While the benefits of arbitration clauses in employment documents with US employees are highly publicized and well known, arbitration clauses with employees outside of the US (OUS) are much less prevalent due to enforceability issues and administrative hurdles.

Unlike in the US, where arbitration can often be quicker, limit opportunities for appeal, and affords greater confidentiality, this is not always the case OUS.


Continue Reading

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

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

Keeping up with the pace of change in employment law around the world is quite a challenge.

In our Global Employer Monthly eAlert, we capture recent key developments in employment law from across the globe.

In this month’s issue, we share updates from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, Vietnam, Ukraine, the UK

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