Defending and Preventing Employment Litigation – 2014 Edition

Drinker Biddle proudly announces the release of the 2014 edition of Defending and Preventing Employment Litigation. Written and updated for 2014 by Labor & Employment Group partners Gerald S. Hartman and Gregory W. Homer, Defending and Preventing Employment Litigation is a must have reference for employment lawyers, in-house employment counsel, general counsels, and human resources professionals. The one-volume annually updated manual provides insight on preventing, preparing for, and managing employment litigation in discussing all types of discrimination, harassment, wage, leave and wrongful discharge claims.

The 2014 edition of Defending and Preventing Employment Litigation retails for $385. Drinker Biddle has arranged a special discount rate of 20% off the retail price for friends of the firm. To purchase your copy of Defending and Preventing Employment Litigation click here.

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.

UWOA Exception Does Not Apply to Noncompete Agreements in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently reaffirmed Pennsylvania’s longstanding position that employers must provide valuable consideration to employees who enter into noncompete agreements. In a case of first impression, the court held that a statement in a noncompete agreement with an existing employee that the parties “intend to be legally bound,” as set forth in the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”), does not constitute adequate consideration.

In Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., the employer argued that its noncompete agreement with a former employee was enforceable because the agreement expressly stated that the parties “intend to be legally bound.” The former employee entered into the agreement after he began working for Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, and he did not receive any benefit or change in job status in exchange for signing the noncompete. The employer argued that the language itself sufficed to enforce the agreement because Section 6 of Pennsylvania’s UWOA prevents the avoidance of a written agreement for lack of consideration if the agreement contains an express statement that the signer intends to be legally bound.

The court rejected the employer’s argument, pointing to Pennsylvania’s established view of restrictive covenants as a disfavored restraint of trade and significant hardship on bound employees. Accordingly, Pennsylvania courts have long held that noncompete agreements must be supported by valuable consideration, even though other types of contracts may be upheld by continuation of at-will employment, contracts under seal, or nominal consideration.

Employers seeking to enforce noncompete agreements in Pennsylvania are now on notice that language stating that “the parties intend to be legally bound” will not relieve them of the requirement to provide actual and valuable consideration to employees in exchange for execution of the agreement. If an employee signs the agreement at the start of employment, then the consideration is the job itself. When the employment relationship already exists, however, employers must provide consideration in the form of benefits—such as raises or bonuses—or a change in job status, i.e., a promotion.

Mark Terman Interview on BYOD Policies Picked Up by TV Stations Around the Country

Mark Terman, Labor & Employment partner in the Los Angeles office, was recently interviewed for a story on Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies for employers. As more and more employees use their own personal devices for work purposes BYOD policies are quickly becoming important for employers to have in place. The story was picked up by news outlets around the country, including in Miami, FL, Seattle, WA, Jacksonville, FL, Toledo, OH, Milwaukee, WI, Spokane, WA and Orlando, FL. To view the story that was carried by CBS 4 in Miami click here. To view posts from LaborSphere on BYOD considerations for employers click here.

Passing AB 1897 Means Greater Liability for Employers Who Use Labor Contractors

Editor’s Note: The following post appears in the latest issue of the California HR Newsletter.

Passing AB 1897 Means Greater Liability for Employers Who Use Labor Contractors

The Issue: Today, many employers rely on labor contractors or temporary employment agencies to sustain their operations. Occasionally, however, labor contractors fail to comply with labor laws and regulations by failing to (1) pay wages; (2) report and/or pay all required contributions and personal income tax withholdings; and (3) secure workers compensation for subcontractors. In such cases, are employers liable to subcontractors for these types of violations of their labor contractors?

The Solution: Historically, for the most part, no. However, California Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1897, a proposed law currently before the Assembly, would impose joint liability on employers for the violations of their labor contractors.

Analysis: On April 24, 2014, AB 1897 was passed by the state Assembly’s Labor and Employment Committee and will soon be considered by the Assembly’s Committee on Appropriations. The bill would greatly expand an employer’s duties by requiring employers to share with their labor contractors all responsibility and liability for the following: the payment of wages, the failure to report and pay all required employer contributions, worker contributions, and personal income tax withholdings, and the failure to obtain valid workers’ compensation coverage. This could have a significant impact on employers who depend on labor contractors for any number of functions, e.g., to fill seasonal or short-term work schedules, cover for employee absences, avoid layoffs, and pre-screen employees.

While the law currently prohibits employers from entering into a contract for labor or services with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, security guard, or warehouse contractor, if the employer knows or should know that the agreement does not include sufficient funds for the contractor to comply with laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided, AB 1897 would expand liability for the above mentioned violations to all industries and all individuals who contract for labor or services. This bill would impose seemingly strict liability on any individual or entity that obtains or uses subcontractors from a labor contractor to perform work “within the usual course of business of the individual or entity.” As such, if AB 1897 were to pass, it would particularly burden small businesses, those without dedicated human resource or legal departments, due to their heavy reliance on contract and temporary employees.

The silver lining is that AB 1897 would not prohibit employers from agreeing to any otherwise lawful remedies against labor contractors for indemnification from liability created by acts of the labor contractor. Employers cannot, however, shift to labor contractors any of their responsibilities under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act. Labor contractors will also have the same opportunity to contract with employers for indemnification. Furthermore, the bill will provide that any waiver of its provisions is contrary to public policy and unenforceable. If AB 1897 becomes law, employers should be especially cautious in selecting a labor contractor and determine what level of contractor evaluation may limit their risk for non-compliant contractors. Unwary employers face the danger of liability for a labor contractor’s failure to meet these requirements.

No More No-Gossip Policies?

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge ruled recently that the “no-gossip” policy of Laurus Technical Institute, a for-profit technical school located in Georgia, broke federal law because it was overly broad, ambiguous and restricted employees from discussing or complaining about any terms and/or conditions of employment, even though nothing in Laurus’s policy directly addressed discussions about wages, hours or other employment terms and conditions.

Kate Gold, partner in the Los Angeles office, recently told Human Resource Executive Online during an interview on the topic of the Laurus decision and no-gossip policies for employers, “Though the NLRB has been focused on other policies that could violate an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity — such as social media or confidentiality policies — no-gossip policies can be especially problematic.”

Kate went on to say “I would not include it among the top 10 or even the top 20 essential policies an employer should include in a handbook or policy manual, such as an at-will, anti-harassment or reasonable accommodation policy. However, given the type of concern raised by a no-gossip policy, there could be other employer policies that are problematic for the same reasons. The issue raised by an overbroad no-gossip policy is whether it constitutes an unlawful restriction on an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.”

For the full text of the article click here.