New Case-Law

New Supreme Court Decision

Employment Law Classification of Emergency Foster Parents:
HR-2025-2516-A
On December 18, 2025, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled that emergency foster parents in Oslo municipality are not considered employees under Section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act, but as independent contractors. As a result, claims for permanent employment, compensation, and enrolment in the municipal occupational pension scheme were dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the issue had already been clearly determined in its previous judgment from 2013, and that there were no significant changes that suggested a different conclusion.

The foster parents also claimed they should be classified as employees under EEA law, but the Supreme Court found that the cited EEA directives did not require Norway to grant the rights claimed. It was also noted that aligning the definition of “employee” in Norwegian law with EU law is a matter for the legislator, not the courts.

The ruling confirms that emergency foster parents represent a special category of contractor, and the Supreme Court’s conclusion on classification should not be automatically applied in all other contexts. Nevertheless, the case clarifies and affirms the current legal framework regarding employee classification following the amendment from 2024 to section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act.

Key Court Decisions from the Courts of Appeal

No Overtime Pay for Project Manager: LG-2025-4886
On October 20, 2025, Borgarting Court of Appeal considered whether a project manager was entitled to overtime pay, or whether the position was exempt from working time provisions due to having a “leading or particularly independent position” under Section 10-12 of the Working Environment Act.

The court found that the employee held a particularly independent position and was therefore not entitled to overtime pay. In its assessment, the court focused on the actual responsibilities of the role, highlighting the project manager’s overall responsibility, high degree of independence, lack of time registration, and limited ongoing supervision. The salary level also reflected that overtime was an expected part of the position.

Lawful Amendment Dismissal Due to Reduced Work Capacity: LB-2024-102664
On October 30, 2025, Borgarting Court of Appeal ruled on the validity of contractualdismissal (NO: endringsoppsigelse) under Section 15-7 of the Working Environment Act. An employee who, due to back problems, was unable to perform approximately 40% of his work duties. The contractual dismissal implied that this portion of the position was removed.

The court evaluated, among other things, whether the employer had fulfilled its duty to make accommodations under Section 4-6 of the Working Environment Act. The employer had made adjustments for a period of 20 months by relieving the employee from heavy tasks and covering these with other resources, during which time the employee received full pay. The employer had also considered and offered alternative positions, which the employee had declined.

The court concluded that the contractual dismissal was justified. When balancing the interests, decisive weight was placed on the fact that the extended accommodation had imposed significant resource and cost burdens on the company.

Valid Summary Dismissal for Harassment and Abuse of Whistleblowing Channels: LB-2025-175146
On November 7, 2025, Borgarting Court of Appeal issued a ruling on the validity of a summary dismissal under Section 15-14 of the Working Environment Act. The case involved an employee who had sent anonymous letters to colleagues containing serious and false accusations against a former manager. In assessing the validity of the dismissal, the court emphasized the content of the letters, the manner in which they were sent, and the context. It was noted that the employee had been in conflict with colleagues for several years and had previously received warnings for similar behaviour. The actions were regarded as repeated and targeted harassment of the former manager.

The court also considered the employee’s argument that the dismissal constituted unlawful retaliation. It found that the letters were not made in accordance with the whistleblowing provisions of Section 2 A-2 of the Working Environment Act and underlined that the whistleblowing system is not intended to protect improper and harassing conduct.

The court concluded that the employee’s actions constituted a significant breach of the employment contract, and the summary dismissal was therefore upheld.

Decision from the Labour Court of Norway: Special agreements do not grant individual rights after termination (AR-2025-18)
The Labour Court of Norway ruled on December 1, 2025, that terms in special agreements (NO: særavtaler) do not continue to apply as individual rights after termination of the special agreement. These special agreements are entered into by the union representative and the company, usually regarding pay and working conditions and can apply either locally or centrally. The case involved an agreement between Lederne and NHO/Virke.

The majority (5–2) held that such agreements, whether they apply until termination or fixed-term, do not provide individual that continues after termination. Once terminated, their provisions are no longer part of individual employment contracts and pay and working conditions are instead regulated by the main collective agreement. The Court did not decide whether other legal grounds could allow terms to continue. The minority believed the terms should apply until a new agreement is reached.

This ruling is particularly relevant for unionized employers considering termination of special agreements.

New Case Law on Occupational Injuries and Work Accidents
This autumn, the Courts of Appeal have issued several decisions clarifying the scope of “occupational injury” and “occupational accident” under the National Insurance Act (LB-2025-16182, LB-2024-182604, LF-2025-72581, LH-2025-56453). The rulings confirm that these terms are still assessed on a discretionary and case-by-case basis, with particular emphasis on the nature of the incident, the type of work, and whether the strain is considered unusual.

Upcoming Developments

Legislative Amendments Effective from January 1, 2026

Abolition of Internal Company Retirement Age:
The general right to set internal company retirement ages is abolished. It will no longer be allowed to set retirement ages lower than 72 years, unless justified by health and safety reasons.

Amendments to the Working Environment Act Section 4-3 – the Psychosocial Working Environment:
From January 1, 2026, Section 4-3 of the Working Environment Act will explicitly state that the general requirement for a “fully satisfactory working environment” also includes psychosocial factors. Non-exhaustive examples of such factors will also be listed in the provision. The amendments are not intended to materially expand employers’ duties or employees’ rights.

Read more about the upcoming changes in our previous Q3 2025 Employment Law update.

Consultation Proposal – Changes to Sick Leave Follow-Up Duties

The Ministry of Labour and Inclusion has proposed amendments to the Working Environment Act and the National Insurance Act concerning co-determination, activity, and accommodation obligations during sick leave. Among other things, it is proposed to clarify that the employer’s duty to accommodate may also include permanent, not just temporary, measures. The aim is to state that the same considerations should apply regardless of whether needs are temporary or permanent, although limited to what can be considered possible and reasonable for the company. It is also proposed to require employers to send a follow-up plan to NAV (the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration) after four weeks of sick leave instead of eight, allowing for earlier NAV involvement in the follow-up process. The consultation deadline is March 15, 2026.

Upcoming Cases in Early 2026

In 2026, we expect important clarifications from the Supreme Court on the requirements and extent of employer discretion when dismissing managers who have waived their statutory employment protection under Chapter 15 of the Working Environment Act. The upcoming decision is expected to clarify the standards for employers’ assessments and decision-making in these cases.

Additionally, in August 2025, the Oslo District Court ruled that Norway’s stricter rules on hiring from staffing agencies do not violate the EEA Agreement. This decision has been appealed, and a decision from the Court of Appeal is expected in 2026. The final outcome will be highly relevant for staffing agencies and the wider labour market.