Tag: Labor Law

Asbestos Litigation Case Questions Safety in the Workplace

Recently posted in the National Law Review on  an article by C. James Zeszutek and David J. Singley of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding an unsual case  in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred:

Although most would consider asbestos to be an old problem, limited to mainly the manufacturing and construction industries, asbestos has been incorporated into a myriad of products that had many and varied uses. Because asbestos was so pervasive, claims such as the one described below, occurring many years after the last occasions on which asbestos was used and arising from the use of sophisticated equipment in a laboratory, are still prevalent.

Dinsmore attorneys recently handled a premises liability case for a major minerals supply company. The case was unusual in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred into the 1990’s. This is in contrast to the typical asbestos case that usually involves exposure in heavy industry prior to 1980.

The plaintiff in this case initially worked as a technician for a manufacturer of laboratory instruments including thermoanalyzers. A thermoanalyzer is an instrument that allows the user to determine the amount of water in the sample being tested as well as certain other characteristics of the sample as the result of heating the sample to high temperatures. The thermoanalyzer at our client’s premises contained an asbestos paper separator between the “hot” portion of the instrument and the unheated side. The plaintiff testified that whenever he installed or performed service work on the thermoanalyzers, including the one at our client’s laboratory, he was exposed to friable asbestos from the paper separator as well as component insulation on vapor lines contained in the thermoanalyser. The plaintiff also contended that he was exposed to friable asbestos from an asbestos glove and asbestos pad that were provided with the thermoanalyzer. The plaintiff ultimately left his employment with the thermoanalyzer’s manufacturer and started his own business doing the same type of work, namely servicing various laboratory instruments, including thermoanalyzers. Significantly, the plaintiff alleged exposures at our client’s premises into the 1990’s. The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer which is uniformly fatal and is, except in rare circumstances, a signature disease for asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff’s theory of liability as to our client was that because the thermoanlayzer in our client’s laboratory had asbestos in it, and further because the client had not provided a warning to the plaintiff regarding asbestos in the thermoanalyzers, that our client had breached its obligation to provide a safe workplace for tradesmen at its premises. As is typical in asbestos cases, it was not initially clear what theory of liability the plaintiff was pursuing. It was not until the plaintiff was deposed and additional discovery undertaken that it became apparent that the plaintiff was focusing on the alleged failure to provide a safe work place because of the asbestos containing components in the thermoanalyzer. The case was further complicated because it was filed in New Jersey, where the plaintiff lived, but our client’s premises were located in Pennsylvania. Thus, there was a question as to whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law would apply. We argued that regardless of which state’s law was applied, as the premises owner, our client did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, an independent contractor, who was allegedly injured by the very piece of equipment on which he was hired to work.

The Plaintiff argued that the Olivo v. Owens – Illinois case, a New Jersey Supreme Court Case, required a premises owner to provide a reasonably safe place to work for tradesmen coming on to the owner’s premises, including an obligation to inspect for defective or dangerous conditions. The Olivo case was one in a series of cases in which the New Jersey courts were attempting to address premises liability in terms of a reasonableness standard as opposed to the traditional categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee, all of which deal with the person’s status while on the premises. In Olivo, the New Jersey trial court granted summary judgment. The New Jersey appellate court reversed and held there were issues of fact regarding the degree of control the premises owner retained over the work, what safety information the premises owner provided, and what the premises owner told the contractor regarding the presence of asbestos on the premises. The Plaintiff argued that these were exactly the same issues in our case.

Dinsmore argued that Pennsylvania law applied (because the premises in question was in Pennsylvania) and in any event, Pennsylvania law was similar to that of New Jersey, namely, that a premises owner does not owe a duty of care to an independent contractor for dangers inherent in the work the independent contractor was hired to perform. Although the court did not overtly address the choice of law issue, it held that our client, the premises owner, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff because the plaintiff was responsible for his safety on the equipment on which he was working. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court focused on the premises owner’s lack of any supervision or control over the worked performed by the independent contractor. We also emphasized the independent contractor’s superior knowledge regarding the thermoanalyzer and its components.

Our Advice 

Facilities and equipment managers need to be alert that in facilities built or remodeled prior to the mid-1970’s, or equipment, even laboratory equipment, assembled prior to 1980 and where there was a need for thermal insulation, asbestos may still be present and care should be used in dealing with such equipment. Additionally, although waivers of liability, obtained from the tradesmen coming on the property may provide some legal protection, the facilities and equipment managers should make clear with the tradesmen, or the tradesmen’s employers, that they are being hired for their expertise and knowledge regarding the proposed work and that they are being relied upon to perform the work in a safe manner.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

 

Department of State Releases August 2011 Visa Bulletin

Recently posted at the National Law Review  by Eleanor Pelta, A. James Vázquez-Azpiri and Lance Director Nagel of  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP details regarding The U.S. Department of State’s August 2011 Visa Bulletin.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its August 2011 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications.  Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa application at an American embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the August 2011 Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Priority dates remain current for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries except China and India.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for Indian and Chinese nationals are as follows:

China: April 15, 2007 (forward movement of five weeks)

India: April 15, 2007 (forward movement of five weeks)

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: July 8, 2004 (forward movement of one week)

India: June 1, 2002 (forward movement of one month)

Mexico: November 1, 2005 (forward movement of four months)

Philippines: November 1, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)

Rest of the World: November 1, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward, or remain static and unchanged. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning, and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the August 2011 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5518.html.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Texas Supreme Court Makes Enforcement of Noncompete Agreements Easier for Employers

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP  a good recap of the Texas Supreme Court decision which clarifies the standards for enforcing noncompete agreements: 

On June 24, the Texas Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision clarifying the standards for enforcement of noncompete agreements under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. In Marsh USA Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Cos. v. Rex Cook, the court considered whether an employee’s receipt of stock options could sustain an agreement that prohibited the employee from soliciting or accepting business from certain customers of Marsh McLennan (Marsh).

Noncompete agreements, which include prohibitions on working for a competitor and limitations on an employee’s ability to solicit customers, are governed in Texas by the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Under that statute, such agreements may be enforced only if they contain reasonable limitations with respect to geography, time, and scope of activity to be prohibited and only if they are “ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement.” Texas courts, as well as practitioners and employers, have struggled with this latter requirement. The Cook case represents a significant change in Texas law and a departure from the Texas Supreme Court’s previous analysis of noncompete agreements.

Under previous court decisions, the analytical focus was on the type of consideration provided by the employer in exchange for the employee’s promise to refrain from competing. Specifically, a Texas employer seeking to enforce a noncompete agreement must have been able to show that the consideration it provided to the employee “gave rise to an interest” in restraining competition. For example, an employer’s promise of trade secrets or confidential information was deemed sufficient consideration to support a noncompete agreement whereas simple cash consideration was not.

In Cook, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether an employer’s grant of stock options satisfied the “ancillary” prong of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Cook joined Marsh in 1983 and signed an agreement under which he could exercise certain stock options in exchange for signing an agreement limiting his ability to solicit or accept business from clients of Marsh with whom he had business dealings during his employment. Cook thus signed the noncompete agreement not when he was provided the original grant of stock options, but rather when he chose to exercise the options.

After his separation from employment with Marsh, Cook went to work for a competitor. He thereafter was sued by Marsh for breach of his contract and for breach of fiduciary duty. Cook filed a motion for summary judgment in the district court on the grounds that the agreement was unenforceable under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The trial court granted Cook’s motion and an appellate court affirmed that ruling.

The Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, disagreed with the lower courts and reversed the grant of summary judgment. Significantly, the court overruled previous authority that focused on the type of consideration provided by the employer and the assessment of whether or not that consideration “gives rise” to an interest in restraining competition. Rather, the court construed the Texas Business and Commerce Code as requiring simply that there be a nexus between the noncompete agreement and the employer’s interests, holding that the noncompete agreement “must be reasonably related to the [employer’s] interest worthy of protection.” The court emphasized Cook’s high-level executive position with the company and found that, by providing an ownership interest in the company, the stock options provided to Cook were “reasonably related to the company’s interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the [Texas Business and Commerce Code] recognizes as worthy of protection.” The noncompete was thus enforceable on that basis.

As a practical matter, Cook should make enforcement of noncompete agreements easier in Texas. The decision represents a shift from the previous, more technical focus on the type of consideration provided in the noncompete agreement to a more generalized assessment of the employer’s interests in restraining competition. Cook follows a trend of other recent Texas Supreme Court cases that have found that the enforcement of noncompete agreements should be decided in the context of the overall purpose of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which is to provide for reasonable restrictions that protect legitimate business interests.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Gender Discrimination Class Action Against Wal-Mart

Posted earlier this week at the National Law Review by the Labor and Employment Group of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP a good overview of the implications of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case. 

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court released its widely-anticipated decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al., 564 U.S. ___ (2011) (“Wal-Mart“). In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that the proposed nationwide gender discrimination class action against the retail giant could not proceed. In a decision that will come as welcome news to large employers and other frequent targets of class action lawsuits, the Supreme Court (1) arguably increased the burden that plaintiffs must satisfy to demonstrate “common questions of law or fact” in support of class certification, making class certification more difficult, especially in “disparate impact” discrimination cases; (2) held that individual claims for monetary relief cannot be certified as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which generally permits class certification in cases involving claims for injunctive and/or declaratory relief; and (3) held that Wal-Mart was entitled to individualized determinations of each proposed class member’s eligibility for backpay, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to replace that process with a statistical formula.

The named plaintiffs in Wal-Mart were three current and former female Wal-Mart employees. They sued Wal-Mart under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that Wal-Mart’s policy of giving local managers discretion over pay and promotion decisions negatively impacted women as a group, and that Wal-Mart’s refusal to cabin its managers’ authority amounted to disparate treatment on the basis of gender. The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of 1.5 million female employees. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay.

The trial court and Ninth Circuit had agreed that the proposed class could be certified, reasoning that there were common questions of law or fact underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and that class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) – which permits certification in cases where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole” – was appropriate because the plaintiffs’ claims for backpay did not “predominate.” The Ninth Circuit had further held that the case could be manageably tried without depriving Wal-Mart of its due process rights by having the trial court select a random sample of claims, determine the validity of those claims and the average award of backpay in the valid claims, and then apply the percentage of valid claims and average backpay award across the entire class in order to determine the overall class recovery.

The Supreme Court reversed. A five-justice majority concluded that there were not common questions of law or fact across the proposed class, and hence Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) was not satisfied. Clarifying earlier decisions, the majority made clear that in conducting this analysis, it was permitted to consider issues that were enmeshed with the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. The majority then explained that merely reciting common questions is not enough to satisfy Rule 23(a). Rather, the class proceeding needs to be capable of generating “common answers” which are “apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” The four-justice dissent criticized this holding as superimposing onto Rule 23(a) the requirement in Rule 23(b)(3) that “common issues predominate” over individualized issues. The dissent believed that the “commonality” requirement in Rule 23(a) could be established merely by identifying a single issue in dispute that applied commonly to the proposed class. Because the trial court had only considered certification under Rule 23(b)(2), the dissent would have remanded the case for the trial court to determine if a class could be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

The majority held that the plaintiffs had not identified any common question that satisfied Rule 23(a), because they sought “to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once.” The majority further explained that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.”

Addressing the plaintiffs’ attempt to provide the required “glue”, the majority held that anecdotal affidavits from 120 class members were insufficient, because they represented only 1 out of every 12,500 class members, and only involved 235 out of Wal-Mart’s 3,400 stores nationwide. The majority also held that the plaintiffs’ statistical analysis of Wal-Mart’s workforce (which interpreted data on a regional and national level) was insufficient because it did not lead to a rational inference of discrimination at the store or district level (for example, a regional pay disparity could be explained by a very small subset of stores). Finally, the majority held that the “social framework” analysis presented by the plaintiffs’ expert was insufficient, because although the expert testified Wal-Mart had a “strong corporate culture” that made it “vulnerable” to gender discrimination, he could not determine how regularly gender stereotypes played a meaningful role in Wal-Mart’s employment decisions, e.g., he could not calculate whether 0.5 percent or 95 percent of the decisions resulted from discriminatory thinking. Importantly, the majority strongly suggested that the rigorous test for admission of expert testimony (the Daubert test) should be applied to use of expert testimony on motions for class certification.

The Court’s other holdings were unanimous. For one, the Court agreed that class certification of the backpay claim under Rule 23(b)(2) was improper because the request for backpay was “individualized” and not “incidental” to the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court declined to reach the broader question of whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class could ever recover monetary relief, nor did it specify what types of claims for monetary relief were and were not considered “individualized.” The Court made clear, however, that when plaintiffs seek to pursue class certification of individualized monetary claims (such as backpay), they cannot use Rule 23(b)(2), but must instead use Rule 23(b)(3), which requires showing that common questions predominate over individual questions, and includes procedural safeguards for class members, such as notice and an opportunity to opt-out.

Lastly, the unanimous Court agreed that Wal-Mart should be entitled to individualized determinations of each employee’s eligibility for backpay. In particular, Wal-Mart has the right to show that it took the adverse employment actions in question for reasons other than unlawful discrimination. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to truncate this process by using what the Court called “Trial by Formula,” wherein a sample group would be used to determine how many claims were valid, and their average worth, for purposing of extrapolating those results onto the broader class. The Court disapproved of this “novel project” because it deprived Wal-Mart of its due process right to assert individualized defenses to each class member’s claim.

Looking forward, the Wal-Mart decision will strengthen the arguments of employers and other companies facing large class action lawsuits. In particular, the decision reaffirms that trial courts must closely scrutinize the evidence when deciding whether to certify a class action, especially in “disparate impact” discrimination cases. Statistical evidence that is based on too small a sample size, or is not well-tailored to the proposed class action, should be insufficient to support class certification. Likewise, expert testimony that is over-generalized and incapable of providing answers to the key inquiries in the case (here, whether a particular employment decision was motivated by gender discrimination) should also be insufficient to support class certification. Finally, the Court’s holding that defendants have the right to present individualized defenses as to each class member, and that this right cannot be short-circuited through statistical sampling, will provide defendants with a greater ability to defeat class certification where such individualized determinations would otherwise prove unmanageable.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The Need for a Detailed Procedure of Judicial Review of Civil Rights Arbitration Awards after Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson

Congrats to Nicole Farbes-Lyons of St. John’s University School of Law – winner of the National Law Review Spring Student Legal Writing Contest.  Nicole’s topic  explored several components underlying the Supreme Court’s recent Rent-A-Center decision and the subsequent need for clearer guidance per civil rights arbitration.  

Introduction

The November 17, 2010 New York Times article “Justices Are Long on Words but Short on Guidance” blasted the Supreme Court of the United States for its issuance of sweeping and politically polarized decisions, and criticized the quality of the Court’s “judicial craftsmanship” by positing that “[i]n decisions on questions great and small, the Court often provides only limited or ambiguous guidance to lower courts. And it increasingly does so at enormous length.” [1] The article continued that critics of the Court’s work “point to reasoning that fails to provide clear guidance to lower courts,” and described the Court’s recent rulings as “fuzzy” and “unwieldy.”[2]

In the past, the Supreme Court has been notably divided over issues such as abortion and the death penalty. But the “fuzziness” in many recent rulings is owed to an obvious ideological divide in the area of arbitration. Over the past decades, a significant number of controversial decisions have arisen from the considerable attention (and contention) the Supreme Court has given arbitration as it endeavors to counterbalance pro-arbitration rulings and assurances that arbitration does not erode sufficient, constitutionally proscribed judicial control.[3] However, these decisions have been largely criticized as providing, at best, a fuzzy blueprint for lower courts to design more specific rules.

Rent-A-Center v. Jackson [4] is the most controversial, ideologically split arbitration decision of the Supreme Court’s recent term. The central issue arose because Rent-A-Center requires employees to sign a two-part arbitration agreement as a condition of their employment, stipulating first that all disputes arising out of the employment relationship be settled by arbitration, and second, that an arbitrator must settle all challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement.[5] When plaintiff Jackson, a Rent-A-Center account manager, brought a 42 USC § 1981(a) / 42 USC §§. 2000(e)(2) employment discrimination claim against the company, Rent-A-Center insisted that the claim be resolved through arbitration.[6]

Jackson argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it denied him meaningful and appropriate access to court for a satisfactory remedy in the exact way prohibited by federal statute. Rent-A-Center argued that this threshold question of whether there was a valid and fair agreement to arbitrate Jackson’s employment grievance was a matter for the arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act. Jackson asserted that because the unconscionability challenge went to both parts of the arbitration agreement, arbitrability of the agreement was a question for the court.

By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court ruled in Rent-A-Center’s favor. Led by Justice Scalia, the Court held that if Jackson had solely questioned the second part of the contract – that the agreement must be arbitrated – then the challenge would have been proper before the court. But because the employee’s grounds for unconscionability applied equally to the agreement to arbitrate all employment disputes, the general question of unconscionability was no longer a “gateway issue” before the court, and was a matter for the arbitrator.[7]

Though it generated very little media attention, the majority decision in Rent-A-Center incited much sideline animosity. Critics of Rent-A-Center argued that the case is incorrectly decided and the latest, deadliest blow to consumers and employees in a trajectory of pro-arbitration rulings that are supplanting the constitutional right to court access with compulsory arbitration. Lawmakers have admonished the Court’s short-sightedness, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy referred to Rent-A-Center as “a blow to our nation’s civil rights laws”.[8] Throughout the blogosphere, commentators described Rent-A-Center as “audacious,” and, as Justice Stephens described in his dissent, “fantastic”.[9]

In addition to the political arguments arising from Rent-A-Center, critics also raised concerns about procedural challenges facing professional arbitrators in light of the Court’s holding. The recent case law culminating in Rent-A-Center has drawn criticism for its lack of guidance instructing either the courts or arbitrators about their respective roles within civil rights arbitration. Broad principles of arbitration and specific doctrines of the Supreme Court encourage but do not demand that the federal protections of civil rights statutes must be enforced in private arbitration. Though the Supreme Court gives assurance that courts may reject arbitral awards for “manifest disregard,” in regards to statutory protection, the courts do not agree as to whether a showing of manifest disregard is proper grounds for vacating an arbitration award.[10]

This conundrum is disturbing, and the doctrine culminating in Rent-A-Centercreates, at best, a blueprint for potential interpretations of arbitration agreements and judicial remedies for arbitrable disputes. The question left before the legal community is, then, whether the Supreme Court’s next step will be to clarify a specific process for civil rights arbitration. Until then, the courts will likely remain divided over the issue of whether, and under what circumstances, statute-created court access can be circumvented with compulsory arbitration agreements, without violating due process of law.

This paper will explore several components underlying the Rent-A-Centerdecision and the subsequent need for clearer guidance per civil rights arbitration. First, this paper will prepare the background and context of civil rights arbitration by exploring the legislative history and statutory framework of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Civil Rights Acts, particularly focusing on 42 USC §1981(a) right to recovery under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Second, this paper will introduce problems of separability stemming from the Supreme Court’s efforts to increase the preemptive reach of the FAA under a broad definition of interstate commerce. Finally, this paper will assert potential remedies towards ameliorating the ambiguities that culminate in the Rent-A-Center decision, in light of this judicial and legislative history.

I. Background and Context of Civil Rights Arbitration

A. Statutory History of 42 USC § 1981

The civil right at issue in Rent-A-Center was Jackson’s right to protection against racial discrimination under 42 USC § 1981. During the Reconstruction Era, restrictive employment covenants were an acknowledged social evil used by former slave owners to deny freedmen any opportunity to exercise their rights to property and employment.[11] Recognizing the elements that impaired the emancipated slaves’ ability to obtain a fair trial in former Confederate states, Congress observed that, “To say that a man is a freeman and yet is not able to assert and maintain his right in a court of justice is a negation of terms.”[12]

The framers of the Civil Rights Acts had a specific legislative goal of rooting out discrimination. The Reconstruction Congress determined that the Civil Rights Acts would only have force if the statutes also created a clear mechanism of judicial enforcement, and delineated a remedy at law that would ensure all Americans the right to a fair tribunal.[13] Accordingly, this Congress created statutes providing a federal right to action as protecting against discrimination.[14]

The legislative history behind the Reconstruction Era Civil Rights Acts is not antiquated, and the Supreme Court has recognized that, “ameliorating the effects of past racial discrimination [is] a national policy objective of the highest priority.‟[15]A predominant effect of the Civil Rights Acts, particularly 42 USC § 1981(a), is that federal law prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, gender, disability, and sexual orientation. In 1991, the 102nd Congress expanded the provisions of 42 USC § 1981(a) and subsequent law to provide statutory basis for arbitration and alternative dispute resolution to “the extent available by law.”[16]

B. Statutory History of the Federal Arbitration Act

Formal arbitration practices can be dated to the Middle Ages, and many primary themes continue in modern arbitration: greater confidentiality, group amelioration, arbitrators with particularized commercial expertise, less formality than court proceedings, greater expedition, compromise, judgments that are final in merit, and the idea that, optimally, resolution of the dispute allows the parties to maintain favorable business relationships.

Despite this equitable premise, many difficulties hindered arbitration until the 20th century, such as difficulty in enforcing awards and judicial concern over jurisdictional ouster. In 1920, the New York State legislature enacted the first modern arbitration statute, which was followed in 1925 by enactment of the FAA and, subsequently, the advent of arbitrable statutes in most of the states.[17]Core principles of the New York statute were cloned in the FAA, particularly the idea that a pre-dispute agreement compelling arbitration is contractual, and therefore a litigant must assert a valid contract defense such as fraud, duress or unconscionability to prove the agreement is unenforceable.[18]Where a counter party to a pre-dispute agreement brings a case, a party can move to stay the court case by showing the agreement was arbitrable or, if there is general recalcitrance, move to compel arbitration.[19]

C. Common Criticisms of Modern Arbitration

These attributes of modern arbitration have been greatly criticized in the context of statutory arbitration, particularly in respect to Title VII claims.[20] In the legal discussions surrounding Rent-A-Center, Jackson’s supporters argued that he, and similarly situated employees, did not have a choice about whether to sign the Rent-A-Center mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement; Jackson had no opportunity to negotiate its terms, and the failure to sign would have precluded employment.[21] Additionally, supporters argued that Jackson should not have been expected to understand that his acceptance of the employment agreement was a waiver of his statutory right to court access.[22] Finally, supporters believed that, even in favorable arbitration circumstances, acceptance of all arbitration terms was likely to favor the employer with respect to fees, discovery, and procedures.[23] However, the Supreme Court has noted many times that these criticisms are not unique to civil rights arbitration but instead are inherent to the very nature of dispute resolution.[24]

The Court of Appeals has noted the issue of enforceability in employment contracts mandating employees’ waiver of court access with respect to all employment disputes relating to discrimination.[25] The court described an arbitrator who resolves statutory claims as a “private judge,” but noted that, unlike a judge, an arbitrator is not publicly accountable and the lack of public accountability may favor companies over individuals.[26] The court also acknowledged that confidentiality is won at the cost of binding precedent, which presents both a potential barrier to future plaintiffs’ ability to locate necessary information as well as reduced effectiveness of binding precedence.[27] The Court of Appeals also noted that the competence of an arbitrator to analyze and decide purely legal issues in connection with statutory claims might be questioned because arbitrators do not have to be legal professionals.[28] Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals dismissed all of these criticisms by stating that the Supreme Court has decided that, as a general rule, employment discrimination claims are fully subject to binding arbitration.[29]

The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals’ dismissal of these critical issues does little to assuage the valid concerns raised regarding civil rights’ arbitration.[30]Particularly in light of the legislative history substantiating 42 USC § 1981, the Court of Appeals’ deference, without meaningful underlying analysis behind its decision, is demonstrative of the enormous lack of guidance criticized by the New York Times.

II. The Preemptive Reach of the Federal Arbitration Act

A. Basic Principles of Federal Preemption in Arbitration

The FAA is something of an anomaly in the field of federal-court jurisdiction.[31]The FAA does not vest exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts though it creates the body of federal substantive law establishing and regulating arbitration.[32] Unless there is either a federal question or complete diversity, it is up to the state courts to apply the FAA and the federal case law standards for its implementation in any cases involving interstate commerce.[33]

Some, including some Supreme Court Justices, take this to mean that the congressional intent was that the FAA should only apply in federal court as a federal remedy.[34] The disagreement between jurists of the correct application of the FAA is, at least, indicative of the lack of clarity in the congressional intention behind the Act. The FAA says that it applies to all matters involving “interstate commerce.”[35] However, interstate commerce of 1925 was a restricted concept, to the point that a business’ involvement in interstate activity did not create sufficient minimum contact to assert jurisdiction over it.[36] Therefore, it is questionable whether this statutory language should be imposed upon by a modern definition of interstate commerce.

B. Federal Preemption of the FAA and Substantive Law Under Erie

Additionally, the Supreme Court did not distinguish substantive diversity of state versus federal law until Erie v. Tompkins in 1938.[37] Under Erie, state contract law is applied to interpret the substantive meaning of the arbitration agreement.[38] Within the context of preemption – under which interstate commerce is broadly sweeping, without regard to its substantial impact – the Court has construed the FAA as broadly as the constitutional limit.[39] Under the constitutional provisions of the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court has held that state courts and legislatures cannot enact statutes restricting arbitration.[40]Likewise, states cannot ease the federal presumption of arbitrability.[41]

C. Restrictions to Separability

This imposition of preemption may be the most problematic because of its restrictions to common law contract defenses. In his dissent to Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., Justice Black described the Court’s holding that the preemptive reach of the FAA compels a counter party to carry out his agreement to arbitrate even though the a court might find the agreement void because of fraud as “fantastic.”[42] Justice Black continued in his dissent that he was unconvinced that a broad preemptive application of the FAA is not a denial of a person’s rights to due process of law.[43]

Under contract law,undue influence, fraud, and unconscionability are remedies available to parties attempting to rescind a contractual clauses. Contract defenses may be ruled on separately or prior to arbitration. This makes sense because, as Justice Stevens suggested, there is no need to arbitrate an unenforceable agreement.[44] In Rent-A-Center, plaintiff Jackson presented a well-pleaded case of unconscionability, relying on the separability of contract and arbitration.[45]However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-A-Center, that a defense of unconscionability should be heard by the arbitrator, entirely undermines the presumed separability of the arbitrable matter and the arbitration agreement.[46]

This ruling is unwieldy, at best. It does not make sense to compel arbitration of the validity of an arbitration agreement when a party claims to have contractual defenses to that arbitration agreement.[47] Nevertheless, the Rent-A-Centerdecision approves this conceptual change to separability. In light of the legislative intent of the FAA and Title VII, any denial of court access resulting from this faulty logic must be considered a lack of due process.[48]

III. Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Post-Rent-A-Center

A. Lack of Guidance on Judicial Review of Civil Rights Arbitration

Jackson’s argument in Rent-A-Center was that the making of the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and therefore required the court to make a determination of the agreement’s legality before compelling any arbitrable review of the dispute.[49] However, as illustrated in the previous sections, even those legal minds most versed in the FAA are unable to agree whether compulsory arbitration of employment discrimination suits can be forced on employees. The Court’s ruling in Rent-A-Center dramatically affects the ability of employees to challenge the enforceability of arbitration agreements, because it sends valid challenges to arbitration to the arbitrator.[50]

However, the Rent-A-Center decision provides little guidance on judicial review of contractual defenses to arbitration. The decision does not consider the obvious question that arises from its holding: in light of this decision, has the scope of review of arbitration awards changed such that the arbitrator’s determination of whether to arbitrate is a valid ground for judicial review?

The Rent-A-Center decision is premised on the assumption that an arbitrator’s ruling on unconscionability is still subject to post-award review under the FAA.[51]In fact, Justice Scalia was insistent that an arbitrator would not be able to disregard the law when determining whether an arbitration agreement is unconscionable.[52] However, the Rent-A-Center decision does not provide any guidance on the procedure of this scope of review.

B. The Doctrine of Manifest Disregard

Justice Scalia’s insistence that an arbitrator may not disregard the law hints at the doctrine of manifest disregard, and the validity of its application to the scope of review. The Supreme Court has ruled that, so long as the litigant may vindicate his or her statutory claim in the arbitral forum, the statute will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function.[53] However, actual judicial review of arbitration awards is strictly limited under section 10 of the FAA.[54] The award may be vacated only if the proceeding was tainted with corruption, misconduct or bias; if the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority; or if the arbitrator acted in “manifest disregard of the law.”[55]

Generally, manifest disregard means that the arbitrator knew the applicable law but purposefully chose to ignore it or refused to apply it.[56] Since the inception of the doctrine, there has been a great expansion of the arbitrator’s authority over disputes.[57] This expansion of power has been so broad that, under applicable arbitration rules, the arbitrator himself may not correct his award after release for substantive deficiencies.[58] Because judicial review of arbitration awards is rare, it seems a convincing argument that manifest disregard applies in circumstances where arbitrators have exceeded their powers.[59] However, the doctrine is also contested because the language of section 10 does not specifically refer to manifest disregard as an independent ground for vacating arbitration awards.[60]

A good deal of confusion around the extent of the arbitrator’s power and the applicability of manifest disregard is owed to the lack of guidance provided by recent Supreme Court decisions. Prior to Rent-A-Center, the Supreme Court held in Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc. that the statutory grounds for judicial review under section 10 are exclusive. This ruling indicated that manifest disregard was not valid grounds for review.[61] Shortly after the Hall Streetdecision, the court concluded, in dictum, that if an arbitration panel exceeds its powers, the courts are authorized by section 10(b) of the FAA to either direct a rehearing or review the question de novo.[62] The federal circuit courts have been diametrically opposed in their rulings, as they struggle to interpret the meaning of these conflicting Supreme Court writings.[63]

C. Post-Award Judicial Review after Rent-A-Center

Historically, courts have been reluctant to even review arbitration awards, let alone vacate or demand rehearing. However, Rent-A-Center may be an opportunity for a new post-award standard of review.

Consider the following: An arbitration panel is selected to hear an employment discrimination dispute. Though the panel members are all industry experts and well versed in employment discrimination issues, they are not lawyers. The employee asserts that not only have her Title VII rights been violated, but also that the arbitration agreement is invalid because it was fraudulently induced. In its misunderstanding of applicable contract law, the panel misinterprets the employee’s claim and decides that the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The panel proceeds with arbitration.

This example illustrates a potential conflict arising from the Supreme Court’sRent-A-Center and Hall Street decisions. Does the arbitrators’ incorrect determination manifest purposeful disregard of the law? Although section 10 of the FAA does not allow a court to set aside an award for an error of law per se, an argument could be made that, in such a case as the previous scenario, the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers under section 10(a)(4) by acting on an unfamiliar area of law. However, there is no precedent on how the court should proceed to review such a situation. As the Supreme Court continues to expand the scope of post-award judicial review, more guidance and clearer judicial intent will be required to direct both arbitrators and the courts.

Professional mediator and former Columbia University Negotiation and Conflict Resolution faculty member, Bathabile Mthombeni, vehemently agrees that the Supreme Court must put forth specific rules relating to civil rights arbitration claims. Professor Mthombeni is an enthusiastic supporter of mediation, including employment and statutory mediation. However, her wariness of compulsory arbitration has increased over the years in tandem with Supreme Court pro-arbitration rulings.

“I am very concerned about the way that Rent-A-Center was decided because of the impact this has on access to the courts – especially by people who are likely the most vulnerable,” Professor Mthombeni stated. “Do potential employees really have a choice? [In the future, will] this mean that an employee cannot file with the EEOC? And, as the dissent inRent-A-Center points out, how are the lawyers arguing these cases supposed to anticipate how thinly they must slice their arguments as to the seperability of various portions of the agreement to arbitrate?”

Professor Mthombeni’s concern about the Rent-A-Center case’s impact on employees and consumers is based in her extensive knowledge of both dispute resolution and civil rights statutes. She suggests that arbitrators should be held to the same standards of evidential and procedural rules that would pertain in court. “The framers of [42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)] did not anticipate those claims being investigated or decided in arbitration. My recollection of 1981 legislation is that it is especially articulated in order to allow individuals to act as attorneys general, recognizing the particular interest that society has in rooting out civil rights violations.

“It does not seem that arbitration is a forum that champions this end. I am at least concerned about the lack of protections afforded to litigants in arbitration – in particular… the rules of evidence and civil procedure not being strictly adhered to.”

Professor Mthombeni suggests that not only should post-judicial review standards be more defined but also that the Supreme Court should parallel its rulings with evidential and procedural rules of arbitration. “Some might argue that the rules of evidence and civil procedure are themselves flawed. But at least they are part of a commonly understood scheme that has evolved and been tested over several hundred years that puts everyone on level ground – so long as they all understand the rules.”

Conclusion

In their best light, the Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration rulings can be dense and confusing. The Court has upheld the validity of mandatory compulsory arbitration agreements that waive an employee’s right to court access as predicated by Title VII. The Court has held that this negation of the legislative intent of Title VII is still fair, so long as arbitration provides the same statutory remedy as the court system. The Supreme Court has previously held that, because arbitration agreements are separable contractually, a party may seek judicial review of defenses to the arbitration agreement.

However, the Supreme Court has now ruled in Rent-A-Center that the entire arbitration agreement, even the contractual defenses, may be removed to the arbitrator, for a determination of whether the agreement to arbitrate is valid. This ruling is not only a confusing departure, but also requires the Supreme Court to go further with an explanation of the scope of review for civil rights arbitration.

The Rent-A-Center opinion holds that judicial review of challenges to civil rights arbitration agreements is still available under the FAA, but does not address how this review should happen. Without guidance and procedure for post-award review, and without guidance of whether manifest disregard is applicable under the FAA, the criticism of the Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration rulings as “sweeping”, “politically polarized,” and “fuzzy” will likely continue.

[1]Liptak, Adam. “Justices Are Long on Words but Short on Guidance.” The New York Times Online. 17 November 2010, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/us/18rulings.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.

[2]Id.

[3]See Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197, 200-01 (2d. Cir. 1998).

[4]Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S.Ct. 2772 (2010).

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7]See id.

[8]Marks, Clifford M. “Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling Draws Liberal’s Ire.” The Wall Street Journal Blogs. 21 June 2010, available athttp://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/21/supreme-courts-arbitration-ruling-draws-liberals-ire/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wsj/law/feed+%28WSJ.com:+Law+Blog%29.

[9]Lithwick, Dahlia. “Justice by the Hour.” Slate.com. 26 April 2010. Accessed 10 November 2010. http://www.slate.com/id/2252001/pagenum/all/#p2.

[10]See Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, L.L.C., 300 F.3d 415 (6th. Cir. 2008) (holding that manifest disregard is an applicable standard of review). But see Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349(5th Cir. 2009) (holding that manifest disregard is not an applicable standard of review.)

[11]A common antebellum holding, reflecting Justice Taney’s decision in Dred Scott,was that freedmen did not have the right to exercise the same civil rights as white men. See e.g., Howard v. Howard, 51 N.C. 235 (1858).

[12]Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 41 (1866).  See generally Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction Pt. II, 240 (1866).

[13]See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.1758 (1866) (statement of Sen. Trumbull).

[14]42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

[15]Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 779 (1976).

[16]Pub. L. 102-166, Title I §118.  There has been consistent disagreement between the circuit courts whether this statutory language refers to the extent defined by Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (holding that an agreement to arbitrate employment claims could be binding even under the ADEA), versus Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (holding that an employee’s suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not foreclosed by the prior submission of his claim to arbitration).

[17]N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7501.

[18]9 U.S.C. § 1-16.

[19]9 U.S.C. § 4.

[20]Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197, 203 (2d. Cir. 1998).

[21]Brief of Amicus Curiae Service Employees International Union, Legal Aid Society, Employment Law Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Employment Law Project, Women’s Employment Rights Clinic, and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy in Support of Respondent. Part I, p. 6.

[22]Id.

[23]Id.

[24]Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 481 (1989).

[25]Cole v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 105 F.3d 1465, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

[26]Id. at 1477.

[27]Id.

[28]Id.

[29]Id. at 1478, see also Gilmer, 500 U.S. 26, 34-35.

[30]Id.

[31]Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 26.

[32]Id.

[33]Id.

[34]Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (J. Stevens dissenting).

[35]The Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 US 52, 53 (2003).

[36]Gilmer,500 U.S. at 39-40 (J. Stevens dissenting).

[37]See Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

[38]Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 271 (1995). “The Act’s provisions (about contract remedies) are important and often outcome determinative, and thus amount to “substantive”, not “procedural” provisions of law.”

[39]Id.

[40]Id.

[41]Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S. 395, 400.

[42]Id.at 407 (J. Black dissenting).

[43]Id.

[44]Id.

[45]Id. As a matter of substantive federal law, a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract containing an arbitration clause is for the arbitrator, but the issue of fraud in the inducement for the arbitration clause itself is a question for the court.Id.

[46]Id.

[47]130 S. Ct. at 2782 (J. Stevens dissenting).

[48]Gilmer,500 U.S. at 39-40 (J. Stevens dissenting).

[49]Brief of Amicus Curiae The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Respondent. Part I, p. 5-9.

[50]130 S. Ct. at 2782 (J. Stevens dissenting).

[51]9 U.S.C. § 10.

[52]130 S. Ct. at 2781.

[53]Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985).

[54]Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197, 202 (2d. Cir. 1998).

[55]Merrill Lynch v. Jaros, 70 F.3d 418, 421 (6th. Cir. 1995).

[56]Halligan, 148 F.3d at 202.

[57]The concept of manifest disregard was first used by the Supreme Court inWilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953).

[58]A.A.A., Rule R-46.

[59]Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l. Corp., 548 F.3d 85, 95 (2d. Cir.

2008), rev’d on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010).

[60]9 U.S.C. § 10.

[61]Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 579, 589 (2008). “[T]he statutory text gives us no business to expand the statutory grounds [of judicial review under the FAA].” Id.

[62]Stolt-Nielsen, S.A.,130 S. Ct. at 1772.

[63]Supra note 10.

Copyright © 2011 Nicole Farbes-Lyons

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Renkemeyer Decision

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

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

Implications

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

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA, 2011. All rights reserved.

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

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

  Introduction

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

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

I.  Social and Historical Context of Off Duty Monitoring

A.  History of Worker Monitoring

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

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

B.  Recent Developments of Off Duty Monitoring

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

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

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

C.  Unanswered Legal Questions

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

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

A.  Employer’s Perspective

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

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

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

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

B.  Employee’s perspective

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

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

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

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

C.  Other Policy Considerations Make Line Drawing Difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.  Current Statutory Causes of Action Provide Little Protection.

A.  ECPA Claims Against Off-Duty Monitoring Fail.

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

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

B.  SCA Claims Require Employers to Behave Extremely Irresponsibly.

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

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

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

C. CFAA Generally Does not Apply to Employers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI.  Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11]Id.

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

[13]Id.

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

[15]Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[29]Id.

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

[31]See Starkman, supra note 27.

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

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

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

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

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

[37]Yung, supra note 14at 174.

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

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

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

[41]See supra note 36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[48]Restatement 2d. Torts § 652B.

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

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

[51]Sprague supra note 49at 363.

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

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

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

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

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

[57]  18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520.

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

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

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

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

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

[63] 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq.

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

[65]Id.

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

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

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

[69] 18 U.S.C. §1030.

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

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

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

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

[73]Id.

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

[75] Levinson,supra note 25at 372.

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

[76]Ciocchetti, supra note 72.

[77]Levinson,supra note 25at 343.

[78]Id.

[79]Id. at 331.

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

[81]Id. at 411.

© Copyright 2011 Michael Carlin

Florida Minimum Wage To Increase Tomorrow

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

 

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

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

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

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

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

2nd Social Media Legal Risk and Strategy Conference Jul 19-21 SanFrancisco

The National Law Review would like you all to know about the upcoming 2nd Social Media Legal Risk and Strategy Conference:  Minimizing Legal Risk for Corporations Engaged in Social Media July 19-21 in San Francisco, CA.  

Key Conference Topics Include:

  • Insights and updates on the changing legal landscape for social media
  • Practical strategies to develop robust and compliant social media strategies
  • The role and involvement of legal in the social media initiatives
  • Overcoming the various legal risk from IP, Employment Law to Privacy when organizations engage in social media engagement
  • Analyzing emerging trends and potential legal risk in social media

Key Conference Features Include:

  • Pre-Conference Workshop A (July 19th): Uncovering Current and Emerging Social Media Trends and Applications To Forecast and Minimize Potential Legal Liabilities
  • Pre-Conference Workshop B (July 19th): Monitoring And Tracking Online Activities To Mitigate Legal Risk
  • For More information and to Register Please Click Here:

Attendees are eligible to receive up to 20 CLE credits!