Interesting, that's the first time I hear of a US law being better for employee protection than here in Germany. Do they have limited sick days? That could explain it, as they are obviously unlimited here, but doctor's notes are commonly required after 0-1 days.
You can't compare US Federal law to German Federal law (in these cases), as the Federal government is significantly and substantively hands off to labor concerns (beyond the bare minimum). You would have to compare specific state statutes to Bundesrat+Bundesland statutes.
Here is an expanded version of your quote that highlights the assumption.
Kinda like I think of apple being a US company, even as it’s probably Californian, and even private.
In my opinion (I am not attempting to state facts), the semantics of what is a “US law” and what is an “EU law” differ, because the US is a nation and the EU is not.
Therefore it’s my opinion that in order for something to be a “US law”, it’s enough that it’s a law anywhere in the US. I think laws differing across the US is already implied which is why care is taken to label something a “federal” law or crime when it does not.
In the EU however, any law that semantically fits into what could be called an “EU law” is a top-down mandate due to the fact that the EU is not a nation but a group of nations, so calling for example a law that exclusively exists in Poland an “EU law” becomes nonsensical when it didn’t even originate from the EU organization. The US is (at least not primarily) just an “organization of states” regardless what one might want to believe from reading the constitution. It’s very much a monolithic nation state in a way that the EU is not and possibly never will be.
Under the concept of dual sovereignty in a federal system (such as the United States, Russia, Canada, or India), conduct can be legal or illegal under each of the sovereigns independently. At least post-Lochner era there are many laws that are in this scope.
An example that might test your definition would be recreational use of marijuana which is legal in some states but illegal federally. It would be at best misleading to say that "US law permits the recreational use of marijuana" even though it meets your definition.
Take a liberal state like California or New York and the "surpass" count would be much higher (as in this case, this specific example "surpassing" Germany), especially in regards to labor and tenant protections. Take a state like Mississippi and there are very few EU nations it would "surpass". The counter being to the OP's assumption that the EU, in general, is "more liberal than the US"; ergo it's crazy that there's a state that's actually more protective.
Labor laws in Texas have no effect on the 12% of the population that lives in California. So it's disingenuous to compare these laws, something the Federal government specifically doesn't have much say over (due to the enumerated powers clause of the US' limited Federation), to a random nation. The only proper methodology is to compare the scope of where those laws are set. In this specific example, those contexts are: the State level, in the US; a mixture of Bundesrat and Bundesland legislation in Germany.
I never even mentioned the EU assembly or EU laws. It would seem you're creating a straw man to "win" an internet argument or reinforce your own worldview.
US Laws = European common sense. You did stick us with the protestants after all :-)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
Actually, I'd just not take that job.
Besides: Doing that knowingly and intentionally would likely qualify as assault (besides being a morally shitty thing to do).