Employment

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.

Member Jen Rubin is joined by Member Anne Bruno to discuss public company DEI reporting in today’s evolving federal legal landscape. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes and understand general legal considerations.

Join Mintz attorneys Jen Rubin, Paul Huston, Kevin Kim, Evan Piercey, and Nikki Rivers for a timely and insightful webinar exploring the complex and often conflicting landscape of California employment law. Designed for employers navigating the challenges of employing individuals in California, this webinar will cover recent developments including multi-jurisdictional non-compete enforcement, the latest California employment law updates, evolving DEI mandates, and the growing tensions between federal and state regulations. We’ll also examine upcoming legislative changes, the expanding role of AI in the workplace, and new obligations under the California Privacy Protection Act. Whether you're based in California, have employees who are, or simply are impacted by its far-reaching legal standards, this webinar will equip you with the tools to stay compliant and competitive.

If your company is required to submit a federal EEO-1 report, you have until June 24, 2025 at 11:00 p.m. ET to file it online. The EEOC has already indicated there will be no grace period.

Can members of a majority group be subject to a heightened pleading standard for their Title VII discrimination claims?  The United States Supreme Court answered this question with a unanimous “no” in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court’s decision resolves a Circuit split and disposes of the “background circumstances” standard long applied by certain courts, which required majority group member plaintiffs to make an extra showing, as part of their prima facie or initial case of discrimination, that their employer is the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” While disparate treatment discrimination claims are still generally analyzed under the traditional three-step burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell-Douglas v. Green, employers should be aware that the Ames decision may result in an uptick of so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. 

In a rare but significant “win” for employers, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that an employer can enforce a termination provision limiting an employee’s entitlements strictly to the minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). The decision, in Bertsch v Datastealth Inc. (2025 ONCA 379), may mark a turning point in a legal landscape where such provisions are often struck down for ambiguity or statutory non-compliance.  

Member Jen Rubin discusses with colleague and Member Andrew Bernstein when the best time is to hire an employment lawyer. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes and understand general legal considerations.

The Province of Ontario recently introduced a guide (“Guide”) to help employers navigate recent and upcoming changes to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). We have highlighted some of the key upcoming changes below along with other employment considerations, including mandatory disclosures to new employees, information in public job postings, and new types of statutory leave.

New York State has resolved a recent judicial split regarding pay frequency violation remedies by amending the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) to limit an employee’s ability to recover sizeable liquidated damages. New York employers will welcome the newfound certainty (and capped damages) provided by this legislative development.

Member Jen Rubin explores the concept of ‘DEI Diplomacy’ with Associate Corbin Carter and how the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion is shifting.

The Trump Administration issued its latest Executive Order entitled Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (the “EO”) on April 23, 2025.  The EO focuses on “disparate impact” discrimination and is the latest in a string of orders impacting the workplace – the effects of which American workplaces are still digesting.