In enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (Act), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) exercises two principal functions: it supervises and conducts union representation elections through which employees decide whether be represented by a union, as well as decides cases involving alleged violations of the Act, referred to as unfair labor practice charges (ULPs).
Today, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to rescind the 2024 independent contractor rule and reinstate—largely—the 2021 rule’s analytical framework for determining employee versus independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The proposal would also expressly apply that framework to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA).
For HR leaders and employment counsel, this is not just another technical regulatory update. It represents a significant recalibration of the economic reality test—one that could materially affect classification strategy, litigation risk and workforce design.
Marijuana has been and is presently classified as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), defined as having high abuse potential with no accepted medical use (Schedule I also includes heroin, LSD and MDMA (commonly known as “ecstasy”)). First recommended by the Biden Administration in 2023, on December 18, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Department of Justice to “take all necessary steps . . . in the most expeditious manner” to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Moving marijuana to Schedule III – defined as drugs with a “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependance,” including anabolic steroids and testosterone – would, among other things, acknowledge the widely accepted medical use of marijuana. This in turn could have substantial downstream effects on employers and employees.
“Non-competes” or clauses that restrict employees from engaging in a competing business for a period of time after their employment ends are an important tool in the arsenal of employers seeking to protect their business interests, and in particular their trade secrets and other confidential information. Increasingly, however, non-competes seem to be coming under fire with many jurisdictions introducing tighter limitations on their use or even considering banning them entirely.
As has been previously covered in Employment Law Worldview, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) placed an outright ban on non-competes in 2024. While the Federal ban was later overturned, several US states (California, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Minnesota) already have near-total bans and (as detailed in the table below) several others are currently legislating against the use of non-competes for defined categories of employee, including those on lower salaries and medical professionals.
Job applicants often worry about what sorts of things may prevent them from obtaining a position. Although applicants may understand that a lack of qualifications or experience can work against them, they might not be as aware that recruitment and hiring tools used by employers may be working against them as well. The processes employers use to narrow applicant pools and ultimately select candidates are becoming increasingly automated; indeed, the World Economic Forum reported in 2025 that approximately 88% of companies are already utilizing some form of artificial intelligence (AI) in candidate screening.
You’d think that, now that we’re less than four months away from the official implementation date of the Pay Transparency Directive, we’d be bombarding you with updates on national implementation initiatives, right? And yet no, things are still fairly quiet on the pay transparency front.
There are, however, some developments to report, for example in Italy. Following a period of formal consultation with unions and social partners, the Italian government has prepared and issued its first draft of legislation implementing the Directive. The draft stays very close to the Directive, but there are some interesting add-ons worth mentioning:
USCIS has announced that the FY 2027 H‑1B cap registration window will run from March 4 to March 19, 2026. During this period, employers seeking to sponsor H‑1B workers for this year’s lottery (covering employment beginning October 1, 2026) must use a USCIS online account to electronically register each beneficiary for the selection process and submit the required $215 H‑1B registration fee for each entry.
This upcoming cap season will be shaped more than ever by two major policy developments: the new wage‑weighted lottery system and the presidential proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on certain H‑1B petitions.
Records of criminal convictions can last a lifetime, and thus can bring a lifetime of difficulty for employees with a criminal conviction history in finding employment, leaving them significantly disadvantaged before they even make it into the interview room. Lack of employment or difficulty assimilating after spending time in the criminal justice system can further increase the chances of re-offending, exacerbating the problem. These issues prompted a wave of state and local “ban-the-box” legislation – laws that delay employers from inquiring into or considering a job applicant’s criminal history until later in the hiring process.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) started out 2026 by announcing several new procedural protocols and updated guidance and policy goals.
If we had to rank the most frequently asked questions regarding the Pay Transparency Directive, the question of its relationship to individual employees’ right to privacy and the GDPR would be pretty high up there.
The concern is clear: the Directive requires employers to share averages of wages of male and female employees per category of employees, either at the request of an individual employee or as part of the (tri-) annual pay reporting. But what should you do if the number of employees of a certain gender in a specific category is very low, and sharing the data per category thereby indirectly comes down to sharing individual employees’ pay data with their colleagues?
