Understanding Employment Law

The European Parliament has officially passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation that fundamentally shifts the responsibility for textile waste management to fashion brands and retailers – with far-reaching global implications. This new law requires all producers, including e-commerce platforms, to cover the full cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling textiles, regardless of whether they are based within or outside the EU. The financial burden of Europe's textile waste now falls squarely on the brands that create it. What are the critical business implications? UNIVERSAL SCOPE: The legislation applies to all producers selling in the EU market, including those of clothing, accessories, footwear, home textiles, and curtains. No company is exempt based on location. FAST FASHION PENALTY: Member states must specifically address ultra-fast and fast fashion practices when determining EPR financial contributions, creating cost penalties for unsustainable business models. GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTION: As the world's largest textile importer, the EU's new rules will ripple across global supply chains, particularly impacting exporters from Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, and India who supply much of Europe's fast fashion. TIMELINE PRESSURE: Officially adopted September 2025, this creates immediate operational and financial planning requirements. COMPETITIVE RESHAPING: Brands and retailers will inevitably pass increased costs down their supply chains, fundamentally altering supplier relationships and pricing structures globally. What are the implications for various stakeholders? For CEOs and board members: This represents more than regulatory compliance – it's a complete business model transformation. Companies must now integrate end-of-life costs into product pricing, rethink supplier partnerships, and accelerate circular design strategies. For sustainability and decarbonisation executives: This creates unprecedented opportunities for circular economy solutions, sustainable material innovation, and traceability system development across global supply chains. Link: https://lnkd.in/dTyHtHuD #sustainablefashion #circulareconomy #textilwaste #epr #fashionindustry #sustainability #supplychainmanagement #fastfashion #environmentalregulation #businessstrategy #decarbonisation #textilerecycling #fashionceos #boardgovernance #climateaction #wastemanagement #producerresponsibility #fashionsustainability #textileindustry #greenbusiness

A case law every IT professional must read, understand and implement. Varun Tyagi, a skilled software engineer, worked on the POSHAN Tracker project, a high-priority initiative of the Government of India, through his employer, Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd. Over time, thanks to his dedication and the company’s own training, he was promoted and made a lead developer on the project. After serving his full notice period and resigning properly, Varun received an offer to join Digital India Corporation (DIC), the very agency for which he was already contributing his work. This was a natural next step in his career. He accepted the offer and joined them. But what happened next is something many IT professionals never expect. Varun was dragged to court by his former employer. They claimed he had violated the non-compete clause in his employment agreement. According to the company, Varun couldn’t work with any of their clients or business associates, even after leaving the job, for the next three years. They claimed he could misuse confidential information, even though all intellectual property rights of the project belonged to DIC, not the company. The trial court sided with the employer and passed an order restraining Varun from working with DIC. Imagine leaving your job legally, only to be told by a court that you can’t join your new employer. Varun didn’t give up. He challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, and justice prevailed. On June 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in Varun’s favour and quashed the injunction. The court made it clear: 1. Any clause that restricts an employee from working elsewhere after resignation is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 2. Companies cannot impose post-employment restrictions on someone’s right to earn a living. 3. Confidentiality concerns cannot be misused to block fair career progression. 4. Non-compete clauses that extend beyond the term of employment have no place under Indian law. Have you ever read the non-compete clause in your employment agreement? Chances are, it’s already there. In fact, almost all IT companies include such clauses in standard offer letters, and most employees, especially freshers and juniors, sign without knowing the legal consequences. This is where exploitation begins. Companies bank on your silence, your fear of legal trouble, and your unawareness. But the law is clear. Your right to earn, to switch jobs, and to grow cannot be curtailed just because you once worked with a client. Employees should read, question, and understand your employment terms. And more importantly, should know that the law is on your side. Your career is yours, not your former employer’s property. #ITEmployees #LabourLaw #NonCompeteClause #EmployeeRights #EmploymentLaw #DelhiHighCourt #RightToWork #KnowYourRights

🧨BREAKING Litigation Alert: Major ERISA Win for Employers as 6th Circuit Blows the Lid Off TPA “Savings” Schemes Tiara Yachts v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is the employer-side ERISA decision we’ve been waiting for. Today, the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of fiduciary breach claims against BCBSM and made clear that TPAs that control plan assets and profit from their own overpayments are not just “administrators” — they’re fiduciaries. And employers do have a shot at holding them accountable under ERISA. What Happened? Tiara Yachts hired BCBSM to administer its self-funded health plan. BCBSM used a scheme called “flip logic” to intentionally overpay out-of-network claims — ignoring agreed-upon “Host Blue” pricing. Then it launched a Shared Savings Program, where it clawed back overpayments and kept 30% of the recovery for itself. Yes, you read that right: “BCBSM knowingly squandered plan assets by reimbursing certain out-of-state providers at charge rather than at the Host Blues’ lower rates.” - Opinion Then BCBSM profited from fixing its own mess — collecting fees tied directly to the inflated payments it authorized. The Sixth Circuit dismantled BCBSM’s defenses. Here are some of the most important and interesting quotes from the opinion: ▪️ On Fiduciary Status: “To hold that an administrator like BCBSM insulates itself from ERISA liability because a contract governs its relationship... would gut ERISA’s fiduciary provisions.” ▪️ On Control of Plan Assets: “BCBSM had the authority to write checks on the Plan account and exercised control over where Plan funds were deposited and how and when they were disbursed.” ▪️ On System-Wide Overpayments: “We do not read ERISA to categorically immunize conduct that affects many plans rather than just a few.” ▪️ On Profiting from Overpayments: “The more overpayments BCBSM made on the front-end while processing claims, the more money it could receive on the back-end through the SSP.” Employers - this is the wake up call you've been waiting for. This is a clear roadmap to challenge the so-called “industry standard” behavior of their TPAs. If your TPA sets prices, pays claims, and restricts your access to the data... If they then offer to recover savings from those same claims and pocket a fee... And if they tell you it’s “just part of the contract”... This decision tells you: That’s not a defense. That’s a fiduciary breach. “Contractual duties and ERISA fiduciary status are not mutually exclusive.” Employers, this ruling is a win, a weapon, and a WARNING SHOT. You are on notice. If the courts are willing to entertain the notion that this TPA behavior could be a fiduciary breach, then what are the implications for you if you knowingly permit such behavior to continue when knowing it occurs? Use this case to demand access to your data. Audit your claims. This case is a judicial recognition that the status quo is incompatible with fiduciary duty under ERISA.

“Dia masih probation, boleh buang macam tu je.” Hold up—not so fast. Just because someone is on probation, doesn’t mean you can terminate them on a whim. Yes, probationers aren’t confirmed yet—but they are still employees under the law. And yes, they deserve due process. Want to terminate a probationer fairly? Then assess them. Give them feedback. Document their performance. Provide support and a chance to improve. Because if you’ve never discussed their “underperformance,” never reviewed their work, never warned them—and suddenly decide they’re “not suitable”… That’s not HR. That’s poor leadership. And the courts agree. In Kumarasamy A/L Velupillai v. Agrobank (Award No. 718 of 2016), the Industrial Court held that a probationer was unfairly dismissed because the employer failed to conduct any performance review or provide feedback before termination. In Tan Teck Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan [1996] 1 MLJ 261, the Court of Appeal emphasized that natural justice applies to all employees—including those on probation. And in K. Annamalai v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd [1998] 3 CLJ Supp 812, the court stated clearly: “A probationer is entitled to a fair opportunity to show his capabilities… The employer must assess the performance before deciding on suitability.” So if your team doesn’t have a proper probation review process, the problem isn’t the employee. It’s your system. Remember: Even probationers can file claims for unjust dismissal—and many have won. So before you issue that termination letter, ask yourself: Did we assess, or did we just assume? Faithfully, Makcik Labor ☺️

Did you know that an employee with a disability who can perform the essential functions of their job without an accommodation may still have a viable failure-to-accommodate claim? A recent Second Circuit decision underscores this critical point under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that employers often overlook. It involved a teacher with PTSD who sued her employer after it stopped honoring a long-standing accommodation that allowed her to take short breaks off-campus during prep periods. Even though she managed to perform her duties without the breaks—albeit under significant psychological strain—the appellate court ruled that her claim could proceed. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, reasoning that because the teacher could do her job without the accommodation, she wasn’t entitled to one. But the Second Circuit vacated that decision, citing the ADA’s plain language: a "qualified individual" is someone who can perform essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. The court explained that while the ability to do the job is relevant, it is not dispositive. A reasonable accommodation doesn't have to be essential to job performance—it only has to be reasonable and aimed at mitigating disability-related limitations. As the court put it: “An employee with a disability is qualified to receive a reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential job functions without one.” ⚙️Takeaways for Employers⚙️ 😵Don’t Overlook the “With or Without” Language. If your instinct is to deny an accommodation request because the employee can “get the job done” without it, take a step back. The question isn’t whether the employee needs the accommodation to survive the workday—it’s whether the accommodation would reasonably accommodate the employee without imposing undue hardship on the business. ✅Reasonableness Is a Fact-Intensive Inquiry. The decision reinforces that there’s no bright-line rule here. Whether an accommodation is reasonable must be determined on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the nature of the job, the specific limitations of the employee, and the workplace context. 🤝Engage, Don’t Dismiss. Employers should not dismiss accommodation requests out of hand just because the employee is “managing.” Engage in the interactive process in good faith, explore options, and document every step. This approach isn’t just safer legally—it’s also better for morale and retention. Supporting employees who ask for help—even if they can technically manage without it—isn't just about legal compliance. It's smart management. A small accommodation can greatly improve an employee’s well-being, performance, and loyalty. And when it doesn’t create an undue hardship, the cost of helping is often far less than the cost of a lawsuit—or losing a good employee. It's the right thing to do and it’s good business. #TheEmployerHandbook #employmentlaw #humanresources

A teacher has been awarded £137,000 after her school failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. The tribunal heard that she suffered from depression and anxiety, which affected her ability to attend work. Instead of supporting her, the school disciplined her for absence and performance issues, leading to her resignation. The Employment Tribunal found that the school had breached its duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments once it was aware of her condition. ⚖️ It’s a reminder that disability discrimination isn’t limited to physical impairments. Mental health conditions can meet the legal definition of a disability if they have a substantial and long-term impact on day-to-day activities. 📚 What often catches employers out is the “ought to have known” test. In Gallop v Newport City Council, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an employer cannot simply rely on an occupational health report saying an employee is not disabled if the evidence suggests otherwise. Some practical points for employers: ✅ Take any mention of a health condition seriously, even if it’s informal. ✅ Seek medical advice early and review it critically. ✅ Consider reasonable adjustments before taking any disciplinary action. 💭 Early engagement and a fair process cost far less than an Employment Tribunal claim.

Understanding the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 – A Must for Every HR & Compliance Professional! The Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 is a vital piece of legislation ensuring the rights and welfare of contract labourers, and every organization engaging contract workers must adhere strictly to its provisions. Here’s a quick checklist of key compliance requirements: Applicability: Establishments and contractors employing 20 or more workers (varies by state – e.g., 50 in Rajasthan & MP). Registration & Licensing: Mandatory for both Principal Employers and Contractors (Forms I & IV). Welfare Measures: Canteens, first-aid, restrooms, clean drinking water, and sanitation facilities. Registers & Returns: Form XII – Register of Contractors (Principal Employer) Forms XIII to XXV – Worker-related registers and returns (Contractor) Wage Payment: Timely wages in presence of employer rep, wage slips (Form XIX), Muster Rolls (Form XVI/XVII), deductions, fines, overtime – all to be documented. Display of Notices: Abstracts of Act, wage details, work hours, inspector contacts. Penalties: Obstruction of inspector: up to 3 months’ imprisonment or fine (Sec. 22) Violation of provisions: up to 3 months’ imprisonment/fine of ₹1,000, plus ₹100/day on continued default (Sec. 23) Why this matters: Non-compliance not only attracts penalties but also reflects poorly on the organization’s ethical and social commitments. Let’s uphold the spirit of fair employment practices and ensure our contractors do the same. #LabourLaws #ComplianceMatters #ContractLabourAct #HRInsights #IndustrialRelations #LabourWelfare #WorkplaceCompliance #LabourLawIndia #HumanResources #KnowledgeSharing

This is a claim to watch out for if you're thinking of dismissing an employee before they reach 6 months of employment (or 12 months for small businesses). 👇 Here's how it works: 👉 A person gets protection from unfair dismissal once they have completed the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱. That's 6 months if you have 15 or more employees and 12 months if you have less than 15.    👉 Being able to initiate or participate in unfair dismissal proceedings is a workplace right.    👉 It's unlawful to dismiss an employee if a substantial and operative reason for doing so is to prevent them from exercising a workplace right.    👉 Therefore, if you dismiss an employee before they have completed the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 because you want to prevent them from pursuing an unfair dismissal claim, they can claim that you've taken unlawful adverse action against them in breach of the Fair Work Act. The potential for this claim was first raised in the Qantas outsourcing case that ended up in the High Court a few years ago. The issue there was whether it's unlawful to take adverse action against someone to prevent the exercise of a workplace right that hasn't arisen yet but could do in the future. Qantas used this unfair dismissal scenario as an example to argue why future workplace rights shouldn't be protected. They argued that doing so would thwart the statutory intention that employees aren’t entitled to remedies for unfair dismissal before the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 ends. The majority dismissed that argument and, in doing so, left the door open for employees to bring this type of claim. After that we all thought that it's probably not a good idea to dismiss someone the day before the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 ends. Well, somebody did. And it ended up in the Federal Court. Actually, they did it at 4:40pm the day before, which, as the Court pointed out, was about 7 hours before the employee became protected from unfair dismissal. They made the decision to terminate in a hastily organised executive committee meeting and before an investigation report into the conduct of the employee had been finalised. It had all the hallmarks of a rushed dismissal to prevent the employee from gaining unfair dismissal rights. The Court found that it gave rise to a prima facie case of unlawful adverse action and reinstated the employee pending a final hearing. This was an interim decision only, but the idea that a dismissal like this could amount to unlawful adverse action was accepted without question in the reasons for judgment. The proceedings were discontinued soon after, so we never got a final decision. So this is a potential claim to be mindful of. The decision was 𝘋𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘺 𝘷 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘴 [2024] FCA 1074. ♻️  Please repost this if it would help others. #humanresources #employmentlaw

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited decision on the employment status of four Uber drivers. It found that they were employees of Uber. And in doing so, it clarified that to determine the employment status of a worker you must do the following: ▪ Review the contract to understand how the parties agreed the relationship would work (don't blindly accept the label of "contractor" as being the end of the matter) ▪ Consider if the way the parties actually operated their relationship differed from the contract (ie, are some parts of the contract just "window-dressing"?) ▪ Consider control - who decides how, when, and where work is done? ▪ Assess integration - is the worker part and parcel of the organisation? ▪ Apply the fundamental test - is the worker in business on their own account? Using this framework, the Court found that the contract between Uber and its drivers included plenty of “window-dressing”. Uber extensively controlled the drivers and they weren’t really working in their own business. They were employees, not contractors - despite the contract. The decision serves as a helpful reminder of the framework to determine employment status. And not only that, it may be the first judicial decision to reference “The Castle” (para 137).