Legislative Amendments

Several legislative amendments entered into force on January 1, 2026. The most notable employment law changes include the abolition of the internal company retirement age and amendments to Section 4-3 of the Working Environment Act concerning the psychosocial working environment.

Further details on these amendments are available in our Q3 and Q4 2025 Employment Law Updates, which we recommend for a more comprehensive overview: Q3 2025 Employment Law Update: Key Changes and Developments that May Require Employer Action – Haavind EN  and Q4 2025 Employment Law Update: Key Changes and Developments – Haavind EN.

New Case Law 

New Supreme Court Decision

HR-2026-221-A: The scope of the managerial prerogative when terminating an executive who has waived statutory employment protection

On 30 January 2026, the Norwegian Supreme Court issued its decision in a case concerning a Chief Administrative Officer of a municipality, who had waived her statutory employment protection pursuant to Section 15-16 of the Working Environment Act in exchange for severance pay. The employee argued that the municipality’s handling of the termination was flawed and based on incorrect facts and therefore claimed compensation.

The key issue before the Court was the extent to which legal constraints apply where an employer terminates an employment relationship in exchange for severance pay following a lawful waiver of employment protection pursuant to Section 15-16 of the Working Environment Act, and wether the terminaiton constitutes an individual decision under the Public Administration Act.

The Supreme Court held that neither the ordinary dismissal rules under the Working Environment Act nor the procedural rules of the Public Administration Act applied. Consequently, the employer enjoyed broad discretion, with no substantive conditions to be met and no general obligation to provide reasons for the termination of the employment relationship. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the exercise of the managerial prerogative remains subject to minimum requirements of proper use. This includes, among other things, that the decision must not constitute an abuse of the managerial prerogative, for example, by being arbitrary or based on improper considerations. Furthermore, where reasons for such a termination are provided, the decision must not be based on materially incorrect facts.

The Supreme Court found no abuse of the managerial prerogative and no materially incorrect factual basis for the decision. The termination was therefore upheld, and no compensation was awarded.

The judgment clarifies the legal framework for termination decisions pursuant to Section 15-16 of the Working Environment Act.

Key Court Decision from the Court of Appeal

LB-2025-94406 (the Wolt Case): Platform couriers classified as independent contractors, not employees

On February 24, 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal ruled on whether bicycle couriers working for the digital platform “Wolt” should be classified as employees or independent contractors.

Although Wolt initially had classified the couriers as independent contractors, Norwegian law contains mandatory rules governing the classification of workers. Therefore, the contractual classification of the workers is not decisive for the legal assessment. If the couriers were to be classified as “employees,” they would be entitled to a range of statutory employment rights, including permanent employment, protection against dismissal, overtime pay, pension contributions, and holiday pay.

By majority (2-1), the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s judgment and concluded that the couriers did not qualify as employees under the Working Environment Act. In its assessment, the majority placed significant emphasis on the couriers’ practical independence and degree of autonomy. In particular, the couriers largely determine their own working hours, including when and how long they work. Additionally, they may accept or reject assignments, take breaks freely, and decide when to take time off.

The case has attracted significant attention, as it is one of the first Norwegian judgments addressing the classification of platform workers. It is also among the first cases to be decided following the amendments to the statutory definition of “employee” that entered into force in the Working Environment Act January 2024, which revised the list of relevant factors used to assess whether a worker qualifies as an employee or an independent contractor.

The judgment has been appealed to the Norwegian Supreme Court. It remains unclear whether leave to appeal will be granted.

Key Court Decisions from the District Courts

Two Norwegian district courts award overtime pay to part-time employees for additional working hours

This quarter, two Norwegian District Court judgments (TSOS-2025-121698 and 25-182601TVI-THOO/THAM) held that part-time employees were entitled to overtime pay for additional working hours, even where those hours did not exceed the statutory overtime threshold under the Working Environment Act.

In both judgments, the courts found that applying the same overtime threshold to part-time and full-time employees may result in unlawful unequal treatment of part-time employees, given that part-time employees must work more hours than full-time employees to qualify for overtime pay. The courts reached this conclusion by interpreting the prohibition against discrimination of part-time employees in the Working Environment Act in light of the Part-Time Work Directive and relevant case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In both cases, there was one dissenting lay judge representing the employer side.

Taken together, these judgments represent a notable deviation from the traditional Norwegian approach, under which part-time employees have received ordinary hourly pay for additional hours and overtime pay only once the same thresholds as full-time employees are exceeded (typically for work exceeding 9 hours per day or 40 hours per week). The cases are therefore of significant practical importance and have attracted considerable attention.

One of the judgments has already been appealed, and the other is likely to be appealed as well.

Upcoming developments 

Supreme court to assess whether a project manager holds a “particularly independent position”

The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal a judgment from the Gulating Court of Appeal (LG-2025-4886). The case concerns whether a project manager role may be classified as a “particularly independent position” and, as such, be exempt from most of the working time regulations set out in Chapter 10 of the Working Environment Act.

The forthcoming Supreme Court judgment is expected to provide clearer guidance on how the exemption for “particularly independent positions” should be interpreted and may affect how such roles are classified going forward. The hearing date has not yet been determined.

Possible supreme court decision relating to the classification of platform-couriers

As described above, the Wolt case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. However, it is not yet clear whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal. If leave to appeal is granted, the case may provide important clarification on the distinction between employees and independent contractors in platform- and app-based work models.

Overtime for part-time employees: Appeals and legislative developments

As noted above, one of the District Court judgments awarding overtime pay to part-time employees has been appealed. It is likely that the Court of Appeal will hear the case and provide further clarification for employers using part-time employees, including when additional working hours trigger entitlement to overtime pay. It is also likely that the second judgment will be appealed.

In parallel, and in light of recent district court judgments, the Government this week revised the mandate of the working group reviewing the Norwegian overtime rules for part-time employees and will now proceed on the assumption that the current rules will be amended. The working group has been tasked with, among other things, proposing regulatory changes to prevent unequal treatment between part-time and full-time employees in respect of additional hours and overtime pay. Proposals are expected by September 1, 2026.

We will follow these developments closely and recommend that employers do the same.