information and client relationships, but differ as to when the protection applies; covered garden leave agreements apply while an employee remains employed with the employer, whereas covered noncompete agreements apply after an employee has left employment. Under the CHOICE Act, there is a presumption that covered noncompete and garden leave agreements with a duration of up to four years are enforceable so long as certain technical requirements are followed. The bill, awaiting Governor Ron DeSantis’s signature, is set to take effect on July 1, 2025.