Compliance Stuff

Overview State legislatures continue to reevaluate the role of employee non-compete agreements, with 2026 shaping up to be another consequential year in the ongoing movement to restrict or eliminate their use. Current pending legislation reflects two dominant strategies: (1) bans on non-compete agreements either entirely or limited to specific industries and (2) increasing wage thresholds that condition enforceability on exceptionally high compensation levels. This alert only focuses on legislation that proposes an outright ban to non-compete agreements or imposes new or increased wage thresholds. Although details vary significantly by jurisdiction, the cumulative effect of these legislative efforts is a steady contraction of the circumstances in which non-competes are likely to remain enforceable. Further, the patchwork of state-level enforcement means employers operating across multiple states must closely track these developments and continually reassess their approach to restrictiv...

On March 18, 2026, an Ohio jury awarded $22.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit related to a company’s denial of a pregnant worker’s work-from-home accommodation request, finding that the company’s action was a substantial factor in the death of the employee’s baby. 0:00 6:10 Quick Hits In  Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC , a logistics firm was sued after it denied a work-from-home accommodation request from an employee with a high-risk pregnancy. A jury found the accommodation denial contributed to the baby’s premature birth and death. The case shows how an accommodation denial may create liability for employers if they aggravate a worker’s medical condition. Background on the Case In 2021, a claims associate for a Cincinnati-based logistics firm, T otal Quality Logistics, LLC (TQL), was pregnant and required bed rest after a related surgery. When she requested to work from home and provided medical documentation, the company denied the request and placed her on an unpaid...

On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit  ruled  in  Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP  that employers cannot compel arbitration of a case under a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement when an employee or former employee sues on multiple claims and at least one of them is for sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. Under the  Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) , mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements are invalid with respect to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes. 0:00 6:57 Quick Hits In  Bruce v. Adams and Reese ,  LLP , a former employee sued a law firm for disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. The Sixth Circuit recently concluded that a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement is voidable when a plaintiff brings multiple claims in a case that includes sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. This is ...