Q3 2026 EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE: KEY DEVELOPMENTS AND RECENT CASE LAW

New Case Law

HR-2026-2227-A: Project manager did not hold a particularly independent position

Following the end of Q3, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 14 October 2026 in a case concerning a project manager’s claim for damages for unpaid overtime. The question was whether his role qualified as a “particularly independent position” exempt from the working-time provisions of the Working Environment Act under Section 10-12, second paragraph. Contrary to the lower courts, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it did not and set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The employee worked as a project manager for a construction company. His employment contract specified a 40-hour working week and stated that “normal overtime” was included in his salary. Following the company’s bankruptcy, he brought the claim against the individual who had served as both chair of the board and managing director personally.

The Supreme Court emphasised that flexible working hours are insufficient for the exemption to apply. The assessment must consider the employee’s actual independence, particularly the freedom to determine the extent and timing of their work. All relevant constraints must be considered, including deadlines and requirements imposed by customers or public authorities, even where these are outside the employer’s control.

The project manager had considerable freedom to organise and prioritise his tasks and decide how to perform them. However, he had limited control over his workload and when the work had to be done. Project constraints restricted his ability to manage his working hours, and he had to request time off in lieu. In practice, he could not refuse the tasks assigned to him.

For employers, the judgment highlights the importance of assessing how a role operates in practice. Autonomy over tasks must be considered alongside actual control over workload and working hours, including the ability to influence or decline additional assignments. External constraints, such as project deadlines and customer requirements, also form part of that assessment.

LB-2026-25146: Valid dismissal due to redundancy where the employee declined to discuss alternative positions

On 7 September 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal upheld, by a 4–1 majority, the dismissal of an IT consultant in a redundancy process. The majority placed decisive weight on the employer’s repeated attempts to discuss alternative positions and the employee’s refusal to pursue that dialogue.

The employee was 57 years old, had more than 25 years’ service, chronic health issues and no formal education. The employer had identified three types of alternative positions for which it considered her qualified and had discussed accommodation specifically for one of them. The positions were occupied by other employees. She declined to be considered for those positions, mainly for health reasons and because she believed she lacked the necessary qualifications. She was also invited to identify other positions she wished to be considered for.

The majority found the process adequate. The employee had been informed of the process and the consequences of her choice, had assistance from union representatives and had declined further dialogue despite the employer’s stated willingness to consider accommodation. The employer kept the opportunity to be considered for alternative positions open after dismissal.

The judgment illustrates how employees can be involved early in a redundancy process by being asked which alternative positions they wish to be considered for. Their input can inform the employer’s assessment, while responsibility for selection and placement remains with the employer.

LG-2026-65062: Failure to fulfil the duty of accommodation constituted discrimination

On 3 September 2026, the Gulating Court of Appeal held, by a 3–2 majority, that an employer had breached its duty to provide appropriate individual accommodation under Section 22 of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act and that the breach constituted disability discrimination.

The employee had nearly 40 years’ service and had long worked in an accommodated role as an installation supervisor. A back injury prevented him from carrying out physical installation work. Following dismissal in a redundancy process, he was offered a supervisor position that included installation duties. The employee asked for the installation duties to be removed. The employer rejected the request, stating that accommodation would require an additional installer whom it could not afford.

The majority emphasised that the employer must genuinely assess potential accommodation measures before concluding that they cannot be implemented or would impose a disproportionate burden. The majority found that the employer had not adequately investigated redistribution of duties, alternative organisation of the work or costs. Nor had it contacted the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) about possible assistance or discussed potential solutions in sufficient detail with the employee. The short response time (nine minutes) was strong evidence that no concrete and genuine assessment had been made. The employee was awarded NOK 60,000 in non-economic damages.

The majority’s reasoning highlights the need for a concrete assessment before accommodation is rejected as impracticable or disproportionately burdensome. Employers should investigate potential measures, document their costs and organisational implications, and discuss possible solutions with the employee. Depending on the circumstances, this may include exploring available public support.

LB-2026-21666: Redundancy selection pool was too narrowly defined

On 25 June 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of a customs clearance employee was invalid because an entire department had been excluded from the redundancy selection pool without sufficient justification.

A signed consultation record stated that agreement on the selection pool had been reached. The Court found that the information provided to employee representatives did not accurately reflect the range of duties in the excluded department. There was no genuine agreement, based on correct facts, to exclude the whole department.

Although there were good reasons to exclude heavy warehouse roles, a substantial group of positions involved mainly administrative work. The company’s size, organisation and financial circumstances did not justify excluding these positions, and including them would not have made the process disproportionately burdensome. It was not clear that the employee would have been dismissed if a broader pool had been used. The employee was awarded NOK 30,000 in non-economic damages.

The judgment illustrates why a selection pool must be assessed against the actual duties and circumstances within the business.

LA-2026-77600 and LH-2026-106065: Managers ordered to leave their positions while dismissal proceedings continue

In decisions dated 9 June and 16 July 2026, the Agder and Hålogaland Courts of Appeal ordered two managers to leave their positions pending determination of their dismissal cases. Both decisions concerned whether continued employment during the proceedings would be unreasonable.

LA-2026-77600 concerned a team leader in a county municipality. The District Court had unanimously upheld his dismissal for persistent shortcomings in personnel management. The Court of Appeal regarded that outcome as an important factor, alongside the likely impact of his return on employees and the working environment. Recent cooperation difficulties indicated that placing him in either his own or another position would cause significant strain.

LH-2026-106065 concerned a chief municipal executive. The Court considered it probable that her conduct had harmed the psychosocial working environment and caused sickness absence. It considered the dismissal likely to be upheld. Her financial and housing circumstances and the time until trial did not outweigh the grounds for requiring her to leave.

The decisions show the importance of evidence explaining how a manager’s continued employment would affect colleagues and the working environment while proceedings are pending.

LB-2026-85606: A 24-month transaction-related non-compete restriction was enforceable

On 8 July 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal granted an interim injunction enforcing a non-compete restriction against a former employee and indirect shareholder in an investment bank. He had signed a 24-month undertaking in favour of DNB as buyer and a separate 12-month restriction attached to his employment agreement with Carnegie. His employment was subsequently transferred to DNB.

The Court assessed whether the transaction undertaking was most closely connected to the employment relationship or the share sale. The fact that it had originally been given to a different company from his employer was not decisive. Its duration ran from completion of the transaction, irrespective of whether employment continued, and its purpose was to protect the buyer’s investment. Although his shareholding was small, the sale represented substantial value for him.

On an overall assessment, the Court found that the undertaking was most closely connected to the share sale and fell outside Chapter 14 A of the Working Environment Act.

The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court. If the outcome stands, it will provide further support for treating a non-compete undertaking as falling outside the employment-related restrictions in Chapter 14 A where its closest connection is to a share sale. This may also apply where the employee holds only a small ownership interest and the buyer subsequently becomes the employer.