The “Große Koalition” (the Grand Coalition) recently concluded a variety of legislative projects which will result in additional headaches, administrative hurdles, thresholds and new deadlines for HR professionals and employment experts. Traditionally, labor and employment laws in Germany have tended to be employee friendly. Now it appears that the few remaining employer-friendly laws enacted in the early 1980s to improve overall employment in Germany will also be reversed.

One area subject to challenge is time restricted employment. Until now, German employers could use time restricted employment even without substantive reasons for up to two years. This concept, known by the somewhat technical German term “sachgrundlose Befristung”, became extremely popular due to wide coverage which extended outside the legal press.

Federal Constitutional Court narrows use of time restricted employment contract

In June 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany (“Bundesverfassungsgericht”) overruled a 2011 judgment of the Federal Labor Court (“Bundesarbeitsgericht”). The

On May 21, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are to be enforced as written.  In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a trio of consolidated appeals, the Court rejected arguments by employees that section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) – which permits employees to engage in “concerted activity” for the purposes of “collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” – grants employees a statutory right to assert legal claims (such as claims under federal and state wage and hour laws) on a class or collective basis.

This decision is significant for employers nationwide. Since 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has asserted that such waivers violate the NLRA, forcing employers to choose whether to (a) risk violation of the NLRA, (b) implement an opt-out procedure that some courts had concluded might comply with the NLRA, or (c)

There are few clauses in employment contracts more heavily debated than Non-Competition Clauses (post-contractual non-competes). While employers tend to include them rather easily in order to protect company secrets beyond the term of an employment, strict and mandatory provisions under German law differ from those found in most other jurisdictions. For post-contractual non-competes to be enforceable, an entire catalogue of requirements must be met, including a mandatory compensation payment of at least 50% of the employee`s total earnings for the maximum term of two years – to name just the two most prominent requirements. Because of the potential financial impact on employers, it is highly advisable to carefully consider whether post-contractual non-competes are necessary at all and, if so, whether they will be enforceable.

Two recent decisions in January 2018 by the Federal Labor Court/ BAG (10 AZR 392/179) and by the Appeals Court/ LAG Düsseldorf (Az: 7 Sa 185/17)

The formation of a new government in Germany has not yet been completed however since February 7, 2018, the coalition agreement has been signed. Such political guidelines were consistently implemented during the last legislative periods.

The changes affect fixed-term contracts which require no objective grounds for limitation. The maximum permissible duration of such fixed-term contracts will be reduced from 24 to 18 months. While previously a three-time extension of these contracts was allowed, this should now be possible only once within those 18 months.

The permitted number of such fixed-term employment contracts will also be limited. Employers with more than 75 employees should only be allowed a maximum of 2.5 percent of the workforce for non-material fixed-term contracts. Exceeding the quota leads to the ineffectiveness of any further fixed-term employment contract, and to permanent employment contracts.

Fixed-term contracts with objective grounds for limitation, in practice used if the employee has

Internships are often a great way for students and young people to get their foot in the door and land their first job. But employers must ask themselves: is your unpaid intern actually an intern, or is the “intern” really an employee entitled to wages? Last week, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) aimed to provide clarity and flexibility when it revised its guidance for determining whether an unpaid intern is an “employee” who must be paid under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Unpaid internships have been the focus of some legal uncertainty over the past several years. The source of that uncertainty may be the FLSA’s simplistic definition of “employee” as “an individual employed by an employer.” The Supreme Court has yet to fully address the difference between unpaid interns and paid employees, but in 1947, the Court recognized that unpaid trainees should not be treated as

This article continues with another tip for drafting executive employment agreements and the importance of consulting counsel.

For every well drafted executive employment agreement in the business world, there seem to be multiple, poorly drafted agreements.  Too often, employers simply copy and paste from older agreements without knowing anything about the identity or qualifications of the author of the original agreement, the jurisdiction, or circumstances in which the agreement was intended to be used.  Moreover, employers sometimes borrow terms from an agreement that was heavily negotiated by an executive with considerable leverage.  Under such circumstances, the agreement likely will contain terms that are less favorable to the employer than those that can be negotiated with another executive.  Most employers do not realize their mistakes until they are consulting an employment attorney regarding their rights and obligations with respect to an executive who has engaged in misconduct or is simply performing

This article continues with another tip for drafting executive employment agreements and the importance of consulting counsel.

For every well drafted executive employment agreement in the business world, there seem to be multiple, poorly drafted agreements.  Too often, employers simply copy and paste from older agreements without knowing anything about the identity or qualifications of the author of the original agreement, the jurisdiction, or circumstances in which the agreement was intended to be used.  Moreover, employers sometimes borrow terms from an agreement that was heavily negotiated by an executive with considerable leverage.  Under such circumstances, the agreement likely will contain terms that are less favorable to the employer than those that can be negotiated with another executive.  Most employers do not realize their mistakes until they are consulting an employment attorney regarding their rights and obligations with respect to an executive who has engaged in misconduct or is simply performing

In mid-May, the New York Times published a long article reporting a national trend that employers are expanding both the number of employees who are required to sign non-competition agreements and the types of employees required to sign these agreements.  The article emphasized stories of low-paid, low-level employees who could not find a new job, or had to take a lower paying job, because they signed a non-competition agreement.  The Times ran an editorial that urged legislatures to prohibit employers from restricting the employment opportunities of lower paid employees.

What is missing from this picture?

While the Times article mentioned states vary in enforcement of non-competition restrictions, noting that California prohibits all restrictions on employees moving to new jobs, it did not explain the important differences in how states other than California enforce non-competition restrictions.  The Times article also did not report the damage to a business that may

This article continues with another tip for drafting executive employment agreements and the importance of consulting counsel.

For every well drafted executive employment agreement in the business world, there seem to be multiple, poorly drafted agreements.  Too often, employers simply copy and paste from older agreements without knowing anything about the identity or qualifications of the author of the original agreement, the jurisdiction, or circumstances in which the agreement was intended to be used.  Moreover, employers sometimes borrow terms from an agreement that was heavily negotiated by an executive with considerable leverage.  Under such circumstances, the agreement likely will contain terms that are less favorable to the employer than those that can be negotiated with another executive.  Most employers do not realize their mistakes until they are consulting an employment attorney regarding their rights and obligations with respect to an executive who has engaged in misconduct or is simply performing

Tip No. 1:  Define “Cause” Broadly

Executives and other high-level employees often negotiate a contractual provision requiring the payment of severance if terminated without “Cause” prior to the expiration of a term agreement.  While the definition of Cause often depends on the parties’ respective bargaining power (highly sought talent typically has considerable leverage), the employer should attempt to negotiate as broad a definition of Cause as possible.  Too often, employers limit the definition of Cause to intentional misconduct that harms the company, criminal behavior, or the executive’s death.  Such a narrow definition ties the employer’s hands when an executive is not making a good-faith effort to perform well or is performing very poorly despite reasonable efforts.  Under these circumstances, the employer’s options are limited to continuing to employ the underperforming executive or terminating the executive and paying out severance.

It is also fairly common for Cause definitions to include a