Speaking only Japanese in meetings not discriminatory:  In Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., 2024 WL 117180 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the plaintiff was a Caucasian male of European descent who was employed for three months in the defendant bank’s New York branch. After his employment was terminated, he sued, claiming, among other things, that the bank discriminated against non-Japanese employees based on race and national origin. As evidence, he claimed that “all important corporate issues were discussed exclusively in Japanese, even when non-Japanese speaking employees were present.” He also claimed that meetings were often “held exclusively in Japanese,” and so he could not participate in them or learn about the bank’s “priorities” from listening to the meetings.  The court held that even if the allegations were true, this did not constitute unlawful discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Instead, the discrimination was based on the ability to speak a particular language. The practice did not discriminate based on race or national origin because, as the court held, the employee “could have chosen to learn Japanese.” The court further held that while the employer was not “required to allow its employees to speak in their native tongue, it was not required to force employees to use a particular language.”  Source:  Littler 3/18/24

New OFCCP’s VEVRAA hiring  benchmark is 5.2%:  VEVRAA requires contractors to establish a hiring benchmark every year to measure their progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity for protected veterans. They can establish the benchmark by adopting the national hiring benchmark, which is updated annually by OFCCP, or by setting an individualized benchmark using a five-factor method.   OFCCP’s national hiring benchmark for 2024 can be found on its VEVRAA hiring benchmark webpage. Effective March 31, 2024, the new benchmark is 5.2%.  Source: OFCCP 3/28/24

Should the U.S. have a "right to disconnect" law?  Have you ever answered business emails late at night or on weekends?  Increasingly more nations, including France, Argentina, Ireland and recently Australia, have passed what are known as “right to disconnect” laws, giving workers the legal right not to respond to that email after hours — and not face negative repercussions.  It’s a shift that’s come on the heels of advancing technology that allows employees to be connected around the clock — and workers’ reprioritization of their personal lives accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.   In some cases, like in Chile and Mexico, the laws only apply to remote workers, but in others, they are universal. While a few states and at least one city — including Washington, California, and New York City — have considered the right to disconnect, the U.S. doesn’t have any such legislation on the books.  As one expert explains, a right to disconnect movement in the U.S. likely will be led by individual organizations. It is about mental health and work connection.  There is a need to reduce the “addiction” to work.   Source:  HR Dive 3/18/24

Have you trained your employees for flexible work? Most employers haven’t adapted their practices to support the shift to flexible work, with 3 out of 4 workers saying their employer hasn’t provided training to handle it, according to a March 19 report by TechSmith Corp., Global Workplace Analytics and Caryatid Workplace Consultancy.  Five years ago, fewer than 5% of employees had the option to work remotely on a regular basis, according to the report; now 58% of workers have the option at least some of the time. As a result, leaders and managers need hybrid-related skills such as establishing team or meeting norms and leading a distributed workforce.  A popular course at ASE has been Managing Remote Teams.  Since remote work is the way of the world these days, employers need to work on training that will allow employees to be successful no matter where they work from, from technology skills to socializing skills in a virtual environment.  Source:  HR Dive 3/19/24

Employees witness workplace violence:  Throughout 2021-2022, there were over 57,000 reports of workplace assault that resulted in injury, according to the National Safety Council. In a new survey from compliance training platform Traliant, one in four employees said they have witnessed violence within the workplace in the last five years, with 12% reporting being victims themselves.  30% of respondents said they have not received any workplace violence training and only 44% said their employer promotes a culture where incidents of misconduct can be reported without fear of retaliation, and one-third said they would only report an issue if it could be done anonymously. Another 86% said they believe their employer needs to increase their efforts around mental health resources. California recently passed a workplace violence prevention law that will take effect on July 1, requiring all business owners to put a written workplace violence prevention plan in place, provide yearly training and record all incidents of workplace violence. The law defines workplace violence as anything that occurs in a workplace that can harm an employee physically or psychologically.  90% of Traliant's survey respondents said they believe other states should follow California's lead. Traliant provides on-demand training in this area. ASE members receive preferred pricing.  Learn more here.   Source:  EBN 3/22/24

China has updated its cross border data transfer requirements:  On March 22, 2024, when the CAC published the “Provisions on Promoting and Regulating Cross-border Data Flows” (the “Approved Provisions”). The Approved Provisions adopt three key changes, first proposed in September 2023, to the CAC’s original cross-border data transfer rules, which were published in February 2023.  These changes will substantially reduce multinational employers’ compliance burdens when transferring human resources (HR) data and business contact information (BCI) out of China.  Under China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL).  the following are requirements for transfers of personal information overseas:

• Providing notice to data subjects of the overseas transfer of their personal information;
• Obtaining the express consent of the data subject to the cross-border data transfer;
• Conducting a “transfer impact assessment” (TIA) to assess the risks associated with the data transfer; and
• Executing a standard data contract issued by the CAC.

With respect to HR data, this means subsidiaries of multinationals in China are not required to enter into the Standard Contract, when the transfer of HR data from China is truly necessary to carry out cross-border HR management in accordance with the employer’s internal labor rules and regulations and collective contracts.  Further, the Approved Provisions necessarily eliminate the need to file the TIA with the Chinese government.  Source:  Littler 3/27/24