Photo of Caroline Burnett

Caroline Burnett

Subscribe to Caroline Burnett's Posts

Caroline Burnett is a Knowledge Lawyer in Baker McKenzie’s North America Employment & Compensation Group. Caroline is passionate about analyzing trends in US and global employment law and developing innovative solutions to help multinationals stay ahead of the curve. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie in 2016, she had a broad employment law practice at a full-service, national firm. Caroline holds a J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law (2008) and a B.A. from Brown University (2002).

Follow:Read more about Caroline BurnettCaroline's Linkedin Profile

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

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

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…

On December 4, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes of two bills requiring annual pay reporting and pay analyses. These bills—requiring private employers to report pay data by race and gender and mandating a city-led pay equity study—are emblematic of a nationwide trend toward greater scrutiny of compensation practices.

As we dive into the new year, here’s what employers need to know about the new NYC reporting requirements, recent changes to pay data reporting requirements in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, and the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive.

While pay reporting laws focus on accountability and seek to enable regulatory oversight and systemic analysis of pay equity across organizations, pay transparency regulations emphasize visibility, aiming to enable applicants and employees to make informed decisions and reduce information asymmetry. A round-up of recent pay transparency developments is included.

New NYC Pay Data Reporting Requirements

New law (Int 0982-A) requires employers with 200 or more employees inclusive of full-time, part-time and temporary employees) in the city to file annual reports detailing employee race or ethnicity and gender information across certain job categories and different pay ranges. Although the pay-reporting requirements take effect immediately, employers are not required to submit information until the city creates a process for doing so, which we may not see until as late as 2028.

  • Reporting Details: The new reporting requirements are similar to requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (and similar to reporting requirements in California and Illinois). In 2017 and 2018, the EEOC previously called for employers to submit employees’ W-2 income information broken down by gender, race/ethnicity and job category (i.e., component 2 EEO-1 data), though the rules were rescinded during the first Trump administration. The new law requires the city agency overseeing this new initiative to include this component 2 EEO-1 data in the reporting requirements, but may also request additional data, such as information about employee gender identity or other demographics. Employers will not need to provide an employee’s personal information as part of the reports, but they will have the option to submit written remarks to provide explanations or context for the data in their submission. Additionally, employers may furnish data anonymously, but will required to submit a signed statement confirming that they provided accurate pay data.
Continue Reading From New York City to the European Union: Pay Equity Developments Multinational Employers Need to Know in 2026

On March 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of President Trump’s executive orders related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (our summary of the DEI EOs is here). This decision temporarily reinstates the enforcement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, pending further appellate review.

Background

As discussed here, on February 21, a Maryland district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, citing concerns that the EOs were likely to violate the First and Fifth Amendments by chilling free speech and due process. The preliminary injunction had blocked the federal government from forcing contractors and grantees to certify that they aren’t promoting “illegal DEI.”

The government defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit, while also seeking a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction. On March 3, the district court denied their request for a stay with Judge Abelson concluding that the potential harm of the orders outweighed the administration’s policy priorities.

The Fourth Circuit’s Panel Decision

The three-judge appellate panel unanimously stayed the injunction on March 14, with all three judges writing separate concurrences. There is an undercurrent in each opinion that the injunction came too early (for it’s unclear still what types of programs the government will try to eliminate) to determine if the government’s actions will implicate the First and Fifth Amendment concerns raised by plaintiffs. Also, the court takes the government defendant’s representations that the EOs are distinctly limited in scope and apply only to conduct that violates existing federal anti-discrimination law as true.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Allows Trump Administration to Enforce DEI EOs (For Now)

[UPDATE RE THE OMNIUS PROPOSAL HERE]

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is a regulation requiring covered companies to disclose information on what they see as the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and on the impact of their activities on people and the environment.

The CSRD impacts not…

** UPDATE ** On March 3, 2025, the federal judge in the Maryland lawsuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction discussed below.
The judge ruled that the administration failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that the injunction was necessary to prevent potential violations of free speech
…

Shortly after taking office, President Trump rescinded Biden’s Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Biden’s Executive Order sought to regulate the development, deployment, and governance of artificial intelligence within the US, identifying security, privacy and discrimination as particular areas of concern. Trump signed his own executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” directing his advisers to coordinate with the heads of federal agencies and departments, among others, to develop an “action plan” to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance” within 180 days.

While we wait to see if and how the federal government intends to combat potential algorithmic discrimination and bias in artificial intelligence platforms and systems, a patchwork of state and local laws is emerging. Colorado’s AI Act will soon require developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to protect against algorithmic discrimination. Similarly, New York City’s Local Law 144 imposes strict requirements on employers that use automated employment decision tools, and Illinois’ H.B. 3773 prohibits employers from using AI to engage in unlawful discrimination in recruitment and other employment decisions and requires employers to notify applicants and employees of the use of AI in employment decisions. While well-intentioned, these regulations come with substantial new, and sometimes vague, obligations for covered employers.

California is likely to add to the patchwork of AI regulation in 2025 in two significant ways. First, California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, plans to reintroduce a bill to protect against algorithmic discrimination by imposing extensive risk mitigation measures on covered entities. Second, the California Privacy Protection Agency’s ongoing rulemaking under the California Consumer Privacy Act will likely result in regulations restricting the use of automated decision-making technology by imposing requirements to mitigate algorithmic discrimination.

Continue Reading Passage of Reintroduced California AI Bill Would Result In Onerous New Compliance Obligations For Covered Employers

On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, President Trump revoked Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (the “Biden Order”), signed by President Biden in October 2023. In doing so, President Trump fulfilled a campaign pledge to roll back the Biden Order, which the 2024 Republican platform described as a “dangerous” measure. Then on January 23, 2025, President Trump issued his own Executive Order on AI, entitled Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence (the “Trump Order”). Here, we examine some of the practical implications of the repeal and replacement of executive orders by Trump and what it means for businesses.

Overview of the Executive Orders

Building on the White House’s 2022 Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, the Biden Order outlined a sweeping vision for the future of AI within the federal government, including seven high-level objectives: (1) Ensuring the Safety and Security of AI Technology; (2) Promoting Innovation and Competition; (3) Supporting Workers; (4) Advancing Equity and Civil Rights.; (4) Protecting Consumers, Patients, Passengers, and Students; (5) Protecting Privacy; (6) Advancing Federal Government Use of AI; and (7) Strengthening American Leadership Abroad.

The Biden Order directed various measures across the federal apparatus –imposing 150 distinct requirements on more than 50 federal agencies and other government entities, representing a genuinely whole-of-government response.

Although the bulk of the Biden Order is addressed to federal agencies, some of its provisions had potentially significant impacts on private sector entities. For example, the Biden Order directed the Commerce Department to require developers to report on the development of higher risk AI systems.  Similarly, the Biden order directed the Commerce Department to establish requirements for domestic Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) providers to report to the government whenever they contract with foreign parties for the training of large AI models. The Biden Order also open-endedly instructed federal agencies to use existing consumer protection laws to enforce against fraud, unintended bias, discrimination, infringements on privacy, and other harms from AI—a directive various federal regulators actioned under the Biden administration.

Other than the definition of AI, the Trump Order and Biden Order share no similarities (both Orders point to the AI definition from 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), namely: “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments”). The Trump Order does not contain specific directives (such as those in the Biden Order), but instead articulates the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.” The Trump Order directs a few specific roles within the administration to develop an Artificial Intelligence Action Plan within 180 days (i.e., by July 22, 2025) to achieve the policy objective articulated in the Trump Order. The Trump Order directs these same roles within the administration to review the policies, directives, regulations, orders, and other actions taken pursuant to the Biden Order and to suspend, revise, or rescind any such actions that are inconsistent with the Trump Order’s stated policy. In cases where suspension, revision, or rescission of the prior action cannot be finalized immediately, the heads of agencies are instructed to “to provide all available exemptions” in the interim.

Practical Impacts

The practical effect of the revocation of the Biden Order—and the options available under the Trump Order—will vary depending on the measure. Although there are widespread impacts from the revocation of the Biden Order’s mandates across multiple initiatives and institutions, below are those that are expected to have a significant impact on private sector entities engaged in the development or use or AI.

Reporting requirement for powerful AI models: As noted, the Biden Order directed the Department of Commerce to establish a requirement for developers to provide reports on “dual-use foundation models” (broadly, models that exhibit high levels performance at tasks that pose a serious risk to security, national economic security, national public health or safety). Pursuant to the Biden Order, the Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS), a Commerce Department agency, published a proposed rule to establish reporting requirements on the development of advanced AI models and computing clusters under its Defense Production Act authority, but had not issued a final rule prior to the revocation of the Biden Order. It is likely that the new administration will closely scrutinize this reporting requirement and may take action to block the adoption of the final rule if it is found to be inconsistent with the policy statement in the Trump order.

Continue Reading AI Tug-of-War: Trump Pulls Back Biden’s AI Plans

As you plan your to-dos for the year ahead, our “2025 Top 10” will guide you through the material employment law changes ahead in the Golden State. While we have not included all new California employment laws effective 2025, we’ve highlighted the major changes our clients need to know.

Key California ChangeEmployer To-Dos
(1)Minimum
…