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

While the US Supreme Court’s June 27 decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina does not directly apply to private employers, the decision will reverberate and impact corporate ID&E programs as a practical matter.

The Decision Ends Systematic Consideration of Race in the Admissions Process

Striking down the affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC, the Court ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing, the Court effectively overturned the 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which it said race could be considered as a factor in the admissions process because universities had a compelling interest in maintaining diverse campuses.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called the programs “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in the entering classes.” Both policies “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our nation’s equality ideal,” he added.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court’s first Black female justice, said: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”Continue Reading ID&E in the Workplace After the Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action in Higher Education

On Tuesday, June 27, US antitrust agencies announced proposed changes to the premerger notification form and associated instructions and rules that implement the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. Among other things, the proposed amendments require a labor market analysis including workforce categories, geographic information, and details on labor and workplace safety violations.

The proposed amendments are intended…

Effective June 27, a new federal law strengthens the rights of pregnant workers (and those who are postpartum or have a related medical condition) to reasonable accommodations at work. As discussed here, the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act fills the gap between Title VII (the federal law that outlaws sex discrimination) and the ADA (the federal statute that protects disabled applicants and employees), ensuring that pregnant workers are able to continue in their jobs with reasonable accommodations for physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth, so long as the accommodations do not “impose undue hardship on the operation of the business.”

The PWFA does not displace federal, state or local laws that are more protective of workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. For instance, since the 1980s, California employees who are pregnant, give birth, or have pregnancy-related medical conditions are guaranteed time off from work while disabled, without having to show that the time off would not impose an “undue hardship”  on the employer’s business.Continue Reading New Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Expands Accommodations Options for Millions of Americans

Employers can be liable for sexual harassment under federal law (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) if “sexually explicit” or “aggressive” music is played in the workplace, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Sharp v S&S Activewear, L.L.C, 9th Cir. (June 2023).

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling directly applies to employers in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, given the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s amici brief in support of the plaintiffs’ position and the Court’s reliance on opinions from the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits that held that sights and sounds that pervade the work environment may constitute sex discrimination, it is likely other circuits may follow suit.Continue Reading When Harmony Becomes Hostile: The Ninth Circuit Notes that Offensive Music in the Workplace Can Constitute Harassment

With thanks to Mirjam de Blécourt and Danielle Pinedo for this update.

On June 12, after lengthy negotiations, the EU Council agreed on the proposal for a directive that aims to better protect platform workers. This opens the door to negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament on the final directive.

The directive aims to ensure that platform workers have or can obtain the appropriate employment status through the introduction of a legal presumption. In addition, the directive provides for rules regarding the transparency of the use of algorithms within the platform economy.Continue Reading The European Council Takes on Misclassification of Platform Workers

Just after the fireworks’ finale, New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection will begin enforcing its new ordinance regulating the use of automation and artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The DCWP recently issued a Notice of Adoption of Final Rule establishing that enforcement efforts will begin July 5, 2023.

Here are three reasons this matters

  1. The new law requires time-sensitive, significant actions (read: audits, notices and public reporting) from employers using automated employment decisions tools to avoid civil penalties;
  2. Company compliance will require a cross-functional response immediately, so it’s time to get your ducks in a row; and
  3. Since the City’s law is (mostly) first-of-its-kind, it is likely a harbinger of things to come for employers across the country and it could be used as a framework in other cities and states.

The law in a nutshell

Local Law 144 prohibits employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool unless the tool has been subject to a bias audit within one year of the use of the tool, information about the bias audit is publicly available, and certain notices have been provided to employees or job candidates. Violations of the provisions of the law are subject to a civil penalty.Continue Reading Enforcement of New York City’s Artificial Intelligence Rule Begins July 5, 2023: Here’s What Employers Need to Know

This summer the US Supreme Court will rule on the legality of using race as an affirmative action measure in admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina. The legal framework for evaluating affirmative action programs in higher education is definitively different than for inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) programs in the employment context. Notwithstanding this distinction, the decision will signal how courts review workplace ID&E practices and policies, and may encourage legal challenges regarding the same.

The timing of this case coincides with a growing trend of state and local legislation seeking to restrict workplace ID&E efforts, increasing claims of reverse discrimination, continued shareholder action in the ID&E space, including some actions challenging the devotion of resources to ID&E as not in the interest of shareholders, and attacks on laws mandating diversity on corporate boards.

Case Background

In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (a nonprofit group of “students, parents and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional”) sued both Harvard and UNC in federal court alleging that race-conscious admissions programs are unlawful. Both universities won at the trial court level. Now, SFFA has asked the Supreme Court to overrule its prior decisions and hold that the consideration of race as part of a holistic college admissions process in order to achieve a diverse student body violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.Continue Reading How the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Affirmative Action Decision May Impact US Employers

With special thanks to Nadege Dallais (France), Emma Glazener (Netherlands), Fermin Guardiola (Spain), Stephen Ratcliffe (United Kingdom), Bernhard Trappehl (Germany) and Lucille Vallet (France).

Last week a group of our favorite European colleagues joined us in the Bay Area for a few special client visits. Even if you weren’t in the room, we’ll share a few key headlines here. (And, here’s link to listen in to our recent webinar: Global Employment Law Fastpass — Spotlight on Europe!)

From practical tips on the best ways to implement employee redundancies to the expected impact of the recently-passed EU Directive on Pay Transparency, here’s five things to know:

1. The EU Whistleblowing Directive (WBD) Requires Private Employers with 50 or More Workers to Establish a Local, Entity Level Reporting Hotline

The WBD was supposed to be implemented by the EU’s 27 member states by December 2021, but we are still waiting for around 8 EU member states to do so. For example, France, Belgium and Austria have transposed the WBD, Germany has not but is close. Spanish companies with at least 250 employees have until June 13, 2023 to comply. (For more, read our alert here.)

While legislation is still awaited in a number of jurisdictions, we are now in a much better position to see the challenges the WBD poses for global employers. . . and there are several.

  • It can be tricky to implement the new requirement for a local channel alongside a centralized group level reporting system (e.g., through a global “hotline”). Under the WBD, employers are not prevented from maintaining and encouraging the use of their central reporting hotline; however, now, entities with more than 50 workers, must establish a local, entity level, channel. This means employers who meet the threshold will need to establish local entity level reporting systems alongside existing global channels.
  • The second key challenge is where companies have multiple entities in one jurisdiction, whether one internal reporting channel can be established at a country level or whether the channel must be established in each entity. The implementing legislation in some countries is unclear on this point but, where the requirement is for entity level channels, this raises challenges for companies which have multiple entities within a jurisdiction but only one HR or Legal function which operates across multiple entities.

Fortunately, we have a multijurisdictional analysis matrix covering five key areas of WBD compliance at a local level available at a fixed fee per jurisdiction so that companies operating in the EU can wrap their arms around this new requirement. The matrix answers questions about the Directive’s scope and implementation requirements for internal procedures, protection of whistleblowers and data privacy issues. Our experienced team of lawyers can then assist with implementing the changes, as well as with training, communications and more.

2. The EU Pay Transparency Directive is Coming and as the Kids Say, It’s Extra

Last month the European Parliament formally adopted the Pay Transparency Directive and its provisions are likely to enter into force in most EU member states in 2026. It’s sort of a big deal, requiring significant attention and touching on many aspects of the employment lifecycle (read our detailed alert here).

A preview: there are pre-employment pay transparency requirements, and broad worker and representative rights to workforce pay information. The impact may be more muted in countries like France where works councils already have access to pay data, though the access will become much more granular under the Directive.Continue Reading A Hop, Skip and a Jump Around Europe | Insights for US Employers Operating Abroad

As most California employers know by now, Senate Bill 1162 requires private employers of 100 or more employees (with at least one employee in California) to report pay and demographic data to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) (formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing). Complicating matters, the law was amended to add a requirement to report data regarding workers hired through labor contractors.  

The deadline for submitting pay data reports is May 10. If you are having trouble gathering information from labor contractors, you are not alone. So, if it looks like you might be late on the labor contractor employee report, we recommend seeking an extension from CRD through the portal ASAP. The good news is that extensions are available, but only for the labor contractor reports, and only through the portal. (Link here.) Requests for an extension must be submitted on or before May 10.Continue Reading Last Call for Compliance: CRD Pay Reporting Deadline May 10, But Extensions Available

The Road Ahead Following the April 10 End of the National Emergency

We have all grown accustomed to hand sanitizer, 6-feet distance markings in hallways, face masks–and the back and forth of surging and waning COVID-19 levels in the workplace and the community. But with President Biden’s April 10 termination of the COVID-19 national emergency, can these pandemic mainstays–and employers’ pandemic policies and procedures–finally be relegated to a distant memory? Should they be? As Dr. Anthony Fauci said in a recent interview, “Everybody wants this outbreak behind us.”

Mapping the Road Forward

With little fanfare, on April 10, President Biden quietly signed a GOP-led resolution terminating the COVID-19 national emergency. Separately, on May 1 the Biden Administration announced an end to the federal COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees, federal contractors, and international travelers on May 11, the same day the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency ends. The US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Homeland Security also announced they will start the process to end vaccination requirements for Head Start educators, CMS-certified healthcare facilities, and certain noncitizens at the land border.

So can employers throw out all of their COVID-19 policies and procedures? Not quite.Continue Reading Can US Employers Finally Leave COVID-19 in the Rearview Mirror?