As we wrote about in April, starting on October 31, 2017, a NYC law will make it unlawful for employers of any size to inquire about a job applicant’s salary history during the hiring process by either: (1) asking about compensation history on a job application or during the interview process; or (2) conducting internet or other searches, contacting prior employers or running background checks in an effort to determine the applicant’s compensation history. Employers can only use an applicant’s compensation history to build a job offer if the applicant “unprompted” and “willingly” discloses that information.
Mark Terman and Sujata Wiese authored a practice note for Practical Law titled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (CA).” In their note, Mark and Sujata discuss how companies can protect their information, including the use of confidentiality agreements, under California law.
Mark and Sujata address considerations involved in safeguarding a company’s confidential information, and substantive provisions and issues common to many commercial confidentiality agreements. They state that “having effective confidentiality agreements in place with other parties is necessary but not sufficient to protect an organization’s confidential information and data. Comprehensive protection requires the participation and coordination of management and staff at all levels across all functions, from finance and administration to marketing and sales. It often falls to the legal department, working closely with the information technology (IT) function and with the support of senior executives, to lead the company-wide information management and protection program.”
Topics addressed in the note include: company-wide information and data security policies; compliance with contractual obligations governing others’ confidential information; trade secrets; privacy and data security laws and regulations; and form, structure and key provisions of confidentiality agreements.
This eighth article in “The Restricting Covenant” Series discusses some recent trends in the evolving area of restrictive covenant law, non-solicitation agreements, and Internet social media networking, including sales representatives’ use of LinkedIn to contact and communicate with customers and other business relationships.
A decade or so ago, social media networking platforms on the Internet were new to me. I had just heard of this thing called “LinkedIn” as a new way to connect with my former classmates and other acquaintances. It was touted as an easy, cost-free way to communicate with them about my professional accomplishments and career developments. In many ways, your LinkedIn profile is your virtual resume to the world. Therefore, like millions of others, I created a LinkedIn profile, sent and received connection requests, and made posts.
By Lawrence J. Del Rossi – with special thanks to Summer Associate Joshua Lattimore for his assistance.
The start of the new school year, and kids around the country sharpening their pencils to learn in earnest (or at least I hope they are) sparked the topic for this seventh article in this Series. It discusses restrictive covenants and the “blue-pencil” doctrine – a tool many courts use to modify overly broad restraints on post-employment business activities.
Why “Blue” Pencils?
Being the legal geek that I am, I was curious about the origins of the blue-pencil doctrine, including how it got its name, how it applies in restrictive covenant cases, and which states have adopted it given that restrictive covenant law varies state by state.
Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) unveiled its proposed revisions to the Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1). Previously, the EEO-1 directed federal contractors and employers with 100 or more employees to report annually the number of individuals that they employ by job category, race, ethnicity and gender in 10 different job groupings. As part of the Obama administration’s enhanced focus on equal pay, the EEOC’s proposed EEO-1 revisions aimed to expand the information collected to include pay data and working hours to help the EEOC discover potential discrimination in employment and pay equity.
The EEOC finalized its new EEO-1 in September 2016, and the additional information was to be provided by employers by the next reporting deadline in March 2018. That was the plan until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stepped in.
On June 15, 2017, J.P. Morgan Chase employee Derek Rotondo filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that the company’s parental leave policy discriminates against males by relying on a sex-based stereotype that mothers are the primary caretakers of children, thereby denying fathers paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers. The EEOC charge, filed on a class-wide basis, seeks relief on behalf of himself and all fathers who were or will be subject to J.P. Morgan’s parental leave policy.