Nearly three years after it suddenly became a necessity for many employees to work from home, it’s clear that teleworking isn’t going anywhere. Many employers have chosen to allow for remote or hybrid work arrangements—but in the “work from home” era, issues like timekeeping for non-exempt employees can get a little fuzzy. We’ll walk you through a teleworking employee’s day and give you the rundown on what is compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), what isn’t, and tips for making sense of it all.

This summer is proving to be another hot one in many parts of the country, which means the odds of workplace illnesses and injuries relating to excessive temperatures are much higher. In April, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced a National Emphasis Program focused on addressing workplace heat hazards, which will entail OSHA conducting inspections to identify heat-related hazards in workplaces both indoors and outdoors. Employers should have a plan to avoid liability for heat-related illnesses and to be prepared should such an inspection occur.

Employers may choose to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees for several reasons. Some seek to avoid employment tax, workers compensation costs, and overtime wage rates. Some hope to steer clear of employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Others simply look to independent contractors because they provide a more flexible and less permanent workforce than traditional employees.

Every four years like clockwork, it happens: presidential politics becomes the focus of our national attention, seemingly dominating all aspects of our lives. The national conversation becomes one of campaign rhetoric, and anecdotal evidence suggests that it has only gotten more divisive. The conventional wisdom says that the two things one is never supposed to discuss at work are religion and politics, yet the political conversation can’t help but spill into the workplace, with the attendant potential for division and conflict. As an employer trying to foster productivity and keep the peace in the workplace, is there anything you can do? As it turns out, there’s quite a lot.

Always connected. Always available. Always responsive. In an era where personal electronic devices have become more of a technological appendage than merely a handy gadget, a growing number of employers are grappling with the question of how well-connected their employees should be. Employers certainly benefit from the ability of employees to be available at all times and through instantaneous connection. The instant problem is the way in which this constant connectivity begins to warp the work-life balance. Should employees respond to employment-related emails after hours? Should they text back to the boss in the evenings to respond to work inquiries? Should employers expect employees to be responsive around the clock? Some employers are beginning to change their expectations for employee responsiveness after hours, and possibly just in time to stave off impending wage and hour law implications.

Paid leave for new parents, both mothers and fathers, has been in the headlines as of late as the U.S. Department of Labor promotes its “Lead on Leave” initiative. The question for employers, however, is just how much time may an employee take off for the birth or adoption of a child. Luckily, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) answers the question almost entirely by itself.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires that employers provide “reasonable accommodations” to those with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their jobs. These accommodations cannot impose an undue hardship on the employer, however. This necessarily raises the question as to whether an accommodation must be the accommodation a disabled employee requests or if an employer may substitute an accommodation that reasonably facilitates the employee in his or her employment. The Second Circuit, in the case of Noll v. IBM, recently sided with the employer, ruling that an employee is not entitled to the “perfect” accommodation, merely a reasonable one.

Courts have long grappled with social media in a legal context. The struggle to understand social media issues -- and to craft coherent applicable legal policy -- renders Crowe v. Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC amusing to show how the less-than-honest actions of an employee-plaintiff can make these difficult legal questions fairly simple for a court.

It sounds like something out of an Orwell novel: an employer demands an employee provide electronic notice of her whereabouts at all times, on and off the clock. The employee must now face a choice – protect her privacy outside of work, or lose her job. This is, however, a true story, and one without a happy ending for the employee.

It’s rather fitting that the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores turns on the idea of one’s belief; it is, after all, a decision about religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The belief at issue, however, is not the belief of the claimant of religious discrimination, but rather the belief of the employer.