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.

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.

On Monday we discussed the basic framework for providing employees with days off during recognized religious holidays.  A related issue commonly presented during the holiday season is whether employees must be paid for their time off.

Earlier this week, I discussed the importance of tailoring non-compete agreements to ensure enforceability and provided some factors to consider when drafting. Below are four more factors that should help you create a strong non-compete agreement.

Perhaps you consider your non-compete agreement just one form in a stack of many? When it is time to use it there is not much to the process: you retrieve it from the HR office, briefly discuss it with the employee, and he willingly signs it. But such a practice is a perilous one because non-compete agreements are not meant to be “one-size-fits-all.” Rather, they should be thoughtfully tweaked to each specific employee and situation. By relying on boilerplate language and fill-in-the-blank forms, you are risking the chance that a court will find your agreement unenforceable.

With winter closing in, the possibility of bad weather brings potential attendance issues to the forefront of our minds. Icy roads and snow storms in Kentucky often cause delays and closings of not only schools but also businesses. Of course safety is the primary concern for everyone in extreme weather conditions, but employers must think beyond the logistics of employees getting to work or staying home. Absences due to bad weather impact the productivity of a business, and raise questions regarding the calculation of pay and how an employee’s time should be tracked. These issues are further complicated when dealing with a mix of exempt and non-exempt employees, however the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) does offer some guidelines to assist an employer in determining their rights and responsibilities when bad weather impacts employee attendance.

In most cases the quality of the workforce determines the success of any business. As we discussed on Wednesday (10/24/12), there are five essential elements of a job description but there is a compelling need to focus specifically on requirements. A job description defines the duties, tasks and responsibilities of a position, creating a framework for hiring the right candidate. The description is used in marketing and promotion to attract new talent to the company. The requirements set the stage for digging deep into the details of the position and reflect the culture of the company.  They have emerged as the strategic details that can set the candidates apart and make it easier for HR managers to look for an employee to specifically match the employee’s long-term goals.

Most companies of any significant size have, and should have, written job descriptions for each of its employment positions.  The process of crafting these descriptions should start before the hiring process begins to fill positions, for good job descriptions are essential to identifying the various employee attributes needed by an employer. However, job descriptions historically are also one of the most widely used pieces of evidence in employment claims by plaintiffs.  For this reason job descriptions need to be well written and carefully crafted to mitigate the risk of creating a document that can be used against an employer later in court.