Top Five Labor Law Developments for December 2025

1. The National Labor Relations Board has a quorum for the first time in nearly 12 months following the swearing-in of James Murphy and Scott Mayer as Board members. Their appointments restore the Board to the three-member quorum required to issue decisions. In addition, management-side attorney Crystal Carey was sworn in as the Board’s new general counsel (GC). The GC acts as the prosecutorial arm of the Board and is responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. These developments mark a significant step toward the Board operating at full capacity and will allow it to begin addressing a growing case backlog. Although the Board will be able to issue decisions, it typically declines to overturn precedent in the absence of a three-member political majority, which does not currently exist. 
    
2. A California district court enjoined a California statute that sought to expand the state’s Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) authority to oversee private sector labor relations generally governed by federal law. NLRB v. State of California and PERB, No. 2:25-cv-2979 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2025). The statute empowers PERB to step in and enforce labor rights for private sector workers in California when federal protections are unavailable or ineffective, such as when the Board is without a quorum. However, the California district court held the statute is likely preempted by the Act and granted the Board’s injunction request. A similar New York law was passed and then quickly similarly enjoined in November 2025. 
    
3. Former Board Chairman Lauren McFerran proposed that Congress provide workers with a private right of action under the Act, allowing them to enforce labor rights directly in federal court. In an article for The Century Foundation, McFerran predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Trump v. Slaughter could eliminate the independence of federal agencies like the Board, resulting in greater political influence over labor law enforcement. For employers, however, this could create uncertainty and increase litigation risk, as a private right of action would allow employees to bypass the Board and file lawsuits directly in federal court. It would also expose businesses to higher legal costs and inconsistent rulings from courts unfamiliar with labor law. 
    
4. A group of U.S. Senators introduced the American Franchise Act, aimed at clarifying the joint employer standard under the Act and under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The proposed legislation defines key employment terms, such as wages, benefits, hours, and supervision, and specifies that joint employment requires an entity to have substantial direct and immediate control over these conditions. The bill is intended to balance worker protections with the operational independence of franchise businesses. Proponents state the bill aims to reduce regulatory uncertainty that has existed due to shifting interpretations of the standard over the past decade. The measure has received support from various industry associations. If enacted, it would establish a consistent framework for determining joint employer status across the franchise industry.
    
5. A New York district court vacated the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service’s (FMCS) policy, implemented under Executive Order 14238, that limited mediation services and ordered reversal of the associated staff reductions. American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, et al., v. Davis, et al., No. 25-cv-3072 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 30, 2025). The court granted the union plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court declined to issue an injunction, finding that vacatur provided complete relief and directed the clerk to enter judgment for plaintiffs and close the case. Any challenge to FMCS’s newly proposed policy was left for future proceedings.
    

Please contact an attorney at Jackson Lewis if you have any questions about these developments.