As the employment landscape continues to modernize across the nation, remote work has gained popularity and prominence in many industries.
In her latest Employment News article, KingSpry’s Employment Law Chair, Avery E. Smith, Esq., provides Pennsylvania employers with a reference guide for all things “remote work”—from wage and hour considerations to recent Federal court cases and more.
Wage and Hour
1. Fair Labor Standards Act
The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires covered employers to pay nonexempt employees for all hours worked. The basic requirements of the FLSA include (1) payment of the minimum wage, (2) overtime pay for time worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek, (3) restrictions on the employment of minors, and (4) recordkeeping. These requirements apply to remote workers who may perform work at their home or another location that is not the employer’s workplace. It is important for employers to understand when the FLSA applies and whether certain employees are exempt.
2. Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
Similar to the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) establishes a minimum wage and overtime rate for Pennsylvania employees, as well as record retention requirements. The PMWA does not explicitly address remote workers; however, case law has touched on this topic.
In 1996, the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court permitted the PMWA to apply to a Pennsylvania-based employees who performed work in states outside of Pennsylvania. See Friedrich v. U. S. Comput. Sys., Civil Action No. 90-1615, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 775 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 1996). In Friedrich, the Court relied on a jury’s determination that the employees were technically based in Pennsylvania, reasoning that although they did not reside in Pennsylvania, they were hired to an employer’s Pennsylvania office, to which they reported daily by telephone. While the facts of this case are not identical to all remote employment arrangements, it is likely that Pennsylvania courts will rely on Friedrich in the future.
To ensure compliance with the FLSA and the PMWA, particularly as it pertains to remote employees, employers and HR teams should review their employment records to verify that all employees are properly classified and receive their statutorily-required wages.
Family Medical Leave Act
Under the Federal Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), employers may be required to provide job-protected, unpaid leave to eligible employees for medical and family reasons. In 2023, the Federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2023-1, making it clear that “[e]mployees who telework are eligible for FMLA leave on the same basis as employees who report to any other worksite to perform their job.” DOL further clarified that when an employee works from home, their worksite is not their home. Rather, for purposes of determining FMLA eligibility, their worksite is “the office to which they report or from which their assignments are made.”
Employers are encouraged to review their FMLA policies and practices to ensure remote employees are considered for leave on the same basis as in-office employees to avoid potential disparate treatment and liability.
Workplace Safety and Workers’ Compensation
The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (“PWCA”) requires most Pennsylvania employers to maintain workers’ compensation coverage. Upon the rise of remote work, employers may find themselves asking whether injuries incurred by remote employees are covered by workers’ compensation insurance. In some cases, the answer is yes.
Under the PWCA, injuries arising in the course of employment, whether sustained upon the employer’s premises or elsewhere, may be covered by the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance as long as the employee “is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer.”
For example, in Verizon Pa., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Alston), 900 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006), workers’ compensation benefits were awarded to a remote worker. In this case, an employee, while working from home, received a work-related phone call while she was upstairs. While descending the steps to return to her workspace, the employee fell, hitting her head and injuring her neck. The Court concluded that the employee was furthering the business of her employer, because at the time of her injury, she was on a phone call with her supervisor.
Employers are also encouraged to consider their workplace safety and workers’ compensation obligations associated with remote workers. By establishing specific “work from home” policies, such as designating employees’ at-home workspaces, employers may be able to minimize potential liability.
Discrimination and Harassment
1. Federal Law
There are several Federal employment laws prohibiting discrimination. These laws include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
These laws protect applicants and employees from discrimination based upon their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and/or genetic information. Generally, remote employees have the same rights as in-person employees under these laws. However, a recent Federal case out of the Eighth Circuit concluded that a remote worker could not sue their employer under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), because the law does not apply to nonresident employees. See Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8285 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025). This may leave some employers wondering which employees are protected under their states’ labor laws and whether they have a basis to contest discrimination claims.
2. Pennsylvania Law
In Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a protected class in the workplace. In 2012, the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court weighed in as to whether the PHRA applies to non-resident employees that do not work in Pennsylvania. The answer: no.
In Blackman v. Lincoln Nat’l Corp., No. 10-6946, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175021 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2012), an employee filed an employment discrimination case against her former employer, alleging that she was subject to discrimination in violation of the PHRA. Materially, the employer’s principal place of business was located in Pennsylvania, and the employee was a resident of Illinois and worked in the employer’s Illinois office. After evaluating the intent of the General Assembly, the Court concluded that the PHRA’s protections do not apply extraterritorially, i.e., to conduct that occurs in other states.
While case law may offer certain employers a basis to contest claims under state human relations laws, employers should carefully consider their legal obligations before making any assumptions. It is recommended that employers and HR teams receive training on all anti-discrimination legal obligations to ensure full compliance with Federal, state, and local laws.
Key Takeaway for Employers
As remote work continues to increase across the nation, Pennsylvania employers are encouraged to review their practices and policies related to remote work to ensure they are in full compliance will all applicable Federal, state, and local laws.
