Employment attorneys, including Fried-Grodin Employment’s Lisa Fried-Grodin, discussed a variety of evolving issues affecting the workplace at the New York City Bar Association’s 2026 Employment Law Conference. Some key takeaways from the conference:

As AI usage spreads rapidly in the workplace and at law firms, it will continue to create new workplace issues for employment attorneys and internal and external workplace investigators:

• Employees are using AI during working hours to respond to performance write ups and negative actions taken against them at work, sometimes citing violations of law (apparently without counsel); to do writing assignments for them; to recommend questions they should ask and comments to make during work meetings and job interviews; and as an excuse to refuse to be interviewed remotely or in person during a workplace investigation, instead requesting that questions be sent to them in advance (that they want to use AI to help them answer); and in some instances to pose as job candidates by misrepresenting themselves to get inside a workplace;
• In-house employment attorneys are trying to harness AI to streamline investigations, help them gather information when responding to employee complaints and demand letters from plaintiff’s attorneys, and to do more work themselves before needing to rely on outside counsel;
• Employment attorneys are observing some clients use AI to push back on counsel advice or try to save money on legal fees, which is leaving many clients with an unrealistic understanding of legal issues, rights and obligations, and creating discovery issues in litigation;
• More state regulation of AI use is expected; and
• Having an AI policy and procedures in the workplace about AI usage is more important than ever.  At a minimum, these protocols should address approved platforms and uses, set parameters around personal and company approved AI use at work, and establish safeguards preventing the disclosure of confidential information.

Use of outside workplace investigators/vs. in-house internal investigators:  Several in-house attorneys cited the need to use outside workplace investigators (separate from their regular employment counsel) if high- level people in the organization or those with close relationships with Human Resources are witnesses that need to be interviewed in an investigation or are the subject or source of an employee complaint.  That’s the right decision. Neutral outside investigators can get to the heart of what is really going on and gather information based on facts and not internal politics.

Former Officials of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department Labor have teamed up to educate the public how to challenge tactics being employed by the current EEOC and other part of the federal government that are contrary to equal employment opportunity laws:  Concerned about the approaches that the EEOC and some other federal agencies are taking regarding workplace rights, several Officials who used to work at the EEOC and DOL under prior administrations are teaming together to create documents to monitor and help the public navigate what these agencies are doing regarding equal opportunity at work, to convey information on how current agency action is inconsistent with actual rights/obligations under federal law and agency authority, to support efforts to protect civil rights laws and advance equal employment opportunity and to promote a positive vision for equal employment opportunity in our society. For example there is a document providing advice to corporate leaders on how to advance DEI efforts despite EEOC actions and another questioning the EEOC’s decision to rescind guidance on harassment in the workplace. See their work at https://www.eeoleaders.org/ What an excellent resource and effort.

Mediation:  Some mediators report that some employment mediations are failing because counsel for the parties don’t do enough before mediation to evaluate their cases, prepare clients and discuss expectations with clients So true!  When one side comes to the mediation prepared, and the other side can’t for example, answer basic questions about what happened or hasn’t realistically assessed damages, it breeds resentment from the party that is prepared. This then makes it extremely difficult for a mediator to facilitate a meaningful discussion of the case and get it resolved. Pre-mediation preparation is essential for mediation success.