Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Littler Issues Commentary: Warehouse Quota Notice Laws - Connecticut Joins the Club
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by shareholder Bruce J. Sarchet, office managing shareholder Paula N. Anthony and counsels David A. Dixon and Nicole S. Mule:
* * *
Warehouse Quota Notice Laws: Connecticut Joins the Club
As we reported back in 2021, California passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring certain employers operating warehouses and distribution centers to provide notice to employees of any productivity quotas, along with an identification of the adverse employment actions which could be imposed for failure
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by shareholder Bruce J. Sarchet, office managing shareholder Paula N. Anthony and counsels David A. Dixon and Nicole S. Mule:
* * *
Warehouse Quota Notice Laws: Connecticut Joins the Club
As we reported back in 2021, California passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring certain employers operating warehouses and distribution centers to provide notice to employees of any productivity quotas, along with an identification of the adverse employment actions which could be imposed for failureto meet a quota. In the conclusion to our ASAP outlining the requirements of the new law, we noted: "Much has been written about a possible 'California contagion' - that new laws that originate in California may eventually spread across the country."
Our prognostication turned out to be correct. Since 2022, four other states have followed suit and adopted similar warehouse quota notice laws: New York (effective 6-19-23), Minnesota (effective 7-1-23), Washington (effective 5-31-24) and Oregon (effective 1-1-25). Now one more state has joined the group: Connecticut./1
The new requirements are embedded in a recently passed "emergency omnibus" bill - Bill No. 298, which runs 121 pages, and covers a variety of subjects beyond the quota notice law, including provisions relating to education, public safety, elections, and intermediate care facilities./2
Which Employers Are Covered by the New Connecticut Law?
In many respects, Connecticut's warehouse quota notice law tracks the laws in the other five states. But there are some notable differences as well.
Like its predecessors in other states, Connecticut's new law applies only to non-exempt employees who work at "warehouse distribution centers," at which the employer employs at least a defined number of employees, and only within operations identified by specific codes within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)./3 The specific NAICS codes listed in the Connecticut law to define potentially covered operations are similar to the codes identified in laws enacted in other states, but the Connecticut law contains a few additional codes that have not appeared in any of those laws./4 The Connecticut law excludes drivers or couriers traveling to and from a warehouse distribution center, and applies only to larger operations: those with 250 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center in the state or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state./5 The law applies to the warehouse distribution operations of both the operators of such businesses, as well as staffing agencies and other third parties that provide labor to such operators.
What Does the New Connecticut Law Require?
The law broadly defines a "quota" as a work performance standard where an employee is assigned or required to perform at a specified productivity speed or a quantified number of tasks or to handle or produce a quantified amount of material within a defined time period. This definition generally tracks the definition used in other state laws./6
However, the Connecticut law includes alternative definitions of a "quota." For example, a quota also includes a work performance standard where actions by an employee are measured between time spent performing tasks and time spent not performing tasks within a defined time period./7 Further, the Connecticut law contains a novel variation that provides a quota includes a system under which an employee's performance is ranked in relation to the performance of other employees.
The new law requires covered employers to provide employees with a written description of any quota, and of any potential adverse employment action that may result from a failure to satisfy such quota./8 The notice must be provided to current employees not later than August 1, 2026. For employees hired after August 1, 2026, such written description must be provided to an employee upon hire.
If an employer changes a quota, notice must be provided as soon as practicable and confirmed in writing within two business days.
The law provides that quotas may not interfere with an employee's right to take a meal break or to use the restroom (including reasonable travel time to and from the restroom). These provisions are found in the laws of other states.
The new law also provides that a quota may not set a performance standard that measures an employee's total output over an increment of time that is shorter than such employee's work day, and may not set a performance standard that is based solely on ranking the performance of an employee in relation to the performance of other employees. These are novel limitations not found in the laws of the five other states with quota notice laws.
The law includes a recordkeeping requirement - covered employers utilizing quotas must maintain, for three years, records regarding work speed data and notices of quotas.
Employees and former employees have the right to request and receive copies of prior notices and their personal work speed data.
Covered employers may not retaliate against employees who make requests for such information, or who take action to enforce their rights under the law. The law establishes a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action taken within 90 days following such action was retaliatory.
What Are the Potential Consequences for Violations?
The new law creates a private right of action for employees to bring a lawsuit to enforce their rights under the law, and the state attorney general may also pursue such claims.
Civil penalties may be imposed for violations: $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second violation, and $3,000 for a third or subsequent violation. The statute does not specify whether the penalties are to be assessed per employee or on an aggregate, lump-sum basis.
What's Next?
Connecticut's new warehouse quota notice law is set to go into effect on July 1, 2026. Employers in the warehouse and distribution center sectors with operations in the Constitution State should promptly consult with employment law counsel to evaluate whether they are covered by the new law, and, if so, develop a plan for coming into compliance.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ In addition, during 2025 alone, a similar bill passed but was vetoed in Illinois, and similar bills were introduced in other states including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Georgia. On the federal level, a similar bill was introduced on July 31, 2025 - S. 2613. The bill has been assigned to the Senate HELP Committee but otherwise has not gained traction.
2/ Three prior attempts to pass a similar bill in Connecticut - all in 2025 - fell short of becoming law: SB 8, SB 1254 (a Governor's proposal), and HB 6907. In February 2026, Governor Ned Lamont introduced a new Governor's version (SB 92), drawing from the earlier bills but with some modifications. The final verbiage in Bill No. 298 generally tracks the 2026 Governor's version, but with notable differences including expansion of the NAICS Codes that define coverage, a more elaborate definition of the term "quota," and acceleration of the effective date from October 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026.
3/ The law applies to business operating under the following NAICS Codes: 493110 for General Warehousing and Storage; 423 for Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods; 424 for Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 454110 for Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses; 492110 for Couriers and Express Delivery Services; 452311 for Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters; 452319 for All Other General Merchandise Stores; and 444110 for Home Centers.
4/ Specifically, the final three (3) NAICS codes listed in the CT law do not appear in any predecessor laws of this kind and also were not present in the Governor's proposals or other earlier proposals.
5/ This differs from the CA, WA, OR, and NY laws under which coverage may be triggered by 100 or more employees at a covered facility, and mirrors the 250-employee trigger under the MN law.
6/ Notably, unlike the laws in other states, the definition of a quota does not include any reference to adverse employment actions. However, that concept is covered in the notice requirement of the new law.
7/ Only Minnesota's law contains a similar variation in the definition of a quota.
8/ Employers might usefully consult their counsel about whether such data could potentially be used as part of selection criteria for a reduction in force, and if so, to evaluate whether to refer to this in the notice.
* * *
Authors
Bruce J. Sarchet
Shareholder
Sacramento
* * *
Paula N. Anthony
Office Managing Shareholder
New Haven
* * *
David A. Dixon
Littler onDemand Counsel
* * *
Nicole S. Mule
Of Counsel
New Haven
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/warehouse-quota-notice-laws-connecticut-joins-club
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Virginia General Assembly Sends Bill Limiting Non-Competes to Governor's Desk
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by shareholder Paul J. Kennedy and associate Camellia Campanelli:
* * *
Virginia General Assembly Sends Bill Limiting Non-Competes to Governor's Desk
On March 4, 2026, the Virginia General Assembly approved Senate Bill No. 170, which amends the existing non-compete statute to limit the enforceability of restrictive covenants for certain terminated employees. If enacted, the bill would invalidate non-competes for employees who are laid off without severance benefits or other monetary
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by shareholder Paul J. Kennedy and associate Camellia Campanelli:
* * *
Virginia General Assembly Sends Bill Limiting Non-Competes to Governor's Desk
On March 4, 2026, the Virginia General Assembly approved Senate Bill No. 170, which amends the existing non-compete statute to limit the enforceability of restrictive covenants for certain terminated employees. If enacted, the bill would invalidate non-competes for employees who are laid off without severance benefits or other monetarypayment, unless they are terminated for cause. The severance benefits or monetary payment would need to be disclosed to the employee upon execution of the restrictive covenant.
Additionally, the bill would amend Virginia's existing non-compete statute by broadening the scope of relief available beyond low-wage employees. Specifically, any employee would be entitled to bring a civil action against an employer that attempts to enforce a non-compete in violation of the law. If the court finds a violation of the statute, employees could be entitled to injunctive relief, liquidated damages, lost compensation, other damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. These restrictions would apply to non-competes signed on or after July 1, 2026.
The Virginia legislation is similar to those enacted in other states. For example:
* In Massachusetts, a non-compete agreement is not enforceable against employees that have been terminated without cause or laid off (unless included in a separation agreement that provides the employee with seven business days to revoke the employee's signature).
* In Nevada, a non-compete agreement issued to a laid off or terminated employee is void, unless the employer continues to pay the employee's salary, benefits, or equivalent compensation.
* In Washington, a non-compete issued to a laid off employee is void, unless the employer pays compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary for the duration of the non-compete period.
The bill now heads to Governor Spanberger's desk for signature. If, as expected, Governor Spanberger signs this bill into law, Virginia employers should promptly review and update their non-compete agreements to ensure compliance and consider consulting employment counsel so they are prepared to navigate these potential changes. If signed, the law would apply to any contract, covenant, or agreement entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2026.
* * *
Authors
Paul J. Kennedy
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Camellia Campanelli
Associate
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/virginia-general-assembly-sends-bill-limiting-non-competes-governors-desk
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Middle East Crisis - 4 Most Important Employment Law Questions for HR in Germany
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by associates Lukas Heber and Lucas GropengieBer:
* * *
Middle East Crisis: The 4 Most Important Employment Law Questions for HR in Germany
The escalation in the Middle East also affects day to day HR management for employers with operations in Germany. Flight restrictions, supply shortages, and rapidly rising fuel prices raise the question of what obligations employers have under German law and what room to maneuver remains. Below, we address the main issues German HR departments are
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by associates Lukas Heber and Lucas GropengieBer:
* * *
Middle East Crisis: The 4 Most Important Employment Law Questions for HR in Germany
The escalation in the Middle East also affects day to day HR management for employers with operations in Germany. Flight restrictions, supply shortages, and rapidly rising fuel prices raise the question of what obligations employers have under German law and what room to maneuver remains. Below, we address the main issues German HR departments arecurrently facing.
1. We plan to send two managers to a week long industry event in Turkiye. They consider the trip too risky. May employees in Germany refuse business travel?
Yes, under certain circumstances. Even though employers generally would not knowingly send employees into an objectively dangerous region, business travel originating from Germany is often accompanied by an enhanced employer duty of care ("Fursorgepflicht"). Employees do not have to undertake a business trip if it is objectively unreasonable for them--for example, if the destination is subject to a significant and concrete security risk and the employer cannot provide sufficient protective measures.
An official travel warning issued by the German Federal Foreign Office is considered a strong indicator. In such cases, ordering the trip often no longer meets the German requirement of reasonable discretion ("billiges Ermessen"), and employees may lawfully refuse the assignment. Nevertheless, an individual assessment of interests is always required, taking into account the operational necessity of the trip.
2. One of our engineering teams is currently on a multi week assignment in Dubai. Do we have heightened duties of care? Are we required to bring them back?
Yes. Employers whose employees are on assignment abroad on behalf of the company must comply with heightened German duty-of-care obligations. These obligations arise from general German employment-law principles, and the employer's general obligation to protect employees from risks to life and health during work.
The measures required depend on the nature of the assignment and the risk level in the host country. For employees working in a crisis region, employers must take all reasonable and proportionate measures that can be expected under the circumstances. These include, in particular, ongoing and documented monitoring of the local security situation -- especially with reference to recommendations from German authorities -- and timely communication of relevant information to employees. If the situation becomes unreasonable, employers must end the assignment without delay and organize the employees' return, including planning evacuation routes and providing appropriate transport.
Employers should also take steps to ensure local safety measures (secure vehicles, security personnel) and provide support with entry and visa issues in the event that evacuation via alternative routes becomes necessary. It is advisable for German employees abroad to register with the Federal Foreign Office's crisis list ("Krisenvorsorgeliste"). This may facilitate additional support from German authorities should evacuation become necessary.
3. A sales manager is returning late from vacation because of flight-related airspace closures. How should we respond? Are we required to pay wages? Are sanctions appropriate?
Generally, wages do not need to be paid in this situation. Under German law, the principle of "no work, no pay" applies. If an employee is unable to return from vacation on time due to current flight restrictions, employment law sanctions (such as warnings or termination for misconduct) are usually inappropriate, provided the employee made a genuine effort to return as quickly as possible. In such a case, the employee cannot be considered to have engaged in culpable misconduct.
Employees must, however, inform their employer without delay about the expected late return. In practice, it is advisable to work cooperatively to bridge the gap -- for example, through the use of additional vacation days, reduction of overtime, short term unpaid leave, or remote work where operationally feasible and legally permissible.
Note: Remote work from outside the EU may be a temporary solution, but often carries tax, social-security, and data-protection implications for German employers. These should be reviewed carefully in advance.
4. Fuel prices in Germany are surging due to the crisis. Must we continue to finance private use of company cars or fuel cards? May we adjust policies because of higher costs? How can we support lower income employees?
Whether employers must continue allowing private use of company vehicles or fuel cards depends primarily on the terms of the underlying agreement and -- common in Germany -- any applicable works council agreements. If private use has been contractually granted, it is treated as a non-cash benefit and therefore part of the employee's compensation. As a general rule, these benefits must continue even when fuel costs rise. A unilateral withdrawal is possible only if a valid revocation clause exists and its use meets the German requirement of reasonable discretion. The enforceability of such clauses depends heavily on their specific wording. Additionally, any agreement or works council agreement can be amended by mutual agreement, including on a temporary basis.
If employers wish to offer short term financial relief, German law provides several tax advantaged options, such as fuel vouchers, subsidies, or covering the cost of the "Deutschlandticket," a nationwide monthly public transport pass. Employers must ensure, however, that temporary relief does not inadvertently create a permanent entitlement ("betriebliche Ubung").
Especially in challenging situations, a cooperative approach is often more effective than relying solely on formal legal steps. Clear communication and pragmatic interim solutions can help both sides.
* * *
Authors
Lukas Heber
Associate
Hamburg
* * *
Lucas GropengieBer
Associate
Dusseldorf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/middle-east-crisis-4-most-important-employment-law-questions-hr-germany
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Delaware Affirms Adequacy of Equity Awards as Non-Compete Contract Consideration Despite Forfeiture
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by shareholder Scott McDonald and associate Anna C. Bookout:
* * *
Delaware Affirms Adequacy of Equity Awards as Non-Compete Contract Consideration Despite Forfeiture
At a Glance
* Forfeited equity awards can serve as consideration
* Adequacy of consideration is decided at the time of contract formation, not later
* Overly narrow descriptions of the consideration in an agreement can be problematic
*
In early February 2026, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued a very important and
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by shareholder Scott McDonald and associate Anna C. Bookout:
* * *
Delaware Affirms Adequacy of Equity Awards as Non-Compete Contract Consideration Despite Forfeiture
At a Glance
* Forfeited equity awards can serve as consideration
* Adequacy of consideration is decided at the time of contract formation, not later
* Overly narrow descriptions of the consideration in an agreement can be problematic
*
In early February 2026, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued a very important andpotentially far-reaching decision, finding equity awards that are later forfeited or clawed back can constitute adequate consideration for restrictive covenants./1 The court relied upon fundamental contract law principles relating to when consideration is measured, a key issue in enforcing restrictive covenants in long-term incentive plans and other types of contingent equity awards. The decision is important on a national level. Award programs frequently rely on Delaware law, and the decision is based on principles of hornbook contract law, making the holding potentially applicable in all states that follow common-law based contract rules of formation.
Defendant, Doorly, sold his alarm and fire safety systems company to North American Fire. Doorly continued his employment with the acquired company and, under the acquisition agreement, received common units of North American Fire. Doorly then exchanged his common units for Class B units as part of a corporate reorganization. In the Class B Units Incentive Unit Grant Agreement (the "Award Agreement"), Doorly agreed to a set of restrictive covenants, including non-compete, nonsolicit, and confidentiality obligations. When Doorly started a competing business, North American Fire terminated his employment for cause, resulting in forfeiture of Doorly's units under the Award Agreement.
North American Fire then pursued enforcement of the restrictive covenants against Doorly. In response, Doorly moved to dismiss, asserting the restrictions were unenforceable due to lack of consideration because the sole consideration provided--the equity units--had been forfeited. The Delaware Chancery Court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit, reasoning that because North American Fire had exercised its right to trigger forfeiture, the sole consideration for the restrictive covenants had been eliminated. The Delaware Supreme Court disagreed, reversed the decision and remanded it back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The court ultimately articulated the controlling principle: "consideration is measured at the time of formation and is not reevaluated at the time of enforcement." Irrespective of any change in circumstances after the contract was formed, adequacy of consideration needed for the formation of a binding contract is not going to be an issue if the consideration was adequate at the time the contract was formed. Citing a wide range of authorities outside of Delaware law, including the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Williston on Contracts, and decisions from other states like Missouri, Colorado, and New York, the court emphasized that its holding was based on fundamental principles of contract law.
There are three important lessons from the Doorly decision: (1) timing matters; (2) opportunity equals value; and (3) don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Timing Matters
The Delaware Supreme Court rejected the idea that the adequacy of consideration for the promises in the Award Agreement should be based on whether they had value at the time of enforcement. Instead, the court emphasized that consideration is an element of contract formation only. Because the units had value at the time the Award Agreement was entered into, the contract was formed and any subsequent events were irrelevant to the binding nature of the formation event itself.
Opportunity Equals Value
The argument that the units did not have "actual value" because the value was contingent on future events was rejected by the court. The court noted that, as had been decided in a prior case involving this issue (Newell Rubbermaid Inc. v. Storm),/2 the fact that the value of the set of rights granted through the agreement was contingent on occurrence of uncertain future events such as remaining employed through vesting periods did not make the consideration illusory. The award had value because it granted an individual a set of contractual rights that created an opportunity to earn money the individual would not otherwise have received. The court further opined that it is a "general principle of contract law that consideration must be measured at the time the parties enter into their contract and that the diminished value of the economic benefit conferred, or even a complete lack of value [later], does not result in a failure of consideration." No doubt the fact that Doorly had chosen to deprive himself of the value of the units by engaging in conduct that triggered their forfeiture in the first place did not help his argument.
Don't Put All Your Eggs in One Basket
It's particularly notable that in the underlying decision, the Chancery Court held that the units "were the sole consideration for the restrictive covenants" (emphasis added), leading to its conclusion that once North American Fire declared that Doorly had forfeited them, the contract became unenforceable for lack of consideration. This reasoning sends a word of warning to contract drafters to use care in identifying the consideration elements in an agreement. More often than not, there can be more than one element of the parties' bargain that qualifies as consideration if the elements of consideration are described in more general terms. For example, Doorly's access to confidential information, continued employment, and any number of other possibilities could have served as supplemental elements of consideration. Drafting a clause that isolates a singular item as the sole consideration increases the risk of a consideration failure argument having teeth.
Delaware Law Has Been Evolving
This latest Delaware court decision rests on fundamentals of contract law rather than any particulars unique to Delaware law or public policy. At the same time, it is important to recognize that despite the favorable nature of this decision, the Delaware Chancery Court has, in recent years, moved away from the enforcement-friendly posture it once held toward restrictive covenants. As we have previously reported, there is a growing divide between how courts in Delaware treat equity awards and related competition-triggered forfeitures versus restrictive covenants enforced through injunctive relief./3 Although this new decision resolves one discrete issue arising from forfeiture mechanisms and their impact on consideration, it is unlikely to shift the broader trend of reluctance by the Delaware Chancery court to engage in reformation or similar efforts favorable to enforcing restrictions through injunctive relief.
Employers should continue to monitor developments in Delaware carefully and consult employment counsel to ensure their agreements align with the most current legal standards as the landscape continues to evolve.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ North American Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly, No. 142, 2025, 2026 WL 274647 (Del. Feb. 3, 2026).
2/ 2014 WL 1266827 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2014).
3/ See Jim Witz, Rick Kienzler, and Josh Hammond, Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture for Competition Provisions, Holding Departed Partners Bargained Away Their Right to Have Their Cake and Eat It, Too, Littler ASAP (Feb. 6, 2024); Colton D. Long, Employee Choice: Forfeiture-for-Competition, the Seventh Circuit's Questions, and Delaware's Answer, Littler ASAP (Dec. 20, 2024).
* * *
Authors
Scott McDonald
Shareholder
Dallas
* * *
Anna C. Bookout
Associate
Dallas
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/delaware-affirms-adequacy-equity-awards-non-compete-contract-consideration
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Commentary: Aliens, Conspiracies, and Ping-Pong - Lessons Learned From the 2026 Oscar Nominees
ATLANTA, Georgia, March 11 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by counsel Olivia J. Italiano and associates Natalie Halpin and Kate Mize:
* * *
Aliens, Conspiracies, and Ping-Pong: Lessons Learned From the 2026 Oscar Nominees
With Oscar season upon us, we're putting the spotlight on major employment law themes featured in this season's crop of Hollywood hits. From crisis management to clear communication on workplace policies to understanding evolving compensation laws for athletes, there are several lessons employers can take away from these nominees
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, March 11 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 10, 2026, by counsel Olivia J. Italiano and associates Natalie Halpin and Kate Mize:
* * *
Aliens, Conspiracies, and Ping-Pong: Lessons Learned From the 2026 Oscar Nominees
With Oscar season upon us, we're putting the spotlight on major employment law themes featured in this season's crop of Hollywood hits. From crisis management to clear communication on workplace policies to understanding evolving compensation laws for athletes, there are several lessons employers can take away from these nomineesfor top awards. The Oscars will air on March 15, but before you tune in, brush up on these important labor law reminders.
Bugonia: Corporate Culture and Compliance
Emma Stone is a Best Actress nominee for her performance in "Bugonia," a captivating thriller from Yorgos Lanthimos. She plays Michelle Fuller, the CEO of a pharmaceutical company kidnapped by beekeeper and warehouse employee Teddy Gatz (Jesse Plemons), who believes she is an alien destroying planet Earth. There are also several flashbacks revealing that Gatz's mother participated in the pharmaceutical company's medical trial that left her in a coma.
Crisis Management
Between the medical trials and the CEO's kidnapping, two main themes of the movie involve corporate compliance and crisis management. While the situations in Bugonia are unlikely to happen in real life, they highlight the importance of conducting risk assessments, crisis planning, and communication.
Corporate Culture
Fuller's workaholic mentality and management style serve as a reminder that corporate culture starts with the leadership team - and it's clear that her employees are highly stressed.
Several scenes throughout the film highlight the need for stronger leadership, clear workplace messages, and compliance practices, such as proper wage and hour compliance. For example, Fuller presses her assistant to remind staff about "The 5:30 Thing."
"We need to send the message that we have a new culture here now, where people should yes, of course, feel free to leave at 5:30 to be with their families," Fuller instructs her assistant. "But of course it's not compulsory. And obviously if people still have work to do, they should absolutely stay and continue to work. But it's not strictly enforced. Although we still do want to meet quotas."
She adds: "Just remembering we are running a business here, so let your 'conscience guide you' kind of thing."
You can watch a clip of this scene here. Fuller uses these tactics throughout the movie for various reasons, including to muddy the waters around when the workday ends.
In addition to the negative impact on company culture, Fuller's work philosophy also raises potential compliance issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as state and local laws, for unpaid wages or overtime. Employers of course must pay non-exempt employees for all hours worked, including overtime for hours exceeding 40 in a workweek. Even if many employees at the pharmaceutical company were exempt, Fuller's mixed messaging and pressure tactics are the type of conduct that create employee confusion and morale issues.
Workplace Safety
Bugonia also explores workplace safety reporting and corresponding investigations. Gatz encourages his coworker to report a potential OSHA violation for an incident involving the company's machinery. His coworker is fearful and says she doesn't "want any trouble."
In reality, employers should be cautious of potential whistleblower claims and develop procedures for conducting proper investigations. Remaining up to date on safety training and undergoing policy reviews can help minimize the chances of a claim being filed and improve your organization's legal defenses.
One Battle After Another: Employee Tracking
"One Battle After Another" is an action-packed thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio as an off-the-grid activist whose objective is to protect his daughter. The characters exercise caution to avoid detection, including the use of mobile devices to evade tracking. Accordingly, any confidential communication requires a series of complex questions to protect their information.
Employers are increasingly using geolocation tools to monitor employees working in the field or remotely. The theme in this movie reminds employers to protect workers' privacy rights. (Read about best practices when using geolocation tools here.) Remember to obtain informed, voluntary consent, ensuring employees are fully aware of the geolocation monitoring system and how it will be used. Voluntary consent requires clearly communicating the purpose, scope, and duration of the monitoring, and ensuring that tracking is limited to legitimate business purposes.
Further, employers should be aware of state-specific and international legal requirements, as privacy laws and employee rights can vary significantly by jurisdiction. Staying informed about evolving legal requirements and maintaining best practices in privacy and data protection are essential for compliance.
Marty Supreme and F1: Sports Compensation
Two sports dramas are in the running for Best Picture before the Academy this year. "Marty Supreme" starring Timothee Chalamet follows a table tennis player as he strives to become a world champion. "F1" explores the world of Formula One racing through the story of a seasoned race car driver who returns to the track to support a struggling team. Both films examine how athletes support themselves financially while pursuing their dreams. The films also depict athletes navigating sponsorships, endorsements, and prize money.
Athletes in the US, whether individual (like table tennis) or team-based (like Formula One) are subject to complex work relationships and are currently facing a changing legal landscape, especially when it comes to student athletes. Adding to the complexity is athletes' rights to their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The rise of digital media has enabled athletes to monetize their personal brands through direct sponsorships, content creation, and social media endorsements.
Moreover, federal and state regulations governing athlete compensation are evolving. For example, a 2025 executive order sought to ban third-party "pay-for-play" payments to collegiate athletes while permitting NIL deals. And Athletes.org, a players association seeking to organize college athletes, issued its first-ever draft Collective Bargaining Agreement framework in 2025, though it's not finalized. As the landscape consistently shifts, businesses and education institutions should continue to monitor these developments.
On Our Radar: Send Help
Already generating 2027 Oscars buzz is the survival thriller "Send Help," starring Rachel McAdams and Dylan O'Brien. The film focuses on the survival of an overworked employee (McAdams) and her newly appointed boss (O'Brien) when a plane on the way to a corporate meeting crashes over a seemingly deserted island.
Before both are fighting for survival, McAdams' character endures public mocking in the office and is passed over for a promised promotion that is given to her new boss's college pal instead. The themes of workplace bullying and potential discrimination act as a reminder to ensure you regularly assess workplace risks and update your company's policies and procedures. Title VII and certain state and local laws prohibit employers from discriminating against an individual based on, among other things, the person's gender. The anti-discrimination prohibitions extend to differential treatment, offensive comments, or other forms of harassment and retaliation.
To mitigate the risk of costly litigation, employers should consider implementing training focused on ensuring managers understand and can identify both overt and more subtle discriminatory behavior. O'Brien's character could have surely benefitted from such training before being faced with a life-or-death situation with a resentful employee.
Conclusion
If you need assistance in crafting appropriately tailored workplace policies or training for employees or managers, reach out to your Fisher Phillips attorney or the authors of this Insight. We will continue to monitor developments related to all aspects of workplace law. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney or the authors of this Insight.
* * *
Related People
Natalie Halpin
Associate
908.516.1049
* * *
Olivia J. Italiano
Of Counsel
908.516.1038
* * *
Kate Mize
Associate
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/lessons-learned-from-the-2026-oscar-nominees
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Estate Planning Attorney Presents to Members of the RPPTL Section of The Florida Bar and the Orange County Bar Association
ORLANDO, Florida, March 11 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Estate Planning Attorney Presents to Members of the RPPTL Section of The Florida Bar and the Orange County Bar Association
A recognized presenter on estate planning law, attorney Joseph Percopo shared insights on Tenancy by the Entirety (TBE) via two presentations: "Loumpos v. Bank One - Tenants by the Entirety Florida Supreme Court Case" to the Asset Protection Committee of the Real Property Probate & Trust Law (RPPTL) Section of The Florida Bar; "Turning Straw Into Gold - The Alchemy of TBE After
... Show Full Article
ORLANDO, Florida, March 11 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Estate Planning Attorney Presents to Members of the RPPTL Section of The Florida Bar and the Orange County Bar Association
A recognized presenter on estate planning law, attorney Joseph Percopo shared insights on Tenancy by the Entirety (TBE) via two presentations: "Loumpos v. Bank One - Tenants by the Entirety Florida Supreme Court Case" to the Asset Protection Committee of the Real Property Probate & Trust Law (RPPTL) Section of The Florida Bar; "Turning Straw Into Gold - The Alchemy of TBE AfterLompous" presented for Continuing Legal Education Credit to the Orange County Bar Association (OCBA) Estate, Guardian, and Trust Law Committee.
During both presentations, Joe provided an overview of TBE and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Loumpos v. Bank One, 423 So.3d 856 (Fla. 2025). Visit the following link to review the presentations and learn more about Joe: https://bit.ly/40j2tKF
* * *
Original text here: https://www.deanmead.com/estate-planning-attorney-presents-to-members-of-the-rpptl-section-of-the-florida-bar-and-the-orange-county-bar-association/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Attorneys Examine Neurodata Privacy Law With Updates From US, UK and EU
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Attorneys Examine Neurodata Privacy Law With Updates from US, UK and EU
In a Computer and Telecommunications Law Review article, data privacy and cybersecurity partner Rohan Massey and health care partners Christine Moundas and David Peloquin analyzed neurodata privacy law updates from the United States, United Kingdom and European Union.
Following an evaluation of existing US, UK and EU frameworks, and considering issues around the classification of neurodata as special
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Attorneys Examine Neurodata Privacy Law With Updates from US, UK and EU
In a Computer and Telecommunications Law Review article, data privacy and cybersecurity partner Rohan Massey and health care partners Christine Moundas and David Peloquin analyzed neurodata privacy law updates from the United States, United Kingdom and European Union.
Following an evaluation of existing US, UK and EU frameworks, and considering issues around the classification of neurodata as specialor sensitive data; the feasibility of obtaining valid consent; the limits of automated processing; discrimination risks; and heightened cybersecurity obligations, the authors conclude that, pending dedicated legislation, organizations must navigate a patchwork of overlapping regimes while anticipating convergence around proposed international neurorights and forthcoming United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization standards.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/03/attorneys-examine-neurodata-privacy-law-with-updates-from-us-uk-and-eu
