Constitutional Law Archives - Page 9 of 10

Eleventh Circuit Strikes Down Provisions of Controversial State Immigration Laws

The National Law Review recently published an article by Natalia S. Ballinger of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding State Immigration Laws:

On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit struck down several provisions of Alabama and Georgia’s controversial immigration statutes, HB 56 and HB 87, respectively.

Specifically, the court blocked four provisions of HB 56, including the requirement that public schools investigate students’ immigration status and a provision that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work. The court found that the statute impermissibly interfered with children’s constitutional right to education and further ruled against the state’s measure to criminalize the failure to carry immigration documents and the transporting or harboring of undocumented immigrants. In addition, the provision invalidating contracts with undocumented immigrants was also rejected by the court.

The court also struck down Section 7, a key part of HB 87 which criminalized harboring or assisting undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that it undermined federal law by “present[ing] an obstacle to the execution of the federal statutory scheme and challeng[ing] federal supremacy in the realm of immigration.”

Notably, the court upheld several provisions of both laws, including the right of police officers to check the immigration status of individuals who are suspected of a crime.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision: Impacts on Life Sciences

The National Law Review recently published an article by Robyn S. Shapiro of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision:

The June 28, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) impacts the life sciences industry in a number of ways, including impacts on innovation and compliance initiatives by medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies.

Innovation

A number of provisions in the Act provide incentives and resources for product innovation. First, it is expected that more than 30 million Americans will obtain health care coverage on account of the Act. A bigger pool of Americans with health coverage to pay for treatment will yield growth in pharmaceutical sales and, perhaps, the ability to charge higher drug prices, which, in turn, could spur innovation. In addition, the Act created the Therapeutic Discovery Project Program, through which $1 billion in new therapeutic discovery project grants and tax credits will be awarded. In 2010, 2,923 companies specializing in biotechnology and medical research in 47 states and the District of Columbia received awards under the grant program. Firms can opt to receive either a grant or a tax credit under the program, which allows both profitable companies and start-ups that are not yet profitable to benefit. A third measure in the Act likely to have a positive impact on innovation is a provision that gives biotech companies a dozen years of exclusive rights to the data underpinning their products.

On the other hand, the ruling leaves intact a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, which is estimated to cost the industry $20 billion over the next 10 years, and which manufacturers fear will burden innovation. On the other hand, some believe that, as in the case of pharmaceutical manufacturers, expansion of health care coverage will increase the demand for medical devices and offset the effect of the tax.

The Supreme Court ruling affects not only the speed but also the direction of life sciences product innovation. PricewaterhouseCoopers[1] has identified five broad pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives (such as reimbursement for adoption of new technologies), resources for innovation (such as academic medical centers), a supportive regulatory system, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community of venture capitalists and other investors. Various provisions in the Act promote the development of more cost-effective ways of delivering care, including a measure that calls for more real-world evidence of a new drug’s superiority over other treatments in order to qualify for reimbursement. Such provisions may spur more definitive product innovation, as opposed to production of “me too” drugs and new devices that make only modest improvements to existing products.

Compliance

Certain provisions in the Act impact compliance initiatives in the life sciences industry. The Act includes “Sunshine Provisions,” which require pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to track and report payments and other transfers of value greater than $10 to physicians and teaching hospitals. While under prior laws improper industry-provider relationships primarily were uncovered by whistleblowers and government investigations, the Sunshine Provisions place the onus on life sciences manufacturers to disclose their relationships with providers, for review by others. This enhanced transparency and data accessibility could result in sharper scrutiny by enforcement agencies of information about improper relationships and violations of fraud and abuse laws. Moreover, other provisions in the Act enhance the government’s ability to pursue violations of existing fraud and abuse laws–e.g., revisions to the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute; and strengthening of fraud enforcement tools through changes to the False Claims Act, civil monetary penalty laws, sentencing guidelines and exclusion authority, and dedication of $250 million for fraud and abuse enforcement. These changes will require life sciences companies to carefully structure and manage relationships with providers, and ensure that their compliance initiatives include efficient and effective operating procedures for tracking and reporting payments, educating and training sales and research personnel, and auditing and monitoring provider relationships.

[1] PricewaterhouseCoopers, Medical Technology Innovation Scoreboard: the Race for Global Leadership, January 2011.

Illuminating the “Invisible Branch” – the Supreme Court

The National Law Review recently featured an article by Health Government Relations Team of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP regarding the Supreme Court:

While Congress’ deliberations over policy dominate the news, the Supreme Court often flies under the radar of the American people, unless there is a major case before it. Many Americans are not well-versed in the Supreme Court’s dealings; in fact, a Pew Research Center political knowledge survey found that in July 2010 only 28% of Americans polled could correctly identify John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the Court. As much of the health policy world’s attention is focused on the Supreme Court due to the Affordable Care Act case (Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.), below is a refresher on Supreme Court procedure and why there will be months of silence from the Court between the oral arguments and the announcement of the Court’s decision.

First, a few Supreme Court basics. The Supreme Court’s term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts for a year. The Court is typically in recess from late June or early July until the end of the term in October. The current term began on Monday, October 3, 2011, and will be wrapping up business for this term over the next two months. The next term will begin on Monday, October 1, 2012.

Each week when the Court is in session, the Justices hold a conference. Only the Justices are allowed in the room, and as a testament to the collegiality of the Court, each conference begins with each Justice shaking hands with every other Justice. During conferences, the Justices review petitions for certiorari or, in other words, decide which cases the Court will hear. The Justices then review the cases heard previously that week. Each Justice, beginning with the Chief Justice and going in order of seniority (who has been on the court the longest), is given time to state his or her views and raise any questions without interruption. Each Justice, in seniority order, then casts a preliminary vote on the case. In the case of the health reform arguments, which were heard March 26-28, the Justices met in conference to discuss the case and cast their votes on Friday, March 30.

So, if the votes have been cast and an outcome decided, why has there been no announcement of a decision yet? What has been going on since March 30?

After the votes are cast, the Court must then produce documents that state the Court’s reasoning for deciding a certain way. If the Chief Justice is in the majority (generally an opinion five or more Justices join), he or she assigns who will write the opinion. If the Chief Justice dissents from the majority opinion, the senior-most associate Justice in the majority assigns the opinion. The Chief Justice or most senior Justice may choose to write the opinion him or her self. Likewise, the most senior Justice in the minority assigns who will write the dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but might lay groundwork for future cases. Additionally, any Justice may write a concurring opinion, and anyone can write a separate dissenting opinion should they agree with the ruling but for a different rationale. In the case of a tie vote, which might happen if there is a vacant seat or if a Justice recuses themselves from the case, the decision of the lower court stands. In this situation, the case is not considered to be binding precedent.

Once the opinions have been drafted, they are circulated to all the other Justices for comments and recommended changes. If a Justice in the majority agrees with the outcome expressed but disagrees with the argument in the drafted opinion, they may write their own concurring opinion or, at anytime before the Court’s opinion is handed down, they may switch their vote. In some controversial cases, the outcome of the case has actually reversed from what the original outcome would have been, due to Justices flipping their vote. Then once the draft has been revised, the opinion is signed by the author. Other Justices who are in agreement then “sign on” to the opinion, and the verdict is subsequently made public.

In regard to the timing of decision announcements, there are no rules other than it must be released by the last day of term (before the Court goes into recess in June or July). Unanimous or less contentious decisions generally take less time than cases on more controversial subjects. Given the weight and attention given to the health reform cases, a decision is not expected until late in the term, with most people predicting an announcement coming June 21^st, 25^th or 28^th.

Are Bloggers’ Free Speech Rights Under Attack?

The National Law Review recently published an article by Jesse L. Jenike-Godshalk of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding Blogger’s Free Speech:

A recent legal opinion has some concerned about just how broad free speech rights may be for bloggers who are not associated with institutional media, such as newspapers and television stations. In Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ, slip op. (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011), a federal judge ruled that a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” was not “media” and, therefore, was not entitled to certain First Amendment protections that are reserved for the media.Despite the alarm that this case has generated, it actually is not a major setback for the free speech rights of bloggers.

The Case: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

From late 2010 to early 2011, Crystal Cox made numerous blog posts in which she accused Obsidian Finance, LLC and one of the company’s senior principals, Kevin Padrick, of corrupt, fraudulent, and illegal conduct. Obsidian and Padrick subsequently sued Cox for defamation. Rather than hiring an attorney, Cox chose to defend pro se.

In August 2011, before the case went to trial, the judge granted summary judgment to Cox with regard to all but one of her blog posts, because the posts were statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment. See Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ, slip op. (D. Or. Aug. 23, 2011). A statement, such as a blog post, can be the basis for a defamation suit only if the statement is a provable assertion of fact. In contrast, statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment. According to the judge, blog posts, by their very nature, are usually statements of opinion.

Prior to the trial, the judge still had several issues that he needed to resolve. Among these issues was Cox’s claim that she was “media” and therefore, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the plaintiffs could not recover damages from her for defamation without proof that she was at least negligent in making the allegedly defamatory statements. The judge rejected that Cox was “media,” writing:

Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” is considered “media” . . . . Without any . . . authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is “media” . . . .

Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not “media.”

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ, slip op. at 9 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011). Following this ruling, the case went to trial, and the jury found for the plaintiffs, awarding $2.5 million in damages.

Not a Major Setback

Despite the concern that this case has generated, the case is not a major setback for the free speech rights of bloggers, and it can even be regarded as a pro-free speech case. First, some of the judge’s statements suggest that bloggers enjoy expansive First Amendment rights. In his ruling on summary judgment, the judge stated that blog posts, by their very nature, are usually “opinions” and not provable assertions of fact. Such “opinion posts” are protected under the First Amendment and are not actionable as defamation—regardless of whether the writer is “media.”

Second, the judge established a very low bar for what a blogger must do to enjoy the additional free speech protections that are reserved for “media.” To wit, a blogger must present some evidence that he or she is a journalist. Cox lost this issue because she presented no evidence.

The judge provided her with a list of seven types of evidence that she could have offered. This list does not create an exacting standard of proof for a blogger to meet. To be considered “media,” a blogger would not need to offer all seven types of evidence. In fact, a blogger would not necessarily need to offer any of the seven types of evidence. The list is not exhaustive, but is merely “[f]or example.” A blogger must present “evidence of this nature.” Thus, a blogger could prove that he or she is “media” by presenting types of evidence not on the list. In addition, most bloggers probably would be able to present some evidence of the types that are on the list—e.g., “proof of editing,” “keeping notes of conversations,” or “creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others.”

Had Cox hired an attorney, the attorney almost surely would have been able to offer some evidence that Cox was “media.” Actually, had Cox hired an attorney, she might have won the entire case on summary judgment—and she would have entirely avoided the issue of whether she was “media.” Herein lies the real lesson from this case: If you are sued for defamation, get yourself an attorney.

High Court: Police Tracking of Suspect Via GPS Requires Warrant

Recently found in The National Law Review an article by Rachel Hirsch of Ifrah Law regarding a recent High Court Decision Requiring a Warrant:

Last November, we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s oral argument in United States v. Jones, which posed the question of whether police need to obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle during a criminal investigation.

We noted that in this case, 21st-century technology had come face to face with the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment. We were hoping that the high court would uphold the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and hold that this action is a search that requires a warrant, but we took a pass on predicting what the Court would actually do.

On January 23, 2012, the Court decided the case – unanimously against the government and in favor of defendant Antoine Jones. The decision is fairly gratifying for those of us who believe it desirable to curb prosecutors’ power by imposing restrictions upon it, including, where appropriate, the requirement of a judge-issued warrant.

It turns out that both the advocates of the original-intent approach to constitutional interpretation, epitomized here and in general by Justice Antonin Scalia, and those who prefer the doctrine of the “living Constitution,” led here by Justice Samuel Alito, agree that the use of a GPS device by the government constitutes a search and requires a warrant.

Scalia, writing for a majority of the Justices, observed that prosecutors had intruded upon Jones’ property in way that would have been a “trespass” under common law.

Prosecutors “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” Scalia wrote. “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” And for Scalia, that fact alone was enough to decide the case.

Alito, joined by three Justices who concurred in the result, used quite a different line of reasoning and sharply criticized Scalia’s majority opinion, saying that ironically, it relied upon 18th-century tort law to decide a case involving 21st-century technology.

“This holding, in my judgment, is unwise,” Alito wrote. “It strains the language of the Fourth Amendment; it has little if any support in current Fourth Amendment case law; and it is highly artificial.”

Instead, Alito wrote, he “would analyze the question presented in this case by asking whether [Jones’] reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.” Alito observed that for decades, the Court has invoked the concept of “reasonable expectations of privacy” in a number of cases to define the nature of a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and to expand the definition of “search” to actions that do not involve a trespass to someone’s property.

Even though Alito is often identified with the pro-prosecution, conservative wing of the Court, he took the defendant’s side in this case. As our blog post last November noted, at oral argument Alito expressed concern about how easy it is these days “to amass an enormous amount of information about people” by the use of today’s technology.

Alito’s opinion followed similar lines. In the absence of legislation about police use of GPS tracking, he wrote, “The best that we can do in this case is to apply existing Fourth Amendment doctrine and to ask whether the use of GPS tracking in a particular case involved a degree of intrusion that a reasonable person would not have anticipated.”

This is good news for constitutional rights and for defendants. Whatever approach one takes to the Fourth Amendment, it’s clear that prosecutors can’t attach a GPS to a suspect’s car without a warrant.

Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County: Reading Constitutional Fairness And Supply Side Economics Into The Virginia Tax Code

Recently posted in the National Law Review, Winner of the Winter 2011 Student Legal Writing Contest, Adam Blander of Brooklyn Law School wrote an article regarding the recent decision of Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County:

In the recent decision of Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County,[1] the Virginia Supreme Court held that the gross receipts of a taxpayer’s local business branch reflected activity generated outside of the branch itself, and was therefore not taxable to Chesterfield County as a licensing privilege. This Note argues that despite the rather case-specific and constrictive holding of the decision (which was decided on state-statutory grounds), the facts of the case actually confronted the Court with a much broader, yet more delicate constitutional and public policy determination — what constitutes “fair” tax apportionment of large multi-state businesses?

I. Background: Constitutional Boundaries of State Tax Apportionments

Tax apportionment is the attempt by a governing body to levy taxes based on a corporation’s earned income in that jurisdiction.[2] Almost by definition, “[a]ny state tax apportionment formula will be inaccurate – either overstating or understating the portion of a corporation’s income that should be subject to tax.”[3] Consequently, any formula, at some level, is unfair. In Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution required all state taxes affecting multi-state businesses to be, among other things, “fairly apportioned.”[4] In Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, the Court explained that a “fairly apportioned” tax must be both “internally” and “externally consistent.”[5] Container directed courts to test for “internal inconsistency” through engaging in a hypothetical exercise: if more than 100 percent of the business’s income would be taxed if every jurisdiction applied the challenged apportionment formula, then formula was internally inconsistent.[6]Internal inconsistency is a facial challenge – the taxpayer need only prove that he faces a “theoretical risk of multiple taxation.”[7] The more elusive element of externalinconsistency, on the other hand, requires the challenged formula to “actually reflect a reasonable sense of how income is generated.”[8] As such, the taxpayer must show by “clear and cogent evidence that the income attributed to the State is in fact out of all appropriate proportions to the business transacted in that State” or that it “has led to a grossly distorted result.”[9] In Goldberg v. Sweet, the Court clarified that that “[t]he external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.”[10]

The practical effect of these Supreme Court decisions is that state courts have been entrusted with the daunting task of determining what constitutes “fair apportionment.” State courts have analyzed challenges to tax schemes utilizing these Supreme Court directives, but have also taken cues from their state’s common law tradition, the state’s own statutory code, and, when possible, the legislative intent of the state’s taxing body. Patrolling for constitutional defects presents an interpretative and political challenge to any court adjudicating tax disputes- how should it reconcile a taxpayer’s right to be free from unfairly apportioned taxes (even if the “unfairness” is entirely theoretical), while at the same time, faithfully interpret the tax systems passed by the legislative body, whose purpose is to collect vital revenue from all taxpayers in its jurisdiction? This dilemma becomes all the more problematic when the taxpayer is a complex interstate business, which may organize its corporate make-up or accounting scheme in an attempt to avoid payingthese taxes. The Virginia Supreme Court faced such a dilemma in Ford Motor Credit Company.

II. Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County: The Facts

In February 2007, Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC), filed in Virginia circuit court an “Application for Correction of Erroneous Assessment of Business, Profession and Occupation License [“BPOL”] Tax,”[11] claiming it had mistakenly overpaid Chesterfield County, Virginia for the tax years of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. FMCC asserted that its BPOL payments to Chesterfield County, which was based on “the entire gross receipts of loans related to its Richmond branch,”[12] did not actually “reflect the limited contribution of the Richmond Branch to [its] nationwide business.”[13] As such, FMCC sought a refund of $1,515,935.05.[14]

FMCC, a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, is a “financial services provider, primarily to the automobile purchase or loan lessee environment,” headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, with hundreds of sales branches throughout the Country, the Richmond branch being one of them.[15] The FMCC headquarters provided the Richmond branch with the capital needed to provide loans, and dictated to the branch “the policies and criteria governing loan approval, contract terms, and other management issues.”[16]

Roughly 75 percent of the branch’s revenue came from “retail and lease contracts,” in which the branch would provide financing to customers wishing to purchase or lease a vehicle from a Ford Motor Company dealership. While the Richmond branch provided the administrative duties necessary to effectuate a loan, such as reviewing the loan application, collecting paperwork and forwarding account information, [17] it generally “did not process funds, receive payments, engage in collection or other customer service activities, or handle delinquent debts.”[18] Upon approval of the loan, the paperwork was forwarded to a service center, in charge of taking title to the vehicle,[19] and the “branch had no further involvement in the loans.”[20] FMCC would then record these loans as receivables in its internal “management, analysis and performance system” (“MAPS”).[21] FMCC would also “book” as revenue any payments due to FMCC. In the event of default on a loan, FMCC would record revenue once the “principle was satisfied on the note.”[22] FMCC paid BPOL taxes based on the gross receipts that MAPS attributed to the Richmond Branch.

FMCC argued that MAPS, in fact, was not an “an activity based system,” but merely a “contract revenue-based system.”[23] In other words, MAPS tracked revenue via the branch in which the loan was originally processed, but was unable to verify which office was actually responsiblefor the specific revenue-generating activities.[24] An FMCC accounting expert testified that it would be “very difficult” to design a system which actually “attribute[d] revenue based on where services are performed.”[25]Accordingly, the BPOL tax assessment, which was based on the gross receipts of “all loans originating in the Richmond Branch” failed to consider the role of other offices in the administering of these loans, including, in particular, the Dearborn headquarters. Because reliance on the gross receipts did not actually reflect revenue collected based on the Richmond branch’s activities, FMCC argued that the BPOL tax, as administered, violated the “fair apportionment prong” for local taxation set forth in Brady.[26] The expert proposed that a BPOL tax based on payroll apportionment would more accurately reflect “all the activities [of the Richmond branch] thatgeneratedrevenues” which, incidentally, would entitle FMCC to a sizable refund.[27]

Unmoved, the circuit court dismissed FMCC’s application with prejudice, finding that the “MAPS figures accurately reflect the gross receipts generated as [a] result of the distinct efforts of the Richmond Branch” and consequently, was not “‘out of all appropriate proportion’ to the business transacted in the locality,” thus satisfyingBrady’s fair apportionment requirement.[28]

III. Ford Motor Credit Company: The Decision

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court’s decision, and found for FMCC. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser declined to directly address the constitutional challenges under Brady, and instead held that the assessment contravened the Virginia Taxation Code. Nonethless, this Note contends that the decision was not an exercise in “constitutional avoidance”: while the Court did not state so explicitly, it read into the state Tax Code its own value-laden interpretation of what constitutes “fair apportionment,” regardless of whether such an interpretation was a faithful interpretation of the actual legislation. In so doing, the Court hinted that any alternate interpretation of the Code faced the risk of being challenged on constitutional grounds as well.

The Virginia Tax Code allows the “governing body of any county” to collect “liscence taxes” (BPOL taxes) upon any person, firm, or corporation “engaged” in any business or trade “within the county.”[29] The question, therefore, was whether “gross receipts [] falls within a locality’s statutory power to tax.”[30] Citing a prior Virginia case, City of Winchester v. American Woodmark (Woodmark I), the Court noted that additional tax burdens “are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. Whenever there is just doubt, that doubt should absolve the taxpayer.”[31] The Code provides that local BPOL taxes may only tax “those gross receipts attributed to the exercise of a privilege subject to licensure at a definite place of business within this jurisdiction.”[32] With regards to service businesses in particular, gross receipts should be “attributed to the definite place of business at which the service is performed…directed, or controlled.”[33] Nonetheless, if the licensee “has more than one definite place of business and it is impractical or impossible to determine to which definite place of business gross receipts should be attributed under the general rule,” then gross receipts are to be “apportioned based on payroll.”[34]

The Court, relying upon its prior holding in City of Winschester v. American Woodmark Corp. (Woodmark II), which itself relied upon the language of the Supreme Court decision, Goldberg v. Sweet, concluded that the gross receipts werenotattributable solely to FMCC services rendered in the County.[35]Woodmark II held that a BPOL tax may be levied “only to the portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.”[36] In Woodmark II, American Woodmark, a furniture manufacturer with 24 facilities in different states, alleged that city’s imposition of BPOL taxes on 100% of its revenue constituted “unfair apportionment” because only its corporate headquarters were located in Winchester. Woodmark argued that an assessment of the gross receipts was not “attributable to [its] business activities within the city.”[37] The Court determined it a matter of “common sense” that the value by the headquarters alone could “not possibly produce 100% of the revenues.”[38] It thus held that American Woodmark had presented “clear and cogent evidence” that the “assessments attributed to operations conducted in Winchester [were] out of all appropriate proportions to…the business transacted in Winchester.”[39]

The FMCCcourt noted that “[a]lthough a statutory challenge was not presented inWoodmark II” the case nonetheless stood for the proposition that a locality, under the Code, may only tax the gross receipts “attributed to the exercise of a privilege subject to licensure at a definite place of business.”[40] Regarding the facts of this case, the court observed that service centers outside the County had refinanced loans (initially contracted into at the Richmond branch), assisted customers with administration changes, titled vehicle, and tracked the progress of loan payments. The court also recognized that FMCC headquarters directly provided the Richmond branch with capital. In light of these realities, the court held that FMCC had demonstrated “by clear and cogent evidence” that the gross receipts attributed to the Richmond Brach, were in fact, the product of “financial services provided in other jurisdictions.”[41] “In other words, the operation of the Richmond Branch did not produce 100 percent of the gross receipts that the County taxed.”[42] Therefore, a tax assessment based on these gross receipts was invalid. Finally, because MAPS only tracked revenues by contract, the Court determined it would be “impossible, or, at least, impractical” for FMCC to track the actual services performed over the lives of the approximately 20,000 loans which originated in the Richmond Branch. As such, the court concluded that the “BPOL tax assessment must be calculated using payroll apportionment.”[43]

IV. Possible Consequences

FMCC received a significant windfall from the ruling, which, as the dissent observed, was now entitled to recover approximately 93% of its past payments.[44] Still, the Court’s uncritical acceptance of FMCC’s contention that it would be “very difficult” to design an alternative accounting system may spawn unanticipated mischief in the near future. Without judicial incentives (punitive or otherwise), a complex interstate business, well aware of the financial stakes, will simply fail to create an accounting system which records revenue generated by each definite places of business. At that stage, the business will self-servingly insist to the taxing authority that redesigning the system would be “very difficult,” entitling itself to the more attractive BPOL based on payroll. In effect, a company may fleece itself from paying higher taxes simply through its own negligence, willful blindness, or lack of innovative impetus.

Perhaps more significantly, the court’s reliance on Woodmark II, which was decided on non-statutory based grounds, in interpreting the BPOL statutory provisions seems to be an effort by the court to inject constitutional principles of “fair apportionment” into the Tax Code itself. The FMCC court could have determined the extent of Chesterfield County’s authority to tax through utilizing the traditional maxims of statutory interpretation, in which the provisions dealing with the BPOL tax were analyzed within the context to the Code as a whole. Instead, the FMCC court relied onWoodmark II’s broad “reasonableness” standard of external inconsistency, set forth by the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Sweet. Apparently, the court signaled that it would interpret the Code itselfto mandate that all assessments reasonably reflect the in-state component of the taxed activity in accordance with Goldberg. The Virginia Supreme Court, moreover, has set a considerably higher external inconsistency standard than Goldberg’s – Both Woodmark II and FMCC held that an assessment which taxed anythingmore than revenue attributed to that definite place of business constituted clear and cogent evidence that the assessments were out of all appropriate proportion. Proportionality was measured, not through any mathematical ratio or formula, but rather through an appeal to “common sense” (Woodmark II), or through realization that the revenue could not be quantified (FMCC). Both decisions’ reference to an opaque “100% of revenue” hypothetical exercise indicates that the Court has attempted to articulate a “reasonableness” standard which (rather coarsely) incorporates both internal and external consistency models.

V. Trending Towards a More Business-Friendly Virginia

To appreciate how far-reaching the FMCC decision is, it is crucial to highlight the actual holding in WoodmarkI, approvingly cited in FMCC. Woodmark Iheld that office equipment located at a manufacturer’s headquarters was sufficiently “used in manufacturing” under the Virginia Tax Code, thus exempting it from local property taxes.[45] The Virginia legislature thereafter amended the Code to codifyWoodmark’s broad interpretation of “manufacturing.”[46] The practical consequence of these actions was that anybusiness involved in manufacturing, however tangentially, could now claim exemptions for its personal property.[47] FollowingWoodmark I, the Virginia courts further broadened these exceptions to include, among other things, vending machines and advertising scoreboards used by a manufacturer, and even raises questions of whether the exemption may extend to property leased to a manufacturer which is owned by a non-manufacturer.[48] One scholar opined that Woodmark I’s interpretation of the Virginia Codeare “convoluted” and “not easily categorized by [ ] theoretical rationales.”[49] She concluded that “on a more practical level, Virginia…seems willing to enlarge the tax breaks offered to manufacturing businesses.”[50]

FMCC’s reference to Woodmark I, regardless of its actual relevance to the facts of the case, evinces how broad Woodmark I’s holding has become. Instead of being constrained only to the manufacturing realm, Woodmark Iapparently has evolved into a judicial mandate to create additional tax breaks for interstate companies, even those engaged in distinctly non-manufacturing enterprises, such as financing loans. Seen in this light, Ford Motor Credit Company, inspired by Woodmark I (and to a degree, Woodmark II) is the latest incident of a growing trend in Virginia to resolve discrepancies in the tax code in favor of big business. The creation of these corporate “tax-loopholes,” either through judicial fiat or legislative codification, is likely an attempt to lure large businesses, particularly manufacturers, into locating or expanding their operations inside Virginia. As the Circuit Court in Woodmark I put it, “the term manufacturing is to be construed liberally because ‘the public policy of Virginia is to encourage manufacturing in the Commonwealth.’”[51]

Virginia, in essence, has endorsed a localized version of “supply side economics,” predicting that the lowering of taxes on the production of both goods (e.g., furniture, as in Woodmark I) and services (e.g., financing, as in FMCC)[52] will, in turn, spur economic growth in Virginia, particularly in the form of job creation. As a result, Virginia localities, faced with a subtle yet significant decrease in millions of dollars of property tax and BPOL tax revenue, may be compelled to shift this burden directly onto consumers, whom, incidentally, are less capable lobbyists than large corporations.[53] If the courts succeed in incentivizing large employers to make Virginia their home, it may come at the cost of overtaxing less lucky Virginians.

[1] Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County, 2011 WL 744985 (Va. 2011).

[[2] David Shipley, The Limits of Fair Apportionment: How Fair is Fair Enough?, 93 St. & Loc. Tax Law 34, 34 (2007).

[3] Id.

[4] 430 U.S. 274 (1977).

[5] 463 U.S. 159, 169.

[6] Id.

[7] Shipley, at 34.

[8] Container,463 U.S. at 169 (emphasis added).

[9] Id.at 170.

[10] 488 U.S. 252, 262 (emphasis added).

[11] Ford Motor Credit Company, at *3.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at *4.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at *5

[25] Id.

[26] Id. at *6

[27] Id. at *5 (emphasis added).

[28] Id. at *6.

[29] Idat *7.

[30] Id.

[31] Id. The Court also ruled that a “tax assessment made by the proper authorities isprima facie correct and valid, and the burden is no the taxpayer to show that such assessment is erroneous.” Id.

[32] Id. (emphasis added).

[33] Id. at*8.

[34] Id.

[35] Id. at *9.

[36] Id (emphasis added).

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] Id. (emphasis added).

[41] Id. at *10.

[42] Id. at *11.

[43] Id.

[44] Id. at *13.

[45] American Woodmark Corp. v. City of Winchester, 464 S.E.2d 148 (Va. 1995).See generally, Stacey Wilson, Good Intentions, But Unintended Consequences: Expanding Virginia’s Manufacturing Tax Exemption Under City of Winchester v. American WoodmarkCorp, 41 WM & MARY L. REVIEW 67 (2000)

[46] Virginia Code § 58.1-1101(A)(2), cited in Wilson at 69.

[47] Wilsonat 73.

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] 34 Va. Cir. 421, 434 (1994) (citing County of Chesterfield v. BBC Brown Boveri, Inc., 380 S.E.2d 890, 893 (Va. 1989)), cited by Wilson at 84.

[52] Ford Motor Company, at *8. (“Neither party contests that FMCC was a service business for purposes of Code § 58.1–3703.1(A)(3)(a)(4).”)

[53] Wilson, at 73.

Under The Radar–The Supreme Court, Commercial Speech and the First Amendment

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney Charles M. English of Ober | Kaler regarding U.S. Supreme Court’s view of the First Amendment as applied especially to political speech:

Over the past several years, a great deal has been written about the . In both the 2010 and 2011 terms the Court in dramatic and well-publicized cases struck down federal (Citizens United) and state (Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC) campaign finance restrictions as applied to corporate political donations and laws supporting public financing of candidates who forgo private donations. These are of course significant, far-reaching decisions with major impacts on political discourse in the United States. But even more may be going on in First Amendment jurisprudence when one looks beyond the headline-grabbing cases to less well publicized commercial speech cases.

More often than not the Court moves not dramatically, but in incremental steps as both the law and the Justices evolve and the Court personnel change. Such an incremental step appears to have been taken by the Court this year with respect to commercial speech regulation – speech intended not for political discourse, but by commercial entities seeking to buy, sell, advertise, market or provide information to each other and consumers.

On June 23, 2011, the Court, in a 6-3 majority, issued Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.,No. 10-779, striking down on First Amendment grounds Vermont’s law that prohibited the sale and use of physician prescription data for commercial purposes especially by pharmaceutical companies wishing to use that data to advertise and otherwise reach out to physicians in order to market their drugs. Having monitored the case closely and attended the Court’s oral argument, I don’t think that the result itself was much of a surprise. The Court concluded that the regulated activity interfered with the exchange of ideas and was thus speech and then concluded that the protected speech could not be regulated by Vermont in the fashion proposed.

What to many observers was less predictable was the breadth of the decision and the language employed in the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined both by the four justices normally considered “conservative”, but also joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The majority appears to have applied a stricter standard to the “content and speaker-based” commercial speech restrictions than it has applied in the past. So the question arises: Is the Court moving, however incrementally, towards a change in how it treats commercial speech under the First Amendment – one that would increase the level of scrutiny applied to restraints on such speech?

While Sorrell received far less coverage than many of other cases decided by the Court in the 2011 Term, commercial speech proponents have been quick to embrace the decision and to assert broader commercial speech rights. After the Food and Drug Administration adopted new cigarette warning label requirements in the summer of 2011, R.J. Reynolds, together with other tobacco companies and supported by national advertising organizations, were quick to seek court intervention against the new warning label requirements. They relied in no small part on the expansive language found in Sorrell. That suit, filed in mid-August, is set for a decision on motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment after a hearing before Judge Richard Leon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 21, 2011.

To understand where the Court may be heading, it is important first to know where we have been. While the First Amendment, which is also applicable to the States, might appear to the casual reader to be absolute – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .”, it in fact has not been so regarded historically by the Court. In 1942, the Court declared that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment at all. The Court reversed course in 1976, declaring that some form of intermediate protection did exist for commercial speech, and established in 1980 a multi-part test (Central Hudson) for evaluating the constitutionality of commercial speech restrictions: In order to regulated non-misleading commercial speech regarding otherwise legal activity, the government must establish that there is a substantial state interest, that the regulation directly advances that state interest, and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to advance that substantial interest.

It doesn’t take a lawyer to conclude that this test is confusing, and not surprisingly, most observers from a wide array of the political spectrum have concluded that the results of the cases decided under Central Hudson are unpredictable and that the test is simply unworkable. Importantly, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly criticized the Court’s commercial speech jurisprudence directly, with some indirect support from others from the Court’s so-called conservative wing.

The majority in Sorrell certainly did not overrule (at least not expressly or entirely)Central Hudson. However, the majority opinion , however subtly, appears to provide a measurable shift in the First Amendment analysis by the Court by carving out in commercial speech cases types of restrictions to which the majority appears to provide some form of scrutiny greater than the protections found in theCentral Hudson test. Indeed and perhaps most tellingly the minority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer accuses the majority of having created a new test, stricter than Central Hudson, for content-based or speaker-based speech that undermines the differentiation of commercial speech from what is often called core First Amendment speech. If so, the court may have indirectly moved towards Justice Thomas’ assertion that commercial speech should not be treated differently from core speech.

In the short run, we should expect the decision in Sorrell to actually add to the confusion that surrounds Central Hudson. Will lower courts such as the one now presented with the cigarette warning dispute conclude that there is a new, higher standard? If so, in which cases will this new standard apply, and how will those cases be decided? This is not an academic or legalistic point. Both business and government thrive on certainty in results, and legal uncertainty is simply very expensive for everyone: When states lose these First Amendment cases, they normally must pay the attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party; meanwhile, businesses subject to regulation of uncertain legality incur costs in complying and challenging such regulation. Nobody benefits from this kind of uncertainty – well, except for the lawyers of course.

Of course, we may not have long to wait after all. The case of the FDA regulation of cigarette packaging, or possible other cases involving other governmental regulation of health-care claims or of health insurance, or new food safety regulation – any one of these could give rise to litigation that provides new guidance, clarity or even another incremental step. However, when one goes back to the text of the First Amendment and its absolute prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech, examines the Court’s recent dramatic political speech cases in the past two terms, considers the muscular conservative majority, and carefully reads between the lines of Sorrell (decided with six votes in the majority), one must conclude that we are in for interesting times, and that advocates of commercial speech restrictions, including anti-smoking advocates, may now face a greater uphill battle in defending and maintaining what have come to be accepted restrictions in marketing and advertising in the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court Stresses Importance of Commonality in Decertifying Massive Sex Discrimination Class of 1.5 Million Wal-Mart Employees

Barnes & Thornburg LLP‘s Labor and Employment Law Department recently posted in the National Law Review an article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversing the largest employment class certification in history

In Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes, reversing the largest employment class certification in history, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have limited the circumstances in which federal courts can certify class actions – and not just in employment cases. The Court held that the lower federal courts had erred by certifying a class that included 1.5 million female employees from virtually every part of the country. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay as a result of alleged discrimination by Wal-Mart against female employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Supreme Court held that class certification was improper because the class failed to meet the “commonality” requirement of Federal Rule 23(a)(3), which provides that a class can be certified “only if…there are questions of law or fact common to the class…” The Court noted that the mere allegation of “common questions” is insufficient under Rule 23. “Th[e] common contention… must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the [individual class members’] claims in one stroke.”

The Court held that the Wal-Mart class did not meet the standard for commonality, because the evidence showed that Wal-Mart gave discretion to its supervisors in making employment decisions. The named plaintiffs “have not identified a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the entire company… In a company of Wal-Mart’s size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction.” The Court concluded that, “Because [the named plaintiffs] provide no convincing proof of a company-wide discriminatory pay and promotion policy, we have concluded that they have not established the existence of any common question.”

The lack of commonality found in Wal-Mart can arise in class actions of many kinds. Under Wal-Mart, a question is “common” under Rule 23(a)(3) only if it can be decided on a class-wide basis. In the past, many named plaintiffs, and some lower courts, have overlooked this essential point. And, as in Wal-Mart, in many cases a claim of commonality will fail precisely because there is no way to rule on the question without addressing the individual facts relating to each purported class member. Wal-Mart makes clear that such a lack of commonality is sufficient to defeat class certification.

In addition to meeting all of the requirements of Rule 23(a), a class must comply with one of the three subparts in Rule 23(b). The trial court in Wal-Mart had certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which allows a class where the defendant’s alleged conduct “appl[ied] generally to the class, so that final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole…” Another issue before the Supreme Court was whether such certification was proper where the class sought recovery of substantial backpay based on Wal-Mart’s alleged discrimination.

The Court ruled that the purported class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), holding that “claims for individualized relief (like the backpay at issue here) do not satisfy the Rule.” The Court said that Rule 23(b)(2) “does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages.”

Under the analysis in Wal-Mart , in the vast majority of class actions seeking a monetary recovery, the class can be certified (if at all) only under Rule 23(b)(3). Class certification under that provision is often more difficult, because a class plaintiff must prove that common questions “predominate” over individual questions and that a class action is “superior” to individual actions. In addition, under Rule 23(c)(2)(A), individual notice must be given to all members of a Rule 23(b)(3) class at plaintiff’s expense, while such notice is optional, within the trial court’s discretion, if the class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2).

Wal-Mart is an important case in the area of employment law; but the Supreme Court’s holdings on the requirements of Rule 23 are likely to be helpful in defending class actions of all kinds

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.

Racial Discrimination and the Hostile Work Environment: Employers May Be Responsible for the Actions of Their Customers and Vendors

Recently posted by Robert Neiman of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.: details of a recent Seventh Circuit Appellate court ruling that a nursing home, by catering to a resident’s preference for white nurses, had created a hostile work environment for its employees based upon race.

All employers know that they must protect their employees from a hostile work environment based upon discrimination and harassment by other employees. A recent federal appeals court decision, however, clarified the steps that employers should take when their customers and vendors discriminate against or harass company employees.

In Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a nursing home, by catering to a resident’s preference for white nurses, had created a hostile work environment for its employees based upon race. This Seventh Circuit decision reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in the nursing home’s favor, ultimately remanding the case for a trial.

Understanding the Issues

In the Chaney case, the resident told the nursing home’s managers that she only wanted white nurses to care for her. Plainfield Healthcare Center acknowledged that it maintained a policy of complying with its residents’ racial preferences. The nursing home also argued that it expected employees to respect these preferences because it otherwise risked violating state and federal laws that grant residents the right to choose providers, as well as the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

Chaney, an African American nurse’s aide, followed Plainfield’s policy, even though the prejudiced resident continued to appear on her assignment sheet. Chaney reluctantly refrained from assisting the resident, even when she was in the best position to help. However, after Chaney had worked for Plainfield for just three months, the nursing home fired her for alleged misconduct on the job.

Chaney then brought a race discrimination claim against the nursing home, alleging that Plainfield allowed a hostile workplace to exist in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The federal appeals court had “no trouble” ruling that a reasonable person would find the nursing home’s work environment hostile or abusive. The court found that the nursing home fostered a racially charged environment through its assignment sheet, which daily reminded Chaney and her coworkers that certain residents preferred not to receive care from African American nursing assistants. Unlike her white counterparts, Chaney was restricted regarding the rooms she could enter, the care that she could provide and the patients she could assist.

The appellate court ruled that “a company’s desire to cater to the perceived racial preferences of its customers is not a defense under Title VII for treating employees differently based on race.” The court rejected Plainfield’s argument that laws designed to protect residents’ choices and autonomy justified its conduct, holding that residents’ privacy interests did not excuse the nursing home’s disparate treatment of its employees based upon race. Furthermore, the court suggested that Plainfield could have insisted that the racially biased resident employ a white nursing aide at her own expense.

The nursing home also argued that by preventing its African American nurses from treating the prejudiced resident, it was protecting those nurses from harassment, and that it could not simply discharge the resident to avoid exposing its employees to racial hostility. But the court noted that Plainfield had a range of other options, such as warning all residents of the facility’s non-discrimination policy prior to admission, securing written consent to the non-discrimination policy and attempting to reform the behavior of the racially biased resident after admission. The court further noted that the facility could have assigned staff based on race-neutral criteria that minimized the risk of conflict.

Notably, the court also suggested that Plainfield could have advised its employees that the resident was racially prejudiced, and informed them that they could ask the nursing home for protection from this and any other prejudiced residents. That way, the court explained, the nursing home would have allowed all employees to work in a race-neutral, non-harassing environment as the law requires, rather than imposing an unwanted, race-conscious work limitation on its African American employees.

Protective Steps for Employers

The Chaney case offers several lessons that employers should bear in mind. For starters, ensure that your discrimination and harassment policy clearly states that employees have the right to work in an environment free of hostility based on any legally protected class, even if that hostility is generated by customers, vendors or other non-employees. You should also consider informing customers and vendors of your non-discrimination policies where appropriate. If customers or vendors express a preference to deal only with certain employees—to the exclusion of others who belong to a legally protected class—then you should not tacitly cooperate. Instead, theChaney decision suggests that you should remind these third parties of your non-discrimination policy, warn employees that the customer or vendor is prejudiced, protect those employees from any hostility created by the customer or vendor, and help ensure that your employees have an easy way to communicate any hostile work environment to management.

Ultimately, you must measure the benefit of doing business with a prejudiced customer or vendor against the risk that your employees will suffer a hostile work environment, possibly leading to expensive discrimination or harassment claims. The Chaney decision suggests that employers don’t necessarily have to choose one over the other, but that they are required to take steps to protect their employees from racial prejudice.

Share this:

Like this:

Innovation

Compliance

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Case: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

Not a Major Setback

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

I. Background: Constitutional Boundaries of State Tax Apportionments

II. Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chesterfield County: The Facts

III. Ford Motor Credit Company: The Decision

IV. Possible Consequences

V. Trending Towards a More Business-Friendly Virginia

Share this:

Like this:

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:

Understanding the Issues

Protective Steps for Employers

Share this:

Like this: