On September 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that could make it easier for employers to defend workplace dress code and uniform policies against unfair labor practice challenges. In Siren Retail Corporation, d/b/a Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. NLRB, the court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) current framework for evaluating employer policies that restrict employees’ ability to display union-related clothing, buttons, or insignia at work.
A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Cherry et al. v Washington Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, et al., is a primer in employer obligations when reasonably accommodating employees’ religious beliefs.
In August 2021, the Governor of Washington mandated that nearly all State employees vaccinate against COVID-19 or face termination. Five Washington Fish & Wildlife Department employees sought exemption on religious grounds. Although the Department agreed their requests stemmed from their sincerely held religious beliefs, it nonetheless maintained that vaccination was required if they wished to remain in their current roles, which required work “in the physical presence of others.” All five employees offered to mask-and-distance, and some suggested telework. All employees also expressed interest in transferring to another job that would eliminate their religious conflict.
Back in July, we discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting requirements and the agency’s rationale for doing so. On August 11, the EEOC held a two-hour public hearing that brought together employers, academics, civil rights advocates, policy organizations, and a former EEOC General Counsel to weigh in on the proposal. While the testimony revealed sharp disagreements over the value of workforce demographic reporting, the arguments largely boiled down to a simple question: what happens when we stop counting?
On August 7, 2026, the Senate confirmed current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) Member David Prouty to a second term – Member Prouty was first appointed to the Board in 2021 by President Biden – and confirmed James Macy to fill one of two vacant Board seats.
Mr. Macy’s appointment marks an important shift in the Board’s composition. Republican appointees now will hold a majority on the NLRB. Thus, the Board will almost certainly revisit and likely reverse or modify some of the controversial union-friendly decisions issued by prior Boards. (Until now, Republican appointees James Murphy and Scott Mayer have followed the Board’s long-standing practice of refraining from overturning precedent without at least three affirmative votes.)
Out of the blue last week came a formal consultation in relation to a proposed re-write of the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, the first major look at it in nearly 20 years.
The new Code contains 95 paragraphs to its predecessor’s 47, but just the last six of them usher in without fanfare what may be the biggest, perhaps only, positive change in recommended practice for employers in, well, ages. Businesses which fully grasp the opportunity which this change would present may laugh in the face of interminable AI-assisted grievances and cut through complaints of dubious good faith with renewed confidence that The Law will back them.
Superficially, the change is small – a simple transposition of the encouragement to address workplace grievances through mediation from the Foreword into the main body of the Code. That small change is nonetheless a very big deal because it brings mediation under the penalty regime attached to the Code, i.e. a possible 25% uplift or reduction in compensation for any unreasonable departure from that suggestion.
And the reason that matters is because (assuming the revised Code is implemented as it stands) employers should now regard mediation (including permutations such as facilitated conversations) as the default starting point, not just a possible outcome, in tackling a workplace dispute, to the extent that a failure to start there could lead directly to claims for an uplift in compensation against them. Enlightened employers may be there already, but the rest will now need to catch up quickly.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) new rules on non-financial misconduct (NFM) will come into force on 1 September, bringing all firms regulated by the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) into scope and not just banks. Non-banks will be required to prevent bullying, harassment or violence against colleagues where this is related to work, even where the conduct does not directly relate to regulated activities.
State and local legislatures were active throughout the last quarter in passing employment laws and ordinances concerning topics such as arbitration agreements, wage transparency requirements, and drug testing laws to name a few. As always, minimum wages continue to increase in many jurisdictions and various posters have been updated.
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.
In an unexpected development, Acas yesterday launched a consultation on updates to its statutory Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
According to Acas’s press release, the Code is being revised to encourage early and informal resolution of concerns at work. Acas research on the annual cost of conflict has found that managing formal disciplinary and grievance procedures is estimated to cost UK employers £2.36 billion per year, whereas the annual cost of informal resolution is around 10 times lower at £250 million. The consultation aims to “start a conversation about how we can disagree better at work”.
A couple of years ago I read a quite serious piece on whether it was sensible or necessary to say please and thank you when interacting with AI platforms. This was not because Skynet might be a little less inclined to destroy humanity if we all had lovely manners. Instead, ran the argument, if we wanted AI’s “thoughts” and outputs to be of a certain quality or tone, we would have to teach it, and the sooner we started, the better.
Sadly, even in just the space of that couple of years, that particular ship has not just sailed, but rolled over and sunk without bubbles, meaning that one abiding characteristic of the AI-assisted workplace grievance seems to be a pseudo-legalistic and passive-aggressive tone which cannot help but put the reader’s teeth on edge.
On May 21, 2026, we predicted that employers’ longstanding obligations to maintain and report workforce demographic data, as required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), may be eliminated. That prediction has moved one step closer to becoming reality.
