Posts Tagged ‘Compliance’

Are you using the new Form I-9?

Wednesday, February 1st, 2017

Beginning January 22nd, 2017, all employers are required to utilize the new Form I-9.  The new form was created to reduce confusion and the resulting technical errors by both employers and employees.  This new form can be completed digitally and contains pull-down menus, embedded calendars and the like.

However, employers who complete the new Form I-9 online using Adobe Reader or other PDF reader, will still be required to print the form, procure handwritten signatures and store in a safe and accessible place.  Furthermore, employers will also need to monitor re-verifications and updates with a calendaring system.  You will also have to use E-Verify as a separate system.    You can read more about the new form at the USCIS website; https://www.uscis.gov/i-9.

If this system still sounds complicated to you, CAI has an easier solution.  Our Form I-9 service offers a version of the electronic Form I-9 that allows you to complete and store your I-9s paperless, and with the assurance that you are filling out the form in a compliant manner.

In addition to the electronic I-9, our system can seamlessly incorporate E-Verify.

Highlights of our service include:

  • Electronically complete, sign and store the Form I-9.
  • Real time validation of data entered into the Form I-9.
  • Instant Employment Authorization.
  • Expiration Notices – Email notification of an employee’s expiring work authorization is sent out before it becomes a problem.
  • No servers or software to install or maintain.
  • Easy Searching – Search for stored forms to export, or print the PDF.
  • Audit Log – All actions (creation, view and print) relating to a form are tracked in the audit log.
  • Multiple permission levels for increased security.
  • Duplication Alert – User is notified when entering a form for an employee who already has a form on file, thus preventing employees from using the same SSN.
  • Remote employee authorization – we have notaries around the country who can verify documents.
  • Great Customer Service – You know and trust us, we are just a phone call or email away.

If you would like to learn more about our electronic I-9 services, please give us a call and ask for Brielle Earley or Kevin von der Lippe at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Kevin W. von der Lippe is a licensed private investigator at CAI and for 19 years has managed our detective agency and background checking business.  He is security minded and proficient with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as administered by the EEOC as it relates to background checks. Capital Associated Industries Services Corporation is a licensed investigative agency, specializing in corporate pre-employment background screening. Our corporate agency license is BPN 001473P11.

FMLA – Needed to Care For a Family Member

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

The FMLA allows leave for an eligible employee when the employee is needed to care for certain qualifying family members (child, spouse or parent) with a serious health condition. (The definition of son or daughter includes individuals for whom the employee stood for or is standing “in loco parentis.” The definition of parent includes individuals who stood for “in loco parentis” to the employee. The term “in loco parentis”, Latin for “in the place of a parent”, refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.  Under FMLA, it specifically references a relationship whereby an individual takes on the role of “parent” to a child who is under the age of 18, or an adult (18 years of age or older) who is incapable of taking care of themselves due to a mental or physical disability.  No legal or biological relationship is necessary, provided the individual can satisfy the “in loco parentis” requirements under FMLA. 

An employee must be needed to provide care for his or her spouse, son, daughter, or parent because of the family member’s serious health condition in order for the employee to take FMLA leave. “Needed to care for” encompasses both physical and psychological care. It includes, for example:

    • Providing care for a qualifying family member who, because of a serious health condition, is unable to care for his or her own basic medical, hygienic, nutritional or safety needs, or is unable to transport himself or herself to the doctor, etc.;
    • Providing psychological comfort and reassurance that would be beneficial to a child, spouse or parent with a serious health condition who is receiving inpatient or home care; or
    • Filling in for others who normally care for the family member or to make arrangements for changes in care (transfer to a nursing home, for example).

The employee need not be the only individual or family member available to care for the qualifying family member. The need to care for could result in an employee’s need for intermittent leave or a reduced leave schedule to care for a family member where either the condition of the family member itself is intermittent or the employee is only needed intermittently (ie., other care is normally available or the care responsibilities are shared with others, family or third party).

For questions or issues regarding FMLA and how it pertains to employees within your company, CAI’s Advice & Resolution team, can help. Learn more about becoming a CAI member here.

 

CAI’s Advice & Resolution Advisor Renee Watkins is a seasoned HR professional with a diverse background in Human Resource. Renee provides CAI members with practical advice in a wide range of human resource functions including conflict resolution, compliance and regulatory issues, and employee relations.

Help Your Company Remain in Compliance in 2017

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

CAI’s 2016 Triad Employment Law Update was attended by nearly 200 HR professionals seeking information and updates on federal and state laws and regulations facing North Carolina employers.  HR experts from CAI along with attorneys from Costangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP presented on a variety of topics of significance to North Carolina employers. 2016_telu_header_2

A few highlights from this year’s conference:

  • On December 1, 2016, the Overtime Rule goes into effect and raises the threshold to $913/week or $47,476 per year; $134,004 for highly compensated employees. Be sure you fully understand the differences between an employee and an independent contractor.  The USDOL and NCIC have signed an agreement to oversee compliance with various regulations and work together to reduce employee misclassification, among other things.
  • Review your handbooks regularly.  Many employee handbooks contain a policy or language that may trigger a complaint by the NLRB. Ensure that your policies are not too broad or too vague, as this will leave them open to interpretation.
  • Regarding enforcement protections for LGBT, the EEOC states that employers must comply with federal law, even if state law conflicts or offers no protection for this group. LGBT charge filings and resolutions are on the rise as more employees become aware that they can file claims.  For further clarification, you can view the EEOC Fact Sheet on protections for LGBT workers here.
  • Workplace bullying can be physical, physically threatening or non-physical.  In North Carolina, there are currently no laws against workplace bullying but employers should not tolerate bullying on any level.  High turnover, low productivity, lost innovations and difficulty hiring quality employees can all result from workplace bullying.
  • According to ADAAA, employers have an obligation to engage in good faith in the interactive process to determine if an employee has a disability and whether there are reasonable accommodations that can be implemented. Reasonable accommodations under the ADAAA can include assistive devices, change in assignments, service animals and telecommuting.  Many employers have found individuals with disabilities to be productive and loyal employees.
  • Employers may use bonuses to satisfy part of the new standard salary level test. The DOL allows nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary test requirement. Such bonuses include, for example, nondiscretionary incentive bonuses tied to productivity or profitability (a bonus based on the specified percentage of the profits generated by a business in the prior quarter.)
  • North Carolina law does allow employers to test job applicants and employees for drug or alcohol impairment and regulates the procedures that employers must follow in implementing such testing. State law does not require employers to drug test, but it does regulate those employers who voluntarily choose to implement a drug-testing program.
  • Don’t put a non-compete clause in an employee handbook.  Have a standalone non-compete or employment agreement with a non-compete provision. When developing a non-compete, keep in mind that the narrower in geographic scope the better.  Be sure to have your job candidate sign this agreement before or on the first day of employment with your company.
  • Penalties for non-compliance of the ACA are $1,000 per enrollee for willful failures.  However, good faith compliance efforts can excuse penalties. The DOL has more information on their website.
  • Title VII prohibits religious discrimination and requires reasonable accommodations as it pertains to religion. Broadly defined, religion includes “Ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”
  • Under FMLA an employee who has given birth is entitled to 12 weeks of leave.  Mothers who return to work and are breastfeeding must be provided breaks to express milk and have access to a clean, safe, private place for this purpose.
  • As November 8th nears, employers may want to consider allowing employees some paid time off to vote, if there is insufficient time for the employee to vote outside of working hours. Although there is no statute in North Carolina that mandates time off to vote, terminating an employee for taking time off to vote could be the basis for tort action for wrongful discharge. Employers should encourage their employees to exercise their right to vote.

More than 1,100 North Carolina employers trust CAI to help them minimize liability and maximize employee engagement, contact CAI at 919-878-9222 or email leeann.graham@capital.org to learn more about the many ways we can help you.

 

Immigration Compliance and Form I-9

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

Pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) employers are prohibited from hiring or continuing to employ foreign nationals who lack authorization to work in the United States. That law requires employers to verify the identity and work authorization of all new hires, and it establishes civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance. IRCA establishes a system of employment eligibility verification procedures that all employers must follow when filling a job. Employers are obliged to be an integral part of the government’s efforts to reduce illegal immigration.formi-9

IRCA makes it unlawful for any employer in the United States to knowingly “hire or to recruit or refer for a fee” or to knowingly “continue to employ” an individual who lacks authorization to be employed in the United States. The law applies to any employee hired after November 6, 1986. Employees hired prior to November 7, 1986, are “grandfathered,” and their status need not be verified.

To comply with the law, employers must verify the identity and employment authorization of each person they hire, complete and retain a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for each employee, and refrain from discriminating against individuals on the basis of national origin or citizenship.

Employers must require all newly-hired employees to confirm their identity and eligibility to work in the United States.  Employers must complete Form I-9 for each person hired to perform labor or services in the United States in return for wages or other remuneration. Remuneration is anything of value given in exchange for labor or services. I-9 forms must be retained for specified periods of time including even after the employment relationship has ended, and it must be made available in the event of an audit or inspection. These compliance requirements apply to every new employee regardless of citizenship or alienage, even if there is no doubt as to the individual’s identity and employment authorization.

To confirm identity and employment eligibility, every new hire must produce an original document or a combination of documents that are designated by the federal government to satisfy that requirement.  A list of the acceptable documents is found on the last page of the Form I-9. The employer must accept whatever document or combination of documents from the List that the employee offers, so long as the document is original, unexpired, relates to the employee and shows no signs of tampering or counterfeiting.

The employer must ensure that the employee completes Section 1 of Form I-9 at the time of hire. “Hire” means when employment begins in exchange for wages or other remuneration begins. The time of hire is noted on the form as the first day of employment. Employees may complete Section 1 of Form I-9 before the time of hire, but no earlier than acceptance of the job offer. Review the employee’s document(s) and fully complete Section 2 of Form I-9 within three business days of the hire.

As you perhaps know the current I-9 form technically expired this past March 31.  However, until further notice employers should continue using this version until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves and issues an updated I-9 form. The public was able to provide comments on the proposed I-9 changes until April 27, 2016.  For a detailed summary of the proposed changes, see USCIS Seeks Comments on Proposed Changes to From I-9 webpage.

If you need help thinking through an Immigration issue or want to dive deeper into this topic please reach out to our Advice & Resolution team.

renee

 

CAI Advice & Resolution team member Renee Watkins is a seasoned HR professional with a diverse background in Human Resource. Renee provides CAI members with practical advice in a wide-range of human resource functions including conflict resolution, compliance and regulatory issues, and employee relations.

Form 5500 Revisions Impact Both Small And Large Employers

Tuesday, September 20th, 2016

The post below is a guest blog from Rob Krieg who serves as Principal, Health & Welfare Consultant for CAI’s employee benefits partner Hill, Chesson & Woody.

hcw5500revisionsblogThe Department of Labor (DOL), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) recently proposed significant changes to the form 5500 which has implications for both large employers and small employers. Targeting an effective date of 2019 plan year filings, the recent DOL Factsheet explains that many changes are on the horizon in an attempt to modernize and improve the Form 5500 annual return/report filed by employee benefit plans.  They identify the driving forces behind the changes include a desire to 1) modernize financial reporting, 2) provide greater information regarding group health plans, 3) enhance data mine-ability, 4 ) improve service provider fee information, and 5) enhance compliance with ERISA and the code.

The most notable proposed changes include:

  • Removing the small group exemption where previously many employers with less than 100 enrolled participants were exempt from filing;
  • Adding a new comprehensive schedule J (Group Health Plan Information) requirement;
  • New Schedule C requirement for each service provider;
  • And an expanded schedule H for funded plans.

Regardless of a group’s size, benefit plans should pay special attention to the new Schedule J requirements. Plans will now be asked to complete information on the types of benefits offered and the funding methods, including if benefits are HDHP, health FSA or HRA.  There will also be questions on participant contributions and employer contributions as well as enrollment information, including participants and dependents.  There appears to be requirements for claims data (including claims submitted, denied, appealed, paid, and where claims are paid from – insurer, trust or employer general assets.  And last but not least, there will be a focus on plan compliance with questions around COBRA, grandfathered status, MLR rebates, HIPAA, GINA, MHP SBC requirements, and SPD requirements.

As traditionally occurs, the DOL has asked for comments to the proposed regulations and these comments are due by October 4, 2016.  It is clear that the agencies are working together to significantly increase Form 5500 reporting obligations for many employers with group health plans. As explained in the fact sheet, the agencies are looking to update the filing requirement to gather data sufficient to support their enforcement efforts. Therefore, employers should take note and make sure to tighten up their benefit plan compliance over the next year.  The silver lining is that the agencies have provided plenty of lead time for employer’s to get into compliance.

If you have questions about these new regulations, or about your health benefit plan’s compliance with some of the regulations mentioned in the proposed regulations, contact your HCW consultant.

Drug Testing Can Greatly Reduce Workers’ Compensation Costs

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

According to CAI’s most recent Policies and Benefits survey, 30% of employers are not conducting drug tests.  Besides the obvious benefits of having a drug-free workplace, another side benefit from drug testing is that it may reduce your workers compensation costs.  On the one hand, employees who are under the influence are more likely to experience injuries to themselves or others.  So the knowledge that you conduct post-accident drug and alcohol testing will dissuade most employees and therefore reduce accidents and costs.drugfreezone

Also, under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act, no compensation will be paid for a workplace injury or death if it was proximately caused by, among other things, the employee’s intoxication, provided the intoxicant was not supplied by the employer (company social event) or being under the influence of a controlled substance listed in the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act (G.S. 90-86) unless it was prescribed by a doctor and the prescribed dosages were being followed.  Note, there isn’t an automatic denial of claims due to intoxication but odds are in the employer’s favor unless it can be proven the accident was in no way related to the “altered state” so to speak.

The best way to increase the odds that such claims will be denied is to incorporate a comprehensive drug and alcohol testing policy. Without such a policy, denial of workers compensation claims due to being under the influence may be harder to achieve.

North Carolina employers who drug test are required to comply with the NC Controlled Substances Examination Regulation Act which regulates notice requirements to examinees, requires approved laboratories and chain of custody safeguards, specifies conditions for applicant and employee testing, requires confirmation tests on positive samples, and entitles an employee who tests positive to have a retest, if requested, of the same sample at the employee’s expense.

Many states have a provision in their Workers’ Compensation law disqualifying an employee for compensation if the injury was caused by being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  A number of states also give discounts on Workers’ Compensation premiums (generally 5-7%) for implementing a Drug-Free Workplace Program.  CCH, the Members-only resource, provides State Law Summaries on Workers’ Compensation laws.

The US Department of Labor has resources for developing a drug-free workplace program.  While this is a requirement for federal contractors, the resources are helpful to all employers.  Consult the state law for specific requirements in other states.  Our drug-testing partner, PDSS, is also a resource for policy development, testing, and in-depth expertise in this area.

CAI encourages drug-free workplaces. Learn how drug testing programs can increase the efficiency and productivity of your organization at CAI.

Unintended Consequences of Workplace Laws

Thursday, August 4th, 2016

courtgavelThe following post is by Bruce Clarke, CAI’s CEO and President. The article originally appeared in Bruce’s News & Observer column, The View from HR.

Our nonprofit association helps employers understand and comply with employment laws. We talk with lawmakers about workplace realities and the unintended consequences of well-intended rules. Employers understand the lawmaking process is chaotic and bears little relationship to a high school textbook on government. Still, the cumulative impact of thousands of laws and rules is a crushing burden to smaller employers.

Putting Out a Fire

State legislators are good firefighters, much better than Congress.   Show them a problem nearing the point of no return, and they will act. Workplace examples include workers’ compensation reform and unemployment insurance overhaul. Both became so unaffordable and unsustainable, difficult changes were made under Democratic and Republican leadership. True, if acted on sooner, the reforms could be gentler, but it is just not the nature of the legislative beast.

Solving the Real Problem

Many thoughtful legislators work hard to draft a solution to a significant, complex issue only to see additions or deletions gut the original intent. Sometimes, just the title from the original bill remains while the final text avoids those issues or addresses new ones entirely. When we ask human resource leaders to speak to committees about workplace bills, employers are surprised at this incongruence.  “What problem is the bill now solving?” and “What problem is the bill now creating?” highlight the squirrely journey from concept to reality, or on to legislative oblivion.

Protecting an Industry

State law contains many specific protections sought and maintained through smart lobbying. Tobacco companies won the “Lawful Use of Lawful Products” statute years ago to prevent employers and others from turning no-smoking rules into no-smokers rules. “Lawful products” were protected rather than the less-sympathetic cigarette. Lobbyists seek statutory licensing requirements for all-manner of trades and vocations with part of an eye on consumer-protection but both feet planted in competition-reduction: private investigators, cosmetic artists, nutritionists, massage therapists and lawn irrigationists are examples. North Carolina has over 100 tightly restricted trades, one of the highest numbers in the nation.

Pet Peeves

More often than we realize, a lawmaker’s idea for a bill is based on a single anecdote. A contractor in a lawmaker’s district did not get paid by a homeowner, so a bill was introduced to require paycheck deductions to repay all types of consumer debts. Imagine every employer withholding payroll dollars on past due credit card bills statewide, all because this one contractor was not paid?!   The bill failed, but each session brings a rash of next-door-neighbor bills and some do become law.

For these reasons and more, on balance, new laws tend to have more unintended than intended consequences. Some of those unintended consequences are good depending on your perspective. Others cause employers and consumers expense way out of proportion to any good accomplished. There are some great people in public service. Listening more to the people regulated or restricted by new laws, rather than primarily the isolated complainer (or well-financed advocates), would lead to better legislation.

CAI helps 1,100+ North Carolina employers with HR compliance, guidance, local survey data, training, tools, templates and more.

Bruce Clarke c

Bruce Clarke serves as CAI’S President and CEO, and has been with CAI since 2001. Bruce practiced labor and employment law with the national labor law firm of Ogletree Deakins for 18 years. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America and was selected as one of North Carolina’s Legal Elite by Business North Carolina Magazine. Bruce is 100% committed to helping companies maximize employee engagement and minimize workplace liabilities.

 

Joint Pain in the Workplace

Tuesday, June 7th, 2016

The following post is by Bruce Clarke, CAI’s CEO and President. The article originally appeared in Bruce’s News & Observer column, The View from HR

Can an employee work for two employers at the same time?

The Federal Court of Appeals in Richmond just decided how easy it is for someone to be a “joint employee” of two employers (Butler v. Drive

Bruce Clarke, President and CEO

Bruce Clarke, President and CEO

Automotive). The case involved whether a temporary service employee (Ms. Butler) was also employed by the manufacturer where she was assigned.  Could she sue that manufacturer for sexual harassment and termination under laws protecting only employees?  The court said yes.

Most courts say if both entities have enough control or economic connection to the individual, (s)he is employed by both.  This Appeals court fashioned a broad, hybrid test for joint employer status including whether each had some power to hire, fire, or supervise in a meaningful way, and where/how the work takes place compared to regular employees.  In my view, nearly all extended work placements through temporary services (involving hiring by the service and some training/supervision by the customer or both) create joint employers.

A similar issue arises with direct hired contract workers.  Some employers use an in house group of contract workers to handle fluctuations in volume or to serve as a pool for future full-time hires.  Whether temp or direct, a special group of workers is created who do not enjoy the same working terms of regular employees.

There are many good reasons to use long-term temporary and contract workers, but these challenges are often ignored:

Unintended Consequences

Lawsuits, injury claims and expensive benefits make full-time employee status costly.  Some employers manage “headcount”, risks and costs by restricting full-time hires, preferring either part-time employees or other solutions such as direct contractors. It is just not that easy.

By substituting significant, extended work from these temporary and contract workers, employers may avoid one set of costs and create a new, unbudgeted set of costs.  If we could reliably reduce the extra costs of employing people just by calling them non-employees, then none of us would work directly for an employer!

Employee Relations

If we expect the contractor/temp group to be happy with their non-employee status long term, we might be dreaming.  Too often, managers treat the contract group as expendable.  “Just let them go” some say, rather than address problems.  The same physical separation, different uniforms and procedural techniques used to prove these workers are NOT employees may in fact cause serious dissatisfaction . . . without establishing the desired legal separation!

Poor (or zero) onboarding, second-class status, ignoring complaints, little communication about next steps and limited performance feedback are common problems.  Remember, despite efforts to mechanically avoid employee status, the pressures of work and output usually confuse the worker’s status.

The costs of hiring regular employees can be managed and the risks contained.  When an employer is surprised to learn after a claim is filed that the law views it as an employer of temporary and contract workers, it is too late to prepare or insure.   Employers using these relationships as long term solutions should carefully assess the total costs.

Don’t Underestimate the Power of Job Descriptions in ADA Legal Challenges

Thursday, September 3rd, 2015

CAI’s Advice and Resolution team member Pat Rountree shares valuable information regarding job descriptions and compliance with the ADA

Pat Rountree, HR Advisor

Pat Rountree, HR Advisor

The terminology essential functions of the job has been around since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1993.  However, the significance of making sure that you have current job descriptions for each position that lists the essential duties, physical, and mental requirements greatly increased with the recent amendments to the ADA.  Also, technology advances have resulted in a faster pace of job change over the last several years.

Employment law attorneys continue to stress that job descriptions that identify the essential functions of the job are the first line of defense when employers are trying to defend undue hardship decisions on inability to make accommodation, and terminations for inability of employees to do the job.

At the most recent CAI/Ogletree Employment and Labor Law Update, Attorney Gretchen Ewalt recommended that employers use the employee performance review time to go over the job description with the employee annually and determine if changes need to be made to accurately reflect the current job responsibilities.

Another recommendation in light of recent case law is to document in the job description if the job requires the employee to be present at the worksite and to document the reasons why.  It may sound ridiculous—of course attendance at work is required.  However, with requests for accommodation to work from home, it is important to document when actual presence at work is required as in the EEOC vs. Ford Motor Company.  The employee, a resale buyer, requested to work from home as an accommodation, but the employee’s lack of availability for impromptu meetings on important issues was an undue hardship for the employer.  The court sided with the employer and noted in their decision, in most jobs, especially those involving teamwork and a high level of interaction, the employer will require regular and predictable on-site attendance from all employees.  To read the full court decision, see http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0066p-06.pdf.

Obviously with the advance of technology, working from home may be a reasonable accommodation for some jobs.  However, for those jobs that require person-to-person contact on the job, it is important to document.

How long has it been since you actually reviewed job descriptions with incumbents to determine that they are still valid?

Considerations in determining essential functions include:

  • The importance of the function to the overall job
  • The number of employees available to perform it
  • The time spent on the function
  • The degree of skill required

Other kinds of evidence that EEOC will consider include:

  • The actual work experience of present or past employees in the job
  • The consequences of not requiring that an employee perform a function
  • The terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

For additional guidance on this topic, please reach out to CAI’s Advice and Resolution team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

The Questions You Shouldn’t Ask in an Interview

Tuesday, May 12th, 2015

interview questionsInterviewing candidates can be an enjoyable and sometimes stressful endeavor. This interview or interviews may be the only chance you get to ask all that you want to know about a candidate before you make a hiring decision.

You don’t want to forget to ask something and you do want to ask all of the right things. This could sound alarming to you, or maybe you love interviewing candidates and that is one of the reasons you decided to go into HR. No matter what your view is on interviewing, one thing you don’t want to do is ask questions that could get you and your company into trouble.

That’s right, trouble. There are interview questions that are illegal.  According to a recent survey from Careerbuilder.com*, one in five employers has unknowingly asked a job candidate an illegal interview question. The legality of these questions ultimately protects both parties involved. For you and your future candidates’ protection, take a look at this list of illegal interview questions:

  • What is your religious affiliation?
  • Are you pregnant?
  • What is your political affiliation?
  • What is your race, color or ethnicity?
  • How old are you?
  • Are you disabled?
  • Are you married?
  • Do you have children or plan to?
  • Are you in debt?
  • Do you socially drink or smoke?
  • When do you plan to retire?
  • Where do you live?
  • What was the nature of your military discharge?
  • Are you a U.S. citizen?

You may find that you have asked some of these questions before, or that you need to know these things to make your hiring decisions. You may have wanted to know if someone was ok with relocating so you asked her where she lives. To make sure you are protected, ask her instead flat out if she is willing to relocate. Or ask a candidate where he sees himself in fifteen years instead of when he is planning on retiring.

Think through interview questions before asking them, and make sure you aren’t breaking any laws!

For more information of the legalities of interviews and interview questions, contact a member of CAI’s Advice and Resolution Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

*Careerbuilder.com

Photo Source: COD Newsroom