Residency Requirement

[ivanl3]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ/PA

A few questions....

There is nothing that legally prevents a company from requiring an at-will employee to live in a certain state (NJ) or within a certain proximity of their work-place, correct? This includes making them establish their primary residency in that area, correct?

For example, if an employee currently lives and works in PA, their employer can force them to move to NJ and establish primary residency there as a term of on-going employment, correct? And the company can do this whether a relocation package is offered or not, correct? So if the employee stated that they would work out of the NJ office but not move (and commute to the office), the employer could still say no you must move your primary residency here or else you are fired, correct.

 

[cbg]

Correct to all, with limited exceptions. It may or may not be a smart move of the employer, but for the most part, there is nothing in the law that prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to live within a certain radius of work. No relocation package is required by law.

I will split a hair or two, however, since there are others who will if I don't. Technically, the employer can't force the employee to move. The employer can, however, fire the employee if he doesn't.

 

[ivanl3]

That's what I thought. Thanks.


Follow-up questions.... What is required to establish primary residency in NJ. I assume the following would suffice:

- Signing an apartment lease (or buying a home)
- Getting a D/L in NJ
- Establishing bank accounts at a local bank
- Registering to vote in NJ
- Filing income taxes in NJ

Anything else needed?

But here is the key, can the employee be compelled (as a term of employment) to sell their house and property back in PA?

 

[cbg]

Your subsequent questions, except the last one, do not fall under employment law. Maybe someone from the Real Estate forum will happen by.

As far as the last one goes, technically yes, the employer could make that requirement because there is no law that says he can't. If you are the employer, though, I would not advise making that requirement. If you are the employee, I'd consider whether you really want to work for an employer that controlling. And if you're someone else, it would help if you'd identify your relationship to that scenario.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You will also need to transfer your car registration and insurance.

 

[ivanl3]

I am the uncle of the employee in this scenario. I agree with your advice and offered the same.

Why would you advise the employer not to make such a requirement? Is there a legal reason? I can understand why one would advise against this from a business perspective, but I can also understand why an employer might want to do this....But I suppose this is not the place to have that debate.

 

[cbg]

I hold no opinion on residency requirements. In some situations they can be necessary. There can be valid reasons for it. In some situations they're not, but they're legal. Without knowing what the business is, I can't say if they're reasonable or not in this specific instance, but I can think of plenty of jobs where a residency requirement would not be out of line.

But a mandate that the employee MUST sell their PA residence is over the top. If the employee is adhering to the mandate and living in NJ, it's none of the employer's business what the employee does with their PA property.

 

[tranquility]

"Residence" is a facts and circumstances argument. There is no clear rule. But, a company can use whatever criteria it pleases to determine compliance. Ask them. If they disagree, you have no recourse.

 

[ivanl3]

I agree with you, but as a matter of law, I cannot think of anything that would prohibit from them from requiring an employee to sell the property. I suspect there is nothing legally stopping them from forcing them to sell it.

 

[eerelations]

There is nothing legally to prevent the employer from requiring the employee to sell his/her property in PA. But I can't imaging why any employer would care what their employees do with their out-of-state possessions. Why does this employer want this employee to do this?

 

[Proserpina]

I'm interested in this, too.

(Many eons ago in Pennsylvania my ex was was given a similar ultimatum)

 

[commentator]

The major places I've seen employers have residency requirements were in the fields of law enforcement and fire fighting. Sometimes local areas will have preference or residency requirements for their public service type employees, assuming I suppose that they will have more interest in the area if they are in residence.

Also, they tend not to like a employee who has a very long commute. And I've seen it worked out with EEOC complaints. As long as they are not shown to be discriminating against a particular ethnic group or racial group who lives somewhere in the area or out (for example, all the minority community is just across the county line or state line and there is evidence that they'll hire only county residents or in-state residents as a deliberate effort to exclude minorities).

But since we're getting this second or third hand, there may be more to the story. The employee may have agreed to relocate as a part of being hired. If he then goes back on his agreement, even though it may have only been verbal, they very well may decide to fire him. And it actually may not only be that he does not "have a case against them for unlawful termination" it may not even be an approvable reason for U.I. purposes. If he understood at the time of hire that he was required to move for the job, and he agreed to do that, and accepted the job and now refuses to move, that is a personal choice that could be interpreted as work related misconduct. And if he deliberately misrepresents to his employer that he has moved when he hasn't, that's certainly misconduct.

If he has already been working there, that residency requirement was not part of his hiring agreement, and they have suddenly come up with it and demanded he move, he has the right to refuse, of course, but they have the right to terminate him for refusing to move. It's the old "green socks" thing. But he likely will be able to get approved for unemployment insurance while he's looking for another job.

If he attempts to deceive the employer, all I can do is point out that since he's already discussing this situation with his relatives, he'll doubtless discuss it with others, and eventually someone will tell the employer that he's not really living there, that he's been pulling the wool over their eyes. And at that point, they may very well request he provide them with proof of residence, or they may just go on and fire him. Why not?

 

[cbg]

I don't disagree in theory. As I said, I don't have a problem with residency requirements per se. There can be more legitimate reasons for it than first responders (though I agree that's usually the case). Where I have a problem is with the insistance that the employee sell their PA location. While the market is still turning, it's still down. The employee may prefer to rent the property or let a family member stay there or go back to it on weekends. As long as the employee is adhering to the residency requirements and living where the employer wants them to live for the job purpose, what possible difference can it make to the employer what the employee does with their out of state property?

 

[ivanl3]

CBJ,

Thanks a ton for answering my direct questions and staying on topic. The residency requirement is a no-brainer. You are right that the (potential) requirement to sell out-of-state possessions seems awfully intrusive, although not illegal.

Why might a company require that? One argument would be b/c they believe employees who maintain a house and property out-of-state (especially that was their previous primary residence) are not truly committed to the relo and to the new community. The company could feel that allowing that situation will eventaully lead to requests to work from home part-time, less time worked in the office (OT) etc etc. In their judgement, they could believe that is not in the best long-term interest of the company to have employees with property and homes in other states.

I disagree with this philosophy but I can see the argument being made. I dont see how this requiremnt could be illegal, that is why I asked. Nuts, yes. Illegal, I think not but am not a lawyer.

 

[eerelations]

Why is this particular company ordering your nephew to sell his PA property?