We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Asia Pacific, Canada, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Click here to view.
Recent developments affecting Temporary Protected Status (TPS)[1] beneficiaries have created uncertainty for employers managing work authorization and reverification obligations. In response, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reminded employers that changes affecting TPS beneficiaries do not change employers’ existing obligations under federal and California law. The guidance underscores a key compliance point: employers should not assume that an employee whose TPS designation has been affected is no longer authorized to work, and employers must continue to follow standard I-9, reverification, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation requirements.
The guidance reflects California’s longstanding approach of reinforcing workplace protections for immigrant workers during periods of federal immigration policy change. While TPS-related developments may create uncertainty for employers, the Attorney General’s message is that employers should continue to follow existing verification and reverification rules rather than impose additional requirements or take adverse action based on assumptions regarding an employee’s immigration status. The guidance further encourages employers to consult immigration counsel before acting based on an employee’s TPS status, recognizing that affected employees may remain authorized to work through another immigration status, a pending application, or another provision of law.
Among other things, the guidance reminds employers:
Federal EEO-1 reporting may be heading for a major reset — but employers should be careful not to mistake federal uncertainty for a broader retreat from workforce pay-data obligations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has proposed rescinding the long-standing annual EEO workforce demographic reporting rules, including the EEO-1 Component 1 report filed by many private employers and federal contractors. At the same time, several states and localities are moving in the opposite direction, adopting or expanding pay-data and demographic reporting requirements that are more granular, more jurisdiction-specific, and less dependent on the federal framework.
For multinational and multistate employers, the practical message is straightforward: do not dismantle EEO-1 data infrastructure yet. Instead, use this moment to rationalize workforce data governance, build flexibility for diverging state requirements, and ensure demographic and pay data are collected, stored, analyzed, and used in a legally defensible way.
The EEO-1 framework has been part of the US employment law compliance architecture for decades. Historically, the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have jointly administered the EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection program to monitor compliance with federal civil rights laws. Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees have been required to file annual workforce demographic reports.
Component 1 requires covered employers to report headcount data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category. The Biden administration’s proposed rule to reinstate Component 2 pay data reporting — which required employers to report aggregate compensation and hours-worked data segmented by race, sex, and job category — was formally withdrawn following the change in administration and is not currently required.
On July 23, 2026, the EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would rescind annual EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 workforce demographic reporting and related recordkeeping rules. If finalized as proposed, covered private sector employers — including covered federal contractors — would no longer file routine EEO-1 reports with the EEOC. Until the EEOC issues a final rule, existing federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements remain in effect.
For federal contractors, the status of EEO-1 reporting is more complicated than for purely private-sector employers. On August 21, 2026, OFCCP published three coordinated final rules that eliminate – from a regulatory perspective – federal contractor affirmative action requirements for women and minorities and narrow contractor affirmative action requirements regarding individuals with disabilities.
Continue Reading Federal Retreat, State Expansion: The New Workforce Data Landscape for US EmployersSpecial thanks to our articling student Brianna Grieff for contributing to this update.
As pay transparency obligations continue to expand globally, employers with operations in Canada should be paying close attention to a rapidly evolving provincial landscape. Much like developments across the European Union, the United Kingdom, and numerous US states, Canadian jurisdictions are increasingly adopting measures designed to promote pay equity and greater transparency in compensation practices. These measures include salary disclosure requirements in job postings, restrictions on salary history inquiries, employee protections related to pay discussions, and, in some jurisdictions, pay transparency reporting obligations.
For US-based multinational employers, Canada presents both familiar challenges and unique compliance considerations. While Canada does not yet have a single nationwide pay transparency framework, a growing number of provinces have enacted or proposed legislation that requires employers to revisit recruiting practices, compensation governance, pay equity analyses, and data collection processes. As a result, organizations operating across multiple Canadian jurisdictions may find themselves managing another layer of regulatory complexity alongside existing US, EU, and UK transparency requirements.
The trend is gaining momentum. Recent developments in New Brunswick, together with existing requirements in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, and other provinces, reflect a growing expectation that employers provide greater visibility into compensation practices and be prepared to explain and defend pay differentials.
Below, we summarize the current pay transparency landscape across Canada and the key considerations for employers with Canadian workforces.
New Brunswick recently joined the growing list of provinces imposing pay transparency requirements.
Continue Reading Canada’s Pay Transparency Momentum Continues: New Brunswick Signals the Direction of TravelEmployment law developments across Asia Pacific continue at a rapid pace, with regulators expanding their enforcement powers, unions gaining influence, employees becoming more willing to challenge workplace decisions, and governments introducing significant reforms affecting workforce management.
Our latest AP Employers’ Forum 2026 Highlights and Insights report provides practical guidance on key developments across Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.
The report highlights several trends that should be on every multinational employer’s radar. Among them are South Korea’s far-reaching “Yellow Envelope Act,” which broadens union rights and may significantly affect restructuring and workforce reduction strategies; Australia’s proposed restrictions on non-compete clauses and increased scrutiny of AI-driven employment decisions; Singapore’s forthcoming Workplace Fairness Act; Taiwan’s new workplace bullying regime; and growing regulatory inspection and dawn raid activity across the region.
The report also examines the increasing complexity of cross-border non-compete enforcement, rising claims relating to equity incentive plans, and the challenges employers face when navigating restructurings in an environment marked by geopolitical uncertainty, union activism and rapid technological change.
Click here for more!
On August 6, 2026, the IRS released Fact Sheet FS-2026-13, substantially revising and replacing FS-2026-01, its January 2026 guidance on the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The revised guidance reflects the transition from the temporary 2025 reporting relief period to a more formal compliance regime applicable for tax years 2026 through 2028. As a reminder, the IRS provided transition penalty relief for tax year 2025 to excuse the requirement that employers and other payers report qualified overtime compensation separately on Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, and 1099-MISC. See Notice 2025-62.
While the updated fact sheet includes numerous technical revisions, several changes are particularly significant for employers, payroll providers, and employees seeking to claim the deduction. Most notably, the IRS emphasizes that beginning in 2026 employees generally may claim the deduction only based on amounts separately reported by employers, increasing the importance of accurate overtime calculations and information reporting.
The August update to the FAQs:
The Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2026‑02 on June 17, 2026, providing critical clarity for employers evaluating whether to offer contributions to “Trump Accounts” under IRC sections 530A and 128; contributions to Trump accounts could be made as of July 4, 2026. The guidance addresses a key open question flagged in our earlier post regarding whether these arrangements would trigger Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan status, which would implicate technical rules regarding fiduciary duties, claims and appeal procedures, and plan reporting and disclosures, among others.
The DOL concluded that Trump Accounts and related employer Trump Account Contribution Programs (TACPs) will generally not constitute “employee pension benefit plans” under ERISA Title I, even if funded in whole or in part by employer contributions pursuant to IRC section 128. The guidance provides favorable clarity and removes a potential stumbling block for employers considering establishing a TACP.
Prior to Technical Release 2026‑02, ERISA classification was a key unresolved risk for employers, particularly given that TACPs require a written employer program and could resemble benefit plans.
DOL’s conclusion that TACPs will generally not be subject to ERISA removes a major barrier for employers. The rationale underlying the guidance includes that Trump Accounts are individually owned Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), not employer‑established retirement plans; that in most cases, benefits accrue to a child (dependent), not the employee, which weighs against ERISA plan characterization; and that the accounts can be funded by multiple sources (family, government, employers), reinforcing their non‑employer‑centric design.
Continue Reading DOL Clarifies ERISA Treatment of Trump Accounts: What Employers Need to KnowCompared to many other countries, Germany has rather strict labor and employment laws. The current government has just announced plans to make employment law more flexible through comprehensive changes. Among other things, these plans include:
Against this background, employers should already assess how they can best benefit from the new regulations, for example with regard to employment contracts and proceedings in case of terminations. However, it should be noted that the plans still need to be approved by parliament and implemented into law. Changes to the plans are therefore possible.
More flexibility for fixed-term contracts:
Baker McKenzie’s legal resource for companies taking business models, products and technology international.
Are you considering expanding into new jurisdictions? Are you aware which foreign laws and legal issues matter most? Have you prepared a detailed statement of facts, plans and questions for counsel?
The latest edition of our Field Guide to Going Global helps you examine foreign law issues for taking business models, products and technology international. Our guidance should be helpful whether you are working for a start-up company or a large multinational enterprise that is broaching new frontiers.
The Guide covers export control and sanctions considerations, intellectual property rules, data privacy and cybersecurity frameworks, franchise and competition law, employment and global equity regulations, tax compliance and planning issues, corporate development matters and more.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive’s transposition deadline—June 7, 2026—has passed. As of the June 7 deadline, only a handful of Member States—notably Slovakia, Italy and Lithuania—have fully or largely implemented the Directive, with most others still working through draft legislation or delayed timelines.
Most member states are behind, resulting in uneven implementation across the bloc and leaving employers to navigate a fragmented and evolving landscape with staggered national rollouts and divergent approaches across jurisdictions. Here’s what US-based multinationals need to know now.
For US companies managing EU workforces, the next 12–24 months will look like:
Patchwork Implementation
Rolling Compliance Programs
Heightened Litigation & Enforcement Risk
Even before full implementation, expect:
The Directive introduces a consistent set of core obligations across the employment lifecycle, centered on greater transparency, more rigorous pay monitoring, and enhanced enforcement risk—though the detail and delivery will vary by country.
Continue Reading EU Pay Transparency Directive: Deadlines Missed, But the Real Work Starts Now