Employment

As we enter the opening days of 2026, here are some recent changes to employment and pensions law, as well as some upcoming developments, about which provincially-regulated and federally-regulated employers in Ontario should be aware.

In July 2024, Massachusetts enacted An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency (the “Act”), introducing new pay transparency and workforce reporting obligations for employers operating in the Commonwealth. We previously wrote about the Act here, here, and here.

New York has amended its Fair Credit Reporting Act to tighten restrictions on the use of consumer credit history in employment decisions. These amendments become effective April 18, 2026, at which point employers will no longer be permitted to request or use an applicant or employee’s credit history in making employment decisions, except for a few narrow exceptions.  These amendments generally mirror New York City’s existing credit check prohibition to now impact employers throughout the state. 

Less than a month after Governor Hochul signed into law the “Trapped at Work Act” (the “Act”) which took effect immediately and which we reported on here, the New York State Legislature introduced a bill amending the Act.  The proposed amendments (the “Amendments”) would make some significant changes to the existing Act’s prohibitions on employment “promissory notes,” including by providing clarity on what sorts of “stay or pay” arrangements would remain lawful. Many of the Amendments respond to statements in Governor Hochul’s signing memorandum in which she expressed concerns about certain ambiguous aspects of the Act and indicated that her signing of the Act was contingent upon the Legislature’s agreement to certain chapter amendments.  Below, we provide an overview of the salient portions of the Act impacted by the Amendments and offer some compliance-based suggestions. 

Starting January 1, 2026, New York minimum wage and overtime exemption salary thresholds will rise. Learn the new rates and compliance considerations for employers.

Massachusetts employers know the importance of complying with the state’s Wage Act, G.L. c. 149, § 148. Two recent court decisions offer fresh guidance to help employers achieve compliance, including around paying PTO upon separation of employment and regarding the Wage Act’s reach beyond state borders.

Preparing for the sale of a company can often be overwhelming, leaving sellers and company management scrambling as they approach closing. This post highlights key employment and benefits considerations to address in preparation for a sale, offering practical insights to help sellers and company management navigate the sale with confidence and efficiency. Taking these preliminary steps and anticipating buyer diligence questions can help companies present a well-managed organization, streamline the diligence process, and accelerate deal execution.

In today’s competitive market, safeguarding intellectual property (IP) and managing employment risks are critical for businesses operating in Canada and the United States. From onboarding to departure, employers must safeguard their interests and manage restrictive covenants in an evolving legal landscape. In this Part III of our cross-border series, we discuss practical strategies to mitigate risk and protect your organization throughout the employee lifecycle.

New York City employers should heed two important new legislative developments coming out of City Council. 

First, the City amended its Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (ESSTA) and its Temporary Schedule Change Act (“TSCA”) to establish a new unpaid leave requirement in addition to existing paid leave requirements and to expand the permissible uses for employee sick/safe leave (among other changes, as discussed below).  These changes will take effect on February 22, 2026. 

In further support of California’s longstanding opposition to employee mobility restrictions, on October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom approved a measure targeting “Stay or Pay” contracts that seek employee financial repayment tied to employment terminations.  The final bill was originally intended to capture training repayment agreement provisions but bans broader stay or pay contracts.  Employers should carefully review the new law, eliminate any banned arrangements, and modify those that are exempted (but subject to the law’s strict exemption requirements).  We discuss the new law in more detail below. 

As we previously reported, on September 19, 2025, the California legislature sent SB 7, the “No Robo Bosses Act” to Governor Newsom for signature. On October 13, 2025, Governor Newsome vetoed the Act, explaining in a press release that while he shared concerns about the use of AI by employers, the bill “proposes overly broad restrictions on how employers may use [automated decision systems] tools.” 

As we approach the October 29, 2025 effective date for employers to ensure compliance with Massachusetts’s new pay transparency law, An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency (the “Act”), we write to highlight the guidance that the Office of the Attorney General published since our most recent update here.

On September 12, 2025, California lawmakers took a significant step forward in regulating the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the workplace by passing SB 7, a bill aptly referred to as the “No Robo Bosses” Act.  If Governor Newsom signs the bill into law—a decision he must make by September 30, 2025—SB 7 would take effect on January 1, 2026 and would have an immediate impact on the use of AI in the workplace, including prohibiting employers from relying solely on AI to make decisions regarding employee discipline or termination.  Below, we highlight the most salient aspects of SB 7 and make some recommendations for employers going forward, if Governor Newsom signs the bill into law. 
 

It’s that time of year again. Employers that meet the requirements of Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (“MAPFML”) law through a self-insured or third-party private plan administrator are required to renew their private plans for approval by the Massachusetts Department of Paid Family and Medical Leave (the “Department”). Approved exemptions are renewed on an annual basis, and the process begins during the quarter prior to the expiration of an employer’s current exemption (e.g., if an employer’s private plan exemption year begins on October 1, they must submit for renewal approval on or before September 30).

More than 5 years from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York’s COVID-19 paid sick leave law has now officially expired as of July 31, 2025. The COVID-19 paid sick leave law, which was enacted during pandemic-related lockdowns in March 2020, had required most New York employers to provide paid, job-protected COVID-19 sick leave to employees who were under a mandatory or precautionary order of quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19 (or who were caring for family members who were under such orders).  Although COVID-19 unfortunately remains a reality, the pandemic phase (and related employee leave protections) have now come and gone.  

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a memorandum to all Federal Agencies providing guidance clarifying the application of Federal discrimination law to DEI programs and offering best practices for program compliance.  The memorandum, Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (the “Guidance”), ostensibly focused on entities receiving federal funding, fleshes out what the Trump Administration meant when it referred to “illegal DEI” in a series of Executive Orders issued earlier this year, and is far more expansive than the guidance the EEOC/DOJ jointly issued back in March (which we discussed here).  While the DOJ confirmed that the Guidance is non-binding (e.g. the best practices it offers are not mandatory), employers, whether they do business with the federal government or not, should pay very close attention to its overall message. We summarize the guidance below. 

Recent amendments to New York City’s Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (ESSTA) went into effect this month. Consistent with recent amendments to New York State law (which we discussed here and here), the City’s amended leave law now explicitly requires NYC employers to provide up to 20 hours of paid prenatal leave for eligible employees within a 52-week period and seeks to integrate related paid prenatal leave obligations into the existing ESSTA compliance framework for safe/sick time. The amendments also clarify the available penalties, remedies, and enforcement mechanisms for violations of the paid prenatal leave requirements.  

The Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave (the “Department”) recently updated its Employer Portal, issued a reminder for the private plan reporting deadline of August 31, 2025 and summarized tax guidance concerning the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave law. We explore each of these updates in more detail.

Reimbursements for relocation expenses have once again become a key component of attracting top talent. If not carefully structured, however, such expense reimbursements may inadvertently trigger significant adverse tax consequences under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. This post discusses some of the requirements under Section 409A and offers tips for avoiding some of the common pitfalls in drafting relocation benefits.

Many Massachusetts residents have recently considered taking, or have undertaken, steps to relocate from Massachusetts to jurisdictions with lower or no state income taxes, especially in light of the recently enacted 2023 Massachusetts “Millionaire’s Tax”.  While such a move could offer significant tax advantages, a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Welch v. Commissioner of Revenue, could reshape how nonresidents are taxed on capital gains from stock sales, emphasizing where the value was earned over where it is recognized.