Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

Tax Court Decision Subjects LLP Service Providers/Equity Partners to Self-Employment Tax

Posted last week at the National Law Review by Paul A. Gordon and Casey S. August of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP new developments concerning partners in a law firm established as a limited liability partnership (LLP) under state law subject to Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) tax on their distributive share of LLP income received in respect of their services.

In a decision issued February 9, the U.S. Tax Court ruled, in part, that the partners of a law firm established as a limited liability partnership (LLP) under state law were subject to Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) tax on their distributive share of LLP income received in respect of their services. In doing so, the court determined that the LLP partners could not avail themselves of the exemption from SECA for nonguaranteed service payments to “limited partners.” This ruling illustrates the potential risk for service provider limited partners and limited liability company members of assuming that state law entity and limited liability classifications alone shield them from being subject to SECA tax.

Background

Generally, payments to service providers who are not classified as employees for federal payroll tax purposes are not subject to any payroll tax withholding or payment liability on the part of the payor. Instead, Section 1401 imposes SECA tax on “self-employment” income at the rate of 15.3%, a combination of a 12.4% old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) tax and a 2.9% Medicare tax. The OASDI tax is only imposed on the first $106,800 of “net earnings” (which allows for offsets to gross earnings for deductible expenses associated with the creation of the income) for 2011. Subject to certain exemption rules, self-employment earnings include income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual plus his or her distributive share of partnership income or loss from any trade or business carried on by a partnership in which he or she is a partner. One of the exemption rules, included in Section 1402(a)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code, excludes from self-employment earnings “the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in Section 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of remuneration for those services” (emphasis added). Unfortunately, Congress failed to provide a definition for limited partner in the statute.

In order to resolve this definitional ambiguity, the U.S. Treasury released temporary regulations in 1997 under which partners with either authority to contract on behalf of the partnership or who participate in the partnership’s trade or business for more than 500 hours during the partnership’s taxable year could not be limited partners for Section 1402(a)(13) exemption purposes. In addition, no service partner in a service partnership could be a limited partner. This guidance created political shockwaves so extensive that Congress imposed a 12-month moratorium on Treasury’s ability to issue further guidance under Section 1402(a)(13). Since that time, Treasury has not provided guidance on the limited partner exemption from SECA tax.

Confronted with the dearth of authority on this issue, many tax practitioners have taken the position that all partners in a tax partnership, who are limited partners or limited liability company members under state law, are per se eligible for the Section 1402(a)(13) limited partner exemption. Others, although not required by law, have followed the guidance under the proposed regulations.

Renkemeyer Decision

It was this definition of “limited partner” that was at issue before the Tax Court in Renkemeyer, Campbell & Weaver, LLP v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. No. 7 (2011). In that case, the Tax Court addressed an IRS challenge to both (1) the special allocation of the LLP’s (a law firm treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes) distributive share of income to its partners and (2) the treatment of the LLP distributive share allocations of business income to its service partners (the law partners) as being exempt from SECA tax. After ruling in favor of the IRS on the allocation issue (the petitioner could not produce a partnership agreement supporting the challenged special partnership allocations), the court turned to the SECA tax issue.

The LLP partners argued that the limited partner exemption should apply because (1) the LLP organizational documents designated their interests as limited partnership interests and (2) they enjoyed limited liability under state law. The Tax Court disagreed, reaching the result that would have been required under the temporary regulations. Noting that Congress passed the limited partner exemption prior to the state law advent of LLPs and LLCs, the court reviewed the exemption’s legislative history and determined that the impetus for the exemption was not a limited partner’s individual protection from the partnership’s liabilities, but instead its status as a nonservice investment partner in a traditional limited partnership. In doing so, the court found that Congress did not intend for active service partners, such as the LLP partners, to be exempt from self-employment taxes. Specifically, the court referred to the partners’ minimal LLP capital contributions in exchange for their interests in LLP as indicating that the partners’ distributive share of income arose from the legal services performed on behalf of LLP and “not . . . as a return on the partners’ investments and . . . not [as] ‘earnings which are basically of an investment nature.'” (citing the Section 1402(a)(13) legislative history). Additionally, the Renkemeyer opinion hinted that the same rationale could be applied to prevent members of an LLC from qualifying as Section 1402(a)(13) limited partners.

Implications

Renkemeyer demonstrates the hazards of assuming that state law entity and limited liability classifications should control for purposes of determining eligibility for the Section 1402(a)(13) SECA tax limited partner exemption. That is, there may be danger in taking the per se limited partner exemption position described above. Service providers to tax partnerships (including LLCs treated as tax partnerships) in which they are also equity partners should thus be wary of whether both their service-related payments and guaranteed partnership equity allocations would be considered self-employment income subject to SECA tax.

A Four-Step Guide for Securing Patent Portfolios after Stanford v. Roche

Posted today at the National Law Review by Jason Miller of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. some great tips on how to review patent portfolios after Staford v. Roche:

On June 6, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in the Stanford v. Roche case. The facts behind Roche are easily replicated on college and university campuses around the nation, forewarning institutions of the potentially problematic IP issues that lurk behind each of their patent and technology transfer agreements. Today, most major research universities boast of vast IP portfolios, including dozens of patents, which were invented by professors and the like during the course of their employment. Oftentimes, these patents allow universities to generate a critical revenue stream by licensing the patents through established licensing offices or policies. However, under Roche, the ownership of the patents may not be as clear as universities previously thought. Though a serious review of existing patent portfolios and potential modifications of boilerplate patent agreement language is likely necessary, first understanding the facts behind Roche will clarify why these steps are strongly advised for universities.

Research fellow, Dr. Holodniy, signed a Copyright and Patent Agreement with Stanford University agreeing to assign his “‘right, title and interest in’ inventions resulting from his employment at the University.” Stanford, like many institutions, received federal funding from the National Institutes of Health for the HIV measurement technique research that Dr. Holodniy participated in. Dr. Holodniy, in pursuit of developing an improved method for quantifying HIV levels in blood samples, later collaborated with Cetus, a California research company that worked with Stanford’s scientists. Equally wary of patent laws and eager to get the right to the findings, Cetus had Dr. Holodniy sign a Visitor’s Confidentiality Agreement stating he “‘will assign and do[es] hereby assign’ to Cetus his ‘right, title and interest in each of the ideas, inventions and improvements’ made ‘as a consequence of [his] access to Cetus.’”

Two research entities. Two patent right agreements. One patent. Who wins?

According to the majority opinion in Roche, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, Cetus prevailed. This opinion is by no means groundbreaking. Rather, the decision merely reinforces the historical rule that “rights in an invention belong to the inventor.” Any institution involved with research and potential IP issues traditionally has their employees sign copyright and patent agreements since an employer has no right to their employees’ inventions without an express grant. Barring such agreement, employee inventions “remain the property of him who conceived it.” Thus, Roche mirrors the general principle that inventors own their inventions by holding, “mere employment is [not] sufficient to vest title to an employee’s invention in the employer.”

Next, Roche is not fodder for major legislative change since it simply provides a straightforward reading of the Bayh-Dole Act. An undoubtedly landmark piece of legislation, Bayh-Dole recognized the need for the commercialization of inventions that federal money was heartily supporting. Bayh-Dole has promoted and facilitated federal collaboration with commercial and nonprofit organization research by specifying what rights each party has when federal funding is involved. The relevant part of the Act cited in Roche provides that federal contractors (which include individuals, small business firms or nonprofits that are a party to the funding agreement) may “elect to retain title to any subject invention.” “Subject invention” is then defined as “any invention of the contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.” The Roche opinion begins to sound more like a grammar lesson than a ruling from the highest court as Roberts explains what the phrase “of the contractor” means. Just as it reads, an “invention of a contractor” would be an invention that a contractor owns. And for the contractor to own such invention in the university context, its employees who participated in the federally funded research would have had to sign an agreement transferring their ownership rights. Thus, the Act is simple: federal contractors can elect to retain title to any invention they own.

Thus, Roche does not change the fact that universities still need to obtain express agreement from employees in order to acquire the rights to any inventions of their employees. The case also does not change any of the traditional interpretations or precedents involving the Bayh-Dole Act. However, the case does clarify the technology transfer and related rights between universities with federally funded research and the private companies with which they collaborate. This clarification signals the need for a stricter approach that universities should take in terms of drafting and ensuring their rights under patent agreements. In light of Roche, an immediate four-step plan should be implemented by colleges and universities.

First, institutions must examine their existing patent portfolios. As the marketability of portfolios increases with the sheer volume of patents, many universities strive to possess a wealth of patented inventions. The value of portfolios thus is not generally linked to a single patent, but the number of patents that outside firms are willing to invest in or collaborate with. Universities therefore capitalize on their portfolios through technology transfers, facilitating the commercialization of research and incentivizing future research through income generation. Thus, examining existing portfolios requires universities to determine what patent rights they currently possess. For those universities that receive federal funding for research, verify whether such funding was acquired before or after the development of each patented invention. If the patent was developed under the funding, check to see whether the employee solely assigned their rights to the university and whether the university has elected to retain the rights to such patent. As Roche explicitly held, “the Bayh-Dole Act does not confer title to federally funded inventions on contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to those inventions; it simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have.”

Further, determine which patents were developed collaboratively with outside research firms and institutions. Because academia, private firms and the government are the holy trinity for innovation, universities must be clear on which of their patents were developed by their sole efforts. Creating a framework of mutual benefit that technology transfer ultimately desires requires an examination of the actual benefits universities have afforded themselves through their existing patents.

Second, institutions should closely scrutinize their previously signed employment agreements. Begin by checking whether employees even had rights to transfer in the first place. If the employee came from other institutions or private firms, are they now conducting research at their current university employer that was started elsewhere? Are current employees starting from scratch or building upon existing inventions developed through the funding, efforts and resources of outside entities with which the university has no connection? Finding these answers may require a look into the backgrounds of employees who joined the university as experienced researchers and professors, since they are likely to have signed prior patent agreements. Speak with employees who raise concern and inquire about any past employment agreements they signed. As part of inspecting existing patent agreements, determine the scope of the agreement- does it cover only the original invention or does it extend to any other inventions developed based off the underlying research? Answering these questions is vital in guaranteeing that a university actually retains rights to the patents marketed in their portfolios.

Third, develop a plan for amending existing agreements, or obtaining written intellectual property agreements if none exist. Start by finding out which employees have not signed patent and copyright agreements. Of those employees who have not signed, determine whether any have, or are in the process of, researching and developing inventions. Work with an attorney to develop specific agreements that will assign all existing rights to the university and will also transfer the employee’s rights to future inventions developed during their employment to the university. Any professor who knows that if they invent it, they own it, may be reluctant to hand over such rights. However, patent marketability and the benefit of commercialization of inventions that comes with university technology transfers should leverage some bargaining power over a hesitant employee. Alternatively, incentive provisions may be warranted in certain instances.

Further, refine or amend existing assignments that do not operate under the assumption that the university owns the patent rights. As part of this change, determine whether there are any employees who have transferred departments since the original patent or copyright agreement was signed. If a professor is currently in a research capacity but was not previously, determine whether that departmental change necessitates a revision of their previous agreement or the execution of a new one. Also research and ensure that employees have not assigned their rights to underlying inventions elsewhere or at any previous point during their current employment. Develop a plan for handling employees who are unwilling to sign modified agreements, as reluctance from some employees should be expected. Finally, care should be given in regard to the potential tax implications of amendments to existing agreements and additional incentives offered in connection with any transfer of existing rights in an invention.

Fourth, institutions should draft future employment agreements with more stringent language to prevent the type of patent right quandary exhibited in Roche. The problem in Roche could have been solved by conforming the tense of the verbs to the intention of the university- had Dr. Holodniy’s agreement with Stanford read that he “does” assign his rights, the ownership would have immediately transferred to Stanford. However, the language that Dr. Holodniy “agree[d] to assign” his rights was only a promise to do something in the future. That expectancy did not vest, however, because the Dr.’s subsequent agreement with Cetus included language immediately transferring ownership rights. The “will assign and do[es] hereby assign” phrase gave priority of ownership to Cetus, serving as partial justification for Stanford losing the suit. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that each agreement signed with professors and research fellows must be ironclad and reviewed to make certain the existing agreement accomplishes its intended purpose. This may require terminating the old form of agreement and replacing them with individualized agreements that definitively establish a status quo transfer of rights. The use of present tense verbs is imperative to ensure that rights actually are assigned, rather than just promising to be assigned subsequently.

In addition, incorporate provisions within the new agreements to handle situations where researchers work with other institutions in order to prevent an inadvertent transfer of rights. Employ language that specifically requires consent from the university before any employee signs over their rights to an outside institution. Also, include provisions requiring the disclosure of previously signed patent agreements at the outset of employment so that universities will be aware of potential litigation arising from contract and patent disputes.

With a large enough patent portfolio, the process of reviewing and updating patent agreements may appear daunting. However, based on the undisputable message of inventor rights in Roche, a serious assessment of existing agreements and the need for heightened specificity in the future is paramount. The decision in Rocheencourages vigilance on the part of universities and requires steps to be taken to reduce liability to patent infringement and contract violation claims. The four above recommended steps above are not an exhaustive list of actions universities could take; instead, they provide a necessary starting point for universities in navigating patent portfolio review and reform.

*Jason Miller is admitted to the North Carolina and the US Patent bar. He is not yet a member of the Florida Bar.

*Co-author, Lara L. Tedro, is a summer clerk and a rising third year law student.

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.: Supreme Court Observations

Posted today at the National Law Review by Robert Greene Sterne and Nirav N. Desai of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C a great recap of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.

In Microsoft v. i4i, the U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously (8-0) affirmed the clear and convincing evidence standard for invalidating issued U.S. patents under Section 282 of the Patent Act (1952). In 2007, i4i sued Microsoft in U.S. District Court for infringement of i4i’s patent. As part of its defense, Microsoft asked for a jury instruction reciting a preponderance of the evidence standard for finding i4i’s patent invalid, rather than the long-standing clear and convincing evidence standard. The District Court rejected Microsoft’s lower standard of proof, and a jury found that the patent was valid and that Microsoft infringed, awarding i4i a 9 figure damages sum. Microsoft appealed to Federal Circuit, asserting in particular, that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on the standard of proof for invalidity. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s holding and Microsoft petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted.

In its argument to the Supreme Court, Microsoft argued that either (1) a defendant in a patent infringement action need only convince the jury that an issued patent is invalid by a preponderance of the evidence standard, or (2) alternatively, that at the very least, the preponderance of the evidence standard should apply to evidence that was never considered by the PTO during examination. The Supreme Court in its decision rejected both of Microsoft’s arguments.

In its decision, the Court first focused on the language of Section 282, which specifies that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent … shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” Microsoft had argued that Federal Circuit precedent establishing a clear and convincing evidence standard was not supported by the 1952 Act because Section 282 did not explicitly set forth that standard. The Supreme Court noted that, while the statute includes no express articulation of the standard of proof, the statute does use the term “presumed valid,” which has a settled meaning in the common law. Relying on its long-standing decision in Radio Corporation of America (RCA) v. Radio Eng’g Labs., Inc., 293 U.S. 1 (1934), the Court found that the common law jurisprudence dating back to the 19^th century reflects that Microsoft’s proposed preponderance standard of proof “was too ‘dubious’ a basis to deem a patent invalid.” According to the common law, the Court held, “a defendant raising an invalidity defense bore a ‘heavy burden of persuasion,’ requiring proof of the defense by clear and convincing evidence.”

The Court also noted that the Federal Circuit has interpreted Section 282 to require this clear and convincing evidence standard for nearly 30 years. And while Congress has amended the patent laws several times since the Patent Act was passed, “the evidentiary standard in § 282 has gone untouched.” The Court concluded that Congress is well aware of the Federal Circuit’s treatment of the statute, but thus far has not amended the statute, and further that “[a]ny re-calibration of the standard of proof remains in [Congress’s] hands.”

The practical implications of the decisions are many. First and foremost, the decision preserves the status quo, which in turn maintains the strength of U.S. patents and current patent enforcement mechanisms, particularly as they relate to innovation, business certainty, and job creation. The Court has also sent a clear signal that, in view of well-established jurisprudence, if the standard is to change, it must be done by Congress, as any such change would have a profound ripple effect on the entire patent system.

Employers are Watching Your Facebook: Worker Privacy Significantly Diminished in the Digital Era

Congrats to Michael Carlin of University of Minnesota Law School winner of the Spring 2011 National Law Review student legal writing contest winner! Michael’s topic explores the legal basis for privacy in and out of the workplace, specifically off- duty employee monitoring in the private sector.

Introduction

As surveillance technology improves, employers increasingly monitor their employees, both in and out of work. Public sector employees enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protections, but private sector employees lack these fundamental protections. State and federal common law and statutory protections developed during the past twenty years provide a handful of remedies for private workers when employers unduly infringe upon their right to be let alone. Nevertheless, these laws fail to provide adequate protection in light of technological advances that make employer monitoring simple, cheap, and surreptitious. Employees, with limited exceptions, should be given greater protection of their privacy and freedom of expression both in and especially out of the workplace.

This paper explores the legal basis for privacy in and out of the workplace, specifically off- duty employee monitoring in the private sector. Part I details this history, discusses disturbing trends in employee monitoring, and explores open legal and ethical questions stemming from the increase in employee monitoring. Part II reviews the interests implicated by employee monitoring and suggests a balancing point to stem employer invasiveness but protect against employee malfeasance. The current common law protections described in Part III as well as the statutory protections covered by Part IV demonstrate that, in practice most law misses the mark and leaves employees with insufficient rights against invasive monitoring. Finally Part V proposes new federal legislation to close the gaps in employee privacy law.

I. Social and Historical Context of Off Duty Monitoring

A. History of Worker Monitoring

The separation between work and home life is a recent phenomenon, developed during industrialization and urbanization.[1] The typical family in preindustrial society received little privacy; “business was conducted in the house, and the house was a crowded bustling place with little opportunity for the family to retreat in isolation.”[2] It was not until city dwellers started working predominantly in offices that the home life was thought of as separate from work life.[3] As Justices Warren and Brandeis stated, “[t]he intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world. . .”[4]

Today privacy is taken, albeit mistakenly, for granted.[5] However, even in the early Twentieth Century, the concept of privacy was challenged by the desire to monitor employees in and out of the workplace. For example, Henry Ford created a “Sociology Department . . . . responsible for ferreting out immoral and undesirable behaviour on the part of Ford employees.”[6] Today news stories frequently describe how employees are disciplined for their off duty behavior.[7] Underlying these stories is a private employer’s right to substantially monitor their employees. Employers are given broad discretion, with some exceptions, to log and monitor an employee’s phone use, voicemail,[8] and much more.

B. Recent Developments of Off Duty Monitoring

An American Management Association study found sixty six percent of employers monitor workers’ Web site connections; forty three percent review e-mail; forty percent of companies analyze the contents of outbound e-mail; forty five percent track content, keystrokes, and time spent at the keyboard; and thirty percent have fired for misuse of the internet.[9] RFID is another tool many employers use to track the location of their employees in and out of work, although not much is known about the extent to which this is used for off-duty monitoring.[10] Eight percent of employers now use GPS technology to track wherever their employees go.[11]

Aligo’s WorkTrack is a technology that allows employers to monitor the location of their employees over the internet using employer provided cell phones.[12] Technologies like Aligo promise to increase productivity, efficiency, and overall cost savings.[13] However there are serious invasion of privacy concerns. First, the product has an “on break” mode, which allows employers to know when an employee is not working.[14] These monitoring features often do not shut off at the end of the workday, allowing the employer to monitor even off duty behavior.[15] Aligo and similar technologies are used by large employers such as Sun Microsystems, Lucient Technologies, and Motorola.[16]

The trend in monitoring appears to be increasing.[17] As technology becomes more accessible, monitoring becomes easier. The social networking revolution is one prime example of how, if given easy means, employers will pry into the lives of their employees. Employers increasingly use social networks to screen job applicants,[18] “Forty-five percent of employers use social networking sites to research job candidates.”[19] Employers now have the power “to gather enormous amounts of data about employees, often far beyond what is necessary to satisfy safety or productivity concerns.”[20] It is very likely that without greater privacy protections, as GPS and RFID monitoring become less expensive that more employers will begin utilizing it.

C. Unanswered Legal Questions

Underlying the employer’s power to collect data on employers is the long line of court decisions upholding an employer’s right to monitor. The Supreme Court’s latest of decision was City of Ontario v. Quon. Although concerning public employees, and the First and Fourth Amendments, the Quon decision raised interesting policy concerns regarding the potential importance of electronic communications as essential means of for self expression.[21] However, the court also mentioned that these devices are so easily and cheaply available that one could easily purchase a device for personal use, defeating any expectation of privacy.[22] This decision failed to analyze the basis for which an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy,[23] so the expectation of privacy regarding digital monitoring is still not clear.[24]

II. Should There Be a Line Between Work and Private Life Online? If so Where Should We Draw the Line?

A. Employer’s Perspective

First, from an employer’s perspective, monitoring of employees is within their discretion because of the nature of at-will employment. Generally, with the exception of Montana, employment is considered at will in the U.S,[25] meaning employees can be fired, or leave, at any time for whatever or even no reason.[26] Employers argue that if employees do not want to be monitored they can leave.

Employers also need to protect the integrity of their business and prevent unlawful activity. Never before has so much damage been accomplished by low level employees through mindless behavior and social media. One example of this occurred in April 2009 when two Domino’s Pizza employees posted several videos of disgusting, and unsanitary activities in preparation of a customer’s pizza.[27] The video went viral and was responsible for a steep decline in stock values.[28]

Employers also need to protect against the leaking of confidential data. In February 2010 the personal information of Shell employees in dangerous parts of the work was leaked to a blogger and published.[29] This leak posed a great threat to the lives of these individuals; Shell employees have been attacked, and kidnapped in places like Nigeria.[30] Similarly, the risk of liability is high for leaking of trade secrets and for initial public offerings before they are public.[31]

Productivity concerns also cause many employers to monitor employees. Even minor personal internet use in the workplace can lead to millions in lost profits.[32] Off-duty, employers can claim fewer interests in monitoring, but in a world where telecommuting is on the rise, the line between office and home is blurring and this means that an employer may need to monitor an employee while working remotely. Additionally, employers may want to check against irresponsible drinking, and negligent driving as evidenced by traffic tickets, especially if the worker is in a driving profession.[33]

B. Employee’s perspective

When employers monitor their workers morale can decrease substantially.[34] Monitoring may also undermine intended purposes of increasing productivity by spurring stress related ailments such as increased illness and absenteeism.[35] Information gleaned from social media may also be inaccurate, forgeries of facebook accounts are commonplace. Moreover, monitoring is usually inequitable where employees are not represented by unions, “[b]ecause of the substantial interests individuals have in both employment and in privacy, invasive monitoring puts employees in a ‘catch-22’ situation, forcing them to sacrifice reasonable expectations of privacy because of their need to work.”[36]

Technological advances exacerbate the invasiveness of monitoring and allow employers to know intimate details about an employee’s life, as one commenter notes “what happens when an employer virtually observes the employee stopping during her lunch hour at Planned Parenthood and fires her based on assumptions about her position on family planning methods?”[37] Further, technology like social networking has become such an integral part of self expression. Although in the context of cell phones, the Supreme Court acknowledged that it may be that some forms of communication are “essential means or necessary instruments for self expression, even identification.”[38] This is just as true of social media.[39]

Employer monitoring has already altered the online behavior of many bloggers and social networking users, “29% of employees have become more conservative online because they fear that ‘employers can use anything and everything as an excuse to fire” them in a down economy.” Social networking and blogging merits protection because not only is it integral to self expression, it serves a socially useful purpose by keeping people connected, and sharing and breaking news in a more effective way than traditional means ever could.[40] Although First Amendment protection does not extend to workers in the private sphere, employer monitoring can affect speech in ways that would be unconstitutional if done by a government employer. Most Americans spend nearly a quarter of their lives at work;[41] do we want constitutional protections to extend to only three quarters of a person’s life? Do we want to allow employers to treat their employees like sex offenders, under constant surveillance?

Most social networking users begin using in their teens; because of this many of these users have material from their youth that depicts less than mature behavior. Young people’s past lawful, but unfortunate conduct should not harm their employment prospects later.[42] Even those with private profiles, as discussed in Part IV may still be at risk for having their profiles hacked by employers. Without protections we allow employers to be voyeurs and produce a chilling effect to use of online communications.[43] Finally, the right to adequate livelihood is an international human right; one should not have to waive expression rights to enjoy the right to a livelihood.[44]

C. Other Policy Considerations Make Line Drawing Difficult.

On one hand the free flow of information should not be impeded to protect what is usually discriminated against: misconduct and unpopular speech. We should not have to protect people from making public fools of themselves. Nevertheless, as the lifestyle discrimination statutes and case law discussed in Part IV attest to, employers who monitor off duty scrutinize a great deal of legal and socially important behavior including political speech.

Another issue is that the internet is by definition public, and speech is not being infringed by any unconstitutional means by employers checking social media. However, off-duty social networking use merits privacy protections because employees have a higher expectation of privacy off the clock.[45] Although any manager could check out an employee’s Facebook, there is a difference when this action is done with the intention to dig up dirt. This argument also fails to consider that employers may find ways to view even non public profiles.

Finally, we must also consider whether employers should be punished just because they are using information for actions socially disapproved of. After all, there are many anti-discrimination and collective bargaining labor laws designed to prevent employers from the really harmful discrimination. However, anti-discrimination lawsuits are not a simple means of protecting the worst forms of discrimination; they are among the most difficult cases to prove.[46] Employers who reserve the right to monitor of social network use and GPS location off duty can relatively easily use any information they gather as pretext for more heinous action. Finally, the low interest the employer has in off-duty behavior, and the high value of privacy in U.S. culture, tips the balance in favor of the employee. Although when employers suspect serious misconduct that would expose the employer to liability or lost profits, they should be allowed to monitor the employee with proper notice.

III. Common Law Protections Are Generally Not Available for Digital Off-Duty Monitoring

Private sector privacy actions are typically based in the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.[47] The elements for an intrusion claim are “[1] [intentional] intru[sion], physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns . . . [and] [2] the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”[48] In other words, did an individual have a reasonable expectation of keeping a matter private which the employer intruded upon. Voluntary disclosure of information is a problem for social networking users.[49] Some jurisdictions allow for an employer to use “intrusive and even objectionable means to obtain employment-related information about an employee.[50] Generally, invasion of privacy actions will not be available to bloggers and social network users given the public nature of these activities.[51] However, invasion of privacy claims may be available for monitoring off-duty personal cell phones,[52] home computer use, and location via GPS. Still, these claims will probably fail if the employer reserves the right to monitor in an employee handbook.[53]

One recent exception to waiver of a reasonable expectation of privacy via employer notice has been found if the communication is privileged. In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., a home care nursing professional used her employer provided laptop to communicate with her attorney via a web-based yahoo mail account.[54] The employer collected these emails in preparation for a lawsuit the employee filed against it. Although the employer use policy stated that employees can expect to be monitored, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her attorney-client privileged emails even on a work computer.[55]

IV. Current Statutory Causes of Action Provide Little Protection.

A. ECPA Claims Against Off-Duty Monitoring Fail.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted “to provide greater protection of an individual’s privacy from emerging communication technologies in the private sector.”[56] The Act “prohibits the intentional or willful interception, accession, disclosure, or use of one’s electronic communication.”[57] It extends the protections of the Wiretap Act to electronic communications; it allows for criminal prosecution as well as civil action.[58] However, “[c]ase law interpreting ECPA is virtually uniform in finding that employers can monitor with or without consent, even without notice.”[59] Further, courts disagree as to whether the interception of emails stored on a centralized server are prohibited by ECPA.

All that is necessary for a party to waive their privacy is to give so called consent, which can easily be done by the employer providing a poster or notice in a policy handbook that communications will be monitored.[60] Further, consent or notice is not required in many federal jurisdictions when equipment is used in the course of business.[61] Because the EPCA effortlessly allows employers to skirt the statute’s requirements, off-duty monitoring suits do not succeed against employers.[62]

B. SCA Claims Require Employers to Behave Extremely Irresponsibly.

The Stored Communications Act (SCA) prevents communications companies from turning over communications to the government, but also prohibits hacking and exceeding authorization to view information.[63] In Konop, an employee of Hawaiian Airlines created a blog, requiring authorization and terms of use that prohibited the airline management from reading and any disclosure of the contents of the blog.[64] Hawaiian Airlines used the usernames and passwords of other employees to access Konop’s blog. The company then terminated Konop after reading his critical commentary of the airline’s president and labor practices. The court held that because only a website user or provider could authorize a third party’s access under SCA, summary judgment should not have been granted for this claim.[65]

Although the employee here was given a cause of action, the remedy was limited because the court decided that “for a website such as Konop’s to be ‘intercepted’ in violation of the Wiretap Act, it must be acquired during transmission, not while it is in electronic storage.”[66] The First Circuit disagreed with this in United States v. Councilman, holding that communications in storage can be intercepted in violation of the ECPA.[67]

Another shortcoming of these statutes is that neither EPCA or SCA would not protect all instances of employer digital snooping. The following alteration of Konops facts illustrates this. If Hawaiian Airlines was given the Facebook login information of Konop’s Facebook friend, and used it to login and see Konop’s critical wall posts of the company; the employer would avoid liability under SCA because there is no Facebook policy prohibiting the use of another’s login information.[68] ECPA and SCA weaknesses points to the need for stronger statutory protections in the area of employee privacy.

C. CFAA Generally Does not Apply to Employers.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a criminal statute that prohibits the unauthorized access of computers involved in interstate or foreign commerce.[69] However, unless an employer hacked into an employee’s personal computer, an action would not be possible against a monitoring employer.

D. State Protections, Statutory Privacy and Lifestyle Discrimination Statutes Mostly Miss the Mark.

Though as many as ten state constitutions explicitly provide privacy protections, nine of these provisions are interpreted to require government invasion of privacy.[70] California is exceptional in that the state constitution provides a remedy for invasion of privacy actionable against private individuals.[71]

Twenty five states protect against employee discrimination for the use of tobacco and other legal products off-duty.[72] However, these laws would not protect against employer monitoring and adverse action based on political or other lawful expression gleaned from social network use. Five states prohibit adverse action based on political behavior.[73] Only California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota protect against discrimination from legal off-duty behavior in general,[74] but these statutes may be limited where an employer declares a policy that prohibits blogging about work.[75] Limiting employee monitoring is not a popular option even when tailored narrowly; Michigan and Illinois are the only states that prevent an employer from monitoring political activity.[76] Only eleven states have some form of RFID use restrictions, and none have GPS monitoring restrictions.

V. “Privacy Protection in Employment Act” a Proposal to Close Privacy Gap

Congress made two attempts to pass employee privacy legislation, the broad Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act in the 1990s and the toothless Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act in 2000.[77] Though these failed, federal legislation is necessary for several reasons. The courts are too slow and lack the technological expertise to adequately keep privacy up to date with technological changes. Moreover, “providing protections for employees on a state-by-state basis can cause “a race to the bottom” with states purposefully providing low protections to encourage business.”[78] To close the gaps in employee privacy law Congress should pass what some have call the “Privacy Protection in Employment Act”.[79] This Act would generally prevent all off-duty monitoring of employees in the home, and in any secluded area. Employers would only be permitted to monitor off-duty behavior if the employer has “reasonable grounds to believe the employee is engaging in behavior that will cause a significant concrete harm to the employer.”[80] However, the employer must carry the burden to prove reasonable grounds. An employer also must put the employee on notice of the scope and duration of any monitoring, and provide them an opportunity to review all information collected. The Department of Labor would also monitor compliance with these provisions, and a violation of the Act would allow a civil action with an allowance for plaintiff’s attorney fees.[81]

VI. Conclusion

Statutory and common law protections show that there should be a line between work and private life even in this age of diminishing privacy. However, these protections are inadequate to keep up with monitoring techniques. Although there are important interests in promoting the free flow of information and the profitability of businesses; the risk for discriminatory use of information is great. Interests in privacy must be balanced against interests in security of employment and reflect well reasoned normative views of society. This can be accomplished by enacting legislation like the Privacy Protection in Employment Act.

[1] Daniel J. Solove, Conceptualizing Privacy, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1087, 1138 (2002) (documenting the history of the concept of privacy and exploring new ways to think of it).

[2]Id. (“homes were primarily devoted to work, a shop with a place in the back or above to eat and sleep.”)

[3]Edward Shils, Privacy: Its Constitution and Vicissitudes, 31 Law & Contemp. Probs. 281, 289 (1966). See also Tamara K. Hareven, The Home and the Family in Historical Perspective, 58 Soc. Res. 253, 259 (1991) (“Following the removal of the workplace from the home as a result of urbanization and industrialization, the household was recast as the family’s private retreat, and home emerged as a new concept and existence.”).

[4]Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193, 196 (1890).

[5]C.f. Solove, supra note 1.

[6]Donald V. Nightingale, Workplace Democracy: An Inquiry into Employee Participation in Canadian Work Organizations 9 (1982).

[7]See Stephanie Chen, CNN International, Can Facebook get you fired? Playing it safe in the social media world, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/11/10/facebook.fired.social.media.eti… (reviewing story of woman fired for posting about her boss reprimanding her for union activity); Don Aucoin, MySpace vs. WorkPlace, Boston Globe, May 29, 2007, at D1 (describing an Olive Garden employee fired for posting MySpace pictures of herself); Hyoung Chang, Bud Man: Canned for Coors?, USA Today, May 18, 2005, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2005-05-18-beer-man_x.htm (finding a Budwieser employee was fired for drinking a Coors in public).

[8]Jane Kirtley, Privacy Protection, Safety and Security, Intellectual Property Course Handbook Series PLI Order No. 23334 15, 119 (Practising Law Institute, 2010) (citing Fact Sheet 7: Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, June 30, 2010, http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm#2c) (finding exceptions in California, where in state callers must be informed of monitoring, and in the Eleventh Circuit where the employer realizes the call is personal).

[9] American Management Association, 2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey: Many Companies Monitoring, Recording, Videotaping and Firing Employees, Feb. 8, 2008, http:// www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm.

[10]Although less is known, RFID presents the largest potential invasion of privacy issues; RFID can be placed in Id badges, clothing, cell phones, and just about anything without being detectible by employees. Jeremy Gruber, RFID and Workplace Policy, (last visited, Dec. 1, 2010) http://www.workrights.org/issue_electronic/RFIDWorkplacePrivacy.html#_ft….

[11]Id.

[12]Aligo – The Mobile Enterprise Software Company, WorkTrack, http://aligo.c3design.jp/products/workTrack/ (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

[13]Id.

[14]This feature is marketed to help reduce unnecessary billing time, but it has troublesome invasion of privacy implications. Jill Yung, Big Brother Is Watching: How Employee Monitoring in 2004 Brought Orwell’s 1984 to Life and What the Law Should Do About It, 36 Seton Hall L. Rev. 163, 173 (2005).

[15]Id.

[16]Aligo Inc., Aligo Customers, (last visited December 1, 2010), http://aligo.c3design.jp/customers/.

[17] Friedman, Barry A. and Lisa J. Reed, Workplace Privacy: Employee Relations and Legal Implications of Monitoring Employee E-Mail Use, 19 J. Bus. Ethics 75 (2007) (describing the follies of employer use of social networks as a monitoring tool).

[18] Jenna Wortham, More Employers Use Social Networks to Check Out Applicants, New York Times, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/more-employers-use-social-netwo… (finding an increasing trend in use of social networks to screen applicants).

[19]Career Builder, Press Release, Forty-five Percent of Employers Use Social Networking Sites to Research Job

Candidates, CareerBuilder Survey Finds, August 19, 2009, http://uncw.edu/stuaff/career/documents/employersusingsocialnetworkingsi…

[20]Frederick S. Lane III, The Naked Employee: How Technology Is Compromising Workplace Privacy 3-4 (2003).

[21] Id. (“Cell phone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification.”)

[22]Id. (“[E]mployees who need cell phones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own.”).

[23]City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 2630 (2010).

[24]The court also did not address whether employers can monitor their employees while off duty. C.f. Gregory I. Rasin & Ariane R. Buglione, Social Networking and Blogging: Managing the Conversation, N.Y.L.J., July 27, 2009, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202432487473&slreturn=1….

[25]See, e.g., Ariana R. Levinson, Carpe Diem: Privacy Protection in Employment Act, 43 Akron L. Rev. 331, 338 (2010).

[26]See generally, James A. Sonne, Monitoring for Quality Assurance: Employer Regulation of Off-Duty Behavior,43 Ga. L. Rev. 133, 140 (2008).

[27]Paul E. Starkman, What You Need to Know about Monitoring Employees’ Off-Duty Social Networking Activity (last accessed Dec. 2, 2010), http://chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publish….

[28]Id. (receiving over a million views in two days).

[29]Id.

[30]James Herron, Shell Data Leak May Compromise Safety Of Staff –Emails, Feb. 4, 2010 http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2010/02/04/shell-data-leak-may-compromise-….

[31]See Starkman, supra note 27.

[32]See, Association of Local Government Auditors, Monitoring Internet Usage, Spring 2010, http://www.governmentauditors.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti… This potential loss may only get worse as the average gen-y’er spends upwards of thirty four percent of their time online doing personal tasks, as opposed to the twenty five percent found in the rest of the working population. Burst Media, “Online At Work”, Nov. 11, 2007,http://www.burstmedia.com/pdfs/research/2007_11_01.pdf.

[33]Ronald J. Rakowski, Employee Off-Duty Conduct: Be Careful!, Sep 7, 2010, http://www.suite101.com/content/employee-off-duty-conduct-be-careful-a28….

[34]See Mia Shopis, Employee Monitoring: Is Big Brother a Bad Idea?, Dec. 9, 2003, http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/interview/0,289202,sid14_gci94….

[35]Jay P. Kesan, Cyber-Working or Cyber-Shirking?: A First Principles Examination of Electronic Privacy in the Workplace, 54 Fla. L. Rev. 289, 319-20 (April 2002)

[36]S. Elizabeth Wilborn, Revisiting the Public/Private Distinction: Employee Monitoring in the Workplace, 32 Ga. L. Rev. 825, 835 (1998).

[37]Yung, supra note 14at 174.

[38] City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 2630 (2010).

[39]See Peggy Orenstein, The Way We Live Now: I Tweet, Therefore I Am, August 1, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01wwln-lede-t.html

[40]I use social media broadly: it includes blogs, YouTube, and any other internet based means of conveying information.

[41]See supra note 36.

[42] Leigh A. Clark & Sherry J. Roberts, Employer’s Use of Social Networking Sites: A Socially Irresponsible Practice, 95 J. Bus. Ethics 507 (2010) (exploring the ethical concerns of employer use of social networking to monitor employees and screen applicants in the private workplace).

[43] Friedman, Barry A. and Lisa J. Reed. 2007. Workplace Privacy: Employee Relations and Legal Implications of Monitoring Employee E-Mail Use, 19 J. Bus. Ethics 75.

[44]Nevertheless, the U.S. does not recognize the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the optional protocol, which would give rise to a claim for damages for the right to work. G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (Dec. 16, 1966), Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force Jan. 3, 1976.

[45] Compare withthe following “the use of computers in the employment context carries with it social norms that effectively diminish the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to his use of his employer’s computers.” TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. App. 4th 443, 452 (2002) (holding that an employee who used a computer designated for working at home did not have sufficient privacy interests to prevent an employer from monitoring his computer use).

[46]See generally Michael Selmi, Why are Employment Discrimination Cases So Hard to Win?, 61 La. L. Rev. 555, (2001), see also Jonah Gelbach et al.,Passive Discrimination: When Does It Make Sense To Pay Too Little?, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 797 (2009) (“federal antidiscrimination law inadequately addresses either intentional or unintentional passive discrimination”)

[47] Tanya E. Milligan, Virtual Performance: Employment Issues in the Electronic Age, 38 Colo. Law. 29, 34 (2009) (exploring defamation, invasion of privacy, wiretap, EPCA, and SCA causes of action as a result of employer monitoring).

[48]Restatement 2d. Torts § 652B.

[49] Robert Sprague, Fired for Blogging, 9 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Mp. L. 355, 384 (2007) (exploring legal protections bloggers may be able to assert as a result of monitoring off duty conduct).

[50] Kelly Schoening & Kelli Kleisinger, Off-Duty Privacy: How Far Can Employers Go, 37 N. Ky. L. Rev. 287, 290-292 (2010) (exploring the limits of employer peering into the private lives of employees using technology under several privacy statutes as well as common law tort claims) (citing Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 957 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1992)).

[51]Sprague supra note 49at 363.

[52] But see Karch v. Baybank FSB, 794 A.2d 763 (N.H. 2002) (refusing to find a cause of action against an employer who uses information surreptitiously intercepted from a cell phone conversation by a third party to reprimand an employee).

[53]See e.g. Thygeson v. U.S. Bancorp, 2004 WL 2066746 (D. Or. 2004).

[54]990 A.2d 650 (N.J. 2010)

[55]Id. at 663-664 (“e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account, accessed on a company laptop, would remain private.”).

[56] Michael Newman, Shane Crase, What in the World is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act? An Overview of the ECPA Hurdles in the Context of Employer Monitoring, 54 Fed. Law. 12 (2007).

[57] 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520.

[58]18 U.S.C. §§2510 to 2712. Although an employer cannot violate the wiretap act because of a deficiency in language of the statute, they could be liable under the ECPA). Jill Yung, supra note 14at 182 n.90.

[59]Corey A. Ciocchetti, The Privacy Bailout: State Government Involvement in the Privacy Arena, 5 Entrepreneurial Bus. L.J. 597, 605 (2010).

[60]See United States v. Rittweger, 258 F. Supp. 2d 345, 354-55 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding a handbook made monitoring policy clear).

[61]Arias v. Mutual Cent. Alarm Serv. Inc., 202 F.3d 553, 559 (2d Cir. 2000).

[62]Cf. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) cert denied, 537 U.S. 119 (2003) (dismissing the 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(1)(a) claim).

[63] 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq.

[64]Konop 302 F.3d at 876.

[65]Id.

[66]302 F.3d 868, 878-879.

[67]See Newman supra note 56at 14 (quoting 418 F.3d 67, 79-81 (1st Cir. 2005)).

[68]See Facebook terms http://www.facebook.com/terms.php.

[69] 18 U.S.C. §1030.

[70]See, Corey A.Ciocchetti, The Privacy Bailout: State Government Involvement in the Privacy Arena, 5 Entrepreneurial Bus. L.J. 597, 620.

[71]Chico Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Butte Glenn Med. Soc’y, 557 F. Supp. 1190, 1203

(E.D. Cal. 1983) (finding an action against defendants for an infringement of the state’s constitutional privacy right to prevent procreative choice interference).

[72]Corey A.Ciocchetti, The Eavesdropping Employer: A Twenty-First Century Framework For Employee Monitoring, 17 (2010)http://www.futureofprivacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/The_Eavesdropping_Employer_%20A_Twenty-First_Century_Framework.pdf

[73]Id.

[74]Id.See also e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402.5 (“[i]t shall be a discriminatory or unfair practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee’s engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. . .”); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14-02.4-03 (“[i]t is a discriminatory practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire a person; to discharge an employee; or to [otherwise discriminate with respect to] participation in lawful activity off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours . . . .”).

[75] Levinson,supra note 25at 372.

Jessica Jackson, Colorado’s Lifestyle Discrimination Statute: A Vast and Muddled Expansion of Traditional Employment Law, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 143 (1996).

[76]Ciocchetti, supra note 72.

[77]Levinson,supra note 25at 343.

[78]Id.

[79]Id. at 331.

[80]Id. at 402 (These would exclude activities that merely reduce office morale, and injury to reputation and would include, but are not limited to activity such as: competition with employer’s business, reduction in the employees work or that of co-workers, harassment, obscene behavior if the employee is a child’s role model, financial harm, and complaints).

[81]Id. at 411.

Intensive One-Day Workshop for Law Firm Practice Group Leaders – Chicago, IL Aug 16th

Firing On All Cylinders: An Intensive One-Day Workshop for Law Firm Practice Group Leaders 16 Aug 2011 The University of Chicago – Gleacher Center Chicago, IL

You should attend this program if it is your challenge to:

Create a strong cohesive group out of a collection of bright, intelligent, autonomous individuals
Identify how, as a practice leader, you add value and what specifically is it that you can do, that is likely to actually affect the success of the group you lead
Positively impact and enhance client satisfaction – turning client needs into growth opportunities
Find a way to develop a strategic direction in an intensely competitive marketplace and have your colleagues actually want to work together
Lead effective meetings that result in some action plans being formulated and your colleagues taking responsibility for actually doing something

For more information and to register – please click here:

Selling the Main Street Fairness Act: A Viable Solution to the Internet Sales Tax Problem

Congrats to Michael J. Payne, CPA of Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law one of the winners of the 2011 Spring National Law Review Student Legal Writing Contest. Michael’s topic addresses the tremendous struggle in the regulation of sales tax collection on interstate internet purchases.

I. Introduction

States have long faced issues related to collecting sales and use tax when the seller lives in another state. Initially, disputed transactions involved purchases from mail-order catalogs and telephone orders, but with the advent and explosion of the World Wide Web, states now face a tremendous struggle in the regulation of sales tax collection on interstate internet purchases.

Today, fierce debates between internet retailers, states, and consumers regarding sales taxes on internet purchases are commonplace, yet the key issues remain unresolved. Retailers purport to be exempt from state sales tax requirements when they do not have a physical presence in the state in which their customers reside; states argue sales taxes are due regardless of physical presence; and consumers just want to find the best deal when making purchases, which often means they seek out ways to avoid paying sales taxes altogether.

As a result of fast-moving technological advances and slow-moving legislative actions, a substantial gap has developed in nearly every state between sales tax revenue due and collected. A study from the University of Tennessee estimated that between 2007 and 2012, states will sustain over $52 billion in losses from uncollected taxes on e-commerce sales.¹ In addition to enlarging state budget shortfalls, untaxed interstate sales create an unfair advantage to online sellers who are relieved from the onerous sales tax collection duties imposed on in-state and traditional brick-and-mortar sellers. Thus, online sellers can offer discounts on products purchased from out-of-state residents while still earning higher profits than their in-state competitors.

Two significant constitutional hurdles restrict state regulation of interstate sales taxation: the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause, with the former causing the majority of current problems. This article focuses primarily on resolving the Commerce Clause concerns and attempts to reconcile the interests of sellers, consumers, and states. It then proposes the adoption of a bill that was recently introduced in the House of Representatives: the Main Street Fairness Act.²

II. Background

A. The Mechanics of Internet Sales Taxation

A basic understanding of common Internet sales taxation is needed to grasp the ideas discussed in this article. As a general rule, purchasers of merchandise must pay a transaction tax to the state in which they reside, provided that state imposes a sales or use tax.³ When the retailer collects the tax on behalf of the consumer and remits it to the state, it is called a sales tax.When a retailer fails to collect a sales tax, the consumer is obligated to report her purchase to the state and pay an equivalent use tax. The process is simple when the seller is in the same state as the purchaser: the seller collects taxes on local sales and remits them to the state. The more complicated and increasingly more common scenario is when the seller operates from another state; this situation has been the topic of numerous cases, statutes, opinion columns, Internet blogs, and scholarly articles, including this one.

Although state taxation of internet sales is a modern issue, courts have long debated whether the Constitution’s Commerce Clause limits the ability of a state to apply its sales and use tax provisions to out-of-state retailers.⁴ This Part describes the most significant cases.

B. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois

In 1967, the Supreme Court considered whether a state could require a mail order company to collect and remit sales taxes on sales to residents of that state when that company had no physical presence in the state. In National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois,⁵ the taxpayer was a mail order company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Missouri. It was licensed to do business only in those states. The taxpayer maintained no office or warehouse in Illinois, had no employees, agents, or salespeople there, and conducted no significant advertising there. Moreover, all contacts the company had with the residents of the state were through the mail or a common carrier. Illinois attempted to require the taxpayer to collect and remit sales and use taxes from Illinois residents who purchased the company’s goods by mail order.

The Court held that the Commerce Clause requires “some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property, or transaction it seeks to tax.” Mail order transactions alone do not create that minimum connection. The Court reasoned “[t]he very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from . . . unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control.”⁶

C. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

Twenty-five years after National Bellas Hess, the Court affirmed in part its prior decision when it faced a similar set of facts in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.⁷ In Quill, North Dakota attempted to require the taxpayer, a Delaware corporation with no significant tangible property or employees in North Dakota, to collect and remit use taxes from sales to North Dakota customers. The taxpayer solicited business through catalogs and flyers and delivered all its merchandise by mail or common carrier from out-of-state locations. The State argued that its statute subjecting every retailer that solicits business in the state to the tax was constitutional when the retailer had “engage[d] in regular or systematic solicitation of a consumer market in th[e] state.”

The Court disagreed, recognizing two constitutional barriers to a state’s ability to force out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales taxes: the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. The Court distinguished the Due Process Clause from the Commerce Clause, explaining:

Although the “two claims are closely related,” the Clauses pose distinct limits on the taxing powers of the States. Accordingly, while a State may, consistent with the Due Process Clause, have the authority to tax a particular taxpayer, imposition of the tax may nonetheless violate the Commerce Clause. The two constitutional requirements differ fundamentally, in several ways. . . . [W]hile Congress has plenary power to regulate commerce among the States and thus may authorize state actions that burden interstate commerce, it does not similarly have the power to authorize violations of the Due Process Clause.⁸

The Court concluded that because Quill had purposefully directed its activities at North Dakota, it established minimum contacts with the State, and thus the Due Process Clause did not prohibit the State from imposing its use tax against Quill.

The Court next considered whether the state statute ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. It recognized Congress’ constitutional authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,”⁹ but also recognized that the “dormant” Commerce Clause¹⁰ reserves to Congress the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce even when it has not spoken directly on a subject. The dormant Commerce Clause requires that the retailer have a “substantial nexus” with the state before the state can force the retailer to collect and remit sales taxes, which often translates into a bright line physical presence test.

The Court held that North Dakota did not have the power to impose sales taxes on Quill because Quill had no physical presence in the state. It also found that the state’s taxation would unduly burden interstate commerce, noting that “similar obligations might be imposed by the nation’s 6,000-plus taxing jurisdictions,” thus vastly increasing the complexity of sales tax compliance for interstate retailers.

D. Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

In the shadow of the Quill decision, a new and far-reaching mode of commerce arose: the World Wide Web. Many retailers no longer needed to send catalogs to solicit sales. Instead, they could simply set up websites, make them apparent to search engines, and wait for customers to come to them. The following chart illustrates the historic growth of the Internet:

Year	Estimated Number of Websites	Estimated Percentage of U.S. Households with Internet Access	E-Commerce sales
1992 (Quill)	< 30	< 25%	n/a
2000 (SSUTA)	17,000,000	50%	$27.6 billion
2010	249,000,000	77%	$202.6 billion

The monumental growth in online sales has contributed to the two major problems currently associated with the taxation of remote sales: administrative burdens to sellers and lost revenues to states from general noncompliance. In 1999, state and local governments from twenty-six states responded to these by banding together and implementing a new sales tax system. The group’s goal was to create and implement a method to unify and simplify the collection and remittance of sales taxes across the country, an effort that culminated in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project.¹¹

The Project works through two steps. First, states voluntarily join the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement by adopting its provisions as state law and conforming to the tax administration procedures set for by the Agreement. Second, interstate retailers voluntarily register with the Project’s online system. Sellers only register once and are thenceforth obligated to collect and remit sales taxes to member states when they sell products to residents of those states.

The Agreement reduces the administrative burden of tax compliance by focusing on two main goals: uniformity and simplification. The Agreement promotes uniformity in multistate sales tax collection at five levels: terminology, tax bases, registration, sourcing, and reporting. It simplifies sales tax collection and reporting by focusing on four areas: limited tax rates, seller liability for incorrectly reported exemptions, simplified tax forms, and electronic tax remittances. Additionally, it provides for sales tax software that, if used, would provide immunity to users from audits and corresponding liability.

A. Congressional Efforts to Regulate Internet Sales Taxes

Although states have been very active recently in attempting to regulate sales tax collection for out-of-state retailers, the power to regulate taxation of interstate commerce ultimately lies in Congress’s hands, as established by the Commerce Clause and reiterated in Quill. Since Quill, Congress has attempted several times to pass legislation that would provide federal authorization for states to mandate sales tax collection from out-of-state retailers, thus allowing states to bypass the substantial nexus requirement imposed by Quill.¹²However, each bill that has been proposed has expired without being voted on by the House or Senate.

B. Recent State Efforts to Bypass Quill’s Substantial Nexus Requirement

Dissatisfied with Congressional efforts (or lack thereof) to increase cooperation with sales tax laws, states have attempted in various ways to establish a substantial nexus between online retailers and their state and thereby satisfy the requirements of the Commerce Clause.

a. Borders Online v. State Board of Equalization

In 2005, the California Court of Appeals held in Borders Online v. State Board of Equalization that Borders’ retail stores in the state acted as authorized representatives of the associated online store when those stores accepted refunds of personal property sold by the internet retailer, thus establishing a nexus sufficient for the imposition of sales and use taxes under the Commerce Clause.¹³

After Borders, remote sellers in California sought clarification on whether their particular fact situations produced sufficient nexus to subject them to California state and local taxation. Courts look at various factors to determine the level of nexus,¹⁴ and consider these factors concurrently. An increasingly relevant factor that courts have examined is the presence of a company’s affiliates in a state, or “attributional nexus.” Courts have long looked at attributional nexus as a way to satisfy the Commerce Clause requirements, although the issue has never been directly addressed by the United States Supreme Court.

b. Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance

Most recently, a New York trial court, later affirmed by the New York Appellate Division, weighed in on attributional nexus in Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.¹⁵ In 2008, New York attempted to curtail lost revenues from internet sales by amending the definition of “vendor” in its tax law, thus requiring each of Amazon’s Associates to collect sales taxes. Amazon then brought suit claiming that the Provision violated the Commerce Clause by imposing tax collection obligations on out-of-state entities that had no substantial nexus with the state. The court dismissed Amazon’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action, holding that the statute is not unconstitutional facially or as-applied. The court took a broad view of the substantial nexus requirement when it held that Amazon had created a substantial nexus with the State, even though Amazon had no offices, property, employees, or agents in the state. The court noted that physical presence “need not be substantial;” however, there must be “more than a slight presence.”

SinceAmazon, many New York retailers have terminated associations with in-state retailers and local affiliates to avoid being subject to sales tax collection. One website purports to list sellers that have removed New York affiliates after the passage of New York’s legislation, naming almost sixty remote sellers.¹⁶ The list includes some large companies such as Overstock, KB Toys, ShopNBC, CafePress, and Fingerhut. As a result, the statute may have actually hurt local retailers, the very group it was trying to protect by leveling the sales tax playing field.

c. The Bordersand AmazonFallout

The Amazon ruling has influenced other states to pass similar legislation in attempts to collect their own “Amazon tax.” For instance, in 2009, Rhode Island passed a statute that requires online merchants generating more than $5,000 in sales through in-state affiliates to register and collect sales tax on all its taxable sales in Rhode Island.¹⁷ Like the New York law, Rhode Island’s statute requires that the seller enter an agreement with a Rhode Island resident before the seller would be subject to sales tax collection.

Following the lead of New York and Rhode Island, North Carolina passed a statute¹⁸ enacting its own Amazon tax with a $10,000 floor, explaining that the new law codifies the United States Supreme Court’s 1960 decision in Scripto v. Carson that a state “may require tax collection by a remote retailer that had contracts with ten independent contractors in the state who solicited orders for products on its own behalf.”¹⁹ North Carolina simultaneously modernized its previous terminology by replacing “mail order” with “remote sales.”²⁰ Similar statutes were introduced in eleven other states.²¹

Colorado took its sales tax collection efforts a step further. In addition to enacting its own “Amazon tax,” Colorado’s H.B. 1193 (2010) would require sellers that do not collect sales taxes to send customers that purchase products online annual statements listing total purchases.²² Retailers would also send a copy of all purchases to Colorado’s Department of Revenue so that residents may be held accountable for unpaid use taxes.²³ The bill would authorize Colorado’s Executive Director of the Department of Revenue to issue a subpoena to an out-of-state retailer if that retailer refuses to voluntarily furnish that information. However, this statute is the subject of a recent lawsuit brought by the Direct Marketing Association. A federal court for the District of Colorado recently granted DMA’s motion for preliminary injunction against Colorado, holding that its statute “discriminates patently against interstate commerce” and imposes undue burdens on retailers.²⁴

Oklahoma took a different approach to regulating sales tax collection from out-of-state sellers.²⁵The Oklahoma law obligates certain remote sellers to post on their websites, catalogs, and invoices notice of consumers’ obligations to pay Oklahoma use tax on electronic and mail order purchases of tangible personal property.²⁶ Oklahoma’s law has been criticized as superfluous in application to internet and mail order sellers that have physical presence in the State because current Oklahoma use tax statutes already impose the obligation on those sellers to collect use taxes. Furthermore, the law is criticized as unconstitutional when applied to out-of-state sellers that have no physical presence in the State, because Quill’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause would prohibit Oklahoma from enforcing tax collection responsibilities on a seller with no physical presence in the state.

d. The Case for a Federal Solution

A uniform federal solution is superior to progressive state-by-state attempts to collect sales and use taxes for three reasons. First, states are tiptoeing on the edge of a river of constitutionally-protected consumer privacy matters. Second, strict enforcement of use tax laws at an individual level is hardly tenable given the historic lack of enforcement and the resulting lack of personal accountability. The proposed solutions impose real burdens on people and will discourage online purchases. Can you recall everything you have purchased online in the last year? In the last five years? You may have to if you are in a progressive sales tax collection state. It is much simpler and more intuitive for consumers to pay the tax up front as one swift transaction than to log their purchases, store the information, and file a use tax return with their payment at some later date. The increased hassles of recording each purchase could drive people back into brick-and-mortar stores, nullifying the efforts of Amazon and other remote sellers. For this reason, remote sellers should embrace the Main Street Fairness Act as a means to create certainty and consistency in the marketplace.

Finally, the trending methods of sales and use tax enforcement are completely inefficient. This is a situation in which it makes sense to take collective federal action rather than pursue state collection efforts at the individual taxpayer level. States would be forced to allocate substantial resources toward collection efforts while receiving no greater benefit than if the tax had been collected at the time of sale. With the Main Street Fairness Act, states would incur virtually no additional costs of expansion and would continue to use their existing collection methods. States are already entitled to collect these taxes whether in the form of sales or use taxes; why not utilize retailers with software and systems already in place?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has argued that states’ implementation of the “Amazon law” could be an effective means to require sales tax collection from internet sellers that use affiliate programs.²⁷ However, the Center observed, Amazon laws are only a partial solution to the broader sales tax problem. Not every internet retailer operates an affiliate program, so the Amazon law does nothing to spur collection efforts from the numerous vendors who advertise by other means. The Center concluded that a comprehensive solution will require a federal law empowering states and localities that have streamlined their sales tax collection efforts to require all large remote sellers to collect sales taxes. This would allow states to force collection on remote sellers regardless of whether the sellers have a physical presence in their customers’ states. Such a federal grant of commerce power is the precise objective of the Main Street Fairness Act of 2010.

III. Main Street Fairness Act

The Main Street Fairness Act, sponsored by former Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA), seeks to “promote simplification and fairness in the administration and collection of sales and use taxes.”²⁸ It would do so by allowing states to force “remote sellers” (companies that sell products online, by mail order catalogs, cable TV shopping, telephone, etc.) to collect sales and use taxes from customers and remit them to states. States acting alone do not have the authority to require a seller with no physical presence in the state to collect taxes on sales to that state’s residents. However, Congress affirmatively possesses the authority to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States and Congress may authorize state actions that burden interstate commerce. The Main Street Fairness Act would grant states explicit authority to burden interstate commerce by allowing states to mandate collection and remittance of taxes on remote sales to their residents.

Why should Congress give the Main Street Fairness Act a second glance when a form of the current bill has essentially been rejected every other year for the last seven years? This section will focus on three ways the Main Street Fairness Act would benefit interstate commerce: (1) it would provide states a tool to enforce active yet frequently disobeyed laws regarding sales and use tax reporting and payment; (2) it would level the playing field between Main Street and “e-street;” and (3) it would help to close the enormous budget gap that is growing daily as a result of the disparity between taxes due and taxes actually collected.

A. Enforce Current Laws

The Main Street Fairness Act would grant federal authority to states, thus allowing states to enforce sales and use tax laws that are currently in place but are often not obeyed. Sales or use taxes are legally due on internet sales if the item is otherwise taxable under state law. Generally, retailers collect taxes from customers on behalf of states for convenience. However, when a customer purchases a taxable item and the retailer fails to collect a sales tax, that customer is obligated to pay a use tax and file a use tax return with the state.

People often do not pay use taxes on internet purchases for two reasons. First and most commonly, the average consumer is unaware that a tax is due when she purchases a product from an online retailer such as Amazon or Overstock. In other cases, the consumer may be aware that a tax is due but fails to pay sales or use taxes because he believes the law is not enforced and he will not be caught. This is the more dangerous scenario because in knowingly failing to pay a tax that is legally due, the consumer crosses the line of intentional disregard and is more likely to violate that law again.

In an effort to both inform residents of their obligation to pay use taxes and to actually collect those taxes, many states have started to include a line on their income tax returns where taxpayers are supposed to calculate and declare unpaid taxes. For example, Michigan includes the following line on its individual income tax return: “Use Tax: Use tax due on internet, mail order or other out-of-state purchases,” then references a separate worksheet that is provided to help the taxpayer calculate use tax due.²⁹

Some states have begun to enforce use tax compliance on an individual level, sending tax bills to consumers that had made taxable purchases but failed to pay a tax. Nebraska recently cracked down on a local March of Dimes chapter after the chapter purchased 4,000 t-shirts from an online vendor in Florida. Nebraska tracked purchases for the preceding five years and could collect an estimated $215,000 from the charity, or approximately thirteen percent of the donations. Other states are less stringent, allowing a de minimis exemption for individuals.³⁰

Some states have attempted to enforce sales and use tax compliance by leveraging customers to act as whistleblowers when companies knowingly fail to collect those taxes.³¹ Under these false claim statutes, individual consumers may bring suits on behalf of the state against parties that knowingly violated sales tax laws. If successful, the whistleblower would be entitled to a portion of the state taxes collected.

While states have had some success tackling the noncompliance issue on their own through enacting Amazon laws or similar statutes, the federal government is the sole body that is constitutionally charged with regulating interstate commerce and therefore should provide states with a tool to help them enforce their laws and uniformly tax interstate commerce. If passed, the Main Street Fairness Act could effectively serve as that tool.

B. Level the Playing Field

Perhaps the strongest policy reason for implementing a federal law to delegate Commerce power to states is the inherent unfairness that results from forcing some companies to charge their customers sales taxes while others do not have to charge any sales tax.

Two groups are hurt by current disparities in sales tax enforcement: local retailers and large companies with physical presence in many states. Small local retailers (mom and pop shops) are at a distinct disadvantage when their online competitors do not have to charge customers sales tax. Recent studies indicate that many consumers are beginning to follow a “just looking” trend whereby they test products in local stores by seeing, touching, and feeling them, then rush home to order the same products online where they can avoid paying sales taxes.³² According to one consumer behavior report, seventy-five percent of online consumers sought to purchase from merchants that did not charge sales tax and offered free shipping.³³ The savings are even greater when buying in bulk, thus enticing large organizations to shift their purchasing patterns away from small local retailers to reduce costs in a bad economy.

Ironically, opponents of internet sales tax regulation argue that enforcing sales tax laws would do greater harm than good to small retailers.³⁴Such opponents reason that the last decade has provided an unprecedented opportunity for individuals to start small companies that leverage the Internet to grow quickly, thus spurring the economy and creating jobs.Less than one month after the Main Street Fairness Act was introduced, a group of U.S. Representatives introduced the “Supporting the Preservation of Internet Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses” resolution.³⁵ The Preservation bill focuses on avoiding “any legislation that would grant State governments the authority to impose any new burdensome or unfair tax collecting requirements on small online businesses and entrepreneurs.” Representative Dan Lungren, sponsor of the Preservation bill, commented:

The most effective thing we can do to help our economy recover is to remove the roadblocks standing in the way of our nation’s job creators. At a time when we are trying to foster a sustained economic recovery, it doesn’t make sense to saddle entrepreneurs with tax requirements that stifle growth. The possibility of new taxes being levied on online retailers will have a negative impact on the online marketplace. We should send a clear message that Congress should not burden small businesses with unfair tax schemes.

The Preservation bill is constructed on two false premises. First, it presupposes that federal legislation granting states Congressional authority to collect sales taxes would impose a new tax. As discussed in the previous section of this article, sales and use taxes are already due in nearly every state on online purchases. A federal grant of authority would therefore not impose a new tax, but loosen the handcuffs Quill placed on states to enforce their own laws. Second, the Preservation bill is aimed at protecting small businesses and entrepreneurs. While noble in its purpose, the Preservation bill is simply unnecessary; the Main Street Fairness Act’s small seller exception would exempt from sales tax collection the very businesses the Preservation bill aspires to protect.

Another group that is damaged by the current system is large online retailers that have a physical presence in many states, such as Wal-Mart or Target. Most, if not all, online sales from these stores are subject to sales taxes because they have a physical presence in nearly every state. These companies put appropriate resources into ensuring that the taxes are properly collected and remitted. The inconsistency arises when comparing a company like Wal-Mart to a company like Amazon. Both are large companies that sell products to residents in every U.S. state and territory. However, Wal-Mart has stores in every state, while Amazon only has physical presence in a handful of states, thus creating a real disparity that needs to be addressed.

C. Bridge the Budget Gap

It is no secret that states are struggling to find revenue sources while tax collections are down nationwide. Advocates of internet sales taxation correctly promote the Main Street Fairness Act as a way for states to raise revenue without imposing additional taxes. While allowing states to enforce sales tax collection on all of its residents’ purchases would not solve the current budget crisis, it would allow states to take a healthy step in the right direction.

IV, Conclusion

Regardless of which political party is in the majority, the Main Street Fairness Act should be given consideration as a viable solution to the problems discussed above. Its passage would comport with the constitutional grant of authority over interstate commerce to Congress, while allowing states the freedom to choose whether to voluntarily join the Agreement. This system is ideal because states can preserve their independence by joining or leaving the Agreement at any time, while providing substantial benefits to out-of-state retailers by simplifying and unifying their reporting requirements. The Main Street Fairness Act is the bandwagon heading toward uniformity and fairness in sales tax collection. States just need to jump on.

[1] Donald Bruce, William F. Fox & LeAnn Luna, State and Local Government Sales Tax Revenue Losses from Electronic Commerce, U. Tenn. Center Bus. Econ. Res., Apr. 13, 2009, available at http://cber.utk.edu/ecomm/ecom0409.pdf.

[2] Main Street Fairness Act, H.R. 5660, 111^th Cong. (2010).

[3] Five states do not currently impose a sales tax: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon. Richard Stim, Sales Tax on the Internet, http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sales-tax-internet-29919.html.

[4] See, e.g., Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), National Bella Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967), Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960).

[5] National Bella Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967) at 756.

[6] National Bella Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967) at 758–60. (internal citations omitted).

[7] Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

[8] Quill at 305 (internal citations omitted).

[9] U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3.

[10] The dormant Commerce Clause is a judicially-created doctrine that “rests entirely on the negative implications of the Commerce Clause of Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.” See Kathleen M. Sullivan, Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law 174 (Thomson West 2007).

[11] Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, Registration Frequently Asked Questions, [hereinafter FAQs], http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=faq. …

[12] Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act, S. 1736, H.R. 3184, 108^th Cong. (2003); Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act, S. 2152, 109^th Cong. (2005); Streamlined Sales Tax Simplification Act, S. 2153, 109^th Cong. (2005); Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act, S. 34, H.R. 3396, 110^th Cong. (2007).

[13] Borders Online v. State Board of Equalization, 129 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1189–92 (Cal. App. 2005).

[14] Id. at 664–666, (listing some of the factors courts have examined in searching for substantial nexus: business ownership structure, common logos and names, common merchandise, use of private or branded credit cards, links between affiliates’ websites, credit card reward programs, gift certificates and gift cards, trademarks, goodwill, and return policies).

[15] Amazon.com, LLC v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Tax’n & Fin., 877 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).

[16] Id.; NYaffiliates.com, Merchants Removing NY Affiliates, http://www.abestweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105869 (last visited Nov. 29, 2010).

[17] R.I. Gen. Laws -§ 44-18-15 (2009); see also State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Revenue, Important Notice: Definition of Sales Tax “Retailer” Amended, available at http://www.tax.state.ri.us/notice/Retailer_definition_NoticeC.pdf.

[18] N.C Gen. Stat. § 105-164.8(b)(3) (2009).

[19] North Carolina Department of Revenue, Sales Tax Law Changes, Form E-505 (8-09), Part II: Other Legislative Changes, available at http://www.dornc.com/downloads/e505_8-09.pdf.

[20] N.C Gen. Stat. § 105-164.3(33c) (2009).

[21] Jennifer Heidt White, Safe Haven No More: How Online Affiliate Marketing Programs Can Minimize New State Sales Tax Liability, 5 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 21 (2009), (listing the following states as having introduced versions of the affiliate tax: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, California, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, Virginia, and Illinois).

[22] H.B. 10-1193, 67^th Gen. Assem., 2^nd Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2010), available at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/B30F5741….

[23] Id.

[24] Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Huber, Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2011 WL 250556, Civil No. 10-cv-01546-REB-CBS, (D.Colo. 2011).

[25] 2009 OK H.B. 2359, (Feb. 1, 2010) available at http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/textofmeasures/textofmeasures.aspx.

[26] Edward A. Zelinsky, The Paradoxes of Oklahoma’s Amazon Statute: Weak Duties, Expansive Coverage, Often Superfluous, Constitutionally Infirm, Cardozo Sch. L., Inst. Advanced L. Stud., Working Paper No. 315, at 17 (Oct. 2010).

[27] Michael Mazerov, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, New York’s “Amazon Law”: An Important Tool for Collecting Taxes Owed on Internet Purchases, 1, July 23, 2009, http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-23-09sfp.pdf.

[28] H.R. 5660 at 1.

[29] 2009 Michigan Individual Income Tax Return MI-1040, line 25, available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/taxes/MI-1040_305378_7.pdf.

[30] Minnesota, for example, exempts individuals with total purchased under $770 from paying the use tax, which is equivalent to $50 of use tax liability. Four other states have similar exemptions for individuals. See Nina Manzi, Use Tax Collection on Income Tax Returns in Other States, Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives, *2, June 2010, available at http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/usetax.pdf.

[31] Leslie J. Carter, Blowing the Whistle on Avoiding Use Taxes in Online Purchases, 2008 U. Chi. Legal F. 453–54 (2008).

[32] Google Retail Advertising Blog, Trend to Watch: Research & Purchase Process is Multi-Channel, (March 3, 2010), http://googleretail.blogspot.com/2010/03/trend-to-watch-research-purchas….

[33] Sara Rodriguez, Economic Climate Shifts Consumers Online, PriceGrabber.com (March 25, 2009), https://mr.pricegrabber.com/Economic_Climate_Shifts_Consumers_Online_Mar….

[34] Congressman Daniel Lungren, Lundgren Introduces Resolution to Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs from New Sales Taxes, Feb. 16, 2011, http://lungren.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=39&sectiontree=6,39&itemid=759.

[35] H.R. 1570, 111^th Cong. (2010), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills….

Global LPO Conference, U.S. – Buyers and Vendors Meet -June 15-16 Grand Hyatt – New York, NY

This conference aims to bring together law firm leaders such as partners, general counsels and other potential stakeholders in the LPO industry to share practical experiences in the nascent services for clients. The New York meeting will focus on how to implement the human and social capital for the benefit of the industry at large.

The Global LPO Conference – Buyers and Vendors Meet in USA is an event to develop the business relationship of both buyers and vendors. This event will address genuine transformation of the outsourcing landscape from theoretical to practical. Leading authorities from global legal associations will assess the impact of changing policies in the legal offshoring industry. Key law firm partners and general counsel will give their thoughts and apprehensions about offshoring work to countries like India, Philippines, South Africa and others. LPO veterans, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to address those concerns and help buyers find the best possible legal support. Global lawyers and general counsel will learn how to prepare case presentations to win over their boards of management.

For more Information – Please Click Here:

Standing and In Pari Delicto Issues Arising in Bankruptcy Cases

Congrats to Rui Li of the The University of Iowa College of Law -one of winners of the Spring 2011 National Law Review Student Legal Writing Competition: Rui’s topic addresses whether a bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against attorneys who allegedly helped that corporation’s management with the fraud.

1. Introduction

Corporate and managerial fraud is pervasive in today’s economic climate. When fraud leaves a company insolvent and forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code, oftentimes bankruptcy trustees commence legal actions against attorneys to generate recoveries for the benefit of the debtor’s estate. A common scenario goes something like this: A company is in dire financial straits before the fraud or is created as a vehicle for the fraud. The defendant is the corporation’s attorney, who assists the corporation in the fraud. The attorney is hired to ensure the company’s compliance with existing law. The attorney does the bidding of the company’s management in pursuance of their fraud. After the company’s collapse, the bankruptcy trustee sues the attorney for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and legal malpractice.

Drawing upon the equitable defense that bars recovery by a plaintiff bearing fault with the defendant for the alleged harm, common law principles of agency imputation, and the Constitutional requirement that a plaintiff has standing to sue, a defendant may move to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the bankruptcy trustee lacks standing to sue.

This Note provides an analysis of the issue whether the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against attorneys who allegedly helped that corporation’s management with the fraud.

**2. The In Pari Delicto Doctrine**

a) Background

In pari delicto means “at equal fault.” It is a broadly recognized equitable principle and common law defense that prevents a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages resulting from the wrongdoing.[1] The policy behind this doctrine is to prevent one joint wrongdoer from suing another for damages that resulted from their shared wrongdoing.[2] Therefore, if a bankruptcy trustee brings a claim against an attorney on behalf of the corporation, and if the corporation is involved in the corporation’s wrongful conduct which serves as the basis for the claim, the in pari delicto may bar the claim.

The use of the doctrine against bankruptcy trustees emerged in the wave of corporate frauds in the last few decades. This novel application required the introduction of an important new element: agency law. Under agency principles, if the principal acted wrongfully through an agent in the scope of that agency relationship, then the wrongdoing of the agent is attributed to the principal. Because the acts of corporate managers in the course of their employment are imputed to the corporation, and because a bankruptcy trustee “stands in the shoes” of a debtor corporation, the fraudulent acts of the debtor’s former managers will be imputed to the trustee—unless the trustee can show that management was acting entirely on its own interests and “totally abandoned” those of the corporation to break the chain of imputation.[3]

An analysis of the equitable defense in pari delicto at issue is separable from a standing analysis.[4] “Whether a party has standing to bring claims and whether a party’s claims are barred by an equitable defense are two separate questions, to be addressed on their own terms.”[5]

b) The Second Circuit’s Approach

In Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit adopted the controversial approach of treating in pari delicto as a question of standing rather than an affirmative defense. Specifically, the standing analysis in the Second Circuit begins with the issue of whether the trustee can demonstrate that the third party professional injured the debtor in a manner distinct from injuries suffered by the debtor’s creditors.[6] In many jurisdictions, the question of the trustee’s standing ends here.[7] In Wagoner, the Second Circuit went further and added a second inquiry that incorporates the equitable defense ofin pari delicto.[8] By combining these two issues, the Wagoner rule blends the in pari delicto question into a rule of standing.

In Wagoner, the sole stockholder, director, and president of a corporation had used the proceeds of notes to finance fraudulent stock trading.[9] After the corporation became insolvent, the trustee brought claims against the defendant, an investment bank, for breach of fiduciary duty in allowing the company’s president to engage in inappropriate transactions.[10] The court held that because the president participated in the alleged misconduct, his misconduct must be imputed to the corporation and the bankruptcy trustee. This rationale derives from the agency principle that underlies the application of in pari delicto to corporate litigants: the misconduct of managers within the scope of their employment will normally be imputed to the corporation.[11] The court ruled that the trustee lacked standing to sue the investment bank for aiding and abetting the president’s alleged unlawful activity.[12] By adopting the Wagoner rule, the Second Circuit upped the ante by making an equitable defense a threshold question of standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage, rather than an affirmative defense better resolved on summary judgment or at trial.

c) Approaches of Other Circuits

Although the Wagoner rule still prevails in the Second Circuit, a majority of other courts have declined to follow it, including the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. These circuits have “declined to conflate the constitutional standing doctrine with the in pari delicto defense.”[13] “Even if an in pari delictodefense appears on the face of the complaint, it does not deprive the trustee of constitutional standing to assert the claim, though the defense may be fatal to the claim.”[14]

The Eighth Circuit held that in pari delicto cannot be used at the dismissal stage.[15] On a motion to dismiss, the court is generally limited to considering the allegations in the complaint, which the court assumes to be true in ruling on the motion.[16] Because in pari delicto is an affirmative defense requiring proof of facts that the defendant asserts, it is usually not an appropriate ground for early dismissal.[17] An in pari delicto defense may be successfully asserted at the pleading stage only where “the facts establishing the defense are: (1) definitively ascertainable from the complaint and other allowable sources of information, and (2) sufficient to establish the affirmative defense with certitude.”[18] Thus, the in pari delicto defense is generally premature at this stage of the litigation, and the court must deny the motion to dismiss.

The existence of a possible defense does not affect the question of standing.[19]Standing is a constitutional question, and all a plaintiff must show is that they have suffered an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and that the requested relief will likely redress the alleged injury. In this matter, the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits’ approach is more convincing. Those courts hold that whether a trustee has standing to bring a claim and whether the claim is barred by the equitable defense of in pari delicto are two separate questions and that the in pari delicto defense is appropriately set forth in responsive pleadings and the subject of motions for summary judgment and trial.

3. Standing Issues The Trustees Face

a) Background

The next question is whether the bankruptcy trustee fulfills the constitutional requirement of standing. Article III specifies three constitutional requirements for standing. First, the plaintiff must allege that he has suffered or will imminently suffer an injury. Second, he must allege that the injury is traceable to the defendant’s conduct. Third, the plaintiff must show that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury.[20]

A critical issue in evaluating whether a trustee or receiver has standing to sue is whether the claim belongs to the corporate debtor entity or to the individual investors of the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court held in Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York, 406 U.S. 416, 433-34 (1972), that a bankruptcy trustee has standing to represent only the interests of the debtor corporation and does not have standing to pursue claims for damages against a third party on behalf of one creditor or a group of creditors. Although the line is not always clear between the debtor’s claims, which a trustee has statutory authority to assert, and claims of creditors, which Caplin bars the trustee from pursuing, the focus of the inquiry is on whether the trustee is seeking to redress injuries to the debtor that defendants’ alleged conduct caused.[21]

b) The Shifting Focus of the Second Circuit

In Wagoner, the Second Circuit held that the corporation and the trustee did not have standing to bring a claim because a “claim against a third party for defrauding a corporation with the cooperation of management accrues to creditors, not to the guilty corporation.”[22] The rationale for this rule is “though a class of creditors has suffered harm, the corporation itself has not.”[23] Without cognizable injury, the trustee representing the debtor corporation failed to meet the constitutional standing requirement.

Commentators have criticized the Wagoner rule that there is no separate injury to the corporation on several grounds. First, the court’s finding that a corporation is not harmed when its assets are squandered effectively ignores the existence of the corporation during the bankruptcy process.[24] Furthermore, the Wagonercourt seems to acknowledge the trustee’s right to sue the guilty managers for damages done to the corporation. Such a construction leads to the absurd result that when management and its accomplices defraud a corporation, management can be sued on behalf of the corporation for the harm caused to the corporation, but the accomplices cannot be sued on behalf of the corporation because the corporation was not harmed.[25] Recognizing the faults of this rule, the Second Circuit recognized that there was “at least a theoretical possibility of some independent financial injury to the debtors” as a result of the defendant’s aid in the fraud.[26] Nevertheless, the court denied the plaintiff’s standing, relying on the observation that any damage suffered by the debtor was passed on to the investors, and “there was likely to be little significant injury that accrues separately to the Debtors.”[27] In other words, most of the alleged injuries in Hirsch were suffered by third parties, not by the debtors themselves. The Second Circuit shifted the focus of the Wagoner rule from lack-of-separate-injury (the first inquiry of theWagoner rule) to the in pari delicto (the second inquiry) in Breeden v. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, 336 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2003). In that case, the court denied the trustee standing, holding that even if there was damage to the corporation, the trustee lacked standing because of the debtor’s collaboration with the corporate insiders.[28]

c) Approaches of Other Circuits

In Lafferty, the creditors’ committee brought an action against the debtor’s officers, directors and outside professionals, alleging that through participation in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, the defendants wrongfully prolonged the debtor’s life and incurred debt beyond the debtor’s ability to pay, ultimately forcing the debtor into bankruptcy.[29] The Lafferty court articulated different kinds of harms to the corporation: (1) fraudulent or wrongful prolongation of an insolvent corporation’s life, (2) prolongation that causes the corporation to incur more debt and become more insolvent, and (3) diminution of corporate value had prolongation not occurred.[30] Recognizing that conduct driving a corporation deeper into debt injures not only the corporate creditors, but the corporation itself, the Third Circuit held the committee had standing to sue the outsiders on behalf of the debtor.[31]The court also noted that although the Tenth and Sixth Circuits had applied the in pari delicto doctrine to bar claims of a bankruptcy trustee, those courts assumed that the bankruptcy trustee at least has standing to bring the claim.[32]

The Eighth Circuit held that a trustee who had alleged sufficient injury traceable to the actions of the defendants had standing to sue.[33] The court held that the defendant law firm and attorneys participated in stripping the corporation’s assets and that the injury was traceable to the activities of the lawyers who engineered the transaction to the detriment of their client.[34] In addition, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Third Circuit in Lafferty and the Ninth Circuit (in Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP 421 F.3d at 1004) rejected the argument that a cause of action for harm to an insolvent corporation belongs to the creditors rather than the corporation. The Eighth Circuit adopted the rationale of Lafferty that simply because the creditors may be the beneficiary of recovery does not transform an action into a suit by the creditors.[35]

The Ninth Circuit found that the trustee had standing to pursue breach of contracts and duties against attorneys, auditors and investment bankers where, if defendants had not concealed the financial condition of debtor, the debtor might have filed for bankruptcy sooner and additional assets might not have been spent on a failing business.[36] “This allegedly wrongful expenditure of corporate assets qualifies as an injury to the firm which is sufficient to confer standing upon the Trustee.”[37] The court stated that “We rely only on the dissipation of assets in reaching the conclusion that the debtor was harmed.”[38] “A receiver has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against third parties who allegedly helped that corporation’s management harm the corporation.”[39]

To sum up, when a director or officer enlists the help of attorneys to misstate the financial health of a company, it causes significant harm to a corporation. Harms include: (1) the fraudulent and concealed accrual of debt which can lessen the value of corporate property, (2) legal and administrative costs of bankruptcy, (3) operational limitations on profitability, (4) the undermining of business relationships, and (4) failed corporate confidence.

If court were to afford standing to trustee, third parties would be deterred from negligent, reckless, or other wrongful behavior. It will provide a means for increasing attorneys’ liability for the wrongs they commit. While limitless liability for attorneys is not the solution, increasing liability will require attorneys to answer in court when they fail to detect fraud or manipulation on the part of directors and officers that a reasonable attorney would discover.

4. Conclusion

Attorneys are equipped with the tools to prevent fraud. An attorney may always report fraud to the appropriate authority or refuse to participate in the fraud. However, attorneys may not want to jeopardize important client relationships unless the consequence of inaction makes reporting more beneficial. Given the turmoil of the financial markets since 2008, increased liability for attorneys could help alleviate corporate fraud and bolster consumer confidence in this distressed market.

For the above reasons, the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against attorneys who allegedly helped that corporation’s management with the fraud.

[1] Terlecky v. Hurd (In re Dublin Sec., Inc.), 133 F.3d 377, 380 (6th Cir.1997).

[2] In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 383 F. Supp. 2d 587, 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

[3] Wight v. Bank American Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 2000).

[4] See generally Jeffrey Davis, Ending the Nonsense: the In Pari Delicto Doctrine Has Nothing to Do with What is Section 541 Property of the Bankruptcy Estate, 21 Emory Bankr.Dev. J. 519 (2005); Gerald L. Baldwin, In Pari Delicto Should Not Bar a Trustee’s Recovery, 23-8 Am. Bankr.Inst. J. 8 (2004); Tanvir Alam, Fraudulent Advisors Exploit Confusion in The Bankruptcy Code: How In Pari Delicto Has Been Perverted To Prevent Recovery for Innocent Creditors, 77 Am. Bank. L.J. 305 (2003); Robert T. Kugler, The Role of Imputation and In Pari Delicto in Barring Claims Against Third Parties, 1 No. 14 Andrews Bankr.Litig. Rep. 13 (2004);Making Sense of the In Pari Delicto Defense: “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?” 23 No. 11 Bankr. Law Letter 1 (Nov.2003).

[5] Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co.,267 F.3d 340, 346-47 (3d Cir.2001).

[6] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 118.

[7] R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d at 340.

[8] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 118.

[9] Id. at 116.

[10] Id. at 116-17.

[11] Wight, 219 F.3d at 86.

[12] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 120.

[13] In re Senior Cottages of America LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases).

[14] Id. at 1004.

[15] Id. at 1002.

[16] Wilchombe v. Tee Vee Toons. Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009).

[17] Knauer v. Jonathon Roberts Financial Group, Inc., 348 F.3d 230, 237 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2003).

[18] Gray v. Evercore Restructuring, LLC, 544 F.3d 320, 325 (1st Cir. 2008).

[19] Novartis Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 190 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 1999).

[20] Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 756-58 (1984).

[21] Smith v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 421 F.3d 989, 1002 (9th Cir. 2005).

[22] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 120.

[23] Id.

[24] Jeffrey Davis, Ending the Nonsense: The In Pari Delicto Doctrine Has Nothing to Do with What Is § 541 Property of the Bankruptcy Estate, 21 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 519, 525 (2005).

[25] Id. at 527.

[26] Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir. 1995).

[27] Id.

[28] Id. at 100.

[29] Lafferty Co., 267 F.3d at 348-49.

[30] Id.

[31] Id. at 354.

[32] Id. at 358.

[33] In re Senior Cottages Of America, LLC, 482 F.3d 997.

[34] Id.

[35] Id. at 1001.

[36] Smith v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 421 F.3d at 1003 (9th Cir. 2005).

[37] Id.

[38] Id. at 1004.

[39] Id.

U.S. Supreme Court Establishes State-of-Mind Requirement for Inducing Infringement Liability

As posted in the National Law Review yesterday by R. (Ted) Edward Cruz of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP – a good overview of the knowledge a patent infringement plaintiff needs to prove:

Today (May 31), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6 (2011), holding that to prove inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) a plaintiff must prove that the infringer had knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” The Court also held that this knowledge requirement can be satisfied by evidence of “willful blindness.”

Morgan Lewis represented SEB in this case. The leader of our U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Practice, Ted Cruz, argued the case on February 23. In today’s decision, by an 8-1 vote, our client prevailed.

On the facts of the case, SEB had developed an innovative method to produce household deep fryers and received a U.S. patent for this invention. A foreign competitor, Global-Tech Appliances, purchased one of SEB’s fryers in Hong Kong where it would not have patent markings, reverse-engineered SEB’s fryer, and then copied the SEB fryer’s unique technology. Global-Tech hired a patent attorney to conduct a patent search, but deliberately chose not to tell that attorney that its fryer was a copy of another company’s commercially successful fryer. The attorney did not locate SEB’s patent in its patent search. Global-Tech then sold its fryers to U.S. companies to sell within the United States. SEB sued Global-Tech for patent infringement and inducing infringement, and the jury found for SEB on all counts.

On appeal, Global-Tech challenged the finding on inducing infringement liability due to a lack of evidence of its actual knowledge of SEB’s patent. Section 271(b) provides that “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” Over the last two decades, the Federal Circuit has offered various formulations of what mental-state requirement must be proven to establish liability under § 271(b). On appeal in this case, the Federal Circuit held that the mental-state requirement could be satisfied by evidence of “deliberate indifference of a known risk that a patent exists” and that Global-Tech’s actions constituted such deliberate indifference.

The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s analysis but nonetheless affirmed the judgment. The Court held that inducing infringement liability under § 271(b) requires evidence that the infringer had knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Adopting the argument advanced by SEB, the Court held that this knowledge requirement could be satisfied by evidence of “willful blindness.” After analyzing the record, the Court held that the judgment for SEB could be affirmed based on the evidence of Global-Tech’s willful blindness. The Court focused on Global-Tech’s decision to purchase the fryer to reverse-engineer it overseas (where it would not have U.S. patent markings) and then to deliberately withhold from its attorney the basic information that its fryer was a copy of SEB’s fryer.

This decision clears up an issue of long-standing confusion in the Federal Circuit as to the mental-state requirement of § 271(b). The Court’s explication of the standard should be welcome news to both innovators and holders of patents. The decision prevents frivolous claims of inducing infringement by requiring proof of knowledge of infringement. At the same time, it allows companies to protect their intellectual property rights against those companies that willfully blind themselves to a lawful patent in order to copy a commercially successful product. Corporations hiring attorneys to conduct patent searches should be sure to disclose to their attorneys any products copied or relied upon in developing a new technology.

Florida Minimum Wage To Increase Tomorrow

An important FYI posted today by Jay P. Lechner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP about the impending increase in minimum wage in Florida:

Florida’s minimum wage increases tomorrow to $7.31 per hour — a 6 cent increase. The minimum wage for tipped workers also goes up 6 cents, to $4.29 per hour. These increases are the result of a recent circuit court decision in Leon County ruling that the state’s method of calculating minimum wage was incorrect under the Florida Constitution.

The Florida Constitution and the Florida Minimum Wage Act require the state to annually “calculate an adjusted state Minimum Wage rate by increasing the state Minimum Wage by the rate of inflation for the twelve months prior to each September 1st using the consumer price index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers….” Neither the Constitution nor the Act specifically addresses deflation in the computation of the minimum wage. Yet, due to a slight cost of living decrease during the 12-month period preceding September 1, 2009, the state lowered the state minimum wage rate in 2010 from $7.21 to $7.06, dropping it below the federal minimum wage. Then, in determining the 2011 rate, the state calculated an increase to $7.16 (still below the federal rate) based on a 1.4 percent cost of living increase during the 12-month period preceding September 1, 2010.

The court found that the state’s method for calculating the state minimum wage rate was incorrect because, based on the constitutional language, the minimum wage cannot be decreased. Soon after the ruling, a Florida Senate bill intended to amend the Act consistent with the state’s approach was withdrawn from consideration.

When the federal and Florida minimum wage rates differ, Florida employers are required to pay the higher rate. Tomorrow’s increase raises the Florida minimum wage above the $7.25 federal minimum wage rate. Thus, employers currently paying federal minimum wage to eligible workers in Florida must adjust their pay practices accordingly.

Background

Renkemeyer Decision

Implications

Share this:

Like this:

Two research entities. Two patent right agreements. One patent. Who wins?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Introduction

I. Social and Historical Context of Off Duty Monitoring

A. History of Worker Monitoring

B. Recent Developments of Off Duty Monitoring

C. Unanswered Legal Questions

II. Should There Be a Line Between Work and Private Life Online? If so Where Should We Draw the Line?

A. Employer’s Perspective

B. Employee’s perspective

C. Other Policy Considerations Make Line Drawing Difficult.

III. Common Law Protections Are Generally Not Available for Digital Off-Duty Monitoring

IV. Current Statutory Causes of Action Provide Little Protection.

A. ECPA Claims Against Off-Duty Monitoring Fail.

B. SCA Claims Require Employers to Behave Extremely Irresponsibly.

C. CFAA Generally Does not Apply to Employers.

D. State Protections, Statutory Privacy and Lifestyle Discrimination Statutes Mostly Miss the Mark.

V. “Privacy Protection in Employment Act” a Proposal to Close Privacy Gap

VI. Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

You should attend this program if it is your challenge to:

Share this:

Like this:

I. Introduction

II. Background

A. The Mechanics of Internet Sales Taxation

B. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois

C. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

D. Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

A. Congressional Efforts to Regulate Internet Sales Taxes

B. Recent State Efforts to Bypass Quill’s Substantial Nexus Requirement

a. Borders Online v. State Board of Equalization

b. Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance

c. The Bordersand AmazonFallout

d. The Case for a Federal Solution

III. Main Street Fairness Act

A. Enforce Current Laws

B. Level the Playing Field

C. Bridge the Budget Gap

IV, Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Introduction

2. The In Pari Delicto Doctrine

a) Background

b) The Second Circuit’s Approach

c) Approaches of Other Circuits

3. Standing Issues The Trustees Face

a) Background

b) The Shifting Focus of the Second Circuit

c) Approaches of Other Circuits

4. Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

**2. The In Pari Delicto Doctrine**