In this series, we will explore some of the ways states vary from one another in their employment laws.
Not that long ago, many multi-state employers thought they had a workaround to avoid pro-employee state laws — they would simply insert a choice of law provision for a state they preferred that had more favorable laws for employers. While this may still work in some places, many pro-employee states have caught on to this tactic and have fought back with laws preventing employers from using out-of-state choice of law provisions.
Illinois’ Workplace Transparency Act limits employers from using confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses that prohibit employees from reporting unlawful employment practices. In the past, an easy workaround would have been to draft a settlement agreement or employment agreement that used a different state’s law, even if the employee was located in Illinois.
However, the Illinois legislature recently amended the Act to state that any such agreement that applies non-Illinois law to an Illinois employee’s claim or requires a venue outside of Illinois to adjudicate an Illinois employee’s claim “is against public policy, void to the extent it denies an employee … a substantive or procedural right or remedy related to alleged unlawful employment practices, and severable from an otherwise valid and enforceable contract under this Act.”
California has a comparable law. Labor Code Section 925 prohibits employers from requiring California-based...
A former manager shares how an assistant orchestrated his sudden firing with false complaints, only to later contact him asking for a letter of recommendation. Reddit users weighed in on how to han...