As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into workplace operations, employers are beginning to face a new and unexpected compliance issue: employees requesting religious accommodations to avoid using AI tools. 

The Emerging Issue

Recent reports have highlighted employees who claim that using artificial intelligence conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Some objections are rooted in concerns about human dignity, automation replacing human judgment, environmental impact, or broader ethical considerations that employees connect to their religious convictions.  As religious leaders and organizations continue to weigh in on the societal implications of AI, employers should be prepared for an increase in accommodation requests from employees who believe AI use conflicts with their faith.

What Does the Law Require?

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers with 15 or more employees must provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would create an undue hardship on the business.  Importantly, courts interpret “religion” broadly. Protected beliefs may include what are thought of as “traditional” religious beliefs, but also individually held religious convictions, or other forms of what would be considered non-traditional religious beliefs.  This means an employer cannot automatically dismiss an AI-related objection simply because it appears unusual or unfamiliar, or non-religious.

What Employers Should Not Do

One of the biggest mistakes employers make is evaluating whether an employee’s belief makes sense.  Employers generally should not ask whether the purported religious belief is truly religious by questioning the employee’s belief system, whether the employee has a letter or certificate from their religious leader endorsing the employee’s perspective, or to prove that the employee is generally religious.   

Practical Steps When an Employee Requests Exemption from the Business’s Requirement to use AI

Initially, all requests for an accommodation at work based on religious grounds should be taken seriously.  Even if the request appears unusual, managers should avoid dismissing it outright. Accommodation requests involving religion should be routed through HR or legal counsel for evaluation.

The employer should then discuss which AI tools are involved, and what specifically about the AI tool conflicts with the employee’s religious beliefs.  The parameters of the objection should be discussed, and the employee should be asked if he/she specific accommodations in mind (short of entirely avoiding the use of AI).  

Once the employer and employee have had sufficient dialogue to discuss the employee’s request for an accommodation, and the employer understands the limitations and the employee’s request in the context of the employee’s job and the overall work environment, the employer needs to actually consider the request.  

Not every accommodation will be reasonable, but employers should document their process and analysis.  Employers are not required to eliminate essential job functions or create significant operational burdens.  If accommodating the request would substantially impact productivity, customer service, compliance, or business operations, the employer may have grounds to deny the accommodation.  The key is to conduct a thoughtful analysis rather than issuing an automatic denial.  

Ultimately, whatever decision is reached must be conveyed to the employee.  While only some states and localities require the decision to be provide in writing (such as in New York City), if the employer will deny the request, it would be prudent to convey the employer’s decision verbally and explain the employer’s rationale.  Employees who understand that a process was followed and who are given information, in a transparent fashion, are less likely to sue and create additional challenges for the employer if their request is denied.   

The Forework Perspective

Artificial intelligence is transforming the workplace, but traditional employment laws still apply. Religious accommodation obligations existed long before AI, and employers should expect those obligations to evolve alongside new technologies.  If the business is leaning towards integrating AI or already heavily leans on AI, or it builds forms of AI, it should be prepared to deal with employees’ pushback on the use of such tools.  Forework’s team of employment attorneys and HR professionals are here to help for those clients who utilize Forework’s Human Resources services. 

In EEOC v. A&A Appliance, Inc., a Colorado federal court not only dismissed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) disability discrimination claims against an employer, but also ruled that the EEOC’s case was so lacking in factual support that the employer may recover its attorneys’ fees.  While fee awards against the EEOC remain relatively uncommon, the decision highlights several best practices that employers should incorporate into their leave management and accommodation processes, so that they too can prevail in a EEOC (or a State-level agency) discrimination, accommodation, harassment or retaliation case. 

What Happened?

In the A&A Appliance case, an employee requested and received a period of protected leave during the COVID-19 pandemic. After her approved leave expired, the employer and employee continued communicating regarding a possible extension.  But when the employee did not return to work and the employer determined there was insufficient information demonstrating a qualifying disability requiring accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the employer terminated the employee’s employment.

The employee later filed a charge with the EEOC alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. After investigating the claim, the EEOC filed suit against the employer.

The court ultimately dismissed all of the EEOC’s claims, finding that the agency could not establish a critical element of its case: that the employer had sufficient knowledge of a qualifying disability that would trigger ADA accommodation obligations.

Why This Matters for Employers

The decision reinforces an important principle that many employers misunderstand: An employee’s medical condition is not automatically a disability under the ADA. Likewise, an employer’s awareness that an employee has a medical condition does not automatically mean the employer has notice of a legally protected disability requiring accommodation. Employers must evaluate accommodation requests and seek information out.  A statement or representation, even by a doctor, might not be enough.  Follow-up is permitted, and required in many instances, before an employer can make a decision regarding requested accommodations.

Key Compliance Lessons

The employer prevailed in part because it maintained records of communications regarding leave approvals, leave expiration dates, extension requests, and return-to-work expectations. Employers should maintain written documentation whenever discussing, investigating or processing medically-necessitated leave from work or accommodations. 

The court noted that the employer followed a consistent process regarding leave administration and extensions.  Inconsistent treatment of employees often creates legal risk, even when an employer’s intentions are good.

Clear communication and documented follow-up efforts remain critical.

One notable aspect of the decision is that the employer repeatedly identified factual and legal weaknesses in the EEOC’s claims throughout the litigation.  The court specifically noted that the employer consistently raised these issues, which helped support its request for attorneys’ fees.

Bottom Line for Forework Readers

Employee leave situations cannot be put on auto pilot and often require months-long delicate handling between Human Resources and employment counsel well versed in accommodation and leave issues.  This case serves as a reminder that employers who maintain strong documentation, administer leave consistently, and carefully evaluate accommodation requests are in a far stronger position when employment disputes arise. 

As a reminder, Forework provides employers with 10 hours of employment attorney support each month, as well as leave of absence management, to ensure employers handle these, potentially expensive litigation-sensitive, cases and reduce employers’ exposure to lawsuits.

A recent California appellate court decision serves as a cautionary reminder that employee departures can create significant legal and operational risks when confidential information, customer relationships, and business opportunities are involved.  In Guild Mortgage Co. v. CrossCountry Mortgage LLC, the California Court of Appeal reinstated numerous claims brought by an employer that alleged a competitor business orchestrated a coordinated effort to recruit its employees, divert customers, and obtain valuable business information before those employees resigned.

What Happened?

According to the lawsuit, Guild Mortgage alleged that a competing mortgage company engaged in an 18-month effort to recruit key employees from one of Guild’s branches while those employees were still actively working for Guild.  The complaint alleged that employees accessed company systems and copied confidential business information, including customer data, employee information, and prospective borrower information, before resigning and joining the competitor.  Guild further alleged that the competitor used this information to gain a competitive advantage and facilitate the transition of customers and business opportunities. The alleged effort ultimately resulted in the departure of virtually the entire branch workforce.

Guild previously obtained nearly $11 million in damages against its former employees through arbitration and pursued separate claims against the competing company.  While a lower court initially dismissed those claims, the California Court of Appeal reinstated them, allowing the case to move forward.

Why This Matters for Employers

The decision highlights several risks that employers face when key employees leave for a competitor:

• Loss of confidential business information
• Unauthorized access to company systems
• Customer diversion before employee departures
• Misuse of prospect and lead data
• Coordinated team resignations
• Disruption of operations and client relationships

The court also reaffirmed that employees owe duties of loyalty to their employer while they remain employed and that employers may have multiple legal avenues available when those duties are violated.

Compliance and Risk Management Lessons

1. Restrict Access to Sensitive Information

Employers should regularly review who has access to:

• Customer lists
• Prospect pipelines
• Pricing information
• Payroll and employee data
• Financial records
• Strategic business information

Access should be limited to employees with a legitimate business need.

2. Monitor Unusual Data Activity

Many employee-raiding disputes involve allegations of downloading, copying, emailing, or transferring company information shortly before resignations.  Employers should consider implementing controls that monitor:

• Large file downloads
• External email forwarding
• USB device activity
• Cloud storage uploads
• Unusual system access patterns

3. Strengthen Offboarding Procedures

A well-designed offboarding process can help minimize risk when employees leave.  Best practices include:

• Immediate termination of system access upon separation
• Recovery of company devices
• Review of confidentiality obligations
• Exit certifications confirming return of company information
• Documentation of customer and account transitions

4. Protect Customer and Employee Data

Whether information qualifies as a trade secret is often heavily litigated. Employers should not rely solely on trade secret laws for protection. Instead, organizations should maintain written policies addressing:

• Confidential information
• Acceptable technology use
• Data security
• Employee privacy
• Information retention and destruction

5. Coordinate HR, IT, and Leadership Teams

Employee departures frequently involve issues that extend beyond HR.  Effective protection requires coordination among:

• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Payroll and Operations
• Legal Counsel
• Executive Leadership

A unified response can help identify risks before they become costly disputes.

The Forework Perspective

This case illustrates the importance of understanding what the key business assets are, and how to protect them.  It’s a matter of business survival.  Businesses cannot sleep on these practices; asset protection is a daily obligation of the business C-suite executives and ownership.  At Forework, when onboarding clients, we take a detailed approach to understanding your business and your key assets.  We automate the protections discussed her whenever possible (e.g., proper confidentiality agreements and procedures, careful off-boarding procedures, and carefully written nonsolicitation agreements), but we also counsel our clients to ensure they are watchful of what is happening in their businesses, so that they can respond quickly and properly to any situations that involve employees (current or former) attempting to “steal” employees, vendors, patients, customers, or otherwise unfairly gain a competitive advantage. 

Employers may soon see a shift in federal guidance on voluntary affirmative action programs.  On May 27, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) submitted a proposal to rescind its 1979 interpretive guidance on voluntary affirmative action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The existing guidance, found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1608, explains when employers may voluntarily adopt affirmative action measures to address workforce imbalances or barriers to equal employment opportunity.

The current guidance also provides a framework for when employers may rely on the EEOC’s interpretation as a defense in certain Title VII matters, including where the employer acted in good faith and in reliance on the agency’s written guidance.

What This Means

The EEOC’s proposal does not immediately change the law. OIRA review is only one step in the regulatory process, and the EEOC would need to take further action before any rescission becomes effective.

The proposal also does not amend Title VII or overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing that voluntary affirmative action plans may be permissible in limited circumstances. However, it signals that federal agencies are continuing to reassess employment programs that consider race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

This development follows broader federal scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, affirmative action programs, and other employment practices tied to protected characteristics.

Why Employers Should Pay Attention

If the EEOC ultimately rescinds the guidance, employers may have less agency guidance to rely on when evaluating or defending voluntary affirmative action plans. The change could also affect how the EEOC reviews these programs in future enforcement matters.

Employers should be especially cautious with programs that involve hiring goals, representation targets, preferences, set-asides, or other practices that reference protected characteristics.

Forework Takeaway

Employers with voluntary affirmative action plans, DEI initiatives, representation-focused programs, or hiring practices tied to protected characteristics should:

• Review whether the program is legally required or voluntary.

• Confirm the business and legal basis for the program.

• Avoid rigid quotas, preferences, or set-asides.

• Ensure employment decisions remain individualized and merit-based.

• Monitor further EEOC action before assuming the guidance has been rescinded.

Employers with operations in Philadelphia should be aware of a recent development under the city’s Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Ordinance (FCRSSO), commonly known as Philadelphia’s “ban-the-box” law.

Earlier this year, significant amendments to the FCRSSO took effect, expanding employer obligations regarding the use of criminal history information in employment decisions. While the amendments gave the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations discretion to issue an updated “Summary of Rights” notice, it was unclear whether the Commission would do so.

The Commission has now published an updated Summary of Rights notice for applicants and employees.

Why This Matters

Under the FCRSSO, employers must provide applicants and employees with a summary of their rights before taking adverse employment action based on criminal history information. With the release of the updated notice, employers should strongly consider using the newly issued version to satisfy this requirement.

Additionally, Philadelphia employers are required to post a Commission-approved summary of the law in a conspicuous location on both their premises and websites. Employers should review existing postings and replace older versions with the newly issued notice.

Potential Confusion Remains

The Commission’s website currently contains multiple versions of FCRSSO notices and posters, including older versions from 2021 and 2024. Some of these materials contain language that may no longer align with the amended ordinance, creating potential confusion for employers attempting to comply with the law.

Until further clarification is provided by the Commission, the most conservative compliance approach is to utilize the newly published notice for both adverse action communications and required workplace postings.

Forework Takeaway

Philadelphia continues to aggressively regulate the use of criminal background information in hiring and employment decisions. Employers should:

• Review current Philadelphia fair chance hiring procedures.
• Replace outdated FCRSSO posters and notices.
• Ensure recruiting, HR, and management teams are using the updated forms.
• Confirm that adverse action workflows include the required notice before final employment decisions are made.

As jurisdictions continue expanding fair chance hiring protections, employers should regularly review their hiring processes to ensure compliance with evolving local requirements.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has officially removed the now-invalidated 2024 federal overtime rule and restored the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemption regulations to their prior form.

The 2024 rule would have significantly increased the minimum salary required for employees to qualify for the executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemptions. The rule was scheduled to raise the salary threshold from $684 per week to $844 per week in July 2024 and then to $1,128 per week in January 2025, with automatic increases every three years thereafter. It also would have substantially increased the compensation requirement for the Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) exemption.

However, a federal court in Texas struck down the rule in November 2024, finding that the DOL exceeded its authority by placing too much emphasis on salary levels rather than an employee’s job duties when determining exempt status.

The DOL’s latest action simply removes the invalidated rule from the federal regulations and formally reinstates the standards established under the 2019 rule.

What Employers Need to Know

For now, the federal salary thresholds remain:

• $684 per week for most executive, administrative, and professional exempt employees

• $107,432 annually for the Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) exemption

Employers should remember that meeting the salary threshold alone does not create an exemption. Employees must also satisfy the applicable duties tests under federal law.

Forework Takeaway

While the federal exemption salary threshold remains unchanged, employers must take into account State-specific salary thresholds, including New York and California, which impose higher salary requirements and additional exemption standards under State law.  And, those levels are not stagnant. 

Now is a good time to review employee classifications, confirm compliance with applicable state requirements, and ensure exempt employees satisfy both the salary and duties tests.

The City of Chicago has issued updated regulations interpreting its Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance, providing employers with important guidance on paid leave  administration, employee discipline, joint employment, and business transitions. The revised rules took effect on June 1, 2026, and clarify several areas that have created compliance challenges for employers since the ordinance was enacted.

Combined PTO Policies Remain Permitted

One of the most significant clarifications confirms that employers may maintain a single paid time off (PTO) bank instead of separate Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave banks. However, employers should proceed carefully. To comply, a combined PTO policy must satisfy all requirements of the ordinance, including accrual, carryover, usage, and recordkeeping obligations. Simply offering a generous PTO policy does not automatically satisfy Chicago’s requirements.

Expanded Definition of Childcare Closures

The updated rules clarify that employees may use Paid Sick Leave when a child’s “place of care” unexpectedly closes. Importantly, the definition of “place of care” extends beyond schools and daycare facilities and may include informal caregiving arrangements, such as babysitters or family members who regularly provide childcare.

Employers May Discipline Abuse of Sick Leave

The revised regulations confirm that employers may discipline employees who misuse Paid Sick Leave, including in appropriate cases terminating employment.

Examples of potential abuse include repeated patterns of using sick leave:

• Adjacent to weekends, holidays, or vacation periods.

• After a request for another type of leave was denied.

• To avoid undesirable work assignments.

Employers should exercise caution before taking disciplinary action and ensure decisions are supported by documented facts rather than assumptions.

Joint Employers Share Responsibility

The updated rules make clear that joint employers are both individually and jointly responsible for compliance with Chicago’s paid leave requirements. This clarification is particularly important for employers that utilize staffing agencies, professional employer organizations (PEOs), or other workforce-sharing arrangements. Businesses should review these relationships to ensure responsibilities are clearly understood and documented.

Business Sales and Acquisitions Create Additional Obligations

The regulations also address mergers, acquisitions, and business transfers. When employees move to a successor employer as part of a transaction, accrued and unused Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave generally must transfer with the employee. Both the seller and purchaser may face liability if these obligations are not properly addressed during the transaction process.

Forework Takeaway

Chicago continues to maintain some of the most complex paid leave requirements in the country. Employers should not assume their existing PTO policies automatically comply with the ordinance and they should proactively audit their written policies and actual procedures to confirm that they are in compliance.  

Connecticut has joined the growing list of states regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. On May 27, 2026, Governor Ned Lamont signed the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act (SB 5) into law. The legislation creates new compliance requirements for employers that use AI-driven tools to assist with hiring, promotions, performance evaluations, compensation decisions, layoffs, or other employment-related decisions. While most of the law does not take effect until October 2027, employers should begin preparing now.

What Is Covered?

The law applies to employers that use Automated Employment-Related Decision Technology (AEDT)—a broad category that includes AI tools that generate recommendations, rankings, scores, classifications, or other outputs that materially influence employment decisions.

Importantly, the law focuses on how AI is used, not what a vendor calls the product. Even tools marketed as “assistive” or “analytics” platforms may fall within the law if they significantly influence employment decisions.

New Notice Requirements

Beginning October 1, 2027, employers using covered AI tools must provide notice to Connecticut employees and job applicants when AI is being used as a substantial factor in an employment decision.

The notice must disclose:

• That AI technology is being used.

• The purpose of the technology.

• The employment decision being evaluated.

• The categories of personal data being analyzed.

• The source of that data.

• Contact information for the employer.

Failure to comply may result in enforcement by the Connecticut Attorney General under the state’s unfair trade practices laws.

AI Is Not a Defense to Discrimination Claims

Beginning October 1, 2026, Connecticut law will expressly provide that employers cannot avoid liability for discrimination by claiming that an AI system made the decision.

In other words, if an AI-driven hiring, promotion, compensation, or termination decision produces a discriminatory result, the employer remains responsible.

The law does, however, encourage employers to conduct bias testing and other proactive reviews of AI systems. Courts and regulators may consider evidence of anti-bias testing when evaluating discrimination claims.

Additional WARN Act Reporting

Connecticut employers issuing WARN notices for mass layoffs will also be required to disclose whether the workforce reduction was related to the use of artificial intelligence or other technological changes.

Forework Takeaway

Employers should begin inventorying all workplace AI tools and determine:

• What decisions the technology influences.

• What employee or applicant data is being analyzed.

• Whether AI-generated recommendations affect hiring, promotion, discipline, compensation, or termination decisions.

• Whether vendors can provide documentation regarding bias testing and compliance support.

As more states enact AI regulations, employers should expect increasing scrutiny of workplace technology. Organizations that understand their AI tools, document their decision-making processes, and conduct regular compliance reviews will be in the strongest position to navigate this rapidly evolving area of employment law.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued guidance that gives employers more flexibility when designing bonus programs for nonexempt employees. In Opinion Letter FLSA2026-6, the DOL endorsed a bonus structure that allows employers to establish a bonus pool after a performance period has ended while still avoiding the complex overtime recalculations that often accompany nondiscretionary bonuses. For employers seeking to reward employees while maintaining greater control over labor costs, the guidance provides a potentially valuable compliance tool.

Why Bonus Programs Create Overtime Challenges

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), most nondiscretionary bonuses must be included in an employee’s regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. As a result, employers frequently must recalculate overtime earnings and pay additional overtime amounts after bonuses are awarded—a process that can be administratively burdensome, especially when bonuses are earned over several months or an entire year. 

Historically, employers could avoid these additional calculations by paying a bonus as a percentage of an employee’s total earnings, including overtime earnings. Because the bonus automatically increased along with overtime pay, the overtime component was considered already included.

The downside? Employers often could not predict the total cost of the program until the performance period ended.

The New Bonus Pool Approach

The DOL has now confirmed that employers may establish a total bonus pool after the performance period concludes and distribute the funds proportionally based on each employee’s share of total earnings.  For example, if an employer establishes a $100,000 bonus pool and an employee earned 5% of the total earnings of all eligible participants during the performance period, that employee would receive 5% of the bonus pool.

This approach allows employers to determine the total amount they wish to spend on bonuses after reviewing financial results, rather than committing to an unknown payout amount in advance.

What Employers Need to Know

The DOL emphasized that employers cannot use this structure to avoid overtime obligations. To remain compliant:

• Bonus calculations must be genuinely tied to employee earnings.
• Employers cannot simply assign fixed bonus amounts and retroactively label them as percentage-based bonuses.
• Certain payments that are excluded from the regular rate of pay, such as discretionary bonuses and expense reimbursements, generally cannot be included when calculating bonus percentages.
• Bonus plans should be carefully structured and documented before implementation.

Forework Takeaway

This guidance provides employers with a valuable opportunity to balance employee incentives with budget certainty. However, bonus structures involving nonexempt employees remain one of the most common areas for wage-and-hour mistakes. Employers should review existing bonus programs to ensure they comply with both federal and state overtime requirements before implementing any new compensation strategy.

Virginia has joined the growing list of states requiring employers to provide paid sick leave to employees.  While the law’s implementation will be phased in over several years based on employer size, businesses should not wait until the last minute to prepare. Paid leave laws often require significant updates to payroll systems, employee handbooks, leave policies, recordkeeping procedures, and manager training.  For employers with operations in Virginia, now is the time to evaluate whether existing leave programs are equipped to meet the new requirements.

Who Will Be Affected?

Virginia’s new paid sick leave law will eventually apply to nearly all employers in the Commonwealth.  The rollout schedule is based on employer size:

• Employers with 50 or more employees must comply beginning July 1, 2027
• Employers with 25 or more employees must comply beginning January 1, 2028
• Employers with at least one employee must comply beginning January 1, 2029

Although these deadlines may seem distant, employers that operate in multiple states should begin assessing how Virginia’s requirements fit within their broader leave administration strategy.

How Sick Leave Will Accrue

Under the new law, employees will earn:

One hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked

Employees may accrue and use up to 40 hours annually unless an employer chooses to provide a more generous benefit.

Employers may also choose a front-loading approach by providing the full annual allotment at the beginning of the year rather than tracking accruals throughout the year.  For many organizations, this decision will come down to administrative efficiency, payroll capabilities, and workforce demographics.

Existing PTO Policies May Already Help

The good news for many employers is that the law does not necessarily require creating a separate sick leave bank.  Organizations that already provide paid time off (PTO) may satisfy the law if their existing policy:

• Provides sufficient leave
• Allows leave to be used for the same qualifying reasons
• Meets the law’s operational requirements

This makes policy review particularly important before investing in new leave structures.

Payroll and HR Systems Will Need Attention

One of the biggest compliance challenges will be accurate leave tracking.  Employers must account for:

• Accruals
• Carryover rules
• Rehires
• Employee transfers
• Successor employer obligations
• Leave usage tracking

Employees rehired within 12 months must have previously accrued unused leave reinstated, creating additional administrative complexity.  Organizations relying on manual tracking methods may find compliance increasingly difficult as leave requirements continue expanding nationwide.

The Definition of “Family Member” Is Broad

Like many modern paid leave laws, Virginia’s definition of family member extends well beyond traditional immediate family relationships. The law covers a wide range of caregiving situations and recognizes that employees often provide care for individuals outside traditional family structures.  For employers, this means managers should avoid making assumptions about whether a leave request qualifies.

Documentation Rules Are Employee-Friendly

The law limits the circumstances under which employers can require documentation. Generally, documentation may only be requested after an employee has used three or more consecutive workdays of leave.  Even then, employers face restrictions on the information they may request and must protect the confidentiality of any medical or sensitive personal information they receive. Organizations should review existing attendance and documentation policies to ensure they align with these requirements.

New Notice and Recordkeeping Obligations

Employers will also be required to:

• Provide written notice of employee rights
• Post notices in the workplace
• Maintain records of leave accrual and usage
• Retain records for at least three years

Recordkeeping requirements continue to be a growing area of regulatory focus across employment laws, making documentation systems more important than ever.

Why Multi-State Employers Should Pay Attention

Across the country, states and local jurisdictions continue expanding employee leave rights, often with different accrual formulas, usage requirements, notice rules, and recordkeeping obligations.

As these laws multiply, compliance becomes increasingly difficult for employers attempting to manage leave manually or through disconnected systems.  What works in one state may not satisfy requirements in another.

Questions Employers Should Be Asking Now

Before the law takes effect, employers should evaluate:

• Whether current PTO policies satisfy the new requirements
• How leave accruals are currently tracked
• Whether payroll systems can manage carryovers and reinstatements
• How leave records are maintained
• Whether managers understand leave-related protections
• How employee notices will be distributed and tracked

The employers that begin planning early will face a far smoother implementation process.

Forework’s Perspective

Forework has extensive experience assisting employers with State and City-based paid sick leave requirements. Our payroll is configured to meet these requirements from day 1 of the law’s implementation, and we our employment attorneys work with clients to prepare the initial and ongoing written policy requirements for companies that have local or state-specific paid sick leave obligations.