Photo of Sofia Chesnokova

The writing is on the wall: remote work is here to stay. According to data collected by Ladders, three million professional jobs in the US went permanently remote in the fourth quarter 2021 alone. By the end of 2021, 18 percent of all professional jobs in the US were remote. Ladders projects that number will be close to 25 percent by the end of 2022. Of course, this leaves employment lawyers and HR professionals wondering — what employment laws apply to our distributed workforce?

One particularly thorny issue facing employers in this context is the permissibility of post-termination non-competition agreements. Non-compete laws and their requirements differ greatly from state to state. For example, in Illinois, one of the requirements is that the employee must earn at least $75,000 annually in order to enter into an enforceable post-termination non-compete, but in Oregon, that minimum annual income threshold increases to $100,533 — and that same employee would be subject to no income threshold if Missouri law applied. On the other hand, in Colorado, where post-termination non-competes are generally unlawful, the employer could soon face misdemeanor criminal liability for seeking to enforce an unlawful post-termination non-compete against any employee, and in California, the employer could be exposed to compensatory and punitive damages if a claim is accompanied by other deemed tortious conduct (e.g., interference with the employee’s future employment prospects by seeking to enforce the unlawful agreement).

In this post, we analyze how remote work further muddles the already complicated landscape of post-termination non-competes and how employers can best navigate this complex backdrop.

What law applies? Guidance from recent case law

One issue arising out of remote work is knowing what state’s law will apply when it comes to the enforceability of non-compete restrictions. With remote work, long gone are the days where an employer can be relatively certain that the state where an employee is located at the beginning of the employment relationship will be the same state that employee is living and working in at the end of the employment relationship. As a result, when the need to enforce non-compete restrictions arises, the parties may dispute what state’s law should apply to the non-compete (e.g., the state where the employee was located when they entered into the contract, the state where the employee began work for the employer, or the state whether the employee was living or working at the end of the employment relationship).

Continue Reading Navigating The Intersection Of Remote Work And State-Specific Post-Termination Non-Compete Laws

With special thanks to our data privacy colleagues Jonathan Tam and Helena Engfeldt for their contributions.

It’s increasingly common for employers to use social media during the hiring process. The temptation is obvious — there’s a wealth of potentially useful information about applicants available online. It’s not unreasonable to wish to use social media to understand a prospective employee’s professional qualifications and skills to determine whether they fit with the criteria for the position. It’s no wonder that a recent survey from The Harris Poll finds that seventy-one percent of US hiring decision-makers agree that looking at candidates’ social media profiles is an effective way to screen applicants. Furthermore, 70% believe employers should screen all applicants’ social media profiles, while the majority (67%) say they use social networking sites to research potential job candidates.

Despite the potential benefits, this sleuthing causes significant heart burn for employment and privacy lawyers and HR professionals. While social media can be a fruitful way to find and recruit candidates, a minefield of legal risks appear when companies use social media during the screening process.

Potential Risks

  • Discrimination! Federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in hiring based on a prospective employee’s protected class. The danger of researching applicants using social media is that you may become aware that the applicant belongs to a protected category – something that through the general application process you otherwise would be unaware of. And, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. If a recruiter or hiring manager has accessed this data, it is difficult to prove that they were not influenced by it in their hiring decision.


Continue Reading Guardrails For Using Social Media During The Hiring Process

California has always kept employers on their toes when it comes to changing employment laws. This year is no exception. Here is our roundup of the top 10 developments California employers need to know. (And scroll down to see what’s on the horizon!)

  1. Minimum Wage Increases

Effective January 1, 2022, the California state minimum wage increased to $15.00 per hour ($14.00 per hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees). As a result, the minimum monthly salary for California exempt employees increased to $5,200, or $62,400 on an annual basis (which is two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment).

For computer software employees, their minimum hourly rate of pay increased to $50.00 and the minimum monthly salary increased to $8,679.16 ($104,149.81 annually).  And for licensed physicians and surgeons, the minimum hourly rate of pay increased to $91.07 .

Some counties and cities have imposed their own higher minimum wage rates, including Los Angeles, where a $15 minimum wage for all employers took effect in July 2021. The following local minimum wages took effect on January 1, 2022, regardless of employer size:

Continue Reading Top 10 California Employment Law Updates for 2022

Special thanks to Melissa Allchin and Lothar Determann.

Our California Employer Update webinar is designed to ensure that California in-house counsel are up to speed on the top employment law developments of 2021 and are prepared for what’s on the horizon in 2022.

With our “quick hits” format, we provide a content-rich presentation complete

Special thanks to guest contributor, Melissa Allchin

Corporate travel came to a standstill early in the pandemic, however with strong vaccination rates and the easing of quarantine requirements, companies are starting to plan to resume travel for meetings, conferences and employee incentives.

In this Quick Chat video, Baker McKenzie’s Labor and Employment and Global

In April, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a statewide right-to-recall law — S.B. 93 — affecting certain employers. One of the key provisions of the new law, which has not been subject to much discussion, is how it affects corporate transactions.

In this article, we discuss how this new statute that could present challenges for

[With special thanks to our summer associate Whitney Chukwurah for her contribution to this post.]

All private employers with 100 or more employees in the US and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees in the US must report data on race/ethnicity and gender across job categories in their annual EEO-1 filings. As previously reported (HERE), in 2016, under the Obama Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission revised the EEO-1 form to require certain employers to report W-2 wage information and total hours worked (referred to as Component 2 Data) for all employees by race, ethnicity and sex within 12 EEOC created pay bands.

The implementation of the revised EEO-1 form has been subject to litigation; however, covered employers now have until September 30, 2019 to provide EEOC with pay data.

Continue Reading New EEOC Guidance On Submitting Component 2 Pay Data

While the benefits of arbitration clauses in employment documents with US employees are highly publicized and well known, arbitration clauses with employees outside of the US (OUS) are much less prevalent due to enforceability issues and administrative hurdles.

Unlike in the US, where arbitration can often be quicker, limit opportunities for appeal, and affords greater confidentiality, this is not always the case OUS.


Continue Reading Arbitration of Employment Claims Globally

As employment lawyers based in California are well aware that post-employment non-compete agreements are generally void as a matter of law in this state. Further, there is precedent for awarding punitive damages and disgorgement of profits where employers have knowingly required employees to enter into invalid agreements. Also, the DOL has actively pursued California-based companies engaging in anti-competitive practices when it comes to talent.

Against that backdrop, however, employers need not “throw in the towel” completely when it comes to post-termination restrictive covenants as there are a few narrow scenarios that allow for enforceable post-termination non-competes in California in the right circumstances, and a potential new take on an old strategy to consider.

Continue Reading Can Employers Use The California Labor Code To Protect Company Assets?