On August 5th, Legal500 and Baker McKenzie held an employment law roundtable discussing best practices for LATAM employers navigating the new normal. Tatiana Garcés (Colombia), Javiera Medina (Mexico) and Leticia Ribeiro (Trench Rossi Watanabe in Brazil) were joined by general counsels Gabriela Rodríguez (Stryker) and Catalina Robledo (Nissan).
Together, the panel shared insights around remote work, hybrid work and managing mental health issues in the workplace.
To listen in, click here.
The emergence and subsequent spread of the Delta variant has led several countries, most notably the United States, into adopting more stringent health and safety protocols. On July 29, , President Biden declared that the US government would be imposing vaccination requirements in certain cases and offering additional incentives for its citizens to be vaccinated.
Following this announcement, TMT Talk revisits the important legal aspects of vaccinations, as they apply to the TMT sector. Kate Alexander, Susan Eandi, and Julia Wilson discuss key considerations for companies when it comes to vaccination requirements and workplace safety protocols, as well as their perspective on how to best approach vaccine mandates.
Please click here for the podcast.
Can private employers mandate vaccination as a condition of returning to the workplace? The recent spike in the COVID-19 Delta variant has caused the re-closure of worksites or changes to workplace safety protocols, leading to legal developments that provide more clarity to this issue.
In this Quick Chat video, our Labor and Employment lawyers breakdown whether and how private employers can mandate vaccination.
Click here to watch the video.
Clients are finding our Vaccine Analysis Matrix (VAM) helpful. On a state-by-state or country-by-country basis, depending on your organization’s needs, the matrix covers topics like permissibility of mandatory vaccinations, getting proof of vaccination and potential liabilities. This practical tool supports companies in developing their reopening plans and is available for a fixed fee.
Read more about whether US employers can (and should) mandate vaccinations for their workforce in our client alert, United States: Mandating COVID-19 Vaccination? Before You Act, Consider These Key Issues For US and Multinational Employers.
For help navigating the legal landscape of COVID-19 vaccines and drafting and implementing Return to Workplace policies that are compliant in each jurisdiction where your company has headcount, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.
So much for the summer of freedom. As anticipated, the seven Bay Area counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma plus, the city of Berkeley, announced today that they are now mandating that everyone — regardless of vaccination status — wear masks indoors as the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads in the region.* The new requirement takes effect Tuesday, August 3 at 12:01 a.m. The joint press release is here.
Per the various health orders, Bay Area health officials recognize that “vaccines remain the most powerful tool in the fight against COVID-19, including the Delta variant.” Notwithstanding, “indoor masking is a temporary measure that will help us deal with the Delta variant, which is causing a sharp increase in cases, and we know increases in hospitalizations and deaths will follow. When we all wear face coverings indoors, we are protecting our fellow residents and helping our healthcare workers.”
The new local mask requirements are more strict than the brand new face covering guidance issued by the California Department of Public Health on July 28 (which recommends but does not require face coverings indoors for vaccinated individuals, in line with the CDC’s updated face covering guidance), and Cal/OSHA’s June 17 amended ETS (which allows fully vaccinated employees to forgo masks and social distance in many circumstances). As such, employers in the listed counties have some “to dos” in the next few hours: (1) update mask policies; (2) post clearly visible signage regarding masking rules; and (3) require all employees and patrons to wear masks in indoor settings.
Given the headlines in the last week — from federal, state and municipal agency vaccine mandates and incentives to some of the largest companies in the tech, financial services, education, and healthcare industries requiring employees to be vaccinated to come into work — it is not at all surprising that masking is back in some California counties. What will be interesting is to see if any other California counties pick up on Santa Clara’s recommendation in its Health Order urging employers to implement mandatory vaccination policies. We suspect this trend to continue in certain pockets of the country. For assistance in building out your legally-compliant COVID-19 policies, read more here and contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.
*Los Angeles, Sacramento and Yolo counties already have mask mandates.
As more US companies prepare to return to the office, whether on a hybrid schedule or otherwise, in addition to grappling with COVID testing protocols and vaccine mandates (read more here), is the reality of re-engaging with compliance matters that may have been on “hiatus” for the last year.
One time-sensitive topic that may have been overlooked is Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification compliance.
While U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has allowed some flexibility for US employers over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the relaxed rules will no longer apply once employees are routinely and predictably in the office. Without this flexibility, employers must act quickly to (1) update I-9s completed during the pandemic pursuant to ICE’s flexible rules, and (2) put in place or refresh protocols for I-9 completion and maintenance in a workplace that is always changing with shifting post-pandemic norms.
The issuance of post-pandemic I-9 compliance is time sensitive and the failure to act timely will result in higher risk of fines during an investigation. For many employers, this will be a time-consuming and overwhelming task in light of the moving parts and other elements of office reopening. As a result, planning now to ensure I-9 compliance is an absolute necessity.
In this article, we provide an overview of I-9 requirements and ICE’s I-9 flexibility relating to COVID-19, and propose five steps that all employers should take in advance of office reopening.
Click here to continue reading this Article.
Original article published in Law360.
Special thanks to the authors, Melissa Allchin and Matthew Gorman.
Pressure is mounting on U.S. and multinational employers to require COVID-19 vaccines for employees, as the Delta variant spreads voraciously, spiking infections and hospitalizations across the country and forcing employers to once again shutter worksites or change their workplace safety protocols. But can (and should) employers mandate vaccination?
Vaccine mandates received strong support on Thursday, July 29 when President Biden announced that all civilian federal employees and onsite contractors either must be vaccinated or submit to regular testing, social distancing, mask requirements, and restrictions on travel. The same day, the U.S. Treasury Department released a policy statement directing state and local governments to use funds from the $350 billion American Rescue Plan to incentivize vaccines by offering $100 to individuals who get vaccinated.
Separately, more than 600 universities have announced mandates for students or employees. And state and local governments have joined in, with California and New York City announcing mandates this week for government employees and certain healthcare workers, and the federal Department of Veterans Affairs announcing that frontline VA health care employees must get vaccinated or face termination.
Large employers are joining the fray, with global technology companies, financial institutions, healthcare systems, retailers, transportation companies and media companies recently announcing that vaccination will be required for everyone in their workplaces.
So can private employers adopt mandatory vaccination policies? What follows is a framework for understanding whether such an approach is permissible both in and outside the US, as well as some of the key considerations for such policies.
When world economies face challenges, employment litigation claims of all types arise. In this Quick Chat video, our Labor and Employment lawyers discuss the range of trending employment-related claims and cases and share what employers can do to best position themselves to manage impending litigation.
Click here to watch the video.
Review our brochure, COVID-19 Employment Litigation on the Rise – How We Can Help, to read more about the current landscape, access useful resources and learn how our seasoned litigators can help you achieve the best resolutions for your business goals.
Litigation is a reality for virtually every company, yet it is a topic that very few organizations want to think or talk about. Our Litigation Intelligence Tool (LIT) and the accompanying report, Litigation Intelligence: Ready for Anything? make the case for focusing on litigation preparedness — offering insights into key risks and providing practical, cost-conscious steps leaders can take to prepare for the inevitable dispute.
Our four-part Global Guided Tour webinar series is your passport to ensure that your organization is up to speed on the key labor and employment issues affecting business operations in Europe, the Americas, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East and Africa.
In each regional 60-minute webinar recording, our in-market presenters discuss the most recent political and economic developments and challenges impacting employers and share legal updates, practical tips and takeaways for companies to action now.
Use our Top Takeaways for Your Company to Action Now Checklist to help your organization’s leadership prioritize where to focus its attention and click the links below to watch all of the on-demand recordings applicable to your organization.
View our Global Guided Tour for US Multinational Employers highlight reel video for a recap of the series.
Missed a session or would like to share the program with your team? Click the links below to watch all of the on-demand recordings applicable to your organization.
Special thanks to guest contributors: Jeff Martino and Katelyn Sprague.
Baker McKenzie’s Labor and Employment, Trade Secrets and Antitrust lawyers explore the impact on employers of the severe limitations on post-employment noncompete restrictions outlined in President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy and the supporting Fact Sheet.
Click here to watch the video.
Special thanks to Jeffrey Martino and Bradford Newman for their contributions to this post.
On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued his Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy (EO) (Fact Sheet here) signaling support for severe limitation of post-employment noncompete restrictions–a move likely to add fuel to the fire of states passing laws to limit the use of post-employment noncompetes. The EO Fact Sheet states that the banning or limiting of noncompetes will “[m]ake it easier” for employees to “change jobs[.]” Though employers may balk, given Biden’s campaign promises and support for passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (see our prior blog here), employers should not be surprised.
The EO encourages the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” It is uncertain whether that rulemaking will entirely ban or just limit noncompete agreements; focus on restricting noncompetes for all workers or just those considered more vulnerable (such as low wage earners); restrict nonsolicit agreements along with noncompetes; or preempt state law.
The EO also encourages the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC to consider revising the October 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals “to better protect workers from wage collusion” by (as the Fact Sheet explains) strengthening antitrust guidance to prevent the suppression of wages or reduction of benefits through employer collaboration and sharing of wage and benefit information. As we explained in a recent client alert, a push to scrutinize competition issues in labor markets was already in play, tracing back to the 2016 Antitrust Guidance, in which the Department of Justice and FTC alerted companies that “naked” wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements could be prosecuted criminally, and that employers competing to hire or retain the same employees are “competitors” from an antitrust perspective.
