Friday, April 20, 2018


An alleged threat by a former Southwest Airlines employee “that he wished he could order a black trench coat so that he could bring his shotgun to work” was enough to derail his claim that his employer terminated him in retaliation for taking intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 

In affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Southwest, the April 18, 2018 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed the airline had established a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharging Tate Clark, and that Clark had failed to prove that the reason was pretextual, or false.

 Clark began working for Southwest in 2001 as a customer service agent, and in 2011, he applied for and was approved for intermittent leave under the FMLA for his migraine headaches. Clark’s intermittent leave continued until his discharge, and he was never denied FMLA leave during his tenure with Southwest.

The incident that resulted in his termination took place on February 25, 2015, while he worked an early morning shift alone with a female co-worker.  On February 27, 2015, the co-worker sent the following note to her supervisors:

Hi guys, I wasn’t sure if I should share this but the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. On Wednesday night, When Tate & I were working together, he was looking at the Lands End uniform web site. There was a picture of the trench coat and I asked him if he was going to order it. He said no, but I wish they made it in black. I asked him why and he said so he could bring in his shotgun. I told him not to joke about something like that and he just sat there chuckling. I’m not necessarily afraid, but it wasn’t the first time he referred to his guns in that manner.

 After a brief investigation, Clark was suspended on March 1, 2015, and on March 9, he was terminated for violating Southwest’s Zero Tolerance Workplace Violence Policy that prohibited threatening workplace violence.  Clark subsequently filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the true reason for his termination was retaliation for taking FMLA leave.

In support of his claim, Clark argued that his taking of FMLA leave on February 27, 2015 established a connection with his March 9, 2015, termination, and he cited other incidents, including a negative workplace review, that had occurred more than a year before his termination. 

In dismissing Clark’s lawsuit, the District Court indicated that while the evidence of a causal connection between Clark’s taking of FMLA leave and his termination was weak, his claim failed because Southwest had established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging him, and Clark could not show the airline’s reason was false.  In his deposition, Clark had testified that he had been aware of Southwest’s workplace violence policy and had received training on it. He also said he had understood that it was a “zero tolerance” policy, conceding that there was “no room” “to have any sort of excuse for that.” Clark also agreed that, if he had made it, his comment about bringing in a shotgun would have violated the policy and would have been grounds for termination.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018


           The settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) aptly demonstrates the adage that sometimes the best example is a really bad example. 
          The EEOC filed the suit in 2017, alleging that Hester Foods, which operated a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Dublin, Georgia, had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by firing its restaurant manager when the company’s owner found out that the woman was taking medication prescribed by her doctor to treat her bipolar disorder.
          According to the EEOC lawsuit, when the owner discovered the woman was receiving the treatment, he referred to the manager’s medications in obscene terms, and made her destroy her medications by flushing them down a toilet at the restaurant. When the woman later told the owner that she planned to continue taking the medications per her doctor’s orders, the owner told her not to return to work and fired her.  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

          In addition to paying a $30,000.00 settlement, the consent decree settling the ADA lawsuit requires the restaurant operator to create and disseminate a handbook containing policies that prohibit discrimina­tion. The decree also requires that the company provide annual equal employment opportunity training to its managers, supervisors, and employees. The two-year decree further requires the company to post a notice to its employees about the lawsuit and to provide periodic reporting to EEOC about disability discrimination complaints.  In commenting on the settlement, Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office stated “Employers are not allowed to force workers with disabilities to choose between their jobs and their health. Reasonable accommodation includes allowing workers to rely on their physicians, not on the opinions of the company managers.”
          The ADA prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. 

          An employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if it would not impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the employer's business. Reasonable accommodations are adjustments or modifications provided by an employer to enable people with disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities. Accommodations vary depending upon the needs of the individual applicant or employee, and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. 
         Making a reasonable accommodation can sometimes be difficult but more often, can be addressed through common sense and engaging in an interactive process with the employee.  As illustrated by this case, failure to do so can be costly.


Thursday, January 25, 2018

DOL Reduces the Risk of Employers Offering Unpaid Internships

Employers interviewing for their upcoming summer internship programs now have more flexibility and less risk of wage and hour litigation due to a significant policy turnaround by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

Traditionally, unpaid internships offered college students the opportunity to gain real-life business experience in their chosen career, while for-profit employers received the benefit of additional assistance in the workplace, as well as an opportunity to assess potential new employees.
However, in 2010, this symbiotic relationship was complicated by the DOL’s institution of a strict six-factor test to determine if the individual was properly classified as an unpaid intern or an employee entitled to wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Under the former DOL test, all of the following criteria must have been met to be considered an intern by the FLSA: (1) the internship is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment, (2) the internship experience is for the benefit of the intern, (3) the intern does not displace regular employees and works under close supervision of existing staff, (4) the employer does not gain an immediate advantage from the intern's activities (and the employer’s operations may actually be impeded or hindered by the intern’s activities), (5) the intern is not guaranteed a job at the end of the program, and (6) the employer and the intern each understand that the internship is unpaid.

The 2010 test resulted in current and former interns bringing class action lawsuits against companies such as Viacom, 21st Century Fox, and fashion giant Gucci, resulting in large dollar settlements. While some companies reacted by creating internships that paid at least the minimum wage, many other companies simply eliminated internship programs out of fear of litigation.

In January 2018, the DOL released Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act, which scrapped the old test, in favor of the court-favored “primary beneficiary test” to determine if an individual is an intern or an employee under the FLSA. The new seven-factor test is as follows:
1.         The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, expressed or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.

2.         The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.

3.         The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.

4.         The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.

5.         The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.

6.         The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.

7.         The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

Courts have described the “primary beneficiary test” as a flexible test, and no single factor is determinative. Accordingly, whether an intern or student is an employee under the FLSA depends on the circumstances of each case.
If analysis of these circumstances reveals that an intern or student is actually an employee, he or she is entitled to both minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA. On the other hand, if the analysis confirms that the intern or student is not an employee, then he or she is not entitled to either minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA.
Employers should carefully assess their internship programs under the new criteria, and if needed, seek advice of counsel in regard to any use of unpaid interns.


Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Social Media Complications in the Enforcement of Non-Solicitation Agreements

Determining whether a former employee has breached a non-solicitation agreement has become a more complicated issue in the social media age. Courts are wrestling with the question of when a former employee’s social media interaction crosses the line into contractually prohibited solicitation.

At the start of employment, many businesses require employees to sign non-solicitation agreements, which restrict the employee from contacting the company’s customers or employees for a set period after the employee leaves the company. The goal of such agreements is to prevent the poaching of customers and/or co-workers by the departing employee, who often is headed to work for a business competitor.

Companies commonly use social media, such as Facebook or LinkedIn to market, advertise and communicate with customers. A company’s employees also frequently will add these same customers to their own personal social media accounts as Facebook "friends" or LinkedIn "connections." A common scenario involves a company’s customers or employees continuing to receive status alerts from the company’s former employee, either in the form of automatic updates, usually regarding their new employment, or more direct communications. While these type of cases are often very fact-specific, courts have held that a key consideration in determining whether a social media post is an improper solicitation is the content and substance of the post, and whether the social media activity is passive or active.

An example of such passive social media activity is found in Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. American Senior Benefits, LLC, 2017 WL 3393844 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017). In that case, the court held that a former employee sending invitations to former co-workers to connect via LinkedIn did not constitute solicitation in violation of his non-competition agreement. In ruling against the former employer, the court noted that the invitations to connect were sent through generic e-mails that invited recipients to form professional connections, and that the generic e-mails did not contain any discussion of the former or current employer, did not suggest that recipients view open job positions on the former employee's profile page, and did not solicit recipients to leave their place of employment. The court in Bankers Life & Casualty cited rulings from other jurisdictions as to the difference between permitted "passive, untargeted communications" and prohibited active and direct solicitations.

Another case in which a court found no violation of a non-solicitation agreement, and ruled against the employer is Invidia, LLC v. DiFonzo, 2012 WL 5576406 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2012). In that case, the former employee was a hair stylist, who was under a two year non-solicitation agreement. The former employee had become Facebook friends with at least eight clients of her former employer, and upon leaving her employment with Invidia, a public announcement was posted on her Facebook page announcing her new employment at another hair salon. In ruling that this did not violate her non-solicitation agreement, the court noted:
In the comment section below that post, [Invidia customer] Ms. Kaiser posted a comment which said, "See you tomorrow Maren [DiFonza]. Ms. Kaiser then cancelled her appointment at Invidia for the next day. But it does not constitute "solicitation" of Invidia’s customers to post a notice on Ms. DiFonza’a Facebook page that Ms. DiFonza is joining David Paul Salons. It would be a very different matter if Ms. DiFonza had contacted her that she was moving to David Paul Salons, but there is no evidence of any such contact.
In the Invidia case, it bears mention that the court declined to enforce the non-solicitation agreement based on the purportedly passive social media activity, even though there was evidence that 90 of Invidia’s clients had subsequently canceled or failed to reschedule appointments after the Facebook posting.

In contrast, courts have enforced non-solicitation agreements when confronted with active or aggressive social media activity on the part of the former employee. In Coface Collections North America c. v. Newton, 430 Fed. Appx. 162 (3rd Cir. 2011), the appeals court affirmed an order to enforce a non-solicitation/non-competition agreement where the former employee posted on LinkedIn the date on which his restrictive covenant would expire, encouraged "experienced professionals" to contact him about employment with his new company, and sent Facebook friend requests to a number of his former co-workers, specifically inviting them to view his posted job solicitations.

Employers looking to enforce non-solicitation agreements or other restrictive covenants in the social media age should consider the following:

    • Many employers are using the same outdated non-solicitation/non-competition agreements they have used for years, which do not reference social media in any manner. Employers should revise and update such agreements to specifically address what types of social media activity will constitute a breach. Courts are more likely to enforce such agreements if the employee was expressly placed on notice.

    • A court will require evidence before it issues a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief against a breaching former employee. However, evidence of a breach of a non-solicitation agreement through social media can be very transitory or can be deleted by a former employee trying to destroy evidence. Any posting by a former employee suspected of violating their agreement should be immediately preserved, either through printed copies of screen shots, or saved digitally.

Another issue companies should be aware of is their own utilization of social media, and more specifically, the employees who have access to these accounts and post content on behalf of the company. In recent years, issues have arisen where a disgruntled departing employee is the only person who knows the passwords and usernames, and essentially locks the company out of its own social media accounts. All such employees should be required to sign agreements to provide access to such account information upon the termination of their employment, and such an agreement could be included in the terms of a non-competition/non-solicitation agreement.

Mark Fijman is licensed to practice in Louisiana and Mississippi, and specializes in the enforcement of non-competition/non-solicitation agreements and trade secret litigation.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017


Cosmetics giant Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. is known for its perfumes, but in a lawsuit just filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges something stinks about the company’s parental leave policy as it applies to its male employees. 

In announcing the lawsuit, the EEOC says Estee Lauder violated federal law when it implemented and administered a paid parental leave program that automatically provides male employees who are new fathers lesser parental leave benefits than are provided to female employees who are new mothers.

As alleged in the suit, Estee Lauder adopted a new parental leave program in 2013 to provide employees with paid leave for purposes of bonding with a new child, as well as flexible return-to-work benefits when the child bonding leave expired. Under its parental leave program, in addition to paid leave already provided to new mothers to recover from childbirth, Estee Lauder also provides eligible new mothers an additional six weeks of paid parental leave for child bonding.  However, under the program, Estee Lauder only offers new fathers whose partners have given birth two weeks of paid leave for child bonding.  The suit also alleges that new mothers are provided with flexible return-to-work benefits upon expiration of child bonding leave that are not similarly provided to new fathers. 
The case began when a male employee working as a stock person in an Estee Lauder store in Maryland sought parental leave benefits after his child was born.  He requested, and was denied, the six weeks of child-bonding leave that biological mothers automatically receive, and was allowed only the two weeks under the company policy. leave to bond with his newborn child.  The EEOC alleges the company’s conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibit discrimination in pay or benefits based on sex.  The suit seeks relief for the affected employee, and other male employees who were denied equal parental leave benefits because of their sex.  Specifically, the EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the male class members, as well as injunctive relief. 
Under the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, addressing sex-based pay discrimination, including in benefits such as paid leave, is a key priority of the Commission. In bringing such a high-profile lawsuit against such a well-known female-centric company, the EEOC is clearly trying to make a point. According to EEOC Washington Field Office Acting Director Mindy Weinstein, “It is wonderful when employers provide paid parental leave and flexible work arrangements, but federal law requires equal pay, including benefits, for equal work, and that applies to men as well as women.”

While the merits of the EEOC’s lawsuit against Estee Lauder remain to be litigated, the lawsuit is a good reminder for employers, even those in far less glamorous industries, to review their handbooks to see if even the most well-intentioned employment policy needs a makeover.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017


"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot".
Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens (1838)

In a surprising turn of events, a federal jury in Boston has found members of the Teamsters Union not guilty on charges of extortion in an ugly case of union hardball tactics against the production crew and cast of the television show “Top Chef” while the show was filming in Boston in 2014.

I first wrote about this case in 2016 following the federal indictment of members of Teamsters Local 25 and one member entering a guilty plea to extortion.  Prior to finding the union members not guilty of extortion in attempting to force the show to hire non-union workers, the jury had been instructed by U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock that the prosecution had the burden of proving that the four Teamsters didn’t just want to replace non-union workers with union workers, but were instead trying to force Top Chef to hire Teamsters for truck-driving work the show neither wanted nor needed.  The judge further instructed jurors that replacing non-union workers would be a legal and legitimate labor objective.  Attorneys for the Teamsters had argued to the jury that the union members could not be convicted on federal extortion charges, even if they had made threats, if they had legitimate labor objectives in mind. To put this in perspective, let’s look back at my original post on the case, in which the Teamster Union’s tactics were described:

From the picket line outside the Milton restaurant, the members of Local 25 screamed racist, sexist and homophobic threats and slurs for hours as production crew and cast came and went.  Some of the worst conduct was directed toward the show’s host. When Lakshmi arrived at the scene, one of the union members rushed her car and screamed “We’re gonna bash that pretty face in, you f***ing whore!”  Local 25 members picketed the restaurant, physically roughed up members of the production crew, and slashed the tires of fourteen production workers.   In responding to local media reports of the incident at the time, a Local 25 spokeswoman stated, “As far as we’re concerned, nothing happened.”

U.S. Attorney William Weinreb expressed disappointment in the jury’s verdict. “The government believed, and continues to believe, that the conduct in this case crossed the line and constituted a violation of federal law. The defendants’ conduct was an affront to all of the hard-working and law-abiding members of organized labor. We will continue to aggressively prosecute extortion in all its forms to ensure that Boston remains a safe and welcoming place to do business.”

It bears mention that prior to the trial, an indicted official of Local 25 pled guilty to federal extortion charges in connection with union threats of physical violence and production disruption against the cast and crew of the top-rated culinary reality show.

In light of the egregious and undisputed facts of the union’s conduct, and the apparent strength of the government’s case at the time of the indictment, the not guilty verdict comes as a surprise.  The Northeast is a more union-friendly environment, and it is possible that may have had some influence on the jury.  As noted in my original post, there also was a local political angle.  However, if the existing labor law, as given to the jury in their instructions,  permits the type of thuggish behavior shown in this case, it begs the question of what conduct would be not be permitted?

Sunday, August 6, 2017

The Ugly Truth: Are Your Employee Handbook Policies and Non-Compete Agreements a Recipe for Litigation?

    A question often asked by employers is whether they are legally required to have an employee handbook, and the answer is “no.”  A much better question to ask is whether it is a good idea for employers to legally protect themselves with a well-drafted and up-to-date employee handbook, and the answer to that question is a clear and definitive “yes.”  
    A good employee handbook provides a road map for your company, and introduces employees to your culture, mission and values.  It should clearly and concisely communicate your policies, procedures and expectations to your employees and provide guidance to your supervisors.  In the event of employment litigation, what you have in your handbook as far as reporting harassment or discrimination, accommodating disabilities or religious beliefs, granting leave under the FMLA, or wage and hour issues, could make the difference between prevailing in a lawsuit, or having to pay an adverse judgment.
    However, recent changes in how federal agencies interpret existing employment law, combined with outdated, poorly drafted or “boilerplate” policies, can turn your employee handbook into a recipe for costly litigation.  Likewise, a poorly drafted non-compete agreement that is found to be unenforceable, can result in the loss of business, customers and trade secrets.  Learning the “ugly truth” about these issues can go a long way in avoiding even uglier litigation. 
    A. Ugly Truth #1:  The Best Employee Handbook in the World Will Not Prevent a Lawsuit (but a Bad One Could Help the Plaintiff Win).
    Every business is different, and there is no “one-size-fits-all” employee handbook.  Your handbook should directly reflect how your company actually operates, its culture and its expectations. As such, avoid using a handbook you found on the internet that contains provisions and policies that have nothing to do with your business or contains rules you will not actually follow or enforce. Revise or replace outdated handbooks.  Keep your handbook concise, avoid legal terminology and use language that your employees will understand.  The basics of what you should include are as follows:
    Include an At-Will Disclaimer.
    Mississippi is an at-will employment state, as is the case in most states.  At-will employment means the employee works for the employer at the employer’s will.  The employer may terminate the employment relationship for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.  Likewise, the employee can terminate the relationship at any time.  However, in the case Bobbitt v. The Orchard, Ltd., 603 So. 2d 356 (Miss. 1992), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that if a handbook contains detailed policies and procedures to be followed when terminating an employee, it can create an employment contract, destroy the at-will relationship, and expose an employer to a breach of employment contract claim if the employer did not follow its own procedures in terminating the employee.  However, if the handbook disclaimer expressly provides that the employment relationship is at-will and can be terminated at any time, the employer has not waived the right to unilaterally terminate the employee by setting forth a grievance process in the manual.
    The disclaimer should be clear and conspicuous. Disclaimer language should also be included in all other documents given to the employees, such as job applications, profit sharing plans, and memoranda regarding employment benefits.
    The language should make clear that the employee’s employment is terminable at will, and that nothing in the handbook should be construed to alter the at-will relationship.  Avoid “contract-like” language.
    The disclaimer should express that nothing in the handbook should be construed as creating a contractual relationship or as implying a guarantee of continued employment or benefits.  Use “may” and avoid “will” or “shall” or any language that suggests the company is promising to do something or confer specific benefits.  
    The disclaimer should make clear that the employee handbook provides only general guidelines as to company policy and should not be read as including the fine details of company policy or procedure.  The employee should be directed to appropriate management personnel for more information regarding particular policies.  
    Handbook language should reserve the company’s right to change, modify, supplement or revoke its policies at any time, with or without notice to the employee.  Although employers should keep employee handbooks up to date to accurately reflect company policy, disclaimer language should caution employees that changes in policy are not dependent upon the changes being reflected in a revised handbook. 
    Equal Employment Opportunity Statement and Anti-Discrimination / Harassment /Retaliation Policy.
    Statement that employer will comply with applicable federal and state law and provide equal employment opportunity without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status or any other protected category.
    Definitions of discrimination, harassment, retaliation.
    Requirement that employees report to his/her supervisor or HR any complaints of unlawful conduct, without fear of retaliation.
    Specific reporting instructions, that allow employee to bypass supervisors who may be the source of the unlawful conduct.
    Statement as to company’s investigatory process for complaints and corrective/disciplinary action for unlawful conduct.
    Effective policy can provide valuable legal defense.
    Include policy regarding consensual workplace romantic relationships.
    Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
    Prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and access for persons with disabilities.  The ADA also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, i.e., changes to the workplace or job -- to allow employees with disabilities to do their jobs.  The ADA, like other federal employment statutes, anticipates an interactive process between the employee and the employer to reach a reasonable accommodation, and for this reason, it needs to be in your handbook so that your employees are made aware of the need to initiate the process with their employer.
    Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”).
    The PDA amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to "prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy."  The Act covers discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions."
    Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
    The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave.
    Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
    The FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”).
    Protects the right of employees to be reemployed in their civilian job if they leave that job to perform service in the military service and protects service members from employment discrimination and/or retaliation based on their military service.
    Code of Conduct / Discipline Policy.
    Outline acceptable workplace conduct, and unacceptable conduct that will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.  In listing examples of unacceptable conduct, e.g. theft, false reporting of time worked, threats of violence, make it clear that it is not an exclusive or complete list.  While the policy should retain the right to use warnings or progressive discipline at the discretion of the employee, it also should state that an employee may be subject to immediate termination for inappropriate conduct or violations of workplace policies.   
    Outline policies and eligibility regarding vacations, 401(k), health insurance, paid leave or other benefits to employees. 
    Include Handbook Acknowledgment Form.
    A common claim by plaintiffs in employment litigation is that they were unaware of the workplace policy that they violated, or that they had never seen or been given a copy of the employee handbook.  Every handbook should include an acknowledgment form to be signed by the employee, attesting that they have received a copy of the handbook, acknowledging their responsibility to read and comply with the policies contained in the handbook, including any future revisions, and acknowledging their at-will employment status.  This can be done using a hard copy form to be put in the employee’s personnel file, or in the case of a handbook that is on-line or on the company’s intranet, it can be a digital form which the employee electronically signs.  A signed copy of an acknowledgment form can be a valuable exhibit when a plaintiff claims in a deposition that he was never given a handbook or had no knowledge of the policy which he violated and which resulted in his or her termination.
    Train Your Managers / Inconsistent Enforcement Can Result in Discrimination Claims.
    Don’t assume that your managers and supervisors will always act in accordance with the policies in your handbook.  Make sure they receive regular training on handbook policies so that they are implemented correctly and effectively.  Once trained, management and supervisors should periodically review handbook policies to assess whether they are being applied consistently.  Inconsistent enforcement of policies could result in claims of discrimination. 
    B. Ugly Truth #2:  Many Commonly Utilized Handbook Policies Now Expose Employers to Liability Courtesy of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).
    The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law in relation to union election, collective bargaining agreements between unions and employers, and unfair labor practices.  Unbeknownst to many employers, the National Labor Relation’s Act’s (“NLRA”) prohibition against unfair labor practices also extends to non-union employers. 
    In recent years, the NLRB has taken a highly aggressive position against many commonly utilized employee handbook policies.  The NLRB alleges that overbroad employment policies could have a chilling effect on employees’ concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. Generally speaking, there is protected concerted activity when two or more employees act together to improve their terms and conditions of employment.  Employees have a right to advocate in this manner even where there is no union involved.  Under the NLRB’s recent interpretive guidelines, an employer’s policy will violate the NLRA if it could simply be “construed” as restricting Section 7 rights. 
    On this basis, the NLRB has been asserting unfair labor practice complaints against employers across the country for handbook policies that are commonly utilized.  Examples of handbook policies that the NLRB finds could be construed as restricting Section 7 rights include the following:
    Policies against “personal business” on company property and “while at work.” 
    [NLRB Position:  The prohibition against conducting “personal business” on company property and “while at work” can reasonably be read to restrict the communications of employees with each other about union or other Section 7 protected rights in non-work areas and on non-work time.]
    No "[d]efamatory, libelous, slanderous or discriminatory comments about [the Company], its customers and/or competitors, its employees or management.
    [NLRB PositionEmployees have the Section 7 right to criticize or protest their employer's labor policies or treatment of employees.  Thus, rules that can reasonably be read to prohibit protected concerted criticism of the employer will be found unlawfully over broad.]
    Policies against employees discussing or disclosing wages.
    [NLRB PositionEmployees have a Section 7 right to discuss wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees, as well as with nonemployees, such as union representatives.]
    "You must not disclose proprietary or confidential information about [the Employer, or] other associates (if the proprietary or confidential information relating to [the Employer's] associates was obtained in violation of law or lawful Company policy)."
    [NLRB Position:  “Although this rule's restriction on disclosing information about "other associates" is not a blanket ban, it is nonetheless unlawfully overbroad because a reasonable employee would not understand how the employer determines what constitutes a "lawful Company policy."]
    On the same basis, the NLRB also has been filing unfair labor practice complaints against employers’ because of their social media policies that impose discipline on employees for disparaging comments made about their employers or supervisors on their personal Facebook pages or other social media.
    There has been an expectation among employers that with a new administration, and with the NLRB soon to have its full complement of Republican members, that the Board might relax its position.  However, as recently as late April 2017, an NLRB judge ruled against Verizon Wireless, ordering it to strike ten of its employee handbook policies on the basis that they violated the NLRA because they could be construed in such a way to “chill” an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity.
    In another recent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York affirmed the NLRB’s controversial ruling against Whole Foods’ policy against employees from making workplace recordings.  The Second Circuit agreed with the NLRB’s position that the rule could be construed as blocking workers from recording activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
    The NLRB has published guidelines to assist employers in drafting handbook provisions that will withstand scrutiny, but the difference between what the NLRB considers a lawful handbook policy and what it considers an unfair labor practice is fairly subtle.  Some points to consider:
    Have your policy acknowledge the law.  One way to ensure that your handbook/social media policy is not considered invalid on its face is to include protective language which states the policy will be applied and enforced consistent with the NLRA and any other applicable local, state or federal laws.
    Avoid overly broad language.  While employers may want to have a policy that would address every conceivable situation that might arise, such a strategy runs the risk of being considered invalid under the NLRA.  
    Have handbook policies reviewed for legal compliance.
    Review Internet/social media policies yearly.  Social media and its technology is constantly changing, and the statutory and case law governing its use in the workplace is also evolving.  It is wise to make sure employment policies keep pace.
    C. Ugly Truth #3:  Not Reasonably Accommodating the Religious Beliefs of Employees Can Be Unreasonably Expensive.
    In any handbook, there will always be some generally applicable rules, such as dress and grooming policies or work schedules, that have the potential to raise a conflict with an employee’s religious belief or practice.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 places a duty on the employer to engage in an interactive process with the employee, to reach a reasonable accommodation that does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.  For this reason, a handbook should contain language stating that reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs or practices may be sought, and the procedures for making such a request.  Generally, these issues are relatively easy to address.  When not handled correctly, they can be costly.  This is illustrated in two recent cases.
    In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., (N.D. W.Va) an employer’s use of a high-tech device to stay in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) resulted in a large dollar jury verdict in a religious discrimination case brought by the EEOC. 
    Consol operated a coal mine in West Virginia, and utilized a biometric hand scanning system to track employee work hours for purposes of payroll and FLSA compliance.  One employee, Christian Beverly Butcher, told his supervisor that he could not comply with the hand scanning policy because he believed the technology has a connection to the “mark of the beast” and the Antichrist, as alluded to in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament of the Bible.
    As a proposed reasonable accommodation, the company offered to allow Butcher to scan his left hand with his palm up, which he declined. Butcher resigned, stating that he was doing so involuntarily. He brought his complaint to the EEOC, which filed suit on his behalf against the company, alleging that Consol had violated Title VII by failing to reasonably accommodate Butcher’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
    A federal judge in West Virginia denied Consol’s effort to have the lawsuit dismissed, and a jury later ruled in Butcher’s favor and awarded $150,000.00 in compensatory damages.  The EEOC later filed a post-trial motion seeking an additional $413,000 in front and backpay. 
    The other case involves a very expensive flu shot.  In EEOC v. Saint Vincent Health Center (W.D. Pa.), the EEOC sued a Pennsylvania hospital on behalf of six employees over its mandatory seasonal flu vaccination requirement.  The lawsuit alleged that the employees were terminated because the hospital refused to accommodate their religious objections to the vaccinations.  The case did not go to trial but the hospital ended up paying a $300,000 settlement and entering into a consent decree requiring changes to their policies and requiring mandatory training for supervisors as to accommodating religious beliefs.
    D. Ugly Truth #4:  Gun Policies Can Be a Loaded Legal Issue.
    In light of incidents of workplace violence nationwide, many employers have handbook policies that ban employees from having firearms on company property, including in their vehicle in the parking lot.  However, in Mississippi, this creates a tension with a state law, and it already has resulted in litigation.  Miss. Code Ann. § 45-9-55 provides in part, that:
    [A] public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or storing a firearm in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.
    The law does provide an exception where: 
    A private employer may prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a firearm in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station or other means of restricting or limiting general public access onto the property. (emphasis added).
    However, employers need to be aware that courts have taken a very strict interpretation of this statute, and that to have such a policy under the exception, the employer has to strictly comply with the access restrictions described in the statute.
    It bears mention that it is completely within an employer’s rights to prohibit employees from having guns on their persons in the workplace.  The lesson here for employers, is that if you want to have a handbook policy prohibiting employees from having access to firearms in their vehicles, you have to have or build the restrictive structures required under the statute.
    E. Ugly Truth #5:  Prepare for the Inevitable Cyber-Breach!
    It is now common to read news stories about big companies being hacked, and the personal information of customers and employees being stolen.  The reality is that any size company can be a target and the result can be costly.  So what does this have to do with employee handbooks?  The cyber security firm Experian Data Breach Resolution estimates that about 80% of the breaches they service can be traced to employee negligence.  Employees need to be made aware of your company’s internal network security.  Some points to include:
    Employees should use strong passwords that are not shared and regularly changed.
    Phishing -- Employees should not trust emails asking for sensitive information even if an email appears to come from a reliable or authoritative source and unknown attachments or links should not be opened.
    No downloading of unauthorized software or apps on company computers or devices.
    USB and other non-company devices should be prohibited or screened for security issues before being plugged into a company machine.
    Parameters for accessing and sharing of company data. 
    Dangers of unsecured networks/public Wi-Fi.
    BYOD policies should reflect employer’s cyber security policies.
    Any suspected breach should be reported immediately and reporting protocols should be clear.
    While not something that needs to be included in an employee handbook, employers should be aware that many states have laws that require the reporting of cyber breaches if it results in the compromise of the personal information of customers, employees or others.  For example, in Mississippi, notice requirements are governed by Miss. Code. Ann. § 75-24-29 (Persons conducting business in Mississippi required to provide notice of a breach of security involving personal information to all affected individuals), and in Louisiana, it is governed by RS 51:3071 (Database Security Breach Notification Law).  
    DTSA Whistleblower Language.
    In 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), allowing businesses nationwide to file suit in federal court to protect their trade secrets from unscrupulous former employees and dishonest business competitors. The law passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress.  Prior to the enactment of the DTSA, companies were limited to seeking relief in state courts, where the law can vary from state-to-state. DTSA contains an immunity provision to protect individuals from criminal or civil liability for disclosing a trade secret if it is made in confidence to a government official or to an attorney for the purpose of reporting a violation of law.
    However, to take full advantage of the protections provided employers under the law, the DTSA places an affirmative duty on employers to provide employees notice of the new immunity or “whistleblower” provision in “any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.”  Failure to provide this notice will prevent a company from being able to recover exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees in any lawsuit brought under the DTSA. In anticipation of the future need to exercise rights under the DTSA, employers should immediately begin integrating such language into company documents such as, but not limited to, employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, employee handbooks, offer letters, non-compete/non-solicitation agreements, non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements, invention and assignment agreements, and return of property agreements.
    F. Ugly Truth #6:  A Completely Unenforceable Non-Compete Agreement Can Be Effective . . . Right Up Until It Actually Needs to Be Enforced.
    A non-compete agreement is pretty self-explanatory.  It’s an agreement between an employer and an employee, where the employee agrees not to work for a competitor or start his own competing business for a set period of time after leaving his employment with the company.  Employers often require employees to sign non-compete agreements at the start of their employment to protect against a former employee gaining a competitive edge through inside knowledge of their former employer’s trade secrets, customer lists, marketing plans or other confidential information.  It’s estimated that 40% of American workers have been subject to a non-compete agreement at some time in their work history.  
    Non-compete agreements usually also contain non-solicitation provisions, where former employees agree not to contact their former customers, or try to hire their former co-workers for a set period of time.  Non-compete agreements also usually contain confidentiality agreements, where the former employees agree to not disclose or utilize their former employer’s trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information.
    The dirty secret of non-competes is that even unenforceable agreements can be effective, because the average employee who signs one at the beginning of their employment, along with the other pile of papers they are handed, assumes it is enforceable, and abides by its terms.  The real trouble occurs when a valuable former employee, who can do real damage to your business and customer base, quits and goes to work for a competitor.  That is a bad time to find out whether or not you can enforce your non-compete agreement.
    In Mississippi and most other states, these type of “restrictive employment covenants” are generally not favored, because they are a restraint on free trade, but will be enforced by the courts if the terms of the agreement are reasonable under the particular circumstances.  Generally, there are three requirements:  (1) the employer has a valid business interest to protect; (2) the geographic restriction is not overly broad; and (3) a reasonable time limit is given.  The employer bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the agreement.  The reason these types of agreements are construed very narrowly is that most courts recognize that an employer is not entitled to protection against ordinary competition from a departing employee.”
    So what is a “valid business interest” that an employer is entitled to protect with a non-compete agreement?  In Mississippi, examples of protectable business interests include trade secrets, confidential information, proprietary information, customer lists, vendor relationships, business practices, and the employer's investment in training and education of an employee.  Mississippi courts have enforced covenants not to compete when former employees who, like Banks, have peculiar knowledge of and relationships with the employer's customers and vendors. 
    When is a geographic restriction reasonable and when is it overly broad?  It depends on the business and the circumstances.  For some companies, restricting a former employee from competing in a three county area may be a reasonable restriction to protect the company’s valid business interests, and restricting the former employee from competing anywhere in the state of Mississippi would clearly be unreasonable.  However, in the instance of an internet-based tech company that has a nationwide customer base, a much larger geographic restriction might be reasonable under the circumstances.  In Mississippi, time restrictions from one to two years will almost always be enforceable.
    Non-compete agreements are typically governed by state law, which can vary depending on where you live or operate a business.  For instance, in the state of Georgia, a non-compete agreement will be enforced only if the employee possesses selective or specialized skills, abilities, customer contacts, customer information, and confidential information that that they have obtained as the result of working for the company. In Tennessee, Texas and Maryland, such agreements are enforceable only against employees who had access to or were entrusted with the employer’s trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information.  In other states, such as California, non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable.
    Courts are reluctant to enforce non-compete agreements if they deprive a former employee of the ability to make a living, especially if the employee is a low level employee without any access to trade secrets or confidential information.  This was illustrated a few years ago by the sandwich shop chain Jimmy John’s.  Jimmy John’s attracted some unwelcome attention by requiring low-level employees to sign two-year non-compete agreements as a condition of employment.  After the story first broke nationally, Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), describing the restrictive covenants as “clearly anti-competitive and intimidating to workers.”  The House Democrats asked for the FTC and the DOL to investigate the sandwich chain.
    The Attorney General of Illinois subsequently filed a lawsuit against Jimmy John’s, alleging the sandwich maker’s non-compete agreements were illegal under Illinois law “[b]y locking low-wage workers into their jobs and prohibiting them from seeking better paying jobs elsewhere, the companies have no reason to increase their wages or benefits.”  Under Illinois law, non-compete agreements must be premised on a legitimate business interest and narrowly tailored in terms of time, activity and place.  The State of New York was apparently about to take similar legal action, however, Jimmy John’s reached an agreement with New York’s Attorney General, in which the sandwich chain agreed to stop including sample non-compete agreements in the hiring packets it sends to its franchisees.  In addition, the company subjected itself to a lot of bad publicity.  Illinois’s Governor subsequently signed into law the “Illinois Freedom to Work Act”, which went into effect on January 1, 2017.  The Act prohibits employers from requiring employees to sign non-compete agreements if they make less than $13 per hour.
    In most matters involving the successful enforcement of non-compete agreements, the employees in question were either highly trained individuals in technical or creative fields, with direct access to their employer’s trade secrets, or were high level sales people with similar access to confidential customer information.  It is a very unlikely scenario where a fast food employer would legitimately need to have a crew worker enter into a non-compete agreement, no matter how good the sandwich.  So, in crafting an enforceable non-compete agreement, here are some points to remember:
    Be realistic.
    Pointless to have a low level unskilled employee sign a non-compete.
    Non-compete agreements should be confined to key employees, sales people or executives whose knowledge of trade secrets and other confidential information, or their relationships with customers, could cause serious damage if they went to work for a competitor.
    “What is our business, and what are we really trying to protect?” – Narrowly tailored non-compete agreements are more effective and more likely to be enforced by the court.
    Articulate valid business interests to be protected in a way that is rational and reasonable as opposed to vindictive retribution against former employees.
    Non-solicitation provisions and who owns social media?
    Pay attention to differences in state law.
    Non-compete / trade secret litigation very expensive – Actual damage?
    G. Ugly Truth #7:  Ignoring a Non-Compete Agreement Can Get You Sued.
    Not surprisingly, when a company finds out that a competitor has hired a former employee, they want to take legal action in support of the non-compete agreement signed by the former employee.  However, oftentimes, those very same companies can be very casual about wanting to hire top performers who formerly worked for their competitors, and who also are subject to a non-compete agreement.  This can expose the company to a lawsuit for tortious interference with contract.  To prove such a claim, the other company would have to show (1) the acts were intentional and willful; (2) their acts were calculated to cause damage to its lawful business; (3) the acts were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause; and (4) actual damage and loss resulted.”  Before you hire that employee, here are a few important steps to take:
    Expressly ask the prospective employee if they are subject to a non-compete agreement or any other restrictive covenant from their former employer, and obtain a copy for legal review.
    Any offer letter or employment contract to be signed by the employee should contain a statement attesting that they are not bound by a restrictive covenant.
    A statement attesting that they have not retained any confidential information from their former employer and will not utilize or disclose any such information during the course and scope of their employment with your company.
    Employee handbooks and non-compete agreements are valuable tools in effectively running your company and protecting your valid interests.  Careful attention to tailoring both to your particular business is the best way to avoid a recipe for litigation.