Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP • October 20, 2014
Employers face a serious challenge when trying to prevent employees from taking confidential and proprietary information with them when they leave to join a new employer—particularly when the new employer is a competitor. When an employer becomes suspicious about an ex-employee’s activities prior to his or her last day of work, there are a limited number of safe avenues for the employer to pursue.
FordHarrison LLP • October 20, 2014
As multinational employers are aware, compliance with the anti-corruption laws of different jurisdictions can be complicated, and penalties for noncompliance can be severe, making compliance a priority for multinational companies. FordHarrison has joined with Ius Laboris member firms in Central and South America to produce Corruption in the Americas, a summary of anti-corruption laws in the U.S. and Central and South America. The guide provides key information at a glance on important aspects of the anti-corruption laws, including compliance, relevant laws and regulations, and penalties. The guide is available on the Ius Laboris website as well as the In-Depth Analysis page of the FordHarrison website.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • October 17, 2014
A suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against national clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., demonstrates why employers should carefully review any dress code policies with counsel, particularly as they may conflict with attire worn for religious reasons. Interestingly, the case could have important ramifications not only for employers but also employees.
Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • October 17, 2014
As one who presumably has no nude selfies, you may not be too concerned about a “hack” like the one that continues to afflict celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t still plenty of technology issues that an employer should look out for. Are you guilty of any of these top ten technology blunders that are either committed or allowed by employers?
Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • October 16, 2014
Eggs – human eggs, aka ova – have been in the news this week. First, it was announced that Facebook and Apple will begin offering insurance coverage for female employees to freeze their eggs for later fertilization and implantation, a procedure that can cost as much as $20,000. There are mixed feelings about this – on the one hand, some women will be grateful for the benefit. On the other hand, as noted in this New York Times blog post, could this be viewed as pressure on women to stay childless as long as they want to advance their careers?
Krukowski & Costello, S.C. • October 16, 2014
You are all set to go - you have the termination letter ready, the ID badge deactivated, the personal belongings assembled, and security ready to escort the soon-to-be-former employee out the door...but have you taken steps to protect your business networks and proprietary information?
Ogletree Deakins • October 14, 2014
Most employers understand the importance of compliance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as it applies to background checks and applicant records. However, employers also must recognize the interplay of state law restrictions on the use of background checks in the application and employment process.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 14, 2014
On September 22, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Office of the Whistleblower announced that it had issued a $30 million bounty payment to a foreign whistleblower. This award is more than double the amount of any previous payment issued by the Office of the Whistleblower and comes fast on the heels of a $300,000 payment to a whistleblower who worked as a compliance professional. The magnitude of the $30 million award and the payout to a company’s own compliance advisor underscore a fundamental shift in enforcement strategy among regulatory agencies – a shift from encouraging internal corporate compliance to policing corporate conduct by encouraging employees to report directly to the government.
Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • October 10, 2014
Last week, I wrote about the two situations in which an employer should ask an applicant about a disability or a religious belief or practice that might require reasonable accommodation. (As I emphasized last week, 99 percent of the time, you should stay away from these topics in job interviews.) My post prompted one reader to ask some follow-up questions that I think are worthy of another post.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • October 10, 2014
Employers across the country continue to misclassify workers as independent contractors rather than as employees, and as we recently saw in Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., such actions can result in litigation and federal and state scrutiny.