Reductions in force (RIFs) are rarely straightforward—especially for multinational employers. Navigating conflicting labor laws, benefits obligations, cultural expectations, and logistical hurdles requires strategic planning and coordination to stay compliant and minimize disruption.
In this video chat, our Employment and Compensation attorneys unpack the legal and practical challenges of RIFs inside and outside of the US.
Top Strategies to Safeguard Tech Trade Secrets
“As tech firms compete to attract and retain tech talent while adjusting their workforces for future business growth, employee movement has increased, making the protection of trade secrets from competitors more crucial than ever. Baker McKenzie’s international depth in handling these complex competitor trade secret disputes around the globe allow us to better advise our clients and allow them to leverage our worldwide industry experience in this field.
Continue Reading Top Strategies to Safeguard Tech Trade Secrets
Bradford Newman, Chair of North America Trade Secrets Practice, Palo AltoTrade secrets give tech companies a competitive edge in a rapidly evolving landscape, where success depends on the ability to innovate. The unauthorized acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets can result in significant loss and disruption, making it essential for organizations to have robust safeguards in place to protect their trade secrets. Here, we explore clear steps organizations can take to manage and mitigate risks with a focus on trade secret identification and the role of employees in trade secret protection.
Mission Critical: Protecting Tech Trade Secrets
Fast-paced developments
The technology sector continues to experience huge transformation with emerging technologies and advancements in AI. Companies are investing heavily in developing capabilities, and new services and products. Rapid innovation and desire to be first to market, has caused trade secrets to become an increasingly preferred method of protection over other types of intellectual property regimes, such as applying for a patent, which can be costly and raise complex timing considerations. Trade secrets can protect algorithms, processes, datasets, customer lists, and more. The trade secrets of companies at the forefront of AI and other tech innovation are highly valuable.
Expanding threat landscape
Threat actors are leveraging tech advancements to steal vast amounts of company information through more sophisticated and efficient attacks. Heightened internet usage increases hacking risks from competitors, foreign governments and hacktivist groups.
AI developments currently require high computational power, concentrating progress in large tech companies. However, the competitor landscape is changing, with many start-ups and established companies building applications within the AI technology stack, alongside new players entering the AI frontier race. The demand for tech talent with the skills to drive innovation is at all-time high, making trade secret protection critical.
In the past few years, tech companies have also been especially susceptible to the public disclosure of confidential internal documents by employee activists motivated by non-monetary factors.
Legal remedies
Legal frameworks for protecting trade secrets have become more robust and varied across jurisdictions. Injunctive relief (to prevent use of trade secrets and reclaim them) is an essential tool in trade secret breach cases. Victims may also pursue financial remedies, such as damages.
Organizations should lay the groundwork to maximize their options in the event of breach. Penalties for trade secret theft include fines and imprisonment for criminal offences, and even economic sanctions. These penalties broaden the options available to victims, provide an avenue that avoids some of the practicalities of enforcement from a business point of view, and serve as a powerful deterrent.
“One factor making effective action against employee trade secret theft more difficult is that employees increasingly use personal devices or personal messaging apps to capture or transmit work-related information; companies’ ability to access employees’ personal devices and communications through personal messaging apps is limited.
Jonathan Isaacs, Head of China Employment Practice, Hong Kong“As tech firms compete to attract and retain tech talent while adjusting their workforces for future business growth, employee movement has increased, making the protection of trade secrets from competitors more crucial than ever. Baker McKenzie’s international depth in handling these complex competitor trade secret disputes around the globe allow us to better advise our clients and allow them to leverage our worldwide industry experience in this field.
Continue Reading Top Strategies to Safeguard Tech Trade Secrets
Bradford Newman, Chair of North America Trade Secrets Practice, Palo Alto
SCOTUS Settles Conflict on Standard of Proof for FLSA Exemptions: Preponderance of the Evidence Prevails
The Supreme Court of the United States recently settled a circuit split on the standard of proof required to classify employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime pay provisions. In a unanimous opinion, SCOTUS held in EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard–and
California Employer 2025 Checklist: Top 10 Changes to Know this January
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 Change | Employer To-Dos | |
| (1) | Minimum |
California’s CLE Compliance Deadline Is Approaching – We can help!
Join our AI and Cyber CLE Series
If your last name starts with A-G, you are probably well aware that your (recently extended) MCLE compliance deadline is on March 30, 2025. In addition to the general credit requirement, the state of California requires all attorneys to complete:
- At least four hours of legal ethics
- At least two hours on competence issues
- At least two hours on the elimination of bias in the legal profession and society. Of the two hours, at least one hour must focus on implicit bias and the promotion of bias‑reducing strategies.
- At least one hour on technology
- At least one hour on civility
Continue Reading California’s CLE Compliance Deadline Is Approaching – We can help!
End of Year Employment Law Updates! Tune in to our review / previews in California, Illinois, Canada and Mexico
2024 was a ‘super year’ for elections. Half of the world’s population – some 4.7 billion people – went to the polls in 72 countries. Political shifts often lead to significant changes in employment laws. We’re here to help you prepare for the changes ahead and to stay ahead of the curve on employment law developments
Back to Business: Trump’s Second Term and the Four Major Shifts Employers Should Expect
Companies with a US workforce can expect material changes to employment laws under the Trump administration, with impacts felt across their business operations. President-elect Trump’s first term, his campaign platform, and the typical shifts in a Democratic to Republican transition provide clues about what’s to come: federal agencies, policies and rules will become more business-centered and many of the Biden-era worker-focused protections will be rolled back.
Below are four major shifts we anticipate:
(1) Significant shifts in US Department of Labor policy
The end of the DOL’s 2024 final overtime rule. On November 15, 2024, a federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of the DOL’s final rule in its entirety, thereby preventing the agency from instituting increases to the salary thresholds for the “white collar” overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the government may appeal the judge’s order before the change in administration, any such appeal is likely to be short-lived come January 2025.
Accordingly, employers can halt plans to change their compensation levels or exempt classifications in response to the now-blocked rule. If such changes have already been made, employers should consult with counsel on how best to unwind undesirable changes, if any.
A lower burden for employers to classify workers as independent contractors under federal law. Trump will likely reverse Biden’s worker-friendly contractor classification efforts, making it easier for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, and pivoting away from the Biden administration’s 2024 DOL independent contractor rule.
Notwithstanding this easing at the federal level, employers must remember that, under US and state law, there is no single test for independent contractor classification. Many states have their own tests, which are often more stringent than federal law and that apply to state wage and hour claims. Moreover, even within the same states, different tests will apply to unemployment claims, workers’ compensation, wage and hour, and taxation.Continue Reading Back to Business: Trump’s Second Term and the Four Major Shifts Employers Should Expect
HR Trend Watch: Maintaining compliance while unlocking the talent rewards of flexible work arrangements
We are clearly (and thankfully) well past the pandemic, and yet demands for flexible and remote work press on. While the overall global trend of transforming the traditional 9-to-5 work model is consistent, laws governing flexible work arrangements can vary significantly by jurisdiction.
We monitor this space closely (see our previous update here) and advise multinational companies on a multitude of issues bearing on remote, hybrid and flexible arrangements, including health & safety rules, working time regulations, tax and employment benefit issues, cybersecurity and data privacy protections, workforce productivity monitoring and more.
Key recent updates around the globe (organized by region) include:
Asia Pacific
- Australia: Right to disconnect – Working 9 to [to be determined…]?
In August 2024, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission finalized the new “right to disconnect” model term, which will soon be inserted into all modern awards. Whilst we wait for the Fair Work Commission to issue its guidance on the new workplace right, here’s what you should know, and what we think you should do to prepare for the introduction of the right to disconnect
Illinois Joins Colorado and NYC in Restricting Generative AI in HR (Plus a Quick Survey of the Legal Landscape Across the US and Globally)
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)
PAGA Reform: A Breath of (Some?) Fresh Air for Employers
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