We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Australia, Italy, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States.
Click here to view.
Mitigation Strategies for Claims Related to Share-Based Awards
US companies have been granting various forms of share-based awards to employees around the globe for many years, and companies in other countries are increasingly following suit.
Because share-based awards are ubiquitous, and for many companies an important part of the total pay package, we are now also seeing an increasing number of lawsuits and other disputes involving such awards.
Broadly, these disputes can be categorized as follows:
Entitlement Claims
These can arise if a company is eliminating or paring back a previously offered share program. In this case, employees who are no longer eligible for awards or receive less/reduced awards may claim that they have become entitled to the awards, such that the company cannot unilaterally eliminate/reduce the program without otherwise compensating the employee. Employees may also try to raise constructive dismissal claims.
A related issue in this situation is whether a company has to notify or consult with existing Works Council or other employee representative bodies regarding the changes to the share program. If Works Council is found to have a consultation right, implementing the change without such consultation can be very problematic and Works Council can take the company to court.
Increased Severance Pay
If an employee is involuntarily terminated, they are often entitled to statutory severance pay. Severance pay is typically calculated based on the employee’s salary paid during a certain period prior to termination. If share-based award income has to be included as salary for this purpose, this can increase (in some cases, significantly) the amount of severance pay due to the employee.Continue Reading Mitigation Strategies for Claims Related to Share-Based Awards
The Global Employer: Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update | September 2024
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Austria, Italy, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and the United States.
Click here to view.
The Global Employer: Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update | June 2024
We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Brazil, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Click here to view.
Still Going Strong: M&A Noncompetes and the FTC’s Final Rule on Noncompetes
On Tuesday this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its highly anticipated final rule on noncompetes, imposing a near-total ban on worker noncompetes in the United States. Barring injunctive relief from legal challenges (which have already started), the rule will take effect 120 days from publication in the federal register.
Interestingly, the rule exempts noncompete covenants entered into pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business. While “bona fide” is not defined in the final rule, the Supplementary Information for the rule explains that the FTC considered but rejected percentage and dollar minimum thresholds for the sale of business exception to weed out “exploitative and coercive” noncompetes and clarified that excepted noncompetes must be given “pursuant to a bona fide sale.” The Supplementary Information further explains that the FTC considers a bona fide sale to be one that is made between two independent parties at arm’s length, and in which the seller has a reasonable opportunity to negotiate the terms of the sale. In contrast, the FTC specifically calls out as problematic “springing noncompetes,” which apply to employees in the event of a sale and mandatory stock redemption or repurchase programs because the employee has no goodwill to exchange in the sale for the noncompete and no meaningful opportunity to negotiate at the time of contracting.
Nevertheless, the bona fide sale exception is broad and preserves the status quo by allowing buyers in M&A transactions to obtain noncompetes from individual sellers in circumstances where such noncompetes are otherwise permitted currently. While the pending and anticipated legal challenges to the rule are significant and place the entire rule in jeopardy, the sale of business exception is not likely to be narrowed because of these challenges.
So, what does this new regime mean for M&A?
What Type of Noncompetes Are Impacted?
The Supplementary Information confirms that the new rule does not apply to B2B noncompetes or nonsolicits. Instead, the focus of the rule is noncompetes with workers that limit their ability to work for others. So the rule does not impact current B2B agreements.
Second, the FTC repeatedly makes the point that noncompetes must meet existing state and federal law restrictions (e.g., reasonable in scope and duration; limited to the goodwill to be acquired, etc.) to be enforceable, even if they otherwise fall within the sale of business exception in the new rule. This is the case because the FTC rule creates a new floor for noncompetes by preempting more lax state rules, but it does not preempt more stringent state laws or federal antitrust restrictions.Continue Reading Still Going Strong: M&A Noncompetes and the FTC’s Final Rule on Noncompetes
Special Delivery: The PWFA Final Rule Has Arrived
Employers have been eagerly awaiting the EEOC’s Final Rule to implement the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act, and it’s (finally!) here. On April 15, the EEOC issued the Final Rule, which largely follows the proposed rule (we blogged about the proposed rule here, and about the PWFA here). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2024 and will take effect on June 18, 2024. There are no major surprises for employers, but the Final Rule has arrived with a bit of controversy.Continue Reading Special Delivery: The PWFA Final Rule Has Arrived
Breaking News: The FTC Bans Nearly All Employer-Employee Noncompetes Except Those Given as Part of a ‘Bona Fide’ Sale of Business
On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 to issue its final rule on noncompetes, imposing a near-total ban on all employer-employee noncompetes in the US. Barring challenges (the first lawsuits have already been filed), the rule would become effective 120 days from publication.
The rule will be a game-changer for companies operating in the US if it takes effect as issued.
Breaking it Down
What does the rule do?
With only a few exceptions, the FTC’s now-final rule declares employer-employee noncompete clauses an “unfair method of competition,” and a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The rule targets both formal noncompete clauses and “functional noncompete” clauses that have the effect of prohibiting the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person or operating a business after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer. This can include broad nondisclosure agreements that have the effect of precluding workers from seeking employment opportunities in the same field.Continue Reading Breaking News: The FTC Bans Nearly All Employer-Employee Noncompetes Except Those Given as Part of a ‘Bona Fide’ Sale of Business
New DOL Rule Makes it Harder to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors (Plus a Quick Recap of the Key Misclassification Standards Across the US)
The Department of Labor’s “new” rule for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act took effect March 11, 2024. The DOL’s Final Rule returns employers to a familiar pre-Trump administration totality of the circumstances test that focuses on the “economic realities” of the worker’s situation. The practical impact is that it is now harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, and it will likely increase federal wage and hour claims.
There are mounting legal challenges to the Final Rule contesting the DOL’s rulemaking authority. However, to date, none of the suits have been successful at blocking implementation of the Final Rule. So, for now, it stands.
Practice pointer: different legal tests for different laws
Employers new to the US are often baffled to learn that no single test exists to evaluate independent contractor status for all purposes. This means compliance is complicated since different tests may apply depending on the context. And yes, this also means that it’s feasible for a worker to be an independent contractor for some purposes and an employee for others (such as under state and federal law, for example). Continue reading for a summary of the key tests that come up most often for US multinationals.Continue Reading New DOL Rule Makes it Harder to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors (Plus a Quick Recap of the Key Misclassification Standards Across the US)
Pregnant Pause: The EEOC’s Delay In Issuing Final Regs For The PWFA Should Not Delay Compliance
You’re not alone in wondering where the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s final regulations to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act are. In fact, they are well past their due date.
How it started
The PWFA became effective on June 27, 2023. In August 2023, the EEOC published proposed regulations to implement the PWFA. (We outlined the proposed regulations in our blog here, and about the PWFA here). The public comment period for the proposed regulations closed October 10, 2023, and the proposed regulations were delivered to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) on December 27, 2023 for review.
How it is going
However, to date, no final regulations have been issued, despite the PWFA’s requirement that the EEOC issue regulations by December 29, 2023. The regulations, once finalized, will provide clarity for employers implementing policies and practices to comply with the PWFA. For instance, the proposed regulations outline a nonexhaustive list of what the EEOC considers potential accommodations under the PWFA, including job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.
However, even without final regulations in place, employers are required to meet the PWFA’s mandates. The proposed regulations can still be used to offer insight into how the EEOC believes the PWFA should be interpreted.Continue Reading Pregnant Pause: The EEOC’s Delay In Issuing Final Regs For The PWFA Should Not Delay Compliance
Federal Contractors May Soon Be Required To Disclose Salary Ranges in Job Postings, And Prohibited From Seeking Applicant Salary History
We may be on the verge of pay equity and transparency requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors. On January 30, 2024 the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued proposed rulemaking that would, if finalized in its current form, require a significant change in recruiting and hiring practices for some contractors.
The FAR Council’s rule would:
- Require covered contractors to implement new compensation disclosure requirements in job announcements for certain positions, and
- Prohibit covered contractors from requesting or considering applicants’ compensation history when making employment decisions.
The public has until April 1, 2024 to submit comments. We will be tracking this proposed rule as it continues to develop.
This is just the most recent development in the nationwide wave of state (e.g. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington) and local (e.g. Cincinnati, Jersey City, New York City and others) pay transparency regulation our team has chronicled on our blog–see our most recent update on the District of Columbia’s new legislation here. Recently, there has also been litigation in various jurisdictions (e.g. Washington and New York City) seeking to enforce pay transparency regulations that are already on the books.
Potentially broad application
In its current form, the proposed rule would have broad application, covering both prime contractors and subcontractors performing a government contract or subcontract within the United States (including its outlying areas). The FAR Council states that it contemplated limiting application of the requirements to certain contracts but ultimately did not go that way since “[t]he benefits of the pay equity and transparency requirements in this proposed rule are equally impactful in commercial and noncommercial settings as well as to large or small dollar contracts.”
The proposal defines “work on or in connection with the [government] contract” as “work called for by the contract or work activities necessary to the performance of the contract but not specifically called for by the contract.” The Council “encourages” contractors to apply its provisions “to other positions, including to the recruitment and hiring for any position that the Contractor reasonably believes could eventually perform work on or in connection with the contract.”
Both requirements apply only to “applicants,” defined as a “prospective employee or current employee applying for a position to perform work on or in connection with the [government] contract.”Continue Reading Federal Contractors May Soon Be Required To Disclose Salary Ranges in Job Postings, And Prohibited From Seeking Applicant Salary History