To date, two federal agencies’ attempts to ban or deem non-compete agreements invalid have failed and it is expected that any further attempts by these agencies to invalidate non-compete agreements will fail under the Trump administration, leaving non-compete agreements a legitimate way to protect an employer’s interests from unfair competition under federal law. However, more states have adopted laws restricting the use of non-competes for lower-paid employees and medical professionals, with state courts issuing decisions invalidating non-compete agreements that were found to be overly broad or not supported by adequate consideration. 

By way of background, in April of 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) adopted a rule banning new non-competes and prohibited enforcement of already executed agreements, with limited exceptions, for all employees because such restrictions limit workers’ mobility and lead to lower pay. The rule was set to take effect on September 4, 2024 but failed, as two federal courts (one in Texas and one in Florida) issued injunctions blocking the rule before it could become effective.  Although the FT has filed appeals, the likelihood that the FTC will try to enforce this ban under the Trump administration is minimal.

The other federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), issued a memo via its then-General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, in 2023 to all NLRB Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers stating her position that non-compete provisions in employment contracts and severance agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act, except in limited circumstances, and later took the position that an employee should be entitled to “make whole relief” if the NLRB determines an employer utilized an unlawful non-compete.  In practice, this would mean employees could pursue monetary damages against their former employer for alleged lost wages related to missed job opportunities they had not pursued because of the purported unlawful non-compete. However, Ms. Abruzzo was terminated by President Trump on January 27, 2025 and it is expected that these NLRB directives will likely be rescinded by the new Trump-appointed NLRB General Counsel. 

Currently, four states ban the use of non-competes entirely and 33 states, plus Washington, D.C., have legislation restricting their use.  In 2025, Louisiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania will prohibit or limit the use of non-competes for various types of health care professionals, joining 17 other states, including Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas, which have some limits on non-competes for health care professionals. For example, Pennsylvania’s new law limits non-competes for health care practitioners to one year and voids non-competes for health care practitioners who are dismissed by their employers.  States have continued to adopt salary-level thresholds for the use of non-competes, and increased limits on non-competes at the state level are expected to continue in 2025.  

In New York State, Governor Hochul vetoed a proposed law banning noncompete agreements in 2024 which would have covered all individuals, i.e., individuals performing work or services for an organization who are in a position of economic dependence on that organization and provided them with the right to bring a civil action against their employer. At the time, Governor Hochul indicated that she would support a bill that allows noncompete agreements for high earners.   Most recently, a bill introduced in the New York State Senate on February 10, 2025, would prohibit nearly all non-compete agreements arising in employment, and consistent with a national trend, non-competes for healthcare professionals would be banned. The proposed bill defines “highly compensated individual” as “any individual who is compensated at an average annualized rate of cash compensation … equivalent to or greater than [$500,000] per year” and “health related professional” includes physicians, physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists, perfusionists, veterinarians, physical therapists, pharmacists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, psychologists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, audiologists, and mental health practitioners, all as licensed under New York law. If the legislature passes the bill and it is sent to the governor for signature, Governor Hochul can sign it, veto it, or secure changes through a chapter amendment process. Employers should stay apprised of pending legislation, and in the meantime, should review the terms of their non-compete provisions to ensure that their non-compete language is reasonable in geographic scope and duration and supported by sufficient (and not nominal) consideration and ensure that the terms are compliant with state law where the employee is working, including any applicable salary threshold requirements. Employers should also consider strengthening their non-solicitation provisions and confidentiality provisions. If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework. 

Wearable technologies, including smart watches, rings and other digital devices designed to track the wearer’s bodily movements and location, as well as collect biometric information and other data in real time, are changing the landscape of the workplace. Workplaces have seen an increased use in these wearables, leading to the enactment of new laws and regulatory guidance from several states and administrative agencies surrounding the use of such technologies.

Among these is a fact sheet issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) titled “Wearables in the Workplace: Using Wearable Technologies Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws” (found here) which provides guidance on how the federal equal employment opportunity laws may apply to employers’ use of wearable devices where such wearable devises may pose compliance issues for employers and their agents.  Generally speaking, it is clear that the fact sheet indicates a growing concern over the use of employee-monitoring technologies. 

One of the biggest risks is employee privacy. Several state and federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state biometric information laws, protect certain information given by employees to their employers.  For instance, the ADA limits disability-related inquiries or medical examinations for all employees, not just those with disabilities, to situations when it is “job related and consistent with business necessity” for a specific employee or otherwise permitted under the ADA.  Disability-related inquiries or medical examinations are allowed in a few limited circumstances, which have specific requirements, but if an employer uses wearables to conduct disability-related inquiries or medical examinations outside one of such exceptions (including when required by federal, safety-related laws or regulation; for certain employees in positions affecting public safety; and/or if the inquiry or examination is voluntary and part of an employee health program), then those inquiries or examinations may pose compliance risks. 

The EEOC’s guidance provides that wearable technologies may constitute “medical examinations” and/or “disability-related inquiries” in violation of the ADA.  To determine whether a test or procedure is a medical examination under the ADA, the EEOC will consider several factors, including whether the test measures an employee’s performance, whether the test is normally given in a medical setting, and whether medical equipment is used. Wearable technologies may be deemed to be conducting medical examinations when they track and collect information about an employee’s physical or mental condition, such as blood pressure monitors and eye trackers, and they may also be deemed to be conducting medical examinations where they are conducting diagnostic testing, such as EEGs.

Other risks include employee health, data security, and data interpretation. For instance, if an employer collects medical or disability-related data from wearable devices, the ADA requires employers to maintain that data in separate medical files and treat it confidential medical information with limited exceptions.  The EEOC’s guidance also states that employers must abide by equal opportunity laws when using information collected by wearables and cannot use such information to discriminate against employees based on a protected characteristic, which includes (but is not limited to) race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information.  For example, according to the EEOC, employers may violate non-discrimination laws by using data from wearable technologies to infer that an employee is pregnant and then taking an adverse action against the employee as a result.

The EEOC guidance also provides that an employer also may need to make an exception to a wearables policy as a reasonable accommodation under Title VII (such as religious belief, practice or observance), the ADA (for a disability) or the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (for pregnant employees, childbirth, or related medical conditions), even if the ADA were to allow the employer to use wearables to collect medical information.

It is important to note that this guidance was issued at the end of Biden’s Administration, and it remains to be seen whether the EEOC under the Trump Administration will rescind or amend this guidance. In the meantime, employers who used wearable technologies in the workplace should review and ensure that the type of information collected by such wearable technologies is compliant under the ADA, evaluate the accuracy and validity of the information before making any adverse employment decision based on that information while ensuring that such information is not used to discriminate against employees on the basis of a protected characteristic. 

If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

Effective May 8, 2025, employers in New York City will be required to physically and electronically post a copy of their written lactation accommodation policy. Employers will be required to post the policy in an area accessible to employees and electronically on the employer’s intranet (if it exists). This NYC law applies only to employers with four or more employees.

Employers should keep in mind that this posting obligation is in addition to employers’ obligation to distribute a written lactation policy to employees upon hire. State law requires all New York employers, regardless of size, to make reasonable efforts to provide a room (other than a restroom) or other location where an employee may express milk in privacy. 

Per New York State law, employers must provide employees 30 minutes of paid break time to express milk. Now, both the state and NYC law will require all employers to provide 30 minutes of paid break time and allow employees to use other paid break or mealtime for time in excess of 30 minutes. 

NYC’s new posting requirement of the employer’s written lactation accommodation policy bolsters the state’s requirement to provide unpaid lactation breaks and, whereas state law requires an employer to make “reasonable efforts” to provide a location for expressing milk, NYC employers are specifically required to engage in a cooperative dialogue to determine what, if any, accommodations may be available, and to provide the employee with a written notice regarding whether any accommodation was ultimately granted or denied. 

NYC employers should inform and train managers about this new law to ensure they are well equipped to handle any employee requests for lactation breaks and should review and revise their current policies and practices and update their physical and electronic postings to ensure that they meet this posting obligation.

On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration began acting in several areas, including issuing an executive order that directly contradicts recent guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on harassment and misgendering in the workplace.

EEOC’s April 2024 Guidance on Workplace Harassment and Misgendering

Under the Biden Administration, the EEOC implemented several employee-friendly initiatives to enhance protections, one of which was an update to the agency’s guidelines on workplace harassment in April 2024. This revised guidance expanded the definition of harassment to include various forms of discrimination, particularly those involving gender identity.

The new guidance clarified that workplace harassment could include misgendering—intentionally and repeatedly referring to someone by pronouns or a name that does not reflect their gender identity. It also addressed barriers to restroom access, noting that preventing employees from using restrooms that align with their gender identity is considered harassment.

With these updates, the EEOC reinforced its commitment to safeguarding employees from discrimination based on gender identity, making it clear that such harassment and mistreatment would not be tolerated.

President Trump’s Executive Order on Gender Recognition

In stark contrast to the EEOC’s guidance, President Trump and his administration took bold action by signing the Executive Order titled, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” (the “EO”). The EO declares that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” The EO explicitly rejects “gender ideology,” which, according to the EO, includes the notion “that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa” and “it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.”

The executive order explicitly states that these sexes are “not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” further clarifying that “sex” does not equate to “gender identity.” This policy directly challenges the EEOC’s April 2024 guidance and appears to affect the interpretation and enforcement of federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Legal Implications

The conflict between the Biden-era EEOC guidance and President Trump’s executive order raises significant legal concerns. Federal agencies, courts, and employers must navigate competing interpretations of sex-based protections in the workplace, especially since laws like Title VII protect against discrimination based on gender identity, transgender status, and sexual orientation. The Trump administration’s approach may lead the EEOC to reduce enforcement of transgender rights under Title VII or take a different stance altogether, possibly considering accommodations like bathroom access for transgender employees as discriminatory.

This issue is far from settled, and President Trump is expected to take additional actions soon. The long-term impact will depend on court rulings and potential legislative changes in the coming months. However, until Congress amends laws like Title VII, private employers are still bound by existing law, not the executive order. This may lead to litigation, but for now, employers should continue to follow the law and case precedents, while staying aware of the policy shift under the Trump administration.

Implications for Private Employers:

• Employers should prepare to address questions from employees, particularly LGBTQI+ employees and allies, about any policy changes.
• Employers with anti-discrimination, harassment, and retaliation policies based on gender, gender identity, and gender expression can reassure employees about the company’s commitment to a safe and inclusive workplace.
• Given the EEOC’s focus on creating “single-sex spaces at work,” employers may face conflicting obligations under federal and state law.
• Employers should stay informed on federal developments, such as potential litigation over restroom access and biological sex, which may be prioritized by the new EEOC.
• Employers must also remain mindful of state laws that prohibit discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
• Expect revisions to the EEOC’s “Know Your Rights: Workplace Discrimination is Illegal” poster, which employers are required to display on-site, due to changes resulting from the executive order.
• Anticipate changes to reporting options on identification forms, particularly regarding gender information, as some government forms may no longer allow non-binary or similar gender identity data due to the executive order.

If you have any questions regarding this executive action and its implications, please feel free to contact Forework..

When employees leave a company, there is a heightened risk of data theft, including trade secrets or confidential business information. The risk is present whether an employee’s departure is voluntary or not and could cause damage to business operations and legal or regulatory consequences like data breach notifications.

Common reasons a departing employee may take corporate data:

• To secure a new job or compete with a former employer— A departing employee may use a company’s trade secrets or intellectual property to gain an advantage when seeking a new job or competing with their previous employer.
• For personal financial gain— A former employee might sell the stolen data or use it to launch their own business.
• To seek revenge— Disgruntled employees may intentionally sabotage their former company’s operations by destroying data in retaliation for how they were treated during their departure.
• By accident— Not all data theft is intentional; departing employees may mistakenly believe the data belongs to them or fail to properly erase business-related data from their devices.

Safeguarding Trade Secrets

Trade secrets generally refer to information that has commercial value because it’s kept secret, such as formulas, methods, programs, etc. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), businesses must demonstrate reasonable measures to protect these secrets. Reasonable safeguards include:

• Restricting access to sensitive data.
• Requiring confidentiality agreements.
• Regular employee data security training.
• Monitoring data access or downloads.

Failure to protect trade secrets may result in losing legal protections if such trade secrets are stolen. Companies should consult with trusted IT and legal advisors to ensure they have adequate safeguards.

Data Breach Concerns

Departing employees may also take personal information, e.g., employee data, which could trigger data breach obligations. This includes not only social security numbers, but financial, health and biometric data as well as online credentials and government IDs. Unauthorized access to such information may require notification to affected individuals and authorities.

Regulatory and Contractual Implications

Companies may face additional obligations such as SEC regulations for publicly traded companies if data theft is material, industry-specific reporting for sectors like healthcare or energy, and contractual obligations to notify affected parties if confidential data is compromised. Ignoring these can lead to fines, lawsuits, and reputational harm.

Key Takeaways for Employers

A proactive, comprehensive strategy minimizes legal exposure and business risks.

Assess stolen data to determine legal obligations (personal info, trade secrets, etc.).

Evaluate legal and regulatory requirements for notifications and disclosures.

Leverage contractual protections to address the theft.

Strengthen safeguards: Implement data protection measures, employee training, and enhanced exit procedures.

President Trump issued an executive order rescinding EO 14055 signed by President Biden in November 2021. This is familiar territory for President Trump, as he rescinded the same executive order on October 31, 2021. This issue has been debated back and forth in Washington D.C. for at least thirty years.

This is a bit of déjà vu for President Trump, as he rescinded the same executive order on October 31, 2021. Indeed, this issue has been going back and forth in Washington, D.C., for at least thirty years.

EO 14055 required contractors and subcontractors covered by federal service contracts to offer service employees covered under predecessor contracts the right of first refusal of employment in successor contracts. EO 14055 also required new contractors to recognize existing unions, and bargain with them to change any terms and conditions of employment.

With its revocation, federal contractors will be able to hire new employees without first offering the predecessor’s employees the right of first refusal. Moreover, federal contractors can now use the threat of losing a federal contract as a tactic to discourage workers’ organizing efforts.

The Trump administration offered no additional details about the rescission, nor did it say whether the Department of Labor will formally withdraw rules it published to implement the EO in December 2023. The rescission is only one among many actions expected from the incoming administration.

Federal agencies are still determining the best way to comply with this EO, so federal contractors should continue to closely monitor developments. We encourage contractors with questions about their obligations under current and future contracts to work with experienced counsel.

New York employers must provide notice to its employees regarding their right to be free from discrimination or retaliation based on the employees’ or their dependents’ reproductive health decision making.  New York employers that use employee handbooks are now required to include such a notice in their handbook.  This requirement stems from Labor Law § 203-e (the “Act”), which was enacted in November 2019, and follows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision vacating of a lower court’s permanent injunction of the New York law requiring employers to include a notice in their employee handbooks regarding New York’s reproductive health decision making protections.

The Act requires employers to include in their handbooks a notice of employees’ rights and remedies under the Act and was enacted to “ensure that employees or their dependents are able to make their own reproductive health care decisions without incurring adverse employment consequences.”  Under the Act, employers may not “discriminate nor take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of or on the basis of the employee’s or dependent’s reproductive health decision making, including, but not limited to, a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service.”  The Act also prohibits employers from “accessing an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s or the employee’s dependent’s reproductive health decision making, including, but not limited to, the decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service, without the employee’s prior informed affirmative written consent.”  

The Act was challenged by three religious organizations who argued, among other things, that the notice requirement violated their First Amendment rights.  The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a permanent injunction in 2022 halting enforcement of the Act’s notice requirement, holding that the notice provision violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs (three religious organizations) by compelling them to publish a message that conflicted with their mission and was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. 

On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s reasoning and held that requiring employers that use a handbook to include a notice of employee rights and remedies under the Act did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.  In finding the notice requirement lawful, the Second Circuit stated that the notice requirement “is similar to many other state and federal laws requiring workplace disclosures” and that while “the policy judgment that motivated [§ 203-e] may be ‘controversial’ in the same way that the policy judgments underlying Title VII, or minimum wage laws, are controversial . . . the existence and contents of [§ 203-e] – and an employer’s obligation to comply with it – is not itself controversial.”  The Second Circuit noted that the notice requirement in no way restricts employers from otherwise communicating their moral, political, or religious views to their employees.

The statute does not establish a clear penalty for an employer’s non-compliance with the notice provision.  Nonetheless, New York employers should review and revise their employee handbooks to ensure compliance with this Second Circuit ruling. 

Beginning on April 15, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) will reinstate a monthly employment data reporting requirement for construction contractors, including details on the number of employees and work hours by race/ethnicity and gender.  Per this requirement, federal construction contractors will need to submit a report using the reinstated CC-257 Report by the 15th of each month.  The first report will cover the calendar month of March 2025 and is due April 15, 2025.

The report includes details on the number of employees and work hours by race/ethnicity and gender within each Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) or Economic Area (EA) each month.  Compiling and preparing data in accordance with this reporting requirement each month may prove challenging for contractors with employees working on multiple projects, either within a SMSA/EA or across several areas.  Contractors will also be required to include whether the work performed is designated by OFCCP as a Megaproject, whereby OFCCP plans to be involved with covered contractors and subcontractors at the outset of such Megaproject, including regular meetings between OFCCP, contractors, and other stakeholders.  Other CC-257 Report requirements include the federal contractor’s or subcontractor’s name, registered address, Employer Identification Number (EIN), Unique Entity ID (UEI) or Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, both of which OFCCP uses to identify entities doing business with the federal government, and a list of the federal agencies funding their projects.

Per the OFCCP’s FAQs, the OFCCP will use the monthly report to further its “mission of protecting workers in the construction trades, as employment discrimination continues to be a problem in the construction industry.”  Failure to provide timely reports may result in a violation and may subject contractors to sanctions, and failure to submit may be used as a factor for scheduling contractors for compliance reviews.

Although it is not clear whether the Trump Administration will maintain this new requirement, construction contractors should review and update their compliance programs and data reporting capabilities as necessary. 

Immediately following his January 20, 2025 inauguration, President Trump issued various executive orders with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives within the federal government.  Among these executive orders is a broad executive order tilted “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Order”), which among other things, rescinds Executive Order (“EO”) 11246.   

EO 11246, currently enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), was first issued in 1965 and prohibited federal contractors from discriminating against employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and required federal contractors, with at least 50 employees who do over $10,000 in government business in one year,  to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees were treated equally regardless of these characteristics. 

In addition to rescinding EO 11246, the Order states that OFCCP shall immediately cease “Promoting ‘diversity,’” “Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “‘affirmative action,’” and “Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sexual preference, religion or national origin.”  The Order also directs agency heads to “include in every contractor or grant award” a term requiring the contractor/grantee to “certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”  Further, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), with the assistance of the Attorney General, has been instructed, per the Order, to (1) to review all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance, (2) remove references to DEI and DEI principles from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and finance assistance procedures, and (3) terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.  Per the Order, the overarching goal is to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work, aligning employment practices more closely with merit-based principles.

Employers should review and update company policies regarding EO 11246 as necessary, while keeping in mind compliance with existing anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Employers and employees are often caught off guard by the devastation and uncertainty created by natural disasters.  When emergencies arise from such wildfires, global pandemics, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and flooding, employers are often faced with employment-related concerns, and it is imperative for employers to be as prepared as possible in the event an emergency arises.  This article touches on some of the most important concerns that employers should keep in mind if ever faced with a natural or other disaster, including (but not limited to) wage and hour implications, potential payroll relays, leaves of absence, notifying employees of mass layoffs, unemployment benefits, and safety and retaliation concerns, and modes of communication to employees.

Wage & hour implications:

• Under the FLSA, non-exempt workers must be paid only for the time they work, and therefore, employers need not compensate non-exempt employees who are not working because of an emergency.  Note that it generally does not matter whether the absence is based on the employer’s decision to close or the employee’s decision to stay at home or evacuate.  It is also important to note that non-exempt employees must be paid for performing any work remotely, even if the employee did not have express permission to work from home.  Accordingly, employers should ensure that they have a clear and enforceable time and attendance policy that, among other things, requires non-exempt employees to accurately record all time worked.
• On the other hand, when an employer shuts down its operations because of adverse weather or other disaster for less than a full workweek, exempt employees must be paid their full salary.  This rule also applies if exempt employees work only part of a day.  Keep in mind that if an employer deducts from the employee’s salary in such situations, it risks losing the exemption applicable to that employee.  Also note that, generally speaking, exempt employees may be required to use accrued leave or vacation time for their absences, including if the worksite is closed, and employers are able to direct exempt employees to take paid time off for the closure, pursuant to the employer’s established vacation or leave policy.  Employers should keep this in mind when updating and refreshing its vacation and leave policies.

Potential Payroll Delays:

• Sometimes a natural or other disaster can cause a delay in an employer’s processing of employees’ wage payments.  New York employers are required to give notice to employees for changes in their pay rate and/or payday.  Notice of any delays should be made in writing as soon as practicable. 
• This is often an unintentional result of a natural of other disaster, but employers should ensure that they keep open and ongoing communications with its employees about wages, scheduling, and related matters.

Leaves of Absence:

• Employees may need to take leave from work to deal with certain unforeseen circumstances that a natural disaster could cause.  Generally speaking, the FMLA does not, in itself, require employers to give employees time off to attend to personal matters arising out of a natural disaster, but, employees who have suffered a serious injury or illness resulting from the disaster, or who have a family member who did, may be entitled to leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Notifying Employees of Mass Layoffs:

• Employers that decide to close a facility or implement a mass layoff due to the effects of a natural disaster must evaluate whether a notice is required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).
• The WARN Act requires a covered employer, i.e., 100 or more employees, to give 60 days’ notice prior to a mass layoff.  A mass layoff occurs when either of the following suffers a job loss: (a) 500 or more full-time employees at a facility; or (b) 50 or more full-time employees at a facility constituting at least 33% of the workforce.  A job loss includes a layoff of six months or more but does not include resignations or terminations for cause.
• When required, WARN notice must be provided to affected nonunion employees, the representatives of affected unionized employees, the state’s dislocated worker unit, and the local government where the closing or layoff is to occur.
• Note that a natural or other disaster is not considered a justifiable delay in providing WARN notice, and if necessary, they must give “as much notice as is practicable” and must state why they were unable to give notice earlier. 

Unemployment Benefits:

• Employees who are displaced from their positions due to a natural or other disaster may be eligible for unemployment compensation from the relevant state agency, and if ineligible for state assistance, the employee may be eligible for such Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA).

Safety & Retaliation Concerns:

• Under the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers have a legal duty at all times to provide employees with a safe workplace, free of known health and safety hazards, and depending on the business, additional industry-specific regulations may apply.  Employers should conduct a workplace safety analysis to consider any and all post-disaster recovery issues.  Note that OSHA publishes fact sheets on disaster recovery which addresses topics such as flood and cleanup hazards, fungi, falls, chainsaws, asbestos, and electrical wires.

Communicating to Employees:

• Employers should establish a command center to serve as the central source for decision-making and communication and should also consider having a second alternative location in the case of a widespread event if possible.
• Employers should ensure that employee contact information is up-to-date and that employees know how to get information from the employer in an emergency.  This could include distributing relevant information in advance of inclement weather or other catastrophic event for employees to store at home, such as information about company policies and general preparedness, and ensure that there are sufficient modes of satisfaction for contact, such as an email or text alert system.

If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.