Yes.  Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private employers with 15 or more employees must keep copies of applicants’ resumes for 1 year after they are received or after the hiring decision, whichever occurs later, including internet submissions.  (State laws may require longer retention.)  Unsolicited resumes, however, need not be retained unless the employer considers the resumes for potential positions.  Thus employers should have a policy not to review unsolicited

Yes, according to a recent Court of Federal Claims decision that expands Federal wage and hour law to include a timeliness-of-pay requirement.  The case involves a class action by federal employees forced to work during the shutdown (such as prison wardens and border patrol officers) who were not paid until the shutdown was over.  Prior to this decision, the federal wage and hour laws generally only governed the amount of payment, while state wage payment

With the recent advent of “lifestyle discrimination” protection, the answer is increasingly becoming “no”.  Lifestyle discrimination laws include various statutes enacted across the country spanning topics from tobacco use to personal morality.  While exceptions exist, the law has generally grown more hostile for employers that regulate conduct outside the office. At common law, the at-will employment doctrine enabled employers to terminate employees for any reason or no reason.  If an employer were to find out

Yes, according to recent guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), although the issue is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.  The EEOC recently issued guidance that extends the protections of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) beyond its currently-recognized limits. Under the PDA, pregnant employees must be treated the same as non-pregnant workers similar in their ability or inability to work.  In 2008, Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act to expand

There is no “parent-child” privilege in Virginia according to a federal court.  This means that a son can be compelled to testify against his parent. The case is Under Seal v. United States, 13-4933 (4th Cir., June 17, 2014). By contrast, there is an “attorney-client,” “clergy-communicant,” and “interpreter privilege for both civil and criminal cases.  There is also, for civil cases only, a “physician-patient” privilege.  The rules are set forth in the Virginia Rules of