Articles by Our Attorneys

The June 2026 employment law update provides guidance on best practices for managing remote employees. Remote work has become a permanent part of the modern workplace, offering employers greater flexibility and access to talented professionals regardless of geographic location. However, managing remote employees presents unique legal and operational challenges that require thoughtful planning. Employers should develop comprehensive policies and practices that promote accountability while reducing the risk of employment-related claims. 

Establish Clear Remote Work Expectations 

The foundation of remote work management is a well-written remote work policy. This policy can define work schedules, availability expectations, communication protocols, performance standards, and procedures for requesting leave or reporting workplace issues. Employees should understand when they are expected to be available, how they should document their work time, and which communication platforms they are expected to use. Establishing these expectations upfront minimizes misunderstandings, promotes consistency across the organization, and provides managers with objective standards for evaluating performance. 

Stay Compliant with Wage and Hour Laws 

Employers must remain vigilant about compliance with wage and hour laws. The fact that an employee works from home does not change an employer’s obligations under federal and state labor laws. Nonexempt employees should accurately record all hours worked, including time spent responding to emails or completing tasks outside of their scheduled shifts. Managers should be trained to avoid encouraging off-the-clock work and should promptly address unauthorized overtime while ensuring employees are compensated for all hours actually worked. Regular audits of timekeeping practices and manager training can help minimize costly wage and hour disputes. 

Respond Thoughtfully to Accommodation Requests 

Another issue that has become increasingly common is employee requests for remote work as a reasonable accommodation for a medical condition or disability. Employers should avoid treating these requests as automatic approvals or automatic denials. Instead, they should engage in the interactive process required by applicable disability discrimination laws to determine whether remote work – or another accommodation – would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the position without creating an undue hardship. 

This analysis should be individualized and based on the employee’s specific limitations, the essential duties of the position, and the employer’s operational needs. Employers should also recognize that if a position has been successfully performed remotely for an extended period, it may be more difficult to argue that regular on-site attendance is an essential job function. Carefully documenting the interactive process and the rationale for accommodation decisions can significantly reduce legal risk if those decisions are later challenged. 

Protect Confidential Information and Company Data 

Protecting confidential business information is another significant concern in remote work environments. Employers should implement cybersecurity measures such as multi-factor authentication, secure virtual private networks, encrypted devices, and strong password requirements. Regular cybersecurity training can help employees recognize phishing attempts, avoid unsafe internet practices, and properly safeguard sensitive client and company information. Written policies should also address the appropriate use of personal devices, home printing, document retention, and the secure disposal of confidential materials. 

Evaluate Performance Based on Results 

Performance management often requires a different approach when employees are working remotely. Rather than evaluating employees based on their online presence or immediate responsiveness, employers should establish objective performance metrics tied to job responsibilities and measurable outcomes. Regular check-ins, documented feedback, and consistent performance evaluations help employees stay engaged while reducing the likelihood of claims involving inconsistent treatment or discrimination. 

Understand Multi-State Employment Obligations 

One of the most overlooked challenges of managing a remote workforce is compliance with the employment laws of multiple jurisdictions. In many cases, the laws of the state or locality where the employee lives and performs the work – not where the employer’s headquarters is located – will govern key aspects of the employment relationship. As a result, employers with remote employees in different states may be subject to a patchwork of wage and hour laws, paid leave requirements, meal and rest break rules, final paycheck obligations, expense reimbursement statutes, and other state-specific employment regulations. 

Employers should periodically review their policies, payroll practices, and remote work arrangements to ensure compliance with the laws applicable in each jurisdiction where employees work. Conducting regular legal audits can help identify compliance gaps before they result in costly litigation or government investigations. 

The Bottom Line 

Remote work offers significant benefits for both employers and employees, but it also requires careful attention to evolving legal obligations. By implementing clear policies, maintaining compliant wage and hour practices, thoughtfully addressing accommodation requests, safeguarding confidential information, managing performance consistently, and understanding multi-state employment laws, employers can reduce legal risk while fostering a productive, engaged, and successful remote workforce. 

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

The May 2026 employment law update provides guidance on best practices for Employer workplace investigations based upon recent trends in employment litigation:

Internal workplace investigations have long served as a critical risk-management tool for employers facing allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and employee misconduct. When conducted effectively, they allow organizations to identify issues early, respond appropriately to complaints and build a defensible record supporting employment decisions. Increasingly, however, the investigation itself has become a focal point in employment litigation.

Employees and their counsel frequently scrutinize whether an investigation was truly impartial or merely a process designed to justify a predetermined outcome. Courts examining these claims have made clear that not every flaw or omission in an investigation will establish liability. Still, where the investigative process appears superficial, biased, incomplete or closely tied to disciplinary decision-makers, those deficiencies can undermine an employer’s credibility and support claims of pretext or retaliation.

Recent employment disputes illustrate how these challenges arise in practice. In some cases, employees allege that investigators lacked independence because human resources personnel or in-house counsel were simultaneously involved in both fact-finding and disciplinary decisions. In others, plaintiffs point to limited witness interviews, selective evidence review, poor documentation or failures to adequately address employee complaints as evidence that the process was outcome-driven rather than a genuine effort to determine the facts.

These concerns often center on three interrelated concepts: independence, credibility, and trust. Independence is essential because investigations lose persuasive value when employees perceive investigators as aligned with management or invested in a particular result. Courts may view overlapping investigative and disciplinary roles as evidence that the process lacked neutrality, particularly when employment decisions appear to have been made before the investigation concluded.

Credibility is equally important. An investigation may satisfy procedural requirements on paper yet still appear unreliable when examined during litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys routinely challenge what investigators failed to do – including witnesses they did not interview, records they did not review, and allegations they did not fully explore. Employers must therefore be prepared not only to show that an investigation occurred, but also to explain why its scope, timing and methodology were reasonable under the circumstances.

Trust also plays a significant role in the effectiveness of workplace investigations. Employees are far more likely to participate candidly when they believe the process is fair, confidential, and free from retaliation. Conversely, employees who perceive investigations as management-driven or predetermined may withhold information, avoid participation or later challenge the integrity of the process itself. Building trust requires clear communication, meaningful anti-retaliation protections, and investigators capable of navigating sensitive workplace dynamics with professionalism and impartiality.

For employers, the broader lesson is clear: workplace investigations should not be treated as mere compliance exercises. They are often central pieces of evidence that may later be dissected by opposing counsel, judges, and juries. Timing, documentation, internal communications and decision-making processes can all become subject to scrutiny in discovery.

Organizations can reduce risk by separating investigative and disciplinary functions where possible, carefully managing communications during the process, and ensuring investigators possess not only technical knowledge, but also sound judgment and strong interpersonal skills. In matters involving senior leadership, significant employee complaints or heightened legal exposure, employers may also benefit from engaging independent outside investigators to reinforce the integrity of the process.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an internal investigation depends not simply on whether it was completed or any particular outcome, but on whether it will withstand scrutiny after litigation begins. Employers that prioritize independence, credibility and employee trust place themselves in a far stronger position to defend both their decisions and the investigative process that supported them.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.