Employment

Preparing for the sale of a company can often be overwhelming, leaving sellers and company management scrambling as they approach closing. This post highlights key employment and benefits considerations to address in preparation for a sale, offering practical insights to help sellers and company management navigate the sale with confidence and efficiency. Taking these preliminary steps and anticipating buyer diligence questions can help companies present a well-managed organization, streamline the diligence process, and accelerate deal execution.

In today’s competitive market, safeguarding intellectual property (IP) and managing employment risks are critical for businesses operating in Canada and the United States. From onboarding to departure, employers must safeguard their interests and manage restrictive covenants in an evolving legal landscape. In this Part III of our cross-border series, we discuss practical strategies to mitigate risk and protect your organization throughout the employee lifecycle.

The latest Mintz on Air: Practical Policies podcast explores stress-related accommodation requests, legal frameworks, and practical strategies for employers. Listen now.

A recent decision from the Massachusetts Superior Court has put “employers” on notice. In Anaplan Parent LP and Anaplan Inc. v. Timothy Brennan, the court interpreted the term “employer” under the Massachusetts Non-Competition Agreement Act (“MNAA”) narrowly in refusing to enforce non-competition provisions set forth in three equity agreements an employee signed with the parent company of his employing entity, but not the employing entity itself. 

Employers who broadly use restrictive covenants across multiple employment and other documents should carefully review the decision and consider whether they need to address their existing restrictive covenant scheme to ensure enforceability under the MNAA.

New York City employers should heed two important new legislative developments coming out of City Council. 

First, the City amended its Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (ESSTA) and its Temporary Schedule Change Act (“TSCA”) to establish a new unpaid leave requirement in addition to existing paid leave requirements and to expand the permissible uses for employee sick/safe leave (among other changes, as discussed below).  These changes will take effect on February 22, 2026. 

In further support of California’s longstanding opposition to employee mobility restrictions, on October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom approved a measure targeting “Stay or Pay” contracts that seek employee financial repayment tied to employment terminations.  The final bill was originally intended to capture training repayment agreement provisions but bans broader stay or pay contracts.  Employers should carefully review the new law, eliminate any banned arrangements, and modify those that are exempted (but subject to the law’s strict exemption requirements).  We discuss the new law in more detail below. 

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.

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. 

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.  

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.