The world is facing yet another year of unprecedented changes and complex challenges making uncertainty the new normal.

In the Global Employer Magazine: 2019 Horizon Scanner we review the key themes and trends that dominated the employment law landscape in 2018, and explore the global trends and issues employers need to know about in 2019.

Listen in! We just released three new episodes of The Employer Report podcast series. Each 15-20 minute episode offers on-the-go learning opportunities to navigate the latest developments impacting multinational employers.

  • 2019 Employment Law Changes in China, Australia and Singapore
  • 2019 Employment Law Changes in France, Germany and the UK
  • 2019 Employment Law Changes in Mexico

In recent years, joint employer liability has emerged as a persistent threat for companies who use franchise business models. Franchisors are increasingly facing claims brought by employees of franchisees for entitlements flowing from their employment. The outcome in these cases is unpredictable because the law is undergoing change. As such, the joint employer aspects of

Two recent events in the US vividly illustrate the growing centrality of gender pay equity issues. On one side of the ledger, in early April 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Rizo v. Fresno County Office of Education, held that an employee’s prior salary—either alone or in a combination

In our Global Employer Monthly eAlert, we capture recent employment law developments from across the globe to help you keep up with the ever-changing employment law landscape around the globe.

In this month’s issue, we share updates from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United

A recent Court of Appeal decision in the UK (Tillman v Egon Zehnder Limited) found that a post-termination non-compete restriction was unreasonably wide (and therefore unenforceable) on the basis that there was no carve out for shareholdings in the typically broad restriction which provided that the employee could not “directly or indirectly engage