Listen to this post

Singapore, Australia and the US are taking distinct approaches to immigration policies, each with significant implications for employers. Singapore is balancing the attraction of highly skilled foreign talent with the need to prioritize local workers, potentially through stricter regulatory measures. In contrast, Australia’s new visa program has expanded opportunities for foreign talent by allowing more occupations and requiring less work experience, and its existing program has cleared a more direct pathway for employer-sponsored permanent residency. In contrast, the US is adopting more restrictive measures, increasing immigration enforcement and shifting DOJ priorities to protect US workers from discrimination.

Join our Global Immigration and Mobility attorneys in our latest Mobility Minute video chat as they explore these trends, potential pivots, and key considerations for employers navigating the complexities of the current landscape.

Click here to listen to the Mobility Minute.

*Captions are automatically generated. We apologize for any typos or errors.

Listen to this post

The two largest global economies-the US and China-stand in stark contrast with their current immigration policies. The US is moving towards restrictive measures, potentially hindering employers’ efforts to recruit and relocate foreign talent. China has taken a more open approach, resulting in a significant increase in foreign national travelers and policies streamlining work authorization for foreign national employees. But even China’s welcoming stance may not be sufficient to lure back foreign nationals to work long-term as trade wars and geopolitical tensions could cast a shadow over business with the outside world. In this Mobility Minute video chat, our Global Immigration and Mobility attorneys delve into the current immigration landscape in China and the US, discussing potential shifts that could impact employers in the near future and offering key considerations for navigating the present climate in both countries.

Click here to listen to the Mobility Minute.

*Captions are automatically generated. We apologize for any typos or errors.

Listen to this post

Click here to play a video preview.

In 2025, the world continues to grapple with an unprecedented array of challenges. In this complex landscape, employee activists across industries increasingly make unreasonable demands which the impacted company cannot meet, while taking and leaking sensitive and confidential company trade secrets to garner internal and external sympathy for their campaigns. 
 
Please join our Trade Secrets team on April 8 for a webinar exploring this rapidly evolving issue. We will discuss:

  • How to prepare ahead of time for an activist campaign
  • New strategies specifically designed to safeguard confidential information in this scenario and minimize risk
  • Steps to prevent/ manage disruptions and reputational risks
  • Novel measures designed to catch actual leakers of corporate confidential information.

We hope you are able to join us for this enlightening session. This webinars will not be recorded given the nature of the subject matter we will cover.

Date: Tuesday, April 8
Time: 2:00 – 3:00pm ET

Click here to register.

CLE: 
This program has been approved for 1.0 general California CLE credit, 1.0 general Illinois CLE credit (IL PCAM # 617804), 1.0 cybersecurity, privacy & data protection (general) New York CLE credit and 1.0 general Texas CLE credit (TX Course # 174251849). Participants requesting CLE for other states will receive Uniform CLE Certificates. Baker & McKenzie LLP is a California and Illinois CLE approved provider. Baker & McKenzie LLP has been certified by the New York State CLE Board as an accredited provider in the state of New York. This program is appropriate for both experienced and newly admitted New York attorneys. Baker & McKenzie LLP is an accredited sponsor, approved by the State Bar of Texas, Committee on MCLE. 

**While credit may be pre-approved in certain jurisdictions, final CLE accreditation approval is anticipated, but not guaranteed.

Listen to this post

Recent media coverage highlights incidents relating to enhanced vetting and potential travel bans of foreign nationals by State and Homeland Security officials at US Consulates and US ports of entry. Several countries have issued travel advisories for the United States. While the reported cases impact a limited number of individual travelers, the widespread news has caused increased anxiety for all foreign national travelers seeking entry to the United States.

What do employers need to know about what is happening now?

Early Executive Orders of the Trump administration focus on increased border security, enforcement priorities, and implementation of enhanced vetting in relation to immigration requests. Immigration officers, particularly at US ports of entry, have started to execute these measures in relation to foreign travelers, including those with valid visas or green cards, seeking to enter the United States in recent weeks.

Travelers attempting to enter the United States, including business visitors and employer-sponsored visa-holders, have reported heightened questioning by Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officials and increased scrutiny upon entry. CBP routinely assesses whether a foreign national’s stated purpose in traveling to the United States aligns with their visa or immigration status. However, there appears to be a growing trend with CBP officers employing more in-depth questioning tactics, including:

  • An increase in questions, and requests for supporting documentation, relating to the purported reason for entry and proposed activities in the United States to confirm they align with the individual’s visa or immigration status;
  • An increase in foreign travelers being sent to secondary inspection for further questioning by CBP officers at US ports of entry; and
  • Inspection of electronic devices, including phones and computers.

There are reported rumors with regard to a potential travel ban for citizens of certain countries. Although media reports have identified 43 countries for which varying degrees of travel restrictions may be imposed in the coming days or weeks, there have been no official announcements as of the date of this publication. In the absence of an official announcement and based on reported activities at the border, visa-holding travelers that may face a higher risk of increased scrutiny include:

  • Current (or prior) citizens or residents of a country identified in media reports as countries that are likely to be subject to travel bans or restrictions.
  • Current citizens or residents of a country where there are diplomatic tensions with the United States (e.g., due to tariff policies).
  • Travelers with passport stamps evidencing recent travel to high-risk countries
  • Individuals traveling while an extension of status is pending or when the traveler’s status is due to expire.
  • Passport holders with X gender markers on their passports.

What should employers do?

With the increase in enforcement and scrutiny involved with travel to the United States, employers should take the following steps now to prepare:

  • Ensure employees possess the required documentation and supporting evidence, where necessary, when returning to the United States from international travel.
  • Establish a communication protocol for employees to alert the legal and human resources department of future travel plans. Designate a point of contact for employees in case of issues while travelling.
  • Create a company policy with regard to how employees should handle sensitive data on their electronic devices when traveling internationally.
  • Hold town halls to address employee concerns and discuss appropriate protocol for interactions with immigration officials.
  • Remain current on immigration news and updates to address employee and business concerns by signing up for USCIS alerts and press releases and reaching out to your Baker McKenzie point of contact with any questions.

For further information, please refer to the following resources:

Listen to this post

We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Canada, Italy, Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Click here to view.

Listen to this post

As discussed in our blog here, President Trump’s series of executive orders aimed at eradicating “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs across the federal government and in the private sector did not define the term “illegal discrimination.” On March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice released guidance addressing this and outlining how DEI practices may be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.

Together, the EEOC and DOJ issued a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” providing examples of “DEI-related discrimination” under Title VII and directing employees who “suspect [they] have experienced DEI-related discrimination” to “contact the EEOC promptly.” 

The EEOC simultaneously released more detailed guidance entitled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” which includes eleven questions and answers addressing the process for asserting a discrimination claim and the scope of protections under Title VII as they relate to DEI practices.

Continue Reading EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination
Listen to this post

On March 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of President Trump’s executive orders related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (our summary of the DEI EOs is here). This decision temporarily reinstates the enforcement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, pending further appellate review.

Background

As discussed here, on February 21, a Maryland district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, citing concerns that the EOs were likely to violate the First and Fifth Amendments by chilling free speech and due process. The preliminary injunction had blocked the federal government from forcing contractors and grantees to certify that they aren’t promoting “illegal DEI.”

The government defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit, while also seeking a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction. On March 3, the district court denied their request for a stay with Judge Abelson concluding that the potential harm of the orders outweighed the administration’s policy priorities.

The Fourth Circuit’s Panel Decision

The three-judge appellate panel unanimously stayed the injunction on March 14, with all three judges writing separate concurrences. There is an undercurrent in each opinion that the injunction came too early (for it’s unclear still what types of programs the government will try to eliminate) to determine if the government’s actions will implicate the First and Fifth Amendment concerns raised by plaintiffs. Also, the court takes the government defendant’s representations that the EOs are distinctly limited in scope and apply only to conduct that violates existing federal anti-discrimination law as true.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Allows Trump Administration to Enforce DEI EOs (For Now)
Listen to this post

Germany, the UK, and the US are all experiencing movement towards more restrictive immigration policies, driven by rising migrant numbers, geopolitical tensions and security concerns. In this Mobility Minute video chat, our Global Immigration and Mobility attorneys delve into this trend. We review changes following the recent election in Germany, the UK’s increased enforcement actions, and potential shifts in the US that could impact employers’ ability to hire and transfer foreign talent. Additionally, we explore what employers should anticipate in these key jurisdictions and provide valuable strategies to help them stay informed and proactive in their approach to immigration compliance and workforce planning.

Click here to listen to the Mobility Minute.

*Captions are automatically generated. We apologize for any typos or errors.

Listen to this post

[UPDATE RE THE OMNIUS PROPOSAL HERE]

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is a regulation requiring covered companies to disclose information on what they see as the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and on the impact of their activities on people and the environment.

The CSRD impacts not only EU-based companies, but also non-EU companies that have substantial activities or a physical presence in the EU. This means that many large US-based companies must comply with the CSRD’s extensive sustainability reporting requirements which cover some potentially very sensitive topics.

Ensuring compliance will be a cross-organization project involving significant
input from employment legal and HR professionals who will need to consider issues
such as gathering the relevant data in a legally compliant way, advising on
consultation obligations with workers’ representatives, the scope and content of
relevant disclosures and any remediation work identified as a result of data gathered

Determining a company’s compliance obligations can be viewed as a three-stage process, involving a number of areas of the business:

  • Phase 1 – assessing whether the CSRD applies to the organization and, if so, the date from which reporting starts.
  • Phase 2 – assessing which reporting obligations are triggered by the materiality requirements.
  • Phase 3 – reporting in practice. From an HR perspective the most relevant ESRS will be those set out in ESRS S1 (own workforce) and ESRS S2 (workers in the value chain) although there may be some overlap with other ESRS, for example
    those that apply in relation to governance or general business conduct.

For more on this, read our alert here, or contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.

Listen to this post
** UPDATE ** On March 3, 2025, the federal judge in the Maryland lawsuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction discussed below.
The judge ruled that the administration failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that the injunction was necessary to prevent potential violations of free speech and due process rights.
Stay tuned for further updates as this case progresses through the courts and read on for more information about the injunction at issue.

On February 21, 2025, a federal district court in Maryland issued a preliminary nationwide injunction temporarily blocking significant provisions from two of President Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI programs. In a 63-page opinion, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their challenges to these provisions on First and Fifth Amendment grounds.

While the district court’s order provides some temporary relief, it does not prevent the Trump administration from pursuing individual enforcement actions against companies that it believes operate “illegal” DEI programs (including enforcement actions by the DOJ and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), among other things.

On February 24, defendants in the case filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. While it remains to be seen how the appeal plays out, in the meantime, it’s important for employers to understand what the injunction did and did not do.

Background

The city of Baltimore and several academic and restaurant workers’ groups challenged one provision in EO 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing) and two provisions in EO 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity) on constitutional grounds.

Plaintiffs sued Trump and these agencies: (1) the Department of Health and Human Services; (2) the Department of Education; (3) the Department of Labor; (4) the Department of the Interior; (5) the Department of Commerce; (6) the Department of Agriculture; (7) the Department of Energy; (8) the Department of Transportation; (9) the Department of Justice; (10) the National Science Foundation; and (11) the Office of Management and Budget. The EEOC is not a defendant.

By way of reminder, and as explained in our blog A Roadmap to Trump’s DEI Executive Orders for US Employers, executive orders are a powerful tool through which the President issues formal directions to the executive branch, agencies and officials on how to carry out the work of the federal government. Challenges to — and subsequent judicial review of — EOs are commonplace.

The NADOHE v. Trump decision and defendants’ appeal

This chart outlines the challenged provisions in the EOs, and the district court’s response:

Challenged Executive OrderChallenged ProvisionDistrict Court’s Ruling
EO 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing)The “Termination Provision” directing all executive agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts.The court enjoined the government defendants from freezing or terminating existing “equity-related” contracts and grants (under EO 14151).

The court held that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the Termination Provision is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide clear guidance on what constitutes “equity-related” grants or contracts, which could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
EO 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity)The “Certification Provision” requiring federal contractors and grantees include in every contract or grant award a certification, enforceable through the False Claims Act, that it “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.”The court enjoined the government defendants from:
– Requiring federal contractors and grant recipients to certify that they do not “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws;”  
– Requiring federal contractors and grant recipients “to agree that [their] compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material” for purposes of the False Claims Act; and
– Bringing any enforcement action targeting “DEI programs or principles.”

The court held that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the Certification Provision violates the First Amendment.
EO 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity)The “Enforcement Provision” directing the Attorney General to take measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI, and to identify potential civil compliance investigations.The court enjoined the federal agency defendants from “bring[ing] any False Claims Act enforcement action, or other enforcement action, pursuant to the Enforcement Threat Provision, including but not limited to any False Claims Act enforcement action premised on any certification made pursuant to the Certification Provision.” 

The court held that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claims that the Enforcement Threat Provision violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because there is no guidance regarding the DEI programs or practices that the administration considers illegal.

It did not “enjoin the Attorney General from … engaging in investigation” of DEI programs or to prohibit the Attorney General from preparing a report identifying investigation targets.

On Monday, February 24, defendants filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We are closely monitoring what follows.

What didn’t the Maryland district court do?

  • The preliminary injunction does not change the requirement that federal contractors cease Affirmative Action Plans (other than for veterans and the disabled) by April 21, 2025.
  • The preliminary injunction does not prevent the Attorney General from preparing reports or pursuing investigations related to the DEI orders.
  • The preliminary injunction does not directly apply to the EEOC.

What’s next?

As expected, the Trump administration is appealing this decision to the Fourth Circuit.

A separate challenge to EO 14151 and EO 14173, as well as EO 14168 (“Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”), is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (National Urban League et al. v. Trump).

Further challenges are likely, and it’s entirely plausible that the fate of the DEI Orders ultimately goes before the US Supreme Court.

Recommendations for employers

The Trump administration (and activists who are pressuring companies on the basis of their DEI initiatives with social media campaigns and the threat of legal action) likely will try to further their policy goals with respect to DEI in the private sector through any available means (e.g. the EEOC or other agencies not named in the lawsuit). As such the increased risk profile for certain DEI programs persists, and a DEI Health Check conducted under legal privilege remains a prudent and recommended action.

Our DEI EO Task Force is closely tracking challenges to Trump’s Executive Orders, industry shifts regarding DEI and related litigation activity. Contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer for more.