Photo of Kimberly Franko

Kimberly Franko

Subscribe to Kimberly Franko's Posts
Contact:Read more about Kimberly Franko

When the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its first DEI-related False Claims Act (FCA) settlement in April 2026, a key question emerged: was this an isolated enforcement action or the start of a broader strategy? The answer is now clear.

In recent months, the DOJ has secured additional multi-million dollar FCA settlements with major federal contractors. These headline-grabbing resolutions highlight the administration’s intention to use the FCA as a significant enforcement tool in cases involving workplace DEI initiatives that the DOJ alleges included race- or sex-conscious employment decisions inconsistent with federal anti-discrimination laws.

A Developing Enforcement Trend

The DOJ’s first DEI-related FCA settlement involved a large technology company that agreed to pay USD 17 million to resolve allegations that certain diversity-focused employment practices violated anti-discrimination requirements incorporated into its government contracts. The company denied wrongdoing and did not admit liability. (More here: The Next Stage in Enforcement Escalation: DOJ’s First DEI-Related FCA Settlement.)

Since then, the government has announced increasingly larger settlements involving other prominent federal contractors.

In August, a major professional services firm agreed to pay more than USD 21 million to resolve allegations that race and sex were considered in certain hiring, promotion, staffing, and professional development decisions. The settlement also resolved related claims brought by a private relator under the FCA’s whistleblower provisions.

Continue Reading DOJ Doubles Down: Latest FCA Settlements Signal DEI Enforcement Escalation

In today’s M&A market, carve-out transactions remain one of the most important tools for private equity sponsors and strategic acquirers seeking to acquire high-value businesses from larger corporate groups. Yet while the commercial rationale may be straightforward, workforce execution rarely is. In global carve-outs, workforce issues often become the difference between a transaction that merely closes and a transaction that actually delivers. In our experience, workforce issues are rarely the reason a carve-out is pursued, but they are frequently the reason a transaction becomes more expensive, more complex, or slower to close than expected – all outcomes which can avoided with careful planning. A carve-out is rarely a simple transfer of employees, contracts and assets. More commonly, it requires separating a business that has been deeply embedded within a seller’s global operating structure, with shared employees, shared systems, centralized payroll functions, common benefit plans, employee representative obligations and differing transfer requirements across jurisdictions.

The key challenge is not identifying every workforce issue before signing – that’s impossible. The challenge is identifying the workforce issues that most likely impact deal certainty, closing timelines, costs, or Day 1 operations and building a practical execution plan around them. Most of these workforce issues ultimately stem from three fundamental questions:

  1. Who actually supports the business?
  2. How do those individuals move from Seller to Buyer?
  3. What must be operational on Day 1 for the business to function?

In practice, these questions often arise under intense time pressure, when the deal team is simultaneously negotiating transaction documents, building a TSA, standing up local employer infrastructure, managing employee communications and trying to preserve critical talent. That is why workforce planning needs to start early and be treated as part of the core separation strategy.

Question 1: Who Actually Supports the Business?

The first workforce question in any carve-out sounds simple: Who is part of the business being sold? In practice, it is often one of the most important and complex exercises in the entire transaction.

Continue Reading Global Carve-Outs: Why Workforce Execution Is Often the Critical Path

The EU Pay Transparency Directive’s transposition deadline—June 7, 2026—has passed. As of the June 7 deadline, only a handful of Member States—notably Slovakia, Italy and Lithuania—have fully or largely implemented the Directive, with most others still working through draft legislation or delayed timelines.

Most member states are behind, resulting in uneven implementation across the bloc and leaving employers to navigate a fragmented and evolving landscape with staggered national rollouts and divergent approaches across jurisdictions. Here’s what US-based multinationals need to know now.

The Practical Outlook for Multinational Employers

For US companies managing EU workforces, the next 12–24 months will look like:

Patchwork Implementation

  • Countries will finalize laws on different timelines
  • Some will gold-plate requirements (e.g., broader scope, stricter remedies)
  • Others may take a more minimalist approach

Rolling Compliance Programs

  • Employers will need to sequence implementation by jurisdiction
  • Internal frameworks must be modular and adaptable, not one-size-fits-all

Heightened Litigation & Enforcement Risk

Even before full implementation, expect:

  • Increased employee claims and works council pressure
  • Greater scrutiny of pay equity and transparency practices
  • Use of existing laws (e.g., equal pay frameworks) alongside emerging rules

Reminder of the Directive’s Core Requirements

The Directive introduces a consistent set of core obligations across the employment lifecycle, centered on greater transparency, more rigorous pay monitoring, and enhanced enforcement risk—though the detail and delivery will vary by country.

Continue Reading EU Pay Transparency Directive: Deadlines Missed, But the Real Work Starts Now

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…

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

New York’s employment landscape is undergoing sweeping changes. Recent legislation introduces new compliance challenges across nearly every facet of workplace regulation—from pay transparency to leave entitlements, wage and hour rules, employment agreements, and more.

Employers will need to revise policies, contracts, and day-to-day practices to stay compliant and avoid costly missteps. The time to act…

When a company acquires a startup, the founder often comes with the deal—bringing vision, energy, and deep product expertise. But hiring a founder post-transaction is rarely seamless, and companies should plan from deal inception for the possibility of a rocky breakup down the road. From cultural clashes to misaligned expectations, the risks of a turbulent split are real—and often overlooked amid the urgency of LOI negotiations. Below are five key employment law challenges companies face when bringing a founder into the fold—and ways to navigate the challenges before-and after-the relationship goes south.

1. Bringing the Founder on Board: Transitioning from Entrepreneur to Employee

When a company acquires a startup, retaining the founder as an employee can be a strategic necessity. Founders are frequently integral to getting the deal over the finish line. Their buy-in can make or break negotiations, and offering the founder a post-acquisition role signals respect for their vision while easing resistance. Founders bring invaluable institutional knowledge and serve as a cultural bridge, which reassures investors, helps retain key talent, and drives smooth integration and early-stage success.

However, shifting a founder from entrepreneur to employee often brings legal and operational challenges for all parties—along with psychological hurdles for founders, whose identities are deeply tied to the business.

  • Personal meets transactional: Founders may struggle to navigate the emotional weight of handing over control while also grasping the ramifications of the transaction—making it harder to align expectations with the acquirer. Even the most detailed LOI may fall short in practice, especially when working with founders who approach the deal differently than seasoned acquirers. Acquiring companies can help avoid potential issues by ensuring the founder is supported with strong legal and financial guidance, making it more likely the parties will be able to bridge any differences in priorities and move the deal forward smoothly.
  • Employment status: Founders may have previously operated as owners, consultants, or contractors, so stepping into a formal employee role can be unfamiliar, and can bring new (and sometimes unwelcome) requirements around reporting structure, accountability, and compliance. To avoid confusion by the founder-employee about their employment relationship with the company, avoid dangers of misclassification, and ensure the proper handling of tax, benefits, and compliance obligations, the acquirer should clearly explain and define the founder’s new role as an employee in employment contracts, onboarding materials, and all related HR documentation.
  • Role transition: Transitioning into a structured employee role can feel restrictive for founders: 
    • Founders are used to autonomy and broad decision-making authority and may struggle with operating in a structured corporate environment.
    • Founders often thrive in fast-moving, risk-tolerant environments where quick decisions drive progress. Transitioning to a larger organization’s more structured processes can be difficult, stymieing smooth integration.
    • The founder’s distinct vision and deep commitment to their product or company may not always align with the strategic direction of the acquiring firm, leading to hesitation by the founder around changes the acquirer seeks to implement.

To reduce the risk of founder friction during role transitioning, companies should align early on strategic goals, document all commitments clearly, and design an onboarding plan that respects the founder’s background while setting realistic expectations. Establishing clear guardrails from the outset can help to prevent misalignment and future disputes.

2. Negotiating Compensation: Motivating the Founder in Line with Company Strategy

The negotiation of compensation for a founder post-transaction is inherently complex. While acquiring companies are keen to ensure the founder remains engaged and incentivized post-transaction, the structure of compensation and benefits must also align with the acquirer’s broader compensation philosophy, governance standards, and budget limitations.

  • Equity and vesting: Founders usually want to stay engaged in the business they grew and developed. To keep founders engaged and aligned with the acquirer’s goals, companies need to offer incentives that truly resonate. A mix of rollover equity and a customized equity incentive package often does the trick, with many founders seeking stock options or restricted stock units in connection with the deal. But revisiting prior equity grants can raise sensitive issues around dilution and valuation. Navigating this terrain requires careful attention to securities laws, tax implications, and the structure of company equity plans.
  • Severance and retention: Founders may push for severance terms that go beyond market norms—especially around “good reason” and “change of control” clauses—which can trigger payouts if the founder resigns due to significant changes in role, compensation, or company ownership. While these provisions can help attract and retain top talent, companies must strike a careful balance between offering competitive incentives and preserving the company’s need for flexibility.
  • Non-standard benefits: Founders might negotiate for unique perks—like continued use of company assets, office space, or other non-cash benefits—that fall outside typical executive packages. Each request should be carefully vetted not only for legal compliance but also to ensure the perk is comparable to what other similarly situated leaders receive. Overly generous or inconsistent terms can create tension within leadership teams and raise concerns about governance.
  • Anticipating the exit: Companies should begin planning for a potential separation with the founder as early as compensation negotiations—if not sooner. Assume that if the relationship does not work out, termination will occur without cause, and recognize that such terminations typically carry significant costs in these transactions. Internally, companies should evaluate (i) whether they are comfortable with the financial obligations associated with a without-cause termination, (ii) how equity will be treated, and (iii) whether existing post-employment restrictions provide sufficient protection. Finally, document all decisions clearly to avoid misunderstandings later.
Continue Reading Putting Founders on the Payroll: 5 Post‑Acquisition Employment Law Challenges

Our 2026 Looking Ahead Report explores the trends, developments, and emerging risks shaping financial services in the year ahead, covering topics like agentic AI in fintech, corporate fraud prevention, cybersecurity, workforce strategies, a regional spotlight on the Middle East and much more. Here is an excerpt:

Global workforce strategies for the financial sector

As financial institutions recalibrate their workforce strategies for 2026 and beyond, they face a rapidly shifting regulatory terrain shaped by geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and evolving societal expectations. 2025 has seen a marked acceleration in legal reforms and policy shifts across jurisdictions, with four key themes emerging at the forefront of employment and compliance planning. These trends are not isolated – they are interconnected, and they demand a proactive, globally attuned approach to workforce governance.

The Shifting DEI Landscape

While institutional diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and practices have been subject to more legal scrutiny in the US this year, other regions—particularly EMEA and parts of Asia—are deepening commitments and expanding regulatory requirements. Major US-based financial institutions have scaled back public commitments to DEI, rebranding or removing references to diversity figures and programs in corporate filings, amid heightened political scrutiny under the current US administration. In contrast, many financial institutions across EMEA remain committed to robust DEI frameworks. For example, the UK’s financial regulators have proposed regulatory standards to embed diversity and inclusion into governance structures. And in South Africa, financial and insurance activities is a sector specifically identified under new affirmative action targets now in force. This divergence underscores the need for multinational financial institutions to carefully navigate DEI policy and goals with regional nuance, balancing local regulatory pressures with global values and workforce expectations.

Employers, including those in the financial sector, are under pressure (from both employees and government authorities) to increase transparency, particularly on workforce composition and compensation. In Brazil, for example, equal pay enforcement has intensified, with hundreds of companies inspected in the last year. Some of the significant changes include the US, where certain states, including California, require gender pay reporting, and shareholder activism is driving pay equity disclosures. In the EU, the Pay Transparency Directive requires member states to implement legislation by June 2026, with gender pay gap reporting starting in June 2027. Key requirements include: mandatory pay range disclosure; banning salary history questions; and employee rights to pay information with an increased role overall for worker representatives.

Continue Reading What’s On the Radar for Financial Institutions in 2026?

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