California Labor Code §2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for all “necessary expenditures” incurred by an employee in the discharge of his or her duties. Business travel expenses fall into this category, as do uniforms, and even the portion of personal cell phone costs that can be attributed to business use.
Continue Reading

Imagine a future in which Artificial Intelligence does the recruiting and hiring at U.S. companies.  Every new hire will be the uniquely perfect candidate whose skills, personality, presence, temperament, and work habits are a flawless match for the job.  Performance management and poor performance become extinct, relics from an age in which humans brought primitive instincts, biases, and flawed intuition to hiring and employment decisions.
Continue Reading

The #MeToo movement has placed sexual harassment on the front pages of newspapers, has galvanized some states to reconsider their own sexual harassment laws, and has encouraged employers to take a closer look at their policies and procedures. With such heightened awareness of sexual harassment, employers may feel an inclination to resolve doubts in favor of the accuser.  A recent Second Circuit decision, however, illustrates a counterweight to this outlook.
Continue Reading

In recent years, federal and state law enforcement authorities have subjected “no-poach” agreements to increased scrutiny. Recent enforcement actions demonstrate the risk of criminal penalties and civil damages for using such agreements. In this video, Hunton Andrews Kurth partners Emily Burkhardt Vicente and Torsten Kracht discuss recent developments concerning the use of “no-poach” agreements, and

After a nearly six-year legal battle, the Fifth Circuit has struck down the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the consideration of criminal history in employment decisions.  On August 6, a three-judge panel held that the Guidance was a substantive rule the EEOC had no authority to issue and that the EEOC can no longer enforce the Guidance or treat it as binding in any respect.
Continue Reading

On June 5, 2019, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed into law Assembly Bill No. 132, which is the first state law to curb pre-employment marijuana drug tests.  The new law has two primary effects: 1) it makes it unlawful for Nevada employers to fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee because the applicant submitted to a screening test and the results of the test indicate the presence of marijuana; and 2) it provides employees who test positive for marijuana with the right to, at their own expense, rebut the original test results by submitting an additional screening test within the first 30 days of employment. 
Continue Reading

The California Labor Code requires employers to reimburse employees for certain expenses, but it’s not always clear which expenses should be reimbursed by the employer, and which expenses should be borne by employees.  Here’s a list of Five Things to Remember About Employee Reimbursements to help California employers navigate this area of the law.
Continue Reading

States and localities have recently enacted legislation focused on employers’ dress and grooming policies. In this video, Hunton Andrews Kurth partners Emily Burkhardt Vicente and Amber M. Rogers discuss recent developments in this area, including New York City’s recent guidance on work rules regarding hairstyles, and tips for employers as they navigate this evolving area of law. 
Continue Reading