Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

California continues to expand its regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and workplace technology. On September 30, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed four bills: SB 947, SB 951, AB 1883, and AB 1331, that establish new requirements concerning automated employment decisions, technology-driven workforce reductions, and employee surveillance.

As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms HR processes, hiring algorithms, and workplace management, businesses and corporate executives face unprecedented legal exposure.

Join Michael Levine and Katherine Deegan for an insightful, cross-collaborative discussion on AI risk from both labor and employment and insurance coverage perspectives.

The Second Circuit has clarified that, when analyzing Title VII religious accommodation claims, the employer’s motive—not knowledge—is the central question.  In its July decision, Bergin v. New York State Unified Court System, the Second Circuit found that its longstanding three-part prima facie test was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch. 

A recent Fifth Circuit decision reinforced OSHA’s methylene chloride standard as priority over EPA’s TSCA risk determination rule on workplace methylene chloride exposure.  The court held that EPA cannot disregard OSHA exposure limits, including whether OSHA considered PPE use in setting those exposure limits, without substantial supporting evidence.  The court further held that EPA did not have sufficient support for its exposure limits, which were overbroad and not scientifically based.  Further, the court reinforced the TSCA requires EPA to work with OSHA when developing exposure limits under TSCA.  The ruling prevents conflicting methylene chloride employee exposure limits and significantly constrains EPA’s ability to establish chemical workplace exposure rules that conflict with OSHA standards going forward.

Two new California employment laws, taking effect over the next two years, will expand on existing workplace laws prohibiting hate speech and providing added protections for employees who request bereavement leave.

“Civil society and victims’ rights groups are finding new ways to hold accountable not only the perpetrators, but the beneficiaries of [forced labor], increasingly targeting supply chains, . . .” With that 2015 statement, Human Rights First observed the legal doctrines being developed to impose lead firm, i.e., parent or contractor, liability for forced labor. That change has since materialized, creating new risks for lead firms.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated Rule 23 certification of a wage-and-hour class action brought by current and former hourly employees in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that their employer failed to pay brewery employees for required pre- and post-shift work.

On July 7, 2026, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument over California Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”), the state’s “captive audience” law, which prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings on certain political or religious topics, including union-related issues.

Massachusetts employers received a meaningful reprieve this month when Governor Maura Healey’s proposal to tighten the Commonwealth’s noncompete statute was dropped from the state’s economic development legislation. 

Occupational heat is no longer just a workplace safety issue.  It is now a theory of boardroom liability.