Effective April 11, 2025, certain foreign nationals in the US must register online with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while others are already registered based on their status. This requirement is based on a 1940 law that mandates every foreign national who is in the US for 30 days must be registered and fingerprinted and DHS issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) to update the registration regulations, introducing a new online process for unregistered foreign nationals.
For the first—but not last—time, the US Supreme Court weighed in on President Donald Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox, a Biden-appointed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member (whose removal we discussed in a prior post), and Cathy Harris, a Biden-appointed Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member. Chief Justice Roberts’ April 9 order temporarily stayed the D.C. Circuit’s en banc decision permitting Wilcox and Harris to resume their duties at their respective agencies, effectively re-removing them following their reinstatement by the D.C. Circuit. The most significant consequence of that action is that, once again, the NLRB lacks a quorum, and thus cannot decide cases.
Laying off employees – also referred to as a reduction in force or a RIF – is one of the most difficult decisions an employer can make. Whether driven by economic conditions, organizational restructuring or pivots in business strategy, RIFs inherently create legal risks and significantly impact workplace morale. Although RIFs come with many challenges and pitfalls, employers who approach the process thoughtfully and strategically can mitigate legal risk while treating affected employees fairly and with respect. The following are some best practices for private employers to consider when implementing a reduction in force.
EU member states have until 7 June 2026 to introduce local legislation implementing the Pay Transparency Directive. As per our recent blog, to date there have been very few developments on this front, but we are now starting to see the publication of draft legislation.
The Dutch government recently issued a Bill aimed at implementing the Directive (Wetsvoorstel implementatie richtlijn loontransparantie). The Bill does not include any provisions other than those that are strictly necessary to ensure compliance with the Directive – some good news for employers at least!
As we reported at the end of 2024, there are a number of critical employment law developments that will affect U.S. employers in the next several months, and, for some employers, in the next several days. Though not an exhaustive list, we focus here on some key upcoming deadlines for employers in Q2 and Q3 2025.
Among the flurry of Executive Orders signed by President Trump since he took office is an March 14, 2025 Executive Order rescinding 18 prior executive orders and actions, including Executive Order 14026, a Biden-era order increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors to $17.75. Now that Executive Order 14026 has been rescinded, many federal contractors have been left wondering what the current minimum wage is for their employees.
On Sunday, the government announced an extension of Right to Work (RTW) checks to businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers, which we covered here. Just two days later, it released a report – an essential safeguard against illegal working.
Key Findings from the Report
Commissioned by the Home Office and conducted by Verian, the study surveyed 2,152 businesses across various industries in September 2024, with 30 follow-up interviews providing deeper insights. Here’s an overview of what it found:
The government has announced the latest instalment in its ‘crackdown’ on illegal working by extending right to work checks to businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers. In principle, this is logical and reasonable – prevention of illegal working should rightly apply to anyone working in the UK regardless of their worker status label. However, any change in the law must be supported by carefully-drafted guidance (which hasn’t always been the case in this area). Many businesses who fall foul of the UK’s complex right to work rules are certainly not ‘rogue’ employers, but just in dire need of clear guidelines on what they need to do.
Over the last few months, we have done a lot of sessions with clients on the Pay Transparency Directive. Chief among the questions that inevitably comes up is implementation of the Directive in the different Member States. Clients wonder if and how they can prepare for June 2026 when – as per usual – most Member States are nowhere near presenting even draft legislation to translate the Directive into national legislation.
Our response to this entirely sensible question is always the same: while we will of course track local developments and keep you updated, please do not wait until there is more clarity from national legislators to take action on this topic. You don’t have to know about every nut and bolt of the finished product to know enough to start your preparation, especially as the Directive does set out very clear pointers on the likely direction of travel.
In 2020, Ms Korpysa was told that because of the COVID lockdown, her workplace would be closing. She thought that meant that she was being dismissed, and asked her employer, Impact Recruitment Services Limited, for details of her contract, accrued holiday pay entitlement and (said Impact) her P45. Impact took that as meaning that she was resigning, and based on that belief it processed steps to take her off the payroll and send her the P45 it said she had requested. She in turn took that as confirmation of her assumed dismissal, even though that was not Impact’s intention, and started unfair dismissal proceedings.
In what must have been one of those is-one-coffee-enough mornings, the Employment Tribunal was therefore faced with deciding the rights and wrongs of a termination of Korpysa’s employment caused by neither party giving notice but each believing that the other had.
