California’s latest attempt to restrict employment arbitration was foiled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last Wednesday. On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel decided that AB 51 (which prohibits employers from “forcing” job applicants or employees to enter into pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements covering certain discrimination and retaliation claims) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior decision in the same case, issued by the same three-judge panel, which partially upheld AB 51 in 2021. While we expect the California Attorney General to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s February 15 decision, California employers can breathe a sigh of relief for now knowing it’s still lawful for most to continue to require arbitration agreements.
Continue Reading California Employers Still Can Require Arbitration. For Now.
4 Tips To Avoid (Or At Least Dull) Headaches When Conducting Layoffs In The US
As we find ourselves firmly in the middle of Q1 of 2023, the avalanche of layoff headlines that started last quarter just keeps coming. Whether you follow the school of thought that the US entered a recession in summer of 2022 (after two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product) or not (given a strong labor market and corporate earnings growth), more and more companies are having to address overzealous pandemic hiring and the backlash from soaring company valuations. One comparatively “easy” place for multinational companies to cut costs — US workforces, where employment is generally “at-will” and absent contractual entitlements or triggering statutory notice requirements, layoffs can be carried out relatively quickly. With that said, as always, moving too quickly can create headaches that actually can be avoided — or at least dulled — with a little planning.
Here are four tips to keep in mind when planning layoffs in the US:
- Beware of the WARN(ings)
Larger layoffs have the potential of triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) (and analogous state laws, known as state “mini-WARN acts”) statutes. These statutes impose notice and information obligations, which can be tricky to keep track of, and carry potentially heavy penalties for noncompliance.
Federal WARN requires employers to give advanced notice to affected employees in the event of a covered mass layoff or plant closing. Under the WARN, employers must provide 60 days’ notice of termination to the impacted employees, union representatives (if applicable), and certain government authorities. Under some state mini-WARN acts, 90 days’ notice is required. Click here for more on WARN.
- Tip: WARN should become part of the layoff checklists (again), with teams (re)sensitized to the impact on timing and costs if triggered.
Continue Reading 4 Tips To Avoid (Or At Least Dull) Headaches When Conducting Layoffs In The US
New York City Employers Can Breathe a Little Easier: NYC Pay Transparency Law’s Effective Date is Now November 1, 2022
Navigating the New Rules Regarding Company Profit Sharing Payments In Mexico (Video Chat)
With special thanks to our colleagues in Mexico: Javiera Medina-Reza, Liliana Hernandez-Salgado and Salvador Pasquel-Villegas.
In May, employers in Mexico will encounter new rules regarding compulsory company profit sharing entitlements for employees. This labor reform requires the immediate attention of companies doing business in Mexico.
In this video, Baker McKenzie’s Labor and Employment
Now Available Online – The Global Employer: Focus on Global Immigration and Mobility
The latest version of our signature handbook, The Global Employer: Focus on Global Immigration and Mobility, is now available in an easy-to-search e-version.
Bookmark our site today to review the large scale global immigration, employment, compensation and tax issues related to the movement of employees across 40 jurisdictions* directly from your desktop.
Click here
California’s Board Diversity Law Struck Down in State Court, But Movement for Inclusion and Diversity on Boards Persists
On April 1, a state court judge in Los Angeles ruled that the California law (AB 979) mandating publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards violates the California Constitution. We initially reported on AB 979 here, noting that it was the first law of its kind in the US and was the second time California sought to mandate diversification of public company boards through legislation. In 2018, the first piece of California legislation (SB 826) aimed at increasing gender diversity; in 2020, AB 979 sought to increase diversity from underrepresented communities.
AB 979
The 2020 law requires publicly held corporations headquartered in California to include at least one person on their boards from an underrepresented community by the end of last year, with additional appointments required in future years. People from underrepresented communities are defined as anyone who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
Under AB 979, the California Secretary of State must report annually on companies’ compliance with the law and may impose fines of $100,000 for an initial violation and $300,000 for each subsequent violation.Continue Reading California’s Board Diversity Law Struck Down in State Court, But Movement for Inclusion and Diversity on Boards Persists
Washington State is the Latest to Require Employers to Disclose Salary Ranges in Every Job Posting
On March 30, Governor Jay Inslee signed SB 5761, amending the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, to require all employers with 15 or more employees to disclose the wage scale or salary range along with a general description of all benefits and other compensation in every job posting. Beginning January 1, 2023
OFCCP Emboldened To Demand Contractors’ Internal Pay Analyses
On March 15, 2022, the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued a new directive putting federal contractors on notice that it will more closely scrutinize their pay equity audits. Making headlines, the directive states that federal contractors are expected to hand over information about their internal pay analyses when being audited by the office, including documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
Background
Executive Order 11246 requires affirmative action and prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Contractors also are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they inquire about, discuss, or disclose their compensation or that of others.
As part of their affirmative action obligations, supply and service contractors are required to perform an in-depth analysis of their total employment practices to determine whether and where impediments to equal employment opportunity exist. This includes conducting an in-depth analysis of their compensation systems to determine whether there are gender-, race-, or ethnicity-based disparities, as provided in 41 CFR 60-2.17(b)(3).3.
To comply with the regulations, most companies doing business with the federal government conduct an evaluation of their pay practices for potential gender, race, or ethnicity-based disparities. Oftentimes, these analyses are performed with the help of outside counsel who provides legal advice regarding, among other things, compliance with the requirements enforced by OFCCP. And, until now, these pay audits have been considered privileged and confidential.
Impact of the new directive
During a compliance evaluation, a supply and service contractor is required to provide OFCCP with compensation data. In addition to requesting additional compensation data, interviews, and employment records, the OFCCP is now making explicit that it may also seek the contractor’s evaluation under § 60-2.17(b)(3), which the OFCCP calls the “pay equity audit.”Continue Reading OFCCP Emboldened To Demand Contractors’ Internal Pay Analyses
DEI Matters: How Employee Resource Groups Can be Your Company’s Strategic Ally
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), or workplace affinity groups, are not new, and in fact they have been around in workplaces since the 1970s when they evolved in response to racial tensions in the US. For years, ERGs mainly hosted networking events and weren’t typically remarkably impactful on the business, but served as a safe space and support network for members. ERGs have come a long way since then, expanding and deepening their influence and impact.
Now, ERGs are typically employee-led, voluntary forums that provide employees with support, and career development, mentorship and networking opportunities. They are often created around shared characteristics or personal traits like ERGs for women employees, members of historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, LGBTQ+ employees, veteran employees and more. In recent years, ERGs have expanded to include interest-based groups like working parents and caregivers, the environmentally conscious and mental health advocates. Further, business leaders increasingly recognizing the value ERGs can bring as key strategic partners. In fact, about 35% of companies have added or expanded their support for ERGs since the start of 2020, according to a 2021 study by McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn.org of 423 organizations employing 12 million people.
Why the shift?
This uptick in popularity of ERGs in the workplace is due in large part to the impact of COVID-19, which has amplified the prominence and importance of ERGs. After two years of pandemic-related isolation and a lot of social and political unrest, ERGs are playing an essential role in companies by fostering community, improving employee engagement and building company culture and brand. While it can be difficult to connect with employees feeling distanced by remote work, ERGs are an effective way to give employees a sense of belonging, shared purpose and support. For instance, during the pandemic, ERGs focused on women have shared tools for easing burdens for members suddenly facing new challenges of child-care demands while working from home. Likewise, they’ve given important feedback to help shape company policies and benefits.Continue Reading DEI Matters: How Employee Resource Groups Can be Your Company’s Strategic Ally
Biometric Protections May Be Coming to California Soon | Employers Should Get Ahead Now
With special thanks to our data privacy colleague Helena Engfeldt for her contributions.
On February 17, 2022, California Senator Bob Wieckowski introduced a bill (SB 1189) that would add protections for biometric information and establish a private right of action permitting individuals to allege a violation of the law and bring a civil action. The legislation is similar to the Biometric Information Privacy Act in Illinois (BIPA) which is creating expensive headaches for Illinois employers. (Read about the latest BIPA developments here.) If enacted, the law will cover all employers that use biometric time-keeping systems in California. Many employers would have to navigate the law alongside other California privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Here’s what employers need to know about SB 1189:
Covered employers?
The bill would apply to any private entity regardless of size. “Private entity” is defined as an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or similar group, however organized.
How does the bill define biometric information?
- A person’s physiological, biological, or behavioral characteristics, including information pertaining to an individual’s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), that can be used or is intended to be used, singly or in combination with each other or with other identifying data, to establish individual identity;
- It includes, but is not limited to, imagery of the iris, retina, fingerprint, face, hand, palm, vein patterns, and voice recordings, from which an identifier template, such as a faceprint, a minutiae template, or a voiceprint, can be extracted, and keystroke patterns or rhythms, gait patterns or rhythms, and sleep, health, or exercise data that contain identifying information.