Norway
Supreme Court ruling - Classification of emergency foster carers (case law)
Impact date: 18 December 2025 In December 2025, the Norwegian Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a case between 31 emergency foster carers and Oslo municipality. The key issue was whether the carers should be classified as employees or independent contractors under section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act.
The Supreme Court concluded that the emergency foster parents are not employees under the Working Environment Act. The judgment reviews factors relevant to classification as an employee. A key point is that the Supreme Court already addressed the same issue in 2013 ("Beredskapshjem" judgement Rt. 2013 s. 342) for state-run emergency foster homes. The Court found no factual differences or changes in the legislature's view that would warrant departing from that earlier ruling. It also noted that the new statutory presumption in section 1-8 primarily operates where the factual basis is uncertain, which was not the case.
The Supreme Court also considered whether three EU Directives suggest a different outcome. Norwegian law must be interpreted in line with Norway's EEA obligations under the presumption principle. However, the Directives do not require Norway to introduce an EU-law concept of employee, nor do they grant rights such as permanent employment, compensation or pension. The Supreme Court therefore found no basis for applying the presumption principle in interpreting section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act in such a way that the emergency foster parents fall within the Act's general scope. The case did not prompt an assessment of whether the emergency foster parents might have specific rights under the directives, as no such claim was submitted.
Employer implications/action needed The Supreme Court confirms and maintains the current legal position on the classification assessment in respect of emergency foster carers. The judgment confirms that there have been no material changes in the assessment of the concept of "employee" following the amendment to section 1-8.
Employer risk N/A
Link https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRSIV/avgjorelse/hr-2025-2516-a?q=HR-2025-2516-A (Norwegian only)
Internal age limits
Impact date: 1 January 2026 The Norwegian Parliament has adopted changes to the Working Environment Act to remove the possibility of practicing a company-internal age limit of 70 years. The background to the amendment is to harmonize the age limit in the state, public and private sectors. As justification for the amendment, the Ministry pointed out that there were a number of challenges associated with the practice of company-internal age limits, including the requirement for consistent practice, which was one of the conditions for agreeing on a company-internal age limit, meaning that employers in some cases had to dismiss employees they wanted to keep.
Employer implications/action needed The consequence of the amendment is that the statutory scheme with a 72-year age limit is the norm, which means that many companies will have to change their practices. The right to have special age limits based on health and safety is maintained.
Employer risk N/A
Link https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-73-l-20242025/id3093728/ (Norwegian only)
Amendments to the Civil Service Act
Impact date: 1 January 2026 The Norwegian Parliament has adopted the following amendments to the Civil Service Act:
- expansion of preferential rights for part-time employees (hiring and extra shifts etc.)
- application of Government regulations in the territory of Jan Mayen, including fixed-term employment, and
- extended right to a position in the hiring company for hired employees
Employer implications/action needed If a Government employer is considering hiring to cover a staffing need or if there are available extra shifts etc., it is important to note that part-time employees have a preferential right to an extended position. Additionally, the employer should be aware that employees who have been continuously hired by the company for more than three years are entitled to permanent employment with the hirer.
Employer risk N/A
Link Prop. 76 L (2024–2025) - regjeringen.no (Norwegian only)
New rules on hire in the agricultural sector
Impact date: 1 January 2026.
A new provision in the Working Environment Act has been adopted that allows the Ministry to issue regulations stating that the rules on hiring from staffing companies shall not apply when agricultural companies hire relief workers from relief teams.
Employer implications/action needed It will be easier to hire from staffing agencies. Guidance will be issued.
Employer risk N/A
Links Prop. 85 L (2024–2025) - regjeringen.no;
Forskrift om innleie av avløser fra avløserlag - Lovdata (Norwegian only)
Clarification of the rules regarding the psychosocial working environment
Impact date: 1 January 2026 Amendments to section 4-3 of the Norwegian Working Environment Act have been introduced to clarify existing requirements and provide employers with guidance in managing psychosocial risks at the workplace. The amendments introduce a new first and second paragraph to section 4-3. The new first paragraph clarifies that the general obligation to ensure a fully satisfactory working environment includes psychosocial factors. The new second paragraph lists non-exhaustive examples of such factors:
- unclear or conflicting demands and expectations
- emotional strain from working with people
- workload and time pressure resulting in an imbalance between tasks and available time
- support and assistance in performing work
Employer implications/action needed The stated purpose of the amendments is to raise awareness and provide clearer guidance regarding psychosocial risks in the workplace – without introducing new substantive duties or rights. However, many of the examples in the statutory text are open to subjective interpretation which may cause uncertainty and misperceptions.
Employer risk There may be a rise in whistleblowing cases or internal conflicts over perceived non-compliance.
Supreme Court ruling – Terminating chief executive's employment with prior agreement on severance pay (case law)
Impact date: 30 January 2026 In January 2026, the Norwegian Supreme Court delivered judgment in a case concerning a claim for compensation brought by a municipal chief executive. The municipal chief executive was required to resign from her position in accordance with a prior severance agreement under section 15-16 (2) of the Working Environment Act. She argued that the municipality had handled the matter incorrectly and that the decision was based on incorrect facts. She therefore claimed compensation.
The Supreme Court considered which rules apply when an employer decides that the chief executive must resign in accordance with a prior severance agreement. The Supreme Court held that an agreed resignation in return for severance pay is not the same as a "dismissal" in the employment-law sense. The decision requiring the employee to resign is therefore not subject to the procedural rules in the Public Administration Act concerning individual decisions. However, the courts may assess whether the decision requiring the employee to resign in return for severance pay constitutes an abuse of the employer's managerial prerogative, including whether it appears arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. If the decision is based on specific grounds, the courts may also assess whether it rests on substantially incorrect facts.
The Supreme Court found that the municipality had not abused its managerial prerogative, and that the decision did not rest on materially incorrect factual assumptions.
Employer implications/action needed The Supreme Court has clarified that there are no substantive constraints on the employer's discretion in requiring a chief executive to resign under a prior severance agreement. This means there is no general requirement to provide reasons. Where the employer nevertheless chooses to give a specific, concrete justification, the decision may be reviewed against whether it is based on materially incorrect facts. Employers should therefore avoid unnecessary detail in the rationale and ensure that any stated grounds are factually robust and well-documented.
Employer risk Increased litigation and evidentiary risk if specific grounds are stated.
Link https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRSIV/avgjorelse/hr-2026-221-a?q=hr-2026-221-a* (Norwegian only)
Proposal for amendments to the National Insurance Act and the Working Environment Act
Impact date: Awaited
The Ministry proposes amendments to the National Insurance Act and the Working Environment Act relating to the duties of cooperation, activity, and workplace accommodation in cases of sickness absence.
The main elements of the proposal are to:
- clarify the employee's duty during sick leave to provide information and to cooperate, both under the National Insurance Act and the Working Environment Act, and to extend the duty to cooperate under the National Insurance Act to include an obligation to temporarily perform work other than that stipulated in the employment contract
- maintain the obligation under the National Insurance Act to participate in work-related activity in a new provision, and clarify that the employee's duty during sick leave to remain active applies to the greatest extent possible
- clarify in the Working Environment Act that the employer's duty to provide reasonable accommodation for employees with reduced work capacity, in principle, also encompasses permanent accommodation measures
- bring forward the employer's obligation to submit the follow-up plan to the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration no later than after four weeks of sick leave. This corresponds to the same deadline by which the employer must submit the follow-up plan to the doctor certifying the sick leave
The proposals have been issued for consultation with a deadline of 15 March 2026.
Employer implications/action needed Employers may need to:
- Consider longer-term, including potentially permanent, workplace adjustments as part of their accommodation duty
- Bring forward internal timelines so the follow-up plan is prepared and sent to NAV no later than four weeks after the start of sick leave, matching the deadline of the doctor certifying the sick leave
Contact
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.