Category: Labor & Employment

Four States and Two Major Cities Approve Minimum Wage Increases

Michael Best Logo

Voters in the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota voted in favor of ballot initiatives that will increase the state minimum wage. Alaska’s minimum wage will increase from $7.75 to $9.75 an hour by 2016, Arkansas’s from $6.25 to $8.50 by 2017, Nebraska’s from $7.25 to $9.00 by 2016, and South Dakota’s from $7.25 to $8.50 next year.

Those four states join 12 others and Washington, D.C., all of which have increased their minimum wage in the past two years. For example, New Jersey’s 2013 ballot initiative to raise the state minimum to $8.25 passed by more than 60 %, and in 2006, state initiatives to raise the minimum wage passed by large majorities in Arizona (65.6%), Missouri (75.6 %), Montana (74.2 %), Nevada (68.4 %), and Ohio (56.5 %).

Voters in San Francisco overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, the highest level in the nation, on the heels of Seattle’s June decision to raise its minimum wage to $15. As with Seattle’s minimum wage, San Francisco’s will be phased in gradually, from its current rate of $10.74 an hour to $11.05 on January1 and $12.25 in May before increasing every year until reaching $15 in 2018.

On December 2, 2014, the Chicago City Council overwhelmingly approved raising the City’s minimum wage from the current state-wide rate of $8.25 an hour to $13 by mid-2019. Chicago workers will see their first increase next July, when the minimum wage will increase to $10, then increase by 50 cents each of the two years after that, and $1 the next two years.

This minimum wage initiative has also received some pushback. For example, Hotel industry groups on December 16 sued the city of Los Angeles in federal court over the city’s enactment of a minimum wage ordinance requiring large non-union hotels to pay their workers $15.37 an hour. In their lawsuit, the American Hotel & Lodging Association and the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association allege the city ordinance violates federal labor, contract and equal protection laws.

The hotel minimum wage ordinance, which passed the City Council in October on an 11-2 vote, is estimated to cover about 80 large hotels in the city. Starting in July, hotels with more than 300 rooms must pay workers the higher minimum wage; in July 2016 the measure kicks in for hotels with as few as 125 rooms. Hotel Industry groups contend that by allowing exemptions for hotels with union collective bargaining agreements, the ordinance creates an economic disadvantage for non-union hotels, thus forcing their hand to permit union organizing.

These minimum wage increases are not expected to make it more likely that Congress will pass President Obama’s proposed federal minimum wage increase to $10.10, particularly given the results of this past November’s mid-term elections. However, the minimum wage will certainly remain a hot-button issue for the next two years, and a campaign issue during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

ARTICLE BY

Robert W. Mulcahy
Carlos R. Pastrana-Torres
OF
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

The Year in Social Media: Four Big Developments from 2014

Barnes Thornburg

As social networking has become entrenched as a tool for doing business and not just a pastime of our social lives, employers, government agencies, and even academia have taken big steps in 2014 to define how social media can and cannot, or should and should not, be used. Below is a summary of some of the big developments in social media in the workplace this year.

The EEOC Turns Its Attention to Social Media

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has turned its attention toward social networking, meeting in March to gather information about social media use in the workplace. To no surprise, the EEOC recognized that although using social media sites such as LinkedIn could be a “valuable tool” for identifying employment candidates, relying on personal information found on social networks, such as age, race, gender, or ethnicity, to make employment decisions is prohibited.

More controversially, the EEOC expressed concern that employers’ efforts to access so-called “private” social media communications in the discovery phase of discrimination lawsuits might have a “chilling effect” on employees filing discrimination cases. However, it is unclear how the EEOC might prevent employers from getting this information if it is relevant to a plaintiff’s claims. It remains to be seen what steps the EEOC might take to address this “chilling effect.”

 The NLRB Continues to Refine Its Position on Social Media Policies

The National Labor Relations Board has spent the past few years attacking social media policies as overbroad, but perhaps a shift in that policy is at hand. This summer, an NLRB administrative law judge upheld a social media policy that discouraged employees from posting information on social networks about the company or their jobs that might create morale problems. The ALJ held that the policy did not prohibit job-related posts, but merely called on employees to be civil in their social media posts to avoid morale problems. The ALJ’s finding is at odds with recent NLRB decisions, which have gone much further to limit any policies that might affect employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. While it is unclear whether this holding is an outlier or a shift in the NLRB’s approach, it brings with it some hope that the NLRB may be moving toward a more pro-employer stance.

States Continue to Limit Employers’ Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

State governments also are getting involved with social media regulation. In April, Wisconsin became the newest state to pass legislation aimed at protecting employees’ social media accounts, passing the Social Media Protection Act. The Act bars employers, schools, and landlords from requiring their employees, students, and tenants to produce their social media passwords. Significantly, the Act does not ban them from viewing social media posts that are publicly accessible.

Wisconsin was not alone in enacting legislation to protect social media passwords this year, as Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee enacted similar laws during 2014 and 12 other states did so in previous years. While not every state has passed such legislation, it is clear that state governments increasingly will not tolerate employers asking employees or applicants for access to their private social networking accounts. Employers should be mindful of their state laws before seeking social media information that might be protected.

Academia is Drawing Its Own Conclusions Regarding Social Media in the Workplace

Federal and state governments are not the only institutions weighing the implications of social media in the workplace. University researchers also are studying employers’ stances on social media – a North Carolina State University study concluded that applicants tend to have a lower opinion of employers that looked at their social media profiles before making a hiring decision, and a Carnegie Mellon University study concluded that employers risked claims of discrimination by reviewing applicants’ social media profiles, based on employers being more likely to screen out candidates based on their personal information such as ethnicity.

While these studies weigh against employers searching applicants’ social media before making hiring decisions, there is certainly logic to the contrary, as employers are entitled to view publicly-accessible information about their applicants, and thorough employers will want to learn as much as they can to do their due diligence in making important hiring decisions.

Laws, best practices, and public opinion regarding social media in the workplace will continue to evolve in 2015. Employers would be wise to look at the most recent developments before making any major decisions affecting their social media policies and practices.

ARTICLE BY

Douglas M. Oldham
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Employer Liability for Employees’ Privacy Violations: What Your Organization Should Learn from Walgreens’ Expensive Lesson (Hint: It Has Little To Do with HIPAA)

Poyner Spruill Law firm

You may already have read the scintillating facts surrounding a jury award of $1.44 million (recently challenged unsuccessfully on appeal) against Walgreen Co. following its pharmacist’s alleged inappropriate review and disclosure of patient records. What caught our attention was not so much the lurid details (the pharmacist was alleged to have looked up her boyfriend’s ex in Walgreens’ patient records, apparently to determine whether the ex might have passed an STD to her boyfriend). The more notable development was an employer footing the bill for a large jury verdict even though the employee violated the company’s policies as well as the law. This alert describes how Walgreens was put on the hook for its employees’ misdeeds, and examines whether a similar rationale could be applied in other privacy contexts (not just HIPAA) to create a new trend in employer liability for employee privacy violations. The implications are significant given the relative lack of success plaintiffs have encountered to-date when attempting to prosecute perceived privacy violations in court.

Employer Liability

Against the pharmacist, the patient pursued state-law claims of negligence/professional malpractice, invasion of privacy/public disclosure of private facts, and invasion of privacy/intrusion. She sought to hold Walgreens liable through respondeat superior (vicarious liability), and also included direct claims for negligent training, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligence/professional malpractice. While the trial judge dismissed the negligent training claim against Walgreens and the invasion of privacy by intrusion claim against the pharmacist, he allowed the other claims to proceed. The jury returned a general verdict for the patient, finding the pharmacist and Walgreens jointly liable for $1.44 million in damages.

The linchpin of respondeat superior is that an employer can only be held vicariously liable for damage caused by an employee if the employee was acting “within the scope of employment” when the injury occurred. When it appealed the jury verdict, Walgreens seized on this factor and argued that the pharmacist’s actions were outside the scope of employment because she clearly violated Walgreens policy. The appellate court disagreed, citing case law holding an employee’s actions are within the scope of employment if those actions are of the same “general nature” as the actions authorized by the employer, even when the employee’s specific actions are against company policy. The court reasoned that the pharmacist’s improper access of  the patient’s records was of the same “general nature” as the actions authorized by Walgreens because  the pharmacist took the same steps to access  the patient’s records as she would have in properly accessing records of other patients. The pharmacist was authorized to use the Walgreens computer system and printer, handle prescriptions for Walgreens customers, look up customer information on the Walgreens computer system, review patient prescription histories, and make prescription-related printouts. The court found that the pharmacist’s conduct in accessing  this patient’s records for personal reasons, while against company policy, was of the same “general nature” as the conduct authorized by Walgreens, and therefore at least some of her actions were within the scope of her employment. Since the pharmacist was acting within the scope of employment, the court affirmed that Walgreens could be held liable under respondeat superior.

Acknowledging Walgreens could not be held vicariously liable unless the pharmacist was also liable, the court turned next to the issue of the jury’s verdict concerning the pharmacist. As the jury returned only a general verdict (which does not indicate the specific grounds on which it made its decision), the court speculated on the theory of liability for the pharmacist, and held that the jury could have properly found the pharmacist liable under a general negligence theory. The key factors in a negligence claim are a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, a breach of that duty by the defendant, causation, and damages. To establish the pharmacist owed a duty to the patient, the court looked to a state law requiring pharmacists to hold patient records and information in the strictest of confidences. Finding this statute to clearly establish that the pharmacist owed a duty of confidentiality the patient, the court found it unquestionable that the pharmacist’s actions breached that duty, and that the patient sustained at least some damages as a result. Therefore, the court concluded the jury could properly have found the pharmacist directly liable for the breach of confidentiality, and Walgreens vicariously liable for the breach.

Potential Impact

Commentary on this case has largely focused on HIPAA implications, and sometimes the more specific prospect of employer liability for employee HIPAA violations. Importantly, HIPAA was not a factor in the appellate court’s reasoning. Rather, the court looked primarily to state law for privacy expectations and a duty of confidentiality. That distinction creates broader implications for employer liability beyond HIPAA or health care generally.

A multitude of state laws now impose confidentiality, privacy and security obligations. Some are limited to certain professional occupations (e.g., pharmacists, physicians, even <<gasp>> lawyers), but many are more general. For example, many states have enacted requirements to maintain general or specific security measures without regard to industry. In fact, states increasingly read privacy and security obligations into their application of unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, imposing a duty to maintain privacy and security across sectors and without regard to types of personal information affected.

The Indiana appellate court’s reasoning in the Walgreens’ case clearly suggests that employees owing a statutory duty of confidentiality under state law could be liable for a breach of such duties, and their employers may be vicariously liable for the reasons noted. While some state laws specifically enumerate such duties at the employee level (particularly where a license is held by the individual), it is not clear that distinction made a difference to the court’s rationale, meaning courts applying general privacy or security laws may consider following suit, even if the law does not create duties specifically aimed at employees.

Further, the Indiana appellate court’s broad characterization of what constitutes actions “within the scope of employment” could leave many employers on the hook for large damage awards, even if the underlying employee violation is indisputably against company policy.

While the Walgreens outcome alone may not establish a trend toward more frequent employer liability, it is important to recognize the case may be novel only in the size of the verdict awarded. For example, in 2006, the North Carolina Court of Appeals used similar reasoning to overturn the dismissal of a plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against a doctor who allegedly allowed his office manager to improperly access the plaintiff’s medical records (Acosta v. Byrum).

What Should You Do?

The Walgreens outcome makes clear that policies, training and other compliance efforts may not indemnify employers against an employee’s breach of confidentiality or privacy. In addition to keeping an eye on further developments that either support or erode this potential liability trend, employers should consider whether broad technical access to systems is necessary and justified. Flat access rights can be necessary, particularly in health care settings where care often trumps privacy as a consideration. However, technical access limitations are the most effective way to demonstrate that employee misdeeds, when orchestrated in violation of systems-based (rather than merely policy-based) access controls, should not be held against the employer because they are clearly outside the scope of employment. Interestingly, the same approach can strengthen employer’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims and can reduce the risk of HIPAA enforcement that may arise from similar facts.

ARTICLE BY

Jacob A. Lopes
Elizabeth H. Johnson
OF
Poyner Spruill LLP

Background Checks Headline in 2014

Proskauer Law firm

In 2014, background checks were a hot topic in state and local legislatures.  Before this year, only 8 jurisdictions in the country had passed laws preventing private employers from asking job candidates about their criminal histories on an employment application (i.e., “banning the box”).  This year alone, however, 9 jurisdictions enacted ban-the-box laws covering private employers—Baltimore, Columbia (MO), Illinois, Montgomery County (MD), New Jersey, Prince George’s County (MD), Rochester (NY), San Francisco, and Washington D.C.  Louisville, Indianapolis, and Syracuse also banned the box for private employers with city contracts, while Delaware and Madison (WI) “encouraged” the same.

Man Sitting Alone in a Row of Empty Chairs

Several of these so-called “ban the box” laws also restricted the types of arrests or convictions about which employers may inquire or consider when hiring.  For example, the new San Francisco law bans inquiries about convictions that are more than seven (7) years old; the new Washington D.C. law prohibits questions about arrests and criminal accusations that are not pending or did not result in conviction; and New Jersey’s new law bars queries about expunged records.  Some of the new laws, such as those in San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties also imposed certain notice obligations on employers.

In addition to this state and local legislative activity, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) continued to scrutinize employer background check procedures, though without much success.  In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 748 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit affirmed an award of summary judgment against the EEOC in its suit alleging that Kaplan’s use of credit checks disparately impacted African-American applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Despite setbacks in litigation, the agency issued guidance on the use of background checks in hiring and personnel decisions. The brochure—Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know—advises employers on their existing legal obligations under federal nondiscrimination laws and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) when obtaining, using, and disposing of background information.  The Federal Trade Commission also issued two brochures—Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know & Tips for Job Applicants and Employees—that walk applicants and employees through their rights under FCRA.

Though the primary focus on background checks this year concerned credit and criminal history, there were other noteworthy developments. The governors of California and New Jersey vetoed bills that would have greatly limited employers from considering an applicant’s unemployment status in hiring decisions.  And, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin prohibited employers from requesting or requiring prospective and current employees to provide their passwords to their personal social media accounts.

If trends are any guide, we expect more developments in 2015.  Stay tuned.

ARTICLE BY

Katharine H Parker
Daniel L. Saperstein
OF
Proskauer Rose LLP

The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 1: Going Live with the Affordable Care Act’s Employer Shared Responsibility Rules on January 1, 2015

Mintz Levin Law Firm

Regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility rules including the substantive “pay-or-play” rules and the accompanying reporting rules were adopted in February.  Regulations implementing the reporting rules in newly added Internal Revenue Code Sections 6055 and 6056 came along in March. And draft reporting forms (IRS Forms 1094-B, 1094-C, 1095-B and 1095-C) and accompanying instructions followed in August.

With these regulations and forms, and a handful of other, related guidance items (e.g., a final rule governing waiting periods), the government has assembled a basic—but by no means complete—compliance infrastructure for employer shared responsibility. But challenges nevertheless remain. Set out below is a partial list of items that are unresolved, would benefit from additional guidance, or simply invite trouble.

1.  Variable Hour Status

The ability to determine an employee’s status as full-time is a key regulatory innovation. It represents a frank recognition that the statute’s month-by-month determination of full-time employee status does not work well in instances where an employee’s work schedule is by its nature erratic or unpredictable. We examined issues relating to variable hour status in previous posts dated April 14, July 20, and August 10.

An employee is a “variable hour employee” if—

Based on the facts and circumstances at the employee’s start date, the employer cannot determine whether the employee is reasonably expected to be employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week during the initial measurement period because the employee’s hours are variable or otherwise uncertain.

The final regulations prescribe a series of factors to be applied in making this call. But employers are having a good deal of difficulty applying these factors, particularly to short-tenure, high turnover positions. While there are no safe, general rules that can be applied in these cases, it is pretty easy to identify what will not work: classification based on employee-type (as opposed to position) does not satisfy the rule. Thus, it is unlikely that a restaurant that classifies all of its hourly employees, or a staffing firm that classifies all of its contract and temporary workers, as variable hour without any further analysis would be deemed to comply. But if a business applies the factors to, and applies the factors by, positions,  it stands a far greater chance of getting it right.

2.  Common Law Employees

We addressed this issue in our post of September 3, and since then, the confusion seems to have gotten worse. Clients of staffing firms have generally sought to take advantage of a special rule governing offers of group health plan coverage by unrelated employers without first analyzing whether the rule is required.

While staffing firms and clients have generally been able to reach accommodation on contractual language, there have been a series of instances where clients have sought to hire only contract and temporary workers who decline coverage in an effort to contain costs. One suspects that, should this gel into a trend, it will take the plaintiff’s class action bar little time to respond, most likely attempting to base their claims in ERISA.

3.  Penalties for “legacy” HRA and health FSA violations

A handful of promoters have, since the ACA’s enactment, offered arrangements under which employers simply provided lump sum amounts to employees for the purpose of enabling the purchase of individual market coverage. These schemes ranged from the odd to the truly bizarre. (For example, one variant claimed that the employer could offer pre-tax amounts to employees to enroll in subsidized public exchange coverage.) In a 2013 notice, the IRS made clear that these arrangements, which it referred to as “employer payment plans,” ran afoul of certain ACA insurance market requirements. (The issues and penalties are explained in our June 2 post.) Despite what seemed to us as a clear, unambiguous message, many of these schemes continued into 2014.

Employers that offered non-compliant employer-payment arrangements in 2014 are subject to penalties, which must be self-reported. For an explanation of how penalties might be abated, see our post of April 21.

4.  Mergers & Acquisitions

While the final employer shared responsibility regulations are comprehensive, they fail to address mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions. There are some questions, such as the determination of an employer’s status as an applicable large employer, that don’t require separate rules. Here, one simply looks at the previous calendar year. But there are other questions, the answers to which are more difficult to discern. For example, in an asset deal where both the buyer and seller elect the look-back measurement method, are employees hired by the buyer “new” employees or must their prior service be tacked? The IRS invited comments on the issue in its Notice 2014-49.

Taking a page from the COBRA rules, the IRS could require employers to treat sales of substantial assets in a manner similar to stock sales, in which case buyers would need to carry over or reconstruct prior service. While such a result might be defensible, it would also impose costly administrative burdens. Currently, this question is being handled deal-by-deal, with the “answers” varying in direct proportion to the buyer’s appetite for risk.

5.  Reporting

That the ACA employer reporting rules are in place, and that the final forms and instructions are imminent should give employers little comfort. These rules are ghastly in their complexity. They require the collection, processing and integration of data from multiple sources—payroll, benefits admiration, and H.R., among others. What is needed are expert systems to track compliance with the ACA employer shared responsibility rules, populate and deliver employee reports, and ensure proper and timely delivery of employee notices and compliance with the employer’s transmittal obligations. These systems are under development from three principal sources: commercial payroll providers, national and regional consulting firms, and venture-based and other start-ups that see a business opportunity. Despite the credentials of the product sponsors, however—many of which are truly impressive—it is not yet clear in the absence of actual experience that any of their products will work. It is not too early for employers to contact their vendors and seek assurances about product delivery, reliability, and performance.

Uber Argues That Its Drivers Are Not Employees

In a case pending in California federal court, Uber is arguing that its drivers are not employees. O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 3:13-cv-03826 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2013). Uber drivers have sued the company in a putative class action that alleges that they were short-changed because they received only a portion of the 20 percent gratuity paid by passengers.

In response, Uber recently filed a motion for summary judgment that argued that its drivers are not employees because they do not provide services to Uber. Rather, Uber provides a service to its drivers, because drivers pay for access to “leads,” or potential passengers, through the Uber application, and therefore, like passengers, drivers are customers who receive a service from the company. Uber also argued that even if drivers are deemed to provide services to Uber, they do so as independent contractors, not employees. This is because, Uber contends, the company provides drivers with a lead generation service but does not control the manner or means of how they work, and therefore, Uber is in a commercial rather than an employment relationship with its drivers.

This is not the first and likely not the last of Uber’s legal troubles in California. Passengers have also filed a proposed class action over the 20 percent gratuity, and last week, San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys have hit Uber with a consumer safety suit over how it screens its drivers. There will surely be more to come as we watch what happens with Uber in California.

ARTICLE BY

Rachel T. Segal
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Michigan Bill Would Bar Student-Athlete Unionization

Jackson Lewis Law firm

With a National Labor Relations Board decision on whether football players at Northwestern may proceed with their unionization efforts looming, Michigan is considering a bill that would prevent student-athletes from similarly attempting to unionize.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Al Pscholka, would prevent student-athletes at Michigan’s public universities from exercising collective bargaining rights based on their participation in a university sports team. It states, “a student participating in intercollegiate athletics on behalf of a public university in [Michigan]…is not a public employee entitled to representation or collective bargaining rights….”

Michigan has seven public universities competing at the Division I level. The bill would bar student-athletes at these universities from engaging in unionization efforts similar to the ones undertaken by the football players at Northwestern.

While none of the seven universities has faced a union organizing campaign from any of its student-athletes, prompting one opponent of the bill, Rep. Andy Shor, to describe the bill as a solution to a nonexistent problem.

“I don’t understand the tremendous rush on this,” Shor said. “We’re taking an action that addresses something that’s happening in Evanston, Illinois.”

However, if the Board finds in favor of the football players at Northwestern, universities across the country likely will face similar unionization efforts from other student-athletes. Michigan’s may be an attempt to get out in front of such efforts.

According to Ramogi Huma, the president of the organization spearheading the unionization campaign at Northwestern, the College Athletes Players Association, Michigan’s bill is “backhanded confirmation that student-athletes are state employees by including them in a list of workers who can’t bargain effectively.” However, the bill does not categorize student-athletes as employees and, indeed, it states that “individuals whose position does not have sufficient indicia of an employer-employee relationship” are also prevented under the bill from engaging in collective bargaining.

Huma also warned that if the bill passes, it would have a negative impact on the ability of Michigan’s public universities to recruit student-athletes because prospective student-athletes interested in being part of a union could elect instead to go to either private universities in Michigan or universities in states with no restrictions on their unionization efforts.

Thus far, none of the seven Division I public universities in Michigan have commented publicly on the bill. However, the bill likely is being closely followed by them as well as public universities in other states and major athletic conferences, such as the Big Ten, home to Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State.

ARTICLE BY

Michael B. Ackerstein
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Online Presence Management: You Down with OP…M? Yeah, You Should Be!

Morgan Lewis logo

The stakes are higher than ever when it comes to your company’s online presence management (OPM), and you should be proactive in ensuring that your company is best positioned for success.

We are talking about total OPM. Yes, it is a real thing. The soaring growth of online media revenues (over 17%, recently), thesophistication of bad actors responsible for “mega-hacks,” and the ever-expanding social media market are but a few of the headlines that top the news on a daily basis.

Public interest is extremely high. As such, the risks and liabilities to your company are self-evident.

As a responsible lawyer (or, at least, someone interested enough in the law to read this blog), you should take a proactive approach to ensuring your organization is aligned with measures to both capitalize on the enormous opportunities presented by, as well as mitigate the risks associated with, managing your company’s total online presence.

So, where do you begin? What are the first steps? We recommend scheduling an internal discussion with your relevant stakeholders to take inventory of where you are with respect to your company’s OPM. You don’t need to involve outside counsel or be an expert in every nuance of the OPM space. Instead, the goal is to get a discussion between your business team and legal team about the structure and needs of your company. That is, the goal is to get the dialogue started internally so you have the information that you need to provide or to seek artful advice.

Here are the top three agenda items for your initial meeting:

1. Online Contracting Discussion—What agreements do you use, or should you use, on your website? Terms of service? Terms of use? Privacy policies? Codes of conduct? Foreign Corrupt Practices Act policies? Open-source policies? Once the inventory is completed, have a candid discussion with your business/marketing/OPM teams about (1) how each agreement is executed and used within the organization, (2) how updates are communicated, and (3) any pain points experienced by the business team. Special attention should be given to agreements that control services or products that produce revenue or that deal with the handling of important data or information. Understanding the total picture of your company’s online contracting structure allows you to identify risks and install protections to mitigate them.

2. Security Protocol Discussion—What are the processes in place to monitor and respond to potential security threats? What would your company do if it suspected a breach? How long would it react? What reporting systems are in place to alert responsible OPM team members of suspicious activities? Lawyers, like CEOs, can no longer assume that their company’s IT personnel handles these issues. By understanding the lay of the land, in-house lawyers and well-integrated outside counsel can better respond to emergency situations.

3. Data Leverage Discussion—What data is collected by your company’s internal tools? What data is collected by third-party tools and services? How is the data collected from the website (both personally identifiable and commercial) used by the company? Are there any synergies that can be gained by various business teams by gaining access to either of the above? Understanding what data is collected, especially commercial data such as user tendencies and product information, can assist lawyers in understanding the rights to negotiate when dealing with outside vendors and in drafting privacy policies.

As you can probably tell, the “discussions” approach will likely lead to many tangent discussions and identification of issues that you didn’t even realize existed in your organization. This is intentional.

In today’s online environment, you need to be proactive and agile to ensure that your company’s OPM is handled in a responsible, predictable, and measured manner. Having the discussions above will at least give you a starting point to demonstrate a more active approach and likely result in you being able to provide better and more business-focused counsel.

ARTICLE BY

Glen W. Rectenwald
Doneld G. Shelkey
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Not Just Your (Company) Email System Anymore! re: NLRB Purple Communications Ruling

Godfrey Kahn Law Firm

On December 10, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) ruled in Purple Communications, Inc., 361 N.L.R.B. No. 126, thatemployees have a right, protected by the National Labor Relations Act (Act), to use an employer’s email system during non-working time for communications protected by the Act(e.g., to discuss union issues or other protected concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act). The Board has thus overruled prior precedent, as set out in Register Guard, 351 N.L.R.B. 1110 (2007), that the Act did not give employees the right to use their employer’s email systems for Section 7 purposes.

A copy of the December 10, 2014 Board decision can be found here. The following passage sums up the scope of the Board’s ruling:

First, [this ruling] applies only to employees who have already been granted access to the employer’s email system in the course of their work and does not require employers to provide such access. Second, an employer may justify a total ban on nonwork use of email, including Section 7 use on nonworking time, by demonstrating that special circumstances make the ban necessary to maintain production or dEmail Selection on Computeriscipline. Absent justification for a total ban, the employer may apply uniform and consistently enforced controls over its email system to the extent such controls are necessary to maintain production and discipline. Finally, we do not address email access by nonemployees, nor do we address any other type of electronic communications systems, as neither issue is raised in this case.

The Board’s decision may be appealed by the employer, but even if it is not appealed, the email issue will likely continue to be litigated before the Board. For now, employers should review their electronic communications policies to ensure compliance with the Board’s new standards or to, at a minimum, understand their risk.

ARTICLE BY

Rufino Gaytán
OF
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

A New Judge is in Town to Rule on I-9 Violation Penalties

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Last week Stacy Stiffel Paddack was announced as the newest Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO). Judge Paddack will rule on the proper penalty in immigration compliance (Form I-9 violations) cases brought by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Welcome aboard, Judge Paddack.

The statutory range for I-9 violations is $110 – $1100 per defective Form I-9. In calculating the proposed penalty amount for I-9 violations, ICE divides the number of violations by the number of employees for which a Form I-9 should have been prepared to obtain a violation percentage. This percentage is used as a baseline fine amount, with deviations available depending on factors such as whether or not this is the employer’s first offense, size of the employer, and whether unauthorized aliens were working for the employer. ICE applies a mechanical calculation when determining the penalty amount and there is little discretion exercised benefitting the employer. ICE’s standard fine amounts are listed in the table below:

 

Standard Fine Amount
Substantive Verification Violations 1st Offense
$110 – $1100		 2nd Offense
$110 – $1100		 3rd Offense +
$110 – $1100

0% – 9%

$110

$550

$1,100

10% – 19%

$275

$650

$1,100

20% – 29%

$440

$750

$1,100

30% – 39%

$605

$850

$1,100

40% – 49%

$770

$950

$1,100

50% or more

$935

$1,100

$1,100

OCAHO is not bound by ICE’s methodology, and ALJs like Judge Paddack can consider factors not included in ICE’s chart when determining the proper penalty amount, such as ability to pay the proposed penalty and any deterrent effect of the proposed penalty, and can weigh the different factors unequally. A review of OCAHO decisions reveals that the final penalty amount ordered by OCAHO is often significantly lower than the figure on the ICE penalty chart.

ARTICLE BY

Scott T. Decker
OF
Greenberg Traurig, LLP