Italy implements the Pay Transparency Directive

By Elsa Mora and Simona Catallo on Posted in Labour & Employment, Pay Transparency
Italian court

Italy has become one of the first EU member states to implement the Pay Transparency Directive. Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7June 2026, in accordance with the EU’s timetable. The Decree applies to both public and private sector employers, with some obligations differing depending on the size of the business. 

Below we provide a short overview of the new rules for Italian employers. As can be seen from this, Italy has stayed relatively close to the wording of the Directive and has not sought to “gold plate” the provisions. Its existing national collective bargaining agreement framework also plays a key role in the new pay transparency landscape, with such agreements providing the basis for assessing key concepts such as “same work” and “work of equal value”.   

Continue Reading

A party of no-shows? Implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive – A view across Europe

By Janette Lucas, Marga Caproni, Malgorzata Grzelak, Pauline Pierce, Laura Sparschuh, Chelsea Gunning and Elsa Mora on Posted in Labour & Employment, Pay Transparency

We know that with only a few days to go until the Pay Transparency Directive comes into force in Continental Europe, many companies are wondering what is going to happen, bearing in mind that only two EU member states have published final legislation implementing the full provisions of the Directive. 

Members of our Labour & Employment European team have, therefore, put together a short video providing details on the very latest position on local implementation in key EU jurisdictions, what it is likely to mean if a country has not yet implemented the Directive into its national law and the steps that affected companies should be taking now, bearing in mind the uncertain landscape.   

For more information on the Pay Transparency Directive and how we can support your business, please also visit our dedicated Pay Transparency Resources page on our website or speak to your usual Squire Patton Boggs contact or one of our experts: Janette Lucas, Marga Caproni, Malgorzata Grzelak,  Pauline Pierce, Laura Sparschuh, Chelsea Gunning or Elsa Mora.   

Another Blow to Mandatory Arbitration: Supreme Court Further Expands Transportation Worker Exemption Under the Federal Arbitration Act to “Last-Mile” Drivers (US)

By Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Arbitration, Disputes, Independent Contractors

Squire Patton Boggs’ Summer Associate Addyson Fry discusses a recent United States Supreme Court decision addressing the exemption under the Federal Arbitration Act applicable to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce.

For decades, employers have relied on arbitration agreements to manage workplace disputes efficiently and predictably. But recent United States Supreme Court decisions have steadily narrowed when those agreements can be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

Continue Reading

ECJ ruling on data subject access requests: Some welcome relief for European employers, or not quite yet? (Part II)

By Marga Caproni, Chelsea Gunning and Malgorzata Grzelak on Posted in Data Protection, DSAR, GDPR

By: Marga Caproni, Chelsea Gunning, Lisa Shannon, Annette Demmel, Marmare Barekati, Malgorzata Grzelak, Floriane Essling and Marion Cavalier

Following on from our blog earlier in the week concerning the ECJ’s recent decision on data subject access requests (DSARs), we take a brief look at different European countries and the role that DSARs have come to play in these jurisdictions.

Belgium

In Belgium, DSARs are on the rise as a means of collecting information in preparation for a potential claim for unreasonable or discriminatory termination, or simply to put pressure on the employer to come to an agreement after termination, but this trend remains fairly modest and employers are certainly not being flooded with requests.

The Belgian Data Protection Authority has already had to rule on the excessive nature of (successive) requests, but it is generally quite accepting in this regard. Conversely, it is strict on employers: a request may be deemed excessive only if the aim is to harm the employer’s interests. The mere multitude of requests or the conflictual relationship between employer and (former) employee is not sufficient to refuse a request.

Continue Reading

Is Adjustment of Status Still a Viable Green Card Path? (US)

By Luisa Koidl and Samuel Mudrick on Posted in General, Immigration

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum that materially reshapes the agency’s approach to adjustment of status (AOS), the process by which many foreign nationals apply for a green card from within the United States. Although presented as a reaffirmation of existing law, the memorandum directs immigration officers to treat AOS as a “matter of discretion” and “administrative grace” that should be used only as “extraordinary relief.”  This unexpected change marks a stark departure from decades of uneventful AOS adjudications and creates significant changes for hundreds of thousands of current and future green card applicants unable to presume that completing the green card process from within the United States remains the default option.

Continue Reading

ECJ ruling on data subject access requests: Some welcome relief for European employers, or not quite yet? (Part I)

By Marga Caproni on Posted in Data Protection, DSAR, GDPR

In response to questions formulated by the German Amtsgericht of Arnsberg, the ECJ ruled that a first DSAR may be regarded as ‘excessive’, within the meaning of Article 12(5) GDPR, where the data controller demonstrates that, despite formal observance of the conditions governing DSARs, the request was made by the data subject:

  • not for the purpose of being aware of the processing of their data and verifying the lawfulness of that processing in order to be able, subsequently, to obtain protection of their rights under the GDPR (right to rectification, right to erasure or right to restriction of processing, right to object and right of action where the data subject suffers damage),
  • but instead with an abusive intention, such as that of artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining an advantage from the GDPR.

Continue Reading

Working from home or hardly working? When WFH corner-cutting becomes misconduct

By Nicola Martin on Posted in General, Misconduct, Monitoring, Remote Work, Surveillance, Working Time

The Fair Work Commission (FWC, or Commission) recently confirmed that an employee who falsified timesheets while working from home was not unfairly dismissed in Mr Neeraj Kumar v Hansen Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 519. The decision highlights the importance of remote-work accountability, appropriate workplace monitoring and procedural fairness.

The Facts

The applicant was employed full-time as a database manager and permitted to work from home due to the on-call nature of his role. Concerns arose after he repeatedly failed to attend online meetings on time, prompting his manager to investigate his system activity.

Using monitoring systems including Zscaler, Microsoft Entra and SentinelOne, the employer identified negligible activity during periods where the applicant claimed full working days. Despite the manager previously approving the timesheets, the investigation concluded the recorded hours could not have been worked based on the available data.

Continue Reading

Employers: Your Next EEO-1 Report May Be Your Last Ever (US)

By Caroline Carrier on Posted in Diversity Equity and Inclusion, EEOC

Since 1966, employers with more than 100 employees and certain federal contractors with more than 50 employees have been required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to annually report data about the demographics of their workforce, specifically disclosing statistics reflecting the racial, ethnic and gender composition of their workforce. Receiving this information directly from employers historically has aided the EEOC in investigating complaints of employment discrimination filed with the agency and in its assessment of potentially discriminatory trends in certain industries or regions. Some state agencies have created functionally similar forms for smaller employers to report the same demographic information, with some categorically requiring submissions akin to the EEOC while others request the information only when investigating complaints.

Continue Reading

Fifth Circuit Says Telework is Not A Presumptively Reasonable Accommodation (US)

By Laura Lawless on Posted in Accommodation, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Remote Work

Since the COVID-19 pandemic forced many employees to temporarily work from home, employers have struggled to bring those remote employees back to the office. Since the return to business as (almost) usual, many employees have asked to extend their flexible teleworking arrangements, sometimes by requesting remote work as a disability accommodation. Those employees would do well to heed a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Hayes v. GStek, Inc., No. 25-30392 (5th Cir. May 8, 2026), which warns that “[t]he COVID pandemic did not change the reality that in-person work is presumed to be an essential function of most jobs.”

Continue Reading

Employment Rights Act 2025 – What’s Keeping Businesses Awake at Night?

By Clare McNicholas and Laura Nelson on Posted in Employment, Employment Law

Recently we were catching up with some clients in our London office and discussing the potential implications of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 2025. What became clear from our conversations was that many businesses are grappling with similar issues as they prepare for implementation of this very significant new piece of employment legislation.

Below is a brief snapshot of the three key issues that businesses had questions about, together with our key takeaways.

Continue Reading

LexBlog