US

Subscribe to US via RSS

As sweeping reforms converge to redefine workplace standards, employer responsibilities and employee rights, 2026 will require global businesses to balance rapidly evolving workplace regulation with the need to safeguard commercial interests.

Global regulation shifts in focus

Across the UK, the Americas and Europe, three key themes dominate: equity, openness and flexibility.

In the UK, the recent Employment Rights Act will broaden protection against unfair dismissal by reducing the qualifying period from two years to six months and removing the existing caps on compensation. These changes are anticipated from January 2027. The act will create other significant changes in 2026 and into 2027, including measures strengthening union influence; broadened thresholds for collective consultation and increased associated penalties for breaches; severe restrictions on imposing contractual variations, improved job security for zero- and low-hours workers; and broadened protections against harassment. In short, there will be a seismic shift to the compliance landscape. Employers will need to stay alert, as many of the finer details remain unknown.

The European Union is taking a proactive approach to strengthen its global competitiveness, aiming to boost innovation and economic growth. However, core worker protections are likely to remain strong with employers facing a wave of new regulation including the Pay Transparency Directive, the AI Act, and a revised framework for European Works Councils. Meanwhile, the Quality Jobs Roadmap forms part of the EU’s strategy to generate and maintain sustainable, high-quality employment. This potentially includes legislative measures to safeguard workers’ rights while adapting to ongoing technological, economic, and societal developments.

Recent employment law developments across Asia Pacific and Latin America also reflect a strong focus on worker protection, flexibility and fairness. Wage reforms are prominent, with South Korea and multiple Philippine regions announcing significant minimum wage increases, while Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill enhances rights and security for nontraditional workers. Broader labor rights are evolving through measures like South Korea’s Yellow Envelope Act, which expands union protections, while Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act seeks to ensure fair treatment for employees, including by providing greater protection against workplace discrimination. In Latin America, labor reforms are continuing, with Brazil seeking to strengthen equal pay compliance, Colombia modernizing its labor inspection regime, Mexico proposing reforms to strengthen workers’ rights and Argentina seeking to introduce sweeping changes to modernize labor relations while fostering competitiveness.

Overall, these changes underscore a regional trend toward safeguarding employee well-being, regulating digital work environments and ensuring equitable treatment across diverse employment models.Continue Reading A Year of Workforce Transformation Prioritizing Fairness

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

The Trump Administration recently announced wide-ranging immigration policy changes that directly impact most employer-sponsored visa holders. While each update may seem minor or only pertinent to specific cases, they amount to notable changes when viewed collectively. The latest developments highlight the critical importance of staying informed of immigration changes and reviewing internal practices to ensure immigration compliance. Below is a summary of changes most likely to impact companies and their visa-holding employees. 

1. H-1B visa stamping now requires social media vetting, causing significant delays and appointment cancellations in India

  • All H-1B and H-4 visa applicants are subject to mandatory social media vetting, requiring that applicants set their social media profiles to public. This is an expansion of the social media vetting announced earlier in the year for student visa applicants.
  • This change in policy does not impact USCIS filings and only applies to applicants for visa stamps at US Embassies or Consulates outside of the United States.
  • There have been widespread reports of H-1B visa appointments being cancelled and rescheduled due to the change in policy, particularly in India.

Key Takeaway   

Employers and employees should be prepared for H-1B and H-4 visa stamping to take longer due to this new process. Employers should know their visa population including H-1B (and H-4) employees who will travel for visa stamping given the possibility of cancellation and/or delay. Employers should have clear policy guidelines regarding remote work and consider contingency plans due to an employee’s extended absence abroad.  Continue Reading US Immigration Update: What Employers Should Know About Immigration Changes in Q4

This article was originally published by IAPP linked here.

When monitoring employees in the workplace in the U.S. and Canada, employers must be cognizant of their obligations under employment and data privacy laws. 

In the US, employers can mostly negate privacy expectations from developing in the workplace by providing clear notice of monitoring practices and which notice is required in certain states, such as New York. But under the California Consumer Privacy Act, data minimization requirements apply and monitoring practices must be justifiable as necessary and proportionate.

In Canada, employers are required to balance operational needs such as safety, security and productivity, with the privacy rights of their employees. Monitoring should be reasonable, proportionate and tied to a legitimate business purpose. Organizations must comply with applicable federal or provincial privacy legislation, which can include safeguarding any employee personal information collected, obtaining employee consent in certain circumstances, and providing notice to employees of monitoring practices. 

For federally regulated private-sector employers — such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies — employee monitoring is generally governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Provinces that have enacted privacy laws deemed “substantially similar” to PIPEDA are exempt from its collection, use and disclosure provisions under section 26(2)(b). Presently, only Alberta, British Columbia and Québec have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA.

US: A patchwork of requirements apply to employers

At the federal level in the U.S., employee monitoring is primarily governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, which permit monitoring for legitimate business purposes but impose strict limits on unauthorized interception and access to private communications. Further, employers must conduct all workplace monitoring and surveillance in compliance with federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws. And, all employers, even those with a nonunionized workforce, must comply with the National Labor Relations Act when conducting workplace monitoring and surveillance. Continue Reading Employee Monitoring in the US and Canada: What Employers Need to Know

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence” (the “Order”). The Order represents the Administration’s latest and most pointed attempt to stop and reverse the wave of state AI legislation that has emerged over the preceding year, which the Order asserts “creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.” The Order raises the political stakes regarding state AI laws and creates uncertainty in the form of anticipated litigation, but does not instantly remove current or impending state AI law obligations for companies developing or deploying AI.Continue Reading Pre-emption by Executive Order: Trump Order Moves to Block State AI Laws

We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Brazil, Italy, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Click here to view.

The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, enacted July 4, 2025, creates new tax deductions for tax years 2025 through 2028 for recipients of qualified tips and qualified overtime compensation. The OBBBA amendments to the Code generally impose information reporting requirements, such as on Form W-2 or Form 1099, on the payors of qualified tips and overtime in order for the recipients of such compensation to be eligible to take the deductions. However, for tax year 2025, OBBBA includes transition relief that permits employers and payors to approximate and report qualified tips and qualified overtime by any reasonable method specified by the Secretary.

The IRS and Treasury have now provided guidance in the form of two notices – Notice 2025-62 providing penalty relief for employers and payors who do not report qualified tips or qualified overtime on information returns for 2025, and Notice 2025-69 providing guidance for taxpayers who receive overtime and tips on how to calculate the deductions for 2025 in the absence of information reporting from employers and payors.  Continue Reading IRS Issues 2025 Transition Relief and Hints at Future Tips and Overtime Information Reporting Obligations

On October 20, 2025, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance on the Presidential Proclamation, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, which imposed an additional $100,000 payment as a prerequisite for certain new H-1B Petitions filed on or after 12:01AM Eastern on September 21, 2025.

For more details, refer to our September…

The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) landscape in the United States has undergone major shifts this year, driven by new executive actions, heightened regulatory scrutiny, deepening cultural and political divisions and emerging litigation trends. For legal practitioners advising employers, the past nine months have been marked by uncertainty, risk recalibration, and strategic decision-making.

This blog will bring you up-to-date on material developments and outline key takeaways for federal contractors and private companies from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s July 29 memorandum titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.”

Level Set: The Executive Orders and Federal Retrenchment

In January 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders (EOs) aimed at unlawful DEI programs, revoking race, ethnicity and gender-based affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, and directing public and private entities to end policies that constitute “illegal DEI discrimination.”

The EOs do not change existing federal discrimination laws, such as the bedrock prohibitions on discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EOs do not categorically ban any private employer DEI programs. Rather, the EOs direct federal agencies and deputize private citizens to root out (through investigations, enforcement actions, or False Claims Act (FCA) litigation) “illegal discrimination and preferences” and, for government agencies, to take particular actions. They reflect the policy view that many DEI policies violate federal anti-discrimination laws because these laws prohibit employment decisions based on certain demographic characteristics, while DEI may promote employment decisions on this basis. For more on the specific details of the EOs, read our blog, A Roadmap to Trump’s DEI Executive Orders for US Employers.

Catching Up: Legal Challenges to the Orders and Their Current Status

The EOs have faced multiple legal challenges, with various organizations and entities suing the Trump administration. In one of the most significant cases, a federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of three key provisions from Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 in February. Then, in March, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, allowing the Trump administration to enforce the executive orders while litigation continues. This week, oral arguments are being heard before a panel of Fourth Circuit judges.

As of September 22, 2025, several courts have issued contradictory rulings on the constitutionality of the EOs. The Supreme Court also determined that federal courts generally lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions, in its June 27, 2025 decision in the Trump v. CASA. Accordingly, the path for the Trump administration to enforce the EOs remains open. Federal agencies’ main enforcement mechanism under the EOs is terminating federal contracts and requiring federal contractors to certify that they do not operate any DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination law.

Following the Timeline: Breaking Down the Guidance from Federal Agencies and Recent Enforcement Activity

Over the last several months, federal agencies have been taking action to combat illegal DEI practices. Several agencies have sent companies requests to certify that they are not in violation of federal anti-discrimination law, and that this is material to the government’s funding decision, per the EO’s certification requirement.

Federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have also issued requests for information to certain companies (usually based on publicly available information) expressing concerns about their DEI practices. Requests have asked for information about various DEI-related topics, including hiring and promotion processes, diversity goals, application and selection criteria for fellowship programs, and participation in diversity internship programs.

In March, the FCC Chairman stated that the agency would use its “public interest” review of mergers and acquisitions to target companies with certain DEI programs. In response, several large telecommunications and media companies with pending mergers scaled back their DEI initiatives.

Also in March, the EEOC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued published a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” which provides examples of potential DEI-related discrimination under Title VII and directs employees who suspect they have experienced DEI-related discrimination to promptly notify the EEOC. Simultaneously, the EEOC also published a longer technical assistance document (“What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work”) with 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 programs.

The joint guidance makes clear that any employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic, is unlawful discrimination, and the law does not distinguish between “reverse” discrimination against historically privileged groups and discrimination against minority or historically disadvantaged groups.[1] This guidance, while not binding, sets forth the agencies’ interpretation of the law, and as a result has influenced employer risk assessments and prompted internal reviews of hiring and promotion practices. (More here in our blog, EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination.)

In April, President Trump issued Executive Order 14281 directing federal agencies like the EEOC and the DOJ to deprioritize enforcement of anti-discrimination laws using the “disparate impact” theory of legal liability. Disparate impact is legal doctrine in US anti-discrimination law that allows plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims with respect to facially neutral practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on members of protected groups—such as racial minorities or women—even if there is no intent to discriminate. It was recently reported that the EEOC plans to close by the end of month all pending worker charges based solely on unintentional discrimination claims and issue “right to sue” notices allowing plaintiffs to pursue those claims in court. This would mark another significant enforcement shift for the agency in recent months. The EEOC has already curtailed litigating and processing claims of discrimination based on transgender status under Title VII.

In May, the DOJ launched the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which uses the FCA to target entities that misrepresent compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws to receive federal funds. The FCA’s qui tam mechanism allows private citizens (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government and share in any recovery. The DOJ has encouraged whistleblowers to come forward, and in recent weeks the DOJ has issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to federal contractors and grantees seeking documents and information related to their DEI practices.

Most recently, on July 29, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum to federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (DOJ Memo). The memo signals a substantial shift in how the DOJ intends to interpret and enforce federal anti-discrimination laws—particularly in relation to DEI initiatives. The memo itself does not have the force of law, instead it reflects how the DOJ interprets and intends to apply federal anti-discrimination law. While the memo is directed at educational institutions and private entities receiving federal funding, its examples of unlawful discrimination are relevant to all employers.Continue Reading An Employer’s Back-to-School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI

On Friday, September 19, President Trump issued a proclamation announcing the Gold Card program to facilitate the entry of people who have demonstrated their ability and desire to advance the interests of the United States by voluntarily providing a significant financial gift to the United States (The Gold Card – The White House).