We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of immigration and mobility alerts from around the world.
Please click here to view.
New guidance from USCIS provides a new alternative, starting August 1, 2023, allowing employers that participate in E-Verify to inspect documents presented for I-9 completion remotely. This update will free qualifying employers from the burden of performing a physical verification.
To qualify, employers must be in good standing with E-Verify. This significant change in USCIS policy provide a pragmatic solution for qualifying employers, particularly those with large remote-working populations. The new guidance is also timely – as it is effective the day after USCIS’ COVID-19 flexible guidance is set to expire.
Continue Reading Update: USCIS Modernizes I-9 Verification Process Allowing for Virtual Verification
Splitting the baby on 50 years of precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has clarified that employers must grant a religious accommodation request under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [their] particular business.” On June
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of immigration and mobility alerts from around the world.
Please click here to view.
The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has released new guidance for employers on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment, this time with a focus on adverse impact under Title VII. On May 18, 2023, the EEOC released “Select Issues: Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection
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?
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
As volatility and uncertainty in the global economy continues, many multinationals are taking (or considering) major changes to their workforce composition. Labor costs are typically the largest cost center for any company, so of course businesses need to understand how best to flex up and down as markets change. At the same time, a company’s
Studies show that as many as 98% of CEOs are anticipating a global recession in the next 12-18 months, which means that companies have already started focusing on cutting costs and redistributing resources to best position themselves to survive. One of the largest cost centers on any company’s balance sheet is its workforce. As such, layoffs or other reductions-in-force (RIF) have already started to hit, and will likely continue. What’s different this time around? Because of the ups and downs in the market, and phenomena like the “great resignation” and remote work on a scale never seen before, there is a greater likelihood that more employers will find themselves potentially triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) (and analogous state laws, known as state “mini-WARN acts”) statutes. These statutes impose notice and information obligations, which can be tricky to keep track of, and carry potentially heavy penalties for noncompliance.
What to do? Employers who see a layoff on the horizon — and even those who may have already undertaken layoffs — should revisit the requirements of WARN (and state mini-WARNs) now, and keep the following “WARN-ings” and practice tips in mind as they work with counsel.
In short, WARN requires employers to give advanced notice to affected employees in the event of a covered mass layoff or plant closing. Under the federal WARN, employers must provide 60 days’ notice of termination to the impacted employees, union representatives (if applicable), and certain government authorities. Under some state mini-WARN acts, 90 days’ notice is required.
Under the federal WARN Act, covered employers are employers with:
WARN-ing: State mini-WARN acts often have lower thresholds for covered employers.
Under WARN, covered employers need to provide notice if a triggering event–a “mass layoff” or “plant closing”–occurs.
Mass layoff: A mass layoff is a reduction in force that (i) does not result from a plant closing, and (ii) results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for:
Plant closing: A plant closing is the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single place of employment or one or more facilities/operating units resulting in an employment loss during a 30-day period for 50 or more covered employees.
WARN always requires aggregating the employment losses that occur over a 30-day period.
WARN also requires aggregation of the employment losses that occur over a 90-day period that did not, on their own, trigger WARN notice, unless the employer can show that the layoffs were the result of separate and distinct causes and are not an attempt to evade WARN.
WARN-ing: Therefore, employers should look ahead and behind 90 days and add up layoffs that have occurred and any planned layoffs to determine whether separate layoffs may trigger notice requirements under WARN.
Continue Reading Employer WARN-ing: Layoffs Could Trigger WARN Notice Requirements this Time Around
