Employment Law

The State AG Report – 04.02.2026 is a curated newsletter by Cozen O'Connor summarizing recent state attorneys general (AGs) and federal regulatory actions across the US, published on April 6, 2026.[3][7][11]

Core event: Lower-ranking employees, such as executive assistants, recruiters, coders, and valets, are driving AI adoption in companies through self-taught experiments, creating efficient workflows that spread bottom-up to executives, rather than top-down mandates.[headline summary]

Core event: In 2025, AI directly contributed to over 55,000 job cuts across U.S. tech firms, a 12-fold increase from two years prior, with the trend accelerating into 2026 via major announcements like Block's 4,000 roles, Amazon's 16,000 corporate positions, and ongoing cuts at Meta, Atlassian, and Pinterest.[1][7][9]

Core Event

Core event: Sen. Bernie Sanders published an op-ed on April 3, 2026, expressing dire concerns about AI's threats to jobs, democracy, privacy, and human survival, prompting a counter-op-ed on April 6 titled "Opinion | Bernie Sanders Is Wrong About AI Innovation," which argues AI combined with human ingenuity drives progress.[3][1]

Goldman Sachs released a report on April 6, 2026, analyzing 40 years of labor market data from over 20,000 workers since 1980, warning that AI-displaced workers face prolonged economic hardship, including a 3% average pay cut upon reemployment, 10 percentage points less real earnings growth over a decade compared to non-displaced workers, and higher unemployment risk, with effects worsening during recessions.[1]

What Happened In 2025, companies directly attributed approximately 55,000 job cuts to artificial intelligence—a more than 1,100% increase from 2023 levels[2]. The layoffs have accelerated into 2026, with major tech companies announcing significant cuts: Block eliminated 4,000 roles, Amazon cut 16,000 corporate positions, and Meta, Atlassian, and Pinterest have announced additional reductions[6]. Simultaneously, career advice is shifting focus from traditional job-search tactics to relationship-building as the primary determinant of reemployment speed[1].

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously held in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (and consolidated cases) that the August 2024 amendment to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) Section 20 applies retroactively to all pending cases, limiting plaintiffs to one recovery of statutory damages ($1,000 for negligent or $5,000 for intentional violations) per person per method of biometric collection, rather than per-scan damages that could yield millions or billions per case[1][2][3][4].

Lean In, the nonprofit founded by Sheryl Sandberg, published new research on March 2-6, 2026, surveying 1,015 U.S. adults, revealing a gender gap in workplace AI use: 78% of men vs. 73% of women have used AI, with 33% of men using it daily compared to 27% of women.[1][3][6][8] Women face barriers including 32% higher concern about being seen as cheating, greater ethical and accuracy worries, and less support—only 30% of women vs. 37% of men report manager encouragement to use AI, while men are 27% more likely to receive praise for it.[2][3][6][8]

Core event: On April 6, 2026, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP (AGG), an Am Law 200 law firm based in Atlanta with offices in Washington, D.C., promoted four leaders to chief officer roles to advance its AI strategy, talent growth, and future expansion.[1][3][8]

Akerman LLP published an article on April 6, 2026, titled "Don't Bet on Appeal: Challenging Final Arbitration Awards is an Uphill Battle," explaining the narrow grounds for contesting final arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). [1] The core event is this legal analysis publication, which debunks misconceptions that such awards are easily overturned, emphasizing their finality.[1]

In Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of TEKsystems' motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the company's rollout of a mandatory arbitration agreement during ongoing class action litigation was ineffective due to misleading communications and subversion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23.[1][2][3][4][5][9]

Older workers, particularly those aged 55+, are increasingly choosing early retirement over adapting to AI integration in their jobs, viewing it as a final technological disruption after waves of personal computing, internet, and smartphones.[1][2] This trend manifests as professionals exiting amid company-mandated AI adoption, early retirement offers, or perceived threats to autonomy and skills, with U.S. workforce participation for those 55+ hitting a record low of 37.2% in March 2026 per Bureau of Labor Statistics data.[2] Examples include Luke Michel, a 68-year-old content strategist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who retired via an early offer rather than learn AI tools, and an unnamed 40-year IT veteran who left post-acquisition when required to use parent company's AI systems.[2]

A March 2026 ZipHealth survey of 1,004 U.S. workers found 47% of Gen Z (vs. 35% millennials, 36% Gen X) say GLP-1 coverage (e.g., Ozempic, Wegovy) would sway them between similar job offers; 9% of Gen Z would accept a pay cut for it, and 54% overall would trade perks like a week of PTO.[3] Workers view it as a standard benefit (51%), though 58% of Gen Z avoid discussing weight goals with HR.[1][3]

Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC (SKO) announced on April 6, 2026, that Suzannah Wilson Overholt joined its Indianapolis office as a member in the Health Care and Labor & Employment practice groups.[1][2][3] Overholt brings over three decades of experience advising healthcare entities, nonprofits, and public/private sector clients on regulatory compliance, licensing, fraud-and-abuse laws (False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law), mergers, contracts, governance, employment, and zoning.[1][3] She previously served as Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel for one of Indiana’s largest nonprofit healthcare providers, managing compliance, a merger, and operations for over 50,000 patients, and has public-sector experience in government reform and labor negotiations.[1][3]

A trial court in New York ruled that a $1,000,000 liquidated damages clause in a non-compete agreement was an unenforceable penalty, denying recovery to the plaintiff suing former business partners for breach.[3] The clause, labeled a "fine" payable "above and beyond other applicable damages," was deemed not a reasonable estimate of actual loss but rather punitive in nature.[3] The court also excluded the plaintiff's key damages evidence document, impacting the case outcome under CPLR 4401 directed verdict motions.[3]

Troutman Pepper Locke LLP and former associate Gita Sankano reached a settlement agreement in her federal race-discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed in a D.C. court, prompting her to request a pause in proceedings on April 6, 2026, ahead of a trial set for the following month.[1][2][6] The firm denied the claims, attributing her November 2023 termination to performance issues rather than her complaints about racial bias.[2][3]

The Trump administration, through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has terminated or rescinded at least six federal civil rights “resolution” or settlement agreements that had required schools to protect transgender students from discrimination. These agreements were originally reached under the Obama and Biden administrations and generally required districts to treat discrimination based on gender identity as a Title IX violation, including revising policies on harassment, facilities access, and equal opportunity. The Education Department now states that it will no longer monitor or enforce these settlements, effectively rolling back federal oversight and the specific protections they required.

A Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that liability under the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA/PFML) applies solely to employer entities, not individual executives, managers, or officers. This decision dismissed PFML claims against individuals with prejudice, basing the holding on the statute's definition of "employer" (referencing unemployment law) and absence of provisions extending liability to officers, unlike the Wage Act or anti-discrimination laws.[5][11]