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.

Pen on the contract papers

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.

Massachusetts State House Dome

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.

Dollars in a jar

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.

Backlight keyboard

In the closely watched case Mobley v. Workday, the Northern District of California recently granted preliminary certification of a collective action for age discrimination claims against Workday’s AI-based applicant recommendation system. The court’s order allows the plaintiff to notify similarly situated individuals of the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to opt-in to having their claims heard collectively.

Professional TV cameraman during event recording

It was supposed to be a night of entertainment for concertgoers at a recent Coldplay performance. But for two company executives, the spotlight shone a bit too brightly when a “kiss cam” moment on the jumbotron captured what appeared to be a romantic embrace. The viral clip quickly made its way from the venue to social media feeds—and, inevitably, to the boardroom.

While most of us hope our professional lives don’t become the subject of a Viva La Vida meme, these headline-grabbing incidents can leave employers with serious employment law questions and reputational risks.

The 2025 Colorado legislative session concluded on May 7, 2025. This latest session has brought a series of significant updates that are poised to reshape the compliance landscape for employers across the state. Among the enacted bills, several are set to introduce new requirements and labor standards compelling employers to adapt swiftly. The vetoed bills, on the other hand, highlight ongoing debates that may signal future changes.

Below we summarize the major bills affecting employers that were either passed or vetoed by Governor Jared Polis.  

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement, commenced litigation against Rock Snowpark on July 2, 2025, for allegedly retaliating against an employee that posted a series of Bible verses on social media that the Snowpark considered discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community.

Tennessee State Office Building with American Flag Upward Perspective

On July 1, 2025, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti announced the launch of the Civil Rights Enforcement Division (CRED), a newly established unit within the Attorney General’s Office. This significant structural change follows the Tennessee General Assembly’s decision to dissolve the Tennessee Human Rights Commission (THRC) and transfer its responsibilities to the Attorney General’s Office. CRED is now the primary body responsible for enforcing the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Disability Act and accepts discrimination complaints in employment, housing, public accommodation, and education.

Below, we summarize the key changes, discuss the impact on employers, outline the new charge process, and preview the potential of similar trends in other states.

California flag, USA

Assembly Bill 2499 (AB 2499), which took effect on January 1, 2025, broadens previous requirements on how California employers treat employees who are victims of violence or who are the family members of victims. The new law broadens previous requirements and introduces several key changes for employers, including:

  1. An expanded definition of “victim”
  2. Reasonable accommodations for employees who are family members of victims
  3. The right to take leave for family members of victims (for employers with 25 or more employees)
  4. Greater access to paid sick leave
  5. New notice requirements for employers