Workforce Bulletin

On January 6, 2026, the New York Assembly introduced bill A9452 (Amendment), which would substantially amend the “Trapped at Work Act” (TAWA). As we explained here, TAWA prohibits all employers—including subsidiaries and contractors—from requiring current or prospective workers to sign employment-related promissory notes as a condition of employment.

When California Employment Law Feels Impossible, Jonathan Brenner Says “Watch Me”

Employers in California face a perfect storm of shifting regulations, multistate compliance headaches, and legal risks that can derail even the best human resources strategies. But what if there were a better way than always playing defense?

Meet Jonathan Brenner, the California employment attorney who’s built his practice on a radical idea—no problem is truly impossible. In this one-on-one conversation with fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple, Jonathan pulls back the curtain on how sophisticated employers are navigating California’s legal minefield.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recent opinion letters clarifying critical Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compliance standards, alongside the growing complexity of the state-level paid leave landscape.

While the recent DOL guidance provides long-awaited clarity on FMLA and FLSA compliance, the rapid expansion of state-level paid leave mandates is adding a new layer of regulatory risk.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Genevieve Murphy-Bradacs discusses what these FMLA clarifications and the patchwork of state laws mean for employers.

In the wake of this country’s longest federal shutdown, federal courts were facing unprecedented decision-making whether to stay civil proceedings implicating federal employees and agencies.

The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from spending beyond their allotted funding and simultaneously restricts federal employees from working on a volunteer basis. The Act provides, in relevant part:

An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.

31 U.S.C. § 1342 (emphasis added).

During lapses in federal funding, voluntary services are only authorized in very limited circumstances, but the parameters of the “safety of human life” or “protection of property” exceptions have not been uniformly defined nor applied across the courts.

As another busy year for our Employment, Labor & Workforce Management clients came to a close, we asked our attorneys what issues were top of mind for our nationwide clients in 2025.

The results of this informal survey provide the opportunity not only to reflect on the challenges confronted by the global organizations we are privileged to represent, but also to prepare for what the legal landscape might hold in 2026. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we explore the top legal trends shaping the workplace in 2026.

Employers face a rapidly evolving legal landscape in 2026. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys share their insights on the key challenges and opportunities businesses should prepare for in the year ahead.

Discover more predictions and practical guidance—watch the full episode now.

It has long been the case that certain sales and service providers increase or decrease consumer prices based on perceived data. A luxury item purveyor or home improvement contractor, for example, may look at a potential customer’s overall appearance, personal items such as a watch or purse, or their address or profession, to determine a quoted price. This practice is not just improper and deceitful—it is exploitative, and these perceived datapoints may not reflect the consumers’ actual purchasing power. Yet this type of variable pricing wasn’t an issue typically associated with general retail, until artificial intelligence (AI) arrived.

On December 11, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed the Executive Order (the “EO”) entitled, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence.” Aimed at establishing a unified national policy framework for AI, the EO attempts to significantly restrict states from independently regulating AI in “onerous and excessive” ways or that conflict with federal priorities, including America’s AI innovation, leadership, and global dominance. The EO’s stated goal is to reduce “cumbersome” state regulation that “stymie innovation.”

As employers continue preparations for complying with workplace AI laws that become effective in 2026 (e.g., Colorado SB24-205, California Senate Bill No. 53 and Texas’s Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act), questions remain regarding complying with Illinois HB 3773, the August 2024 amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). As we previously reported, effective January 1, 2026, HB 3733 amended the IHRA to expressly regulate the use of AI for employment decisions.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss the most significant employment law developments of 2025, from non-competes to artificial intelligence (AI) governance.

2025 reshaped the employment law landscape, bringing sweeping changes at both the federal and state levels. In this year-end special episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys break down the most impactful developments for employers.