The discussion in the last post focused on reasons for allowing BYOD in the work place and some traps to watch out for, which continues below.

The word you’re looking for is “ubiquity.” It describes the near-total assimilation of technology into every aspect of our lives. The words “cell phone” are falling by the wayside as the words “smart phone” take their place, and soon enough the word “phone” might be dropped altogether as a relic of a time when people used them primarily (and ever so quaintly) for actually talking to each other. These relatively recent smart devices are upending the traditional separations between work and home, with uncertain results. For some employers, “bring your own device” (“BYOD”) is considered a boon, allowing employees to stay connected to the workplace at all times through the comfort and convenience of their personal devices. For others, BYOD could be a nightmare, with IT advisory company Gartner calling it, cheekily, “a disruptive phenomenon where employees bring non-company IT into the organization and demand to be connected to everything – without proper accountability or oversight.”[1] Chances are good that the true answer might be a little bit of both as lines continue to blur across the wirelessly-connected workforce. Gartner estimates that as many as 90% of workplaces will have some aspect of BYOD in place by 2017. We’ll explore the reasoning behind BYOD and the pitfalls that can accompany it before delving into what makes for a strong BYOD policy.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously against workers who had sued the agency that provided temporary staffing for Amazon warehouses in Nevada seeking compensation for time spent waiting to go through security screening at the end of the workday. The workers alleged that such screenings could take up to 30 minutes. Amazon disagreed, contending that “employees typically walk through security with little or no wait, and Amazon has a global process that ensures the time employees spend waiting in security is less than 90 seconds.”

In today’s ever-increasing digital world, more employers than ever are turning to telecommuting to help reduce overheard and increase morale of employees. Importantly, however, state and federal laws apply equally to employers and employees, regardless of whether they work on-site or remotely. Among the most common issues and missteps which affect employers with telecommuting employees are wage and hour laws and, more specifically, overtime laws.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, otherwise known as HIPAA, acts in part to provide federal protection for identifiable health information retained by covered entities, which includes most businesses that offer company health plans. While many employers have policies and procedures in place to ensure HIPAA compliance in routine, every day matters relating to the management of employee health data, few employers have developed policies or even considered how to manage protected health information in the unfortunate event of employee death or incapacitation.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and held, in a landmark decision, that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-compete agreement. This reverses prior precedent that employer-employee agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this article focuses on the consideration requirement only, as the Kentucky Supreme Court chose not to address any other issues.

Businesses are increasingly relying on social media to establish and grow their products and/or services. While the advantages of using social media are vast (i.e., it is inexpensive, comes with a virtually global audience, and has frequent and immediate contact potential), it does come with risks. Among the dangers is failing to address who owns a social media account. This is very much still an emerging issue in the law, but some existing case law and best practices can provide guidance as to how these ownership cases develop and how they can be avoided.

The Huffington Post recently reported that Jimmy John’s, the national sandwich chain, requires its workers to sign strict non-compete agreements. The agreement was disclosed as part of a lawsuit by employees, and many in the employment industry are wondering if such an agreement is really necessary for the company’s minimum wage workers. These agreements are usually saved for high-level executives or those subject to proprietary information – not the guy behind the counter making a sub.

In today’s digital environment, it is crucial that employers act fast when faced with a suit (or the threat of suit) by an employee or ex-employee. When potential litigation is on the horizon, the first step should always be to contact legal counsel. The next step should protecting documentation that might be relevant to the dispute. Keep in mind this acronym to make sure you are following that right steps for documentation preservation:

There are lots of things that an employer must be mindful of on an ongoing basis, but near the top of that list should be the prohibition of non-exempt employees’ off-the-clock work. This common problem can easily escape an employer’s attention, but it can have an incredibly negative and costly impact if an employee (or, employees) brings a wage and hour suit. Just ask LinkedIn.