1. Illinois Amends the IHRA to Provide Protections for Menopause-Related Conditions
On August 7, 2026, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the Illinois Menopause Equity and Care Act (Act) which amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to include menopause-related conditions as a protected category under the IHRA. The amendment is effective January 1, 2027.
The Act (a) prohibits discrimination based on menopause-related conditions; (b) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for menopause-related conditions; and (c) requires employers to inform employees of their rights regarding menopause and pregnancy-related conditions through workplace postings and employee policies.
“Menopause-related conditions” are defined as “perimenopause, menopause, and associated medical or symptomatic conditions,” such as vasomotor symptoms, sleep disruption, cognitive changes, mood changes, and osteoporosis-related changes. Reasonable accommodations for menopause-related conditions will include the same types of accommodations that can be provided for pregnancy, but the Act also expands the types of accommodations that employers must provide for pregnancy and menopause, such as providing flexible scheduling, modified work hours, and temperature or climate-adjusted workplaces.
In addition to providing expanded employment protections, the Act also amends the Illinois Insurance Code to provide for new coverage requirements for menopause and perimenopause-related care.
2. Ninth Circuit Finds Employee Receipt of Arbitration Agreement by Email Not Sufficient for Personalized Assent to Agreement
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a notable ruling in Rickes v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., a case originating from California courts. In Rickes, the Court assessed whether and how an employer can enforce an arbitration agreement to compel private arbitration proceedings when an employee publicly filed a lawsuit in court. The arbitration agreement at issue was a company-wide document required of all employees. Thermo Fisher sent Rickes (like all employees) the arbitration agreement by email, so that he could click through the email links and sign off on the arbitration agreement itself. However, Rickes did not sign the agreement when he originally received the email link. The Company then sent him four more emails requesting his e-signature through the links, while also noting that he would be deemed to accept the agreement if he failed to affirmatively opt-out within a forty-five-day review period. Rickes never clicked through any of those follow-up emails to sign the agreement; nor did he ever respond to assert his opt-out rights. Rather, he just ignored the company’s requests altogether.
When Rickes later filed a public lawsuit alleging age discrimination and related claims, the company moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement. The Federal Appellate Court denied the company’s efforts and ruled that the company could not compel arbitration because there was no evidence of Rickes’ personalized assent to the arbitration agreement. In so ruling, the Court distinguished other cases where an employee was compelled to proceed with claims within arbitration even absent signature on the employers’ arbitration agreements, when those employees’ circumstances demonstrated their assent generally through related employment documentation. The takeaway for employers: when rolling out an arbitration agreement (or any other comparable document or program), companies should confirm that signatures are obtained from all employees to ensure full and uniform application of corporate policies.
3. NLRB Confirms New Member to The Board as Employers Wait for Changes in the Law
On August 7, 2026, the Senate confirmed Republican James Macy as the newest member of the National Labor Relations Board, securing a 3-1 Republican majority comprised of Republican James Murphy (Chairman, expiration 12/27), Republican Scott Mayer (expiration 12/29), and Democrat David Prouty (reconfirmed 8/7/26, expiration 8/31).
This new quorum now gives the Board the power to reverse existing legal precedent created by the Biden Board and shift federal labor policy back in a more employer-friendly direction. Employers are not likely to see changes to key Biden Board decisions anytime soon, however, due to the massive backlog facing the NLRB, and the need to find the right cases to challenge Biden era precedent.
This includes, for instance, the Cemex decision, which forces employers to either recognize a union immediately upon a showing of majority support (by card check), or file a petition for an election (previously the union’s obligation). The newly comprised Board likely will also revisit the Stericycle decision, which has created a very restrictive framework for evaluating employer workplace policies and handbooks (which apply to both union and non-union represented workforces).
Other Biden era decisions likely to be reversed include McLaren Macomb, which created substantial restrictions on including confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements, Thryv, which expanded the remedy for unfair labor practices to include consequential damages, and Amazon, which held that mandatory captive audience meetings were unlawful.
Until these changes occur, these Biden era cases continue to remain the current law on the topics addressed.
4. Supreme Court Addresses Termination of Temporary Protected Status
The Supreme Court recently decided Mullin v. Doe, holding that federal courts cannot review nonconstitutional challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisions to designate, terminate, or extend temporary protected status (TPS), which protects certain immigrants from deportation. As a result, TPS termination dates that previously could have been subject to court injunctions are now imminent.
TPS, which has statutory basis in the Immigration and Nationality Act, protects foreign nationals from deportation to countries experiencing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters or epidemics, or other extraordinary, temporary conditions. Generally, the Secretary must decide whether such conditions still warrant a TPS designation at least 60 days before that designation is set to expire. The statute states that there is no judicial review of such designation decisions. But federal courts previously have allowed plaintiffs to challenge such designations as arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Successful arbitrary-and-capricious challenges resulted in injunctions that effectively extended TPS status, in some cases for months or years. In Mullin, the Supreme Court foreclosed this kind of challenge to TPS decisions.
Without the judicial safety net that Mullin eliminated, termination of TPS status will now proceed on the executive branch’s timeline. TPS for El Salvador is set to terminate on September 9, 2026, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued guidance instructing employers to treat that date as the expiration for affected employees’ work authorization. TPS for Ukraine is set to terminate on October 19, 2026. No redesignation or extension has been announced for either country. Employers should audit their Form I-9 records now to identify employees whose work authorization is tied to TPS and evaluate whether affected employees hold any independent basis for work authorization. To reduce legal exposure, employers should not demand new documents or take adverse action before the applicable expiration dates have passed. Finally, employers should monitor USCIS’s I-9 Central website for updated guidance.
5. States Continue to Address Non-Competition Agreements
Although the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed nationwide ban on non-competition covenants is dead, state legislatures continue to narrow – and in some cases outright ban – post-employment non-competition restrictions. For example, effective June 30, 2027, nearly all non-competition restrictions in the State of Washington will be prohibited. Like California’s prohibition on non-competition covenants, the Washington ban is retroactive and will apply to all agreements, regardless of when the parties entered into their agreement. Indeed, no later than October 1, 2027, employers with Washington employees must provide written notice to all current and former employees who are parties to a non-competition restriction, informing them that their restrictions are void. Notably, Washington’s ban on non-competition restrictions does not impact non-solicitation or non-disclosure restrictions.
State-specific non-compete legislation seems to be changing by the month. Thus far in 2026, more than 100 non-compete bills have been introduced in 34 different states. Employers must monitor the legal developments in this space, particularly if they have a presence in or have employees in multiple states. Employers should routinely review and update their restrictive covenant agreements on an annual basis, much like they do with Employee Handbooks and other policies.
If you have any questions about navigating the latest developments in the labor and employment landscape, please contact Kristin Michaels or your Neal Gerber Eisenberg attorney.
This alert is a monthly labor and employment legal update from Neal Gerber & Eisenberg’s Labor & Employment team. Our practice group partners with employers of all sizes to help anticipate, manage, and develop practical solutions to labor and employment issues at both the national and local levels.
The content above is based on information current at the time of its publication and may not reflect the most recent developments or guidance. Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP provides this content for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should seek advice from professional advisers with respect to your particular circumstances.
