When One Policy Doesn’t Fit All: Managing Multistate Employment Law Patchwork

It used to be that a Virginia employer with a Virginia workforce could manage its people using a single set of policies. Those days are gone. Today, a Hampton Roads employer can post a remote job on Monday and, by Tuesday, find itself subject to pay transparency laws in Colorado, privacy rules in California, and noncompete limitations in Minnesota – all without opening an office there or sending a manager out of state.

The reason is simple: jurisdictional inconsistency has become one of the biggest hidden risks for employers. State and local governments are filling the gaps left by federal law – often with sharply divergent rules. As remote work and dispersed teams become more common, those legal differences expand your risk and your responsibility.

The real test for management isn’t just knowing the law. It’s creating policies and practices that function across conflicting legal landscapes without creating unintentional liability or operational strain.

Same Policy, Different Result

Consider how a basic HR decision can turn into a compliance trap:  A Virginia Beach marketing firm posts a remote job using its standard Virginia job description: “salary commensurate with experience,” no posted range. In Virginia, that’s fine. In Colorado, it’s not. Because the job can be performed in Colorado, the state’s pay transparency law applies, and the employer risks civil penalties for failing to list a salary range.

Benefit of a proactive approach: With a checklist for job postings keyed to state differences, the firm could have avoided the penalty, preserved its recruiting momentum, and kept credibility with applicants.

Fragmentation Across Five Key Areas

1. Pay Transparency

Virginia imposes no broad requirement to list salary ranges in its job postings. But Colorado, California, Washington, and New York do – and often extend those rules to remote roles visible to their residents. Takeaway: A universal job‑posting template may expose you to fines and claims. A jurisdiction‑aware review process helps protect your recruiting funnel.

2. Noncompete Agreements

Virginia bans noncompete agreements for employees earning less than about $73,000 per year. California goes even further, invalidating most noncompetes outright and now prohibiting employers from even entering into such agreements. That distinction can create significant risk for employers that use the same agreement nationwide.

For example, a Norfolk technology company might rely on a standard noncompete clause in every offer letter. If it hires a remote engineer based in San Francisco and later attempts to enforce that clause, California law will not only render the restriction unenforceable but may treat the act of trying to enforce it as a violation in itself. This kind of exposure arises not from bad intent but from failing to account for jurisdictional differences when drafting employment agreements.

The safer course is to tailor agreements to the laws of the jurisdictions where employees live and work. In some cases, that means replacing traditional noncompetes with enforceable alternatives — such as robust confidentiality, intellectual property, or non-solicitation provisions — that still protect legitimate business interests without running afoul of state restrictions.

3. Paid Leave Requirements

Virginia’s paid sick leave obligations are narrow and limited. By contrast, states like California, New York, and Massachusetts require paid sick leave for a broad class of employees, accrue from day one, and impose use/notice rules. Takeaway: A “one‑size” PTO policy can trip you up out of state. Building policies around the most protective state standards (or segmenting by state) both simplifies compliance and fosters goodwill.

4. AI / Automated Decision Tools

Virginia has no AI‑specific employment law yet (see https://www.pendercoward.com/resources/blog-opinions-and-observations/virginias-ai-bill-veto-what-does-this-mean-for-virginia-businesses/). But New York City demands annual bias audits for certain automated hiring tools and required disclosures to candidates. Takeaway: Using a single HR tech platform across states may create obligations in some jurisdictions. An internal review before adopting new tools helps anticipate and avoid liability.

5. Employee Data Privacy

Virginia’s consumer privacy statute does not broadly regulate employee data. But California’s CPRA does, requiring notice of categories, purposes, retention, etc. Takeaway: Data practices lawful in Virginia may expose you elsewhere. Adopting privacy protocols based on the most stringent applicable law offers a margin of safety and strengthens employee trust.

Remote Work Amplifies the Risk

The landscape has changed not only in law — but in how people work. A firm that once operated solely in Virginia may now have personnel in multiple states. A single remote worker in a highly regulated jurisdiction can draw your entire operation into that state’s employment laws.

Hypothetical: The Accidental Multi‑State Employer

A Chesapeake manufacturer hires two remote sales reps – one in Illinois, one in Oregon. A year later, the company faces a wage‑statement claim under Illinois law and a protected leave dispute under Oregon code. The company’s handbook – written for a fully Virginia workforce – never accounted for either.

Benefit of early action: A “jurisdictional audit” – mapping where employees actually work and overlaying key legal obligations – could have prevented both exposures before they became claims.

What Virginia Employers Should Do Now

•         Know Where Your Employees Really Are — Conduct a location audit annually (and update continuously).
• Map Your Legal Obligations — For each jurisdiction with employees, identify critical employment, leave, pay, and privacy laws.
• Adopt a “Compliance Floor” Approach — When possible, align policies with the strictest applicable standard so you don’t under‑comply anywhere.
• Review Your Templates & Policies — Contracts, job postings, handbooks – don’t assume Virginia law governs every scenario.
• Train Your Frontline Managers — Decisions on pay, leave, discipline often create risk. Equip them with awareness of multi‑state exposure.

In Summary

The rules haven’t just changed – the playing field has. A company once needing to understand one set of laws may now need to navigate many. That complexity is daunting, but it also offers a competitive advantage: employers who master jurisdictional inconsistency reduce legal risk, become more flexible, and appeal more strongly to talent.

At Pender & Coward, we are part of a worldwide network of law firms that gives us access to local legal insight wherever your workforce is located. If your company has employees in multiple states – or is considering remote hires beyond Virginia – we are ready to assist you in navigating the patchwork and designing policies that work across state lines.

Jeff Wilson, a Pender & Coward employment attorney, has advised public and private employers for more than twenty years, helping them navigate the legal, operational, and reputational risks that arise in managing today’s workforce.