Many employers are using or considering using smartphone apps for their employees. In such cases, employees download an app that can be used for a variety of purposes, including employee engagement, communication, work assignments, route and delivery information and more. While apps can be helpful, they also raise many employment law issues, including the following:
- Reimbursement: Two states – California and Illinois - have statutes specifically requiring reimbursement for required employee cell phone use. Several other states have statutes that arguably require cell phone reimbursement, including: Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and District of Columbia.
- Wage and Hour Issues: The FLSA requires that employees be paid for all hours that the employer “suffers or permits” to be worked. When employees have an app on their phone, it opens the door to a lot of unauthorized work time related to using the app, checking messages, etc. App usage can also raise issues with break and meal time laws and minimum wage violations.
- Discrimination: If employers require the use of an app, employees must have a smartphone. If employers do not provide the phone, it becomes a condition of employment and employers may face claims that the requirement constitutes discrimination based on legally protected characteristics related to smartphone ownership.
- Privacy: Placing an app on a personal phone that tracks and gathers data (e.g. location) creates possible privacy issues. Most of these issues can be addressed by obtaining authorizations from employees regarding their reasonable expectations of privacy and limiting data collection during non-work hours.
- Safety: Having employees who drive use an app presents an inherent risk that needs to be addressed. Any accident that occurs due to distracted driving related to the employer’s app presents a risk of substantial liability. Similarly, distractions caused by app use in other potentially hazardous environments should be considered as well.
Listen to the new episode of The Practical Employment Law Podcast for insights on these issues and more.
You can listen here.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Religion Discrimination
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- NLRB
- Artificial Intelligence
- Title VII
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Worker Classification
- Compliance
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- National Labor Relations Board
- Supreme Court
- Harassment
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Whistleblower
- Federal Arbitration Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Ohio “Mini-WARN” Act Now In Effect: Key Compliance Takeaways for Employers
- EEOC's Renewed Focus on Religious Discrimination: What Employers Need to Know
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims