Purpose
Assess a specific HR policy, employment practice, or workforce action for legal exposure under applicable employment law, then flag each issue by severity and provide a compliant alternative. Catches discrimination, wage/hour, misclassification, and wrongful-termination risk before a decision is executed — not after a claim is filed.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Review a handbook policy, offer letter, PIP, or severance agreement for legal risk
- Evaluate a planned termination, layoff, or reduction in force before executing it
- Check whether a worker is properly classified as exempt/non-exempt or employee/contractor
- Assess a pay, overtime, meal-break, or on-call practice for wage/hour compliance
- Vet a hiring, promotion, discipline, or accommodation decision for discrimination exposure
- Screen a workplace policy (attendance, dress code, social media, PTO) for hidden legal risk
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- What's being reviewed: The policy text, practice description, or specific action (paste the language or describe the facts)
- Jurisdiction: Country, and for the US the state(s) and city/county where affected workers are located — this determines which laws apply
- Employer size: Approximate employee headcount (thresholds trigger different laws — e.g., FMLA at 50, Title VII at 15, WARN at 100)
- Worker(s) affected: Role, exempt/non-exempt status if known, protected-class factors only if relevant to the decision
- Business rationale: The legitimate business reason behind the policy or action
- Timeline: Whether this is proposed (not yet in effect) or already in place
If jurisdiction is not provided, stop and ask for it before analyzing — employment law is jurisdiction-specific and a review without it is unreliable. If headcount is unknown, note which size-triggered laws may or may not apply.
Instructions
Step 1: Establish the Legal Frame
Identify what applies before analyzing.
- Confirm jurisdiction and map the governing statutes (federal + state + local). Common US frames: Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FLSA, FMLA, NLRA, plus state analogs (e.g., California FEHA, Labor Code, WARN).
- Apply headcount thresholds to determine which laws are in scope for this employer.
- State clearly at the top: "This is a risk assessment, not legal advice; confirm with licensed counsel in the jurisdiction before acting."
Step 2: Screen Across the Five Risk Domains
Analyze the reviewed item against each domain. Only report domains where actual risk exists — do not pad with non-applicable domains.
Domain 1 — Discrimination & Disparate Impact
- Does the policy or action treat protected classes differently (disparate treatment)?
- Does a facially neutral rule disproportionately harm a protected group (disparate impact)? Flag height/weight/education/criminal-history/scheduling requirements that lack job-relatedness.
- Retaliation exposure: is the action close in time to protected activity (complaint, leave request, whistleblowing)?
Domain 2 — Wage & Hour
- Overtime, minimum wage, off-the-clock work, meal/rest breaks, on-call time, expense reimbursement.
- Check state-specific rules (daily overtime, split-shift premiums, final-pay deadlines) that exceed federal minimums.
Domain 3 — Worker Classification
- Exempt vs. non-exempt: apply the salary-basis test AND duties test — a title or salary alone does not establish exemption.
- Employee vs. independent contractor: apply the governing test for the jurisdiction (e.g., ABC test in California/Massachusetts vs. economic-realities/common-law test federally).
Domain 4 — Termination & Separation
- At-will limits: implied contract, public-policy exceptions, retaliation, discrimination pretext.
- RIF/layoff: WARN/mini-WARN notice triggers, adverse-impact analysis of selection criteria, OWBPA requirements for age-40+ waivers.
- Severance/release validity: consideration, revocation period, unenforceable terms.
Domain 5 — Leave, Accommodation & Privacy
- FMLA/state leave eligibility and interference; ADA interactive process and reasonable accommodation.
- Pregnancy, religious, and disability accommodation obligations.
- Off-duty conduct, monitoring, and NLRA-protected concerted activity in policies.
Step 3: Rate and Rank Each Issue
For every issue found, assign a severity:
- Critical — likely unlawful as written/planned; high litigation or agency-action risk. Do not proceed without change.
- Moderate — defensible but exposed; a plaintiff could build a case. Fix recommended.
- Advisory — legal but suboptimal; documentation gap or best-practice miss.
Order issues Critical → Moderate → Advisory.
Step 4: Provide a Compliant Alternative for Each Issue
For every flagged issue, write:
- The risk: what could go wrong and under which law
- Why it's exposed: the specific element that creates liability
- Compliant alternative: concrete replacement language or revised practice the user can adopt directly — not "consult counsel" as the answer
- Documentation to keep: the record that would defend the decision (business rationale, comparator data, interactive-process notes)
Step 5: Summarize Go / Fix / Stop
Close with a one-line disposition: Go (no material risk), Fix (proceed after specified changes), or Stop (do not proceed as designed), plus the single most important action.
Output Format
- Structure: Legal frame header → issues grouped by severity, each with the four-part treatment → Go/Fix/Stop disposition
- Length: 700–1,100 words (scales with number of issues found)
- Format: Structured document with labeled severity tags; compliant-alternative language set off clearly for copy-paste use
- Sections: Legal Frame & Disclaimer → Applicable Laws → Issues Found (Critical / Moderate / Advisory) → Disposition & Top Action
- Tone: In-house counsel advising an operator — precise, risk-calibrated, decisive; names the statute and the fix rather than hedging into vagueness
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Jurisdiction was confirmed; if it was missing, the skill asked before analyzing
- [ ] Every flagged issue names the specific law or doctrine it implicates — not "may be risky"
- [ ] Every issue has a concrete compliant alternative, not a referral to counsel as the substantive answer
- [ ] Issues are ordered by severity (Critical → Moderate → Advisory)
- [ ] Headcount thresholds were applied to confirm which laws are actually in scope
- [ ] A clear Go/Fix/Stop disposition and single top action are stated
- [ ] The not-legal-advice disclaimer appears at the top
Notes
- Most misclassification exposure comes from failing the duties test, not the salary test — check both explicitly and never treat a job title as proof of exemption.
- Timing is the quiet driver of retaliation claims: any adverse action within roughly 90 days of protected activity deserves a flag regardless of the underlying merits.
- Facially neutral policies (attendance points, rounding rules, background-check screens) generate disparate-impact liability more often than overtly biased ones — probe these hardest.
- This skill assesses risk and drafts compliant alternatives; it does not replace review by licensed counsel in the operative jurisdiction before any decision is executed.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills