The post HR Update: November 3rd, 2026 appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has rescinded its 2012 enforcement guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions. The October 28, 2026 vote took effect immediately and signals a change in the agency’s preferred enforcement framework. It does not, however, give employers a green light to return to blanket criminal-history exclusions or to treat background screening as a simple pass-fail exercise.

The rescinded guidance had encouraged employers to use individualized assessments and to evaluate the nature of the offense, time elapsed, and relationship between the record and the job. Some employers may be tempted to read the rescission as an invitation to remove those practices. That would be a mistake. The EEOC specifically stated that rescission does not require employers to abandon lawful practices adopted in response to the old guidance. More importantly, Title VII’s underlying prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact remain in place.

A criminal-history policy can still create risk if it is applied differently based on race or national origin, or if a broad exclusion disproportionately screens out a protected group without a sufficiently job-related and necessary justification. Courts, state agencies, local fair-chance laws, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, licensing rules, and industry-specific restrictions all continue to shape the analysis. The agency’s guidance may have changed, but the legal terrain underneath it did not vanish overnight.

The timing of the rescission is especially important for multistate employers. Washington’s expanded Fair Chance Act, New York City’s revised Fair Chance rules, and many other state and local laws impose detailed process obligations. These rules may require a conditional offer before an inquiry, a written assessment, disclosure of the report or analysis, and a waiting period before final adverse action. A national background-check policy built only around federal requirements is unlikely to work.

Employers should begin with a policy review. Remove statements that call the 2012 EEOC guidance binding or current. Then look beyond the citation. Is the company’s screening matrix tailored by job category? Does it distinguish convictions from arrests and non-convictions? Does it allow HR to consider evidence of rehabilitation, record errors, and the relationship between the conduct and actual job duties? Are decisions documented consistently? Those are still excellent risk-management questions.

Recruiters and hiring managers also need a reminder that criminal history is not the only issue in a background report. Consumer reporting laws may require standalone disclosures, authorizations, pre-adverse-action notices, a copy of the report, and a summary of rights. State and city laws may demand more. A well-designed workflow should sequence these steps automatically, reducing the chance that a manager acts before an applicant has a fair opportunity to respond.

The practical takeaway is refreshingly unexciting: keep job-related, individualized, documented decision-making. The EEOC may have taken down one signpost, but employers still need to navigate the road. Good background-check governance remains one of the clearest ways to reduce discrimination, consumer-reporting, and fair-chance exposure at the same time. Periodic outcome testing can also identify whether a policy is producing results that warrant a closer legal review.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post The EEOC Rescinded Criminal History Guidance Not the Need for Careful Hiring appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

Colorado’s automated decision-making law becomes effective January 1, 2027, and employers should treat the remaining runway as implementation time, not waiting time. The Colorado Attorney General completed its formal rulemaking hearing and closed written comments on October 26. Final rules are still pending, but the statute already tells employers where the state is headed: more transparency, more documentation, better data governance, and real human involvement when technology materially influences consequential employment decisions.

The law reaches automated decision-making technology used to materially influence hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline, termination, and similar employment decisions involving Colorado applicants and employees. The coverage is broader than a tool that makes the final call. A resume-ranking platform, personality assessment, video-interview analysis, retention-risk score, productivity flag, scheduling system, or attendance algorithm may be covered if its output materially influences what a human decision-maker does next. In other words, an employer cannot avoid the question by saying a manager still clicks the final approval button.

The core compliance challenge is information. Employers need to understand what each system does, what data it uses, how the output is presented, who relies on it, and what happens when an individual disputes an inaccurate input or adverse result. That information often sits with a vendor, not with HR. Waiting until the final rules arrive to ask those questions is risky because vendor contract changes, product-roadmap conversations, and workflow redesign take time.

The proposed rulemaking materials point toward notice, explanation, correction, and meaningful human-review processes. Employers should expect to need a clear explanation when an automated system materially contributes to an adverse employment outcome. They should also expect to give people a practical route to correct inaccurate personal data and request reconsideration. A human reviewer should have enough independence, training, authority, and underlying information to do more than rubber-stamp a system recommendation.

A strong first step is a workforce-technology inventory. Ask every HR, talent-acquisition, operations, payroll, and information-technology leader to identify tools that score, rank, recommend, predict, filter, flag, or generate employment-related outputs. Then create a short record for each tool: purpose, workforce affected, data inputs, vendor, decision point, human reviewer, and adverse-action consequence. This exercise often reveals embedded features that no one realized were active.

Next, revise vendor agreements and renewal questionnaires. Employers should obtain technical documentation, intended-use descriptions, data-source information, known limitations, validation material, change notices, and cooperation with notices or appeals. Create a human-review procedure before a termination, discipline, or hiring rejection depends materially on a system output. Preserve the information reviewed and the rationale for the final decision.

Colorado is not asking employers to abandon useful technology. It is asking them to understand it well enough to use it responsibly. A thoughtful inventory and decision-review process will help organizations prepare for Colorado while strengthening AI governance across every state where they operate. Employers should assign an accountable owner for each high-impact tool and establish a review cadence whenever the vendor changes the model, data source, scoring criteria, or intended use. That accountability should be visible in the organization’s AI governance register.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post Colorado Employers Should Prepare Now for Automated Decision Making Rules appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

California employers received an important court ruling on October 29, 2026, when the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Senate Bill 399. The statute would prohibit employers from taking adverse action against employees who decline to attend meetings or receive communications expressing the employer’s views on political or religious matters. Those political matters include subjects connected to labor organizations.

The ruling is meaningful, but it is not the same as a final decision striking down the law. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the business groups challenging the statute were likely to prevail on their First Amendment claim. The court viewed the law as content- and speaker-based because it applied when an employer communicated particular kinds of opinions. That conclusion was sufficient to uphold the injunction. The court did not decide whether federal labor law also preempts the statute, and the litigation may continue through additional review or a decision on the merits.

For now, California cannot enforce SB 399 against employers. The injunction also removes the immediate concern over the law’s civil penalty and its private-action exposure. That is useful breathing room for employers that communicate with employees about legislation, public policy, union activity, or workplace values. Still, breathing room is not a hall pass. Employers should not read the injunction as permission to make attendance mandatory, discipline employees for declining a meeting, or use meetings in a way that could be viewed as coercive or retaliatory.

The practical risk often turns on how a meeting is described and administered. An event labeled all-hands, required, or mandatory can create the expectation that employees will face consequences for nonattendance. In the court’s opinion, that expectation was central to the dispute. HR teams should therefore review the language used in invitations, supervisor scripts, attendance tracking, and post-meeting follow-up. If a communication is genuinely optional, say so clearly. If employees may decline or leave without penalty, make that point just as clear.

Employers should also separate legally required or job-related communications from advocacy. Training that employees need to perform their jobs, communicate safety expectations, or satisfy legal duties may raise different considerations than a meeting about an election, ballot measure, organizing campaign, or a company position on public policy. The distinction can be nuanced, particularly during union activity, so labor counsel should review high-risk communications before they are delivered.

The best compliance response is to mark SB 399 as enjoined in California legal trackers, rather than deleting it. Preserve voluntary-attendance language and manager guidance that may become important if the injunction changes. Review mandatory-meeting practices under the National Labor Relations Act, anti-retaliation laws, and internal employee-relations standards.

The bottom line is simple: the California enforcement threat is on pause, not erased. Employers should use the pause to make their communication practices clearer, less coercive, and easier to defend. Good manager communication rarely suffers from being more transparent about what is required and what is optional. Documenting the business purpose and attendance status of sensitive meetings is a sensible, low-cost precaution.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post California Captive Audience Law Remains Blocked but Caution Still Matters appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

Washington employers using criminal background checks have a new compliance reality: the Fair Chance Act is no longer just about removing the box from an application. It is now a carefully sequenced hiring and promotion process. The Attorney General’s implementation guidance makes clear that employers need to control when they learn about criminal history, how they evaluate it, and what they give an applicant before making a final decision. For employers with 15 or more employees, the expanded requirements have already been in effect since July 1, 2026. Employers with fewer than 15 employees need to be ready by January 1, 2027.

The most important operational change is timing. With limited exceptions, an employer cannot ask about, receive, or obtain criminal history until it has determined that the individual is otherwise qualified and made a conditional offer. That rule reaches more than the application form. It affects interview scripts, recruiter conversations, online searches, background-check triggers, applicant-tracking workflows, and vendor instructions. A recruiter who casually asks an applicant to explain a past charge too early can create a compliance problem before the organization ever orders a report.

The law also creates a structured pre-adverse-action process. If an employer is considering rejecting an applicant or denying a promotion based on criminal history, it must identify the record at issue and keep the position open for at least two business days. During that time, the individual can provide information about errors, rehabilitation, or circumstances surrounding the record. The employer must then issue a written decision that documents its reasoning and consideration of the required factors. A generic letter saying that the applicant did not meet company standards will not do the job.

Washington also limits which information employers may use. Juvenile convictions and most nonpending adult arrest records are off limits. An adult conviction cannot be the sole reason for an adverse decision unless the employer has a legitimate business reason. The statute contains exceptions for certain jobs involving unsupervised access to vulnerable people, law enforcement, securities, legally required checks, and certain federal-contract work. Employers should not assume an exception applies simply because a role is sensitive or customer-facing.

The best next step is a multistate background-check audit. Employers should map the process from job posting through final decision, then identify every moment criminal-history information can enter the process. Update Washington forms, recruiter training, automated workflow rules, and vendor service-level agreements. Build the two-business-day hold and written decision into the system, not into a manager’s memory. Finally, retain the assessment and the applicant’s response materials. A defensible process is not glamorous, but neither is explaining to an agency why the process never happened.

Washington’s expanded law is a reminder that fair-chance compliance is no longer a single policy paragraph. It is a hiring-system design issue. Organizations that treat it that way will be better positioned to make job-related decisions while reducing avoidable risk. HR leaders should also establish a clear escalation path for unusual records or claimed exceptions, so a rushed hiring decision does not bypass the required review.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post Washington Fair Chance Act Compliance Is Now a Process Problem appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

The post HR Update: October 21st, 2026 appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

Hey Bosses!

Are you ready to tackle some of the biggest HR and payroll challenges facing employers today?

I’ve put together an incredible lineup of 6 Boss Calls designed to help you stay compliant, avoid costly mistakes, and confidently handle the everyday (and not-so-everyday!) challenges that land on your desk.

From AI and employee accommodations to payroll pitfalls and problem employees, we’re covering the topics that keep HR professionals and business owners up at night.

And the best part? Every Boss Call is packed with practical guidance, real-world examples, and actionable takeaways you can put to work immediately!

Your Upcoming Boss Calls Lineup

1. AI in HR: What Employers Can (and Can’t) Do Legally
Date: 10/28/26

AI is changing HR faster than most employers can keep up! Learn how to use AI responsibly while avoiding discrimination risks, privacy concerns, and compliance mistakes.

2. Payroll Compliance Landmines: 10 Mistakes That Cost Employers Big Money
Date: 11/10/26

Think your payroll practices are airtight? Let’s find out! We’ll uncover common payroll mistakes involving overtime, deductions, bonuses, and final paychecks that could cost your organization thousands.

3. FMLA, ADA & PWFA: Navigating the Accommodation Maze

Date: 11/18/26

When medical leave, disability accommodations, and pregnancy protections overlap, things get complicated FAST! Learn how to navigate these laws, manage the interactive process, and avoid costly compliance mistakes.

4.  Payroll Changes for 2027: Overtime, Tips, Taxes & Reporting Requirements

Date: 12/2/2026

New year, new payroll challenges! We’ll cover the latest applicable payroll developments, including qualified overtime and tip reporting, tax changes, and what employers should prepare for in 2027.

5. The Problem Employee Playbook: Handling Attendance, Attitude & Performance Issues
Date: 12/16/26

Every HR professional has dealt with THAT employee. You know the one! Let’s talk about handling attendance problems, poor performance, insubordination, and difficult behaviors while keeping your organization protected.

Just 60 Minutes. Tons of Practical HR Knowledge.

Each Boss Call is designed to help you:

Understand important HR and payroll compliance requirements.

Identify costly mistakes before they become bigger problems.

Apply practical solutions to real workplace situations.

Walk away with action steps you can use right away.

Get answers to your HR and payroll questions during our live Q&A!

HelpDesk for HR Members — You’re Invited!

All 5 Boss Calls are included with your HelpDesk for HR membership at no additional charge!

[REGISTER FOR YOUR BOSS CALLS HERE]

Not a member of HDHR? You’re welcome to join us, too!

$49 (reg. $199) 

Email Support@helpdeskforhr.com to receive the registration link

Whether you’re an experienced HR professional, a payroll specialist, or a business owner wearing about 47 different hats, these sessions are designed to help you make smarter decisions and stay one step ahead.

I can’t wait to see you at the next Boss Call!

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SHRM-SCP
HelpDesk for HR
Practical HR Guidance for Real-World Employers

The post The 2026 End of the Year Schedule for Boss Calls Has Been Posted! appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

Employee benefits can be one of the most valuable parts of an organization’s compensation package.

Health insurance, retirement programs, dependent coverage, and other benefits help employers attract and retain employees.

But administering these programs involves much more than enrolling employees and processing payroll deductions.

A missed deadline, incorrect eligibility determination, or overlooked notice can expose employers to compliance problems and unexpected expenses.

For HR and payroll professionals, understanding the most common benefits mistakes is an important part of managing organizational risk.

Mistake #1: Misunderstanding ACA Employer Requirements

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), applicable large employers generally include organizations averaging at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, during the preceding calendar year.

These employers may be subject to employer shared responsibility and information reporting requirements.

Employers sometimes overlook part-time employee hours when determining applicable large employer status.

Others fail to consider the rules for related companies that must be evaluated together.

Best practice: Review workforce counts annually, maintain accurate employee hours, and coordinate ACA reporting responsibilities between HR, payroll, and benefits administrators.

Mistake #2: Missing COBRA Notices or Deadlines

COBRA generally applies to group health plans sponsored by private-sector employers with 20 or more employees, subject to applicable counting rules.

When employees or covered dependents experience certain qualifying events, employers and plan administrators may have specific notice and continuation coverage responsibilities.

Missed notices or administrative errors can create significant problems.

Smaller employers should also review applicable state continuation coverage laws.

Best practice: Establish written procedures for identifying qualifying events, communicating with plan administrators, and tracking required notices.

Mistake #3: Making Incorrect Payroll Deductions

Employee benefit deductions must be administered consistently with applicable laws, plan documents, and employee elections.

Errors can occur when employees change coverage, experience qualifying life events, or terminate employment.

Pretax deduction arrangements also require compliance with applicable tax rules.

Best practice: Reconcile benefit elections with payroll deductions regularly and investigate discrepancies promptly.

Mistake #4: Mishandling Employee Eligibility

Benefits eligibility may depend on employee status, hours worked, waiting periods, plan provisions, and applicable legal requirements.

An employee’s promotion, reduction in hours, leave of absence, or employment status change can affect eligibility.

However, employers cannot assume every employment change automatically permits an immediate coverage change.

Best practice: Review eligibility provisions in plan documents and coordinate employment changes with benefit administrators before modifying coverage.

Mistake #5: Overlooking Required Notices and Documentation

Benefit plans may involve required disclosures, notices, reporting obligations, and document retention requirements.

Depending on the employer and plans involved, these can include summary plan descriptions, ACA forms, COBRA materials, and other legally required communications.

Failure to maintain accurate records can make resolving employee disputes particularly difficult.

Best practice: Maintain a benefits compliance calendar identifying deadlines, responsible individuals, and documentation requirements.

What Should Employers Do Next?

Schedule an annual benefits administration review.

Include HR, payroll, finance, and benefits advisors to verify employee eligibility, payroll deductions, required notices, plan documentation, and reporting processes.

Investigate discrepancies before they create larger problems.

Employers should also evaluate applicable state requirements and any relevant legal developments affecting the upcoming plan year.

The Bottom Line

Strong benefits administration requires careful coordination between HR, payroll, and outside service providers.

Employers that establish clear procedures, conduct regular reviews, and maintain accurate documentation are better positioned to reduce compliance risks.

Great employee benefits are valuable. Administering them correctly is essential.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post Benefits Compliance: Five Costly Mistakes HR and Payroll Professionals Should Avoid appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

Hiring independent contractors can be an excellent way for businesses to access specialized skills, manage project costs, and maintain workforce flexibility.

But there’s a problem: Just because someone receives a Form 1099 doesn’t mean they’re legally an independent contractor.

Worker misclassification continues to create significant risks for employers, including unpaid overtime, employment taxes, penalties, employee benefit claims, and potential legal action.

And with federal rules continuing to evolve, this is an area HR and payroll professionals cannot afford to ignore.

What Actually Determines Worker Classification?

Worker classification depends on the realities of the working relationship, not simply the title or agreement assigned to the worker.

Under federal law, several agencies evaluate worker status for different purposes.

The Department of Labor evaluates employment relationships under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), while the IRS applies its own common-law standards for federal employment tax purposes.

States may impose additional requirements, sometimes using stricter classification tests.

Consequently, a worker might be evaluated differently depending on which law applies.

In February 2026, the Department of Labor proposed changes to its independent contractor regulations. Employers should distinguish proposed standards from binding legal requirements and verify the applicable rules before making classification decisions.

The Independent Contractor Warning Signs

Consider a business that hires a marketing consultant as a contractor.

The consultant works exclusively for the company, follows a fixed daily schedule, uses company equipment, reports directly to a supervisor, and performs essentially the same duties as regular employees.

The company issues a Form 1099-NEC and assumes everything is fine.

Not so fast!

Depending on the applicable legal tests, these circumstances could suggest an employment relationship.

Some important considerations include:

• The degree of control over how work is performed.
• The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss.
• Whether the worker operates an independent business.
• The permanence of the relationship.
• The worker’s investment in tools and equipment.
• Whether the services are integral to the business.
• The level of specialized skill and independent business initiative involved.

The relevance and weight of these considerations depend on the applicable test.

Best Practices for HR and Payroll Professionals

1. Audit contractor relationships. Identify all individuals receiving nonemployee compensation and examine their actual working arrangements.

2. Review applicable laws. Federal wage-and-hour, federal tax, and state classification standards may differ.

3. Use written agreements appropriately. Contracts should describe the relationship accurately, but cannot override legal requirements.

4. Avoid treating contractors like employees. Review supervision, scheduling, equipment, training, and operational practices for inconsistencies.

5. Reevaluate long-term arrangements. Relationships can evolve, and a worker’s classification may need to change.

What Should Employers Do Next?

Create a centralized contractor review process involving HR, payroll, finance, and legal counsel when appropriate.

Before engaging a contractor, document the applicable classification analysis and retain supporting information.

Review existing arrangements periodically, especially when responsibilities or working conditions change.

If potential misclassification is identified, obtain guidance before implementing corrections or changing reporting practices.

The Bottom Line

Independent contractor status isn’t established by a 1099, an invoice, or a signed agreement.

It depends on the applicable legal standards and the actual working relationship.

When it comes to worker classification, substance matters more than paperwork.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post Employee or Independent Contractor? The 1099 Classification Trap appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .

Domestic violence is often viewed as a private matter—something that happens behind closed doors and outside the workplace.

But here’s the reality: Domestic violence doesn’t always stay at home.

Employees experiencing domestic violence may bring the emotional, physical, and financial effects of abuse to work every day. In some cases, abusive partners may even threaten, stalk, harass, or confront employees at their workplace.

For employers, recognizing and appropriately responding to domestic violence isn’t just about compassion. It’s about workplace safety, employee well-being, and understanding important legal responsibilities.

Recognizing the Warning Signs

HR professionals and supervisors are not expected to diagnose domestic violence or investigate employees’ personal relationships. However, recognizing potential warning signs can help employers respond appropriately.

Possible indicators include:

• Unexplained injuries or repeated explanations for physical injuries.
• Frequent absences, tardiness, or sudden attendance problems.
• Noticeable changes in performance, concentration, or behavior.
• Excessive phone calls, texts, or interruptions from a partner.
• An employee appearing fearful or anxious about leaving work.
• A partner repeatedly showing up at the workplace or attempting to monitor the employee.
• Sudden financial difficulties or unusual requests involving payroll or direct deposits.

Important: None of these behaviors proves that domestic violence is occurring. Employers should avoid assumptions, intrusive questioning, or pressuring employees to disclose personal circumstances.

Why Domestic Violence Is a Workplace Concern

Domestic violence can affect employee attendance, productivity, concentration, and overall well-being.

More importantly, it can create genuine safety risks.

An abusive individual may attempt to contact an employee through company systems, appear unexpectedly at the workplace, or threaten coworkers who intervene.

OSHA recognizes workplace violence as including threats, intimidation, harassment, and physical violence. Employers have workplace safety obligations that may become relevant when threats or recognized hazards arise.

Ignoring a credible threat simply because it originates from an employee’s personal relationship can place employees and others at risk.

Understanding Employer Legal Responsibilities

Several federal and state employment laws may apply when an employee experiences domestic violence.

Workplace safety: Employers should evaluate credible threats and implement appropriate safety measures.

Employment discrimination: Federal antidiscrimination laws may prohibit employment decisions based on unlawful stereotypes concerning survivors. The ADA may also apply when an employee has a qualifying disability arising from abuse.

Protected leave: Certain medical conditions resulting from domestic violence may qualify for FMLA leave when eligibility requirements are satisfied.

State and local protections: Some jurisdictions provide specific domestic violence or safe leave protections, reasonable accommodation rights, confidentiality requirements, or restrictions on adverse employment actions.

Employers should review applicable laws before making decisions involving attendance, accommodations, or discipline.

Six Best Practices for Employers

1. Establish a workplace violence prevention policy.

Clearly prohibit threats, intimidation, stalking, harassment, and violence involving employees, visitors, or other individuals.

2. Train managers to recognize and respond appropriately.

Supervisors should know how to identify potential safety concerns, approach employees respectfully, and promptly involve HR or designated safety personnel.

3. Respect employee privacy.

Discuss concerns privately, share information only with individuals who have a legitimate need to know, and avoid promising absolute confidentiality when safety or legal obligations require disclosure.

4. Develop individualized workplace safety plans.

Depending on the circumstances, appropriate measures might include modified schedules, screening calls, restricted building access, security escorts, or emergency response procedures.

5. Provide access to resources.

Offer Employee Assistance Program information, local advocacy services, and confidential domestic violence support resources when available.

6. Avoid automatically penalizing survivors.

Before taking disciplinary action related to attendance or performance, evaluate whether protected leave, reasonable accommodations, or other legal protections may apply.

What Should HR Professionals Do Next?

Start by reviewing your organization’s workplace violence prevention procedures.

Determine whether employees have a safe and confidential way to report threats or request assistance.

Train managers on how to respond without making assumptions or attempting to act as counselors.

Coordinate with security personnel when necessary, and establish procedures for responding to credible threats or workplace emergencies.

Finally, review applicable state laws and identify community resources that can assist employees experiencing domestic violence.

Remember, an employer’s role is not to solve an employee’s personal relationship problems. It is to respond appropriately to workplace risks, provide legally required protections, and connect employees with qualified support.

The Bottom Line

Domestic violence is a serious issue that can affect employees, their families, and the workplace.

Employers who recognize warning signs, respond with compassion, and establish clear safety procedures can make a meaningful difference.

A safe workplace isn’t just one where violence is prohibited. It’s one where employees know they can ask for help without fear of judgment or unnecessary retaliation.

Sometimes, a thoughtful response from HR can be the first step toward helping someone find safety.

• National Domestic Violence Hotline: Call 800-799-SAFE (7233), text START to 88788, or visit thehotline.org. Employees should use a safe device or communication method when seeking help if they believe their activities are being monitored.

• OSHA: Workplace Violence Prevention Guidance.

• U.S. Department of Labor: Workplace Violence Program and Domestic Violence Guidance.

• EEOC: Employment Discrimination Protections and Domestic Violence Resources

Need Help Strengthening Your Workplace Policies?

HelpDesk for HR provides practical guidance to help employers navigate sensitive employee situations, workplace safety concerns, and complex HR compliance responsibilities.

Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP

The post Domestic Violence Doesn’t Stay at Home: Why Employers Must Recognize the Warning Signs and Take Action appeared first on Your HelpDesk for HR .