Starting from August 24, 2021, amendments1 to the Federal Law “On Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation” regarding the procedure for accreditation of branches and representative offices (RO) of foreign legal entities will come into force:
By Eliab Taïrou, from our Labour and Employment Law Group
March 15, 2021 — It is well known that a major part of labour law consists of balancing the rights and interests of the employer with those of the employees.
One of the evolving and topical aspects of this balancing act is the question of the employer’s power of direction versus the employee’s right to privacy. The right to fair and reasonable working conditions also comes into consideration. How, then, can the employer manage and operate its business while respecting the employee’s dignity and privacy?
Enacted on December 4, 2020, the Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020 (the “IoT Act”) is expected to dramatically improve the cybersecurity of the ubiquitous IoT devices. With IoT devices on track to exceed 21.5 billion by 2025, the IoT Act mandates cybersecurity standards and guidelines for the acquisition and use by the federal government of IoT devices capable of connecting to the Internet. The IoT Act, and the accompanying standards and guidance being developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will directly affect government contractors who manufacture IoT devices for federal government use, or who provide services, software or information systems using IoT devices to the federal government.
Russian federal service for surveillance in healthcare (Roszdravnadzor) presented1 an overview of its control and supervisory activities for 2020. Below are the main conclusions of the Overview.
A critical component of a successful employer-employee relationship is the employer’s fair and equitable treatment of employees, often embodied in the employer’s employee engagement, retention, and compensation practices. When it comes to compensation, U.S. employers must comply with federal and applicable state equal pay laws that prohibit discriminatory pay practices, and a myriad of state and local laws banning inquiries into, or the use of, prior salary history in setting pay. Yet, compensation bias and discrimination still exist and continue to be the subject of government investigations, audits, and litigation.
On March 5, 2021, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue promulgated a new regulation (830 CMR 62.5A.3), setting forth the sourcing rules that apply to income earned by employees who telecommute due to the COVID-19 state of emergency in Massachusetts. The new regulation relates to non-resident employees who telecommute outside of Massachusetts on behalf of Massachusetts-based employers. It also explains the parallel treatment accorded to resident employees with income tax liabilities in other states that have adopted similar sourcing rules.
Serial Article III: Practical Guidance on Chinese Company Chops and Legal Representatives’ Signatures – Case Study
In 2020 several chop-hostage crises afflicted high profile companies in China which created corporate drama news headlines on a number of occasions. Read more…
Video & Podcast: EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling on the Agency’s Outlook for 2021 – Employment Law This Week
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: In this episode, hear from EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling. As a sitting commissioner, Mr. Sonderling has a unique perspective on priorities, new initiatives, and the outlook for what employers can expect from the agency in 2021. Attorney David Garland leads the conversation.
Employers and the New Administration is a special podcast series from Employment Law This Week®, with analysis of the first 100 days of the Biden administration. Special podcast episodes air every other #WorkforceWednesday.
Serial Article II: Practical Guidance on Chinese Company Chops and Legal Representatives’ Signatures – Safeguarding and Verifying Chops
Needless to say, it is important to make sure that a chop or signature is genuine. But in reality, it is impractical, if not impossible at all, to expect checks to be conducted at the forensic, or quasi-forensic level. Read more…