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.

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. 

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.

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).

Rapid changes across the federal government are creating tremendous ambiguity for the private sector, particularly around employment and immigration issues. 

This webinar provides strategies to in-house counsel to not only stay informed of the shifting landscape but to also effectively prioritize their resources to address these challenges.

Shortly before the Trump Administration started, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter clarifying the “substitution” provision under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it intersects with a state or local paid family and medical leave program.

On September 13, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) ruled that the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (the “Act”) does not guarantee the accrual of benefits such as sick leave, vacation leave and length-of-service credit during a period of paid family or medical leave (“PFML”). Instead, the Act mandates only that employees return from leave to the same or equivalent position that they held at the commencement of leave.