With special thanks to our presenters Matías Herrero (Argentina), Leticia Ribeiro (Trench Rossi Watanabe, Sao Paulo*), Andrew Shaw (Canada), Maria Cecilia Reyes (Colombia) and Liliana Hernandez-Salgado (Mexico).
In this session, US-based multinational employers with business operations in the Americas region hear directly from Benjamin Ho and local practitioners on the major developments they need to
This summer the US Supreme Court will rule on the legality of using race as an affirmative action measure in admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina. The legal framework for evaluating affirmative action programs in higher education is definitively different than for inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) programs in the employment context. Notwithstanding this distinction, the decision will signal how courts review workplace ID&E practices and policies, and may encourage legal challenges regarding the same.
The timing of this case coincides with a growing trend of state and local legislation seeking to restrict workplace ID&E efforts, increasing claims of reverse discrimination, continued shareholder action in the ID&E space, including some actions challenging the devotion of resources to ID&E as not in the interest of shareholders, and attacks on laws mandating diversity on corporate boards.
In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (a nonprofit group of “students, parents and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional”) sued both Harvard and UNC in federal court alleging that race-conscious admissions programs are unlawful. Both universities won at the trial court level. Now, SFFA has asked the Supreme Court to overrule its prior decisions and hold that the consideration of race as part of a holistic college admissions process in order to achieve a diverse student body violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.Continue Reading How the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Affirmative Action Decision May Impact US Employers
With special thanks to presenters Elif Nur Çakır Vurgun (Türkiye), Johan Botes (South Africa), Joanna Matthews-Taylor (United Arab Emirates), Christiana O’Connell-Schizas (Saudi Arabia) and Ghada El Ehwany (Egypt).
In this session, US-based multinational employers with business operations in the Middle East and Africa region hear directly from Elizabeth Ebersole and local practitioners on the major
With special thanks to Nadege Dallais (France), Emma Glazener (Netherlands), Fermin Guardiola (Spain), Stephen Ratcliffe (United Kingdom), Bernhard Trappehl (Germany) and Lucille Vallet (France).
Last week a group of our favorite European colleagues joined us in the Bay Area for a few special client visits. Even if you weren’t in the room, we’ll share a few key headlines here. (And, here’s link to listen in to our recent webinar: Global Employment Law Fastpass — Spotlight on Europe!)
From practical tips on the best ways to implement employee redundancies to the expected impact of the recently-passed EU Directive on Pay Transparency, here’s five things to know:
1. The EU Whistleblowing Directive (WBD) Requires Private Employers with 50 or More Workers to Establish a Local, Entity Level Reporting Hotline
The WBD was supposed to be implemented by the EU’s 27 member states by December 2021, but we are still waiting for around 8 EU member states to do so. For example, France, Belgium and Austria have transposed the WBD, Germany has not but is close. Spanish companies with at least 250 employees have until June 13, 2023 to comply. (For more, read our alert here.)
While legislation is still awaited in a number of jurisdictions, we are now in a much better position to see the challenges the WBD poses for global employers. . . and there are several.
Fortunately, we have a multijurisdictional analysis matrix covering five key areas of WBD compliance at a local level available at a fixed fee per jurisdiction so that companies operating in the EU can wrap their arms around this new requirement. The matrix answers questions about the Directive’s scope and implementation requirements for internal procedures, protection of whistleblowers and data privacy issues. Our experienced team of lawyers can then assist with implementing the changes, as well as with training, communications and more.
2. The EU Pay Transparency Directive is Coming and as the Kids Say, It’s Extra
Last month the European Parliament formally adopted the Pay Transparency Directive and its provisions are likely to enter into force in most EU member states in 2026. It’s sort of a big deal, requiring significant attention and touching on many aspects of the employment lifecycle (read our detailed alert here).
A preview: there are pre-employment pay transparency requirements, and broad worker and representative rights to workforce pay information. The impact may be more muted in countries like France where works councils already have access to pay data, though the access will become much more granular under the Directive.Continue Reading A Hop, Skip and a Jump Around Europe | Insights for US Employers Operating Abroad
With special thanks to presenters Michael Michalandos (Australia), Jonathan Isaacs (China), Kenneth Chua (Philippines) and Celeste Ang (Singapore).
Our four-part Global Employment Law Fastpass for US Multinationals 2023 Webinar Series features US moderators welcoming Baker McKenzie colleagues from around the globe as they share the latest labor and employment law updates and trends.
In this
California has required all employers to provide lactation breaks (unless they can show that to do so would “seriously disrupt” their operations) since 2020. The federal government caught up late last year with the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act).
PUMP Act — The Basics
Effective December 29, 2022, the PUMP Act expands workplace protections for employees with a need to express breast milk. The Pump Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which required employers to provide lactating non-exempt employees with reasonable break time and a private location to express milk for one year following the birth of a child.
The previous law excluded most salaried employees, and the PUMP Act expands this right to cover all employees whether exempt or non-exempt. Now employers must provide all employees a reasonable break to express milk each time the employee has a need to express milk for one year after the child’s birth.Continue Reading ICYMI: New Federal Obligations for Employers to Provide Breaks for Nursing Mothers and Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Women
California legislators met on April 11, 2023 to discuss a proposed overhaul of employment-related criminal background checks. Simply put, if the Fair Chance Act of 2023 (SB 809) is passed into law, California will have the most restrictive criminal background check law in the country, and will significantly limit the way California employers can vet applicants for employment. Under existing state law, California employers may conduct a criminal background check for most positions only after making an initial offer of employment, and they may make adverse employment decisions based on criminal history only after conducting an individualized assessment that considers the nature of the offense and the duties of the job. While these existing restrictions are significant in their own right, the proposed new law will effectively eliminate criminal history consideration in most circumstances, allowing legislators to further reduce barriers to employment for people with criminal histories.
The Fair Chance Act will, among other things, “make it an unlawful employment practice to take adverse action against an employee or discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment based on their arrest or conviction history.” SB 809. In essence, the proposed law will all but ban employment-related criminal background checks, except for positions for which such checks are authorized or required by statute. And in the limited circumstances where criminal history checks are permitted, the Fair Chance Act will require employers to post a clear and conspicuous notice informing applicants and employees of their rights. The new law also will impose on employers additional document and data retention obligations for completed background checks.Continue Reading California Seeks to Ban Most Criminal Background Checks
Special thanks to co-author, Jeff Bauman.
It is common practice for US-based multinational companies to adopt executive severance plans to provide for additional benefits to be paid to executives in the event of certain specified termination events, including those in connection with the change of control of the parent. These benefits may consist of
Special thanks to Geoff Martin and Maria Piontkovska.
On March 3, 2023, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published details of a three year Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks (the “Compensation Pilot Program”). The Compensation Pilot Program is effective March 15, 2023 and from that date it will be applicable to all corporate criminal matters handled by the DOJ Criminal Division. At the same time, DOJ also updated its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance document to reflect the criteria introduced by the Compensation Pilot Program, among other updates.
Background and Objectives of the Compensation Pilot Program
The concept of incentivizing corporate compliance by structuring compensation programs to reward compliant behaviors and punish non-compliant ones, is nothing new. For example, prior editions of the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs addressed appropriate incentives for company management and executives to promote good governance and compliance, and expectations about the consistent application of discipline against employees found to be involved in misconduct.
However, in a September 2022 memo to DOJ prosecutors titled: “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group“, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco indicated that DOJ intended to go further on this particular topic. In the memo, Monaco indicated that DOJ would expect companies to design compensation structures not only to incentivize and reward good compliance practices, but also to financially penalize individual employees found to have been engaged in misconduct, including by clawing back compensation after the fact.
DOJ’s objective in this initiative is to encourage companies to redistribute some of the cost and penalties associated with individuals’ criminal conduct away from the company (and its shareholders) and onto the individuals themselves. Because misconduct is often discovered after the fact, measures that enable retroactive discipline and clawback of compensation already paid, are of particular importance to DOJ. These measures also reinforce DOJ’s continued focus on individual accountability which has been another of DOJ’s recent areas of focus in addressing corporate criminal matters.
Six months after Monaco’s memo, the Compensation Pilot Program now puts concrete DOJ policy in place to implement those objectives. At the end of the three year pilot period, DOJ will determine whether the Compensation Pilot Program will be extended or modified. If it is deemed a success, we can expect the Compensation Pilot Program to be fully adopted by DOJ. Continue Reading Practical Considerations When Addressing New DOJ Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Program
As predicted, Governor Pritzker signed the “Paid Leave for All Workers Act” into law on Monday, March 13. Accordingly, beginning January 1, 2024, Illinois employers must provide most employees with a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave per year to be used for any reason at all–not just for sick leave.
