I was quoted in a recent article published by Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) exploring ways employers react to employees rescinding their resignation. In some cases, employers might allow the employee to stay, but I offered insight on the legal considerations when making this decision.Continue Reading Ways Employers Can React to Employees Rescinding a Resignation

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently announced that it will publish a revised Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification), which is used by employers to verify an employee’s identity and employment authorization.Continue Reading Employers Must Switch to New Version of Form I-9 by October 31, 2023

The first few years of operations can be an overwhelming task for emerging companies, especially when it comes to navigating the wide range of employment laws that come with hiring new members of the team. Below is a list of issues to be aware of as you build and structure your workforce. Continue reading to

Join us for a complimentary seminar where we will cover a broad range of issues employers face when discharging employees and provide guidance for successfully assessing and addressing the associated risks and liabilities.

7:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. Registration and Breakfast
8:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Program

Topics will include:

  • Documenting the discharge
  • Workplace violence

In light of U-Haul’s recent announcement it will no longer hire nicotine users in many states, I recently discussed the laws governing this company policy. Many states, such as Tennessee, implemented laws decades ago that protect smokers.

However, as I stated in the article linked below, Tennessee’s “statute is silent as to whether this protects someone from not being hired.” My take is that “employers will likely be watching closely how refusing to hire smokers pans out since there are many other lifestyle choices that affect health.”Continue Reading No-Nicotine Hiring Policies

In Syed v. M-I, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that combining a liability waiver and a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure in an employment application constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA. The employee claimed that his employer obtained his credit report unlawfully because the disclosure form he signed did not consist “solely of the disclosure” as required by the FCRA. The Ninth Circuit’s decision reversed the judgment of a California district court, which had dismissed the lawsuit because the complaint failed to allege that the employer’s understanding of its obligation under the FCRA was unreasonable.
Continue Reading In Bizarre Procedural Posture, Ninth Circuit Finds FCRA Willful Violation

For the first time since 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has updated its guidance on national origin discrimination in the workplace in an effort to address important legal developments over the past 14 years. In 2015, the EEOC reported 11 percent of the charges filed alleged national origin discrimination. The EEOC’s recent Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2017-2021 includes protecting immigrant and migrant workers from discrimination as a top substantive priority, and this guidance is another step toward increasing the EEOC’s enforcement efforts in this area. Of course, with the election of President-elect Donald Trump last month, the EEOC’s guidance is subject to change. However, the guidance is a useful tool to analyze employers’ existing policies and practices of preventing national origin discrimination with an eye toward the EEOC’s focus for enforcement action.
Continue Reading New Guidance on National Origin Discrimination

Human Resources (HR) personnel are now specifically under the scrutiny of the antitrust enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are typically known for enforcing antitrust laws against price-fixers and bid-riggers. Recently they announced a new set of targets: anti-competitive agreements between employers related to hiring and compensation. For the first time, these agencies have warned HR personnel and their employers they may be criminally prosecuted for agreeing with other companies to fix employee pay (wage-fixing agreements) or not to recruit each other’s employees (no-poaching agreements). Criminal violations of the antitrust laws are felonies and threaten substantial fines and jail time.
Continue Reading HR Personnel (and Employers) Beware: Antitrust Enforcers Warn of Criminal Liability for Compensation, No-Poaching Pacts