DROPLETS
A recent NLRB decision permits employers to mandate confidentiality over the substance and outcome of arbitration, but finds a ban on disclosing the proceeding's existence violates the NLRA.
In Ralphs Grocery Company, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that employers can lawfully require employees to keep the content and outcome of an employment arbitration proceeding confidential. The Board reasoned that such rules govern the arbitration process itself and are therefore protected by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
However, the Board distinguished this from a broader ban on disclosing the mere existence of an arbitration. It found that prohibiting employees from discussing the existence of a dispute resolution proceeding is not protected by the FAA and acts as a perpetual gag order, unlawfully chilling employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to discuss workplace issues. The ruling also upheld an agreement's "savings clause," which explicitly preserved employees’ rights to file charges with the NLRB, finding that under the current Stericycle standard a reasonable employee would understand they remain free to access the agency.
…
Employers using AI for hiring and workforce management must navigate a growing maze of state and local regulations, with recent developments in Illinois, New York, and Connecticut signaling a trend toward greater oversight.
A growing number of state and local jurisdictions are imposing new rules on the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions, creating a complex compliance environment for employers. Recent developments highlight this trend, including amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act requiring employee notification and prohibiting discriminatory AI systems. In New York, a state audit found enforcement shortfalls under New York City's Local Law 144, suggesting that regulators may increase scrutiny of automated hiring tools. Connecticut has also entered the field, passing legislation that will mandate new disclosures for automated employment decision technologies starting in 2027.
…
CARB has set November 10, 2026 as the inaugural Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosure deadline for $1B+ revenue companies, with Scope 3 and limited assurance obligations ramping in 2027.
California's SB 253 Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act is moving from rulemaking into live compliance. CARB has confirmed November 10, 2026 as the first reporting deadline for U.S.-organized entities doing business in California with more than $1 billion in total annual revenue, covering Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions. First-year filings benefit from a good-faith flexibility standard, but 2027 brings materially heavier obligations: Scope 3 emissions reporting across five prioritized GHG Protocol categories, and limited third-party assurance for Scope 1 and 2 data. By 2030, reasonable assurance will be required. Sophisticated counsel should advise clients to lock in emissions data collection systems, vendor selection for assurance providers, and Scope 3 value-chain mapping now, because the November 2026 deadline leaves a narrow window before the more rigorous 2027 cycle. Watch for CARB's forthcoming implementing regulations clarifying reporting platform mechanics, fee structure, and verification protocols.
A recent NLRB decision permits employers to mandate confidentiality over the substance and outcome of arbitration, but finds a ban on disclosing the proceeding's existence violates the NLRA.
In Ralphs Grocery Company, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that employers can lawfully require employees to keep the content and outcome of an employment arbitration proceeding confidential. The Board reasoned that such rules govern the arbitration process itself and are therefore protected by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
However, the Board distinguished this from a broader ban on disclosing the mere existence of an arbitration. It found that prohibiting employees from discussing the existence of a dispute resolution proceeding is not protected by the FAA and acts as a perpetual gag order, unlawfully chilling employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to discuss workplace issues. The ruling also upheld an agreement's "savings clause," which explicitly preserved employees’ rights to file charges with the NLRB, finding that under the current Stericycle standard a reasonable employee would understand they remain free to access the agency.
…
A recent NLRB decision permits employers to mandate confidentiality over the substance and outcome of arbitration, but finds a ban on disclosing the proceeding's existence violates the NLRA.
In Ralphs Grocery Company, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that employers can lawfully require employees to keep the content and outcome of an employment arbitration proceeding confidential. The Board reasoned that such rules govern the arbitration process itself and are therefore protected by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
However, the Board distinguished this from a broader ban on disclosing the mere existence of an arbitration. It found that prohibiting employees from discussing the existence of a dispute resolution proceeding is not protected by the FAA and acts as a perpetual gag order, unlawfully chilling employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to discuss workplace issues. The ruling also upheld an agreement's "savings clause," which explicitly preserved employees’ rights to file charges with the NLRB, finding that under the current Stericycle standard a reasonable employee would understand they remain free to access the agency.
…
Employers using AI for hiring and workforce management must navigate a growing maze of state and local regulations, with recent developments in Illinois, New York, and Connecticut signaling a trend toward greater oversight.
A growing number of state and local jurisdictions are imposing new rules on the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions, creating a complex compliance environment for employers. Recent developments highlight this trend, including amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act requiring employee notification and prohibiting discriminatory AI systems. In New York, a state audit found enforcement shortfalls under New York City's Local Law 144, suggesting that regulators may increase scrutiny of automated hiring tools. Connecticut has also entered the field, passing legislation that will mandate new disclosures for automated employment decision technologies starting in 2027.
…
CARB has set November 10, 2026 as the inaugural Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosure deadline for $1B+ revenue companies, with Scope 3 and limited assurance obligations ramping in 2027.
California's SB 253 Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act is moving from rulemaking into live compliance. CARB has confirmed November 10, 2026 as the first reporting deadline for U.S.-organized entities doing business in California with more than $1 billion in total annual revenue, covering Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions. First-year filings benefit from a good-faith flexibility standard, but 2027 brings materially heavier obligations: Scope 3 emissions reporting across five prioritized GHG Protocol categories, and limited third-party assurance for Scope 1 and 2 data. By 2030, reasonable assurance will be required. Sophisticated counsel should advise clients to lock in emissions data collection systems, vendor selection for assurance providers, and Scope 3 value-chain mapping now, because the November 2026 deadline leaves a narrow window before the more rigorous 2027 cycle. Watch for CARB's forthcoming implementing regulations clarifying reporting platform mechanics, fee structure, and verification protocols.
Grade 3 — worth a glance, not the full analysis.
- NAD Warns Ad Visuals Can Trump Explicit Textual Claims
The National Advertising Division found an ad potentially misleading because it featured a long-haired model, even though the performance claim was explicitly limited to shoulder-length hair.
- EEOC may end EEO-1 reporting—should employers keep collecting data?
With the EEOC proposing to eliminate federal EEO-1 demographic reporting, employers face decisions about voluntary data collection for self-audits and state compliance.
- HIPAA Security Rule: 'Addressable' Does Not Mean 'Optional'
HIPAA covered entities and business associates must formally document a risk-based rationale if they choose not to implement an 'addressable' security safeguard or an equivalent alternative.
- Guide to Drafting a Better Summary Plan Description
A well-drafted Summary Plan Description can go beyond ERISA’s baseline disclosure rules to address operational challenges, manage participant expectations, and protect employers.
- FDA Proposes PDUFA VIII Commitment Letter for FY2028-2032
The FDA's proposed PDUFA VIII commitment letter sets performance goals and timelines for human drug review through 2032, with public comment open until October 16, 2026, and Congressional submission due January 15, 2027.
- SFDR II Overhaul Nears Finish Line as Parliament Vote Slips to September
EU sustainable finance disclosure reform advances with September parliamentary vote as Council and Parliament negotiate tighter Transition category exclusions and mandatory PAI requirements for asset managers.
- Federal Agencies Rescind 2022 Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs
HUD, CFPB, DOJ, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and FHFA jointly rescinded interagency guidance on Special Purpose Credit Programs under ECOA and Regulation B.
- Prediction Market Regulation at Circuit Split
Federal courts are dividing over whether prediction market contracts like Kalshi's sports events are CFTC-regulated derivatives or state-regulated gambling, creating a jurisdictional split heading toward potential Supreme Court review.