A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Johnson v. York Academy Regional Charter School, reminds employers of their obligation to meaningfully participate in the process of identifying reasonable accommodation of their employees’ religious beliefs.
Monik Johnson was employed by a charter school as a business manager. Many years into her employment, Ms. Johnson began observing the Lunar Sabbath, which required her not to work on the day of the New Moon, which varies from month to month depending on the lunar cycle. Ms. Johnson sent a letter to the school’s CEO requesting to work four ten-hour workdays in the weeks when the Lunar Sabbath fell on a weekday so she could be absent from work on the New Moon.
On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) delivered welcome news to employers when it clarified the controlling framework for deciding whether an employee’s abusive conduct loses the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Specifically, in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41 (2026) (Lion Elastomers III), the NLRB, on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that the Wright Line burden-shifting test it applied in its 2020 General Motors decision “constitutes extant Board precedent” for deciding whether an employee’s misconduct arose in the course of otherwise protected activity was so egregious or abusive to lose the protection of the NLRA. In reestablishing this burden-shifting framework, the Board effectively tossed aside the more employee-friendly, setting-specific standard reintroduced by the Board in 2023 in Lion Elastomers II.
On 16 December 2024, Belgium’s Private Investigations Act (the “PIA”) entered into force, replacing the Private Detectives Act of 1991. While this may sound like news for the detective industry only, the scope of the PIA is considerably wider. In fact, the most significant innovation in the PIA does not concern private detectives at all, but the companies that instruct them. Any business that conducts workplace investigations in-house may fall within the scope of the PIA and become subject to licensing requirements and procedural obligations.
In this first of three blogs, we set out the key provisions in the PIA and why internal workplace investigations may fall within its scope and the licensing requirements that follow.
What counts as a private investigation under the PIA?
The PIA defines private investigation activities by reference to four cumulative criteria. Such activities must:
be carried out by a natural person;
be undertaken on behalf of a principal;
involve the gathering of intelligence obtained by the processing of information about natural or legal persons, or the circumstances concerning acts committed by them; and
be carried out for the purpose of providing that intelligence to the principal, either to safeguard the principal’s interests in the context of an actual or potential conflict, or to trace missing persons or lost or stolen goods.
This definition is sufficiently broad to capture most internal investigations within companies. For example, when an employer investigates suspected fraud, theft, harassment or other misconduct by an employee, it is gathering information about a person in order to safeguard its interests in the context of an actual or potential conflict. Where such activity is organised on a structural basis, which is already the case where investigative tasks form part of the job description of a single employee, the business operates an “internal investigation service” within the meaning of the PIA.
Investigations that are carried out by a group function on behalf of affiliated companies within a multinational group are treated as being carried out for the business’s own purposes rather than for third parties. As a result, compliance, internal audit, security and HR teams investigating matters involving employees in Belgium may need to comply with the PIA, even where the relevant investigation function is located outside Belgium.
Not all workplace investigations undertaken by an employer fall within the scope of the PIA. Certain activities are excluded, including the typical reference checks by HR on job applicants as well as investigations carried out in performance of a legal obligation. This may include some whistleblowing investigations, provided they fall strictly within the scope of the Belgian Whistleblowing Act. The scope of this Act is quite narrow however and in practice many employers operate reporting channels that cover a broader range of concerns than the legislation requires. Furthermore, investigations that start with a report of whistleblowing regularly expand beyond that. If an investigation goes beyond what is required to discharge the relevant legal obligation, or where matters fall outside the scope of an applicable exclusion, full PIA compliance may be required.
Licensing requirements
Under the PIA, private investigation activities, whether by a private investigation company or an internal investigations service, require a license from the Belgian Ministry of the Interior. This obligation to obtain a license may create challenges for multinational companies, as they are more likely to organise their investigation function at group level, outside of Belgium. As we highlighted in a previous blog, such licences are granted for a renewable period of five years and will only be awarded if the members of the investigating team are Belgian nationals or have their main residence in the EEA or Switzerland.
For EEA groups of companies, therefore, there is a potential way out: a license for an internal investigation service can be obtained without an operating seat in Belgium because the Belgian authorities will take into account the guarantees provided in another EEA Member State. For internal investigation functions based outside the EEA, however, no such exceptions are provided, and other avenues will need to be considered to conduct the investigation lawfully. Depending on the circumstances, these may include instructing a licensed investigation company, or having the investigation conducted by external counsel.
The HR exception
HR professionals who carry out investigative activities on behalf of their own employer (legal entity) in the context of an “incident investigation” concerning the employer’s own employees are not required to hold an identification card and are therefore exempt from the associated licensing requirements. However, all other provisions of the PIA continue to apply in full.
The PIA does not define the term ‘incident investigation’, but the explanatory memorandum to the Act indicates that following the identification or suspicion of misconduct such an investigation may include, amongst other things, the analysis of CCTV footage, the retrieval and examination of access control data, the reading of electronic locks or badge readers, and interviewing colleagues.
Without a clear definition of this exception, challenges are to be expected, particularly from employees seeking to have investigation findings excluded as evidence in dismissal proceedings. Employers should therefore assess very carefully whether an investigation falls within the limits of this exception, which must be interpreted narrowly.
In our next blog in this series, we will look at how an investigation under the PIA must be conducted: the role of the GDPR, prohibited fields of investigation, interview rules, the rights of the data subject and the consequences of non-compliance.
To discuss how the Belgian Private Investigations Act may affect your operations and how we can assist your business, please reach out toMarga Caproni, Partner and head of the Belgian Labour & Employment practice.
Spain has adopted Royal Decree 723/2026 of 9 September 2026, introducing a revised framework governing the information that employers must provide to employees regarding the essential terms of their employment and their principal working conditions. The measure partially implements EU Directive 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions. The Decree was published in the Spanish Official State Gazette on 15 September 2026 and will come into force on 5 October 2026, replacing Royal Decree 1659/1998. These changes represent a significant expansion of the information obligations on employers.
Under the new framework, the Spanish Ministry of Labor and Social Economy, through the Spanish Public Employment Service, must make available an official information document designed to assist employers in complying with these new requirements. This has not yet been published. Employers will be required to comply with the new information obligations from 5 October, regardless of whether the government has published the official information document by then.
Most readers of this blog will be familiar with the concept of “restraint of trade” and the public policy reasons why the law regulates it so closely, namely that individuals should be free to use their skills and earn a living without unnecessary restrictions.
The doctrine applies around the world to a greater or a lesser degree – with different rules applying depending on both the jurisdiction and the legal situation. In the UK employment context, the general starting point is that any contractual term which restricts an employee’s freedom to carry out their trade will be void, unless (a) it protects the employer’s legitimate business interests; and (b) it goes no further than reasonably necessary to do so. The reasonableness of any such clause has to be viewed at the date of signing and without the glorious benefit of hindsight. It is for this reason that so much ink is spilled on the proper drafting of post-termination restrictive covenants (e.g. non-competition, non-solicitation of clients and customers, etc.) which are bespoke both to the particular role an individual carries out and the consequent risk to the business should that individual leave. This reflects the basic principle that a court will not enforce these, unless the employer can show (as a minimum) that that they satisfy both (a) and (b) above.
Over the summer, the European Commission published some frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the European Pay Transparency Directive.
By way of reminder, the Directive had to be transposed into national law by 7 June of this year, but only a few Member States met this deadline.
Are the 13 pages of FAQs worth your time? Not really, so we have summarised the most interesting takeaways for you:
The FAQs confirm that the information that must be provided to job applicants on expected pay does not necessarily have to be included in the job vacancy notice, but it must be provided prior to the job interview.
Obligations under the Directive do not apply to genuinely self-employed workers. However, bogus self-employed workers (i.e. those that really ought to be considered employees) may be caught.
For many employees, the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle aren’t just physical; they are financial. Through health-contingent wellness programs, employers can offer monetary rewards or reduced health insurance costs to employees who achieve specified health-related goals. These programs may focus on nutrition, weight loss, tobacco cessation, fitness, substance abuse assistance, stress management, or general health education.
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?
