Photo of Elizabeth Ebersole

Elizabeth Ebersole

Subscribe to Elizabeth Ebersole's Posts
Contact:Read more about Elizabeth Ebersole

The EU Pay Transparency Directive’s transposition deadline—June 7, 2026—has passed. As of the June 7 deadline, only a handful of Member States—notably Slovakia, Italy and Lithuania—have fully or largely implemented the Directive, with most others still working through draft legislation or delayed timelines.

Most member states are behind, resulting in uneven implementation across the bloc and leaving employers to navigate a fragmented and evolving landscape with staggered national rollouts and divergent approaches across jurisdictions. Here’s what US-based multinationals need to know now.

The Practical Outlook for Multinational Employers

For US companies managing EU workforces, the next 12–24 months will look like:

Patchwork Implementation

  • Countries will finalize laws on different timelines
  • Some will gold-plate requirements (e.g., broader scope, stricter remedies)
  • Others may take a more minimalist approach

Rolling Compliance Programs

  • Employers will need to sequence implementation by jurisdiction
  • Internal frameworks must be modular and adaptable, not one-size-fits-all

Heightened Litigation & Enforcement Risk

Even before full implementation, expect:

  • Increased employee claims and works council pressure
  • Greater scrutiny of pay equity and transparency practices
  • Use of existing laws (e.g., equal pay frameworks) alongside emerging rules

Reminder of the Directive’s Core Requirements

The Directive introduces a consistent set of core obligations across the employment lifecycle, centered on greater transparency, more rigorous pay monitoring, and enhanced enforcement risk—though the detail and delivery will vary by country.

Continue Reading EU Pay Transparency Directive: Deadlines Missed, But the Real Work Starts Now

Since our April 6 blog, Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers, where we highlighted how the latest Executive Order creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors, with potentially far reaching implications, there have been several significant developments that collectively signal a…

Six months ago, our Back‑to‑School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI examined how the 2025 executive orders—and early guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—led many US-based employers to recalibrate DEI-related risk, conduct DEI health checks, and fine-tune specific initiatives and practices.

In 2026, the risk is not coming from landmark court rulings declaring DEI unlawful. Instead, it is coming from enforcement tools: investigations, subpoenas, contract terms and leverage applied across multiple fronts—often before any litigation is filed.

That reality came into sharper focus on March 26, with the issuance of a new executive order further targeting “DEI discrimination” by federal contractors.

Workplace DEI remains lawful. But employers should expect heightened scrutiny of how programs are structured, incentivized, documented, and defended—through EEOC inquiries, administrative subpoenas, FCA theories tied to certifications, and discovery-driven litigation.

The New Executive Order Enhances DEI Risk for Federal Contractors

The White House’s new executive order—“Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors”—creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. Potential consequences include termination, debarment, and potential False Claims Act (FCA) exposure. The order (and the accompanying Fact Sheet) is operationally consequential: it ties compliance to federal contracting, expands agency access to contractor information, and more explicitly links compliance with these contractual obligations to FCA theories.

Continue Reading Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers

The Argentine Senate has given preliminary approval to an ambitious Labor Modernization Bill that would meaningfully recalibrate Argentina’s employment law framework. The proposal introduces sweeping amendments to the Employment Contract Law and related statutes, with a clear policy focus on reducing informality and litigation, improving predictability around employment status, and enabling greater operational flexibility—developments that…

Illinois has entered a pivotal year for workplace regulation. Employers face a series of new requirements, with significant and wide-ranging changes—from paid lactation breaks and NICU leave to expanded whistleblower protections, stricter contract rules, and new obligations around AI use in hiring and employment decisions. These new laws will reshape policies on employment agreements, leave…

On December 4, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes of two bills requiring annual pay reporting and pay analyses. These bills—requiring private employers to report pay data by race and gender and mandating a city-led pay equity study—are emblematic of a nationwide trend toward greater scrutiny of compensation practices.

As we dive into the new year, here’s what employers need to know about the new NYC reporting requirements, recent changes to pay data reporting requirements in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, and the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive.

While pay reporting laws focus on accountability and seek to enable regulatory oversight and systemic analysis of pay equity across organizations, pay transparency regulations emphasize visibility, aiming to enable applicants and employees to make informed decisions and reduce information asymmetry. A round-up of recent pay transparency developments is included.

New NYC Pay Data Reporting Requirements

New law (Int 0982-A) requires employers with 200 or more employees inclusive of full-time, part-time and temporary employees) in the city to file annual reports detailing employee race or ethnicity and gender information across certain job categories and different pay ranges. Although the pay-reporting requirements take effect immediately, employers are not required to submit information until the city creates a process for doing so, which we may not see until as late as 2028.

  • Reporting Details: The new reporting requirements are similar to requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (and similar to reporting requirements in California and Illinois). In 2017 and 2018, the EEOC previously called for employers to submit employees’ W-2 income information broken down by gender, race/ethnicity and job category (i.e., component 2 EEO-1 data), though the rules were rescinded during the first Trump administration. The new law requires the city agency overseeing this new initiative to include this component 2 EEO-1 data in the reporting requirements, but may also request additional data, such as information about employee gender identity or other demographics. Employers will not need to provide an employee’s personal information as part of the reports, but they will have the option to submit written remarks to provide explanations or context for the data in their submission. Additionally, employers may furnish data anonymously, but will required to submit a signed statement confirming that they provided accurate pay data.
Continue Reading From New York City to the European Union: Pay Equity Developments Multinational Employers Need to Know in 2026

As AI adoption accelerates across workplaces, labor organizations around the world are beginning to take notice—and action. The current regulatory focus in the US centers on state-specific laws like those in California, Illinois, Colorado and New York City, but the labor implications of AI are quickly becoming a front-line issue for unions, potentially signaling a new wave of collective bargaining considerations. Similarly, in Europe the deployment of certain AI tools within the organization may trigger information, consultation, and—in some European countries—negotiation obligations. AI tools may only be introduced once the process is completed.

This marks an important inflection point for employers: engaging with employee representatives on AI strategy early can help anticipate employee concerns and reduce friction as new technologies are adopted. Here, we explore how AI is emerging as a key topic in labor relations in the US and Europe and offer practical guidance for employers navigating the evolving intersection of AI, employment law, and collective engagement.

Efforts in the US to Regulate AI’s Impact on Workers

There is no specific US federal law regulating AI in the workplace. An emerging patchwork of state and local legislation (e.g. in Colorado, Illinois and New York City) address the potential for bias and discrimination in AI-based tools—but do not focus on preventing displacement of employees. In March, New York became the first state to require businesses to disclose AI-related mass layoffs, indicating a growing expectation that employers are transparent about AI’s impact on workers.[1]

Some unions have begun negotiating their own safeguards to address growing concerns about the impact that AI may have on union jobs. For example, in 2023, the Las Vegas Culinary Workers negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with major casinos requiring that the union be provided advance notice, and the opportunity to bargain over, AI implementation. The CBA also provides workers displaced by AI with severance pay, continued benefits, and recall rights.

Similarly, in 2023 both the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) negotiated agreements with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) that include safeguards against AI reducing or replacing writers and actors. WGA’s contract requires studios to meet semi-annually with the union to discuss current and future uses of generative AI—giving writers a formal channel to influence how AI is deployed in their industry. The SAG-AFTRA contract requires consent and compensation for use of digital replicas powered by AI.

Continue Reading Navigating Labor’s Response to AI: Proactive Strategies for Multinational Employers Across the Atlantic

Reductions in force (RIFs) are rarely straightforward—especially for multinational employers. Navigating conflicting labor laws, benefits obligations, cultural expectations, and logistical hurdles requires strategic planning and coordination to stay compliant and minimize disruption. 

In this video chat, our Employment and Compensation attorneys unpack the legal and practical challenges of RIFs inside and outside of the US.

Tune into our annual Global Employment Law webinar series as we bring the world to you.

Our Global Employment Law Fastpass webinar series is here again! Every June, we offer four regionally-focused webinars to help you stay up-to-speed on the latest employment law developments around the world. From tariffs and economic uncertainty to the use…

As discussed in our blog here, President Trump’s series of executive orders aimed at eradicating “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs across the federal government and in the private sector did not define the term “illegal discrimination.” On March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice released guidance addressing this and outlining how DEI practices may be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.

Together, the EEOC and DOJ issued a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” providing examples of “DEI-related discrimination” under Title VII and directing employees who “suspect [they] have experienced DEI-related discrimination” to “contact the EEOC promptly.” 

The EEOC simultaneously released more detailed guidance entitled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” which includes eleven questions and answers addressing the process for asserting a discrimination claim and the scope of protections under Title VII as they relate to DEI practices.

Continue Reading EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination