Employment in Financial Services

Under Swiss civil law, there is no requirement to apply pre-screening measures. However, while not a statutory requirement under Swiss financial market laws per se, companies subject to these laws apply pre-screening measures to ensure that a prospective financial services employee meets the requirements set forth by these laws. In particular, regulated companies such as banks, securities firms, insurance companies, fund management companies, managers of collective investment schemes and asset managers are required to obtain authorisation from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) relating to strategic and executive management and each change thereto.

As a general rule, the higher the responsibility or position of a person, the more requirements financial services employees may need to fulfil. Persons holding executive or overall management functions (eg, a member of the board or members of the senior management) are required to fulfil certain requirements set forth by the applicable Swiss financial market regulations. Such requirements may include providing current CVs showing relevant work experience and education as well as excerpts from the debt and criminal register. It may also include providing various declarations (eg, concerning pending and concluded proceedings, qualified participations and other mandates). Furthermore, financial services employees holding certain control functions (eg, compliance officer, risk officer and their deputies) may also be required to prove that they are suitable for the position by providing, for example, a current CV showing relevant work experience and education.

In the DIFC, an individual who performs a “licensed function” must be approved in advance by the DFSA.   The roles which fall within the meaning of an authorised person for the DFSA includes someone appointed as:

• the Senior Executive Officer, who has ultimate responsibility for the day-to- day management, supervision and control of one or more (or all) of an authorised firm’s financial services carried on, in or from the DIFC;
• the Finance Officer;
• Compliance Officer;, and
• Money Laundering Reporting Officer. 

Where a firm proposes to appoint an authorised individual, an application to the DFSA must be made in advance; the DFSA will make an assessment of the  individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an authorised individual. The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role, and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

In the ADGM, an individual who performs a “controlled function” must be approved in advance by the ADGM.  A controlled function includes someone appointed as the Senior Executive Officer, Finance Officer, Compliance Officer, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

Where a firm proposes to appoint someone in a controlled function, an application to the ADGM must be made in advance, The ADGM will make an assessment of  that individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an approved individual.  The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

In addition to the standard hiring measures that must be taken when engaging an employee, several additional steps must be taken when engaging financial services employees in the United States. Generally, financial services employees must pass certain screening and disclosure steps, including:

• background checks;
• criminal background disclosures; and
• fingerprinting.

Broker-dealers and investment advisors must register with FINRA (see below).

Background checks

FINRA-regulated entities must investigate each person they plan to register with FINRA to ensure that they meet FINRA Form U4 requirements regarding that person’s history of formal charges and indictments.

If the applicant has previously registered with FINRA, broker-dealers must also review an applicant’s most recent Form U5 or be able to demonstrate to FINRA that it has made reasonable efforts to review Form U5 but has been unable to do so. If the applicant has previously registered with a CFTC-registered firm, the broker-dealer must review CFTC Form 8-T.

Bank employees must undergo a background check. Certain criminal conduct may statutorily disqualify an applicant from employment. For example, federal law prohibits any person convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty or breach of trust (or who has entered into a pre-trial diversion or similar programme regarding such an offence) from serving as a director, officer, or employee of an FDIC-insured bank without the FDIC's consent. Banks must conduct reasonable inquiries into an applicant’s background to avoid hiring persons barred from employment by this law. Banks may be protected from claims of disparate impact (under state “ban-the-box” laws) when terminating or withdrawing offers from disqualified employees under this law. Both California and New York explicitly provide such carve-outs. However, these are position-specific rather than employer-specific, and employees with positions not subject to FINRA or other statutorily required background checks or disqualifiers based on criminal history may still be subject to state or local “fair chance” or ban-the-box laws. Therefore, as a best practice, non-bank financial services employers should avoid relying on these exceptions for all of their employees. Relatedly, the FDIC does not consider “de minimus” criminal violations disqualifying, including minor offences by young adults, bad cheques for less than $1,000 and simple theft of less than $500.

Fingerprinting

Entities covered by the SEC are also subject to fingerprinting requirements. Every member of a national securities exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent, registered clearing agency, registered securities information processor, national securities exchange, and national securities association must ensure that each of its partners, directors, officers, and employees are fingerprinted and must submit such fingerprints, or cause the same to be submitted, to the Attorney General of the United States for identification and appropriate processing. Employees who will not be selling, keeping, or handling securities or supervising those who do are exempt from this requirement.

While New York generally prohibits fingerprinting, there is an exception where, as here, fingerprinting is statutorily required.

California Financing Law requires fingerprinting for certain individuals seeking to license in California.

Please note, during the COVID-19 epidemic, the SEC temporarily paused the fingerprinting requirements. This pause was lifted in September 2022.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector in Switzerland. Rather, general post-contractual non-compete regulations come into play: the parties of an employment contract may agree on a non-compete clause, which must be included in the employment contract in writing to be valid. For the non-compete clause to be relevant, it must be sufficiently limited in terms of time, place and subject matter. Normally, the duration of a post-termination non-compete clause is no more than one year; however, the statutorily permissible duration is three years.

As a prerequisite for a contractual non-compete clause to be binding, access to sensitive data is required. The employee must either have access to customer data or manufacturing or business secrets. However, access alone is not enough. There must also be the possibility of harming the employer using this knowledge.

If a relationship between the customer and the employee or employer is personal (which is, for example, the case for lawyers or doctors), a post-termination non-compete clause is not applicable according to the Federal Supreme Court.

If there is an excessive non-compete clause, this can be restricted by a judge. In practice, most of the time, no restriction of the post-termination non-compete clause is imposed if the employer offers consideration in return for the agreement. The prohibition of competition may become invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the clause can become irrelevant if the employer has no more interest in maintaining the non-compete clause. Secondly, the clause is not effective if the employer has terminated the employment relationship. However, this does not apply if the employee has given the employer a reason to terminate the employment relationship.

Swiss employment law does not provide for any compensation for a post-termination non-compete clause.

The DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.

The enforceability of restrictive covenants varies greatly depending on applicable state law. Many states impose specific requirements or limitations on enforceable covenants.

FINRA-regulated firms must comply with additional regulations:

• FINRA rules prohibit interference with a customer’s choice to follow a former representative during a change in employment where there is no existing dispute with the customer about the account. The FINRA-registered agent must help transfer a customer’s account in the event of such a customer request. Note that this only explicitly affects requests by customers and not solicitation by a representative. A non-solicit provision might be upheld whereas a non-compete might not.

• Broker-dealer firms that are signatories to the Protocol for Broker Recruiting are subject to additional requirements. Under this protocol, a departing employee may be permitted to take certain information regarding clients they serviced while at the firm to a new employer and use that information to solicit clients. Non-signatories are not bound to this protocol and can sue departing brokers for violating the terms of otherwise enforceable covenants.

Non-competes and so-called garden leave provisions are regularly included in termination documents. The enforceability of these covenants vary based on jurisdiction, with courts evaluating provisions based on duration and geographic scope.

New York

New York law disfavours non-compete agreements as a general rule. However, such agreements may be enforceable if the restrictions are reasonable and are intended to protect a legitimate interest. A court can enforce a non-compete only if the covenant:

• is no greater than required to protect an employer’s legitimate interests;
• does not impose undue hardship on the employee;
• does not cause injury to the public; or
• is reasonable in duration and geographic scope.

California

California law does not allow post-employment non-compete or non-solicit agreements except agreements involving the sale or dissolution of a business. California law protects employer confidential information and prohibits current or former employees from using employer confidential information in the solicitation of employees.