Photo of Michael E. Brewer

Michael E. Brewer

Subscribe to Michael E. Brewer's Posts
Contact:Read more about Michael E. Brewer

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)

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

This fall, California voters will have the opportunity to decide the fate of the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). After receiving more than the 700,000 signatures in support, the “California Employee Civil Action Law and PAGA Repeal Initiative” has qualified for the November 5, 2024 state ballot. If the initiative passes, PAGA will be repealed and replaced with the “Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act,” which will double the statutory and civil penalties for willful state labor law violations, require 100% of monetary penalties be awarded to employees, and provide resources to employers to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws. The new law will preclude plaintiffs’ attorneys from recovering any fees in actions brought under the statute and impose other requirements to effectively “de-deputize” citizen attorneys general.

What Would the New Law Do?

In response to wide ranging criticism of PAGA, the ballot initiative seeks to repeal and replace PAGA with the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act. If passed, the initiative would:

  • Double statutory and civil penalties for willful violations;
  • Award 100% of monetary penalties to employees (instead of the current 25%);
  • Provide resources to employers to ensure labor compliance and allow employers opportunities to cure violations without penalties;
  • Require that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) be a party to all labor complaints;
  • Prohibit award of attorneys’ fees (which are currently permitted under PAGA); and
  • Require that the state legislature fully fund the DLSE to meet the division’s requirements by law.

Continue Reading Is the End in Sight for PAGA Actions? Californians May Vote “YES” on November 5, 2024.

Millions of additional employees will soon be eligible for federal overtime because of the Department of Labor’s April 23 Final Rule. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), certain salaried employees are exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime requirements if they are employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) capacity. This is sometimes called the “white collar” exemption. The Final Rule:

  • Increases the minimum salary requirement for the EAP exemption from $684 per week ($35,568 annualized) to $844 per week ($43,888 annualized) effective July 1, 2024 and to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annualized) effective January 1, 2025; and
  • Increases the minimum total annual compensation level for exemption as a “highly compensated employee”—e.g., one who customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee—from $107,432 to $132,964 effective July 1, 2024 and to $151,164 effective January 1, 2025.

Continue Reading DOL Raises the Federal Overtime Salary Threshold | Next Steps for US Employers

The Department of Labor’s “new” rule for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act took effect March 11, 2024. The DOL’s Final Rule returns employers to a familiar pre-Trump administration totality of the circumstances test that focuses on the “economic realities” of the worker’s situation. The practical impact is that it is now harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, and it will likely increase federal wage and hour claims.

There are mounting legal challenges to the Final Rule contesting the DOL’s rulemaking authority. However, to date, none of the suits have been successful at blocking implementation of the Final Rule. So, for now, it stands.

Practice pointer: different legal tests for different laws

Employers new to the US are often baffled to learn that no single test exists to evaluate independent contractor status for all purposes. This means compliance is complicated since different tests may apply depending on the context. And yes, this also means that it’s feasible for a worker to be an independent contractor for some purposes and an employee for others (such as under state and federal law, for example). Continue reading for a summary of the key tests that come up most often for US multinationals.Continue Reading New DOL Rule Makes it Harder to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors (Plus a Quick Recap of the Key Misclassification Standards Across the US)

Baker McKenzie’s North America Trade Secrets Practice is a true cross-disciplinary team of industry ranked and recognized intellectual property, employment, tech transaction, litigation and trial attorneys exclusively dedicated to helping clients identify, protect, prosecute and defend their most valuable, complex and market-differentiating trade secrets throughout the US, Canada, Mexico and globally.

Our Focus on Trade…

Special thanks to Celeste Ang and Stephen Ratcliffe.

We launched the seventh annual edition of The Year Ahead: Global Disputes Forecast, a research-based thought leadership surveying 600 senior legal and risk leaders from large organizations around the world and highlights key issues we anticipate to be crucial for disputes for this year.

Combining the views of 600 senior in-house lawyers at multinational companies across four continents with the insights of Baker McKenzie experts in tax, employment and antitrust, the 7th Edition of our Global Disputes Forecast helps in-house counsel see around corners as they prepare for 2024. The forecast includes detailed predictions for disputes involving ESG, cybersecurity…

Tracking and complying with federal, state, and local wage and hour requirements has long been top of mind for employer as wage and hour liability continues to be one of the most expense employment law risks. Indeed, in 2022, the 10 largest reported settlements for wage and hour actions totaled $574 million.

Currently, in…

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
You signed a noncompete,
That may not be true.

Last year, California lawmakers double-downed on the state’s hostility to noncompete agreements. One of the new provisions requires written notice to current and former employees that their noncompete is void – unless an exception applies – by Valentine’s Day (February 14, 2024).

Two New Bills Restricting Noncompetes in California

First, as covered in our Legislative Reference Guide, SB 699 extends the reach of the state’s ban on noncompetes to contracts signed out of state; creates a private right of action for employees whose agreements include restrictive covenants and provides for attorney fees for any current, former, or even prospective employee who successfully brings suit against an employer’s use of those restrictive covenants.

Second, AB 1076, codifies the 2008 Edward v. Arthur Andersen decision that invalidated all employment noncompetes, including narrowly tailored ones, unless they satisfy a statutory exception. In addition, impacting your Valentine’s Day plans, the legislation requires California employers to individually notify current and former employees employed since January 1, 2022 in writing by February 14, 2024 that their noncompete clauses are void. Individualized notice is required to the employee’s last known mailing and email addresses.Continue Reading No Love Lost: California’s Continued Crackdown on Noncompetes Requires Breakup Letters Sent Before Valentine’s Day