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 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.

Specifically, employees holding executive, overall management, oversight or control functions in regulated companies are responsible for ensuring that the companies’ organization ensures the continued compliance with applicable financial market laws. Swiss financial market laws do not have enhanced responsibilities for different employee categories. Instead, a person’s fitness and propriety are assessed within the context of the specific requirements and functions of a given company, the scope of activities at that company, and the complexity of that company.

While there are certain responsibilities for financial employees, such as being able to pass applicable certifications (see question 4) or registering with certain entities (see question 6), the American regulatory system does not include statutory delineations that create enhanced responsibilities for certain categories of employees.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are generally lawful in Switzerland. However, NDAs are not regulated by statutory law and therefore do not have to follow any particular statutory form or rule. Nevertheless, most NDAs often contain a similar basic structure.

The core clauses of an NDA concern:

• manufacturing and business secrets or the scope of further confidentiality;
• the purpose of use;
• the return and destruction of devices containing confidential information; and
• post-contractual confidentiality obligations.

As a general rule, it is recommended to use the written form.

To ensure possible enforcement of an NDA in the employment context, the requirements of a post-contractual non-compete obligation (see below) must be met.

Non-disclosure agreements are currently permissible under United States law with some exceptions, typically pertaining to whistleblower, harassment, and discrimination matters. On 7 December 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which prohibits the enforcement of non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions that were agreed to before an incident of workplace sexual assault or sexual harassment occurred. In other words, it does not prohibit these provisions in settlement or severance agreements.

Both Dodd-Frank and SOX prohibit employers from impeding an individual’s whistleblowing process. Confidentiality provisions should expressly authorise employee communications directly with, or responding to any inquiry from, or providing testimony before the SEC, FINRA, any other self-regulatory organisation or any other state or federal regulatory authority.

The United States Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 discourages NDAs in the settlement of sexual harassment claims. Under this law, employers settling claims alleging sexual harassment or abuse that include a confidentiality or non-disclosure provision in the settlement agreement cannot take a tax deduction for that settlement payment or related attorneys' fees.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees (except for supervisors) cannot be prohibited from discussing their compensation or working conditions

California

• California Law prohibits NDAs that would prevent employees from discussing or disclosing their compensation or discussing the wages of others. However, California permits the use of a non-disclosure provision that may preclude the disclosure of any amount paid in any separation or settlement agreement.
• California imposes restrictions on the use of non-disclosure provisions that are designed to restrict an employee's ability to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct the employee has reason to believe is unlawful in employment agreements, settlement agreements, and separation agreements.
• California employers cannot:
  • require employees, in exchange for a raise or a bonus, or as a condition of employment or for continued employment, to sign any non-disparagement or non-disclosure provision that denies the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace;
  • include in any separation agreement a provision that prohibits the disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace; or
  • include a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts the disclosure of factual information related to claims for sexual assault, sexual harassment, workplace harassment or discrimination, retaliation, or failure to prevent workplace harassment or discrimination that are filed in a civil or administrative action, unless the settlement agreement is negotiated, which means that the agreement is voluntary, deliberate, informed, provides consideration of value to the employee, and the employee is giving notice and an opportunity to retain an attorney or is represented by an attorney.

New York

• New York law prohibits NDAs that:
  • prevent an employee from discussing or disclosing their wages or the wages of another employee.
  • prevent an employee from disclosing factual information related to a future discrimination claim, unless the agreement notifies employees that it does not prevent them from speaking to the EEOC, the New York Department of Human Rights, and any local human rights commission or attorney retained by the individual.

New York law also prohibits employers from mandating confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions when settling sexual harassment claims (though allows such provisions where it is the employee’s preference to include them).