Employment

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.

Jen Rubin, Judge Feffer & Curtis Holdsworth explore AI-assisted mediation, legal ethics, and cost-saving strategies in this Mintz On Air podcast episode.

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).

Jen Rubin and Nikki Rivers unpack DEI legal risks, proxy bias, and compliance strategies in this episode of Mintz On Air: Practical Policies.

Host Jen Rubin is joined by Member Natalie Groot for a practical conversation on non-disparagement clauses. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes and understand general legal considerations.

Member Jen Rubin is joined by Member Natashia Tidwell for an unscripted conversation about conducting effective workplace investigations.

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. 

In an era where President Trump has revoked existing federal AI policies and directives and federal agencies have followed suit, several state legislatures and courts are weighing in to account for potential AI-enabled bias in employment decisions, ranging from hiring and recruiting to separation and termination, including regulating the use of automated decision systems (ADS) in the workplace. This post provides a brief overview of some recent AI employment-related proposed legislation and legal challenges.     

In the latest episode of the Mintz On Air: Practical Policies podcast, Member Jen Rubin is joined by Associate Tom Pagliarini to discuss the strategic use of restrictive covenants in private equity transactions. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes and understand general legal considerations.

The recently enacted TAKE IT DOWN Act makes it a federal offense to share online nonconsensual and explicit images, regardless of whether the images are real or computer generated. The law is intended to protect victims from online abuse, set clear guidelines for social media users, and deter “revenge porn” by targeting the distribution of real and digitally altered exploitative content involving children. While the 2019 Shield Act criminalized the sharing of intimate images with the intent to harm, the TAKE IT DOWN Act provides additional protections by establishing a removal system that allows victims to request removal of harmful and intrusive images, and mandates tech platforms to remove such images within 48 hours of receiving a takedown request from an identifiable person or authority acting on behalf of such individual. The law aims to respond to the recent era of artificial intelligence (“AI”) “deepfakes” or realistic, digitally generated or altered videos of a person, often created and distributed with malicious intent. Additionally, the law attempts to combat the rise of “nudification technology” used to create highly realistic and sexually explicit images and videos, by removing the clothes from original images of clothed people. Users of this technology can disseminate the images rapidly, broadly, and anonymously.

Member Jen Rubin and Crisis Management and Strategic Response Chair Erek Barron dive into the world of crisis management and discuss the myriad of considerations a business needs to make in a time of turmoil.

In a closely watched decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc. clarified that the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (MNAA) (G.L. c. 149, § 24L) does not apply to non-solicitation covenants

This in-depth webinar examines DOJ’s enforcement priorities and topics such as recent False Claims Act settlements (which go beyond health care fraud), enforcement risks and best practices, and whistleblower risks and protections from an employment law perspective.