Listen to this post

Since our April 6 blog, Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers, where we highlighted how the latest Executive Order creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors, with potentially far reaching implications, there have been several significant developments that collectively signal a meaningful escalation in scrutiny and enforcement risk for employers.

  • DOJ’s first DEI-based False Claims Act resolution: On April 10, DOJ announced its first False Claims Act settlement premised on alleged DEI related misrepresentations by a large multinational employer. Although the company denied the allegations, it agreed to pay $17 million to resolve claims that it improperly considered protected characteristics in employment decisions, including through compensation incentives, interview practices, and access to certain programs. This first resolution under DOJ’s newly created Civil Rights Fraud Initiative demonstrates the federal government’s novel use of the FCA to penalize government contractors that it alleges fail to comply with required certification requirements and knowingly maintain discriminatory employment practices, and is likely an indicator of further inquiries, investigations, and lawsuits to come. Please see our colleagues’ client alert, FCA Settlement Highlights Federal Contractor DEI Risks, here.
  • Potential EEOC enforcement focus on employee race and sex data: Recent public remarks by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas point to heightened enforcement focus on certain DEI related practices. In an April 8 webinar hosted by the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, Chair Lucas underscored the importance of handling race and sex data with the same level of segregation and confidentiality required for medical information under the ADA—specifically cautioning against placing such data in the hands of individuals involved in employment decision making.

Taken together, these developments signal increased scrutiny, expand potential theories of liability, and elevate the importance of being able to defend how DEI related programs are designed, implemented, documented, and communicated. Against this backdrop, now may be an appropriate time to consider whether a targeted, privileged reassessment of certain DEI-related practices could help mitigate risk and strengthen defensibility. Please reach out to your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer for more.

Listen to this post

Immigration authorities across APAC are stepping up enforcement activity, with employers increasingly facing unannounced inspections and on‑site investigations. Our Global Immigration and Mobility attorneys examine the trends driving increased immigration authority activity in the region, with a particular focus on Malaysia and Vietnam. The panel discusses how these enforcement actions typically unfold, common triggers, potential consequences of non‑compliance, and practical steps employers should take to prepare when immigration officials arrive at the workplace.

Click here to watch the video.

Listen to this post

ICE, in a “fact sheet” available on its website, has made a significant change to the way it conducts I-9 audits. Specifically, ICE has broadened what it considers to be a “substantive” violation on an I-9. This change is likely to increase the financial penalties employers face during an audit, impacting all employers (including those who have already conducted an internal audit). This change to ICE’s protocol may signal increased enforcement in the coming weeks and months. 

Key Takeaways

In response to this change, employers should: 

  • Conduct an I-9 audit to determine potential penalties under the new guidelines and determine which, if any, substantive errors can be rehabilitated.
  • Conduct internal training to ensure the company has an established I-9 protocol and team to ensure the process is being completed accurately and in a timely manner.
  • Create a protocol for the handling of I-9 audits at the worksite should ICE issue a subpoena.

In more detail

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted on November 6, 1986, requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees and sets forth criminal and civil sanctions for employment-related violations. During an I-9 audit, ICE reviews the accuracy and completeness of an employer’s I-9s to determine the volume of: (i) missing I-9s; (ii) technical violations; and (iii) substantive violations. ICE must permit employers to correct technical violations before issuing a fine; a substantive violation is cause for a fine without opportunity for rehabilitation. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 violation.

Continue Reading Changes to I-9 Penalties Increase Employer Liability
Listen to this post

Six months ago, our Back‑to‑School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI examined how the 2025 executive orders—and early guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—led many US-based employers to recalibrate DEI-related risk, conduct DEI health checks, and fine-tune specific initiatives and practices.

In 2026, the risk is not coming from landmark court rulings declaring DEI unlawful. Instead, it is coming from enforcement tools: investigations, subpoenas, contract terms and leverage applied across multiple fronts—often before any litigation is filed.

That reality came into sharper focus on March 26, with the issuance of a new executive order further targeting “DEI discrimination” by federal contractors.

Workplace DEI remains lawful. But employers should expect heightened scrutiny of how programs are structured, incentivized, documented, and defended—through EEOC inquiries, administrative subpoenas, FCA theories tied to certifications, and discovery-driven litigation.

The New Executive Order Enhances DEI Risk for Federal Contractors

The White House’s new executive order—“Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors”—creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. Potential consequences include termination, debarment, and potential False Claims Act (FCA) exposure. The order (and the accompanying Fact Sheet) is operationally consequential: it ties compliance to federal contracting, expands agency access to contractor information, and more explicitly links compliance with these contractual obligations to FCA theories.

Continue Reading Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers
Listen to this post

Employee monitoring tools — badge and access logs, video surveillance, productivity and activity tracking, and even biometrics — can strengthen security and operations, but they also create real privacy, employment, and (in some cases) criminal-law risk. In this installment of Baker McKenzie’s In Focus video chat series, our cross-border Employment and Data Privacy lawyers break down what employers need to know across key Canadian provinces and the United States, with practical steps to help you design monitoring programs that are transparent, proportionate, and defensible.

Click here to watch the video

Listen to this post

The Argentine Senate has given preliminary approval to an ambitious Labor Modernization Bill that would meaningfully recalibrate Argentina’s employment law framework. The proposal introduces sweeping amendments to the Employment Contract Law and related statutes, with a clear policy focus on reducing informality and litigation, improving predictability around employment status, and enabling greater operational flexibility—developments that are particularly relevant for multinational employers managing workforce structures across Latin America.

If enacted, the reform would mark a meaningful shift away from a traditionally employee protective framework toward a more pragmatic, business oriented model aligned with modern work arrangements.

For employers, the Bill would materially impact worker classification, outsourcing models, compensation design, termination cost planning and more. Together, these changes position the reform as one of Argentina’s most consequential labor updates in decades, with immediate implications for hiring strategies, contractor engagement, compliance oversight, and dispute risk management for US‑based counsel advising operations in the country.

For full details and a complete analysis from our colleagues in Buenos Aires, click here.
To register for an April 1 webinar detailing the Bill, click here.
Listen to this post

On March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:

  • No immediate legal change. The framework does not impose new obligations on employers, and it does not include draft legislation or an executive order directing federal agencies. Instead, it sets out legislative recommendations for Congress, reflecting the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI statute.
  • Preemption is the through‑line. The recommendations are consistent with the administration’s December 2025 Executive Order and July 2025 AI Action Plan, and they expressly support broad federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens. At the same time, the framework contemplates carve‑outs to preserve states’ traditional police powers—such as protecting children and preventing fraud.

Takeaway for Employers

Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.

For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.

White House Outlines AI Legislative Agenda with National AI Legislative Framework

By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis

On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.

Background

The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.

Continue Reading What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right Now
Listen to this post

Special thanks to our law clerk Marjorie Simón for contributing to this update.

Mexico has kicked off 2026 with two major legal developments that employers cannot afford to ignore. In January and March, sweeping reforms reshaped the compliance landscape—introducing mandatory workplace training focused on preventing violence against women and launching a phased reduction of the standard workweek from 48 to 40 hours. Together, these changes reflect a broader regulatory push toward workplace equality, safety, and work‑life balance, while also creating new operational and compliance challenges for employers operating in Mexico. Read on for more information.

Continue Reading Mexico Employers Take Note: New Training Obligations and a Reduction of the Workweek
Listen to this post

We are proud to share that George Avraam, a distinguished trial and appellate litigation partner managing the Firm’s Toronto office, has been inducted as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), one of the most selective and prestigious honors in the legal profession.

Invitation to fellowship in the ACTL is extended by existing Fellows only after a rigorous vetting process and is reserved for trial lawyers who have demonstrated the highest standards of courtroom advocacy, professionalism, civility and ethical conduct. Fellowship recognizes excellence in trial practice and a sustained commitment to the administration of justice.

George’s induction reflects not only his individual excellence in high-stakes trial and appellate matters, but also the strength and depth of Baker McKenzie’s North America disputes platform. As evidenced by Nicholas Corsano recently joining the Firm’s Employment & Compensation Practice Group in New York, the employment litigation team across North America continues to grow and deepen its bench to support clients navigating increasingly complex workplace disputes.  See, Baker McKenzie Further Strengthens Employment Bench with Addition of Nicholas Corsano.

The Firm’s experienced trial lawyers manage high-stakes trials and bet-the-company litigation, bringing formidable trial skills to every engagement and a proven track record of delivering results when the stakes are highest. Baker McKenzie’s litigators combine rigorous preparation, creative strategy and courtroom excellence to achieve favorable outcomes for clients in their most consequential matters.

For more information, see Baker McKenzie Partner George Avraam Inducted as a Fellow by the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Listen to this post

In this video chat, attorneys from our Mexico Labor & Employment team walk through the major developments shaping the 2026 employment law landscape. Humberto, Martha and Gabriel highlight the key reforms, enforcement trends, and operational changes employers in Mexico need to know, including:

  • How Mexico’s labor framework is shifting toward stricter enforcement, including for new requirements such as the Chair Law.
  • What the Official Mexican Standards (NOMs) and recent reforms mean for working conditions and compliance on the ground.
  • Key trends in discrimination claims, gender‑violence prevention training, and pay transparency.
  • What the proposed 40‑hour workweek involves and how employers should use 2026 to prepare.
  • How overtime, scheduling, and workforce planning will need to adapt under the proposed changes.

Click here to view the video.

*Captions are automatically generated. We apologize for any typos or errors.