Increased Fines for Not Posting Employment Posters

The federal government recently increased the fines employers may face for violating federal employment law posting requirements. Going forward, the potential posting fines are:

  • Family and Medical Leave Act – $178
  • Job Safety and Health: It’s the Law – $13,653
  • Employee Polygraph Protection Act – $21,663
  • EEO is the Law – $576

Employers should also be aware that each state has its own poster requirements, most of which impose fees for failing to comply. It is important for employers to maintain an effective strategy for staying informed about the applicable local, state, and federal posting requirements. Contact your partners at Lake Effect with questions about obtaining and updating required employment posters.

Lake Effect is here to answer your questions about your posting requirements and other employment law and HR compliance matters. We continue to monitor important legal and HR developments, as well as COVID-related updates from federal, state, and local authorities. Please keep watching our blogs and emails for these important updates, as well as discussions of how compliance meets culture. To dive into these issues, contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

HR Reporting Updates

There have been two important employer reporting updates for Human Resource practitioners.

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced an extension of the deadline for submission of 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection to Monday, August 23, 2021. Please see Lake Effect’s prior blog on EEO-1 reporting requirements for more information.

Second, the Social Security Administration announced that it is discontinuing Employer Correction Request Notices (EDCOR), also known as “Social Security No Match Letters.” Their stated rationale for this change is “to focus on making it a better, easier, more convenient experience for employers to report wages electronically.” Please see Lake Effect’s prior blog on Social Security No Match Letters for more information.

Lake Effect is here to answer your questions about employer reporting requirements. We continue to monitor important legal and HR developments, as well as COVID-related updates from federal, state, and local authorities. Please watch our blogs and emails for these important updates, as well as discussions of how compliance meets culture. To dive into these issues, contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

EEO-1 Reporting Requirements Resume

On April 26, 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the reopening of the 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection.

As a reminder, all private sector employers with 100 or more employees, and all federal contractors with 50 or more employees meeting certain criteria must annually submit demographic workforce data, including data by race/ethnicity, sex, and job categories on the EEO-1 Component 1 report. The EEOC stayed collection of the 2019 data due to the pandemic. The deadline for submitting both the 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 data is Monday, July 19, 2021.

The latest filing updates and additional information regarding submission of EEO-1 Component 1 Data are available at Employers that have received the EEO-1 notification letter should follow the directives contained therein. Eligible employers that have not received the letter may contact the EEOC’s Filer Support Team at for assistance. If you have questions about the EEO-1 reporting process, please reach out to any of Lake Effect’s attorneys or HR professionals.

Lake Effect is here to answer your questions about employer reporting requirements. We continue to monitor important legal and HR developments, as well as COVID-related updates from federal, state, and local authorities. Please watch our blogs and emails for these important updates, as well as discussions of how compliance meets culture. To dive into these issues, contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

EEOC Updates COVID-19 Guidance to Address Vaccinations

On December 16, 2020, the EEOC updated its What You Should Know About Covid-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws to address COVID-19 vaccinations. The update confirms that employers may require approved COVID-19 vaccinations when they are available, but they must do so in compliance with EEO laws. Given the uncertain landscape created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the new guidance also specifies that EEO laws will not prevent employers from following applicable guidelines from the CDC or other federal, state, and local public health authorities.

Key take-aways from the EEOC’s updated guidance include the following:

  • A COVID-19 vaccination is not a “medical examination,” nor does it implicate Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). (K.1, K.8) The administration of an FDA approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccine by an employer or a third-party contractor does not constitute a “medical examination” for purposes of the ADA. Administering the vaccine likewise does not implicate GINA because it does not involve the use, acquisition, or disclosure of “genetic information” under the statute.
  • Pre-vaccination medical screening questions may be “disability-related” inquiries under the ADA and could implicate GINA. (K.2, K.9) Pre-vaccination screening questions recommended by the CDC are likely to elicit information about a disability. Therefore, if an employer requires employees to receive vaccinations and administers them itself (or contracts directly with a third party to do so), it must show that pre-screening questions are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” If an employer is administering vaccines itself, pre-vaccination questions that address or elicit genetic information could also implicate GINA.
  • Employers can provide COVID-19 vaccinations (including pre-screening questions) without meeting the ADA “job related/business necessity” standard or implicating GINA under certain circumstances. (K.2) Employers can provide vaccinations while avoiding the legal challenges involved in pre-vaccination screening questions in at least two ways:
    1. the employer can offer vaccinations to employees on a voluntary basis (where answering pre-screening questions is also voluntary, and questions do not seek genetic information); or
    2. the employer can arrange to have vaccinations administered by a third party with whom it does not have a direct contract (i.e., a pharmacy or other outside health care provider).
  • Rather than administer COVID-19 vaccinations, employers can simply recommend employees get the vaccine and then request or require proof that an employee received a COVID-19 vaccination. (K.3) An employer who requests or requires proof of a COVID-19 vaccination is not likely to elicit information about a disability, and the request therefore is not a prohibited “disability-related” inquiry under the ADA. However, the employer should avoid any follow-up questions and caution employees against providing any medical information beyond proof of vaccination.
  • Employers should assess whether an employee with a disability who cannot take a required COVID-19 vaccine poses a direct threat at the worksite. (K.5, K.7) If an employee cannot receive a required COVID-19 vaccine due to a disability, the employer must assess whether that unvaccinated employee poses a “direct threat” at the worksite under the ADA. That assessment must consider four factors:
    1. the duration of the risk;
    2. the nature and severity of the potential harm;
    3. the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and
    4. the imminence of the potential harm.
  • If an unvaccinated employee with a disability poses a direct threat, the employer must then explore whether reasonable accommodations could eliminate or reduce that threat. (K.5) Employers can rely on CDC recommendations and OSHA guidance to assess potential accommodations. If the direct threat cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, the employer can prohibit the employee from physically entering the worksite. However, the employer may not automatically terminate that employee. Rather, the employer should consider remote work or other off-site arrangements for the unvaccinated employee.
  • Employers must try to accommodate employees who cannot take a required COVID-19 vaccine because of a sincerely held religious belief. (K.6, K.7) If an employer learns that an employee’s religious beliefs prevent them from taking a required COVID-19 vaccine, it must attempt to accommodate that employee if it can do so without undue hardship. If there is no reasonable accommodation possible, the employer may exclude the unvaccinated employee from the worksite. Again, however, this does not mean that the employer may automatically terminate that employee. Rather, the employer should explore other work arrangements and the implications of other federal, state and local EEO laws.

Based upon current EEOC guidance, employers in most industries can alleviate administrative burdens, minimize legal exposure, and best achieve a vaccinated workforce by strongly recommending that employees obtain a COVID-19 vaccine or by providing vaccinations administered by an unrelated third-party healthcare provider. Employers can also lawfully request or require proof of vaccination without collecting any other private health information about their employees.

For additional and information and discussion of COVID-19 vaccinations and what they mean for employers, please see Lake Effect’s prior blog on vaccines.  We will continue to closely monitor all developments in this area and provide you with important updates.

COVID-19 vaccines on the horizon: What does it mean for employers?

On December 10, 2020, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee will meet to review Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and recommend whether to authorize its emergency use in the United States. Moderna is also seeking FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine, and dozens of other pharmaceutical companies are in the process of developing and seeking approval for vaccines. As the country awaits word on FDA authorizations, governmental bodies and other organizations are preparing for the complexities involved in distributing a COVID-19 vaccine and prioritizing who will receive the first doses.

No doubt, many employers welcome the prospect of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine in hopes that remote employees can return to the workplace and safely resume serving clients, customers, and partners. However, this scenario assumes that most employees will get a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available. It also raises a difficult question: Can an employer require employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of continued employment?

Current FDA guidance:
Federal and state authorities have not directly answered this question. A member of the FDA advisory panel recently stated that vaccines authorized under the FDA’s EUA (as opposed to through the normal approval process) cannot be mandated. This is consistent with 2017 FDA guidance stating that recipients of EUA products must be informed that they have the option to accept or refuse the product and what the consequences of refusal may be. However, there is some dispute as to whether the FDA’s prior position on this issue would control if the Secretary of Health and Human Services adopts a contrary position as to EUA COVID-19 vaccines.

Current EEOC guidance:
Even if initially authorized under an EUA, COVID-19 vaccines will likely be approved through the FDA’s normal approval process in the near future. Employers will then face the same question: can they require employee vaccinations? Current EEOC guidance on Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act, updated in March 2020, considers the issue in the context of the influenza vaccine (specifically recognizing that there was no vaccine for COVID-19 at that time). In the case of the influenza vaccine, the EEOC guidance states that “employers should consider simply encouraging employees to get the [vaccine] rather than requiring them to take it.”

Required accommodations:
However, the EEOC guidance also suggests that a mandatory vaccination requirement (influenza, COVID-19, or otherwise) for all employees is permissible as long as employers make exceptions in two instances:

  1. to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with an ADA-covered disability that prevents them from taking a vaccine; and
  2. to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance that prevents them from taking the vaccine, as required under Title VII.

Presumably, reasonable accommodations in lieu of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine could include permitting telework, increased use of PPE for the employee and co-workers, modification of job duties (i.e., removing public interactions), or transfer to a different office space. In any case, providing an employee accommodation must not cause an undue hardship to the employer. Because COVID-19 is so easily transmitted, and because the EEOC recognizes it as a pandemic and a “direct threat” to employee safety under the ADA (as does OSHA), employers might be granted greater latitude in difficult accommodation cases.

Other considerations:

Although a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy may be permissible under current law, this should not end the inquiry for employers seeking to maximize their workforce potential during these challenging times. Beyond its legality, an employer should determine whether implementing a mandatory vaccination policy is necessary or even advisable based upon the nature, needs, and unique culture of its organization. Relevant considerations may include:

  • The frequency and duration of employee interactions with vulnerable populations and/or members of the general public (how critical are employee inoculations to the survival and success of the business?)
  • Cost(s) associated with a mandatory employee vaccination policy/program (time, expense, goodwill of the public and employees)
  • The impact of existing policies, collective bargaining agreements, or past practices on the introduction of a mandatory vaccination policy
  • The potential impact of a mandatory vaccination policy on workplace injury and safety claims
  • The logistics required to administer a mandatory vaccination policy/program on or off-site (including necessary forms, a clear process for requesting accommodations, and protocols for retaining confidential vaccination information; staggering vaccinations may also be required as potential side-effects could render employees unable to work for several days)
  • The availability, cost, and efficacy of other mitigation measures used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (including an assessment of the measures used to date)
  • Alternative ways to encourage and incentivize employees to voluntarily get the COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., rewarding employees who get the vaccine with added benefits under a wellness program)

Employers should also consider conducting surveys to gather employee feedback before formulating a COVID-19 vaccination policy. Some employees may have specific safety concerns about the FDA’s approval process for new COVID-19 vaccines. Other employees may be skeptical about the medical community or generally concerned about vaccines based upon historical events or personal experiences. Inviting employees to express opinions and concerns can build trust and enhance employee morale. It can also inform an employer’s decision-making and communication strategy as it prepares to welcome more employees back to the workplace, regardless of whether or not an employer adopts any COVID-19 vaccination policy. If an employer decides to proceed with a mandatory vaccine policy, communicating with employees and other stakeholders about the underlying rationale and implementation would be a critical next step.

Stay tuned:
Given the current legal landscape, employers can begin planning the most effective ways to protect their employees and the general public when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes widely available. However, it is entirely possible that we will see new guidance on mandatory vaccinations from federal and/or state authorities after the FDA completes its authorization process.

Lake Effect will continue to closely monitor all developments in this area and provide you with important updates.

Lake Effect is here to answer your questions about protecting your workforce and business consistent with state and federal law. We continue to monitor important legal and HR developments, including COVID-related updates from federal, state, and local authorities. Please keep watching our blogs and emails for these important updates, as well as discussions of how compliance meets culture. To dive into these issues, contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

EEOC Updates Guidance on COVID-19 and the Workplace

On September 8, 2020, the EEOC updated its technical assistance document, What You Should Know about COVID-19 and the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws (“WYSK”). The updated document revises two pre-existing Q&As that address employer testing and employee requests for accommodation in advance of a return to work. It also incorporates information that previously appeared in other EEOC technical assistance documents, thus creating a single, more comprehensive, resource for COVID-19 related information.

With respect to employer-administered testing, the WYSK confirms that employers may take screening steps, including administering COVID-19 testing, to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because they could pose a direct threat to the health of others. Employer-administered testing consistent with current CDC or other public health authority guidelines will meet the ADA’s “business necessity” standard. However, employers should ensure that tests are considered accurate and reliable, based on evolving guidance from the FDA, CDC and other public health authorities. Requiring an antibody test before allowing an employee to re-enter the workplace is not allowed under the ADA. (WYSK A.6-A.7)

As to potential requests for accommodation, the WYSK specifies that employers can inform the workforce that employees with disabilities may request accommodations in advance of their return to work. If advance requests are received, employers may begin the interactive process. If an employee chooses not to request an accommodation in advance, the employer must still consider a later request and engage in the same interactive process. (WYSK D.8) Keep in mind that accommodations based on a disability pertain only to the employee, not to their family members.

The revised WYSK includes additional information that has been incorporated from other EEOC resources. Key provisions include:

  • Employers may ask all employees entering the physical workplace if they have been diagnosed with, have symptoms of, or have been tested for COVID-19. An employer may limit this questioning to certain employee(s) only if it has a reasonable belief based upon objective evidence that the employee(s) may have the disease. An employer is not generally permitted to ask these questions of employees who are teleworking. (WYSK A.8- A.9)
  • Employers may not ask employees coming into the physical workplace whether family members have COVID-19 or symptoms of COVID-19; this is prohibited under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). However, employers may ask employees whether they have had contact with anyone who has been diagnosed with or had symptoms of COVID-19. An employee who refuses to answer such questions or submit to other health screenings prior to entering the physical workplace (without a rationale or request for an accommodation) may be denied entrance. (WYSK A.10-A.11)
  • If an employee works on-site and reports feeling ill or calls in sick, an employer may ask questions about their symptoms as part of workplace screening. An employer may also question employees about why they have been absent from work and/or where they have traveled recently, even if that travel was personal. (WYSK A.12-A.14)
  • The ADA’s confidentiality provisions do not prohibit a manager or co-worker who learns that an employee has COVID-19 or associated symptoms from reporting it to the relevant employer officials so that they can take steps consistent with guidance from CDC or other public health authorities. Employers should make every effort to limit the number of people who learn the identity of the employee and reinforce the confidential nature of that information. (WYSK B.5-B.6)
  • When an employee with a disability is teleworking, an employer is not necessarily required to provide them with the same reasonable accommodation as it would provide in the physical workplace. The employer and employee should discuss specific needs and explore whether a different accommodation might suffice in the home setting. An employer’s undue hardship considerations and/or access to accommodation equipment may change during prolonged teleworking periods. The EEOC encourages all parties to be creative and flexible in these situations. (WYSK D.14)
  • An employer that allows its workforce to telework to slow the spread of COVID-19 does not automatically have to grant requests for telework as a reasonable accommodation to every employee with a disability when employees are recalled to the physical workplace. If there is no disability-related limitation that requires teleworking, the employer does not need to provide continued telework as an accommodation. In addition, the fact that an employer may temporarily excuse performance of one or more essential functions during periods of telework does not mean that the employer has permanently changed the essential function of any job. The ADA never requires an employer to eliminate an essential function of a job as an accommodation for an individual with a disability. However, evidence that an employee with a disability is able to perform the essential functions of the job during periods of telework may be relevant to future requests for telework as a reasonable accommodation. (WYSK D.15-16)

All EEOC materials related to Covid-19 are available at

Your partners at Lake Effect HR & Law are closely monitoring the impact of COVID-19 on the workplace. Keep watching for blogs and emails for important legal updates and HR best practices. The attorneys and HR professionals at Lake Effect HR & Law are ready and willing to help. Contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

EEOC Updates Guidance On COVID-19 And EEO Laws

Earlier today, the EEOC updated its Q&A Covid-19 Guidance as it relates to the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal EEO laws. Key new provisions specify:

  • The ADA does not require an employer to accommodate an employee without a disability in order to avoid exposing that employee’s family member who might be at a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to an underlying health condition (D.13).
  • Managers must understand how to recognize and respond to harassment based upon national origin, including demeaning, derogatory or hostile remarks directed against employees perceived to be of Chinese or Asian national origin. Employers may remind the workforce of Title VII’s prohibition against harassment and invite employees who experience or see such harassment to report it (E.3).
  • Employees who are teleworking are specifically prohibited from harassing other employees through emails, calls, videos or other virtual platforms (E.4.). This is consistent with EEOC guidance that an employer must address workplace harassment in any form, including electronic and virtual.
  • Before employees start returning to the workplace, and even if no date is set for their return, employers may (but are not required to) provide information about who to contact if employees wish to request an accommodation or flexibility for a disability or other reason (i.e. pregnancy, age, religious beliefs). If such requests are received in advance, the employer may begin the interactive process and/or consider non-disability related requests on an individualized basis consistent with federal EEO laws (G.6).
  • If an employee returning the worksite requests an alternative method of health screening due to a medical condition, the employer must consider it as a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act and proceed with the interactive process. If an alternative method of screening is requested as a religious accommodation, the employer should determine whether the accommodation is available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (G.7).
  • The ADEA prohibits employers from involuntarily excluding employees from the workplace based on age, even if the employer is trying to protect an older employee who may be at a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. However, the ADEA does not prohibit employers from providing flexibility to older workers, even if it results in younger workers (over age 40) being treated less favorably based on age in comparison. Older workers may request reasonable accommodations based on existing medical conditions or disabilities which may be covered under the ADA as a disability (H.1).
  • Employers can provide telework, modified schedules and other benefits to employees with school-aged children due to school closures, etc. during the pandemic as long as they do not treat employees differently based upon sex or other EEO-protected traits. Thus, female employees cannot be given greater flexibility than male employees based upon gender-based stereotypes about who may have primary childcare responsibilities (I.1).
  • Employers may not exclude employees from the workplace during the pandemic due to pregnancy, even if done for a benevolent purpose. This constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII (J.1). Still, pregnant employees may request reasonable accommodations based on a medical condition that qualifies as a disability under the ADA.
  • If an employee requests a reasonable accommodation due to a pregnancy-related or other medical condition, the employer must consider that request consistent with ADA requirements. In addition, the employer must treat pregnant employees the same as other employees with a similar ability or inability to work when it comes to requests for leave or other flexible work arrangements (J.2).

The legal and HR team at Lake Effect is closely monitoring the impact of COVID-19 on the workplace and will continue to provide our clients with updates as they are available. Check out our COVID-19 resource page for all of our pandemic-related legal updates and HR best practices. The attorneys and HR professionals at Lake Effect HR & Law are ready and willing to help. Contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

EEOC Technical Assistance Q&As Update

Last Friday, April 17, 2020, the EEOC updated its Technical Assistance Q&As about COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other EEO laws. The updated Q&As reiterate prior guidance and offer some new information. Key provisions for employers include the following:

  • Disability-related inquiries and exams
    • During the pandemic, employers may ask employees if they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath or sore throat. Employers should rely on CDC and other public health authorities for guidance on additional, emerging symptoms which may be associated with COVID-19. Such new symptoms may include a loss of smell or taste, as well as gastrointestinal problems. (See A.1-A.2)
    • Employers may measure employees’ body temperature at work and maintain a log of its results. See below regarding maintaining the confidentiality of such information. (See A.3, B.2)
    • Employers may require employees with symptoms of COVID-19 to leave the workplace and/or stay home. (See A.4)
  • Confidentiality of Medical Information
    • Employers must maintain all information about employee illnesses, including body temperature logs, separately from personnel files. Such information must be maintained as confidential medical records in compliance with ADA. All medical information relating to COVID-19 may be stored in employees’ existing medical files. (See B.1)
    • An employer may disclose the name of an employee with COVID-19 to a public health agency. (See B.3) Note that this does not include disclosure of the employee’s name to co-workers.
    • A staffing agency or contractor who learns that one of its temporary workers has COVID-19 may notify and disclose the name of that temporary worker to the employer where the worker has been placed. (See B.4)
  • Hiring and Onboarding
    • An employer may screen job applicants for symptoms of COVID-19 and take applicants’ body temperatures after making a conditional job offer, as long as it does so for all entering employees for the job. (See C.1-C.2)
    • If an employer needs an applicant to start immediately, but the applicant has COVID-19 or related symptoms, the employer may withdraw a job offer to the applicant. An employer may not withdraw a job offer simply because an applicant is age 65 or older or pregnant and is at increased risk for COVID-19. The employer may propose telework or delaying a start date. (See C.4-C.5)
  • Reasonable Accommodation
    • Employers may be required to consider reasonable accommodations that can offer protection to an individual at increased risk for COVID-19 in the workplace if they do not cause undue hardship to the employer. Flexibility by both employers and employees is key in assessing potential accommodations. Keep in mind that federal agencies are encouraging employers and employees to engage in discussions and come up with creative solutions to foster the ability to work. (See D.1)
    • An employee whose preexisting mental illness or disorder is exacerbated by the pandemic may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship. Likewise, an employee who was receiving a reasonable accommodation prior to the COVID-19 pandemic may be entitled to an additional or altered accommodation, absent undue hardship. (See D.2, D.4)
    • If an employee requests a reasonable accommodation during the pandemic, the employer may still request information to determine whether the employee has a covered “disability” under the ADA. The employer may also engage in the interactive process and request information about why an accommodation is needed. (See D.5-D.6)
    • During the pandemic, where an employer may have limited time to discuss accommodation requests, an employer may forgo or shorten the interactive process and provide a temporary accommodation to an employee. The employer may also provide a requested accommodation on an interim or trial basis, or place an end date on the accommodation. (See D.7)
    • Circumstances created by the pandemic are relevant to determining whether a requested accommodation will cause significant difficulty or expense for an employer and, thus, pose an undue hardship. An employer’s difficulty in acquiring or providing certain accommodations, sudden loss of income stream, or reduction in discretionary funds due to the pandemic are relevant considerations in assessing whether a requested accommodation imposes an undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense. (See D.9-D.11)
  • Pandemic-Related Harassment
    • Employers can minimize pandemic-related harassment by reminding employees that fear of the pandemic should not be misdirected against individuals because of any protected characteristic, including national origin or race. This holds true even when employees are teleworking or still working on site during the pandemic. As workplaces reopen or return to full operations, employers should reiterate prohibitions against all forms of harassment and discrimination and train managers to watch for and report any issues. (See E.1-E.2)
  • Return to Work
    • When employees begin to return to the physical workplace, employers can implement screening measures (i.e. take temperatures, ask questions about symptoms) as long as they are consistent with advice from the CDC and public health authorities regarding that type of workplace at that time. (See G.1)
    • Employers may need to consider requests for modified protective gear as reasonable accommodations when employees with disabilities or who wear certain clothing as part of their religious observation return to the workplace.

The legal and HR team at Lake Effect is closely monitoring the impact of COVID-19 on the workplace and will continue to provide our clients with updates as they are available. Check out our COVID-19 resource page for all of our pandemic-related legal updates and HR best practices. The attorneys and HR professionals at Lake Effect HR & Law are ready and willing to help. Contact us at or 1-844-333-5253.

Lake Effect HR & Law, LLC
(844) 333-5253 (LAKE)


© 2020 Lake Effect HR & Law, LLC