Pay Transparency Directive: FAQs (as in “Frequently Asked, Quietly Unanswered”)?

By Marga Caproni on September 8, 2026 Posted in Pay Transparency

Over the summer, the European Commission published some frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the European Pay Transparency Directive.

By way of reminder, the Directive had to be transposed into national law by 7 June of this year, but only a few Member States met this deadline.

Are the 13 pages of FAQs worth your time? Not really, so we have summarised the most interesting takeaways for you:

The FAQs confirm that the information that must be provided to job applicants on expected pay does not necessarily have to be included in the job vacancy notice, but it must be provided prior to the job interview.

Obligations under the Directive do not apply to genuinely self-employed workers. However, bogus self-employed workers (i.e. those that really ought to be considered employees) may be caught.

Quitting Cold Turkey: Federal Agencies Suspend Enforcement of Back-Pay Requirement for Employee Wellness Incentives, Including Tobacco Cessation Programs (US)

By Mike Fussell on September 3, 2026 Posted in Benefits, Compliance, Employee Health/Welfare

For many employees, the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle aren’t just physical; they are financial. Through health-contingent wellness programs, employers can offer monetary rewards or reduced health insurance costs to employees who achieve specified health-related goals. These programs may focus on nutrition, weight loss, tobacco cessation, fitness, substance abuse assistance, stress management, or general health education.

Second Circuit Rejects Application of NLRB’s Tesla Framework to Workplace Dress Code and Uniform Policies (US)

By Daniel Pasternak on September 2, 2026 Posted in Employment Policies, General, NLRB, Recent Cases, Unions

On September 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that could make it easier for employers to defend workplace dress code and uniform policies against unfair labor practice challenges. In Siren Retail Corporation, d/b/a Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. NLRB, the court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) current framework for evaluating employer policies that restrict employees’ ability to display union-related clothing, buttons, or insignia at work.

Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Religious Beliefs Snares Wildlife Department, Nets Win for Employees (US)

By Laura Lawless on August 25, 2026 Posted in Accommodation, COVID-19, Employment Law, Reasonable Adjustments, Religion, Religious Discrimination, Vaccine and Vaccination

A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Cherry et al. v Washington Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, et al., is a primer in employer obligations when reasonably accommodating employees’ religious beliefs.

In August 2021, the Governor of Washington mandated that nearly all State employees vaccinate against COVID-19 or face termination. Five Washington Fish & Wildlife Department employees sought exemption on religious grounds. Although the Department agreed their requests stemmed from their sincerely held religious beliefs, it nonetheless maintained that vaccination was required if they wished to remain in their current roles, which required work “in the physical presence of others.” All five employees offered to mask-and-distance, and some suggested telework. All employees also expressed interest in transferring to another job that would eliminate their religious conflict.

The Future of EEO-1 Reporting: Key Takeaways from the August 11 Hearing

By Peter Clouse on August 24, 2026 Posted in Compliance, Discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law, Title VII

Back in July, we discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting requirements and the agency’s rationale for doing so. On August 11, the EEOC held a two-hour public hearing that brought together employers, academics, civil rights advocates, policy organizations, and a former EEOC General Counsel to weigh in on the proposal. While the testimony revealed sharp disagreements over the value of workforce demographic reporting, the arguments largely boiled down to a simple question: what happens when we stop counting?

New NLRB Majority Takes Shape: What’s Next?

By Chase Clark on August 11, 2026 Posted in Collective Bargaining, Employment Law, General, NLRA, NLRB, Unions

On August 7, 2026, the Senate confirmed current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) Member David Prouty to a second term – Member Prouty was first appointed to the Board in 2021 by President Biden – and confirmed James Macy to fill one of two vacant Board seats.

Mr. Macy’s appointment marks an important shift in the Board’s composition. Republican appointees now will hold a majority on the NLRB. Thus, the Board will almost certainly revisit and likely reverse or modify some of the controversial union-friendly decisions issued by prior Boards. (Until now, Republican appointees James Murphy and Scott Mayer have followed the Board’s long-standing practice of refraining from overturning precedent without at least three affirmative votes.)

Proposed changes to the Acas Code of Practice — an unexpected ally in tackling AI-inspired grievances?

By David Whincup on August 6, 2026 Posted in Employment Tribunal, Grievance, Mediation

Out of the blue last week came a formal consultation in relation to a proposed re-write of the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, the first major look at it in nearly 20 years.

The new Code contains 95 paragraphs to its predecessor’s 47, but just the last six of them usher in without fanfare what may be the biggest, perhaps only, positive change in recommended practice for employers in, well, ages. Businesses which fully grasp the opportunity which this change would present may laugh in the face of interminable AI-assisted grievances and cut through complaints of dubious good faith with renewed confidence that The Law will back them.

Superficially, the change is small – a simple transposition of the encouragement to address workplace grievances through mediation from the Foreword into the main body of the Code. That small change is nonetheless a very big deal because it brings mediation under the penalty regime attached to the Code, i.e. a possible 25% uplift or reduction in compensation for any unreasonable departure from that suggestion.

And the reason that matters is because (assuming the revised Code is implemented as it stands) employers should now regard mediation (including permutations such as facilitated conversations) as the default starting point, not just a possible outcome, in tackling a workplace dispute, to the extent that a failure to start there could lead directly to claims for an uplift in compensation against them. Enlightened employers may be there already, but the rest will now need to catch up quickly.

The intersection of employment law and financial regulation: Addressing non-financial misconduct (NFM)

By Alison Treliving, David Whincup, Janette Lucas, Jenna Saffman, Reem Al-Saady and Hannah Laming on August 4, 2026 Posted in Employment Law

The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) new rules on non-financial misconduct (NFM) will come into force on 1 September, bringing all firms regulated by the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) into scope and not just banks. Non-banks will be required to prevent bullying, harassment or violence against colleagues where this is related to work, even where the conduct does not directly relate to regulated activities.

US State Law Roundup

By Shennan Harris and Gabrielle Martin on August 3, 2026 Posted in Compliance, Employment Law, Employment Policies, General, Legislation, State Law Updates

State and local legislatures were active throughout the last quarter in passing employment laws and ordinances concerning topics such as arbitration agreements, wage transparency requirements, and drug testing laws to name a few. As always, minimum wages continue to increase in many jurisdictions and various posters have been updated.

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.

Acas issues important consultation on changes to the statutory Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (UK)

By Clare McNicholas on July 31, 2026 Posted in General

In an unexpected development, Acas yesterday launched a consultation on updates to its statutory Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.

According to Acas’s press release, the Code is being revised to encourage early and informal resolution of concerns at work. Acas research on the annual cost of conflict has found that managing formal disciplinary and grievance procedures is estimated to cost UK employers £2.36 billion per year, whereas the annual cost of informal resolution is around 10 times lower at £250 million. The consultation aims to “start a conversation about how we can disagree better at work”.