Craig Lee and Will Woods from Baker McKenzie’s Antitrust & Competition team shared the following update regarding no-poach agreements:

In July 2018, State Attorneys General from 11 states formed a coalition to investigate no-poach agreements in franchise contracts that restrict the ability to recruit or hire employees from the franchisor or another franchisee of the same chain. As part of the investigation, the coalition requested information about no-poach policies and practices from several fast food franchises.

Continue Reading Risks Of Employee No-Poach Agreements

Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (Case No. S234969), the California Supreme Court weighed in for the first time on the viability of a de minimis defense to California wage and hour claims.

Many commentators have since rushed to declare that “de minimis” is dead. Not so.

Continue Reading California Supreme Court Leaves Open The Possibility Of A De Minimis Defense For Wage And Hour Claims – But Not Under The Facts Of This Case

On July 24, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) – the investigative agency within the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for Form I-9 Compliance – announced that it served I-9 audit notices to more than 5,200 employer since January as part of a two-phase nationwide worksite enforcement operation.

Last week, HSI served 2,738 Notices of Inspection and made 32 arrests. (In contrast, HSI initiated 1,360 I-9 audits in the government’s last fiscal year.)

HSI’s latest worksite investigation effort aligns with then Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan’s forecast in the fall of 2017 to potentially quadruple or quintuple worksite enforcement in 2018. Under prior administrations, ICE has utilized worksite enforcement tools to assess employers’ compliance with immigration laws and impose civil and, potentially, criminal penalties. Yet, with the number of NOIs and arrests showing no signs of stopping under the directive Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, Form I-9 compliance is once again a front and center issue for employers.

Click here to learn about actions employers should take now to prepare for a potential audit notice.

While immigration debates, policies and rules make the news seemingly every day, very few new laws or regulations have actually been implemented for employment-based immigration. Behind the scenes, however, strict new interpretations of existing laws and under-the-radar changes in enforcement have significantly impacted the ability of companies to transfer, hire and keep foreign employees in the United States. Several key changes have been buried in seemingly innocuous policy memorandums and government websites. The impact on companies can be both real and urgent.

While these changes have occurred in different areas, there is one central theme: there is little to no margin for error on the part of employers or employees. Click here to view the four tips employers should consider in this ever-changing environment where compliance is paramount.

On June 11, the UK Government released a draft statutory instrument (The Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018) and accompanying FAQs, which, subject only to Parliamentary approval, will require additional disclosures to be made in the Annual Reports of Listed PLCs* for financial years beginning on or after January 1, 2019. These changes will be implemented via amendments to the Large & Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts & Reports) Regulations 2008.

These new reporting requirements are part of the Government’s wider package of corporate governance reforms announced in August 2017 (for further information on the wider package of reforms, click here, for further information on the UK Corporate Governance Code developments, click here, and for further information on the reforms affecting large private companies and unlisted PLCs, click here).

Summary of the Additional Disclosures Required in the Annual Report

Subject to meeting the relevant thresholds described below, Listed PLCs* will be required to make additional disclosures regarding, among other things:

  • The ratio of the CEO’s pay (the single total figure of remuneration) to the median (50th), 25th and 75th percentile full-time equivalent remuneration of their UK employees;
  • The impact of the future share price on executive pay; and
  • How the directors have engaged with employees.

To read the entire Alert, click here. Thanks to Stephen Ratcliffe and our UK colleagues for sharing.

* A Listed PLC, otherwise referred to as a “quoted company”, is a UK incorporated PLC with equity shares listed on the FCA’s Official List, or on NASDAQ, the NYSE, or a recognised stock exchange in the EEA. It does not include AIM listed companies.

Originally published by Bloomberg Law.

Pay equity is a hot button issue for employers in the United States for a number of reasons—reputational concerns are triggered with increasing shareholder demands for transparency; activist investor groups are pushing companies, particularly in the financial services and technology industries, to disclose gender pay data; and, in the wake of pay equity in the news, employees are asking more questions about the issue.

Compounding the pressure, the gender pay gap also can impact talent acquisition. A recent Glassdoor survey found that 67% of US employees say they would not apply for jobs at employers where they believe a gender pay gap exists. The impact is magnified when looking at millennials. Approximately 80% of millennials, as noted in the Glassdoor survey, say they would not even apply for a job if they believed the company had a gender pay gap, which drives home the point that focusing on equality is, among other things, essential for a positive employer brand in the US market.

Click here to read on.

Happy Mother’s Day! 

May 13 is Mother’s Day in the US, Australia and Canada. As such, it feels apropos to recognize the latest initiatives in the US and around the world aimed at increasing opportunities at work for working mothers (and caregivers more generally). Government-mandated maternity, paternity and parental leave and benefits, as well as robust childcare and eldercare infrastructure are among the most effective public policy investments for promoting gender parity in the workforce. As employers strive to retain working parents and increase female representation in corporate leadership roles, this article highlights how parental leave rights and related benefits are changing to reduce the burden of work-family conflicts on women and encourage men (and even grandparents!) to avail themselves of paternity leave and/or parental leave.

While the intended effects of new legislation in this area are of course positive, it can be challenging for US and multinational employers to navigate the patchwork of statutory requirements that offer varying entitlements based on differing circumstances. Even beyond managing simple compliance, many multinational employers also feel the pressure to stay competitive in the war for talent and to create human resources policies that can be managed centrally in a streamlined fashion, while also locally compliant in jurisdictions outside of the US.

Please click HERE to read our article. We focus on recent entitlements and related benefits made available to employees who manage caregiving responsibilities outside of work and share the updates multinationals need to know.

For more details, please contact your Baker McKenzie lawyer.

On April 30, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion radically changing the legal landscape for any company engaging independent contractors in California. Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County changes the legal test for determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors under California’s wage orders. The Court scrapped the multifactor, flexible test (known as “Borello”) that has been used in California for decades. It adopted the “ABC” test, a standard that has its roots in determination of unemployment tax status in other states and presumes workers are employees instead of independent contractors.

This extraordinary decision will have far-reaching consequences for California companies reliant on independent contractors and likely spur a landslide of litigation for years to come. As such, we are recommending that companies engaging independent contractors in California, in any industry, work with counsel to revisit classification decisions and undertake a cost/benefit analysis of reclassifying workers in the near term.

For more, please read our alert HERE.