.

Chair, Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group

Portrait of Danielle M. Vugrinovich

Defense Digest

Looking to Downsize Office Space or Reduce Storage Costs? What You Should Know About Federal Document Retention Requirements for Employee Records

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2023

March 1, 2023

by Danielle M. Vugrinovich

Key Points:

  • An employer must keep employee information confidential.
  • Keep employee-related documents for the time periods that federal and state laws require.
  • Safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive information within employee records upon destruction of such documents.

Working remotely has become common since the inception of the pandemic. Businesses have, thus, elected reduction of physical office space to save costs. If your business is looking to downsize physical office space or if you are simply looking to reduce storage costs, employee record retention is an issue that should be on your to-do list.Confidentiality of employee-related records is a high priority. Employee files should be kept strictly confidential and stored in a secure location. Access to these records should be restricted to those with a legitimate need to know or as required by law. Of course, ensuring confidentiality of employee-related records goes hand-in-hand with decisions pertaining to where, by what means, and how long to maintain the records. Federal and state statutes and guidelines dictate these requirements and offer guidance as to what documents must be kept for what duration. Some federal laws to consider when deciding what and when to purge are addressed herein.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigates job discrimination claims, requires an employer to keep all employee-related records for at least one year following his/her separation from employment. Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also require the retention of these records for the same period of time. In addition, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) requires retention of payroll records for at least three years.

Retention of all documents related to pay is paramount under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mainly governs claims concerning an employee’s pay. An employee’s complete payroll records—including hours worked, overtime, wage deductions, certificates, written training agreements, sales and purchase records, and certificates of age for those under 18—must be kept for three years. Records upon which wage computations are based (i.e., time cards, work and time schedules, records of additions or deductions from wages, and piece work tickets) must be kept for two years.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees of an employer with 50 or more employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for certain family and medical issues. The FMLA requires an employer to maintain for at least three years basic payroll and employee data, rate/basis of pay and terms of compensation, additions or deductions from pay, total compensation paid, requests for FMLA leave, and documentation of FMLA leave taken.

The Internal Revenue Service requires maintenance of all employment tax records for at least four years after 4th quarter filings for the year.

It is evident that federal statutes and guidelines have different retention periods and that categories of documents tend to overlap. Moreover, different states have different requirements and guidelines. Individual states’ unemployment compensation and workers’ compensation laws have particular mandates. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, have a law that dictates the number of years employee documents must be retained. Accordingly, an employer should adopt a single retention period for any and all employee-related documents, including personnel files, tax information, time card/scheduling, and payroll records, which meets the minimum requirements and guidelines of the various employment-related laws applicable to the employer.

If you determine that you are able to purge employee-related documents, your next concern should be the manner in which they are discarded. Employee records contain sensitive information, such as social security numbers, dates of birth, and medical information. Disclosure of such information can subject your company to fines and other penalties. The best way to dispose of paper employee documents is to have them shredded.

It is important to have a written policy addressing employee record retention, just as it is important to have other employment-related policies. It is generally suggested that employment-related documentation should be retained for seven years following the employee’s separation from employment, which retention period complies with the various laws and also provides additional security in the event that such documents are needed beyond any particular required time frame.

*Danielle is a shareholder in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, office and can be reached at 412.803.1185 or dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com.

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.