From 1 December, the Acas early conciliation period was extended from six to twelve weeks. The intention was clear: to ease growing administrative pressures on Acas at a time of rising demand. But while the extension may give Acas more breathing space, it raises a broader question for employers and employees alike – does more time meaningfully improve early resolution, or does it simply prolong uncertainty in a system already struggling to cope?
Andrea R. Lucas, the Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), issued a letter on February 26, 2026, to the CEOs, general counsels and boards of directors of the 500 largest U.S. companies to remind them of legal obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While framed as a reminder, the letter is another example of the EEOC’s continuing efforts to address employers’ diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives. In her letter, Chair Lucas characterizes the long-standing principles of equality of treatment and opportunity as “under attack by movements and ideologies that elevate group rights over individual rights; demand equal outcomes over equal treatment and equal opportunity; and most absurdly, twist our nation’s civil rights to promote discrimination against certain races or groups, rather than protect all Americans equally and evenhandedly.”
On March 11, 2026, Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson signed a law prohibiting employers from requiring employees to have tracking chips implanted beneath their skin as condition of employment. Washington now joins Arkansas, California, Missouri and ten other states which have passed similar laws, all addressing advances in workplace surveillance technology.
Although rare, from time to time an employer may sue a current or former employee who makes negative public comments about the employer. In such cases, the employer may allege that the employee’s comments constitute defamation or tortiously interfered with the employer’s business relationships.
Not surprisingly, the threat of litigation can have a substantial deterrent effect, not only upon the employee threatened with litigation but on their colleagues as well. As a result, employees may choose not to speak publicly, even with respect to matters of public concern.
Last week, in the wake of International Women’s Day, the Flemish government approved a – very partial – implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive.
The bulk of the transposition work is still to be done by the federal government and the social partners in the National Labour Council, and on these fronts, things are still awfully quiet.
But the three regions in Belgium also have (limited) powers in this matter. These powers include the authority to impose sanctions on companies which do not comply with their obligations as imposed by the Directive.
On March 6, 2026, Argentina enacted its sweeping Labor Modernization Law, a reform that reshapes the country’s employment framework and introduces the most significant changes to labor relations in decades. With 196 articles, the law goes far beyond amending the Employment Contract Law (LCT), touching collective bargaining, labor procedures, severance systems and employer costs. Below is a high-level overview of the key changes and why they matter. While some amendments don’t take effect until January 1, 2027, others – e.g., social security contributions – take effect immediately, or on June 1, 2026 – e.g., Labor Assistance Fund.
On March 6, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to reject the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) 2023 decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, in which the NLRB changed the standard for issuing affirmative bargaining orders requiring employers to recognize and bargain with a union even after employees vote against union representation.
As we previously reported here and here, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) amended the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by invalidating clauses in employment agreements mandating arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault cases. The EFAA permits a claimant in a sexual assault or sexual harassment case to forgo arbitration and pursue the case in court. (See 9 U.S.C. §§ 401-02.) That is, although claimants can choose to arbitrate such claims, they cannot be compelled to do so.
From Albany to Manhattan, employers in some of the nation’s largest jurisdictions are facing significant legal changes. Staying ahead of these developments is essential to maintaining compliance and minimizing risk. This update highlights several key employment law changes in New York state and New York City that employers should be aware of now.
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).
