Employment

Three recent federal court decisions have created some uncertainty about whether materials created using generative AI tools are protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In United States v. Heppner, the court held that a party’s use of a consumer AI platform without attorney direction vitiated any privilege protection. However, in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. and Morgan v. V2X Inc., courts reached more protective conclusions, holding that AI tools are instruments, not third parties, and that using them does not automatically waive work product protection. These conflicting rulings highlight immediate risks for corporate entities and employees who use AI to research legal issues or prepare litigation-related materials.

In a win for employers, the First Circuit in Walsh v. HNTB Corporation has offered welcome clarity on the reach of the Supreme Court’s “some harm” standard as it relates to performance improvement plans.  We discuss the decision below and look forward to exploring it further – along with other important employment law issues – at our upcoming 2026 Mintz Employment Law Summit.

Practical Policies podcast discusses special operations veterans in the workplace and the leadership, teamwork, and planning skills they bring.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a future consideration for employers – it is already reshaping how companies hire, manage, and engage their workforces and how their workforce performs their job duties. From AI-powered resume screening tools to automated note-taking applications and generative AI platforms embedded in everyday workflows, AI has become a fixture in the modern workplace. But with rapid adoption comes a host of employment law considerations that employers cannot afford to overlook. 

Mintz On Air podcast compares California and Canadian employment law, covering non-competes, PTO, parental leave, severance, RIFs, and benefits.

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) has published a new “Notice of Employee Rights: Protected Time Off” which describes New York City employees’ rights to sick and safe time and paid prenatal leave under the recently amended NYC Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (ESSTA).  We discussed the ESSTA amendments that are due to take effect February 22, 2026 here.  New York City employers are required to provide NYC employees with this new notice within 30 days of the amendments taking effect (i.e., by March 24, 2026). 

A podcast discussion on AI’s role in hiring, employee management, and workplace decisions, with practical guidance for employers.

In a significant development for private equity sponsors and companies using equity-based compensation, the Delaware Supreme Court has issued a decision that directly impacts the enforceability of restrictive covenants tied to incentive equity. The decision in North American Fire Ultimate Holdings LP v. Doorly provides important guidance for structuring equity incentive plans and drafting restrictive covenants, ensuring that such arrangements remain enforceable even when equity units are subject to forfeiture upon termination for Cause.  We summarize below the key facts and implications of the Court’s holding.

In July 2024, Massachusetts enacted An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency (the “Act”), introducing new pay transparency and workforce reporting obligations for employers operating in the Commonwealth. We previously wrote about the Act here, here, and here.

As we enter the opening days of 2026, here are some recent changes to employment and pensions law, as well as some upcoming developments, about which provincially-regulated and federally-regulated employers in Ontario should be aware.

New York has amended its Fair Credit Reporting Act to tighten restrictions on the use of consumer credit history in employment decisions. These amendments become effective April 18, 2026, at which point employers will no longer be permitted to request or use an applicant or employee’s credit history in making employment decisions, except for a few narrow exceptions.  These amendments generally mirror New York City’s existing credit check prohibition to now impact employers throughout the state. 

Less than a month after Governor Hochul signed into law the “Trapped at Work Act” (the “Act”) which took effect immediately and which we reported on here, the New York State Legislature introduced a bill amending the Act.  The proposed amendments (the “Amendments”) would make some significant changes to the existing Act’s prohibitions on employment “promissory notes,” including by providing clarity on what sorts of “stay or pay” arrangements would remain lawful. Many of the Amendments respond to statements in Governor Hochul’s signing memorandum in which she expressed concerns about certain ambiguous aspects of the Act and indicated that her signing of the Act was contingent upon the Legislature’s agreement to certain chapter amendments.  Below, we provide an overview of the salient portions of the Act impacted by the Amendments and offer some compliance-based suggestions. 

Explore how employers can protect trade secrets in an AI-driven workplace. In this Mintz On Air episode, Jen Rubin and Paul Huston discuss practical safeguards, AI risks, and accountability challenges, plus strategies for balancing innovation with security.

On December 19, 2025, New York enacted the “Trapped at Work Act” which, effective immediately, adds a new chapter to the New York Labor Law barring employers from entering into “employment promissory notes” with employees, contractors, and other workers.  This development follows a similar measure enacted in California earlier this year which was broader and prohibited, or otherwise placed material restrictions around, many “stay or pay” arrangements (which we covered here).  While the Act does not ban all “stay or pay” arrangements, it does prohibit certain types of agreements and creates a new hurdle for employers to clear in structuring employee incentive programs.   

Starting January 1, 2026, New York minimum wage and overtime exemption salary thresholds will rise. Learn the new rates and compliance considerations for employers.

Massachusetts employers know the importance of complying with the state’s Wage Act, G.L. c. 149, § 148. Two recent court decisions offer fresh guidance to help employers achieve compliance, including around paying PTO upon separation of employment and regarding the Wage Act’s reach beyond state borders.

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.