California’s regulators have made employment noncompetes (and knowing which employees are bound by them and how!) a key compliance item.
Effective January 1, 2024, AB 1076 amends Section 16600 of the state’s Business and Professions Code to “void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment
Special thanks to Celeste Ang and Stephen Ratcliffe.
We launched the seventh annual edition of The Year Ahead: Global Disputes Forecast, a research-based thought leadership surveying 600 senior legal and risk leaders from large organizations around the world and highlights key issues we anticipate to be crucial for disputes for this year.
The US Supreme Court’s SFFA decision ending affirmative action in higher education continues to have ramifications for corporate America. Attacks to workplace DEI are gaining momentum with targeted challenges from a variety of angles, not the least of which are those coming from conservative advocacy groups filing lawsuits, requesting agency investigations and pursuing other complaints. Just last week, as many prepared to watch Taylor Swift’s boyfriend perform in the Super Bowl, America First Legal (a nonprofit founded by a former adviser to Donald Trump) filed an EEOC complaint against the NFL challenging the Rooney Rule, a widely used hiring practice that emanated in the NFL and is followed across corporate America. For in-house counsel, this just further emphasizes the need to continue to diligently monitor the changing DEI landscape for signals warranting targeted audits or adjustments to workplace DEI programming.
When should in-house counsel take action? Let’s start to answer that question by looking at where we are now and the escalation of events in the past 7 months.
Thirteen attorneys general used SFFA to support their opposition to corporate DEI programs (see letter to Fortune 100 CEOs here). In response, attorneys general from other states wrote to the same CEOs stating that SFFA “does not prohibit, or even impose new limits on, the ability of private employers to pursue diversity, equity, and inclusion.”Continue Reading Is The Risk Calculus Related To Workplace DEI Shifting For US Employers This Election Year?
DC is the first jurisdiction in 2024 to join the likes of many states (including California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Washington) in requiring pay transparency in job postings.
On January 12, 2024, Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Wage Transparency Omnibus Amendment Act of 2023. If the Act survives the 30-day period of review by Congress (as required under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act), it will go into effect June 30, 2024.
The Act will apply to employers with at least one employee in DC.
Covered employers must provide the minimum and maximum projected hourly or salary pay in all job listings, as well as a description of the position. Employers will also be required to disclose the existence of healthcare benefits to prospective employees before the first interview. Further, in line with several states that have passed salary history ban laws, employers will be prohibited from screening applicants based on their wage history, or seeking the wage history of a candidate from a former employer. Finally, employers will also be required to post a notice in their workplaces notifying employees of their rights under the Act. This notice must be posted in a conspicuous place, in at least one location where employees congregate. Continue Reading New Year, New Rules in DC: This January the District of Columbia Joins the Pay Transparency Club
In late breaking news out of New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has vetoed legislation that would have imposed the most restrictive state-level ban on employee non-competes in the United States. Last June, the New York State Assembly passed S3100, which if signed by Governor Hochul, would have voided any contract restraining anyone from engaging in a
Last year, California lawmakers double-downed on the state’s hostility to noncompete agreements. One of the new provisions requires written notice to current and former employees that their noncompete is void – unless an exception applies – by Valentine’s Day (February 14, 2024).
First, as covered in our Legislative Reference Guide, SB 699 extends the reach of the state’s ban on noncompetes to contracts signed out of state; creates a private right of action for employees whose agreements include restrictive covenants and provides for attorney fees for any current, former, or even prospective employee who successfully brings suit against an employer’s use of those restrictive covenants.
Second, AB 1076, codifies the 2008 Edward v. Arthur Andersen decision that invalidated all employment noncompetes, including narrowly tailored ones, unless they satisfy a statutory exception. In addition, impacting your Valentine’s Day plans, the legislation requires California employers to individually notify current and former employees employed since January 1, 2022 in writing by February 14, 2024 that their noncompete clauses are void. Individualized notice is required to the employee’s last known mailing and email addresses.Continue Reading No Love Lost: California’s Continued Crackdown on Noncompetes Requires Breakup Letters Sent Before Valentine’s Day
In 2023, we helped US employers overcome a host of new challenges across the employment law landscape. Many companies started the year with difficult cost-cutting decisions and hybrid work challenges. More recently, employers faced challenges around intense political discourse boiling over in the workplace. We’ve worked hard to keep our clients ahead of the curve on these
Recent and rapid artificial intelligence developments have captured public attention and much has been discussed around how organizations will need to prepare.
From an employment standpoint, the increasingly sophisticated potential for AI applications spans the entire employee lifecycle, from recruitment to onboarding, training and more.
In the second report in our Workforce Redesign: Outlooks
In many cases, when a candidate is recruited, they offered a new hire grant of equity awards and (possibly) subsequent “refresh” grants. Depending on the company, this can be a significant component of the employee’s total compensation and may be the most important piece to get the candidate to accept the offer.
So, naturally, companies tend to include information about the equity awards in the offer letter provided to the candidate, together with information about the employment terms (e.g., base pay, bonus eligibility, etc.).
If the candidate is to be employed by an entity outside the United States that is different/separate from the company that will be granting the equity awards (typically the parent company), we strongly recommend changing this practice. In a nutshell, we would advise to delete any references to the equity awards from the offer letter (as well as from any employment agreement that may be provided later or at the same time) and to communicate information regarding the equity awards in a separate equity award side letter that is provided by the granting company. Continue Reading The Case for Not Mentioning Equity Awards in Offer Letters
