The 5 Key Legal Considerations for Companies Going Remote
Here are a few important legal considerations to keep in mind as you transition your teams to remote work.
March 24, 2020 at 11:48 AM
4 minute read
In the wake of the current public health crisis, many companies have transitioned to remote capabilities and a remote workforce—virtually overnight. While many companies have found a way to keep their businesses running and their staff employed by tapping into a wide array of remote work and collaboration tools, there are some important legal ramifications to consider as part of your overall business requirements.
At the same time, as companies are embracing a new way of work, they must also re-calibrate their legal checklist and make sure they're taking the necessary precautions to protect themselves, their employees, their clients and their data.
Here are a few important legal considerations to keep in mind as you transition your teams to remote work:
|Strengthen Your Authentication
With the vast majority of your workforce working from home, authentication becomes an important line of defense in ensuring control of who accesses your business network, communications and data. If you haven't already, implement two-factor authentication.
This form of authentication relies on two points of verification from a versatile range of options, including text messages, apps and traditional passwords. Google Authenticator, Duo Mobile, Twilio Authy and LastPass Authenticator are all great options.
|Reconsider Network Security
Depending on their business privacy and security needs, companies need to decide how they're going to manage network security across a remote workforce. Are you comfortable with employees accessing your network on their own at-home Wi-Fi connections? If not, you might want to consider VPNs or other secure networks.
This is also the time to remind your employees about general cybersecurity best practices, such as how to identify scams or phishing, and avoiding opening links or attachments from unknown senders.
|Keep Confidential Information Off Insecure Chat Platforms
Companies need to make sure their employees understand where they can and cannot discuss confidential information. In general, it's best to confine these kinds of conversations to traditional channels, such as phone or via encrypted email. If you are discussing business matters on chat, be sure you're using secure platforms. Establish guidelines for remote teams as to what types of conversations and content can or cannot be shared over chat platforms.
As a general precaution, however, it's a good idea to limit chat discussions to nonspecific information. Avoid sharing any private, confidential information or links to documents.
|Be Careful Where You Store Your Data
Along with chat platforms and general network security, companies need to be sure they're storing their data in a secure location. From phone calls and transcriptions to emails, documents, presentations and databases, companies must protect the data they rely on—data that often includes client information. Network-attached storage (NAS) and cloud storage likely offer the best options for remote workers.
|Lean Into Automation
The recent mass migration to remote work is a good reminder to companies to automate as many business processes as possible. Manual processes often require employees to be physically present in the office, requires more access and most importantly is most vulnerable to failings and breakages. Now is the time, if possible, to automate established processes you have if you have not already done so, such as systems that incorporate automated approval capabilities to allow executives to approve contracts or other matters remotely.
|The Bottom Line
A shift to an almost entirely remote workforce is uncharted territory for many companies, but there are simple measures and precautions that go a long way in protecting businesses, employees and clients. Like any learning process, companies are likely to glean more insights over time about what works for their workforce and business model. These legal considerations can provide a helpful starting point.
Monica Zent is ZentLaw's CEO and founder of LawDesk 360.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
Trending Stories
- 1Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
- 2The Lawyers Picked by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Term
- 3Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
- 4Depo-Provera MDL Could Be Headed to California
- 5Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250