“Work of equal value”  – if apples and pears were jobs (EU)

By Marga Caproni on Posted in Equal Pay, Litigation, Recent Cases, Wage and Hour

2023’s EU Directive 2023/970 to “strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms”, also known as the Pay Transparency Directive, must be implemented by European member states by no later than 7 June 2026.

With such a timescale you might be tempted to the view that this is an issue that can be pushed back until next year. We don’t recommend this.  The Directive – which it is worth remembering sets the minimum standards employers must be ready to meet by June 2026 – sets out very clearly the potential implications of not being ready (information requests from individual employees, a joint pay assessment, claims and sanctions from national authorities, to name a few) .  Employers would be well-advised to consider what it means for them sooner rather than later.  Whilst 15 months may well be a long time in politics, when it comes to the Pay Transparency Directive, it is anything but.

Continue Reading

Fashionably Late: Implementation of the New York Retail Worker Safety Act Delayed to June 2025 (US)

By Lauren Herz on Posted in New York, Policies, Training, Violence Prevention, Workplace Safety & Health

On February 14, 2025, the New York Retail Worker Safety Act, initially set to take effect March 4, 2025, was amended (S.B.740), and the new effective date moved to June 2, 2025.

Background

On September 4, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the New York Retail Worker Safety Act (the Act) (S.B. 8358-C/A. 8947-C) into law. The Act, which adds Section 27-e to the New York Labor Law, requires employers with ten or more retail employees to develop and implement workplace violence prevention programs. The law also mandates employers provide training on the workplace violence programs and to install silent response buttons (SRBs) in retail stores, defined as stores that sell “consumer commodities at retail and not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on its premises.”

Continue Reading

Update: Federal Judge Reinstates National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member (US)

By Mike Fussell on Posted in News, NLRB

President Donald Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox, a Biden-appointed NLRB Member (which we discussed in a prior post), has been reversed by a federal judge. On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell held that the President does not have the authority to terminate NLRB Members at will, and thus President Trump’s removal of Member Wilcox violated the law. Member Wilcox’s removal had caused the NLRB to lose a quorum of three Members, meaning that since January 28, 2025, the NLRB had been without the authority to decide cases. With her status restored, that authority also has now been restored.

Continue Reading

Blocked DOL Overtime Rule Set for Review in the Fifth Circuit (US)

By Chase Clark on Posted in Compensation, Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, News, Overtime, Pay, Wage and Hour, Wages

On February 28, 2025, the US Department of Labor (DOL) appealed a December 2024 Texas federal trial court’s decision that blocked a Biden-era overtime rule promulgated by the DOL. This is the DOL’s second appeal following an appeal in November by the then Biden-led DOL of another Texas district court’s ruling that similarly vacated and set aside the overtime rule nationwide. Both cases were appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Continue Reading

How honest is honest enough in your job application? (UK)

By David Whincup on Posted in Disability, Discrimination, Dismissal, Misconduct, Recent Cases, Recruitment, Victimisation, Whistleblowing

In 2019 a Mr Easton applied for a role with the Home Office to work in the Border Force.  As part of that process he was required to fill in (without guidance) a blank box headed “Employment History” which he completed with details of prior roles held and the years in which each had begun and ended.  While that information was true as far as it went, Easton’s taking that approach had the side-effect of obscuring that in 2016 he had been dismissed for gross misconduct and then been unemployed for three months, both matters which he accepted in cross examination in the Tribunal that the Home Office could well regard as relevant. 

Continue Reading

Federal Court Blocks Key Provisions of President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders (US)

By Jennifer Harper on Posted in Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Executive Order, Federal Contractors

On Friday, February 21, a Maryland federal court judge in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction temporarily preventing enforcement of three key provisions of President Trump’s Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 targeting DEI programs (links below). The court found the following provisions of the Orders were unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

  • The requirement that federal contractors and grantees certify that they do not operate “illegal” DEI programs and comply with federal discrimination laws for purposes of False Claims Act (the “Certification” provision in EO14173 Section 3(b));
  • The provision directing the Attorney General to deter “illegal” DEI programs or principles in the private sector by, in part, submitting a report identifying up to nine civil enforcement investigations of certain private sector companies, associations, and educational institutions (the “Enforcement Threat” provision in EO14173 Section 4); and
  • The requirement that federal agencies terminate federal equity-related grants or contracts (the “Termination” provision in EO 14151 Section 2(b)(i)).

The challenged provisions in President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders are Executive Order 14151 (Jan. 20, 2025) and Executive Order 14173 (Jan. 21, 2025).

Continue Reading

Federal Court Concludes States Have Standing to Challenge EEOC’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Rule (US)

By Chase Clark on Posted in Compliance, EEOC, General, Pregnancy
eeoc

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on February 20, 2025, in Tennessee v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that seventeen (17) State attorneys general have standing to challenge the EEOC’s Final Rule interpreting the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “PWFA” or “the Act”). In the first federal appellate court decision to consider the issue, the Eighth Circuit panel held that the plaintiff-States have a sound jurisprudential basis to challenge the Final Rule because the States “are the object of the EEOC’s regulatory action.”

Continue Reading

Anticipated Shift at National Labor Relations Board Begins With Rescission of General Counsel Memoranda (US)

By Daniel Pasternak on Posted in News, NLRA, NLRB, Unfair Labor Practice, Unions

Under the administrative scheme established by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)– the federal law that governs the relationship between employers, employees, and labor unions – the discretion whether to issue an administrative complaint against an employer based on an unfair labor practice charge is held by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) General Counsel. The General Counsel therefore acts as the NLRB’s chief prosecutor. In that role, the General Counsel controls what issues are presented to the NLRB for decision (by deciding what issues are to be prosecuted), including those cases that may present novel issues or that provide vehicles through which to seek a change in existing federal labor law.

Continue Reading

“Stupidly rhetorical” online posts –your employer’s rights to react (UK)

By David Whincup on Posted in Discrimination, Dismissal, Recent Cases, Religion

In these days of fevered and angry social media comment on almost everything, it is always wise for HR to keep its feet anchored firmly on the ground when all that online bile and indignation washes up at the employer’s door.  Here to help with that is this week’s Court of Appeal decision in Higgs – v – Farmors School & Others, a case bulging at the seams with KCs (five!) and abstruse legal analysis.

Continue Reading

LexBlog