Article | 9 October 2025
Employment law news – October 2025
AD 2025 No. 53 – Disfavourable treatment under the Swedish Parental Leave Act when new duties were assigned to an employee upon returning to work from parental leave
An administrator employed by a Swedish municipality was assigned new duties upon return from her parental leave, which meant that she would be working with a different category of cases and assessments under different regulations than those she had handled before she went on leave. The Labour Court found that the municipality had violated the prohibition against disfavourable treatment in Section 16 of the Parental Leave Act. In its assessment, the Court weighed the employer’s right to manage and distribute work against the employee’s right not to suffer disfavourable treatment due to parental leave.
AD 2025 No. 29 – Who is the employer?
Two taxi drivers were employed by a company and had worked a significant amount of overtime. According to the company, the overtime work had been performed for a staffing agency engaged by the employer, and therefore the staffing agency was the employer in relation to the overtime work. The Labour Court found that the company had not been able to prove that the staffing agency was the employer for the work in question. The case also concerned whether the company had breached the applicable collective bargaining agreement by failing to pay certain overtime and holiday compensation to the taxi drivers. The Court also addressed a statute of limitations issue.
AD 2025 No. 55 – Were the pilots employed by the airline?
The Swedish Pilots’ Association requested negotiations with an airline pursuant to Section 10 of the Swedish Co-Determination in the Workplace Act (the Co-Determination Act). The airline argued that the two pilots in question were not employed by the airline, but by a staffing agency, and therefore declined to participate in negotiations. The Labour Court found that the pilots were not employed by the airline and that the airline had not breached its duty to negotiate.
AD 2025 No. 47 – Incident reports was not covered by the Swedish Whistleblower Act; no public interest
A surgeon’s repeated incident reports within the employer’s operations were not deemed to concern matters of public interest. The Act (2021:890) on the Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities (the Whistleblower Act) was therefore not applicable, and the surgeon’s claim for damages was dismissed. This is the Labour Court’s first ruling on the 2021 Whistleblower Act.
AD 2025 No. 50 – Who bears the burden of proof when a signature on a resignation is alleged to be forged?
A hair salon claimed that a hairdresser had resigned voluntarily. The hairdresser argued that the resignation document (signed on an iPad) presented by the employer was forged and that, in reality, the hairdresser had been dismissed without cause. The Labour Court held that, in such a situation, the employer bears the burden of proof that the document is genuine, but with a reduced standard of proof (“more likely than not”).
AD 2025 No. 44 – Safety representatives’ involvement in the sale of a business division and subsequent downsizing
In connection with the sale of a major business division and the subsequent reorganization and downsizing, the question arose as to whether a company had prevented safety representatives from participating in the planning, and whether the safety representatives had been involved too late in the risk assessment. The Labour Court found that this was not the case.
AD 2025 No. 23 – Legal grounds for dismissal of an insurance administrator who failed to report changed circumstances affecting her eligibility for personal housing allowance
In this case, the Labour Court examined whether the Swedish Social Insurance Agency had legal grounds to dismiss an insurance administrator. The administrator, in her own application for housing allowance, failed during the benefit period to report changes in circumstances relevant to the assessment of her right to the allowance. The Labour Court found that there were legal grounds for dismissal without notice.
EU judgment on protection against discrimination of fixed-term employees
In Sweden, it is prohibited to discriminate against employees with fixed-term or part-time agreements regarding pay and employment conditions. This follows from a specific law, the Act (2002:293) on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Employees Working Part Time and Employees with Fixed-term Employment. The law is based on two EU directives. Last summer, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment, C-268/24 (”Lalfi”), which both clarifies and reminds us how the prohibition should be applied and understood.
Supreme Court decisions on the disclosure of public documents – what do they mean for employers’ background checks?
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court (HD) issued decisions in two cases concerning the disclosure of public documents. In both cases, the issue was the release of criminal judgments to entities operating databases that, in various ways, further disseminate the information. The activities of both entities are protected by constitutional law, and in these cases, the Supreme Court weighed freedom of expression and information, and the public’s right of access to public documents, against the right to protection of personal data. The Supreme Court found that the documents in question could be disclosed, but with conditions regarding their further use. In the long run, these decisions may have practical consequences for employers and their ability to conduct background checks.
Implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive – An update
The EU’s new Pay Transparency Directive, which shall be incorporated into Swedish law by June 2026, requires increased transparency in pay setting and introduces new reporting obligations for larger employers. Although the legislative process is still ongoing, it is high time for employers to start preparing.
New requirements for the use of AI tools – how can employers turn the regulatory framework into a competitive advantage?
Many are likely aware that the EU’s AI Act has entered into force. The requirements are being implemented in stages, with some already in effect and others coming into force over the next two years. In this article, we review some of the issues employers should consider when using AI tools in their operations and conclude with a checklist for AI compliance. With the right AI usage and strategy, the AI Act can be seen as a mark of quality and a competitive advantage, rather than a compliance burden.
A step closer to criminalizing the use or disclosure of lawfully possessed technical trade secrets
In early September 2025, the Swedish government submitted the bill A More Comprehensive Criminal Liability for Attacks on Trade Secrets to the Swedish Parliament. Amendments had previously been announced through an inquiry and a government referral, and the government has now proposed to Parliament that the proposal be enacted into law. The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the protection of trade secrets by criminalizing certain acts that today can only result in liability for damages under the Trade Secrets Act.
Inquiry proposes linking the “LAS age” to the target retirement age
A government inquiry has recently presented a proposal to align the so-called LAS age with the target age that governs the national pension system. The aim is to better reflect increased life expectancy and create a more sustainable pension system.
