We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Australia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United States.
Click here to view.
NAVIGATING US AND GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT LAW
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Australia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United States.
Click here to view.
In our recent post, AI Regulation on Hold in Colorado—But Employer Risk Isn’t, we flagged that delay did not mean diminished risk. That continues to hold true. Colorado has now approved a comprehensive rewrite of its AI law, while Illinois regulators are advancing practical disclosure requirements for employers using AI in employment decisions.
The direction is clear: AI oversight in the workplace is moving forward—and becoming more operational.
Colorado’s rewrite reflects an effort to make its AI framework more workable—but not less relevant for employers.
Key points:
Some historically more employer-friendly APAC jurisdictions are becoming harder to manage as employee protections expand and procedural requirements tighten. In 2026, the region is broadly politically stable, but economic caution, recent elections, and pro-labor legislative agendas are reshaping employment risk in different ways across key jurisdictions. China is emphasizing employment stability and risk containment; South Korea and Australia are advancing employee-friendly labor agendas; and Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam remain relatively stable politically but are seeing increasingly sophisticated employment regulation. For in-house teams, the core risk is not missing a headline reform, but underestimating how process, consultation, and documentation increasingly determine outcomes.
Below are the developments global employers should have firmly on their radar.
Across APAC, worker misclassification and restructuring execution have become standout employment risks. In many markets, the primary exposure is no longer just whether an employer has a legal basis to act, but whether it can show the relationship was properly classified and that any termination, redundancy, or outsourcing decision was implemented through a defensible process.
We are thrilled to announce that the latest edition of The Global Employer: Focus on Global Immigration & Mobility is now available! This handy, online reference guide is provided complimentary to our client HR and legal teams and includes:
Baker McKenzie offers comprehensive legal advice related to global immigration – delivered locally around the world. We help employers plan and implement global transfers and provide on-site legal support to companies and employees in most major business communities around the globe. To learn more, visit our Global Immigration & Mobility page.
*Jurisdiction chapters available for Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam.
May is Mental Health Awareness Month—a timely reminder for employers to take a fresh, thoughtful look at how workplace policies and practices support employees’ mental health. This includes ensuring compliance with evolving requirements around leave, reasonable accommodations under the ADA, and broader mental health considerations. As the legal landscape continues to shift, even well‑intentioned missteps can create significant risk.
In the latest episode of The Employer Rapport, Baker McKenzie’s employment litigators share practical guidance and actionable steps to help employers navigate these complex issues with clarity and confidence.
Learn how to reduce risk, stay compliant, and get ahead of issues—including how to:
*Captions are automatically generated. We apologize for any typos or errors.
On April 27, 2026, a federal court paused enforcement of Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 24-205), placing one of the country’s most comprehensive state AI laws on hold while lawmakers reconsider its timing and scope. The order prevents the state from initiating enforcement actions during the pendency of the litigation, effectively freezing the law just weeks before its anticipated June 30, 2026 effective date.
This development is neither a repeal nor a permanent delay. Instead, it leaves employers in a familiar position—navigating a period of legal uncertainty while continuing to operate against a rapidly evolving regulatory backdrop. Importantly, even if the Colorado law is ultimately blocked or significantly revised, employers should not view the pause as a signal to deprioritize AI governance. As discussed below, the legal and regulatory risks associated with AI in employment remain very much in force.
With the statute’s effective date approaching, a leading AI developer filed suit in April seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Act. Shortly thereafter, the US Department of Justice intervened, arguing that aspects of the law impermissibly compel AI systems to adopt state‑defined viewpoints. The DOJ’s intervention marks the administration’s first litigation effort aimed at limiting state‑level AI regulation.
Continue Reading AI Regulation on Hold in Colorado—But Employer Risk Isn’tOur attorneys examine how Venezuela and key neighboring jurisdictions—particularly Colombia—are reshaping immigration, employment, and workforce compliance frameworks in response to renewed business activity in the region. The panel explores evolving visa pathways, transnational teleworking models, and employer obligations under Colombian and Venezuelan law, highlighting how these developments are influencing mobility strategies, cross‑border staffing structures, and risk management for companies supporting Venezuelan operations. The discussion offers practical guidance on compliance, documentation, and best practices for navigating today’s complex and rapidly changing regulatory landscape
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.
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.
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.
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.
In response to this change, employers should:
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