Employment

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.

In the latest episode of the Mintz on Air: Practical Policies podcast, Member Jen Rubin hosts a conversation with Associate Tara Dunn Jackson on successful veteran transitions to the private sector. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes and understand general legal considerations.

In the latest episode of the Mintz on Air: Practical Policies podcast, Member and Host Jen Rubin unpacks the recent EEOC guidance on DEI discrimination with fellow Employment Member, Geri Haight and what employers should keep in mind.

Member Jen Rubin hosts a conversation with Andrew Matzkin on the role of AI and human resources decision making in the workplace. 

As summarized in detail here, President Trump’s recent executive order entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Order”) takes aim at non-compliant Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs in both the public and private sectors.  With the prospect of “civil compliance investigations” and other actions, the Order is a warning to private employers that have allegedly “adopted and actively use[d] dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race-and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.” Many private employers have struggled with how to respond to the Order, particularly given the Order’s vagueness and contradictory state and local laws.  One of the questions that has emerged is how the Order impacts employers’ commercial free speech rights given the U.S. Supreme Court’s view that such rights are critical to the “uninhibited marketplace of ideas[.]” 

On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released joint “technical assistance documents” (i.e., non-binding interpretive guidelines for enforcement agents) which identify specific diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) practices that those agencies may consider “illegal” and “discriminatory.” 

As part of the Trump Administration’s significant efforts to roll back the Biden Administration’s policies, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”)  recently rescinded, via Memorandum GC 25-05, more than 30 Biden Administration memoranda.  Chief among the rescinded memoranda is the NLRB’s 2023 guidance regarding non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions included within non-managerial employees’ severance agreements, which followed the NLRB’s February 21, 2023 decision in McLaren Macomb. 

In the latest episode of the Mintz on Air: Practical Policies podcast, Member Jen Rubin is joined by Associate Evan Piercey to discuss the divide between state and federal DEI initiatives.