In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of posts, we began the discussion of what the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), enacted in May 2016, really means for employers in defending their trade secrets.  In particular, we addressed some of the “good” the DTSA offers for employers, including:  (1) a clear path to federal court, (2) ex parte seizure orders and (3) international application.  In Part 3, we addressed the bad — four potential downsides of the DTSA for employers, including mandatory disclosure of whistleblower protections.  In this final Part 4, we outline questions left unanswered by the DTSA which are worth watching for future developments.

As we approach the filing deadline for FY 2018 H-1B cap petitions, there are a couple of updates of which you need to be aware.

First, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) has just announced that starting April 3, 2017, it will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B petitions.

Uber made headlines last week when Susan Fowler, a former engineer, claimed that she was harassed by her direct supervisor and her complaints were ignored by the human resources department. Uber took another hit a few days later when a recently-hired executive resigned amidst allegations that he had harassed employees at his former company.

How can you prevent your company from becoming the next media story?

Beginning on March 1, 2017, California employers and businesses will need to re-label any single-stall restroom facilities as available to users of either gender.  Such facilities are required to be identified as “all gender” and be universally accessible.

Back in April 2015, we told you about a new player in the world of employee whistleblower enforcement:  the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The SEC grabbed everyone’s attention in 2015 by issuing its first administrative order finding that a public company violated SEC rules based solely on language in an employment agreement.

Last month, we wrote about the new I-9 Form employers must use for all employees starting January 22, 2017.  Today, our Immigration attorneys issued an Advisory to offer some additional guidance and clarification for employers in transitioning from the old I-9 Form to this new Form, and addressing some questions that may come up related to the Form and the use of E-Verify to confirm an employee’s legal status to work in the United States.  This Advisory is based on some information just provided by the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association’s Verification and Documentation Liaison Committee, and our Immigration experts wisely wanted to pass along the advice right away.

A recent federal Appellate Court decision offers employers greater flexibility and decision making authority in considering job reassignments for qualified disabled employees.  In EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Georgia, Florida and Alabama), an employee sought a job reassignment as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The employer allowed the employee thirty days to apply for vacant positions, but did not automatically grant her a new position.  Rather the employer required the employee to compete for a new position pursuant to its best qualified applicant hiring policy – she would be given the job only if she was the best qualified applicant for the position.

Q.  My company is based in Philadelphia.  We often set salaries for new employees based on the applicant’s wage history.  Are we still permitted to do this?

A.  Effective May 23, 2017, a new Philadelphia Ordinance makes it unlawful for employers in Philadelphia to inquire about a prospective employee’s wage history or require disclosure of wage history as a condition of employment.  The law was passed to encourage employers to base salary offers on the job responsibilities of the position sought, rather than on the applicant’s prior wages.  Employers will no longer be able to rely on the wage history of a prospective employee when determining the wages of that individual, unless the individual knowingly and willingly disclosed his or her wage history to the employer.

Q: Unfortunately, I need to lay off some employees, and possibly close my business. What steps do I need to take to ensure I am in compliance with legal obligations?

A: There are many factors and obligations to consider when laying off multiple employees and/or closing a business. It is best to consider these aspects as early as possible, even if you think layoff/closure is only a possibility.

A nationwide restaurant chain is in a “sticky” situation, and not because of the barbeque sauce on its ribs.  Rather, it faces a trial in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging years of pervasive age discrimination in its hiring of hourly, “front of the house” employees.  The EEOC alleges  that the company failed to hire applicants over 40 for public, visible positions such as servers, hosts, and bartenders, and instead instructed managers to hire younger applicants for those positions at its hundreds of locations.