US Court Rulings Reshape Workplace Safety and Union Rights
Published on 07/29/2026 at 22:27 | Redaktion boerse-global.de
A series of US court decisions and legislative actions are tightening restrictions on workplace protections, with significant implications for employers and workers across the country. From Wisconsin's revived anti-union law to federal limits on mental health regulations, the legal landscape for workplace standards is undergoing a major shift.
Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Restored
Wisconsin's Act 10 — the 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public employees — was reinstated by a state appeals court on July 29, 2026. The 2-1 ruling by the District 2 appeals court overturned a 2024 lower court decision that had briefly struck it down.
The legal dispute centred on whether the law's distinctions between different classes of public employees were constitutional. Labour unions involved in the case have indicated they plan to appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which currently holds a liberal majority. For now, the ruling maintains a status quo that significantly limits the power of public sector unions across the state.
Federal Courts Curb OSHA and Disability Protections
In a major blow to federal workplace safety oversight, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation on July 21, 2026. The rule had required employers to record work-related mental illnesses. The court determined that OSHA exceeded its congressional authority under the OSH Act, interpreting the term "illnesses" as referring exclusively to physical ailments rather than mental ones.
The decision — which applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi — stemmed from a case following a 2021 refinery explosion. The court cited the Loper Bright decision as a basis for its ruling, signalling a broader judicial trend of limiting federal agency discretion.
A separate ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on July 20, 2026, clarified requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that employees cannot use a disability disclosure to avoid discipline if the disclosure occurs after the misconduct has taken place. The case involved a technologist fired for sleeping on duty who only disclosed a diabetes diagnosis during the subsequent investigation.
Legislative Push Against Heat Protections
Efforts to limit workplace regulations also advanced in the legislative branch. The House Education and Workforce Committee passed the Heat Workforce Standards Act in an 18-15 party-line vote earlier this month. The bill aims to prevent OSHA from implementing nationwide heat protection rules.
This legislative push comes as federal authorities proposed rules to protect approximately 36 million workers from heat-related illnesses, citing reports of 55 worker deaths from heat in 2023.
In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed Executive Order No. 17, directing city agencies to develop guidance for heat illness prevention. While the order does not yet impose requirements on the private sector, it signals future regulations for construction, delivery, and warehouse sectors. Full guidance for indoor workers is due by March 1, 2027.
Meanwhile, in Arizona, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge struck down a Republican-backed ballot measure that sought to ban public sector unions. The court found that the measure violated the state's Separate Amendment Rule, effectively protecting organisations such as the Arizona Education Association from the proposed ban.
New Precedents on Vaccine Mandates and Disability Claims
Individual employment rights cases also saw notable developments. On July 24, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of a healthcare worker who was terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine. The court found that the employee had plausibly alleged she provided sufficient notice of a religious objection.
Additionally, a 2026 Federal Circuit decision has eased the requirements for federal employees seeking disability retirement. The ruling emphasises the importance of subjective medical evidence when evaluating psychological disabilities, such as depression and anxiety, potentially broadening access to benefits for former government staff.
Disclaimer regarding our articles: No investment advice, no buy or sell recommendation. Information on prices, companies, and markets is provided without guarantee; changes are possible at any time. Stock market transactions can lead to substantial losses. Our articles are created and reviewed in whole or in part automatically with the support of AI.
