US

Subscribe to US via RSS

ICE, in a “fact sheet” available on its website, has made a significant change to the way it conducts I-9 audits. Specifically, ICE has broadened what it considers to be a “substantive” violation on an I-9. This change is likely to increase the financial penalties employers face during an audit, impacting all employers (including those who have already conducted an internal audit). This change to ICE’s protocol may signal increased enforcement in the coming weeks and months. 

Key Takeaways

In response to this change, employers should: 

  • Conduct an I-9 audit to determine potential penalties under the new guidelines and determine which, if any, substantive errors can be rehabilitated.
  • Conduct internal training to ensure the company has an established I-9 protocol and team to ensure the process is being completed accurately and in a timely manner.
  • Create a protocol for the handling of I-9 audits at the worksite should ICE issue a subpoena.

In more detail

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted on November 6, 1986, requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees and sets forth criminal and civil sanctions for employment-related violations. During an I-9 audit, ICE reviews the accuracy and completeness of an employer’s I-9s to determine the volume of: (i) missing I-9s; (ii) technical violations; and (iii) substantive violations. ICE must permit employers to correct technical violations before issuing a fine; a substantive violation is cause for a fine without opportunity for rehabilitation. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 violation.

Continue Reading Changes to I-9 Penalties Increase Employer Liability

Six months ago, our Back‑to‑School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI examined how the 2025 executive orders—and early guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—led many US-based employers to recalibrate DEI-related risk, conduct DEI health checks, and fine-tune specific initiatives and practices.

In 2026, the risk is not coming from landmark court rulings declaring DEI unlawful. Instead, it is coming from enforcement tools: investigations, subpoenas, contract terms and leverage applied across multiple fronts—often before any litigation is filed.

That reality came into sharper focus on March 26, with the issuance of a new executive order further targeting “DEI discrimination” by federal contractors.

Workplace DEI remains lawful. But employers should expect heightened scrutiny of how programs are structured, incentivized, documented, and defended—through EEOC inquiries, administrative subpoenas, FCA theories tied to certifications, and discovery-driven litigation.

The New Executive Order Enhances DEI Risk for Federal Contractors

The White House’s new executive order—“Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors”—creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. Potential consequences include termination, debarment, and potential False Claims Act (FCA) exposure. The order (and the accompanying Fact Sheet) is operationally consequential: it ties compliance to federal contracting, expands agency access to contractor information, and more explicitly links compliance with these contractual obligations to FCA theories.

Continue Reading Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers

Employee monitoring tools — badge and access logs, video surveillance, productivity and activity tracking, and even biometrics — can strengthen security and operations, but they also create real privacy, employment, and (in some cases) criminal-law risk. In this installment of Baker McKenzie’s In Focus video chat series, our cross-border Employment and Data Privacy lawyers break…

On March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:

  • No immediate legal change. The framework does not impose new obligations on employers, and it does not include draft legislation or an executive order directing federal agencies. Instead, it sets out legislative recommendations for Congress, reflecting the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI statute.
  • Preemption is the through‑line. The recommendations are consistent with the administration’s December 2025 Executive Order and July 2025 AI Action Plan, and they expressly support broad federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens. At the same time, the framework contemplates carve‑outs to preserve states’ traditional police powers—such as protecting children and preventing fraud.

Takeaway for Employers

Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.

For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.

White House Outlines AI Legislative Agenda with National AI Legislative Framework

By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis

On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.

Background

The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.

Continue Reading What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right Now

We are proud to share that George Avraam, a distinguished trial and appellate litigation partner managing the Firm’s Toronto office, has been inducted as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), one of the most selective and prestigious honors in the legal profession.

Invitation to fellowship in the ACTL is extended…

As sweeping reforms converge to redefine workplace standards, employer responsibilities and employee rights, 2026 will require global businesses to balance rapidly evolving workplace regulation with the need to safeguard commercial interests.

Global regulation shifts in focus

Across the UK, the Americas and Europe, three key themes dominate: equity, openness and flexibility.

In the UK, the recent Employment Rights Act will broaden protection against unfair dismissal by reducing the qualifying period from two years to six months and removing the existing caps on compensation. These changes are anticipated from January 2027. The act will create other significant changes in 2026 and into 2027, including measures strengthening union influence; broadened thresholds for collective consultation and increased associated penalties for breaches; severe restrictions on imposing contractual variations, improved job security for zero- and low-hours workers; and broadened protections against harassment. In short, there will be a seismic shift to the compliance landscape. Employers will need to stay alert, as many of the finer details remain unknown.

The European Union is taking a proactive approach to strengthen its global competitiveness, aiming to boost innovation and economic growth. However, core worker protections are likely to remain strong with employers facing a wave of new regulation including the Pay Transparency Directive, the AI Act, and a revised framework for European Works Councils. Meanwhile, the Quality Jobs Roadmap forms part of the EU’s strategy to generate and maintain sustainable, high-quality employment. This potentially includes legislative measures to safeguard workers’ rights while adapting to ongoing technological, economic, and societal developments.

Recent employment law developments across Asia Pacific and Latin America also reflect a strong focus on worker protection, flexibility and fairness. Wage reforms are prominent, with South Korea and multiple Philippine regions announcing significant minimum wage increases, while Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill enhances rights and security for nontraditional workers. Broader labor rights are evolving through measures like South Korea’s Yellow Envelope Act, which expands union protections, while Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act seeks to ensure fair treatment for employees, including by providing greater protection against workplace discrimination. In Latin America, labor reforms are continuing, with Brazil seeking to strengthen equal pay compliance, Colombia modernizing its labor inspection regime, Mexico proposing reforms to strengthen workers’ rights and Argentina seeking to introduce sweeping changes to modernize labor relations while fostering competitiveness.

Overall, these changes underscore a regional trend toward safeguarding employee well-being, regulating digital work environments and ensuring equitable treatment across diverse employment models.

Continue Reading A Year of Workforce Transformation Prioritizing Fairness

On December 4, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes of two bills requiring annual pay reporting and pay analyses. These bills—requiring private employers to report pay data by race and gender and mandating a city-led pay equity study—are emblematic of a nationwide trend toward greater scrutiny of compensation practices.

As we dive into the new year, here’s what employers need to know about the new NYC reporting requirements, recent changes to pay data reporting requirements in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, and the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive.

While pay reporting laws focus on accountability and seek to enable regulatory oversight and systemic analysis of pay equity across organizations, pay transparency regulations emphasize visibility, aiming to enable applicants and employees to make informed decisions and reduce information asymmetry. A round-up of recent pay transparency developments is included.

New NYC Pay Data Reporting Requirements

New law (Int 0982-A) requires employers with 200 or more employees inclusive of full-time, part-time and temporary employees) in the city to file annual reports detailing employee race or ethnicity and gender information across certain job categories and different pay ranges. Although the pay-reporting requirements take effect immediately, employers are not required to submit information until the city creates a process for doing so, which we may not see until as late as 2028.

  • Reporting Details: The new reporting requirements are similar to requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (and similar to reporting requirements in California and Illinois). In 2017 and 2018, the EEOC previously called for employers to submit employees’ W-2 income information broken down by gender, race/ethnicity and job category (i.e., component 2 EEO-1 data), though the rules were rescinded during the first Trump administration. The new law requires the city agency overseeing this new initiative to include this component 2 EEO-1 data in the reporting requirements, but may also request additional data, such as information about employee gender identity or other demographics. Employers will not need to provide an employee’s personal information as part of the reports, but they will have the option to submit written remarks to provide explanations or context for the data in their submission. Additionally, employers may furnish data anonymously, but will required to submit a signed statement confirming that they provided accurate pay data.
Continue Reading From New York City to the European Union: Pay Equity Developments Multinational Employers Need to Know in 2026

The Trump Administration recently announced wide-ranging immigration policy changes that directly impact most employer-sponsored visa holders. While each update may seem minor or only pertinent to specific cases, they amount to notable changes when viewed collectively. The latest developments highlight the critical importance of staying informed of immigration changes and reviewing internal practices to ensure immigration compliance. Below is a summary of changes most likely to impact companies and their visa-holding employees. 

1. H-1B visa stamping now requires social media vetting, causing significant delays and appointment cancellations in India

  • All H-1B and H-4 visa applicants are subject to mandatory social media vetting, requiring that applicants set their social media profiles to public. This is an expansion of the social media vetting announced earlier in the year for student visa applicants.
  • This change in policy does not impact USCIS filings and only applies to applicants for visa stamps at US Embassies or Consulates outside of the United States.
  • There have been widespread reports of H-1B visa appointments being cancelled and rescheduled due to the change in policy, particularly in India.

Key Takeaway   

Employers and employees should be prepared for H-1B and H-4 visa stamping to take longer due to this new process. Employers should know their visa population including H-1B (and H-4) employees who will travel for visa stamping given the possibility of cancellation and/or delay. Employers should have clear policy guidelines regarding remote work and consider contingency plans due to an employee’s extended absence abroad.  

Continue Reading US Immigration Update: What Employers Should Know About Immigration Changes in Q4

This article was originally published by IAPP linked here.

When monitoring employees in the workplace in the U.S. and Canada, employers must be cognizant of their obligations under employment and data privacy laws. 

In the US, employers can mostly negate privacy expectations from developing in the workplace by providing clear notice of monitoring practices and which notice is required in certain states, such as New York. But under the California Consumer Privacy Act, data minimization requirements apply and monitoring practices must be justifiable as necessary and proportionate.

In Canada, employers are required to balance operational needs such as safety, security and productivity, with the privacy rights of their employees. Monitoring should be reasonable, proportionate and tied to a legitimate business purpose. Organizations must comply with applicable federal or provincial privacy legislation, which can include safeguarding any employee personal information collected, obtaining employee consent in certain circumstances, and providing notice to employees of monitoring practices. 

For federally regulated private-sector employers — such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies — employee monitoring is generally governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Provinces that have enacted privacy laws deemed “substantially similar” to PIPEDA are exempt from its collection, use and disclosure provisions under section 26(2)(b). Presently, only Alberta, British Columbia and Québec have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA.

US: A patchwork of requirements apply to employers

At the federal level in the U.S., employee monitoring is primarily governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, which permit monitoring for legitimate business purposes but impose strict limits on unauthorized interception and access to private communications. Further, employers must conduct all workplace monitoring and surveillance in compliance with federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws. And, all employers, even those with a nonunionized workforce, must comply with the National Labor Relations Act when conducting workplace monitoring and surveillance. 

Continue Reading Employee Monitoring in the US and Canada: What Employers Need to Know

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence” (the “Order”). The Order represents the Administration’s latest and most pointed attempt to stop and reverse the wave of state AI legislation that has emerged over the preceding year, which the Order asserts “creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.” The Order raises the political stakes regarding state AI laws and creates uncertainty in the form of anticipated litigation, but does not instantly remove current or impending state AI law obligations for companies developing or deploying AI.

Continue Reading Pre-emption by Executive Order: Trump Order Moves to Block State AI Laws