Listen to this post

Immigration and mobility considerations can significantly impact corporate transactions, especially those in cross-border deals. Employers must ensure continued work authorization for impacted employees, manage visa statuses in other countries, and identify and address immigration issues up front. In our latest Global Immigration and Mobility Video chat, our on-the-ground immigration and mobility attorneys from EMEA, Latin America, and the US share valuable insights and best practices companies can adopt to manage issues encountered during a corporate transaction. 

Click here to view the video.

Listen to this post

We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Austria, Italy, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and the United States.

Click here to view.

Listen to this post

Even employee claims of sexual harassment that occurred before the effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) may end up in court. In Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that acts occurring before the effective date of the EFAA can be deemed to be part and parcel with acts occurring after the effective date–so that all of the claims accrue as of the later date and are subject to the EFAA.

What happened

Patricia Olivieri filed suit against her employer Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. (Stifel) and several coworkers in 2021 alleging gender-based discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHL). Olivieri alleged her manager sexually assaulted and repeatedly sexually harassed her, and that after she reported her manager to the company, the defendants allegedly subjected her to a hostile work environment characterized by discrimination and retaliation.

Stifel moved to compel arbitration of Olivieri’s claims based on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement. The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially granted Stifel’s motion to compel in late March 2022, not having been made aware of the enactment of the EFAA on March 3, 2022 by any party. (The EFAA allows a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault to void a pre-dispute arbitration agreement at their discretion. Claims under the EFAA accrue “on or after” March 3, 2022.) In light of the EFAA, Olivieri subsequently moved for reconsideration of the district court’s order requiring her to arbitrate her claims, and the district court turned course, vacating its prior decision and denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court concluded that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims–which alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation both before and after the effective date of the EFAA–were subject to the continuing violation doctrine of accrual and accrued after the EFAA’s effective date. Therefore, the EFAA applied to allow the plaintiff to void her pre-dispute arbitration agreement. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed.

Continue Reading Before, After, or Both? Second Circuit Rules Pre-EFAA Activity Can Go to Court Instead of Arbitration
Listen to this post

Employers across the country have been relieved of the obligation to comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning most postemployment noncompetes — for now. On August 20, U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in Ryan LLC v. FTC.

Judge Brown set aside the rule just two weeks before it was scheduled to go into effect on September 4 and ordered that it cannot be enforced nationwide.

As a result, employers do not need to comply with the rule’s notice and other requirements at this time. Employers can continue to maintain and enforce their current noncompetes pending resolution of the outstanding challenges to the rule.

Click here to continue reading this article.

Original article published in Law360.

Listen to this post

SHRM reports that one in four organizations currently use AI to support HR-related activities, with adoption of the technology expanding rapidly. The compliance risks arising from generative AI use also are intensifying, with an increasing number of state and local laws restricting employer use of AI tools in the United States. And not to be outdone, substantial regulation impacting multinational employers’ use of AI is emerging in other parts of the world (e.g., the EU AI Act).

One rapidly growing use case is applicant recruiting and screening, a trend likely to continue given recent increases in remote hiring and hybrid work arrangements. AI tools can streamline talent acquisition tasks by automatically sorting, ranking, and eliminating candidates, as well as potentially drawing from a broader and more diverse pool of candidates.

Employers who use AI tools must comply with significant new (and existing) laws that focus on data protection, privacy, information security, wage and hour, and other issues. The focus of this blog, however, is the legislative efforts in the US to protect against algorithmic bias and discrimination in the workplace stemming from the use of AI tools to either replace or augment traditional HR tasks.

IL Becomes the Second State (After CO) to Target Workplace Algorithmic Discrimination

On August 9, 2024, Gov. Pritzker signed H.B. 3773, making it unlawful for employers to use AI that has the effect of discriminating against employees on the basis of protected class in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, termination and other terms, privileges or conditions of employment. The law, effective January 1, 2026, also prohibits employers from using ZIP codes as a stand-in or proxy for protected classes.

Like Colorado, Illinois’ new law also contains a notice requirement: employers must notify applicants and employees when using AI with respect to “recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.”

Continue Reading Illinois Joins Colorado and NYC in Restricting Generative AI in HR (Plus a Quick Survey of the Legal Landscape Across the US and Globally)
Listen to this post

This summer SCOTUS published three major decisions impacting workplace immigration decisions. Two of the decisions may require employers to shift their strategies for managing foreign-national talent, and the third essentially preserves the status quo.

Below we outline the impact of the decisions on US-based employers:

1. SCOTUS strengthens the doctrine of consular nonreviewability limiting options for employers and visa applicants who receive unfavorable denial

      In Department of State v. Munoz (July 21, 2024), SCOTUS ruled that US citizens do not have a fundamental liberty interest in their noncitizen spouses’ ability to come to the US.

      In Munoz, the spouse of a US citizen was denied an immigrant visa by a US consulate on ground that the consulate had “reason to believe” the spouse would participate in illicit activity if admitted to the US. The consular denial provided limited explanation for the decision – simply citing the “reason to believe” statute (a legal standard under which foreign nationals can be barred from entering the country if USCIS has a “reason to believe” the individual has been involved in illicit or illegal conduct) – and was extremely slow in providing this basis for its decision. The US citizen petitioning spouse sought judicial review and argued that she had a liberty interest in the matter given her US citizenship and that the impact of the consular decision deprived her of the fundamental right to marriage. But after receiving a favorable decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed and held that no such liberty interest exists in this context.

      While the facts of Munoz did not involve a US employer, the underlying doctrine at issue – the ability to challenge a consulate’s decision on a visa – has direct implications to US employers who seek employment-based visas for employees. In reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court upheld and arguably expanded the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” – i.e. the inability to challenge the decision of a consular officer in US federal court.

      Takeaway:

      Munoz leaves employers and visa applicants with limited, if any, means for judicial redress in the event of an incorrect or unjust consular decision. Other avenues for challenging an unfavorable decision exist – including requesting supervisory review, review from the State Department’s Legal Net, or re-filing the application – but these fall short of and lack the teeth of formal judicial review.

      Continue Reading Triple Feature: SCOTUS Issues 3 Blockbuster Immigration Decisions This Summer Impacting Employers and Foreign National Employers
      Listen to this post

      Last month the UK voted for a new government. The Labour party promised sweeping changes to UK employment law in its manifesto, and the King’s Speech confirmed the new government’s proposals to pursue numerous employment law reforms. Immediately following these announcements, Baker McKenzie employment partners Julia Wilson, Kim Sartin, Stephen Ratcliffe and Jonathan Tuck, and pensions partner Tom McNaughton discussed the implications of the new government’s proposals on employment and pensions law during our New Government, new law? webinar.

      The government intends to make changes impacting “exploitative contracts,” unfair dismissal law, parental leave, statutory sick pay and industrial action laws. Our key takeaways document outlining steps UK employers can take now is available HERE.

      And, for a deeper dive on the government’s proposals in relation to trade unions, industrial relations and collective rights, and how they might impact businesses, watch our quick chat HERE. Jon Tuck and Jess Bowden discuss Labour’s proposals in relation to trade union recognition and trade union access in the workplace and provide insights into what organizations can start thinking about before consultations open, as well as some useful tips on how you can develop your key stakeholder’s knowledge and approach when looking at your industrial relation strategy.

      For more, reach out to your Baker McKenzie employment attorney.

      Listen to this post

      In June, we offered our annual Global Employment Law webinar series sharing expert insights on the business climate in major markets around the world for US multinational employers. Baker McKenzie attorneys from over 20 jurisdictions outlined the key new employment law developments and trends that multinationals need to know in four 60-minute sessions.

      ICYMI: click below to hear updates for the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East and Africa and contact a member of our team for a deeper dive on any of the information discussed.

      Session 1: The Americas 

      Presenters: Andrew Shaw, Clarissa Lehmen*, Daniela Liévano Bahamón, Benjamin Ho, Liliana Hernandez-Salgado and Matías Gabriel Herrero

      Click here to watch the video.

      *Trench Rossi Watanabe and Baker McKenzie have executed a strategic cooperation agreement for consulting on foreign law.

      Continue Reading Summer Replay: Tune In To Our Global Employment Law Update Series (Recordings Linked!)
      Listen to this post

      On July 1, 2024 California Governor Newsom signed “compromise” PAGA reform bills into law (AB 2282 and SB 92) (PAGA Reform), which took the PAGA repeal initiative we told you about in May (see here) off the November 5, 2024 ballot.  

      On the bright side for employers, the new law shows leniency toward employers who can show they have taken reasonable steps toward PAGA compliance, through (among other things) caps on damages and expanded cure provisions. That said, employers will still need to be diligent to avoid wage and hour violations. One reason: while the ballot initiative (if passed) would have prevented plaintiffs’ attorneys from recovering fees, the PAGA Reform still allows plaintiffs to collect reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition, the PAGA Reform allows employees to keep a greater percentage of the recovery than before, meaning there is still plenty of incentive for employees to file PAGA claims–even with the employer-friendly changes.

      We hit the highlights of the PAGA Reform here.

      Effective date

      The PAGA Reform applies to PAGA civil complaints and notices of PAGA claims provided to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or after June 19, 2024. Prior PAGA rules will apply to claims pending on or before June 19 or based on notices sent prior to June 19. (Though note that certain cure provisions do not take effect until October 1, 2024–see more below.)

      Stricter standing requirements, and statute of limitations questions clarified

      Under PAGA Reform, employees are now required to show they “personally suffered” each of the violations of the Labor Code they seek to pursue in a representative capacity under PAGA. Before the new law, if an employee could prove a single Labor Code violation, the employee could sue in a representative capacity on the same or any other Labor Code violation–even if the employee had not been personally affected by the other violations. (Note, the new standing requirement does not apply to certain nonprofit legal aid organizations that have served as counsel of record for PAGA civil actions for at least 5 years prior to January 1, 2025.)

      In addition, PAGA Reform clarifies that the statute of limitations to bring a PAGA claim is one year (the period prescribed under Section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure)–dismissing interpretations that stemmed from the California Court of Appeals decision in Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. that the PAGA statute of limitations defines the liability period for a PAGA claim, but otherwise places no time restriction on who may pursue a PAGA claim.

      However, even if an employee meets the statute of limitations under PAGA, if the LWDA (or any of its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees) has already–on the “same facts and theories”–timely cited an employer for violation of the same section of the Labor Code under which the employee is attempting to recover a civil penalty, or initiated a proceeding under Section 98.3 (allowing the Labor Commissioner to prosecute certain violations, including wage-related violations), the employee is barred from pursing that civil penalty. This restriction remains from prior PAGA rules, and helps to ensure employers are not penalized twice for the same conduct.

      Courts’ power to manage PAGA claims clarified

      Under PAGA Reform, courts have specified power to manage PAGA claims, including by limiting the scope of any claim to ensure it can be effectively tried, and limiting the evidence presented at trial–following the lead of the California Supreme Court decision Estrada v. Royal Carpet Mills, Inc., which held that though trial courts do not have inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds, a trial court can use its case management procedures to ensure that PAGA claims can be tried effectively.

      Injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees

      PAGA plaintiffs can now seek injunctive relief in any circumstances under which the LWDA could seek injunctive relief–in addition to the civil penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs PAGA plaintiffs can seek. However, injunctive relief is not available for violation of a posting, notice, agency reporting or filing requirement, unless the filing or reporting requirement involves mandatory payroll or workplace injury reporting.

      Continue Reading PAGA Reform: A Breath of (Some?) Fresh Air for Employers
      Listen to this post

      More than ever, organizations are feeling the pressure to disclose information from all sides – consumers, employees and regulators

      Underlying this trend toward organizational transparency is a desire from stakeholders for accountability and meaningful change. But while transparency is undoubtedly a tool to achieving this, organizations will need to back information disclosure with effective governance and a strategy to drive real progress.  
       
      In the latest article of our Workforce Redesign: Outlooks for Business Leaders series, we explore how increased demands for transparency are shaping the workforce landscape across key areas such as inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) and environmental, social and governance (ESG) efforts and how organizations can ensure their information disclosure is intentional, impactful and legally compliant.

      Read the article today to confidently plan for what’s next for your workforce.

      More articles coming soon! Our Workforce Redesign: Outlooks for Business Leaders series spans the key areas of change that are shaping the modern workforce, including: responsible AI in HR, the future of flexible work and the war for talent. Visit our hub for all of the insights on this topic to date, with more content coming soon!