David J. Woolf, Robin Sampson, Author at Laborsphere

Antitrust Authorities Warn Human Resources Professionals about Illegal Agreements That Restrain Competition for Employees

On October 20, 2016, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued “Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals” regarding antitrust prohibitions of agreements that restrain competition for employees’ services. (Click the following links for a copy of this guidance, and the accompanying press release.) The guidance addresses business-to-business agreements regarding employee non-hiring and recruitment, and is intended to both remind HR professionals that these agencies have challenged such types of understandings over the past several years, and warn employers that the DOJ, in particular, intends to begin prosecuting at least some employers criminally in the months and years ahead.

The overall message is that employees are entitled to all of the benefits of competition for their services and that the FTC and DOJ are now increasing scrutiny of all practices that may impede those benefits. Some examples are formal or informal “wage-fixing,” “anti-poaching” and exchanges of compensation information generally. Over the course of the past several years, both agencies have challenged some of these practices in a variety of industries, particularly within the high-tech and healthcare sectors, as “per se” antitrust violations. These government actions have been followed by private class actions seeking treble damages, which in some cases, have resulted in judgments for hundreds of millions of dollars. As noted above, the DOJ now intends to treat at least some of these practices as felony criminal violations of the antitrust laws.

Continue reading “Antitrust Authorities Warn Human Resources Professionals about Illegal Agreements That Restrain Competition for Employees”

Possible Amendment to New Jersey’s Anti-Discrimination Law Would Likely Mean More Claims, Greater Liability Risks and Larger Damages Awards

Earlier this week, the New Jersey General Assembly passed a bill that would amend the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) to address specifically pay differentials among employees of different sexes who perform “substantially similar” work. The amendment, which the state Senate passed last month, will now be delivered to the Governor for consideration.

As the NJLAD exists now, an employee can bring a pay-related claim only by alleging that the differential amounts to sex discrimination and satisfying a comparatively higher standard. If the bill is signed into law, New Jersey would follow in the footsteps of other states like New York and California, which have recently updated their discrimination laws to provide a separate cause of action specifically for unequal pay.

The bill, if enacted into law, would severely limit the circumstances under which an employer can pay male and female employees different amounts for “substantially similar” work. An employer would be permitted to do so if it can demonstrate that it is utilizing a seniority (pay based on tenure) or merit (pay based on achieving certain goals) system. Alternatively, the employer would need to demonstrate that each of the following factors exists:

• The differential is based on one or more legitimate, bona fide factors other than sex, such as training, education or experience, or the quantity or quality of production;

• The factor or factors do not perpetuate a sex-based differential in compensation;

• Each of the factors is applied reasonably;

• One or more of the factors account for the entire wage differential; and

• The factors are job-related with respect to the position in question and based on a legitimate business necessity, and there are no alternative business practices that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.

If enacted, the New Jersey bill would also significantly increase potential employer exposure, in that the recovery period would be extended to pick up the entire time period when the pay differential existed.

With the passing of this bill by both houses, and with laws specifically targeting gender-based pay differences on the rise generally, employers would be wise to look at their employees’ titles and job descriptions to identify “substantially similar” positions and any pay differentials among the employees in those positions. Where such differences exist, employers will want to explore the reason for those differences and whether changes need to be made. If an employer has an established seniority or merit-based system on which it intends to rely, it is important that the system be set forth in detail and made available to all employees, so that there is no question as to its existence and applicability later.

Beware of the Literal and Hypothetical When Considering Work Rules

National Labor Relations Board activity in the area of work rules, among other areas, has become the new normal. Employers have come to expect that the Board will find a work rule unlawful if the rule, taken literally, could hypothetically interfere with an employee’s right to engaged in “concerted activities” – legal speak for two or more employees raising issues about the terms or conditions of their employment. Now, the Board is also finding success on appeal.

Most recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc. v. NLRB, a case in which Hyundai appealed the Board’s finding that certain work rules in its handbook violated the National Labor Relations Act because they had a tendency to interfere with its employees’ right to engaged in concerted activities. Those work rules included: (1) a prohibition on employees discussing matters under investigation by the company, (2) a limit on the disclosure of information from Hyundai’s electronic communication and information systems, (3) a prohibition on performing non-work activities during “working hours,” and (4) a provision urging employees to make complaints to their immediate supervisor or human resources employees rather than to fellow employees. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision as to the first three rules, holding that:

• A rule prohibiting, as a blanket matter, the discussion of matters under investigation is problematic because it limits an employee’s right to discuss his or her own employment;

• A rule prohibiting the disclosure of information on the employer’s electronic systems except to authorized persons is problematic because it could prevent an employee from sharing non-confidential information, including information about the terms or conditions of his or her employment; and

• A rule prohibiting an employee from performing non-company work during “working hours” is unlawful because the term working hours – unlike “working time” – could be read to prohibit employees from communicating during breaks.

Interestingly, the Court reversed the Board as to the fourth rule, finding that a rule “urging” employees with a complaint to speak with supervisors or HR rather than co-workers is permissible because it merely urges employees to so act, rather than acting as a prohibition.

So what does this mean for employers? First, the Board’s assault on employer work rules will continue, given that this is an area of frequent disconnect between the Board’s interpretation of the law and common employer practice. Second, employers need to read their rules literally and consider hypothetical scenarios, even when the rule is proper and sensible in 95 percent or more of such scenarios.

For example, an employer can limit employee communications during an investigation, but not all such discussions on a per se basis. The employer should evaluate the issue on a case-by-case basis and consider whether it has a legitimate business justification requiring confidentiality (such as when there is a basis to believe that a disclosure will put evidence at risk or otherwise compromise the investigation). Likewise, an employer may very well expect (legitimately) that its employees will not disclose internal company information, but the rule memorializing that expectation should be limited to confidential information and exclude information about one’s own terms and conditions of employment, so as not to chill the activities of employees who want to talk about their own employment terms. Lastly, it makes all the sense in the world for employers to expect that their employees will perform only work activities while working. But the proper terminology should be used to ensure that employees are not restricted during breaks.

It is noteworthy that, in finding the rule about disclosing information on the employer’s electronic systems improper, the Hyundai Court acknowledged that a “reasonable reader” might understand the rule to be limited to confidential information, which would make it permissible. Unfortunately, “reasonableness” is not the standard; what is possible is. Accordingly, employers would be wise to review their rules carefully and literally to make sure that they are using the most precise language possible to describe the prohibited conduct and that the prohibitions cannot be interpreted – even in a strained way – to limit protected conduct.

An Employer’s Obligation to Follow up after Receiving a Medical Certification: Greater Than You Might Think

If an employee seeks FMLA leave, she typically needs to ask for it. Likewise, it goes without saying that if an employee is asked to provide a medical certification in support of her request (something employers are free to seek) and fails to provide that information – or worse provides a certification indicating that she does not qualify for FMLA leave – the employer has no obligation to provide that leave. Or does it?

In Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network, the plaintiff, Ms. Hansler, asked for a two-day per week, one-month leave of absence to deal with certain medical issues, a condition that was diagnosed after her separation as diabetes. In support of her request, Ms. Hansler submitted a medical certification that referred to the length of the requested leave, but did not describe the nature or duration of her condition. The hospital network, instead of asking for clarification of the certification, terminated Ms. Hansler’s employment after she took several days off, contending that because Ms. Hansler was requesting only limited time off, her condition did not qualify as a “serious health condition” under the FMLA and entitle her to leave.

Ms. Hansler thereafter brought suit claiming that the hospital network interfered with her FMLA rights by terminating her employment and retaliated against her for requesting the leave, claims that the trial court dismissed on the ground that Ms. Hansler’s medical certification indicated on its face (by virtue the duration of leave requested) that Ms. Hansler did not qualify for FMLA leave. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Court, in a 2-1 decision, held that the hospital network, rather than just acting on the information in the certification, should have asked Ms. Hansler for additional information, even though on its face the information indicated that Ms. Hansler did not qualify for FMLA leave.

In one sense the decision is predictable and understandable. After all, the hospital network with its sophisticated HR capabilities could easily have reached out to Ms. Hansler and asked her for additional information via an updated certification and Ms. Hansler, for her part, was later diagnosed with diabetes, a condition that does qualify as a “serious health condition.” Yet, the decision is not without concern. FMLA regulations provide that an employer “shall advise an employee whenever the employer finds a certification incomplete or insufficient, and shall state in writing what additional information is necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient.” But FMLA case law also holds that, where the certification indicates that the employee does not have a serious health condition, the employer need not follow up further with the employee about her need for leave. And, here, there was at least a decent argument that that was the case given the limited leave requested by Ms. Hansler.

So what is an employer to do when faced with an incomplete FMLA certification? If the certification clearly indicates that no leave is needed or that the employee otherwise clearly is not entitled to leave, it seems fair to say that the employer can rely on the certification and deny the leave request. If, however, the certification indicates that a leave of any length is needed, the employer would be wise to follow up with the employee and provide her an opportunity to submit additional information within the seven-day period contemplated in the FMLA regulations.

How Safe Are Your Company’s Trade Secrets?

In a world where employee mobility is a business reality, companies should be taking proactive measures to guard trade secrets, retain competitive advantage and be ready for court if it comes to that. Click below to launch a video and hear from Labor & Employment partners Mark Terman and David Woolf on what they, and our other Labor & Employment group lawyers, are doing every day to protect companies.

Ten Considerations in Drafting Executive Employment Agreements

Perhaps your company has just acquired a new business and wants to put that entity’s employees under a more structured employment arrangement. Or maybe you are just looking to roll out new executive-level agreements within your own company. Whatever the motivation and circumstances, here are ten things to think about in drafting employment agreements that often go overlooked:

Severance – The most common question is the easiest: Are you going to provide severance and, if so, how much? Other details merit consideration though. For example, is death or disability a severance trigger? As part of the package, do you want to provide things like medical benefit continuation, prorated bonus, equity vesting acceleration, extension of the option exercise period, or other benefits? Whatever you do, the employer will want to make sure that the executive has to execute a release to receive the severance benefits, other than vested benefits and accrued compensation.
Fixed Term (or Not) – Traditionally, a term contract was like a baseball contract – the executive had a term and, except where the employer had good cause for an early termination, it had to pay the executive out through the end of the term no matter what. That concept seems to have largely disappeared, in that (a) employers don’t want to be saddled with paying out the full term if they elect to make a change earlier and (b) executives want severance even when the agreement expires naturally and is not renewed by the company. As a result, except where the employer can secure a true no obligation walk away at the end of the term, or at least establish some difference between an in-term and end-term separation, an employer would be wise to go with an at-will arrangement with no set term.
Restrictive Covenants (or Not) – Restrictive covenants, including covenants not to compete, require clearer, more definitive consideration than most contract terms. And aside from new employment, there is no better consideration than new or enhanced compensation and benefits memorialized in a formal employment agreement. So, if you think non-competition, customer non-solicitation, or other restrictive covenants are worthwhile (and you usually should at the executive level), the employment agreement (or a separate, contemporaneously-executed and cross-referenced restrictive covenant agreement) is the place to do it.
Cause – “Cause” means different things to different people. From an executive’s point of view, Cause is often engaging in particularly serious conduct that is not rectified after notice and an opportunity to cure. Employers, however, should seek to include things like the executive’s failure to perform his or her duties; violation of material company policies (such as anti-discrimination and harassment policies); commission of a felony or other serious crime; breach of his or her restrictive covenants, fiduciary duty, or other misconduct; and material misrepresentation of experience or education, among other things.
Good Reason Provision (or Not) – A “Good Reason” separation provision allows an executive to resign for certain preapproved reasons – typically the employer’s material breach of the employment agreement, a required relocation, or a material diminution of the executive’s duties, often after the employer has failed to cure – and collect severance as if he or she was fired without Cause. Most savvy executives have come to expect such a provision, and providing it to the executive can be a relatively easy give if the Good Reason provision is drafted correctly.
Award Equity (or Not) – Many executives, particularly when accepting a role in a new or newly-acquired company, understand that the cash compensation may be limited initially. What they really want is equity or options so that, if they succeed in developing the company, they can share in that success. Employers and equity firms often find this arrangement beneficial too in that it limits cash outlays and aligns incentives.
State Law and Venue Selection – Almost all employment agreements include a choice of law provision, and many, if not most, employers instinctively select the state in which the company operates and the executive will work. But that may not be the best law for the employer and other options may be available. For example, most courts will apply another state’s law if there is a nexus to that state, such as it being the employer’s state of incorporation. Venue is equally important, as requiring an employee to litigate in a certain forum can give the employer litigation location certainly and potentially avoid the executive running to another state where the law (for example, concerning non-competes) is more favorable.
Assignment – Often forgotten, the assignment provision is critical in that, without it, many states’ laws will not permit assignment, even upon a sale of the employer’s assets. To avoid this, the employment agreement should state that, although the executive may not assign the agreement, the employer may do so, at least to an affiliate or as part of a transaction.
409A – When possible, severance, other payments and the agreement generally should be structured so as not to trigger coverage under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. If the agreement is subject to Section 409A, it should be written to comply with it. Failure to do so can expose the executive, among other things, to a 20 percent additional tax and the employer to an angry executive.
Miscellaneous – There are of course numerous other things of value that an employer can do. For example:

● The salary section can allow for the reduction of the executive’s salary when executive salaries are being cut across the board.

● The employer may want to make any bonuses contingent on the executive working through the end of the year.

● In most states, an employer can provide that accrued, unused vacation and PTO will not be paid out upon termination of employment.

● Arbitration, subject to a carve out for injunction actions, has its positives and negatives and should be considered.

● Address what is to happen upon a sale of the employer or other change of control.

● New executives should represent and warrant that they are not bound by any restrictive covenants that would limit their ability to work for the employer and that they will not use any confidential information from their former employer.

● Although largely standard now, employers should take care to ensure that the agreement provides that it can be revised only by written document.

● Make sure the agreement works with other documents and that the integration clause doesn’t unintentionally overwrite other agreements.

There are always more issues of course, particularly those specific to the particular company and the executive. But the ten-plus areas above arise frequently and thus typically merit consideration.