New Proposed Dutch Self-Employment Legislation

On 3 April, a new legislative proposal by the political parties VVD, D66, CDA and SGP was published for consultation. It aims to bring long-awaited clarity to the legal status of self-employed individuals in the Netherlands. It partially replaces a previous proposal by the Dutch government (Wet verduidelijking beoordeling arbeidsrelaties en rechtsvermoeden; WVBAR) which addresses similar issues but had been subject to criticism from some stakeholders, including the Dutch Council of State. The political parties submitting the new legislative proposal believe it provides for a clearer framework than the WVBAR for determining the legal status of a working relationship.

Like many other countries, The Netherlands has long struggled with the grey area between employment and self-employment. Recent rulings from the Dutch Supreme Court emphasize that the key criteria for classifying employment relationships — including the distinction between employees and the self-employed – remain primarily a legislative matter. Indeed, issues such as whether to further define what it means to be “in service of” someone, how deeply the work is embedded within an organization, or whether to introduce legal presumptions (for example, based on remuneration levels) are all currently being considered by both Dutch and European lawmakers. The Supreme Court made it clear that no further judicial developments in this area are appropriate at this time, signaling a clear need for legislative action rather than court rulings to clarify and regulate these matters.

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Eases Burden Of Proof In “Reverse Discrimination” Claims (US)

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, reviving a lawsuit brought by a heterosexual female employee who alleged she was discriminated against by her employer in favor of less qualified gay candidates. The decision conclusively establishes that the evidentiary burden in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases is identical as in cases brought by members of minority race, gender, and sexual orientation groups.

Continue Reading

President Trump Announces New Travel Ban

On June 4, 2025, President Trump announced a new travel ban through a proclamation titled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The ban, which echoes his 2017 efforts to restrict entry to the United States for nationals of certain countries deemed to be national security risks, expands the number of affected countries and divides them into two categories: Full Suspension of Entry and Partial Suspension of Entry. It will go into effect on June 9, 2025 with no announced end date.

Continue Reading

Florida’s Employer-Friendly “CHOICE” Act Establishes New Protections for Garden Leave and Noncompete Agreements (US)

Squire Patton Boggs Summer Associate Daniel Doherty details how new legislation in Florida will impact employers’ use of garden leave and noncompete agreements in the Sunshine State.

On April 24, 2025, Florida lawmakers passed business-friendly legislation that impacts Florida’s regulation of noncompete and garden leave agreements and expands employer enforcement power for such agreements. The bill creates the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (“CHOICE”) Act, which governs two types of agreements: (1) covered garden leave agreements and (2) covered noncompete agreements. Both types of agreements protect the confidentiality of employer information and client relationships, but differ as to when the protection applies; covered garden leave agreements apply while an employee remains employed with the employer, whereas covered noncompete agreements apply after an employee has left employment. Under the CHOICE Act, there is a presumption that covered noncompete and garden leave agreements with a duration of up to four years are enforceable so long as certain technical requirements are followed. The bill, awaiting Governor Ron DeSantis’s signature, is set to take effect on July 1, 2025.

Continue Reading

Handling Workplace Investigations Webinar – Follow-up Questions Answered, Part 4 (UK)

Here are the last couple of questions – and our outline answers – following our recent webinar on Handling Workplace Investigations

Who writes up the conclusion, the investigator or HR?

As a general rule, it should be the investigator who drafts the investigation report, being the person who conducted the investigation. 

It is of course possible to have templates to ensure managers cover all the relevant bits and these may have been put together by HR.  Similarly, HR can also provide advice on what the report should contain, how it should be set out, points to consider etc., but it is very important that HR does not overstep its remit and inadvertently cross the line from advisor to decision-maker. 

Continue Reading

US Employers Must Submit 2024 EEO-1 Data to the EEOC by June 24, 2025

Data collection for 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing opened on May 20, 2025. Employers have until Tuesday, June 24, 2025 to submit their data to the agency.

Each year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) collects workforce data from private employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees that are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through mandatory Form EEO-1 filings. This form reports what is referred to as “Component 1” data, consisting of information about the sex and race or ethnicity of the employer’s workforce by job category.

Continue Reading

Handling Workplace Investigations Webinar – Follow-up Questions Answered, Part 3 (UK)

Here are a few more of the questions – and our outline answers – following our recent webinar on Handling Workplace Investigations

Can a witness refuse to participate due to a conflict of interest, e.g. a family member under investigation?

The fact a member of the employee’s family is under investigation does not automatically disqualify the employee from giving evidence as part of any workplace investigation or mean that they cannot be interviewed as part of the investigation. It should however be something to consider when assessing the weight to be attached to any evidence given by the employee – as they clearly may have a personal interest in the outcome of any proceedings!

An employer cannot force an employee to give evidence as part of a workplace investigation but attendance and cooperation will usually be a reasonable management instruction and an employer may therefore decide that if an employee refuses to cooperate to any material extent they should be the subject of formal disciplinary proceedings – though this is relatively rare in practice.  The employer would also be entitled to draw inferences from the relative’s reluctance to give evidence – if that evidence would have been in the accused’s favour, why not? – and so such a refusal is unlikely to protect the employee anyway.

Continue Reading

NLRB General Counsel Expands Paths for Settling ULP Cases, and Realigns Board Practice for Seeking Expanded Remedies (US)

The National Labor Relations Board’s top enforcement official has issued important guidance, which should make it easier for parties to settle unfair labor practice charges, and which narrows the situations where the Board will seek unique expanded remedies.

Background

From 2021 to 2024, the Board significantly changed the remedies it sought in ULP cases, and it also changed the conditions it required parties to accept in order to settle those cases. At default, the National Labor Relations Act permits the Board to seek and award “make whole” relief. This means the Board cannot, for example, award punitive damages or emotional distress damages. Historically, in cases where an employer has committed a ULP by discharging an employee, the Board typically has awarded the employee backpay and required the employer to reinstate them.

Continue Reading

Handling Workplace Investigations Webinar – Follow-up Questions Answered, Part 2 (UK)

Here are a few more of the questions – and our outline answers – following our recent webinar on Handling Workplace Investigations

Does the notetaking at investigation meetings need to be verbatim?

No.  There is no requirement for meeting notes to be a verbatim record of everything that has been said – not only can this make any meeting notes incredibly long and tedious, but often it can mean you lose the key points made amongst all the other chatter that has been captured.  The meeting notes should seek to provide a comprehensive summary of what has been said, capturing the key points.  You can put particularly telling choices of words or phrases in quotation marks if the exact terms of the evidence are seen as important in order to show that that was what was actually said, not your summary or paraphrasing of it.

If a meeting takes place virtually, do you recommend using the transcribe function to help with note-taking?

We would recommend caution before adopting this approach.  Although such technology can make things simpler and it can potentially save you having to arrange for a separate note-taker to be present, in our experience it is still not 100% accurate.  It also does still mean that you end up with reams of notes and it can be difficult to see the wood for the trees when it comes to the key points that were discussed.  See our previous blog for a fuller discussion of the issues to consider when using voice recognition technology to take notes of meetings.  Whether your meeting is physical or virtual, beware of the possibility that the employee may be recording it covertly, perhaps even in the face of clear instructions not to do so.  As a result, it is never safe to rely on the transition from transcribed notes to a polished final product as somewhere to “refine” what you said.

Continue Reading

Spotlight on: Changes to Childcare and Parental Leave

Family with baby

Japan – Amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act took effect on 1 April 2025, with further amendments to take effect on 1 October 2025.

Singapore – Amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001 took effect on 1 April 2025.

Indonesia – Law No. 4 of 2024 regarding Maternal and Child Welfare During the First Thousand Days of Life took effect on 2 July 2024 (Law 4/2024).

Australia – Amendments to the unpaid parental leave (UPL) provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009(Cth) (FW Act) took effect on 1 July 2023.

Continue Reading

LexBlog