Listen to this post

We are delighted to announce that Law360 today named Baker McKenzie the No. 1 Global Law Firm for 2019, a ranking of the top 20 law firms with the greatest global reach and expertise. During the last year, we have outperformed our competition in the size, breadth and complexity of significant global and cross-broader matters, and we’re proud to receive this recognition of our work.

This recognition finishes a great month for the Firm’s profile globally that includes the following awards: Acritas’ No. 1 legal brand in Asia Pacific, Working Mother’s Best Law Firms for Women Hall of Fame and Stonewall’s Top Global Employers.

 

Listen to this post

On July 22, 2019, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit withdrew its holding that Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court—the landmark California Supreme Court decision that makes it harder for companies to rely on independent contractors—applies retroactively. The panel held instead that the question should be decided by the state’s highest court.
Continue Reading Scratch That: The ABC Test Might Not Apply Retroactively

Listen to this post

As previewed in our prior blog post, earlier this month Governor Gavin Newsom signed the “CROWN Act” (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) into law, making California the first state to ban discrimination against natural hairstyles associated with race. The CROWN Act takes effect on January 1, 2020.

Continue Reading A Hairy Situation For Employers: California’s CROWN Act

Listen to this post

[With special thanks to our summer associate Whitney Chukwurah for her contribution to this post.]

All private employers with 100 or more employees in the US and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees in the US must report data on race/ethnicity and gender across job categories in their annual EEO-1 filings. As previously reported (HERE), in 2016, under the Obama Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission revised the EEO-1 form to require certain employers to report W-2 wage information and total hours worked (referred to as Component 2 Data) for all employees by race, ethnicity and sex within 12 EEOC created pay bands.

The implementation of the revised EEO-1 form has been subject to litigation; however, covered employers now have until September 30, 2019 to provide EEOC with pay data.

Continue Reading New EEOC Guidance On Submitting Component 2 Pay Data

Listen to this post

On July 10, 2019, the California Senate Labor Committee voted in favor of Assembly Bill (AB 5). As we previously reported (see HERE), AB 5 would make it harder for companies to rely on independent contractors because it presumes a worker is an employee unless a hiring entity passes a difficult three-part test. Supporters of the bill celebrated at the State Capitol, while opponents remain concerned that the bill will devastate businesses that rely on independent contractors.

Despite the Senate Committee vote, AB 5 still has a way to go before becoming law. The bill needs to clear the Senate Appropriations committee and full Senate vote. While the bill exempts several professions from coverage, the Senate might include additional carve outs before the bill is put in final form and sent to the Governor. The bill currently exempts direct sellers, doctors, certain hairstylists and barbers who rent booths at salons or provide natural hair braiding, human-resources professionals with advanced degrees, insurance agents, investment advisers, marketers, real estate agents, certain health care professionals, certain beauty professionals, certain subcontractors in the construction industry, certain repossession agencies, and certain service providers.  In the meantime, companies that rely on independent contractors should evaluate whether AB 5 would exempt their profession, and if not, whether they will need to adapt their practices under the ABC test.

Please contact your Baker McKenzie lawyer for more details.

Listen to this post

Historically employers could not restrict labor organizing activity in employer-owned, publicly accessible spaces. But, last month, in UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, 368 N.L.R.B. No. 2 (2019), the NLRB reversed nearly 40 years of precedent holding that employers violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if they prohibit nonemployee labor organizers from publicly-accessible spaces.

Post UPMC, employers may adopt and implement neutral policies regulating the use of employer-owned spaces open to the public (such as cafeterias) and may lawfully apply those policies to exclude nonemployee union organizers. Employers with spaces open to the public should consider whether to adopt and enforce a content neutral (nondiscriminatory) bar to nonemployee solicitation or distribution in the publicly accessible spaces on their property.

Continue Reading NLRB Rules That Employers May Lawfully Ban Nonemployee Union Activity From Publicly-Accessible Areas

Listen to this post

California is known as one of the most progressive, pro-employee states in the country. But if the last several months are any indication, Illinois is quickly catching up.

Here’s a quick overview of what’s happening in the prairie state:

Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act   

What’s New? As of January 1, 2019, employers must reimburse employees for all “necessary” expenses. So what’s a necessary expense? Anything required of the employee in the discharge of his/her employment duties that “inure to the primary benefit of the employer.” Computers, cell phones, uniforms, etc. may all constitute “necessary” expenses that the employer is required to reimburse.

Takeaway: Employers should review their policies, job descriptions, and third party contracts to determine which positions/roles may result in necessary expenditures.

Continue Reading Is Illinois The New California For Employers?

Listen to this post

[With special thanks to our summer associate Lennox Mark for his contribution to this post.]

Since 2000, June has been LGBTQ Pride Month in the United States. “Pride” as it has come to be known started as a way to commemorate the Stonewall riots that occurred at the end of June in 1969. It has since morphed into a month-long celebration of inclusiveness and remembrance of the struggles faced by members of this community. Many other countries and cities around the world honor and celebrate the LGBTQ community at different times throughout the year.

As we look back at the events of the last month and in honor of continuing the conversation around US Pride, we review some of the recent strides made for equality and other potentially impactful legal developments for the LGBTQ community, including those that US and OUS employers should know about.

Continue Reading Advancing LGBTQ Rights At Home And Abroad

Listen to this post

This article was originally published on Law360.com.

Three recent decisions arising under the National Labor Relations Act highlight that ambiguity and inattentiveness are the twin banes of labor and employment attorneys. In all three cases, the dispute arose because two personnel policies or approaches overlapped, opening the way for conflicting claims. As these cases demonstrate, letting the National Labor Relations Board decide, “who is on first” can have significant consequences and can trigger an onslaught of litigation. Unfortunately, instead of resolving the uncertainty, these three NLRB decisions merely pushed the dispute into another forum where additional litigation may occur to resolve the underlying issues.

Click here to read on.

Listen to this post

In June, a federal district court in New York ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a recent state law prohibiting mandatory arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases. Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC  marks the first time that a federal court has ruled on this issue.

Continue Reading NY Ban On Mandatory Arbitration Of Sexual Harassment Claims Overturned