Compliance Stuff

  In response to the fact that “Artificial intelligence (AI) holds extraordinary potential for both promise and peril,” the Biden Administration issued an Executive Order in October 2023. A s part of the Executive Order, on October 16, 2024, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its   latest non-binding guidance on AI use in the workplace , which consists of principles and best practices for AI developers and employers to protect workers and ensure responsible use of AI. Both guidance and legislation around AI are rapidly changing, and employers that are utilizing or considering use of AI should be mindful of the jurisdictions that already have laws involving AI. However, even if an employer operates in a jurisdiction that does not have any AI specific laws, the DOL’s guidance may foreshadow future legal obligations, and implementation of the DOL’s best practices now may assist employers when legislation is ultimately enacted. Below is a summary of the DOL’s eight principles ...

  You should take the following steps at the outset of a new claim: Ensure that an Industrial Commission Form 19: Employer’s Report of Employee’s Injury or Occupational Disease to the Industrial Commission has been completed and provided to Plaintiff. Ensure that a blank Industrial Commission Form 18:  Notice of Accident to Employer and Claim of Employee, Representative, or Dependent has been provided to Plaintiff. Obtain the following documentation from the employer: An Incident Report. Plaintiff’s written statement. Witness statements. Any video footage of the alleged incident. Plaintiff’s wage information. Plaintiff’s personnel file. Determine what type of injury Plaintiff has alleged occurred.   There are different standards for alleged injuries to the back, alleged injuries to body parts other than the back, and alleged occupational diseases.  The investigation and ultimate compensability may depend on what type of injury has been alleged. Obtain Plaintiff’s m...

  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued guidance that takes an aggressive position regarding the scope of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as covering certain employee monitoring and assessment tools used for hiring and to gauge employee productivity. This development affects virtually every employer using third-party vendors for employee screening, monitoring, or assessment. Quick Hits The CFPB’s recently issued guidance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act affects virtually every employer using third-party vendors for employee screening, monitoring, or assessment. The guidance serves as a reminder for employers that gather third-party information to vet job applicants to consider whether their third-party vendors’ practices trigger FCRA requirements. This guidance also highlights ongoing regulatory trends toward increased scrutiny of workplace monitoring and AI-powered assessment tools. What Makes a Tool Subject to the FCRA? The CFPB provides a (facially...

  Louisiana noncompete agreements must comply with a statute—La. R.S. 23:921—to be enforceable. Does this statute also apply to employee nonsolicitation—or “anti-poaching”—agreements? A Louisiana appellate court recently held it does not, but such agreements must nevertheless be reasonable in scope and duration. Quick Hits A Louisiana appellate court held that the state’s noncompete statute did not apply to employee nonsolicitation agreements, but such agreements must nevertheless “be reasonable in scope and duration.” The court found that the nonsolicitation provision at issue was void of any indication as to the duration of the prohibition, implying an infinite duration. The court’s refusal to reform the agreement aligns with state case law exhibiting hostility to contractual limits on a former employee’s freedom to compete with his or her former employer. While noncompete agreements prohibit employees from working for a competitor after leaving their former employer, employee no...