Special thanks to co-presenters Jose Larroque, Ma. Rosario Lombera, and Javiera Medina-Reza.
In a climate marked by high levels of insecurity, immigration issues and the anticipated renegotiation of the Trade Agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada, proposed labor reforms under Mexico’s first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, aim
US companies have been granting various forms of share-based awards to employees around the globe for many years, and companies in other countries are increasingly following suit.
Because share-based awards are ubiquitous, and for many companies an important part of the total pay package, we are now also seeing an increasing number of lawsuits and other disputes involving such awards.
Entitlement Claims
These can arise if a company is eliminating or paring back a previously offered share program. In this case, employees who are no longer eligible for awards or receive less/reduced awards may claim that they have become entitled to the awards, such that the company cannot unilaterally eliminate/reduce the program without otherwise compensating the employee. Employees may also try to raise constructive dismissal claims.
A related issue in this situation is whether a company has to notify or consult with existing Works Council or other employee representative bodies regarding the changes to the share program. If Works Council is found to have a consultation right, implementing the change without such consultation can be very problematic and Works Council can take the company to court.
Increased Severance Pay
If an employee is involuntarily terminated, they are often entitled to statutory severance pay. Severance pay is typically calculated based on the employee’s salary paid during a certain period prior to termination. If share-based award income has to be included as salary for this purpose, this can increase (in some cases, significantly) the amount of severance pay due to the employee.Continue Reading Mitigation Strategies for Claims Related to Share-Based Awards
Even employee claims of sexual harassment that occurred before the effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) may end up in court. In Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that acts occurring before the effective date of the EFAA can be deemed to be part and parcel with acts occurring after the effective date–so that all of the claims accrue as of the later date and are subject to the EFAA.
Patricia Olivieri filed suit against her employer Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. (Stifel) and several coworkers in 2021 alleging gender-based discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHL). Olivieri alleged her manager sexually assaulted and repeatedly sexually harassed her, and that after she reported her manager to the company, the defendants allegedly subjected her to a hostile work environment characterized by discrimination and retaliation.
Stifel moved to compel arbitration of Olivieri’s claims based on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement. The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially granted Stifel’s motion to compel in late March 2022, not having been made aware of the enactment of the EFAA on March 3, 2022 by any party. (The EFAA allows a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault to void a pre-dispute arbitration agreement at their discretion. Claims under the EFAA accrue “on or after” March 3, 2022.) In light of the EFAA, Olivieri subsequently moved for reconsideration of the district court’s order requiring her to arbitrate her claims, and the district court turned course, vacating its prior decision and denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court concluded that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims–which alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation both before and after the effective date of the EFAA–were subject to the continuing violation doctrine of accrual and accrued after the EFAA’s effective date. Therefore, the EFAA applied to allow the plaintiff to void her pre-dispute arbitration agreement. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed.Continue Reading Before, After, or Both? Second Circuit Rules Pre-EFAA Activity Can Go to Court Instead of Arbitration
Employers across the country have been relieved of the obligation to comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning most postemployment noncompetes — for now. On August 20, U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in Ryan LLC v. FTC.
In June, we offered our annual Global Employment Law webinar series sharing expert insights on the business climate in major markets around the world for US multinational employers. Baker McKenzie attorneys from over 20 jurisdictions outlined the key new employment law developments and trends that multinationals need to know in four 60-minute sessions.
ICYMI: click below to hear updates for the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East and Africa and contact a member of our team for a deeper dive on any of the information discussed.
Session 1: The Americas
Presenters: Andrew Shaw, Clarissa Lehmen*, Daniela Liévano Bahamón, Benjamin Ho, Liliana Hernandez-Salgado and Matías Gabriel Herrero
Click here to watch the video.
*Trench Rossi Watanabe and Baker McKenzie have executed a strategic cooperation agreement for consulting on foreign law.
On the eve of the Fourth of July, the FTC rule banning most noncompetes is going up in smoke after a federal court in Texas held the US Chamber of Commerce and a tax firm are likely to prevail on their argument that the agency overstepped its authority to adopt the nationwide prohibition.
The decision, on the heels of the US Supreme Court’s ruling reining in federal agency power under the Chevron doctrine, demonstrates the challenge the FTC faces in promulgating substantive regulations dealing with competition in the economy.Continue Reading Red, White and Blocked: Federal Judge Pauses FTC’s Ban on Employment Noncompetes
When companies expand to new countries, they need to prioritize different legal and tax topics depending on whether they are just accepting orders from abroad (B2B or B2C), engaging with distributors, hiring contractors, or setting up formal presences. In this webinar, Baker McKenzie partners provide practical guidance on how to make decisions on going or
The FTC rule banning post-employment noncompetes was published in the Federal Register on May 7, which means the rule will take effect on September 4, 2024, unless pending lawsuits to void the rule are successful.
Despite considerable uncertainty around when, or even whether, the rule will apply, employers should prepare now so as not to be caught flatfooted. The first step is to understand the rule’s parameters and potential impact on your business. Our FAQs guide you through the intricacies of the rule and the steps you should take while waiting for the lawsuits challenging the rule to be resolved.
1. Does the rule apply to B2B noncompetes?
No, the FTC rule does not apply to business-to-business (B2B) noncompetes. Instead, existing federal antitrust laws should continue to be considered when evaluating B2B noncompetes.
2. Does the rule apply to all workers?
No, there are limited exceptions. First, the rule does not invalidate existing noncompete agreements (i.e. agreements entered into on or before the effective date of September 4, 2024) with “senior executives.” After that date, new noncompetes with all US employees will be prohibited.
“Senior executive” means a worker who received “total annual compensation” of at least $151,164 in the preceding year (or the equivalent amount when annualized if the worker was employed during only part of the year) and who is in a “policy-making position.”
Second, the rule does not apply to workers outside of the United States. See FAQ 11 below.Continue Reading Thirteen Things You Didn’t Know About the FTC’s Noncompete Ban and Five Steps to Prepare Now in Case it Takes Effect
2023 was a landmark year for labor in the US, and 2024 is on track to keep up. Last year, the NLRB’s General Counsel was relentless in overturning precedential decisions and standards impacting both unionized and non-unionized employers. The result was an overall employee-friendly shift to labor laws encouraging both unionization and concerted employee actions
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.
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)
