For organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions, keeping track of employment law developments is increasingly challenging. Obligations are multiplying, and HR and legal teams are expected to respond to developments before they create legal, operational or reputational risks.
The challenge is often not a lack of information, but identifying which developments genuinely require action and ensuring the right people know about them at the right time.
That is where HR Radar comes in.
Over the past few years, I’ve had countless conversations with employers about noncompetes. Some are wondering whether their agreements are still enforceable. Others are trying to navigate a patchwork of state laws or make sense of the latest legal developments. It’s not hard to see why.
The attempted nationwide ban on noncompetes by the FTC Non-Compete Rule generated headlines across the country before it was ultimately set aside by a federal court, fundamentally changing the conversation around restrictive covenants. But in many of the conversations I’m having with clients, I find myself steering them toward a different question: What are you doing to protect your business if the noncompete isn’t there?
One of the most thought-provoking discussions at the recent International Employment Lawyer (IEL) Global Summit in New York was Two Worlds of Work: Global Trends vs US Direction of Travel, a session that explored an increasingly pressing challenge for multinational organisations – how to maintain a coherent workforce strategy when employment laws are moving in very different directions across the world.
The panel session was chaired by Miriam Lampert, Partner and brought together perspectives from Kathleen McAchran (Sonos), Joanna Chen (TikTok) and Employment Partners from Brazil, UAE and India – Patricia Barboza, Luke Tapp and Apeksha Mattoo.
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the reach of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”), with significant implications for employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont seeking to enforce arbitration agreements.
On September 30, 2026, in Diaz-Roa v. Hermes Law, P.C.,[i], the Second Circuit held that when an employee properly invokes the EFAA, a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to the entire lawsuit, not just the sexual harassment or sexual assault claims. That means other claims brought in the same lawsuit – even claims entirely unrelated to sexual harassment or sexual assault – must also proceed in court rather than arbitration.
For years, the UK and US have approached whistleblowing from slightly different starting points. The UK’s regime has primarily focused on preventing those who speak up from being subject to any detriment for having done so. The US has gone a step further, using financial incentives to encourage whistleblowers to bring information directly to regulators. The US has been something of a trailblazer in this regard, with only a small number of other jurisdictions (e.g. Canada/South Korea) adopting financial incentive models. Most global systems remain protection-based, rather than incentive-based, though the “tone” of the UK legislation has historically been more that whistleblowers are a necessary nuisance to be tolerated rather than a force for good to be encouraged.
Over the course of the last decade or so, UK policymakers and regulators have periodically considered but largely resisted US-style bounty schemes. As far back as 2014, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a note on “Financial Incentives for Whistleblowers“, examining the proposition but ultimately rejecting it.
Under Belgium’s Private Investigations Act (the “PIA”), an employer may only investigate its employees if the detailed rules governing such investigations are laid down expressly and transparently in a set of internal regulations. Employers were given a transitional period of two years from the PIA’s entry into force to put these regulations in place. That period ends on 16 December 2026.
In the first two blogs in this series, we set out the scope of the PIA and how an investigation under the PIA must be conducted. In this third and final blog, we look at which employers must adopt regulations, the form these may take, what they should cover and the consequences of non-compliance. We also address the recently started political talks on possible amendments to the PIA, which, for now, do not affect the deadline.
On October 5, 2026, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal held in Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. B344642, that an employer was not strictly liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment perpetrated by the plaintiff’s coworker when that coworker was a supervisor of other employees but not a supervisor of the plaintiff. In Doe, the plaintiff and several coworkers traveled to another city for client meetings. After their meetings concluded, the plaintiff and her coworkers had dinner and drinks. The plaintiff claimed that a coworker sexually assaulted her. Although the coworker admitted to a sexual encounter with the plaintiff, he claimed that it was consensual.
In part one of this series, we established that the scope of the Private Investigations Act (the “PIA”) is considerably broader than one might assume: if you carry out a workplace investigation internally within a company, you are in principle caught by the stringent provisions of the PIA.
In this blog, we zoom in on the procedural requirements for an investigation.
For many employers, personnel file access laws are familiar territory. Although the requirements vary by state, these laws generally grant private sector employees (and sometimes former employees) a statutory right to review and obtain copies of certain records contained in the personnel file maintained for them by their employer.
Nineteen states[i] currently have some form of personnel file access law applicable to private sector employers. Until recently, New York was not one of these states. Although employees in New York could have access to their personnel file if granted through a collective bargaining agreement, there was no personnel records access requirement generally applicable to private sector New York employers.[ii]
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Johnson v. York Academy Regional Charter School, reminds employers of their obligation to meaningfully participate in the process of identifying reasonable accommodation of their employees’ religious beliefs.
Monik Johnson was employed by a charter school as a business manager. Many years into her employment, Ms. Johnson began observing the Lunar Sabbath, which required her not to work on the day of the New Moon, which varies from month to month depending on the lunar cycle. Ms. Johnson sent a letter to the school’s CEO requesting to work four ten-hour workdays in the weeks when the Lunar Sabbath fell on a weekday so she could be absent from work on the New Moon.
