Four Fearless Employment Law Predictions for 2026

For many years, I’ve made predictions on what I think may happen for the upcoming year.

Some years, it was pretty predictable.
But, to state the obvious, we’re living through some unpredictable times. Changes at the federal level have come mainly through executive orders and changes in enforcement priorities. It’s been many, many years, since we’ve had a federal law of significance pass Congress.
And state legislatures have been acting haphazardly creating a hodgepodge of state laws that multi-state employers are having to navigate.

Still, I think there’s enough out there for me to make a few predictions with my Magic 8 ball.

The overall notion to convey is this: for Connecticut employers—and their multi‑state peers—the 2026 headline is simple: the biggest “emerging” issues are already here. The practical play is to tighten documentation and governance now so HR operations, recruiting, and payroll do not become compliance tripwires.

Noncompetes in 2026: The federal ban is gone, but scrutiny is intensifying

With federal courts vacating the FTC’s broad noncompete rule, state law continues to govern enforceability. Indeed, several states have narrowed the permissible use of such clauses, meaning one‑size‑fits‑all templates are risky.
Employers should right‑size restraints to the specific interest at stake, emphasize noncompete alternatives like targeted non‑solicits and trade‑secret controls, and build a short file memo explaining why less‑restrictive means were inadequate.

AI in hiring and HR: From guidance to enforceable standards

AI‑enabled tools in hiring and workforce management are now subject to enforceable rules in key states, and those rules will shape multi‑state programs. California’s regulations apply anti‑discrimination principles to automated decision systems and stress bias testing, vendor accountability, and extended record retention. Colorado’s comprehensive AI law, effective later this year, will require risk‑management programs, impact assessments, notice to affected individuals, and a human‑review appeal channel for adverse employment decisions where feasible.

Even though Connecticut has not yet enacted a comprehensive AI employment statute, employers here face federal and state anti‑discrimination exposure if tools create disparate impact. The safest path is to implement a cross‑functional AI governance program now, map systems touching the employee lifecycle, secure vendor documentation of testing and controls, and understand California and Colorado standards.

Connecticut’s paid sick leave expansion: The 11‑employee threshold arrives with operational strings

Connecticut’s overhaul of paid sick leave is phasing in by employer size, and 2026 is the year it reaches employers with 11 or more in‑state employees. The amended law accelerated accrual, broadened the definition of family member, added mental‑health and public‑health closures as qualifying uses, and imposed new notice and recordkeeping obligations.

Employers should confirm they have issued the required written notices, posted the state‑issued materials or provided electronic equivalents for remote staff, and configured pay‑stubs to display sick leave balances each pay period. Payroll and HR systems must also retain accrual and usage records for the required period, and frontloading policies should be checked for alignment with the statute’s caps. Multi‑state employers should decide whether to adopt a uniform policy to reduce administrative friction or maintain distinct state riders where necessary.

Cannabis at work: Policies, testing, and exemptions still drive outcomes

Adult‑use cannabis is legal in Connecticut, but the workplace rules reward employers that have done the policy work. For most roles, off‑duty recreational use is protected unless the employer has a compliant written policy prohibiting it; on‑duty use or impairment can always be barred. Pre‑employment and random testing remain available under the state’s testing statute, subject to procedural requirements, and medical‑marijuana and disability‑accommodation rules continue to apply without requiring tolerance of on‑duty impairment.

Statutory exemptions for certain industries and safety‑sensitive or regulated positions permit adverse action without a written policy, which makes accurate role classification critical. Employers should update and distribute policies, train supervisors on reasonable‑suspicion indicators and documentation, and ensure remote‑work expectations and multi‑state differences are addressed clearly.

The Unknown

What remains unclear is the extent to which the federal government will continue its attack on diversity, equity and inclusion programs at companies. The EEOC is now actively soliciting complaints from white males, for example. But for now, employers should just be mindful that such programs remain under a close microscope despite the fact that many of such programs are legal.