The employment law year 2025

Legislative changes

Expanded powers for the norwegian labour inspection authority

• From 1 July 2025 the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority has been given expanded means and sanctioning powers, including powers to secure evidence, obtain information from third parties, impose sanctions, and take measures to gain access to business premises.

• The upper limit for administrative fines has been increased from 15 G to 50 G – currently NOK 6,508,000 – or 4% of turnover, whichever is highest. Fines may also be imposed personally on the person who leads the business on the employer’s behalf.
• The Labour Inspection Authority will place increased focus on long-term prevention of work-related health risks, including psychosocial conditions.

Key takeaway: The change underlines the importance of general compliance with labour law and increases the risk of larger sanctions for breaches.

legislative change from 1 january 2026: clarification of the requirement for the psychosocial work environment

• Section 4-3 of the Working Environment Act was amended with effect from 1 January 2026. The statutory text now explicitly states that psychosocial factors are included in the requirement for a fully satisfactory working environment. The section also lists factors that the employer must consider, including emotional strain, work pressure, unclear requirements and role conflicts.

Key takeaway: The amendment is intended as a clarification to provide better guidance, increase awareness and strengthen follow-up of psychosocial conditions by employers. It is not intended to create new substantive duties for employers, although this may well follow in practice. The change may also lead to an increase in workplace conflicts and whistleblowing cases.

legislative change from 1 january 2026: new rules on age limit

• The general right to impose internal company maximum age limits below 72 years is abolished as of 1 January 2026. Lower limits will only be permitted exceptionally and must be objectively justified on health and safety grounds.
• Going forward, individual agreements on termination of employment based on an age lower than the statutory limit must be interpreted in accordance with the new age limit. Internal company age limits contained in ongoing collective agreements and local agreements may be maintained until the agreements’ ordinary expiry, but for no longer than three years after the legislative change entered into force.

Key takeaway: Employers must adapt their practices and update employment contract templates in line with the legislative change.

Case law and administrative practice

Summary dismissal

LF-2025-196825

• Summary dismissal following a criminal conviction for driving under the influence committed outside working hours was lawful. The security guard did no longer met the conduct requirement to hold the position, which the employee was aware of. The employee’s actions amounted to a material breach of the employment contract.
• Taking some time to clarify the facts before issuing the summary dismissal did not mean the employer waived the right to summarily dismiss the employee.
• The fact that internal rules and statutory requirements on good conduct should have been clearer for employees was not decisive as the employee was fully aware of the requirements.

Key takeaway: Actions outside working hours can justify summary dismissal if they are relevant to the position and the employee is aware that the conduct may affect employment. Employers should make conduct requirements clear.

LH-2024-172589

• Summary dismissal of an air ambulance pilot was lawful. The employee’s behaviour, including exclusionary and rude conduct, created intolerable psychosocial conditions and undermined flight and patient safety, amounting to material breach of the employment contract.
• The court emphasised that strict standards apply to employees in leadership roles and that the employer had few alternatives when the employee was unwilling or unable to change their behaviour.
• Alleged procedural errors did not invalidate the dismissal, as the employee’s right to be heard had been respected.

Key takeaway: Behaviour that creates psychosocial problems can justify summary dismissal, particularly in positions of trust where cooperation and compliance are critical.

LF-2025-15689-2

• Summary dismissal of a cleaning worker who had committed theft in connection with work for another employer was lawful. The acts were closely linked to the performance of work and constituted a serious breach of trust, posing a risk to the employer’s customers and reputation.

Key takeaway: Acts committed while working for another employer can justify summary dismissal when they are closely related to the position.

LB-2024-175146

• The majority of the court found summary dismissal valid after an employee sent anonymous, false and repeated harassing accusations against a former manager.
• The accusations were not protected as whistleblowing because they were raised in an inappropriate manner and sent to multiple colleagues despite it being clear where and to whom such reports should be made.

Key takeaway: An employee may not misuse the whistleblowing institution to make harassing statements to colleagues. Employers should have clear, written whistleblowing procedures and ensure all employees know the proper channels.

Dismissal due to sickness absence

LB-2024-102664

• Termination of an employee’s full-time position, together with an offer of a 60% position due to reduced work capacity, was lawful. The employer had carried out long-term accommodation measures, relieved the employee of duties and tried to find other suitable work, which the employee declined.
• Procedural shortcomings, including missing follow-up plans and dialogue meetings, did not change the validity of the change dismissal.

Key takeaway: The judgment shows the limits of the employer’s duty to accommodate. The employee’s interests may yield where further accommodation would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. The employee's claim as to what constitutes suitable work, which limits the employer's scope for action, is given weight in the balancing of interests.

Duty to reassign

HR-2025-1687-a

• Summary dismissal of a nurse who struck a service user was lawful. It was not necessary to consider reassignment since the conditions for summary dismissal were met.

Key takeaway: There is no duty to consider reassignment in cases of summary dismissal. If dismissal by notice is not an appropriate sanction, the employer is not obliged to assess alternative positions.

LG-2024-173023

• Termination of a healthcare worker after loss of professional authorisation and substance abuse was objectively justified. Weight was placed on patient safety and the employer’s loss of necessary trust in the employee.
• It was not necessary to offer the employee other suitable work as an alternative to termination.

Key takeaway: The employer’s duty to reassign is limited and situational in dismissals grounded in the employee’s conduct. Serious breaches of duty and loss of trust can relieve the employer of the obligation to offer an alternative position.

Settlement agreements

TSOF-2025-17890

• An employee was entitled to cancel a termination settlement and demand reinstatement as a result of the employer’s breach of confidentiality obligations in the agreement.
• There were grounds for reinstatement despite a final settlement clause in the agreement. Reinstatement was the only effective remedy to repair the breach and restore the parties’ rightful position.

Key takeaway: Communications after entering into a termination settlement must be handled with care. Breach of confidentiality may lead to cancelation and a claim for reinstatement.

Classification of working relationships

HR-2025-2516-a

• On-call foster parents in Oslo were, in line with earlier practice, classified as independent contractors, not employees. Weight was given to the nature of the agreements and the degree of independence. EEA law did not lead to a different conclusion.

Key takeaway: The judgment confirms the existing law and provides predictability for classification of on-call foster parents.

LB-2024-85425

• A choir singer was classified as an independent contractor, with weight on freedom to accept assignments and significant influence over the choir’s activities and personal conditions.

Key takeaway: The essential question for classification is whether the relationship reflects the characteristics of an employment relationship, i.e. dependency and subordination that call for the protection of the Working Environment Act.

Reinstatement and stepping down during proceedings

LE-2025-115618

• There were grounds to require the employee to step down during the proceedings in a dismissal based on the employer’s operational needs. Weight was given to the employer’s documented need for downsizing, proper procedural handling, and the fact that the employee refused assistance in finding a new job and contributed to a worsened working climate.

Key takeaway: The threshold for requiring an employee to step down during downsizing proceedings is high, but may be met in cases with a sufficient need. It is important to ensure orderly procedure and well-documented processes.

The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

Expanded background checks of job applicants (cases 2023/1077 and 2023/496)

In April 2025 the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal considered two cases about extended background checks of applicants with ties to a high‑risk country performed by Semac and whether these were in breach of anti‑discrimination rules.

• Neither the employer nor Semac were found to have discriminated against the applicants or violated the prohibition on obtaining information about ethnicity, religion, belief or political opinion during recruitment.
• The Tribunal held that publicly available information on the internet falls outside the prohibition on obtaining such information where it is necessary and proportionate.

Key takeaway: The Tribunal’s preparatory statements have limited weight, and the issue has not been finally settled by the courts. Employers should have robust procedures when conducting background checks and be cautious when collecting information from the internet.

Key takeaway: The prohibition on obtaining certain information applies only to employers. Independent contractors are assessed under the general anti‑discrimination rules.

Prohibition of age discrimination (case 2023/964)

• Failure to allocate work tasks to an employee over 70 years old was based on his advanced age without objective justification. The differential treatment was deemed unlawful age discrimination.

Key takeaway: Employers must ensure that personnel measures do not unintentionally discriminate without objective justification.

Collective agreements

No individual residual effect of special agreements (ar-2025-18)

• Local agreements that grant individual rights after termination do not have individual residual effect. When the local agreement ends, the terms are governed by the main collective agreement.

Key takeaway: The judgment is important for collective-bargaining employers. An employee covered by a local agreement cannot derive rights from that agreement after it has been terminated while the collective agreement remains in force.

What's coming in 2026?

Case pending before the supreme court

In 2025 the Court of Appeal considered whether there is an unwritten requirement of objective justification for termination of a top executive who has waived employment protection in return for severance pay.

The case is pending before the Supreme Court, and a decision is expected shortly. The judgement from the Supreme Court will provide important clarification on the limits of the employer’s managerial prerogative and whether general norms of objective justification apply to executives who have waived their employment protection.

Consultation proposal: changes in sickness absence follow-up and duty to accommodate

The government has proposed changes to the duty of employees on sick leave to cooperate and their activity obligation, and a clarification that the employer’s duty to accommodate may include permanent measures. It is also proposed to bring forward the obligation to send the follow-up plan to NAV from eight to four weeks.

The proposed changes signal clearly the responsibilities of employees and employers and are intended to strengthen cooperation between employers, employees, the certifying doctor and NAV to return sick employees to work more rapidly.

Consultation deadline: 15 March 2026.

EU/EEA: pay transparency directive

The Pay Transparency Directive was adopted in the EU in 2023 and is considered EEA‑relevant. The Directive aims to strengthen application of the principle of equal pay between women and men through pay transparency, reporting, enforcement and monitoring. It requires employers with more than 100 employees to report a number of gender‑segregated pay indicators. The Directive has not yet been implemented into Norwegian law, and no proposal for transposition has been presented.

EU/EEA: Platform work directive

A platform worker is a person who works via digital platforms such as Wolt, Uber and Bolt. The Platform Work Directive was adopted in the EU and entered into force on 1 December 2024. The Directive is considered EEA‑relevant. Its core is a presumption rule that platform workers are employees if there are real circumstances indicating that the platform operator exercises control and direction.

It is uncertain how large the effects of the Directive will be on Norwegian law, given that Norway already has a presumption rule in the Working Environment Act § 1-8 that employee status should be assumed unless the principal can demonstrate, with a clear balance of probabilities, that an independent contract relationship exists. Authorities are currently mapping out the implications of the Directive for Norwegian law.