• Employment Law
    特斯拉H-1B歧视案最新裁定：一封"H-1B only"邮件让工程师胜出初审，HR高管却因岗位性质被拒之门外 核心摘要：美国联邦法官2月23日裁定，拒绝驳回工程师Scott Taub对特斯拉提起的集体诉讼。Taub称，招聘公司Max Eleven明确告知他某特斯拉职位"H-1B only"，导致他作为美国公民被拒于门外。法官Chhabria认为，这封邮件虽"证据单薄"，但已足够维持歧视指控。然而同案另一原告、HR高管Sofia Brander的指控则被驳回——法官认为特斯拉偏好H-1B员工的领域集中于技术岗位，将其延伸至HR岗位"不合逻辑"。 案件背景：一封邮件，引发一场联邦诉讼 2026年2月23日，美国加利福尼亚州北区联邦地区法院法官 Vince Chhabria 作出裁定，拒绝驳回工程师 Scott Taub 对特斯拉（Tesla, Inc.）提起的集体诉讼核心指控。这一裁定意味着，指控特斯拉在招聘中系统性偏袒H-1B签证持有人、歧视美国公民的诉讼，将正式进入下一阶段的司法审查程序。 事情的起源，是一封再普通不过的招聘邮件。 Taub 收到了第三方招聘公司 Max Eleven 联系人 Mr. Sainik 发来的职位邀约，职位为特斯拉的 QA Automation Engineer（质量自动化工程师）。邮件内容写明，该职位为"H1B only"——仅限持H-1B工作签证的候选人申请，并要求提供"Travel history / i94"（入境记录与入境卡信息）。作为美国公民的 Taub，看到这行字后放弃了申请。随后，他以就业歧视为由，将特斯拉告上了联邦法院，并寻求集体诉讼资格。 案件基本信息：案件名称 Taub et al v. Tesla, Inc.，案件编号 3:25-cv-07785，法院为美国加利福尼亚州北区联邦地区法院，主审法官 Vince Chhabria，裁定日期2026年2月23日。原告一 Scott Taub（工程师，指控维持），原告二 Sofia Brander（HR高管，指控驳回），被告 Tesla, Inc.，涉事第三方招聘公司 Max Eleven。 法官裁定：证据"单薄"，但足以维持诉讼 在裁定书中，Chhabria 法官坦承这是一个"close question"（近乎临界的问题），措辞罕见地透露出司法审慎。他的核心逻辑是：在诉讼初期审查阶段，所有推断必须有利于原告。 法官在裁定中写道："The plaintiffs have pled just enough facts to allege that Tesla discriminated against US citizens."（原告已陈述了足够的事实，以主张特斯拉歧视美国公民。） 法官同时指出，可以合理推断，当 Max Eleven 告知 Taub 该职位"H-1B only"时，是在转达特斯拉的招聘偏好，而非招聘公司的自发筛选行为。 他同时对证据质量表达了保留态度，指出邮件的原始上下文存在模糊性：Taub 提问的原文未附在诉状中，邮件格式也难以判断是否为回复邮件。法官在裁定书中写道："All of this causes the court to be somewhat skeptical of Taub's allegations. But because all inferences must be drawn in Taub's favor at this stage, the Max Eleven email and the allegations related to it are sufficient to state a claim for discrimination." 两位原告，两种结局——HR高管为何被驳回？ 本案有两位原告，但结局截然不同。工程师 Taub 的指控得以维持，HR高管 Sofia Brander 的指控则被法官完全驳回。 Brander 同样主张，自己因美国公民身份被特斯拉歧视性地排除在求职机会之外。然而，法官认为此论据存在根本性的逻辑漏洞。裁定书中写道："The complaint alleges that Tesla uses H-1B workers for 'specialized roles in engineering, research, and design,' so it wouldn't make sense for Tesla to favor H-1B workers for HR roles." 换言之，法院认为特斯拉对H-1B工人的依赖主要集中于工程、研发等高技术性岗位，将这一逻辑延伸至HR职位不合情理。因此，Brander 被认定缺乏充分的指控基础。 值得注意的是，法院给予 Brander 14天时间修订诉状，决定是否继续追诉。其指控并非永久关闭，若能提供更充分的事实依据，仍有机会重新进入诉讼程序。 起诉书中的更多细节：数字背后的系统性指控 仅靠一封邮件，能撑起一场集体诉讼吗？起诉书中的指控远不止于此。根据公开的起诉书原文（案件提交于2025年9月），原告援引了一系列数据，试图证明特斯拉的H-1B偏好并非个案，而是系统性的招聘政策： 特斯拉在2024年聘用了约1,355名H-1B签证持有人，同期却裁员逾6,000名美国本土员工，其中绝大多数为美国公民。 特斯拉通过 Max Eleven、West Valley Staffing、ManPower、Balance Staffing、Nelson Staffing 等多家第三方人力外包公司大量引进H-1B工人，而这部分招聘名额未必计入官方H-1B申报数据，属于监管盲区。 招聘公司 Max Eleven 的联系人 Mr. Sainik 在邮件中不仅注明"H1B only"，还同时要求候选人提供"Travel history / i94"——这是典型的签证状态筛选操作。 特斯拉方面在法庭文件中将上述指控称为"preposterous"（荒谬绝伦），否认存在任何系统性歧视。 法官 Chhabria 对这些系统性指控态度相对冷淡，明确表示所有指控中只有关于招聘公司邮件的部分具有价值，大量统计数据本身不构成歧视的直接证据。但这些数字仍将在后续诉讼中发挥重要作用，为原告构建系统性歧视模式（pattern and practice）的主张提供支撑。 北美HR从业者合规警示：你的风险在哪里？ 对于在美国企业从事HR工作的专业人士，这起案件并非遥远的法律事件，而是直接关乎日常操作规范的行业警钟。 风险一：第三方招聘公司的沟通内容，同样是你的法律责任 本案最具颠覆性的法律逻辑在于：法官明确表示，可以合理推断招聘公司是在转达特斯拉的偏好，而非自行决策。这意味着，即便是你委托的外部猎头或人力外包公司，其发给候选人邮件中的一句话，也可能成为你公司的诉讼依据。 合规建议：立即审查所有外部招聘合作协议，加入明确条款，禁止合作方在任何沟通材料中出现签证状态相关的候选人筛选表述，并要求合作方定期报告招聘沟通样本。 风险二："H-1B only"是高风险表述，即便是口头传达 在美国就业歧视的法律框架下，以国籍（national origin）或公民/签证身份（citizenship / immigration status）为由限制求职机会，在特定情境下可能违反《移民与国籍法》第274B条款（INA § 274B），该条款明确禁止因公民身份而产生的就业歧视。即便是通过招聘公司间接传达的偏好，都可能被视为企业招聘政策的延伸。 风险三：岗位描述和签证状态挂钩，属于高风险操作 将特定职位与特定签证类型绑定，不论是在职位描述、招聘简报还是内部备忘录中，均可能成为歧视意图的直接证据。HR团队在与招聘方沟通岗位需求时，应严格区分"工作授权要求"（work authorization requirement）与"签证类型偏好"（visa type preference）。前者在某些涉密岗位中有法律依据，后者几乎没有任何合法保护空间。 建议立即采取的合规行动： 审计所有与外部招聘机构的合作协议，确保包含明确的反歧视条款，尤其是禁止签证状态相关筛选的条款。要求外部招聘合作方提交标准化的候选人沟通模板，由内部法务或HR合规团队审核。对内部招聘团队进行合规培训，明确区分"工作授权状态"（可合法询问）与"签证类型偏好"（通常不可操作）的边界。建立招聘合规举报机制，鼓励员工在发现类似问题时安全报告。如企业使用多家人力外包公司，需逐一审查其操作规范，不能仅依靠合同条款而忽视实际执行层面的风险。 更大的背景：H-1B政策收紧与合规新常态 这起诉讼并非孤立事件。它发生在美国政治与政策环境对H-1B签证高度敏感的时间节点上。近年来，围绕H-1B制度的争议持续发酵，"美国工人优先"的政策叙事贯穿两党议题。在这一背景下，企业的H-1B招聘实践正面临来自多个方向的审查压力——不仅是政府监管层面，也包括来自员工、竞争对手和公众舆论的多重目光。 值得注意的是，本案的指控人并非政府监管机构，而是个人求职者。这意味着就业歧视的法律风险并不仅来自劳工部、移民局等监管部门的执法，也可能来自任何一位曾在招聘过程中感受到不公平对待的候选人。 对于在美国运营、并大量依赖H-1B人才管道的企业，这起案件传递出清晰的信号：招聘合规必须从政策层面下沉到操作层面，从内部规范延伸到外部合作伙伴的沟通细节。一封来自第三方招聘公司的邮件，足以成为联邦集体诉讼的起点。 案件后续进展 特斯拉目前尚未就此案公开发表评论。Sofia Brander 获14天时间决定是否修订诉状。Scott Taub 的指控将进入实质性诉讼审查阶段，双方需就证据开示（discovery）展开程序。HR Tech 将持续追踪本案进展，为北美HR从业者带来第一手合规资讯。 本文仅供专业参考，不构成法律意见。如需法律咨询，请联系持牌劳动法律师。 1. 原始起诉书（Complaint）全文 PDF 这是2025年9月12日提交的诉状，已公开： ? https://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Tesla-Suit-re-H-1B-Visas.pdf
    Employment Law
    2026年03月03日
  • Employment Law
    Workday 请求法院驳回年龄歧视索赔：AI 招聘首次进入全国集体诉讼核心，北美华人 HR 需要关注什么？ HR科技巨头 Workday 近日在一起备受关注的 AI 招聘诉讼中采取了最新法律行动。根据其在 2026 年 1 月 21 日向法院提交的文件，Workday 正式请求法官驳回原告提出的“差别影响（disparate impact）年龄歧视”指控，并主张《Age Discrimination in Employment Act（ADEA）》的适用范围仅保护在职员工，而不涵盖求职者。因此，公司认为应当撤销求职者基于年龄歧视提出的相关索赔。这一动议，是目前 Mobley v. Workday 案件的最新进展，也标志着该案正式进入核心法律博弈阶段。 该诉讼最早于 2023 年提起，原告为一批求职者，他们指控 Workday 的 AI 招聘与筛选工具在算法决策中对年龄等受保护群体造成系统性不利影响，从而构成歧视。2025 年 2 月，法院批准该案以 nationwide collective action（全国集体诉讼） 形式推进，使其从个体纠纷升级为覆盖全美范围的大规模案件。与此同时，法官还曾要求 Workday 提供使用其 HiredScore technology 的雇主完整名单，进一步扩大了潜在影响面。Workday 则公开回应称，其 AI 工具并不会识别或使用种族、年龄或残疾等受保护属性，并强调最终决策仍由人工主导。 从法律层面看，Workday 当前的策略并非直接围绕“算法是否存在偏见”展开，而是聚焦更基础的问题——求职者是否具备提起“差别影响”诉讼的法律资格。换言之，公司希望通过对法律条款的解释，缩小案HR件的适用范围。无论法院最终是否采纳这一主张，这一动作本身已经说明：AI 招聘正在从技术问题转变为司法问题。 对于北美华人 HR 从业者而言，这一点尤其值得重视。许多 NACSHR 社群成员所在的企业多为中小规模公司、跨州运营团队或初创组织，HR 通常身兼招聘、合规、员工关系与系统管理等多重角色。现实情况是，当企业采购 ATS 或 AI 筛选工具时，系统上线往往被视为效率优化；但一旦候选人质疑筛选结果或提起投诉，站出来解释流程、提供记录、应对律师函的人，往往是 HR 本人，而不是技术供应商。 这正是 Workday 案件释放的真正信号：算法并不会分担雇主责任。即便筛选由系统完成，法律仍然认定这是雇主的用工行为。企业不能以“系统自动决定”为由规避风险，HR 也无法以“工具问题”完全免责。 更广泛地看，Workday 并非孤例。此前 Eightfold AI 也因招聘流程涉及 FCRA 合规问题而遭遇诉讼调查。两起案件虽然分别涉及 ADEA 与 FCRA，不同的法律框架，却指向同一个趋势：只要算法影响到候选人的就业机会，它就等同于招聘决策本身，必须接受同等甚至更严格的监管与审查。这意味着，HR 科技行业已经进入“强合规时代”。 与此同时，监管环境也在不断收紧。包括 California 在内的多个州已开始要求企业在使用自动化招聘工具时提供候选人退出机制（opt-out），并进行风险评估与透明度披露。这类规定实际上将“算法治理”正式纳入 HR 日常合规管理范畴，而不再是技术团队的内部事务。 在这一背景下，HR 的能力模型正在悄然改变。过去我们关注的是招聘速度、转化率和成本控制；而未来更关键的问题是：系统是否可解释、是否可审计、是否留存记录、是否经得起监管问询。如果无法清晰说明筛选逻辑或提供合规证明，那么效率提升带来的收益，很可能被一次诉讼完全抵消。 对 NACSHR 的华人 HR 同行来说，这些案例并非遥远的大公司新闻，而是与日常工作直接相关的风险提醒。无论企业规模大小，只要开始使用 AI 招聘工具，就已经进入同一套法律框架之中。真正成熟的数字化升级，不是简单上线更多自动化，而是在效率、合规与信任之间取得平衡。 Workday 当前的法律动作，或许只是这场变革的开端，但它已经清晰地勾勒出一个趋势：未来的招聘竞争，不再只是“谁更智能”，而是“谁更合规、谁更可解释、谁更负责任”。这将成为所有北美 HR 必须面对的新现实。 Workday is seeking dismissal of disparate impact age discrimination claims brought by job applicants in the ongoing Mobley v. Workday lawsuit, arguing that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not extend such protections to applicants. In a court filing on January 21, 2026, the company stated that the law’s “plain language” limits disparate impact claims to employees, not candidates. The case, originally filed in 2023 and certified as a nationwide collective action in 2025, alleges that Workday’s AI recruiting tools discriminated based on age and other protected factors. Workday denies the claims, asserting that its AI systems neither use nor identify protected characteristics. The dispute highlights growing legal and compliance risks tied to AI-driven hiring technologies. Meanwhile, states including California are tightening regulations, requiring opt-out mechanisms and risk assessments for automated decision tools. The case could significantly shape how HR technology vendors and employers deploy AI in recruitment.
    Employment Law
    2026年01月27日
  • Employment Law
    从“禁用机器人上司”到“人机共治”：加州 SB 7 将如何重塑用工 AI 合规版图 加州通过“No Robo Bosses Act”（SB 7），加州州长需在 10 月 12 日前决定是否签署。一旦生效，该法案将于 2026 年 1 月 1 日实施，全面规范 AI 在就业决策中的使用。主要条款包括：雇主不得仅依赖 AI 作出纪律、解雇或停用决定；若主要依赖 AI，必须有人工复核；使用前至少提前 30 天通知员工，并在解雇时单独告知；员工每年有权申请一次相关数据。违规将面临 500 美元/次罚款。这项立法被视为全球首个系统性 AI 职场监管案例，为员工提供更高透明度与数据权利。 以下是正文，供参考： 加州立法机构已通过被称为“No Robo Bosses Act”的 SB 7，并送交州长审议。按照加州官方立法日程，州长需在 2025 年 10 月 12 日前签署或否决该法案；若签署，新法自 2026 年 1 月 1 日起生效。这部全美首创的就业 AI 专法，以“通知—限制—监督—救济”为主线，覆盖从招聘到解雇的几乎全部“就业相关决策”，并在“纪律、解雇或停用”等高风险场景强制引入实质性人工复核。 一、SB 7 到底规范了什么？ 关键定义与适用范围 自动化决策系统（ADS）：凡是由机器学习、统计建模、数据分析或 AI 组成、输出“评分/分类/推荐”等简化结果、用来辅助或替代人的自由裁量、并对自然人产生实质性影响的计算过程，均被纳入。 就业相关决策：范围极广，几乎涵盖工资、福利、工作时长/班次、绩效、招聘、纪律、晋升、解雇、任务/技能要求、工作分配、培训与机会获取、生产率要求、健康与安全等。 工人（Worker）：不仅包括雇员，也包括向企业或政府实体提供服务的独立承包人。 “不能只靠机器”的红线 在纪律、解雇或“停用（deactivation）”决策中，雇主不得仅依赖 ADS。 若“主要依赖” ADS 输出作出上述决定，必须由人类复核者审阅 ADS 输出，并汇总与审查其他相关信息（如主管评估、人员档案、工作成果、同事评议、证人访谈/相关在线评价等）。 不得将客户评分作为唯一或主要输入数据用于就业决策。 二、四大通知义务 使用前通知（Pre-Use Notice） 部署前至少 30 天向将被直接影响的工人发出书面通知；若法律生效时已在用，最迟 2026 年 4 月 1 日完成补通知；新入职者在入职 30 天内告知。 招聘场景：对使用 ADS 的岗位，需在收到申请时或在岗位公告中告知。内容包括：受影响的决策类型、输入数据类别与来源及采集方式、已知会导致输出偏差的关键参数、ADS 创建方、工人数据访问/更正权利、配额说明（如适用）、反报复声明等。 使用后通知（Post-Use Notice） 若在纪律、解雇或停用中“主要依赖 ADS”，在告知该决定的同时，还须向员工发出独立书面通知：说明可联系的人与数据获取方式，表明使用了 ADS，员工有权请求其被使用的数据，并重申反报复。 三、数据权利与合规底线 员工每 12 个月可申请一次，获取过去 12 个月在“主要依赖 ADS”的纪律/解雇/停用决策中所使用的本人数据（提供时须匿名化他人信息）。 禁止性使用：不得用 ADS 违反劳动/民权/安健等法律；不得推断受保护身份；不得围绕未披露目的收集工人数据；不得针对行使权利者进行画像/预测/不利行动。 四、执行与责任 执法机关：加州劳动专员主责，可调查、发临时救济、开具传票与罚单并提起民事诉讼；地方检察官也可起诉。 罚则：每次违规 500 美元民事罚款（可累计）。法案同时禁止对行使权利的员工实施任何形式的报复。 生效与时点：2025 年 10 月 12 日为州长签署/否决截止日期；2026 年 1 月 1 日起生效（若签署）。 五、与其他法律的交互作用 与 CCPA/CPPA 的衔接：若企业受《加州消费者隐私法》及加州隐私保护局关于自动化决策技术的隐私规则约束，则仍须遵守相应隐私规。 工会豁免：若有效的集体谈判协议中明确豁免 SB 7，并对工资/工时/工况与算法管理保护有清晰规定，则在该覆盖范围内不适用。 地方更高标准：SB 7 不排斥提供等同或更高保护的地方法规。 六、难点与灰区 “主要依赖”如何判定？ 法律未给百分比或权重阈值，复核是否实质有效而非走过场，将依赖执法与判例。 通知与数据工作量 多系统、多岗位、多轮通知加数据留存，意味着 HR、法务与 IT 协作成本显著上升。 客户评分的边界 “不得作为唯一或主要输入”的要求，将迫使零售、外卖、平台经济等行业调整绩效与纪律模型。 七、横向对比：其他地区的经验 纽约市 Local Law 144：要求使用自动就业决策工具（AEDT）的企业进行年度偏见审计，并将结果公开，同时在招聘/评估阶段告知候选人和员工。 科罗拉多州 SB 24-205：对“高风险 AI”规定开发者和部署者的合理注意义务，要求进行影响评估，并建立申诉与数据更正路径，将于 2026 年 2 月 1 日生效。 欧盟 AI 法案：采取风险分级监管模式，高风险系统必须建立合规体系，并开展基本权利影响评估（FRIA），监管覆盖就业、教育、金融等多个场景。 八、企业实操路线图 盘点与评估 列出所有 ADS 使用点（招聘、绩效、排班、监控、培训等）。 识别纪律/解雇/停用链路中是否存在“主要依赖”。 审查 AI 供应商合同，确保披露必要数据来源与偏置参数。 通知与数据管理 建立前置通知、后置通知模板，并完成 2026 年 4 月 1 日前的补通知。 建立数据台账，支持员工数据申请与匿名化处理。 培训与演练 培训人类复核者，明确复核标准和证据清单。 建立纪律/解雇/停用的双轨记录机制，确保合规。 九、场景演练：门店一线员工“低评分解雇” 错误做法：直接将顾客星级评价作为主要依据触发解雇。合规做法： 将客户评分作为辅证。 由人类复核者调取主管评估、档案、工作样本、同事/证人意见等。 在决定同时发出后置通知，说明联系人、ADS 介入情况与数据申请权利。 十、对 HR 科技与供应链的影响 产品设计将更重视：通知生成器、人类复核工作台、数据取证与匿名化导出、偏置敏感参数标注等功能。 商业条款倾向：在 SLA 中加入合规配合、日志可提取性、异常暂停条款，对高风险场景的责任分配更加谨慎。 十一、编辑部点评 SB 7 的真正创新点不在于偏见审计或宏观风险分级，而在于直接规定：高风险就业决策必须有人类复核。这一行为导向+流程内嵌的模式，预示着企业 HR 管理将进入“人机共治”的新阶段。难点在于如何界定“主要依赖”与如何确保“复核质量”。未来数年，这些模糊地带将决定 SB 7 在实践中的实际效果。 关键信息与来源 加州议会法案文本：SB 7 Employment: automated decision systems 加州立法日程：2025 年 10 月 12 日为州长签署/否决截止日期，2026 年 1 月 1 日生效（若签署） 相关法规：纽约市 Local Law 144、科罗拉多州 SB 24-205、欧盟 AI 法案
    Employment Law
    2025年09月23日
  • Employment Law
    How California Employees Can Navigate Conflict & Respond to Workplace Aggression 在加州职场，冲突虽常见，但若升级为言语、心理或身体上的攻击，员工权益和安全便受到严重威胁。本文由加州资深劳动律师 Andrea Amaya 撰写，结合丰富实务经验，为员工提供一套应对职场侵害的法律行动指南。 首先，员工需识别何为“正常摩擦”与“侵害行为”之间的界限——如果对方的行为使你感到受威胁、被羞辱、被排挤，或影响工作绩效，就不应被视为“职场常态”。其次，律师强调“记录一切”的重要性，即便是微小的不适也应及时整理证据，如保存邮件、截图聊天记录，并建立日志。 面对挑衅时，理性、专业的回应比情绪化反应更具保护力。文章建议使用明确措辞维护自身底线，并在适当时向HR正式提出书面投诉。但员工也需意识到HR并非完全中立，举报时需谨慎、留存所有记录。如担心遭遇打击报复，建议先与律师沟通。 当局势持续恶化、损害身心健康时，员工应评估是否需要寻求法律援助或考虑离职。在加州，基于歧视、骚扰或报复的侵权可向 CRD 或 EEOC 提出申诉。 作者最后提醒，职场毒性文化的存在并非员工本人的失败，勇敢维权、优先保护自己的心理健康，是专业、成熟且有力的选择。 LOS ANGELES, July 15, 2025-Conflict is part of any workplace and often unavoidable. It can look like subtle disrespect in meetings or outright hostility behind closed doors.But when conflict escalates into aggression, whether it be verbal, psychological, or even physical, and it starts threatening your dignity, safety, and career, it stops being a mere HR matter. As an employment lawyer in California representing employees across industries, I've seen how workplace aggression, left unchecked, can erode mental health, derail careers, and silence otherwise brilliant voices. But I've also seen how clarity, strategy, and the courage to act can turn conflict into a turning point rather than a breaking point. Here's how California employees can navigate workplace conflict and respond to aggression in a way that's not only safe and smart, but legally informed. 1. Recognize the Difference Between Discomfort and Abuse Not every disagreement is "hostile work environment" material. Workplaces are made up of employees with differing opinions, personalities and backgrounds. Disagreements are bound to happen. However, there is a difference between a disagreement or a misunderstanding and a toxic work environment. Many workers, especially in hierarchical or high-pressure fields, normalize toxic dynamics. If you find yourself second-guessing whether your colleague's tone, your supervisor's "jokes," or the constant exclusion from meetings are just part of the job, pause. Ask yourself: Is this behavior isolating me, threatening me, humiliating me, or interfering with my ability to do my job? In California, workplace aggression can cross legal lines if it includes harassment (especially if based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, disability, etc.) or retaliation (for reporting wrongdoing, requesting medical leave, etc.). It doesn't have to be physical. Verbal attacks, threats, and sabotage count. 2. Document Everything, Even the "Small" Stuff Legal cases aren't built on vibes; they're built on records. If a coworker publicly berates you, if your boss sends passive-aggressive emails, or if you're left out of key communications, write it down. Save the emails. Screenshot the thread. Keep a running log with dates, what happened, and who was present. Even if you never file a formal complaint, documentation arms you with clarity and credibility. It helps HR understand patterns, not just isolated events. And if things do escalate legally, it could be the difference between "he said, she said" and a compelling, evidence-based claim. 3. Respond Strategically, Not Emotionally It's human to want to snap back at the colleague who cuts you down in front of others. But emotional reactions can be used against you later, especially if the aggressor is angling to provoke you. Instead, respond with professionalism. If safe, call out the behavior calmly: "I'd prefer to be spoken to respectfully. Is there something specific you want to address?" If you're in a meeting, redirect the conversation or note the inappropriate behavior in writing afterward. Use phrases like: "To clarify what was said earlier…" "For the record, I'd like to note…" Standing up for yourself may feel uncomfortable, especially if you're junior or underrepresented, but it is a crucial step to protecting your dignity. Remember: assertiveness is not aggression. It's boundary-setting. 4. Use Your Company's Processes, But With Eyes Wide Open HR is supposed to be a neutral party, but in practice, they often serve the company's interests. That doesn't mean you shouldn't report bad behavior. It means you should report with awareness. When making a complaint: Be clear, specific, and factual. Stick to workplace impact (e.g., "This interfered with my ability to do X"). Ask for a written acknowledgment of your complaint. Save a copy of everything you submit or receive. In California, retaliation for complaining about unlawful behavior (discrimination, harassment, wage violations, etc.) is itself illegal. Nonetheless, retaliation by an employer is still common. If you're concerned about blowback, consult an employment lawyer before filing the complaint. 5. Know When to Escalate, And When to Exit There comes a point when the question shifts from "Can I fix this?" to "Is this worth staying in?" That's not quitting. That's choosing yourself. If conflict or aggression becomes chronic, or harmful to your health, or it remains unresolved, it may be time to seek outside help. In some cases, a legal letter can prompt change. In others, a claim with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may be appropriate. And sometimes, the bravest and healthiest move is to walk away, with your records intact, your self-respect preserved, and legal options open. This doesn't mean you are giving up. You are simply prioritizing your mental and physical health. You are not unprofessional for protecting your peace. And you are not alone. Take action. Final Thoughts If you're dealing with constant tension or subtle hostility, it's easy to internalize it as a personal failure. But much of what we call "personality conflicts" in the workplace is actually a failure of culture and leadership. Especially for employees from marginalized communities, navigating workplace aggression can feel like an invisible second job. Recognize when a situation is harmful. Leaving a workplace that no longer suits you is not a sign of weakness. While workplace aggression can make you feel powerless, remember that you have the power to control the outcome. You don't need to be loud to stand up for yourself. You just need to be strategic, supported, and unshakably clear on your worth. The law, when understood and applied, is a powerful ally. Contact D.Law by calling (818) 875-2008 or send a message with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your employment rights. Our attorneys are experts in California employment law and worker's rights and can help you with the problems you are faced with.   -By Andrea Amaya, Associate Attorney, D.Law
    Employment Law
    2025年07月15日
  • Employment Law
    Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit 文章讨论了在Workday诉讼中，代理法的相关法律问题。原告声称，Workday的AI筛选工具因种族、年龄和残疾而对他进行了歧视。这起案件提出了HR技术供应商是否可以对歧视性结果直接负责的问题。法律的复杂性包括AI在招聘决策中的角色、代理责任以及对雇主和AI开发者的潜在影响。此案件提醒雇主在实施AI招聘工具时要谨慎，并确保避免法律风险。AI开发者也必须确保其产品无歧视行为，因为该诉讼可能会树立重要的法律先例。 Editor's Note Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit Agency law is so old that it used to be called master and servant law. (That's different from slavery, where human beings were considered the legal property of other humans based on their race, gender, and age, which is partly why we have discrimination laws.) Today, agency laws refer to principals and agents. All employees are agents of their employer, who is the principal. And employers can have nonemployee agents too when they hire someone to do things on their behalf. Generally, agents owe principals a fiduciary duty to act in the principal's best interest, even when that isn't the agent's best interest. Agency laws gets tricky fast because you have to figure out who is in charge, what authority was granted, whether the person acting was inside or outside that authority, what duty applies, and who should be held responsible as a matter of fairness and public policy. Generally, the principal is liable for the acts of the agent, sometimes even when the agent acts outside their authority. And agents acting within their authority are rarely liable for their actions unless it also involves intentional wrongs, like punching someone in the nose. Enter discrimination, which is generally a creature of statute that may or may not be consistent with general agency law even when the words used are exactly the same.   Discrimination is generally an intentional wrong, but employees are not usually directly liable for discrimination because making employment decisions is part of the way employment works and the employer is always liable for those decisions. The big exception is harassment because harassment, particularly sexual harassment, is never part of someone's job duties. So in harassment cases, the individual harasser is liable but the employer may not be unless they knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it. It's confusing and makes your head hurt. And that's just federal discrimination law. Other employment laws, both state and federal, deal with agent liability differently. Now, let's move to the Workday lawsuit. In that case, the plaintiff is claiming that Workday was an agent of the employer, but not in the sense of someone the employer was directing. They are claiming that Workday has independent liability as an employer too because they were acting like an employer in screening and rejecting applicants for the employer. But that's kinda the whole point of HR Technology—to save the employer time and resources by doing some of the work. The software doesn't replace the employer's decision making and the employer is going to be liable for any discrimination regardless of whether and how the employer used their software. If this were a products liability case, the answer would turn on how the product was designed to be used and how the employer used it. But this is an employment law and discrimination case. So, the legal question here is whether a company that makes HR Technology can also be directly liable for discriminatory outcomes when the employer uses that technology.   We don't have an answer to that yet and won't for a while. That's because this case is just at the pleading stage and hasn't been decided based on the evidence. What's happened so far is Workday filed a motion to dismiss based on the allegations in the complaint. Basically, Workday said, "Hey, we're just a software company. We don't make employment decisions; the employer does. It's the employer who is responsible for using our software in a way that doesn't discriminate. So, please let us out of the case. Then the plaintiff and EEOC said it's too soon to decide that. If all of the allegations in the lawsuit are considered true, then the plaintiff has made viable legal claims against Workday.   Those claims are that Workday's screening function acts like the employer in evaluating applications and rejecting or accepting them for the next level of review. This is similar to what third party recruiters and other employment agencies do and those folks are generally liable for those decisions under discrimination law. In addition, Workday could even be an agent of the employer if the employer has directly delegated that screening function to the software.   We're not to the question of whether a software company is really an agent of the employer or is even acting like an employment agency. And even if it is, whether it's the kind of agency that has direct liability or whether it's just the employer who ends up liable. This will all depend on statutory definitions and actual evidence about how the software is designed, how it works, and how the employer used it.   We also aren't at the point where we look at the contracts between the employer and Workday, how liability is allocated, whether there are indemnity clauses, and whether these type of contractual defenses even apply if Workday meets the statutory definition of an employer or agent who can be liable under Title VII.   Causation will also be a big issue because how the employer sets up the software, it's level of supervision of what happens with the software, and what's really going on in the screening process will all be extremely important.   The only thing that's been decided so far is that the plaintiff filed a viable claim against Workday and the lawsuit can proceed. Here are the details of the case and some good general advice for employers using HR Technology in any employment decision making process.   - Heather Bussing AI Workplace Screener Faces Bias Lawsuit: 5 Lessons for Employers and 5 Lessons for AI Developers by Anne Yarovoy Khan, John Polson, and Erica Wilson at Fisher Phillips   A California federal court just allowed a frustrated job applicant to proceed with an employment discrimination lawsuit against an AI-based vendor after more than 100 employers that use the vendor’s screening tools rejected him. The judge’s July 12 decision allows the class action against Workday to continue based on employment decisions made by Workday’s customers on the theory that Workday served as an “agent” for all of the employers that rejected him and that its algorithmic screening tools were biased against his race, age, and disability status. The lawsuit can teach valuable lessons to employers and AI developers alike. What are five things that employers can learn from this case, and what are five things that AI developers need to know? AI Job Screening Tool Leads to 100+ Rejections Here is a quick rundown of the allegations contained in the complaint. It’s important to remember that this case is in the very earliest stages of litigation, and Workday has not yet even provided a direct response to the allegations – so take these points with a grain of salt and recognize that they may even be proven false. Derek Mobley is a Black man over the age of 40 who self-identifies as having anxiety and depression. He has a degree in finance from Morehouse College and extensive experience in various financial, IT help-desk, and customer service positions. Between 2017 and 2024, Mobley applied to more than 100 jobs with companies that use Workday’s AI-based hiring tools – and says he was rejected every single time. He would see a job posting on a third-party website (like LinkedIn), click on the job link, and be redirected to the Workday platform. Thousands of companies use Workday’s AI-based applicant screening tools, which include personality and cognitive tests. They then interpret a candidate’s qualifications through advanced algorithmic methods and can automatically reject them or advance them along the hiring process. Mobley alleges the AI systems reflect illegal biases and rely on biased training data. He notes the fact that his race could be identified because he graduated from a historically Black college, his age could be determined by his graduation year, and his mental disabilities could be revealed through the personality tests. He filed a federal lawsuit against Workday alleging race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, age discrimination under the ADEA, and disability discrimination under the ADA. But he didn’t file just any type of lawsuit. He filed a class action claim, seeking to represent all applicants like him who weren’t hired because of the alleged discriminatory screening process. Workday asked the court to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was not the employer making the employment decision regarding Mobley, but after over a year of procedural wrangling, the judge gave the green light for Mobley to continue his lawsuit. Judge Gives Green Light to Discrimination Claim Against AI Developer Direct Participation in Hiring Process is Key – The judge’s July 12 order says that Workday could potentially be held liable as an “agent” of the employers who rejected Mobley. The employers allegedly delegated traditional hiring functions – including automatically rejecting certain applicants at the screening stage – to Workday’s AI-based algorithmic decision-making tools. That means that Workday’s AI product directly participated in the hiring process. Middle-of-the-Night Email is Critical – One of the allegations Mobley raises to support his claim that Workday’s AI decision-making tool automatically rejected him was an application he submitted to a particular company at 12:55 a.m. He received a rejection email less than an hour later at 1:50 a.m., making it appear unlikely that human oversight was involved. “Disparate Impact” Theory Can Be Advanced – Once the judge decided that Workday could be a proper defendant as an agent, she then allowed Mobley to proceed against Workday on a “disparate impact” theory. That means the company didn’t necessarily intend to screen out Mobley based on race, age, or disability, but that it could have set up selection criteria that had the effect of screening out applicants based on those protected criteria. In fact, in one instance, Mobley was rejected for a job at a company where he was currently working on a contract basis doing very similar work. Not All Software Developers On the Hook – This decision doesn’t mean that all software vendors and AI developers could qualify as “agents” subject to a lawsuit. Take, for example, a vendor that develops a spreadsheet system that simply helps employers sort through applicants. That vendor shouldn’t be part of any later discrimination lawsuit, the court said, even if the employer later uses that system to purposefully sort the candidates by age and rejects all those over 40 years old. 5 Tips for Employers This lawsuit could have just easily been filed against any of the 100+ employers that rejected Mobley, and they still may be added as parties or sued in separate actions.  That is a stark reminder that employers need to tread carefully when implementing AI hiring solutions through third parties. A few tips: Vet Your Vendors – Ensure your AI vendors follow ethical guidelines and have measures in place to prevent bias before you deploy the tool. This includes understanding the data they use to train their models and the algorithms they employ. Regular audits and evaluations of the AI systems can help identify and mitigate potential biases – but it all starts with asking the right questions at the outset of the relationship and along the way. Work with Counsel on Indemnification Language – It’s not uncommon for contracts between business partners to include language shifting the cost of litigation and resulting damages from employer to vendor. But make sure you work with counsel when developing such language in these instances. Public policy doesn’t often allow you to transfer the cost of discriminatory behavior to someone else. You may want to place limits on any such indemnity as well, like certain dollar amounts or several months of accrued damages. And you’ll want to make sure that your agreements contain specific guidance on what type of vendor behavior falls under whatever agreement you reach. Consider Legal Options – Should you be targeted in a discrimination action, consider whether you can take action beyond indemnification when it comes to your AI vendors. Breach of contract claims, deceptive business practice lawsuits, or other formal legal actions to draw the third party into the litigation could work to shield you from shouldering the full responsibility. Implement Ongoing Monitoring – Regularly monitor the outcomes of your AI hiring tools. This includes tracking the demographic data of applicants and hires to identify any patterns that may suggest bias or have a potential disparate impact. This proactive approach can help you catch and address issues before they become legal problems. Add the Human Touch – Consider where you will insert human decision-making at critical spots along your hiring process to prevent AI bias, or the appearance of bias. While an automated process that simply screens check-the-box requirements such as necessary licenses, years of experience, educational degrees, and similar objective criteria is low risk, completely replacing human judgment when it comes to making subjective decisions stands at the peak of riskiness when it comes to the use of AI. And make sure you train your HR staff and managers on the proper use of AI when it comes to making hiring or employment-related decisions. 5 Tips for Vendors While not a complete surprise given all the talk from regulators and others in government regarding concerns with bias in automated decision making tools, this lawsuit should grab the attention of any developer of AI-based hiring tools. When taken in conjunction with the recent ACLU action against Aon Consulting for its use of AI screening platforms, it seems the time for government expressing concerns has been replaced with action. While plaintiffs’ attorneys and government enforcement officials have typically focused on employers when it comes to alleged algorithmic bias, it was only a matter of time before they turned their attention to the developers of these products. Here are some practical steps AI vendors can take now to deal with the threat. Commit to Trustworthy AI – Make sure the design and delivery of your AI solutions are both responsible and transparent. This includes reviewing marketing and product materials. Review Your Work – Engage in a risk-based review process throughout your product’s lifecycle. This will help mitigate any unintended consequences. Team With Your Lawyers – Work hand-in-hand with counsel to help ensure compliance with best practices and all relevant workplace laws – and not just law prohibiting intentional discrimination, but also those barring the unintentional “disparate impact” claims as we see in the Workday lawsuit. Develop Bias Detection Mechanisms – Implement robust testing and validation processes to detect and eliminate bias in your AI systems. This includes using diverse training data and regularly updating your algorithms to address any identified biases. Lean Into Outside Assistance – Meanwhile, collaborate with external auditors or third-party reviewers to ensure impartiality in your bias detection efforts. 原文来自：https://www.salary.com/newsletters/law-review/agency-law-and-the-workday-lawsuit/
    Employment Law
    2024年08月10日
  • Employment Law
    招聘启事中不该写什么 2024 年 6 月 26 日，在佛罗里达州日出市 Amerant Bank Arena 举办的 JobNewsUSA.com 南佛罗里达招聘会上，一家公司向求职者发布招聘广告。两位劳动法律师表示，写得好的招聘广告可以证明雇主没有歧视，但写得不好的招聘广告可能会产生相反的效果。 Leah M. Stiegler 和 Emily Kendall Chowhan 是弗吉尼亚州 Woods Rogers 的管理方就业律师。Stiegler 是该公司劳动与就业业务的负责人，Chowhan 是合伙人。他们每两周为公司领导和人力资源专业人士主持一个视频系列，名为“劳动与就业中的茶话会是什么” 。 在为一个组织制作招聘广告时，古老的体育格言是正确的：最好的防守就是进攻。 这种说法是准确的，原因有多种。首先，写得不好的招聘启事可能会带来重大的法律责任，并可能导致不必要的法律费用和声誉损害。其次，如果职位令人困惑或不清楚，你的理想候选人可能会放弃这个职位。一份执行良好的招聘广告会设定明确的期望，并证明你的组织没有参与歧视性的招聘行为。 以下是为您组织中的空缺职位制作有效且合法的广告的一些技巧。 避免使用可能成为偏见证据的语言 就业歧视法适用于现有员工和求职者。因此，在制定招聘广告时，务必要花时间和精力，以保护您的组织。 写得好的招聘广告可以证明雇主没有歧视，但写得不好的招聘广告可能会产生相反的效果。潜在雇员经常利用招聘广告来提出招聘歧视索赔。 由于年龄歧视索赔很常见，最常见的陷阱之一是列出似乎歧视年长工人的资格。例如，今年早些时候，RTX 公司（原名雷神技术公司）收到了一项集体诉讼，指控该公司将工作岗位保留给应届大学毕业生，从而延续了对年长工人的歧视。原告称，RTX 要求求职者拥有大学学位，并且工作经验不足一到两年。原告是一名 67 岁的男子，他声称 RTX 至少不会考虑他应聘应届毕业生的七个职位。 去年，制药商礼来公司与美国平等就业机会委员会就年龄歧视诉讼达成和解，赔偿金额为240 万美元。诉讼的焦点是年龄较大的医药销售代表职位申请人，他们据称因公司的“早期职业”招聘计划而被拒绝录用。“早期职业”招聘计划旨在改变招聘偏好，为公司员工队伍增加更多千禧一代。 在这些情况下，并非所有的新闻都是好的新闻。 为了避免可能发生的年龄歧视案件，请勿使用可能被视为明显歧视的语言。招聘广告中不应出现“仅限年轻人”或“不适合年长员工”等字眼。其次，避免使用任何暗示更青睐年轻员工的语言。例如，不要说公司正在寻找“数字原生代”、“职业生涯早期”或“前途光明”的员工。这些短语暗示年长员工不会因年龄原因被考虑。 同样，不要收集求职者的大学毕业日期，因为这样做可能表明您实际上是在估算求职者的年龄。 了解州法律可能要求薪酬透明度 要求企业在招聘广告中公布薪资范围的运动日益兴起。虽然没有联邦法律要求在招聘广告中披露薪资，但 各州的薪资透明法正变得越来越受欢迎。各州希望通过要求提供更多信息来协商薪资，缩小或消除女性和少数族裔工人所经历的已知工资差距。 重要的是，这些薪酬透明度要求的深度和复杂性各不相同。此外，一些城市或地方已经制定了薪酬透明度法律。 在发布职位之前，请咨询法律顾问，确定州或地方政府是否要求在招聘信息中提供薪酬信息。尽管这些法律是新出台的，但监管机构和原告已对不遵守规定的雇主提起诉讼。科罗拉多州已公开披露了对包括洛克希德马丁公司和 X Corp（前身为 Twitter）在内的雇主的罚款，原因是这些雇主涉嫌未遵守招聘广告薪酬要求，Qdoba 也在今年早些时候就一项类似的集体诉讼达成和解。 其他州也在考虑制定类似的法律，2024 年 1 月，白宫宣布计划要求联邦承包商在招聘广告中公开薪酬信息。 谨防“复制粘贴”的职位描述 借用其他招聘广告的语言也可能带来潜在的责任。 例如，阿斯利康制药公司目前正在应对一桩潜在的集体诉讼，该诉讼由前女性销售员工发起，指控其薪酬歧视。 阿斯利康辩称，其全国销售代表的日常职责因多种因素而有很大差异，因此，销售员工的薪酬基于合法标准而有所不同。相比之下，前女员工表明，阿斯利康在全国范围内为相同的销售岗位发布了相同的职位描述。最终，这些相同的职位描述帮助说服法官，有证据表明“阿斯利康在全国范围内制定招聘政策，在全国范围内监督其销售团队，[并且]存在基于性别的薪酬歧视。” 如果阿斯利康能为每个职位定制招聘广告和描述，那么其麻烦或许会减轻。这不仅能为求职者设定准确的期望，还能让雇主处于更有利、更有利的地位。 为此，人力资源部门应在发布招聘信息前安排至少两名人员进行筛选。要求招聘广告接受多种意见和视角的审核有助于消除潜在的疏忽。 总之，人力资源部应避免发布带有明确或暗示歧视性要求的招聘广告；仔细检查该职位是否符合州或地方薪酬透明度要求；并确保每个招聘广告都经过深思熟虑，准确地针对该职位进行策划。 原文翻译：https://www.hrdive.com/news/how-to-write-compliant-job-postings/721237/
    Employment Law
    2024年07月22日
  • Employment Law
    温馨提示：加州雇主必须在 2024 年 2 月 14 日之前通知员工竞业禁止无效 作为NACSHR专业社群，让您的全球受众了解就业法律的重大变化非常重要，尤其是在美国这样的主要经济体。加利福尼亚州关于非竞争协议的最新进展就是一个很好的例子。以下是可能与您的读者相关的摘要和要点： 法律的主要变化：自 2024 年 1 月 1 日起，加州几乎所有形式的员工竞业禁止协议和条款都将失效。这是就业法的重大转变，反映出美国限制非竞争协议可执行性的趋势日益明显。 雇主义务：从 2024 年 1 月 1 日起，加州雇主有 44 天的时间通知所有现任和前任员工（在过去两年内受雇并签订过竞业禁止协议的员工）这一变化。通知必须告知员工，之前的任何竞业禁止协议现已失效。 通知方式：雇主必须通过邮件和电子邮件发送此通知，确保所有受影响的员工都能充分知晓。 违规处罚：未遵守通知要求的雇主可能会面临每次最高 2,500 美元的处罚。这强调了遵守新法规的重要性。 执法：虽然这项新法规的执行主要由加州总检察长和其他政府检察官负责，但从加州起诉违反非竞争协议行为的历史来看，雇主最好采取积极主动的态度。 全球影响：对于全球人力资源专业人士而言，了解这些变化至关重要，尤其是对于在加州开展业务的跨国公司而言。这一发展可能会影响雇佣合同谈判和人力资源实践。 这些信息对您的读者至关重要，可帮助他们深入了解重要司法管辖区不断演变的就业法律，并强调随时更新国际人力资源法律要求的重要性。 WHAT’S THE IMPACT? Employers must send notices to the last known mailing and email address of every current and former employee who worked under a non-compete after January 1, 2022. The notice must state that any noncompete to which the employee was bound is now void. Failure to comply with the Valentine’s Day deadline will trigger Unfair Competition Law penalties up to $2500 per violation. As an HR professional and editor, it's important to keep your global audience informed about significant changes in employment laws, especially in major economies like the United States. The recent development in California regarding non-compete agreements is a prime example. Here's a summary and key points that might be relevant for your readers: Key Change in Law: As of January 1, 2024, California has invalidated nearly all forms of employee non-compete agreements and clauses. This is a significant shift in employment law, reflecting a growing trend in the U.S. towards limiting the enforceability of non-competes. Employer Obligations: California employers now have a 44-day window, starting from January 1, 2024, to notify all current and former employees (who were employed in the last two years and had a non-compete agreement) about this change. The notification must inform employees that any previous non-compete agreements are now void. Method of Notification: Employers are required to send this notification via mail and email, ensuring that all affected employees are adequately informed. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Employers who fail to comply with this notification requirement could face penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation. This underscores the importance of adhering to the new regulation. Enforcement: While enforcement of this new regulation is primarily the responsibility of the California Attorney General and other government attorneys, the state's history in prosecuting non-compete violations suggests a proactive approach from employers is advisable. Global Implications: For HR professionals worldwide, understanding these changes is crucial, especially for multinational corporations with operations in California. This development could influence employment contract negotiations and HR practices. This information could be vital for your readers, offering them insights into evolving employment laws in a key jurisdiction and highlighting the importance of staying updated with international HR legal requirements.    
    Employment Law
    2024年01月22日
  • Employment Law
    【下载】2024年加利福尼亚州就业法律指南 Get Your Free 2024 California Employment Law Guide 2024年加利福尼亚州就业法律指南 广泛概述了 2024 年加利福尼亚州的新就业法律。 它涵盖了就业法的各个方面，如一般就业法、大麻使用权、非竞争协议、与生育相关的丧假、工作场所安全以及特定行业的法律。每个部分都概述了新法律、其生效日期以及建议雇主为遵守这些法规而采取的下一步措施。 该指南是了解不断变化的加利福尼亚州就业法律环境的全面资源，有助于确保遵守新的法规和条例。 欢迎点击下载，来自CEA Get Your Free 2024 California Employment Law Guide While the end of the year is full of excitement with the holidays, this time of year also marks the buzz of Labor Law Update Season, as California employers prepare to comply with dozens of new employment laws. Access California Employers Association’s free 2024 New Laws Guide here, including key highlights for each bill and a to-do list for employers on practical next steps! Major changes this year include: Increased mandatory paid sick leave Brand new reproductive loss bereavement leave Comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan requirements Cannabis-use protections Wage and hour updates Just to name just a few!  click here https://www.nacshr.org/Resources/63027AD3-6469-1065-2077-A1551263B72F.html CEA is here to provide customized support to employers of all sizes with their California compliance needs. source：CEA
    Employment Law
    2023年12月13日
订阅NACSHR周报
HR Jobs
最近文章
热门文章
那年今日
扫一扫 添加客服
NACSHR招聘平台用户协议 & 免责声明  | 订阅NACSHR月报  | NACSHR2024年度活动计划  | NACSHR6月夏季论坛启动  | Become a Speaker  | 北美HR需求指南-征集中  | 2024北美华人人力资源年度峰会  | 北美HR招聘平台-企业直招，内推  | 我有需求，想咨询  | 北美华人人力资源服务图谱  | 北美人力资源服务图谱  | NACSHR在北美HR图谱  | 洛杉矶·NACSHR论坛  | 2025洛杉矶·华人HR年度论坛  | NACSHR会员服务  | NACSHR重磅发布企业高管签证与移民优选服务平台  | 官方邮箱：nacshr818@gmail.com  | 2026团体健康险报价开放中  | 免费发布北美HR职位  | 在线留言  | 联系我们  | 2026NACSHR夏季论坛·硅谷  | 付费方式  | EPLI (雇主责任险)自主询价
Email:hi@nacshr.org
Copyright © 2026 NACSHR.org All Rights Reserved.