Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
In the post on Sunday 1/6/19 we noted a corporate mole is bound by preliminary injunction (and suggested you k Know who is accessing and using your trade secrets). Employees leave jobs all the time, right? And when they leave, they leave behind someone on the inside to talk about the employee’s new job and new employer, right? Nope! But that/s what happened in the post. And to make matters worse, the former employees all had non-compete agreements, but the mole didn’t. So how or why was he stopped? That’s in the post.
TAKEAWAY: we’ll say it again: know who is accessing and using your confidential data and trade secrets and protect them.
The post on Monday 1/7/19 talked about $1.75M reasons to settle allegations of discriminatory leave policies. Wow! That is how much a large company in the health care industry. The EEOC alleged that the company’s leave policies did not properly accommodate disabled or pregnant employees. What else? See the post. Not only is the company paying that large settlement, it must take the other actions listed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: don’t just have policies, have policies that are legal and enforceable. Consult an employment law attorney to give guidance.
In the post on Tuesday 1/8/19, we read that an owner wants Board decision followed even if budget may not allow for it – right or wrong? Has your Association ever faced this dilemma? Here, an owner wants the Board to stick to its original maintenance schedule despite the funds not being there. The post talks about whether the Board can reverse its prior decision. The post also talks about some situations where the Board could NOT reverse its prior decision.
TAKEAWAY: Boards have a fiduciary duty to fulfill the Association’s maintenance obligations, but within reason and financial ability – know what the Board can or cannot, and must or must not, do. Call on a community association lawyer to help.
The post on Wednesday 1/9/19 told us that the EEOC dropped a suit against company for alleged disability discrimination. I said I’m not buying it because if there was insufficient evidence of a violation, the EEOC wouldn’t have filed. Or, conversely, if the employer thought it was right, then why wouldn’t it want legal fees reimbursed? Here, Justin had worked there 10 years. He was then diagnosed with depression. With that as a basis, the EEOC sued the printing and packaging company as noted in the post. The company asked that the suit be dismissed; its reasoning is also in the post. The EEOC’s attorney wouldn’t discuss details of the case and reason the company didn’t seek fees and costs is in the post. Hmmm …
TAKEAWAY: Make sure you have a valid basis for any adverse decision before you make the decision.
In the post on Thursday 1/10/19 we saw that Mrs. Field’s Cookies settled a discrimination case. We reminded you not to forget about this law when differentiating among employees. So what happened? The company allegedly discriminated against non-US citizens who were authorized to work in the US – how and when it was done is in the post. But the company did not ask the same thing of US citizens, and therein lay the rub (and violation of the statute noted in the post).
TAKEAWAY: Whatever the law that applies, make sure to look at it, or what it requires, in the same way for all employees.
The post on Friday 1/11/19 reaffirmed that an employer owes employees more than a paycheck. Or so says the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In its recent ruling, the Court upset the previous apple cart. So what happened? UPMC was hacked – the thieves stole employee names, SSNs, and more in the post. Ugh. The employees sued, alleging that UPMC did not encrypt their data or establish adequate firewalls, along with other claims noted in the post. The basis for the duty allegedly owed to the employees, which, when violated, led to the alleged failures, is also in the post. The Court agreed with the employees, imposing a duty of reasonable care on UPMC as the employer. How it got to that point, including assumptions it made, is in the post and notable. Note that this decision is contrary to a recent one from the federal Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t wait to find out if you have a duty to protect your employees’ confidential information; just do it. Put the best safeguards in place.
Finally, in the post yesterday 1/12/19 we discussed employers’ gifts to (former) employees’ attorneys at the holidays (or any time of year) (and suggested you pay attention). Yep, you read it right – employers often give gifts to the attorneys representing their former employees. The post unwrapped the gifts, including performance evaluation puffery, protective instincts, and more. The first noted area is a gift because it almost always backfires in some way; when it is as part of a suit, it is just plain ugly. The post gives a common example of how it plays out. Likewise, common examples of the other “gifts” are also in the post so that you can see how easy it is to help out your former employees when you don’t intend that.
TAKEAWAY: Make sure employees are treated fairly and honestly; don’t make the job harder for your attorney by giving ammo to the former employees who become plaintiffs in suits.
York, Pennsylvania 17403