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”).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
State and local legislatures were active throughout the first quarter of 2026 in passing employment laws and ordinances concerning topics such as youth employment, workplace electronic monitoring, and noncompete agreements, to name a few.
As always, our team will continue to monitor these and other state employment law developments. If you have questions or need guidance, please reach out to your SPB contact for more information or assistance with compliance.
