A major new court decision could remake federal labor law for years to come. This decision – issued on July 21 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – signals that courts may soon revisit many longstanding legal standards governing labor law issues. The decision also highlights a new route for parties to appeal a broad range of cases decided by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
California employers that seek to enforce arbitration agreements with their employees may feel like they are playing the game of “Whack-A-Mole.” For those unfamiliar, the game of “Whack-A-Mole” is played on a machine with a table-like play area top, an elevated display screen and a large, soft mallet. Five to eight holes in the play area top are filled with small, plastic, cartoonish moles, or other characters, which pop up randomly throughout the game. Points are scored by, as the name suggests, rapidly whacking each mole with the mallet as soon as it appears from its hole. As soon as one mole retreats into its hole, another mole emerges, and this continues until time is up. California employers may feel like they are playing this game in the sense that they are constantly responding to new legislative or court created rules against enforcement of arbitration agreements. Although certain rules against enforcement have been invalidated based on preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), California courts have continued to recognize new defenses against enforcement.
When workplace investigations hit the headlines, the risks can escalate quickly.
Suddenly, employers are dealing with media attention, social media commentary, employee concerns and potentially serious reputational risk – all while trying to conduct a fair and effective investigation.
We were recently privileged to host the International Employment Lawyer’s Workplace Investigations Masterclass, which included three lively and engaging panel discussions. Each was designed to address the thorny issues which can and often do arise in such situations, with valuable insights from a variety of panellists whose work (whether in-house or in private practice) keeps them at the coalface of workplace investigations.
Here is the last of our five key takeaways from the event. Please see here for part one and part two.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter may significantly reshape how independent federal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), operate.
Although the case arose from President Donald Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the Court used the dispute to overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that had long permitted Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from presidential removal except for cause. The Court instead held that, as a general rule, principal officers exercising executive power must remain removable by the President, substantially expanding presidential authority over agencies historically viewed as independent.
When workplace investigations hit the headlines, the risks can escalate quickly.
Suddenly, employers are dealing with media attention, social media commentary, employee concerns and potentially serious reputational risk – all while trying to conduct a fair and effective investigation.
We were recently privileged to host the International Employment Lawyer’s Workplace Investigations Masterclass, which included three lively and engaging panel discussions. Each was designed to address the thorny issues which can and often do arise in such situations, with valuable insights from a variety of panellists whose work (whether in-house or in private practice) keeps them at the coalface of workplace investigations.
Here we continue our five key takeaways from the event, please see here for Part One.
The most common themes for grumbling at all the recent employment law events I have attended have been the same: the youth of today; why the UK’s railway infrastructure is seemingly made of chocolate; and the tide of AI-assisted employee grievances.
Can’t help you with the first two, sorry, but somebody will have to do something about the third before the tension between the time they take to deal with and the resources which most employers and the ET system can afford to devote to resolving them becomes too great.
We have all seen them – turgid great things full of legal and case references, some of them genuine, but despite their length, often lacking specifics of what the employee is complaining about and what they want you to do about it. I offer three principal tips for employers trying to work out whether they are dealing with the real thing or not:
When workplace investigations hit the headlines, the risks can escalate quickly.
Suddenly, employers are dealing with media attention, social media commentary, employee concerns and potentially serious reputational risk – all while trying to conduct a fair and effective investigation.
We were recently privileged to host the International Employment Lawyer’s Workplace Investigations Masterclass, which included three lively and engaging panel discussions. Each was designed to address the thorny issues which can and often do arise in such situations, with valuable insights from a variety of panellists whose work (whether in-house or in private practice) keeps them at the coalface of workplace investigations.
In our view, the learnings from the sessions were too good not to share, so we have asked Squire Patton Boggs’ James Pike (Partner) and Sarah Wilkinson (Director), both of whom have significant experience in carrying out workplace investigations and were panellists in two of the sessions, to share their five key takeaways from the event, with the first two below and three to follow.
As we previously reported here, the Virginia legislature enacted a number of recent employment law updates. The most recent addition to this roster is Virginia’s expanded paid sick leave statute. On May 20, 2026, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed into law House Bill 5/Senate Bill 199, which mandates that all private employers and nearly all state and local governments provide eligible employees with at least one hour of paid leave for every thirty (30) hours worked, up to an annual accrual and usage cap of forty (40) hours, with unused leave carrying over to the following year.
Based on a Privacy World blog by David Naylor, Robert Lister & Dan Fara, adapted for Employment Law Worldview by David Whincup
The UK’s data protection framework continues to evolve following the enactment of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. One of the more operationally significant developments for employers is the introduction of a new statutory right for employees to complain to controllers regarding infringements of the GDPR, as well as a framework governing how controllers must handle those complaints.
From 19 June, organisations subject to the UK GDPR will need to update their privacy notices and introduce formal data protection complaint-handling processes that meet specific legal requirements.
Many employers collect biometric data like retina or iris scans, voiceprints, hand scans, fingerprints, facial scans and DNA from their employees to track working hours, allow employee admittance to secure areas or provide access to pay stubs, among other reasons. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was enacted in 2008 to regulate and safeguard how private entities in Illinois handle biometric information, and imposes notice and consent requirements for the collection and storage of such data.
