So here it is, 2025’s first serious contender for the What On Earth Were They Thinking? Awards, an unfair dismissal case with a common-sense answer so clear you could see it from Mars, but which it nonetheless took five years and the Court of Appeal to arrive at.
As was widely reported in the press, the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority both recently issued announcements (FCA announcement / PRA announcement), the contents of which are variously being reported as “a retreat from efforts to help under-represented groups” (as per the Guardian) and, by contrast, a welcome “response to criticism that [the proposed new rules on D&I] would add an onerous reporting burden for firms and create overlap with government proposals to legislate in this area” (as per the Financial Times).
So is the FCA abandoning its D&I efforts, reducing the heat under them, or simply aligning its efforts with Prime Minister Starmer’s aims of reducing regulatory burdens and boosting economic growth?
Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that (please excuse the potentially messy mixed metaphor), so to assist in sorting fact from fiction, here is our high-level summary of what has been announced and what it means, probably.
On 19 March, the UK Home Office announced increases to visa and sponsorship fees to take effect from 9 April. There are increases for most fees listed which will impact almost everyone including Skilled Worker visa holders, sponsors, and those applying for settlement and citizenship. The increases range from as little as £8.50 (which leads one to wonder why bother, frankly? – the admin attached to that change must surely swallow all or most of the increased revenues) to a staggering £286. We have summarised the key changes in this post.
On March 4, 2025, the New York state Senate passed S.372, the “No Severance Ultimatums Act” a first of its kind legislation which, if enacted, will require New York employers to:
These protections will apply to all severance agreements except those covered by collective bargaining agreements. This bill has now moved to the New York State Assembly (A.6480).
Under existing federal law, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) mandates that employers seeking a release of claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for employees ages 40 years or older must provide 21 days to review the agreement (or 45 days for group layoffs), and a seven (7) day nonwaivable revocation period after signing.
The No Severance Ultimatums Act will expand these protections to all New York employees regardless of age and to all severance agreements, seeking waiver of all claims, not just age discrimination claims.
The law aligns with a broader push for greater transparency and fairness in employment agreements, similar to recent trends limiting nondisclosure agreements in workplace settlements. It seeks to prevent employees from feeling pressured into quickly signing severance agreements and to ensure employees have sufficient time to understand their rights, consult legal counsel and reconsider their decision after signing a severance agreement.
Although the No Severance Ultimatums Act is the first in the nation to mandate a 21-business day review (and seven-day revocation period) for all severance agreements, other states have set minimum review and/or revocation periods in certain situations.
If signed into law, the No Severance Ultimatums Act will take immediate effect. Employers in New York should be prepared to promptly update their severance agreements and policies to ensure compliance, as any severance agreement that violates the provisions of the No Severance Ultimatums Act shall be deemed void and unenforceable. Employers should plan to:
As a reminder, these changes may prolong severance negotiations and employers will need to plan further ahead when offering severance packages. Contact Squire Patton Boggs’ Labor and Employment team for further guidance.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
