NAVIGATING US AND GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT LAW
Employment law developments across Asia Pacific continue at a rapid pace, with regulators expanding their enforcement powers, unions gaining influence, employees becoming more willing to challenge workplace decisions, and governments introducing significant reforms affecting workforce management.
Our latest AP Employers’ Forum 2026 Highlights and Insights report provides practical guidance on key developments across Australia…
On August 6, 2026, the IRS released Fact Sheet FS-2026-13, substantially revising and replacing FS-2026-01, its January 2026 guidance on the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The revised guidance reflects the transition from the temporary 2025 reporting relief period to a more formal compliance regime applicable for tax years 2026 through 2028. As a reminder, the IRS provided transition penalty relief for tax year 2025 to excuse the requirement that employers and other payers report qualified overtime compensation separately on Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, and 1099-MISC. See Notice 2025-62.
While the updated fact sheet includes numerous technical revisions, several changes are particularly significant for employers, payroll providers, and employees seeking to claim the deduction. Most notably, the IRS emphasizes that beginning in 2026 employees generally may claim the deduction only based on amounts separately reported by employers, increasing the importance of accurate overtime calculations and information reporting.
The August update to the FAQs:
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Australia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United States.
Click here to view.
ICE, in a “fact sheet” available on its website, has made a significant change to the way it conducts I-9 audits. Specifically, ICE has broadened what it considers to be a “substantive” violation on an I-9. This change is likely to increase the financial penalties employers face during an audit, impacting all employers (including those who have already conducted an internal audit). This change to ICE’s protocol may signal increased enforcement in the coming weeks and months.
In response to this change, employers should:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted on November 6, 1986, requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees and sets forth criminal and civil sanctions for employment-related violations. During an I-9 audit, ICE reviews the accuracy and completeness of an employer’s I-9s to determine the volume of: (i) missing I-9s; (ii) technical violations; and (iii) substantive violations. ICE must permit employers to correct technical violations before issuing a fine; a substantive violation is cause for a fine without opportunity for rehabilitation. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 violation.
Continue Reading Changes to I-9 Penalties Increase Employer LiabilityOn March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:
Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.
For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.
By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis
On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.
The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.
Continue Reading What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right NowThe Trump Administration recently announced wide-ranging immigration policy changes that directly impact most employer-sponsored visa holders. While each update may seem minor or only pertinent to specific cases, they amount to notable changes when viewed collectively. The latest developments highlight the critical importance of staying informed of immigration changes and reviewing internal practices to ensure immigration compliance. Below is a summary of changes most likely to impact companies and their visa-holding employees.
Employers and employees should be prepared for H-1B and H-4 visa stamping to take longer due to this new process. Employers should know their visa population including H-1B (and H-4) employees who will travel for visa stamping given the possibility of cancellation and/or delay. Employers should have clear policy guidelines regarding remote work and consider contingency plans due to an employee’s extended absence abroad.
Continue Reading US Immigration Update: What Employers Should Know About Immigration Changes in Q4This article was originally published by IAPP linked here.
When monitoring employees in the workplace in the U.S. and Canada, employers must be cognizant of their obligations under employment and data privacy laws.
In the US, employers can mostly negate privacy expectations from developing in the workplace by providing clear notice of monitoring practices and which notice is required in certain states, such as New York. But under the California Consumer Privacy Act, data minimization requirements apply and monitoring practices must be justifiable as necessary and proportionate.
In Canada, employers are required to balance operational needs such as safety, security and productivity, with the privacy rights of their employees. Monitoring should be reasonable, proportionate and tied to a legitimate business purpose. Organizations must comply with applicable federal or provincial privacy legislation, which can include safeguarding any employee personal information collected, obtaining employee consent in certain circumstances, and providing notice to employees of monitoring practices.
For federally regulated private-sector employers — such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies — employee monitoring is generally governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Provinces that have enacted privacy laws deemed “substantially similar” to PIPEDA are exempt from its collection, use and disclosure provisions under section 26(2)(b). Presently, only Alberta, British Columbia and Québec have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA.
At the federal level in the U.S., employee monitoring is primarily governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, which permit monitoring for legitimate business purposes but impose strict limits on unauthorized interception and access to private communications. Further, employers must conduct all workplace monitoring and surveillance in compliance with federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws. And, all employers, even those with a nonunionized workforce, must comply with the National Labor Relations Act when conducting workplace monitoring and surveillance.
Continue Reading Employee Monitoring in the US and Canada: What Employers Need to KnowOn December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence” (the “Order”). The Order represents the Administration’s latest and most pointed attempt to stop and reverse the wave of state AI legislation that has emerged over the preceding year, which the Order asserts “creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.” The Order raises the political stakes regarding state AI laws and creates uncertainty in the form of anticipated litigation, but does not instantly remove current or impending state AI law obligations for companies developing or deploying AI.
Continue Reading Pre-emption by Executive Order: Trump Order Moves to Block State AI LawsWe are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Brazil, Italy, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Click here to view.
