Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

We recently published an update to Hunton’s Retail Law Resource regarding the U.S. Department of Labor proposed rule that would create a uniform standard for determining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.  The proposed rule has significant implications for employers who share workers or rely on contractors, because a joint-employment finding may expand liability to multiple employers for wage-and-hour violations, leave obligations, and other statutory compliance issues.  

In 2025, the New York Department of Labor updated the state’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act system, asking businesses to disclose whether layoffs are related to artificial intelligence (AI). In the year since the change took effect, no business has reported AI as a reason for layoffs. This result points to one of two conclusions: either AI is not contributing to mass layoffs in New York, or AI is contributing to layoffs and businesses are not reporting it.

Please join Hunton’s labor and employment partner Bob Quackenboss and litigation counsel Evangeline Paschal as they discuss a new wave of risks and claim theories impacting employers’ background and screening programs.

On March 23, 2026, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed a bill (Substitute House Bill “SHB” 1155) that will render employment-based non-compete agreements with employees and independent contractors void and unenforceable beginning June 30, 2027. With this legislation, Washington joins states like California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma in generally prohibiting employment-based non-compete agreements.

While artificial intelligence can help streamline employment decisions, employers should be aware of emerging regulations that provide protections to employees from biases that may arise through the use of AI in employment decisions.

The Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc. addressed whether an arbitration agreement introduced to putative class members during pending class litigation could be enforced where the district court found the surrounding communications misleading and inconsistent with the fairness of the Rule 23 process.