Laws at both the state and federal level generally allow electronic signatures to have the same validity as their traditional handwritten counterparts. In an employment context, these laws can cover a wide range of documents. A threshold question that can arise for employers is whether it was in fact the employee who personally made the electronic signature. Multiple courts have found that an electronic signature was invalid where an employer was unable to sufficiently establish that the signature was made by the employee.

Employers can take proactive steps at the time an electronic signature is made to protect against the chance that it might later be invalidated. Employers must ensure—and be able to prove, if necessary—that all parties consented and intended to conduct transactions electronically. Employers also should consider implementing policies and procedures that minimize the chance that someone other than an employee is signing on his or her behalf, and procedures whereby employees acknowledge they have signed electronically.

The New York State Health Department revised its Covid-19 guidance webpage this week to state that it is following the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for isolation and exposure. Quarantine for mere exposure is no longer required for those not exhibiting symptoms or testing positive for Covid-19. The state’s revision of its recommended approach follows a number of recent pronouncements easing preventative measures for Covid-19 exposure, including the lifting of masking requirements on New York City and regional public transportation.

The vaccine mandate remains in effect for New York City private sector employers, although the city reiterated in June that it is focused on “prioritizing education instead of enforcement” of the mandate. Both CDC and New York state guidance publications are for general application and are not specific to employers or the workplace. New York employers should consider revising their workplace Covid-19 policies to reflect the changes.

The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission recently issued interim guidance on the workplace drug testing provisions of the state’s recreational cannabis law meant to act as a placeholder until regulations on the standards for Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert certification are published. Employers are still prohibited from taking adverse action solely because an employee has cannabis metabolites in his or her system. Employers may allow a third-party contractor or an employee who is “sufficiently trained” to “determine impairment” to document the signs and behaviors of suspected workplace impairment.

Employers subject to federal contracts that require specific reasonable suspicion or drug testing protocols may continue to follow those protocols without violating the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act. New Jersey employers should consider preparing a Reasonable Suspicion Observation Report and accompanying Standard Operating Procedure consistent with the guidance. Employers also should consider updating employee policies to ensure consistency with the guidance, and training managers and human resource employees on the guidance.

The Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 passed by the DC Council over the summer will take effect on Oct. 1. The new law imposes two new income thresholds for “noncompete provisions” with “highly compensated employees”—those who earn at least $150,000—and “medical specialists”—licensed physicians earning at least $250,000. The new law defines an employer as an individual, partnership, general contractor, subcontractor, association, corporation, or business trust operating in the District, or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer operating in the District in relation to an employee.

The law provides for new administrative authority and enforcement mechanisms. The per-violation penalty is no less than $350 and no more than $1,000, but there is minimum net-penalty of $1,000. The law is applicable to noncompete agreements executed on or after Oct. 1. DC employers that are interested in using noncompete agreements should consider identifying which employees are within the scope of the law based upon where they work. Employers also should consider modifying policies to comply with the new law, entering into agreements containing noncompetes before the law takes effect, and assessing whether alternative forms of restrictions not covered by the law would offer adequate protection.