In 2023, Minnesota enacted the “Employer-Sponsored Meetings of Communications Act” (the “Act”), Minn. Stat. § 181.531. The Act prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against any employee who refuses to participate in meetings where the employer discusses its opinion on political and religious matters.
Earlier this month, our team published an in-depth article for federal contractors on navigating WARN Act compliance amid government shutdowns and federal contract cancellations. Since then, we’ve been closely monitoring the broader wave of workforce reductions affecting not only government contractors but employers across industries and company sizes.
The recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has ignited a national conversation—not just about politics, but about the boundaries of employee speech and employer response in the workplace. In the days following Kirk’s death, a wave of firings and suspensions have swept across industries, with employers acting swiftly to distance themselves from employees whose public statements about the tragedy were seen by some as insensitive, inflammatory, or reputationally damaging, regardless of the political viewpoint expressed. In assessing whether to discipline or terminate an employee for statements made publicly on personal social media, employers must consider constitutional rights, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), anti-discrimination laws, off-duty conduct laws, and social media privacy laws.
Captive audience meetings are employer sponsored meetings where the employer requires employees to attend and listen to the employer position concerning a union organizing effort. The meeting is intended to dissuade workers from unionizing. These meetings continue to receive significant attention at the state and federal level. There are now 12 states, including Minnesota, which have enacted laws designed to ban or restrict captive audience meetings: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and, most recently, California.
Two recent disputes involving healthcare entities demonstrate some of the legal risks associated with contract clauses that require employees to reimburse their employer for the cost of job-related training if employees leave or are terminated before a specified period, often referred to as training repayment agreements (TRAs).
The National Football League (NFL) is in the spotlight this season, not because of any certain game on the field, but for a legal battle off it. Last week, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that a NFL coach could bring his race discrimination claims against the NFL and several NFL teams in court although he had signed an arbitration agreement.
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) provisions that require the drafter of the arbitration agreement to pay arbitration fees within thirty days of the due date in employment and consumer arbitration matters or face the loss of the right to compel arbitration. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded that a party’s failure to timely pay arbitration fees is subject to analysis by the fact finder on whether an untimely payment of arbitration fees was the result of willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent conduct, or merely inadvertence or mistake.
Imagine accepting a new job, signing a stack of documents, and working for years—only to learn after being fired that hidden fine print gave you just months, not years, to sue for wrongful termination. Sound fair? The Michigan Supreme Court does not think so—at least not without closer inspection. In Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, decided on May 23, 2024 (513 Mich 1096), the Court held that contractually shortened limitations periods in adhesive, non-negotiated employment agreements must undergo judicial scrutiny for reasonableness before enforcement. This ruling, penned by Justice Welch and joined by a majority, reverses a Court of Appeals decision and overrules prior precedents, signaling a shift toward greater employee protections in boilerplate contracts. For employers, it is a reminder that one-size-fits-all clauses might not hold up in court.
The Massachusetts legislature passed the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (MNAA) in 2018, culminating a longstanding effort to balance employers’ rights to protect legitimate business interests—such as trade secrets, goodwill, and proprietary information—against employees’ rights to pursue future job opportunities. The law imposes restrictions on the use of noncompetition agreements entered on or after October 1, 2018, with employees who work or reside in Massachusetts for at least 30 days prior to the termination of employment. On June 13, 2025, in Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., the state Supreme Judicial Court issued a unanimous decision that narrows the potential scope of the MNAA’s definition of noncompetition agreements and preserves for employers the ability to protect one of their most valuable assets, their employees.
With the passage of the new federal tax bill on July 4, 2025, unofficially referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), employers and employees in overtime-heavy and tipped industries face new opportunities and responsibilities. Below are some key highlights of what employers need to know to better prepare for the changes.