October 2025 Labor Law Updates for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Welcome to the October 2025 round-up of Pennsylvania labor law developments, brought to you by HKM Employment Attorneys. This monthly briefing is designed for employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders in Pennsylvania, offering clear summaries of key legislative and enforcement changes impacting workplace rights and employer obligations across the Commonwealth.
October 2025 brought notable developments in Pennsylvania employment and labor law: on one hand, legislative momentum toward expanding unemployment compensation for striking workers via H.B. 145, and on the other hand, a multi-million-dollar antitrust settlement reminding employers of the risks in restricting worker mobility. HR professionals, compliance leaders, and employment counsel in Pennsylvania should monitor the Senate trajectory of H.B. 145, review internal labor-relations and hiring practices, and recalibrate risk assumptions in light of these developments.
If you or your organization would like guidance on how these developments apply to your workforce policies or need help assessing compliance risk, please reach out to HKM Employment Attorneys at https://hkm.com.
House Bill 145 — Legislation (Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation)
Date: October 7, 2025
Summary:
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Bill 145 (H.B. 145) by a 106-97 vote.
This bill would amend the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law to allow workers who are unemployed due to a work stoppage (i.e., a strike) to receive unemployment compensation benefits — removing the existing statutory bar for striking workers.
The fiscal note estimates that had the law been in effect during 2021-2024, the cost to the unemployment compensation fund would have averaged approximately $6 million annually.
Implications:
For employers: If enacted into law, this legislation would represent a significant shift in labor relations obligations. Employers may face increased strike-leverage power and potentially longer or more frequent stoppages since striking workers could trigger unemployment benefits, which may alter negotiation dynamics.
For workers/unions: This would potentially ease the financial burden on workers engaging in strikes, by providing a supplemental safety net (unemployment benefits) during the work stoppage period.
For HR/compliance: Organizations should monitor H.B. 145’s progress (it awaits Senate consideration) and assess how their strike-response strategies, contingency planning, and UI tax exposure might change if the law becomes effective.
Not yet law: As of October, the bill has passed the House and has been referred to the Senate Labor & Industry Committee.
In re Geisinger System Services & Evangelical Community Hospital Healthcare Workers Antitrust Litigation — Court/Settlement (No-Poach Antitrust)
Date: Early October 2025 (October 8–9, published)
Summary:
Two Pennsylvania-based health systems, Geisinger Health System and Evangelical Community Hospital (now part of WellSpan Health) agreed to a settlement totaling approximately $28.5 million to resolve putative class-action claims alleging an illegal “no-poach” agreement that suppressed wages and mobility of healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, other professionals) between the two systems during 2014-2020.
The funds would benefit roughly 12,000 workers; each class member is estimated to receive at least $250, with an average payout around $1,500 (after attorneys’ fees) if the settlement is approved.
Both defendants deny wrongdoing.
Implications:
For Pennsylvania employers (especially healthcare): This underscores increased antitrust scrutiny of labor market practices, including non-compete, no-poach, and non-solicitation agreements. Employers should review recruitment and hiring practices, including any inter-employer agreements or understandings restricting mobility.
For employees: Workers may have greater recourse when alleged labor market competition suppression occurs. This settlement highlights that wage-suppression claims can carry significant liability even before court rulings.
For compliance teams: Employers need to audit and document hiring and mobility practices, ensure no secretive agreements among competitors about recruiting or poaching, and consider whether current competitive practices could trigger regulatory or class-action risk.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Pennsylvania’s Labor Law Updates from October 2025
With recent Pennsylvania decisions expanding protections under Title VII and the PHRA—covering discrimination, hostile work environments, non-competes, and wrongful termination—having dedicated local counsel is critical. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Pittsburgh, our Pittsburgh office—featuring attorneys Brian P. Benestad, Amy Mathieu, and Stephanie Solomon—handles workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and more. Known for aggressive advocacy in both federal and state arenas, as well as responsive client care and no‑fee‑unless‑we‑win representation, we support clients across Southwestern PA. If these legal developments reflect what you’re experiencing at work, contact our Pittsburgh office today to see how we can help enforce your rights.
