Special thanks to co-presenters Elizabeth Ebersole, Barbara Klementz, Dionna Shear, Amanda Cohen, Benjamin Ho, Jennifer Bernardo, Kaitlin Thompson, Marredia Crawford (Director, ID&E, Americas), Goli Rahimi, Paul Evans, Monica Kurnatowska and Blair Robinson.
Our team is busy advising multinational companies on employment law issues surrounding workplace
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
Special thanks to co-authors Eunkyung Kim Shin and Alexandre Lamy.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a new fact sheet reminding employers of how to simultaneously comply with export control regulations and avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination provisions contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The new fact sheet aligns with recent
Special thanks to co-presenter, Monica Kurnatowska.
The trend in increased pay equity-related reporting requirements for employers is just one reason more organizations are conducting pay equity audits to identify and correct pay variations between employees who perform similar work. The recently adopted EU Pay Transparency Directive (read more here) is one more law
We have all grown accustomed to hand sanitizer, 6-feet distance markings in hallways, face masks–and the back and forth of surging and waning COVID-19 levels in the workplace and the community. But with President Biden’s April 10 termination of the COVID-19 national emergency, can these pandemic mainstays–and employers’ pandemic policies and procedures–finally be relegated to a distant memory? Should they be? As Dr. Anthony Fauci said in a recent interview, “Everybody wants this outbreak behind us.”
With little fanfare, on April 10, President Biden quietly signed a GOP-led resolution terminating the COVID-19 national emergency. Separately, on May 1 the Biden Administration announced an end to the federal COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees, federal contractors, and international travelers on May 11, the same day the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency ends. The US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Homeland Security also announced they will start the process to end vaccination requirements for Head Start educators, CMS-certified healthcare facilities, and certain noncitizens at the land border.
So can employers throw out all of their COVID-19 policies and procedures? Not quite.Continue Reading Can US Employers Finally Leave COVID-19 in the Rearview Mirror?
Special thanks to co-presenter, Marredia Crawford.
It’s common practice for companies to collect diversity data and use it to assist in analyzing the concrete benefits of current inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) efforts in the workplace, and for recalibrating ID&E goals. However, collecting and managing diversity data can be fraught with risk.
In this
Special thanks to co-presenters, Daniel Urdiain and Nell Slochowski.
Our on-the-ground immigration and mobility attorneys explore considerations for US employers looking to send foreign national employees to work in Canada or Mexico if they were not selected in the H-1B visa lottery this year and what steps to take before the next H-1B cap lottery
Join us for a four-part webinar series as our US moderators welcome colleagues from around the globe to share the latest labor and employment law updates and trends. US-based multinational employers with business operations in Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Americas regions will hear directly from local practitioners on the
As discussed in our blog here, in February the National Labor Relations Board issued the McLaren Macomb decision prohibiting employers from “tendering” to employees separation or severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Then, on March 22, the NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued guidance addressing
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
