Category: Uncategorized

Employment Tip of the Month – February 2024

Q: Can my company treat employees adversely because of their personal political beliefs? If they wear a shirt of their favorite candidate? Or proselytize about their candidate?

A: The short answer: There exists no “First Amendment Right to freedom of expression” in a private workplace, and that extends to political expression. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921 (2019) (Only “State actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”)

So, yes, legally a private employer can refuse to hire Democrats or Republicans, and can fire an employee for wearing a shirt of their candidate or vocalizing a particular political position.

On the other hand, other laws can apply, such as the right to “concerted action” under the National Labor Relations Act. Overt adverse action also could be ripe for allegations of selective enforcement, such as “you only selectively enforce this rule against me because I am ___________”, where Title VII covers race, sex, religion, color and national origin; ADA covers disability; ADEA age, etc. Some political positions could easily bleed over into religious beliefs.

Even if legally permissible for a private employer to discriminate against holders of one particular political belief, from a practical management perspective, it cannot be recommended, and would be loaded with risk. Also, it could simply make for bad optics and make it harder to attract and retain the best talent.

Finally, this answer changes entirely for public employers and government employers, where employees do possess First Amendment rights, so long as, in general, they are speaking (1) as a private citizen, (2) about a matter of public concern, and (3) their speech does not interfere with the job. There are exceptions for high-ranking individuals, political appointees or someone trying to release classified information, though in many instances they would still be protected from retaliation.

© 2024 Wilson Elser
For more news on Political Expression in the Workplace, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

OSHA and NLRB Set Forth MOU to Strengthen Protections for the Health and Safety of Workers: A 2024 Outlook

On October 31, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to strengthen their interagency partnership. The purpose of this partnership is to establish a process for information sharing, referrals, training, and outreach between the agencies. Additionally, the agencies wish to address certain anti-retaliation and whistleblowing issues through this collaboration.

Since 1975, the NLRB and OSHA have engaged in cooperative efforts during investigations. According to NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and OSHA Assistant Secretary Doug Parker, the MOU seeks to strengthen this interoffice coordination in an effort to provide greater protection for workers to speak out on unsafe working conditions without fear of punishment or termination.

Exchange of Information

According to the MOU, the NLRB and OSHA “may share, either upon request or upon the respective agency’s own initiative, any information or data that supports each agency’s enforcement mandates, whether obtained during an investigation or through any other sources.” This information may include complaint referrals and information in complaint or investigative files. The MOU notes that this information will be shared only if it is relevant or necessary to the recipient agency’s enforcement responsibilities and ensures that the sharing of information is compatible with the purposes of the agency that is collecting the records.

For example, if OSHA learns during an investigation that there are potential victims of unfair labor practices who have not filed a complaint with the NLRB, OSHA will explain the employees’ rights and provide them with the NLRB’s phone number and web address. Additionally, if an employee files with OSHA an untimely complaint of retaliation, OSHA may then advise the employee to file a complaint with the NLRB, because the NLRB has a six-month time limit for filing such complaints whereas OSHA’s time limit is only 30 days. As a result, employers may be facing both agencies during an investigation.

Coordinated Investigations and Enforcement

The NLRB and OSHA will determine whether to conduct coordinated investigations and inspections in order to facilitate appropriate enforcement actions. If coordinated investigations occur and there are overlapping statutory violations, each agency may take relevant enforcement actions. In practice, employers should assume that if either agency is conducting an investigation into alleged retaliation, that agency will consider involving the other.

Takeaways for Employers

Heading into 2024, employers can expect to see more interagency coordination between the NLRB and OSHA during investigations. While the two agencies remain separate, there is a clear entanglement of enforcement action as the NLRB seeks to increase federal agency collaboration. As such, employers may presume that information collected by one agency will be provided to the other. As the agencies seek to increase worker protection across the board, employers will want to ensure that their management personnel are trained and up-to-date on the anti-retaliation and whistleblowing provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

© 2023 Jones Walker LLP
For more news on the Partnership between OSHA and NLRB, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

An Early Christmas Present from Three Fifth Circuit Judges Who Concluded a Louisiana Property Is Not Subject to Federal Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Garry Lewis owns 2000 acres in Livingston Parish, Louisiana and he has been fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers over whether any of those 2000 acres are wetlands subject to Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction for over a decade. On two separate occasions the Army Corps of Engineers has said the answer to that question is “yes”. The first time the Corps made this determination, a District Court Judge disagreed. The second time was before the Supreme Court’s definition of “Waters of the United States”, including jurisdictional wetlands, in Sackett v. EPA and it is that second determination that is the subject of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this week.

The Sacketts had been fighting with EPA and the Corps about whether their much smaller property was subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction for twice as long as Mr. Lewis until the Supreme Court found in the Sacketts’ favor earlier this year. The day the Supreme Court decided Sackett I wrote that “[f]or my entire adult life, the Courts have deferred to EPA’s interpretation of statutes it has been charged by Congress to implement. That era is most certainly over . . .”

This week three Judges of the Fifth Circuit proved my point. Over the Corps’ objection, the Judges took it upon themselves to apply the Supreme Court’s Sackett holding to determine that “based on photographs of [Mr. Lewis’s] property” there is “no ‘continuous surface connection’ between any plausible wetlands on the Lewis tracts and a ‘relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.’”

The Corps had argued unsuccessfully that it should be given the opportunity to apply Sackett for itself before Judges weighed in.

The Fifth Circuit Judges were probably right to conclude that, given the chance, the Corps “could create an ‘endless loop’ of financially onerous regulatory activity” for Mr. Lewis. But the Judges fail to mention that conclusion could be based on the fact that EPA’s and the Corps’ tenth, post Sackett, attempt to determine the reach of the Clean Water Act continues to extend Clean Water Act jurisdiction to “tributaries,” “impoundments,” and “wetlands” that have a “continuous surface connection” to waters that are not “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, [or] interstate waters.” That’s a different standard than the Justice Alito-supplied standard the three Fifth Circuit Judges applied in holding that the Lewis property was not subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction even though a culvert on the Lewis property connects to a “relatively permanent water” which connects to another “relatively permanent water” which connects to a “traditional navigable water.”

Now EPA’s and the Corps’ most recent Waters of the United States regulation is currently being challenged in two Federal District Courts, including on the basis that the regulation is broader than allowed by the Supreme Court in Sackett. But that regulation hasn’t been struck down yet. That apparently didn’t matter at all to these three Judges of the Fifth Circuit. And it may be worth mentioning that one of those challenges to EPA’s and the Corps’ regulation is in Federal District Court in Texas which is in, you guessed it, the Fifth Circuit.

What does this all mean? Well, I think it means we’re going to continue to see some Judges applying the Supreme Court’s Sackett holding to determine the extent of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, ignoring EPA’s and the Corps’ subsequent regulation, unless and until Congress decides to get involved in the longest running controversy in environmental law.

©1994-2023 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Clean Water Act jurisdiction, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

AI Versus Westlaw Copyright Bellwether Hurtles Toward Jury as Summary Judgment Largely Denied

In one of the first lawsuits to allege that generative AI companies violate the U.S. Copyright Act by using copyrighted works to train machine learning models, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Delaware Circuit Court recently denied the majority of issues raised in cross motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff Thomson Reuters and defendant Ross Intelligence Inc.  The court declined to issue a dispositive ruling on the hot-button question of whether the fair use doctrine protects generative AI companies that use copyrighted materials to train their programs.

Thomson Reuters (owner of Westlaw) sued Ross Intelligence, a legal-research generative AI startup, in May 2020, alleging that Ross was liable for both copyright infringement and tortious interference with contract.  The allegations against Ross stem from its endeavor to create a search engine that uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to provide answers to commonly asked legal questions.

In need of material to train its generative AI, Ross attempted to obtain a license to use Westlaw.  When Westlaw turned Ross away, it asked third-party legal research companies to provide it with legal material — much of which those legal research companies obtained from Westlaw.  Thomson Reuters contends that Ross copied large portions of Westlaw’s Headnotes and Key Number System.

After Ross’s motion to dismiss the copyright claim was denied in March of 2021, the parties each moved for summary judgment on a multitude of issues.  Most notably, Thomson Reuters moved for summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim, and both sides moved for summary judgment on Ross’s assertion of fair use.

On the issue of copyright infringement, Judge Bibas granted Thomson Reuters’ motion on the limited issue that Ross “copied at least portions of” Westlaw’s work.  However, the remaining issues of the copyright claim — the validity of Thomson Reuters’ copyright and the substantial similarity of Ross’s work — were denied summary judgment and will go to a jury.

On the issue of fair use, Ross contends that its use of Thomson Reuters’ materials, even if found to be copyright protected, was permissible.

The question of fair use protection for generative AI developers is significant because all generative AI requires the input of a vast amount of information to train its machine learning and develop its content.  Intellectual property law comes into play where the training materials — the “input” into the AI — are copyright protected.  When the input material is copyright protected, AI developers may seek to rely on the fair use doctrine to use copyright-protected works without permission from the copyright holder.

As discussed in the court’s opinion, whether the use of copyrighted material is fair depends on the balance of four factors — the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work.  Courts tend to give the most weight to the first and fourth factors.

The first factor, the purpose and character of the use, looks to the commerciality and transformativeness of the use of the copyrighted work.  While Judge Bibas held that Ross’s use of Thomson Reuters’ materials was undoubtedly commercial in nature, which weighs against finding fair use, the court could not say as a matter of law whether Ross’ works were sufficiently transformative.  Each party offers a differing account of exactly how Ross used the Westlaw information — did Ross merely translate Westlaw’s headnotes into numerical data that would later be displayed by its AI search engine?  Or did it, as Ross contends, study Westlaw’s headnotes and opinion quotes only to analyze language patterns rather than replicate Westlaw’s protected expressions?

According to the court, the answers to these questions fall within the discretion of a jury. In this regard, the court noted that Ross’s use was “transformative intermediate copying if Ross’s AI only studied the language patterns in the headnotes to learn how to produce judicial opinion quotes.  But if Thomson Reuters is right that Ross used the untransformed text of its headnotes to get its AI to replicate and reproduce the creative drafting done by Westlaw’s attorney editors,” then Ross’s argument that its work was sufficiently transformative might fail.

As to the other three factors for fair use, the court similarly held that they could not be resolved on summary judgment because of remaining questions of fact.  However, the court noted that the second factor — the nature of Thomson Reuters’ copyrighted work — seemed to favor fair use.  Specifically, Westlaw’s Key Number system is a method of organization that “inherently involves significantly less creative or original expression” than traditionally protected materials, and the Headnotes are “akin to news reporting” that must be carefully separated from the unprotected underlying facts of the judicial opinions they synthesize. A jury trial in this case might yield the first judgment on issues related to generative AI, copyright, and fair use.  This case could have an impact not only on the AI and machine learning industry, but also the public interest as a whole while the world continues to adjust to the myriad new realities and resulting issues of first impression on the new AI frontier.

© 2023 Vedder Price
Article by Keeley Sawyer of Vedder Price
For more articles on AI copyright, visit the NLR Intellectual Property law section.

Legal News Reach S3E1: The DEI Dialogue: How Feedback Fosters Inclusion and Diversity in the Workplace

Welcome to Legal News Reach Season 3! We begin the new year with a conversation between the National Law Review’s Social Media Manager, Crissonna Tennison, and Bracewell’s D&I and Community Outreach Director, Monica Parker.

By now, most firms understand that diversity and inclusion are nonnegotiable foundations for a successful organization, but feedback conversations remain a commonly overlooked—or avoided—tool for fostering deeper professional connections amongst colleagues with different backgrounds and experiences. What role does feedback play in successful D&I practice, and how can attorneys approach it?

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

 

Crissonna Tennison

Thank you for tuning in to the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Crissonna Tennison, Web Publication Specialist and Social Media Manager for the National Law Review. In this episode, I’ll be speaking with Monica Parker, Director of D&I and Community Outreach at Bracewell LLP.

Monica, can you tell me a little bit about your background, what led you to practice law in the first place and eventually to Bracewell?

Monica Parker

Well first of all, thank you for having me. I’m excited to be here to have this chat with you today Crissonna.

As you mentioned, I’m a former practicing attorney. I have spent about two decades in law firms and professional development and, recently, diversity and inclusion. And what made me practice law, I’m not the typical law student. I didn’t go straight from college to law school, I worked for four years. And you know what, I missed school. So I appreciated the intellectual rigor, I would say, of law school, and then I ended up falling in love with Harvard Law’s negotiation program. That’s where I went to school. So I ended up becoming a teaching assistant for the negotiation program while I was there, and then came back as a lecturer in law to teach the course after I graduated.

What led me to Bracewell–I would say here is the plug for the importance of your network. I heard about this position through someone that I knew when I was a summer associate many years ago at a law firm. This person was then working in professional development for that firm. She’s now the Chief Talent Officer at Bracewell. So that’s how I heard about the opportunity. I will say that when I interviewed I had conversations with the firm’s Managing Partner, as well as the chair of the D&I Committee, the firm’s General Counsel, the hiring partners, and others, and really just appreciated the genuine, authentic nature of the leadership. They were candid with me about what’s working, what the challenges are, and it was an opportunity to have an impact and work with some good folks to that timeline at Bracewell.

Crissonna Tennison

It’s always great when your workplace is transparent with what’s going on and shows that they’re willing to have ongoing conversations. What brought you more specifically into the diversity and inclusion world and practice?

Monica Parker

I would say, like many folks who work in this arena, I was motivated by my own experiences of being a woman of color in this profession. At this stage of the game, I have a wealth of experience. And I’ve been fortunate in my career, and I saw this as an opportunity to help lift others up. Plus, I really wanted to have the opportunity to have an impact. And there’s lots of space to have impact in the world of diversity and inclusion these days.

Crissonna Tennison

Definitely. Broadly speaking, what would you say some of the hurdles are to ensuring diversity specifically in the legal business and legal field?

Monica Parker

There are three major challenges among others, right? There are several, but I would say pipeline is one, recruiting is another, and then retention is a third.

So when I think about the pipeline piece, not everyone has the same opportunities, right? They can’t all necessarily go to the best schools, they may not have family members or family friends who sit around the dinner table talking about the practice of law, they may not have opportunities with college applications or law school applications. So that’s one hurdle, right? And if you do make it over that hurdle, and you graduate from law school, then not everyone is going to come to a large law firm. So this is actually a very competitive market that we’re operating in to begin with. And then once you get there, for underrepresented groups, you have to make sure that they’re getting the same kinds of opportunities as everyone else. So for example, you need there to be a lot of candid feedback conversations, people need mentors and sponsors. But often people tend to connect with those who are like them. So those are some of the challenges specifically for the legal industry, it can be kind of difficult to feel comfortable enough with people to have the kind of conversations you’re talking about. So if you have people that look like you that makes all the difference in the world.

Crissonna Tennison

So when it comes to diversity and inclusion, what are some general patterns that you’ve noticed that have been productive, and some patterns that are not quite so productive at this time that you’re hoping might change?

Monica Parker

So let me talk about the not so productive patterns, right? So in the world of D&I, you sometimes can see what I call “check-the-box” exercises. So, for example, if everyone jumps onto the training bandwagon, training in and of itself doesn’t have the greatest return on investment. Here’s what you can do to be more productive: you can pair that with coaching, you can choose a particular area. So let’s say you want to do unconscious bias training when it comes to hiring practices, then you can do the training with folks who are involved. And you can provide coaching for those folks as they’re going through the hiring process. And then you can notice what’s working, what’s not working, continue to develop it and iterate it. And I think that’s how you shift from a not so productive practice or pattern to something that is more productive.

I think just telling people that you need them to do something, but then not giving them any tools to do it, is probably not the best approach. So for example, I mentioned feedback. We know it’s good. We know it’s important, but if people aren’t doing it, especially if you notice they’re not providing feedback to folks of color, you want to dig into that and you want to understand why and then offer some specific support around that.

Crissonna Tennison

I can see how that’s definitely something that comes up a lot. Leaning more into the feedback piece, that’s something that you speak a lot about. When it comes to feedback, these conversations obviously are not fun for most parties involved. Can you talk more about how you can navigate those conversations in a positive way, and what some of the benefits are of doing so?

Monica Parker

Sure. As you said, having feedback conversations can be difficult. And I can say this because I’m a lawyer, lawyers are often conflict averse. And so what happens is, you need to give this feedback, you know you do, you don’t want to give feedback because you’re worried about how the other person’s going to respond to it. So then you don’t do it, the behavior continues or gets worse. And you need to have this conversation. It ends up being this vicious cycle. Also, as we’ve talked about, if people tend to work with those that they like, or who look like them, then they tend to be more comfortable giving feedback to those folks as well. And let me just point out also, everyone’s very busy. And it can feel like giving feedback is one of those things that can take so much time. And “you know what, maybe it’s just better if I do it myself.”

Well, the challenge there is that if you’re not giving that feedback, then you’re not giving the person the opportunity to grow and to develop. And that’s the benefit of giving feedback. And then also as a way of showing your commitment to your employees too, if you’ve spent the time and the money to invest in them joining your firm, then you want to make sure you’re giving them the feedback that they need in order to be able to succeed there.

And I think that sometimes we think it’s going to take a lot of time to give that feedback. But it actually can take less time than you think. If you think about what you want to share, provide specific examples. Give the person the opportunity to ask questions, and then see how they do.

Crissonna Tennison

Unfortunately, I relate to the putting off things part. And what’s interesting about that is when you notice something that requires feedback early on, that conversation, it would seem, would tend to go a bit better than if you let it go on for a while and now you’ve built up resentment and the problem’s bigger. I can see how maybe creating a framework for doing it in a positive way might decrease the dread that might make you put it off. I can see how that can be really important.

Can you talk about some actionable tips that managers can take to provide feedback, maybe more routinely and in a more comfortable way?

Monica Parker

The first thing to do is to think about how you want to frame the conversation, especially if it’s making you nervous that you have to give this feedback and you’re worried about how the other person’s going to respond. So even a simple line, something you can remember and say easily, “I care about you and want you to do well here,” and then provide the feedback, it demonstrates to the other person, “This is about helping you grow and develop, and that’s important to me.” And I think that’s often what people want to hear when they’re on the receiving end of that feedback.

The second thing you want to do is share specific examples rather than talking in general terms. I can remember when I was a junior associate at a law firm and I received back work covered in red lines, you know, it looked like it was written in blood, just a marked up memo of my work. And the partner had put a handwritten note at the top of the memo that said, “Do better.” Who? What? What does “do better” mean? Some specificity would help. Now in my case, what I did is I went and talked with a more senior associate, to get a sense of what needed to be done to improve the memo. But being specific with your feedback is very helpful.

And then…it’s time to let the feedback sandwich go. Okay! The feedback sandwich is where you say something good, then you give them some other critical feedback, and then you say something good. The reason why it’s time to let it go is because everybody knows it’s coming. People are very savvy now. So they can tell when there’s a feedback sandwich in the works. And they can never actually hear the good stuff you’re saying because they’re waiting for that other shoe to drop where you tell them what’s not working. So why not just offer the critical feedback upfront? That’s one option. Another option is to ask the recipient, “What do you want to hear? Do you want to hear the feedback about what I want us to improve on first and then tell you what’s going well? Or the opposite?” You can ask!

Crissonna Tennison

Right as you said “it’s time to let go the feedback sandwich go” I was going to ask whether we should do the feedback sandwich, because I feel like if I received that paper that said “do better” with just a bunch of red marks I would shut down, at least at first. So yeah, there’s definitely room for being kind in the way that you do it.

Out of curiosity, when it comes to offering feedback, is it helpful if you’ve already developed some kind of a positive relationship with the person you’re giving feedback to? Can you speak to that a little bit?

Monica Parker

I think that’s a really good question. I think that to the extent there’s rapport and trust has been developed in relationship, it does make it easier to give that feedback because the recipient already knows that you care about them and knows that you want them to do well, and also hopefully feels comfortable asking more questions or sharing their perspective about whatever the situation is. With that being said, that can’t always be the case, right? If you’re just starting at an organization, if you’re a new person, building that rapport is going to take some time. Interestingly enough, I think if you were to give candid feedback, if you were to provide examples, if you were to do that in a timely fashion that would actually help you to build that trust and rapport, that will suit you further in the relationship as you go forward.

Crissonna Tennison

If you’re an employee, what should you be looking out for in terms of indicating that you’re not getting the level of feedback that you should be getting or that you deserve to get?

Monica Parker

If all you’re hearing is you’re doing fine, you want to dig deeper. It could be true that you’re doing fine. But it also may not be true that you’re doing fine. It could be that you’re working with someone who has difficulty sharing critical feedback or who’s very busy. And in that case, you’re going to want to dig a bit. Also, if you find yourself in your annual review, and you’re surprised by some critical feedback that you get, that’s an example that you haven’t been getting the feedback that you need, because what you hear in your annual review should never be a surprise, in terms of offering feedback. And it’s something that you want to offer regularly.

Crissonna Tennison

Would it be helpful for people to establish more frequent check-ins instead of the once a year, big one?

Monica Parker

It’s definitely helpful to establish regular check-ins. In some of my previous roles, I’ve had the opportunity to have a weekly or every other week check-in with the folks that I was supervising. And those are fantastic opportunities, not only for me to give feedback, but also for me to receive feedback. And again, that’s another way to build that relationship of trust and rapport. But if you’re doing this on a regular basis, even if it’s just a quick check, and a quick coaching session, you can catch a lot of things early and repair those things early as opposed to waiting until the annual review. By the time you get to the annual review, it’s actually too late. At that point, it really should just be a review of the year and then looking forward. So it’s very important to establish those regular check-ins again, even if they’re very short, for sure.

Crissonna Tennison

So I’m an employee, and I’m finding that I’m not getting the feedback that I think I deserve. What are some tips you have for an associate to proactively ask for that feedback if their supervisor hasn’t reached out recently, or may be dropping the ball in that area?

Monica Parker

I think a common mistake that people make is they just say “I’d appreciate any feedback.” And you may not get it when you ask that question. I think you want to be more specific than that. You could say something like, “Well, how would you have handled this?” Or “What would your approach with the client have been?” in case of an associate talking to the partner, or “I noticed you changed this point here? Will you tell me more about that?” Because when you’re asking very specific questions, you’re much more likely to engage the person in the conversation. And I think also sometimes being on the receiving end of critical feedback is hard for a lot of us, myself included. And so then you want to be prepared to take in what you hear. I often suggest that people take notes, because sometimes it can be hard to hear and taking notes can help you digest a bit better. And then also go find someone to process it with, someone who can help you understand the feedback that you received, you know, help you stay on an even keel. So those are some of the things that I would recommend.

Crissonna Tennison

That is really helpful advice. I can see how asking, “Oh, how would you have done that?” or “What was your thought process behind that?” makes it less about you, which makes it easier for everyone involved.

What can leaders do to ensure that people of color and other minoritized people feel comfortable being open about their experiences and evolving needs? I think you already spoke to this a little bit when it comes to building rapport, but is there anything else that you think would help?

Monica Parker

For sure, I think providing opportunities for underrepresented groups to share their perspective is really important. But then you have to take it a step beyond that. You have to be sure to look for ways to act upon what it is that you hear. And then there’s a step beyond that, where you then have to communicate that you’ve done so. So as an example, when I joined Bracewell, I did a listening tour. So I talked with over 100 attorneys about their experiences with diversity and inclusion at the firm. And then I had the opportunity to go to the partner retreat to present my findings as well as to make recommendations. And then from there, the D&I committee has spent its energy and time implementing those recommendations. So it’s really important, if you’re going to if you’re going to ask people to share about their experiences, you want to make sure that you’re demonstrating that you heard it, you’re trying to make an effort to do something with that feedback, and you’re making sure that they know that that’s what you’ve done.

Crissonna Tennison

Yeah, I can see that being helpful because it is a bit of emotional labor, sharing your feedback as a person of color or someone with a different experience, especially in a professional context. That can be a bit challenging, and it’s helpful to know that the other parties involved are also doing their part.

You talked a little bit about it, but what does a day in the life of a D&I consultant or leader look like? I’ve always been curious about that.

Monica Parker

I can tell you first, it’s always a mix, always. So for example, I could be talking with firm leadership about a strategic diversity initiative, I could be immersed in programming, I mentioned the feedback workshops. That’s something that I’ve designed and then delivered to the partners of the firm. There can be times where I’m meeting one-on-one with a partner or an associate to talk about an issue. Also Bracewell likes to collaborate with clients on diversity initiatives. So for example, we partnered with a client through our mutual summer programs where our summer associates of color got to meet with the clients of color, and then the General Counsel and members of the legal team for that client had lunch with all those folks and they got to talk about diversity and inclusion in that legal industry. So it’s always a fun mix of activities, it means that there’s never a dull day.

Crissonna Tennison

No, I can imagine there would not be a dull day in that area. So shifting a little bit, you mentioned that you used to work as an Associate Executive Director for a Seattle-based education nonprofit. Would you be interested in talking a little bit more about that and how it informs your current practice?

Monica Parker

Sure. At the education nonprofit we worked with students of color who are often the first in their families to go to college. So I got to see pipeline issues firsthand. Our students were rising fifth graders, and we worked with them all the way through college. And what I learned more than anything else is the importance of starting early, and then also looking for opportunities to continue to support the pipeline. But I think one of the major lessons was thinking about what it’s like to be the first. So not everyone has a parent or a family friend, or connections, right? Folks who went to law school or practice at large law firms or work for large corporations. Not everyone has that. They have a very different experience coming into a law firm, and that can be all new for an associate. And so it’s both recognizing the challenges for folks as you think about the pipeline issues, then it’s also about thinking about the challenges once that person enters a law firm. So that very much informs the work that I currently do.

Crissonna Tennison

It’s so easy to fall through the cracks. Do you have any D&I initiatives at Bracewell that you’re particularly proud of, or that have been particularly effective?

Monica Parker

I mentioned one of them, so let me dive a little bit deeper into it. I have a background in training folks on how to navigate difficult conversations, this came out of my work at Harvard Law School. And so I developed an interactive workshop on how to give feedback for the partners of the firm. And so what I’m doing in the workshops is I’m sharing a framework for how to have these conversations that allows you to prepare for them and hopefully navigate them with a little less anxiety and with more ease. And then we also talk about differences in feedback, that concept of how it can be easier to give feedback to someone who is like you or looks like you. And when there’s differences in feedback that can create some challenges.

So let’s say, for example, that a white male partner is wanting to give feedback to a woman of color associate. He might be worried that what he says can be perceived as sexist or racist, in which case he’s not going to share that feedback, he’s gonna say you’re doing just fine. So we talked about how differences in feedback can impact the relationship and the associate’s ability to grow and develop at the firm. And I think of the workshops too as a luxury for partners to have a dedicated span of time where they can just talk about delivering feedback and what’s challenging about it, and how to improve upon it. And also to hear about the experiences of their colleagues and know that they’re not the only ones navigating this and that it can be very difficult.

One of the things that’s funny to me about doing workshops, I’ve done training for lawyers, and of course, being a lawyer, I know what lawyers are like, and I know what we think about training. So one of my favorite comments was after a workshop when a partner came up to me and said, “I was skeptical. But this was good.” It’s a tough crowd! It’s a tough crowd.

I would also say that one of the things I’ve loved is that after the workshops, partners will request individual coaching. I remember one partner coming up to me right after the workshop and saying, “I’ve got a feedback conversation coming up with an associate and I’m worried about how the associate’s going to respond.” So we did some coaching on how to frame the conversation with specific examples on what to do with your own strong emotions that you might be experiencing as you’re giving the feedback. So the partner had that conversation with an associate and came back and told me that it went well and that the training was time well spent. That is high praise.

Crissonna Tennison

Honestly, I feel like if you can master the feedback conversation, especially in this kind of a high stakes environment, that has to be transferable to life. I feel like your communication skills would be through the roof. I would love to attend a workshop.

Monica Parker

You’re right. What I tell participants is, it will absolutely help you at work in terms of feedback with associates, it will help you in your work with clients, in your relationships with your colleagues; in general, it can help you at home as well with your significant other. The only folks that this material does not work on would be toddlers. They are quite skilled at difficult conversations and negotiation. I have lost every single negotiation that I’ve had with my nephew starting when he was a toddler and now his toddler sister. So forget it. It won’t work on toddlers but everyone else yeah, okay,

Crissonna Tennison

Well, we’ll just have the toddlers tell us how to communicate. They’re very clear with their needs.

So you wrote a book that was published by the American Bar Association, it’s called “What It Takes: How Women of Color Can Thrive Within the Practice of Law.” Can you talk a little bit more about what motivated you specifically to write that book and what you think readers might get from it?

Monica Parker

At the time, there was a study that the ABA had published called “Visible Invisibility,” and it was about how women of color tend to slip through the cracks at large law firms. There have been studies done on women, done on people of color, but women of color just weren’t in the mix. And so this particular report focused on women of color at large law firms, and I will say what I read was sobering, but absolutely necessary. And what I started thinking was, this was needed. I wonder if it’s possible to do a follow-up where we talk with women of color partners at large law firms who are doing well and see what we can learn from them. So I had a chance to conduct interviews with women of color partners across the country, which was wonderful. So we got a wide range of perspectives on what was working for them, what was challenging, and then lots of tips and tricks on how to be successful at large law firms. So it’s a fantastic read for associates, of course, but it’s also a great read for law firms as well.

Crissonna Tennison

Do you think it would be helpful to read even if you’re not a woman of color?

Monica Parker

Absolutely, it is. It’s useful for anyone to get perspective on what it’s like to be a woman of color. And interestingly enough, and probably not a surprise, but a lot of the advice offered there is valuable for anyone in any role, essentially. So yes, it’s a great read. If I do say so myself.

Crissonna Tennison

Oh, no, I love it. I believe you. And it’s good to advocate for yourself. So I will probably read it.

Can you talk a little bit more about what you feel the stakes are when it comes to developing diversity and inclusion practices in law? Like what do you feel like the larger stakes are?

Monica Parker

Well this one may be obvious, but it bears repeating: clients are wanting to see diversity in their legal teams. It’s going to vary from client to client. But we have seen this trend where it’s becoming increasingly important, and there are clients who absolutely demand diversity in their legal teams. And that’s something that’s not going to go away. So that’s a major stake. I would say also, firms, again no surprise, have invested a lot in their people. And so if you invested that much in your people, you want to retain your people, and you want them to succeed, and you want them to be fulfilled. Turnover is expensive.

I’d also say that you want to have a reputation for attracting diverse talent. And candidates for firms are asking about that. That’s something that I’ve noticed that’s also becoming increasingly the case, and not just candidates of color, but white candidates as well, because they want to work at a place that values diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. So if you want to attract the best talent, you want DEI to be top of mind.

Crissonna Tennison

I feel like I’ve been hearing that lately, that diversity issues are, in addition to all the other reasons why they’re so important, they’re also important when it comes to just the business elements of running a firm. Do you see any possible trickle down effects of diversity and inclusion in law affecting people in the broader world, like clients or just people who need legal services? Is that something that you think is relevant?

Monica Parker

It’s relevant, because as humans, we all want to see people who look like us. So if I’m a client of a law firm, I would like to see people who look like me working at that law firm, doing well at that law firm, whether it’s a client at a large law firm, you know, a medium sized firm, a small firm. That’s important too just because lawyers often are very involved in their communities as well. It’s important to see the representation match up with the community. So I do think it’s important for that to be there.

There are some of the standard arguments you may have already heard around how diverse teams perform better, have better results overall. So I think that just by nature of having that diversity, you bring a diversity of experiences to the table, and that’s at the end of the day going to be all to the good.

Crissonna Tennison

Do you have any final thoughts or messages to share for listeners or anything that you feel we should have asked or touched on that we didn’t?

Monica Parker

One final point: diversity, equity and inclusion is a team effort. So it’s not up to your DEI person or leadership to make things happen, although those are necessary, folks. I look at it as, D&I requires every person in the organization to be focused on making the workplace an inclusive space where everyone can achieve.

Crissonna Tennison

Yeah, I can see how in an office environment you have to work together to create an effective workplace. And that includes working together to build a more accessible, inclusive workplace where everyone feels comfortable to do their best work.

Thank you so much for coming on through and talking to us today. That was a lot of really interesting and good information. So yeah, thank you for coming and joining our show today and sharing your insights with us.

Monica Parker

Well, thanks again for having me. I enjoyed our conversation.

OUTRO 

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlaw review.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC
For more Business of Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Mediation vs. Arbitration Provisions in a Contract

All provisions of a contract are relevant, no matter how innocuous they appear to be and no matter how many times you are told that they are “just boilerplate.” Mediation and arbitration provisions often are deemed to fall in the “boilerplate” category, but the impact of these provisions cannot be understated.

Taking a step back, in the event of a dispute between contract counterparties, the underlying contract often provides an avenue for resolution of such dispute, which may require that the parties pursue such matter in court, through arbitration or by other means, including mediation. While most parties are familiar with the concept of litigation, the differences between mediation and arbitration are less well-known. Among the many relevant factors distinguishing between mediation and arbitration, the following three factors should be considered:

  1. Mediation in the United States is non-binding, meaning that a party is not obligated to follow the determination of a mediator. Arbitration, on the other hand, may be binding.

  2. From a timing standpoint, the mediation process is more expeditious, often being completed anywhere from one to three months after the process is initiated, depending upon the complexity of the issues and the parties’ agreements. Arbitration proceedings often last as long as a lawsuit with a formal discovery process and other formalities that commonly would be part of a lawsuit.

  3. From a cost perspective, mediation is more economical, largely due to the speed of the process and less legal formalities. This generally bodes well for the parties if they agree to abide by the determination of the mediator or view such decision as indicative of how an arbitrator or judge ultimately would rule on a matter. But since mediation is non-binding, parties may view this process as an unnecessary delay and waste of resources.

© 2023 Chuhak & Tecson P.C.

For more Business of Law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review

Foreign Account Keeps Three-Year Statute of Limitations Open

In Fairbank v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-19 (Feb. 23, 2023), the Tax Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did not bar assessment. On April 12, 2018, the IRS issued to Leigh and Barbara Fairbank a notice of deficiency for tax years 2003-2009. Because the Fairbanks timely filed their tax returns, they asserted that the three-year statute of limitations barred assessment. The case was determined based on an analysis of IRC Section 6501(c)(8). Section 6501(c)(8) provides that the statute of limitations shall not expire until three years after the date on which information is reported to the IRS for a foreign trust.

Barbara Fairbank was previously married to Mr. Hagaman, who was in the business of oil trading. He held financial accounts in Liechtenstein, New Zealand and Switzerland. Mr. Hagaman failed to file tax returns for years 1980-1982 and the IRS asserted he had a tax liability of $14.7 million. The IRS awarded Barbara innocent spouse relief.

In 1981, Barbara and Mr. Hagaman separated and a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was granted on May 21, 1982 by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Pursuant to an Agreement of Interim and Partial Distribution of Community Property, Mr. Hagaman was to pay Barbara child support and certain lump sum payments. These payments were made to a UBS account in the name of Xavana Establishment, an entity formed in Switzerland or Liechtenstein.

In 2008, the IRS issued a “John Doe” summons to UBS requesting information relating to U.S. accountholders with undisclosed foreign accounts. In 2010, UBS advised Barbara that it provided information on Xavana Establishment to the IRS. Thereafter, the Fairbanks’ returns were selected for audit. On July 18, 2012, the Fairbanks provided the IRS revenue agent with all documents related to the UBS account for Xavana Establishment, including bank statements. The Fairbanks then filed FBARs to report the foreign account. However, the Fairbanks never filed Forms 3520 or 3520-A. Forms 3520 and 3520-A are required to be filed under Section 6048 for an owner of a foreign account (Form 3520-A) and recipient of foreign gifts (Form 3520).

The Fairbanks argued that the three-year statute of limitations started on July 18, 2012 when they provided all information on the UBS account to the IRS revenue agent. However, the Court ruled that the statute of limitations does not start until the IRS forms, Forms 3520 and 3520-A, are filed. The Court also ruled that because the Fairbanks never advised their CPA about the foreign account, they were not eligible for abatement of penalties due to reasonable cause.

In general, the three-year statute of limitations bars assessment, but the statute of limitations may be extended in certain circumstances including the failure to report a foreign account.

Article By David B. Shiner of Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.

Click for more on Financial Institutions & Banking

© 2023 Chuhak & Tecson P.C.

NLRB Determines Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions to be Unlawful in Severance Agreements

The National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB or the Board) issued a decision earlier this week that purports to ban confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions from most employee severance agreements.

In McLaren Macomb, the Board scrutinized severance agreements an employer gave to 11 employees who had recently been laid off. The confidentiality provision stated that the terms of the severance agreement were confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone with few exceptions (e.g., the employees’ spouses). The non-disparagement provision barred the employees from making statements to anyone that could disparage or harm the image of the employer or its officers, directors, employees, etc. These provisions are obviously common in severance agreements.

Among other things, the Board determined that both provisions unlawfully prevented the former employees from speaking out about working conditions and compensation (including the severance) offered by the employer and assisting with NLRB and other government investigations. Historically, the NLRB has gone back and forth on whether such provisions are lawful. However, the position taken this week is the NLRB’s most aggressive position to date. Specifically, the Board determined that the mere inclusion of such provisions in a severance agreement is unlawful because they have a deterrent and chilling effect on worker’s rights, even if the employee does not sign the agreement or the employer does not enforce the provisions against an employee who breaches confidentiality or disparages the company after signing.

It is important to note that this decision has some limitations:

  • First, it does not apply to “supervisors” (as defined by the NLRA) or to independent contractors. Who is a “supervisor” under the NLRA involves several factors, including whether the employee has the authority to hire, fire, discipline, or direct the work of another employee. Therefore, it is clear that executives and upper-level management are not covered by this ruling, and, depending on the circumstances, middle and even lower level managers may not be covered either.
  • Second, some have questioned whether a smartly worded disclaimer may permit employers to include limited confidentiality and limited non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements given to rank-and-file employees. For instance, in the past, employers often included a broad statement that the severance agreement is not intended to and in fact does not infringe upon any rights the employee may have under the NLRA. Unfortunately, the Board did not specifically address this issue, but, given the aggressive position taken in the Board’s decision this week, there is definitely some risk of liability even with such disclaimers. That determination should be made based on the employer’s risk-tolerance, along with the circumstances of the individual severance agreement, and is best determined by speaking with legal counsel.

The NLRB General Counsel is expected to release additional guidance on this issue in the coming months. Until that happens, employers should seriously consider this decision when drafting severance agreements.

© 2007-2023 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved
For more Labor Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FinCEN Issues Final Rule on the Corporate Transparency Act Requiring Businesses to Report Beneficial Ownership Information

On September 30, 2022, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published its final rule implementing Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The final rule, which will take effect on January 1, 2024, will require “tens of millions” of companies doing business in the U.S. to report certain information about their beneficial owners. The reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN. Reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will be required to file initial beneficial ownership reports within 30 days of formation.

The CTA was passed by Congress on January 1, 2021, as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. After publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and receiving public comments, FinCEN adopted the proposed rule largely as proposed, with certain modifications intended to minimize unnecessary burdens on reporting companies.

What Entities are Reporting Companies? The final rule describes two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign.

  • A domestic reporting company is any entity that is a corporation, a limited liability company, or other entity (such as limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships and business trusts) created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

  • A foreign reporting company is any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

What Entities are Exempt? The final rule exempts twenty-three separate categories of entities from the definition of the reporting company. Many of the exempted entities are already subject to federal or state regulations requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership information, such as banks, credit unions, depositary institutions, investment advisors, securities brokers and dealers, accounting firms, governmental entities, tax-exempt entities, and entities registered with the SEC under the Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the rules set forth an exemption for “large operating companies” that can demonstrate each of the following factors:

  • Employ more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S.

  • Have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S.

  • Filed a federal income tax or information return in the U.S. for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales (excluding gross receipts or sales from sources outside the U.S.)

Finally, under the so-called “subsidiary exemption,” entities whose ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned by one or more exempt entities may also qualify for exemption. If a reporting company was formerly exempt but loses its exemption, it must file an updated report that announces the change and includes all the information required in a reporting company’s initial report.

Who are Beneficial Owners? The final rule requires reporting companies to report each individual who is a beneficial owner of such reporting company. A “beneficial owner” is any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over the reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company. An individual exercises “substantial control” if such individual:

  • Serves as a senior officer (except for corporate secretary or treasurer)

  • Has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body)

  • Directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company

  • Has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company

Additionally, an individual may exercise substantial control over a reporting company, directly or indirectly, including as a trustee of a trust or similar arrangement, through:

  • Board representation

  • Ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or voting rights of the reporting company

  • Rights associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company

  • Control over one or more intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company

  • Arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as nominees

  • Any other contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise

The final rule exempts five categories of individuals from the definition of beneficial owner: (i) minors, (ii) nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents, (iii) certain employees who are not senior officers, (iv) heirs with a future interest in the company, and (v) certain creditors.

Who are Company Applicants? In addition to the beneficial owner information, the final rule requires reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, to report identifying information about each “company applicant.” A “company applicant” is:

  • Any individual who directly files the document to create a domestic reporting company or register a foreign reporting company with a secretary of state or similar office in the U.S.

  • Any individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing

The final rule provides further clarification as to certain individuals who, by virtue of their formation roles, fall under the definition of “company applicants.” For example:

  • If an attorney oversees the preparation and filing of incorporation documents and a paralegal files them, the reporting company would report both the attorney and paralegal as company applicants.

  • If an individual prepares and self-files documents to create the individual’s own reporting company, the reporting company would report the individual as the only company applicant.

The final rule removes the requirements that i) entities created before the effective date report company applicant information and ii) reporting companies update their company applicant information (except to correct inaccuracies), each of which were set forth in the proposed rules.

When are Initial Reports Due? When an initial report must be filed depends on the status of the reporting company as of January 1, 2024:

  • If Created or Registered on or after January 1, 2024 – It must file a report within 30 calendar days from the earlier of: i) the date on which the company receives actual notice that its creation or registration has become effective, or ii) the date a secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice, such as through a publicly accessible registry, that the company has been created or registered.

  • If Created or Registered Prior to January 1, 2024 – It must file a report not later than January 1, 2025.

What Information Must be Reported? An initial report must include the following information with respect to the reporting company:

  • The full legal name of the reporting company

  • Any trade name or “doing business as” name of the reporting company

  • The street address of the principal place of business of the reporting company (if outside the U.S., the street address of the primary location in the U.S. where it conducts business)

  • The state, tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation of the reporting company (a foreign reporting company must also report the state or tribal jurisdiction where it first registers)

  • The IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (“TIN”) of the reporting company (including the EIN of the reporting company, or if a foreign reporting company without a TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction)

For each company applicant (of a reporting company registered or created on or after January 1, 2024) and each beneficial owner of a reporting company, the following information must be reported:

  • The full legal name of the individual

  • The date of birth of the individual

  • The current business street address (for a company applicant who forms or registers an entity in the course of such company applicant’s business) or residential street address (for all other individuals including beneficial owners)

  • A unique identifying number from, and image of, an acceptable identification document (e.g., a passport)

If a reporting company is directly or indirectly owned by one or more exempt entities and an individual is a beneficial owner of the reporting company exclusively by virtue of such individual’s ownership interest in the exempt entity, the reporting company’s report may list the name of the exempt entity in lieu of the beneficial ownership information set forth above.

When do Companies have to Report Changes? If there is any change with respect to required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a reporting company or its beneficial owners, including any change with respect to who is a beneficial owner or information reported for any particular beneficial owner, the reporting company is required to file an updated report within 30 calendar days of when the change occurred.

What are the Penalties for Violations? The final rule provides for a fine of up to $10,000.00 and/or imprisonment of up to two years for any person who willfully: (i) provides or attempts to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, or (ii) fails to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. The penalties may also extend to individuals causing a reporting company’s failure to report or update information and senior officials of a reporting company at the time such failure occurs.

What is Coming Next from FinCEN? FinCEN is expected to publish the forms and instructions to be used for reporting beneficial ownership information well in advance of the effective date. FinCEN will further establish a secure nonpublic database for storage of the beneficial ownership information. Finally, FinCEN will issue rules on who may access the information (a limited group of governmental authorities and financial institutions), under what circumstances, and how the parties would generally be required to handle and safeguard the information.

What Should Reporting Companies be Doing Now? Existing companies should begin evaluating whether they are a “reporting company” and if so, determining who are their beneficial owners. Such reporting companies, including any other reporting companies that may be created or registered before the effective date, will have until January 1, 2025, to file an initial report. As noted, reporting companies created or registered on or after the effective date will have 30 calendar days after the date of creation or registration to file an initial report.

Article By Thomas G. Appleman, Arthur L. Griem, and Vera S. Hansen of Miller Canfield

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Throwing Out the Privacy Policy is a Bad Idea

The public internet has been around for about thirty years and consumers’ browser-based graphic-heavy experience has existed for about twenty-five years. In the early days, commercial websites operated without privacy policies.

Eventually, people started to realize that they were leaving trails of information online, and in the early ‘aughts the methods for business capturing and profiting from these trails became clear, although the actual uses of the data on individual sites was not clear. People asked for greater transparency from the sites they visited online, and in response received the privacy policy.

A deeply-flawed instrument, the website privacy policy purports to explain how information is gathered and used by a website owner, but most such policies are strangely both imprecise and too long, losing the average reader in a fog of legalese language and marginally relevant facts. Some privacy policies are intentionally obtuse because it doesn’t profit the website operator to make its methods obvious. Many are overly general, in part because the website company doesn’t want to change its policy every time it shifts business practices or vendor alliances. Many are just messy and poorly written.

Part of the reason that privacy policies are confusing is that data privacy is not a precise concept. The definition of data is context dependent. Data can mean the information about a transaction, information gathered from your browser visit (include where you were before and after the visit), information about you or your equipment, or even information derived by analysis of the other information. And we know that de-identified data can be re-identified in many cases, and that even a collection a generic data can lead to one of many ways to identify a person.

The definition of data is context dependent.

The definition of privacy is also untidy. An ecommerce company must capture certain information to fulfill an online order. In this era of connected objects, the company may continue to take information from the item while the consumer is using it. This is true for equipment from televisions to dishwashers to sex toys. The company likely uses this information internally to develop its products. It may use the data to market more goods or services to the consumer. It may transfer the information to other companies so they can market their products more effectively. The company may provide the information to the government. This week’s New Yorker devotes several pages to how the word “privacy” conflates major concepts in US law, including secrecy and autonomy,1 and is thus confusing to courts and public alike.

All of this is difficult to reflect in a privacy policy, even if the company has incentive to provide useful information to its customers.

Last month the Washington Post ran an article by Geoffrey Fowler that was subtitled “Let’s abolish reading privacy policies.” The article notes a 2019 Pew survey claiming that only 9 percent of Americans say they always read privacy policies. I would suggest that more than half of those Americans are lying. Almost no one always reads privacy policies upon first entering a website or downloading an app. That’s not even really what privacy policies are for.

Fowler shows why people do not read these policies. He writes, “As an experiment, I tallied up all of the privacy policies just for the apps on my phone. It totaled nearly 1 million words. “War and Peace” is about half as long. And that’s just my phone. Back in 2008, Lorrie Cranor, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and a colleague estimated that reading and consenting to all the privacy policies on websites Americans visit would take 244 hours per year.”

The length, complexity and opacity of online privacy policies are concerning. The best alleviation for this concern would not be to eliminate privacy policies, but to make them less instrumental in the most important decisions about descriptive data.

Limit companies’ use of data and we won’t need to fight through their privacy options.

Website owners should not be expected to write out privacy policies that are both sufficiently detailed and succinctly readable so that consumers can make meaningful choices about use of the data that describes them. This type of system forces a person to be responsible for her own data protection and takes the onus off of the company to limit its use of the data. It is like our current system of waste recycling – both ineffective and supported by polluters, because rather than forcing manufacturers to use more environmentally friendly packaging, it pushes consumers to deal with the problem at home, shifting the burden from industry to us.  Similarly, if the legislatures provided a set of simple rules for website operators – here is what you are allowed to do with personal data, and here is what you are not allowed to do with it – then no one would read privacy policies to make sure data about our transactions was spared the worst treatment. The worst treatment would be illegal.

State laws are moving in this direction, providing simpler rules restricting certain uses and transfers of personal data and sensitive data. We are early in the process, but if the trend continues regarding omnibus state privacy laws in the same manner that all states eventually passed data breach disclosure laws, then we can be optimistic and expect full coverage of online privacy rules for all Americans within a decade or so. But we shouldn’t need to wait for all states to comply.

Unlike the data breach disclosure laws which encourage companies to comply only with the laws relevant to their particular loss of data, omnibus privacy laws affect the way companies conduct the normal course of everyday business, so it will only take requirements in a few states before big companies start building their privacy rights recognition functions around the lowest common denominator. It will simply make economic sense for businesses to give every US customer the same rights as most protective state provides its residents. Why build 50 sets of rules when you don’t need to do so? The cost savings of maintaining only one privacy rights-recognition system will offset the cost of providing privacy rights to people in states who haven’t passed omnibus laws yet.

This won’t make privacy policies any easier to read, but it will become less important to read them. Then privacy policies can return to their core function, providing a record of how a company treats data. In other words, a reference document, rather than a set of choices inset into a pillow of legal terms.

We shouldn’t eliminate the privacy policy. We should reduce the importance of such polices, and limit their functions, reducing customer frustration with the privacy policy’s role in our current process. Limit companies’ use of data and we won’t need to fight through their privacy options.

ENDNOTES

1 Privacy law also conflates these meanings with obscurity in a crowd or in public.

Article By Theodore F. Claypoole of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.