Listen to this post

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: Recalibration, Not Retreat

Colorado’s rewrite reflects an effort to make its AI framework more workable—but not less relevant for employers.

Key points:

  • Employment uses remain in scope: AI tools used in hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions continue to be treated as “high risk.”
  • Governance expectations remain: Employers will still need risk management and oversight frameworks.
  • Transparency still matters: Notice and documentation obligations continue, even as details evolve.
Continue Reading Colorado and Illinois Advance AI Transparency Obligations for Employers
Listen to this post

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.

1. Workforce Flexibility Is Narrowing—and Execution Risk Is Rising

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.

  • South Korea combines aggressive labor reform with real enforcement risk. Unlawful contracting arrangements and illegal dispatch (e.g., subcontracted workers) have long carried criminal liability under Korean law. The Yellow Envelope Act now allows even lawfully subcontracted workers to unionize and bargain directly with client companies. The new administration has also pledged to close even lawful outsourcing loopholes, raising the stakes for businesses that rely on layered service or contractor models.
  • Australia continues moving toward an employee-protective model. Recent reforms driven by legislation and case law have refocused classification analysis on the real substance of the relationship, while courts and regulators are increasingly attentive to consultation, redeployment, and safety in workforce change exercises.
  • China, Japan, and Vietnam each create execution risk, but in different ways. China and Vietnam apply substance-over-form tests that increase recharacterization risk for outsourcing and contractor models. Japan and China are particularly restrictive on termination, requiring clear legal grounds and close procedural compliance. Vietnam does not recognize at-will employment, so even commercially justified exits require careful implementation.
Continue Reading Asia Pacific in Focus: 2026 Employment Law Shifts Global Employers Can’t Ignore
Listen to this post

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:

  • An overview of key global immigration and mobility issues to consider related to immigration, employment, compensation and employee benefits, income taxes and social insurance, and global equity compensation.
      
  • 27 jurisdictional chapters identifying key government agencies, highlighting current compliance and enforcement trends, and describing short and long term visas appropriate for business travel, training and employment assignments. 

Click here to access now.

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.

Listen to this post

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:

  • Engage in a legally compliant, good‑faith interactive process under the ADA
  • Manage leave requests and accommodation obligations after statutory leave is exhausted
  • Address mental health‑related disclosures while maintaining confidentiality
  • Evaluate remote and hybrid work requests as potential accommodations
  • Enforce attendance and performance expectations without increasing exposure

Click here to view the video.

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

Listen to this post

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.

Background

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’t
Listen to this post

Our 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

Click here to watch the video.

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