Trade Secrets/Data Privacy

Subscribe to Trade Secrets/Data Privacy via RSS

Online forums where anyone can post comments, reviews, or opinions about a company are growing in popularity.  As a result, employers are finding postings by former employees who may have left on “bad” terms and now share their unhappy feelings with the world.  Often such postings – while annoying and potentially embarrassing – are well within an employee’s rights.  Companies need to remember that the former employee will likely soon grow tired of the cyber smear campaign, and such posts do not often cause meaningful damages (particularly the type that can be proven in court).  Additionally, where such posts are on sites like Twitter or Facebook, the daily volume of postings means that any bothersome posts get moved down the feed pretty quickly.  Most of the time the employer’s best bet is to follow the advice of Disney’s “Frozen” and just “Let it Go.”

Georgia’s new statutory law of restrictive covenants became effective more than three years ago, on May 11, 2011.  The significance of the new law cannot be overstated.  Prior to the new law, Georgia Courts were required to follow sometimes arcane rules of construction that frequently resulted in covenants being invalidated in their entirety based on what seemed to be trivial defects.

Earlier this week, we discussed how when drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant, few are likely to devote any significant attention to the provisions in the “Miscellaneous” section of the agreement, and how this is a significant mistake.  In particular, we discussed how forum selection clauses are extremely important when drafting restrictive covenant agreements.

In this post, we are considering Choice of Law and Arbitration provisions.

When drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant, you are likely to spend a significant amount of time considering its specific purpose and scope.

Few, however, are likely to devote any significant attention to the remaining provisions in document, including the likely “Miscellaneous” portion that is almost always a part of the agreement.  This is a mistake.  There are numerous provisions contained in this section that can, in some circumstances, be outcome-determinative.  Below is a consideration of three such provisions and their importance to your agreement.

Our firm’s latest “Advisory” just went out this afternoon explaining the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals‘ ruling from last Friday that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, and therefore the Board was without the required quorum to act in a case from last year in which it found a soda-bottling company had committed an unfair labor practice.

This case involves a fascinating legal issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches (at least for those who find such things fascinating).  This decision is also good news for a particular soda-bottling company that challenged the NLRB’s decision.

HR professionals know that employment litigation can be expensive.  Very expensive.  One reason litigation has become so expensive, especially recently, is because companies use and store massive amounts of electronic data, including emails and computer files such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents.  When a company is sued for an employment law violation, the plaintiff (in most cases, a former employee) is entitled to “see” all of those electronic files that may be relevant to the claims brought or the defenses relied on by the employer.  This process is commonly referred to as “e-discovery.”

The California Legislature made headlines yesterday by passing legislation that prohibits employers from demanding the social media usernames or passwords of current employees and applicants.  The bill also prevents employers from requiring employees or candidates to log in to social media in the presence of the employer (i.e., the employee’s supervisor, or the interviewer, or a human resources manager – you get the point).

I love the Little League World Series.  Classic Americana.  Teams from all over the U.S. and the world play, and proud parents watch them.

Billie Ann Tomei’s son Cole and his team from California (which was coached by her husband Trevor) were good enough to play in the Little League World Series.  But when Billie Ann, an office manager for a CPA, asked for time off to travel to see Cole play, her boss said “No.”  According to Billie Ann, he told her, “If you go, write yourself your last [pay]check.”

Well, Billie Ann wrote herself that check and went to see her son play.  Do you think she regrets her decision?

The National Labor Relations Board is taking an increasingly hard look at the language in employer handbooks, as shown by two recent cases from the NLRB’s Arizona Region.  Recently, Hyatt Hotels Corporation agreed to settle an unfair labor practice charge that claimed a provision in the company’s employee handbook acknowledgment form was too broad.  The provision stated that Hyatt’s at-will employment policy could not be changed except by a written agreement signed by the employee and particular executives.  Similarly, earlier this year an administrative law judge decided that a disclaimer in the handbook of an American Red Cross unit stating that the at-will employment relationship “cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way,” could be interpreted to interfere with employees’ rights to engage in group activity to try to change the policy.

So, why the sudden attention by the NLRB to employee handbook policies on employment “at-will”?