EEOC Targets Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Lawsuit Against Restaurant Franchisee

 

 

      A Florida company that owns franchise restaurants, such as Applebee’s and Panera Bread, has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for making its employees sign mandatory arbitration agreements.  The lawsuit, filed September 18, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is the latest instance of the EEOC targeting employer practices which the agency  views as limiting employees’ right to file charges of discrimination or bring lawsuits under Title VII and other employment discrimination statutes.

            According to the agency’s allegations in EEOC v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc. (Civil Action No. 9:14-cv-81184-KAM), the company “requires each prospective employee to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as  a condition of employment.  The agreement  mandates that all employment-related claims -- which would otherwise allow  resort to the EEOC -- shall be submitted to and deter­mined exclusively by  binding arbitration.”  The EEOC alleges the arbitration agreements interfere with employees' rights to file discrimination charges and “violates Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil  Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employer conduct that constitutes a pattern  or practice of resistance to the rights protected by Title VII.

            The lawsuit is not surprising since the EEOC made it clear in its 2013 – 2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan that “[t]he EEOC will target policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts.”  However, while these type of “test” cases by the agency result in substantial legal costs for employers, the EEOC does not seem to have been getting much bang for its buck when it actually gets in front of a federal judge.

            As noted in my September 21, 2014 posting, “EEOC Experiences “Separation Anxiety”in Lawsuit Against CVS”, last week the EEOC suffered a big defeat in their controversial lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy, over the drug store chain’s use of separation agreements for departing employees.  In that lawsuit, the EEOC had taken the same approach as it has in this latest case, alleging the drug store chain’s use of very standardized separation agreements demonstrated a pattern and practice of CVS interfering with employees' Title VII in a way that “deters the filing of charges and interferes with employees' ability to communicate voluntarily with the EEOC.” 

            In comments about the agency’s lawsuit against Doherty Enterprises, EEOC Regional Counsel Robert E. Weisberg left little doubt that more lawsuits over arbitration agreements can be expected:

"Employee communication with the  EEOC is integral to the agency's mission of eradicating employment discrimination.  When an employer forces all complaints about  employment discrimination into confidential arbitration, it shields itself from  federal oversight of its employment practices.   This practice violates the law, and the EEOC will take action to deter further use of these types of overly broad arbitration agreements."

           
        As was the case of separation agreements in the CVS lawsuit, mediation agreements are commonly used by employers nationwide, and the EEOC’s litigation focus is troubling to the business community.  For employers who utilize arbitration agreements, it would be advisable to have them reviewed by legal counsel.

 Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com





NLRB Says “No Workplace Secrets Allowed!”

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has held that an employer’s enforcement of a commonly used workplace policy could expose the employer to liability under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”).

This particular matter involved the technology company MCPc, which had a confidentially provision in its employee handbook which read. In part, as follows:

[D]issemination of confidential information within [the company], such as personal or financial information, etc., will subject the responsible employee to disciplinary action or possible termination . . . .

This type of policy, in one form or another, is commonly utilized by many employers.  In the case of MCPc, the company fired an employer after he announced at a meeting that the salary paid to a particular executive, stating the specific amount of the executive’s compensation, would have been used to hire additional engineers.  In terminating the employee for his statements, MCPc also based the decision on the employee improperly accessing computer files to discover the executive’s salary.

Last month, the NLRB upheld an administrative law judge’s decision, finding that MCPc’s internal confidentiality policy was overbroad and violated The NLRB held that this language violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because employees would reasonably construe the overbroad rule to prohibit discussion of wages or other terms and conditions of employment with their coworkers.  In upholding the ruling against MCPc for the termination of the employee, the NLRB agreed that the employee’s discussion was protected discussion because it involved the terms and conditions of his employment, i.e. staffing shortages.

In recent years, the NLRB has used the same rationale to find many employers’ social media policies to be in violation of the Act.  Another lesson to remember from the NLRB’s assault on workplace social media policies is that an employer can be found in violation on the basis of an overbroad policy alone, even if there is no action taken against an employee for violation of the policy.  As many employers also learned from the NLRB’s social media focus, even non-union employers can be found in violation of the NLRA.

Where does this leave employers?  As mentioned above, many employers have similar policies in their employee handbooks.  This is often for the purpose of avoiding the inevitable bickering and complaints that arise when employees start comparing their respective salaries, and are aggrieved over their perception of being underpaid, or another employee being overpaid.  Unfortunately, that goal is exactly what the NLRB views as a violation.

From the perspective of the NLRB’s “bigfoot” approach in the area of social media policies, I think employers are ultimately going to have to scrap the broadly worded confidentiality policies, and opt instead for narrowly tailored policies that protect against the disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential or proprietary information.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

THE LEGAL PITFALLS OF WORKPLACE ROMANCE

 

Birds do it, bees do it,

Even educated fleas do it,

Let’s do it, let’s fall in love

                        Let’s Do It (Cole Porter 1928)

I.  Introduction

History is full of great romances.  Romeo and Juliet, who defied their families for true love.   Rhett and Scarlett’s tumultuous love was set against the backdrop of the Civil War.  And of course, the classic workplace romance at the Daily Planet between Clark Kent/ Superman and Lois Lane.

But for Larry, GeneriCorp’s Human Resources Director, the great romance he’s concerned about is between Shipping Department Manager Ken Worth and Shipping Clerk Lola Rider.  Ken is Lola’s direct supervisor.  Larry learned about the couple’s sexual relationship after other female clerks in the Shipping Department angrily complained about Ken’s plans to promote Lola to the newly created and higher paying position of Assistant Shipping Manager. 

All indications at this point are that the relationship is consensual.  Morale is suffering in the Shipping Department amid complaints of favoritism and Larry is concerned about whether the company may have more serious potential legal problems.

II.  The Workplace as a “Dating Pool” 

Workplace romances are nothing new and if anything, have become more common. With the amount of time people spend working and the increased percentage of women in the workplace, it’s no surprise that the workplace is fertile ground for couples to meet. People who work together also usually live within a reasonable dating distance, and because they share a workplace, they see each other on a daily basis.  Coworkers in similar jobs may also be approximately the same age, and share similar interests both inside and outside of work.  As such, the workplace creates an inadvertent dating pool. 

In a survey of U.S. workers by the staffing and recruiting business Spherion Corporation, 39% of workers said they have already had a workplace romance and the same percentage would consider it.  Looking at the workplace relationships, the survey found 27% involved couples dating for just a few weeks or less, 30% dating for several months, 15% dating several years and 25% resulting in marriage of coworkers.  As the survey indicates, the majority of these relationships are short term and when the romance sours or goes bad, it can be really bad and cause serious problems for employers.  The Spherion Corporation survey noted that nearly half of all employees surveyed (46%) said they felt that dating a coworker would jeopardize their job security or career advancement opportunities.

III.  Non-Fraternization Policies

In this case, GeneriCorp does not have a non-fraternization policy, which would otherwise address Ken and Lola’s workplace romance.  In this regard, GeneriCorp is not unique. A recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management  showed that 72 % of the employers who responded said they did not have a written non-fraternization policy, 14 % said they had a non-written policy that was understood within their workplace, and only 13 % indicated they had a formal written policy.  However, even when there is a policy, many employers adopt an enforcement attitude of benign neglect. 

This is not surprising.  It’s an awkward subject for some employers and Human Resource professionals, who do not relish the role of being the “Romance Police.” Many would rather not get involved in employees’ personal lives unless it is causing problems in the workplace.  However, such policies are important so employers can clearly communicate to employees what is and is not appropriate in the workplace and to protect themselves from legal liability and disruption of the work environment.

What are some of the specific reasons for adopting such a policy?  It addresses and hopefully prevents problems arising from:

·         Favoritism/perceptions of favoritism (and the ensuing rumor mill)

·         Disruption of the workplace (including extramarital affairs)

·         Conflicts of interest

·         Confidentiality (nondisclosure agreements, trade secrets, salary information, etc.)

·         Hostile Work Environment

·         Sexual Harassment (including repeated unsolicited requests for dates)

The purpose of this article is primarily to address the issues that arise from consensual workplace romances, and it is not intended to address the broader area of sexual harassment.  However, as noted above, the problem with certain office romances, especially between supervisors and subordinates, is that they may not be consensual, and in fact may be coerced.  Contrary to the traditional Title VII scenario in such cases, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of EEOC charges filed by male employees, complaining of sexual harassment from female supervisors.  Any such  issues should be addressed fully by the sexual harassment policy employers should already have in place. A non-fraternization policy should be utilized in conjunction with the sexual harassment policy.

A.        Supervisor and Subordinate Relationships

In the case of the romance between GeneriCorp Shipping Manager Ken Worth and Shipping Clerk Lola Rider, what are the legal issues?  Assuming that it is a voluntary consensual relationship, there would not appear to be any liability for GeneriCorp under Title VII for sexual harassment and/or sexual discrimination. 

  However, what about the claims of favoritism from the other female clerks in the Shipping Department, who are upset that Lola is getting a promotion from her boss and new boyfriend?  Do these other employees have a Title VII claim against GeneriCorp for favoritism shown to a co-worker who is sexually involved with a supervisor?

According to the EEOC, the answer, in regard to “insolated instances” of sexual favoritism, is “no.”  The EEOC Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII was adopted January 12, 1990, and was updated in June 1999.  It provides that:

Not all types of sexual favoritism violate Title VII.  It is the Commissioners position that Title VII does not prohibit isolated instances of preferential treatment based on consensual romantic relationships.  An isolated instance of favoritism toward a “paramour” (or a spouse or friend) may be unfair, but it does not discriminate against women or men in violation of Title VII, since both are disadvantaged for reasons other than their genders.  A female [plaintiff] who is denied an employment benefit because of such sexual favoritism would not have been treated more favorably had she been a man nor, conversely, was she treated less favorably because she was a woman.[1]

In essence, the EEOC is saying that while other employees in the workplace, both men or women, may feel the situation is unethical or unfair, it is not sexual discrimination because both groups are disadvantaged for reasons other than their gender.  However, the EEOC Policy Guidance also notes that:

Managers who engage in widespread sexual favoritism may also communicate a message that the way for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct or that sexual solicitations are a prerequisite to their fair treatment.  This can form the basis of an implicit “quid pro quo” harassment claim for female employees, as well as a hostile work environment claim for both women and men who find this offensive.

 

The EEOC authority has been cited favorably by federal courts within the Fifth Circuit (which encompasses Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) in dismissing such claims of sexual favoritism.  The Fifth Circuit itself has also held that an employee does not have a cause of action for retaliation for reporting a supervisor’s sexual relationship with a subordinate coworker.[2]

However, there is some indication that courts may be taking a more nuanced view on sexual favoritism based on consensual relationships. The key phrase in the EEOC Policy Guidance is that “Title VII does not prohibit isolated instances of preferential treatment based on consensual romantic relationships.” 

In a recent case by the California Supreme Court, it was held that widespread and overt sexual favoritism resulting from consensual relations could create a cause of action for sexual harassment and hostile work environment.  This ruling may reflect a trend in how courts view such cases.

 In Miller v. Department of Correction, 36 Cal. 4^th  446 (Cal. 2005), two former female employees at a California prison claimed that the warden gave unwarranted favorable treatment to numerous female employees with whom he was having sexual affairs, and they claimed it amounted to sexual harassment and discrimination.  The case was dismissed at the trial stage but the California Supreme Court reinstated the lawsuit.  While it was a state court claim, the California Supreme Court relied on the federal EEOC Policy Guidance.  In finding for the Plaintiffs, the Court held:

[A]lthough an isolated instance of favoritism on the part of a supervisor toward a female employee with whom the supervisor is conducting a consensual sexual affair would not constitute sexual harassment, when such sexual favoritism in a workplace is sufficiently widespread it may create an actionable hostile work environment in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed as “sexual playthings” or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is to engage in sexual conduct with their supervisors or the management. (emphasis added).

It is not uncommon that once a consensual relationship ends, the subordinate employee will subsequently claim they were coerced by the supervisor and will file a Title VII lawsuit.    Aside from any potential legal liability, the issue of a supervisor sexually involved with a subordinate can result in acrimony and disruption in the workplace if the relationship ends badly.  Even assuming the relationship continues happily, the impact in the workplace can be disgruntled coworkers, poor morale and a never-ending distraction from the real work of your business.

An employer’s non-fraternization policy should strictly prohibit romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinate employees or any employee who falls under that supervisor’s chain of supervision.  Companies that are large enough sometimes have policies that allow the supervised employee to transfer, if possible, to a different department, where they would not be supervised by their love interest.  However, this potentially opens the door to claims of employees being treated differently on the basis of their gender.  A zero tolerance policy best protects the employer.

While this type of policy may seem harsh and draconian, it is important to remember that the purpose of your business is not to be a dating service or a singles bar.  You did not create the situation, the two employees who started the relationship created the problem.  Having been involuntarily placed in the position of having to deal with it, this is the best option to avoid possible legal liability and problems in the workplace.  In the instance of a violation of the policy, the following procedure can be followed:

(1)   Call them in and talk to them separately;

(2)   Tell them that you have reason to believe that they are involved in a sexual relationship with the other employee;

(3)   Make them aware that the company has serious concerns because a relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate employee leaves the company open to claims of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation or favoritism;

(4)   Inform both employees that it put the company in position where it has to do something to avoid legal liability and/or disruption to the workplace, and the situation  cannot continue;

(5)   Tell both of them they have until noon the next day or some other deadline to decide between themselves which of them is going to voluntarily decide to resign, and if they can’t, both of them will be terminated.  This avoids later claims of sex discrimination, because the employer’s decision is not based on gender and in the event they cannot decide, both genders are treated equally.  Some employers may elect to terminate one of the employees based on their respective employment history, position and seniority.  However, this opens the door to claims that employees of different genders were treated differently.

Some employers adopt non-fraternization policies that discourage but do not strictly forbid relationships between supervisors and employees who do not fall under their chain command.  Such policies require that the relationship must be disclosed by the supervisor to his or her manager or the next person up the supervisory chain.  The higher supervisory official then must assess the situation and make a recommendation to resolve any actual or potential conflict created by the relationship.  However, such policies may not address all of the potential problems. Likewise it results in  company managers using company time to “assess” romantic relationships.

 B.        Coworker Relationships

Fresh on the heels of addressing the Ken and Lola romance in the Shipping Department, Larry the Human Resources Manager is faced with another office love affair.  This time it’s over in the Data Processing Department.  Larry learns that Data Entry Clerks Ivy Pod and  Pete Dief have been dating quietly for six months, and generally few people at GeneriCorp know they are an item.  Neither Ivy nor Pete have any supervisory authority over each other.

It’s estimated that 80% of office romances involve similarly situated co-workers. Romantic relationships between co-workers with no supervisory authority over the other still present many of the same potential problems for the employer.  While there is less potential for sexual coercion than in a supervisor - subordinate situation, there is still plenty of opportunity for disruption of the workplace during the relationship, and even more so after an unhappy breakup.

Adopting the same zero tolerance policy as to co-worker romances is an option.  However, Human Resource professionals report such policies are harder to enforce in a co-worker scenario. Employees resent the intrusion into what they perceive as their private lives and they are more likely to keep the workplace relationships underground, putting more effort into “beating the system” as opposed to complying with a no-dating policy.

Taking into account the realities of the workplace and the reluctance to be the “Romance Police”, some employers have adopted policies that allow co-workers to date but require both individuals to enter into written agreements: (1) voluntarily disclosing their relationship, (2) acknowledging their understanding of the company’s sexual harassment and discrimination policy, and (3) acknowledging that if the relationship causes disturbance in the workplace, they may be subject to discipline, up to and including termination.  Such an agreement also requires either party to promptly report to management anything relating to the relationship or a broken-off relationship that might serve as the basis of a harassment complaint. 

Such an agreement is a way for employers to preemptively avoid problems with office romances.  If you need such a policy drafted for your business or a non-fraternization policy, please feel free to contact me and we can discuss what type of policy or agreement would work best for your workplace.

                        IV.  Tips for Dealing with Workplace Romances  

Office romances are often the focus of intense gossip, so Human Resources professionals and supervisors need to know to keep their ears open for news about job or career damaging behavior resulting from such relationships.  Supervisors need to know the appropriate disciplinary measures to take if a romance derails and the resultant employee behavior disrupts the workplace.

Employees need to be made aware that the company will not tolerate sexual liaisons or sexual behavior at work and any such relationships need to be kept entirely separate from the work environment. The company’s sexual harassment and non-fraternization policy needs to be posted and all employees should be trained as to the company’s policy.  If romance becomes sexual harassment, supervisors, working in concert with Human Resources, needs to know what to do to take immediate action.

V.  Conclusion

Paraphrasing the old song at the start of this paper, if birds and bees and educated fleas fall in love, the odds are employees at your company are doing the same.  Having the appropriate policies and training in place can help prevent legal woes  as well as workplace headaches and heartaches

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

---

[1] See EEOC Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism No. 915.048

 

[2]       See Ellert v. Univ. of Texas, 52 F.3d 543 (5^th Cir. 1995) (“Even if [Plaintiff’s] knowledge of the affair was the true animus behind the discharge decision, it was a motivation that did not rely upon her gender and, as such, it was not within the ambit of Title VII’s protections.”).

EEOC Tells Employers “If you like your Criminal Background Check…you Can Keep your Criminal Background Check”

 After suffering defeats over its efforts to enforce guidelines on the use of criminal background checks, it appears the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has launched its version of a charm offensive, while simultaneously girding for appellate battle over its latest courtroom loss.

At the recent American Bar Association's Annual Labor and Employment Conference, top EEOC officials argued that the federal agency was not trying to prevent employers from using background checks. The EEOC’s Senior Counsel James Paretti said the EEOC’s new guidelines merely seek a balance between employers’ interests in protecting property and ensuring personal safety, and making sure that minority job seekers are not subjected to disparate impact discrimination under Title VII.

Paretti denied that the EEOC was administratively seeking to create a new protected class of individuals with criminal records. Under the 2012 enforcement guidelines, the stated rationale for the EEOC’s position was that employers’ reliance on criminal records as a factor in hiring decisions disproportionately affects minorities, who statistically have higher rates of arrest and criminal conviction, i.e. disparate impact.

One continuing complaint about the EEOC’s guidelines is that it places significant costs on employers to create and maintain screening systems to evaluate whether an individual with a criminal record should be excluded on the basis of business necessity, using factors such as the severity of the crime, the period of time since conviction and the specific duties and responsibilities of the job sought. The guidelines further require employers to allow for an additional individualized assessment to those excluded by the initial screening, to explain why they should not be disqualified.

In what appears to be a new approach by the EEOC, Paretti strongly suggested that while employers are free to use background checks, they should not do them until after employers already have determined that the applicant meets all other job qualifications. In a less than subtle threat, EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum noted that the agency was looking into whether the EEOC would consider it a record-keeping violation if employers did not retain data on the disparate impact the an employer’s background screening had on minorities.

I have two thoughts on this. First, requiring employers to go through the time and expense of ensuring an applicant’s qualifications, and then leaving a background check until last, could result in wasted efforts and additional costs. For example, an employer could spend significant time and effort confirming that a candidate is ideally qualified to be a daycare administrator, only to find out at the end, per the EEOC’s suggestion, that the job candidate is a convicted sexual offender, and ineligible for such a position.

Second, the EEOC’s intimation that employers who use background checks could be subject to even more stringent record-keeping requirements, belies their claim that they are not trying to eliminate employers from using background checks.

In a related note, you may recall in my September 30, 2013 posting, the EEOC suffered a court defeat in the case of EEOC v. Freeman. In that case, a District Court in Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer Freeman, dismissing the plaintiff EEOC’s claim that Freeman’s background check policies violated Title VII. In the Court’s opinion, it issued a stinging rebuke to the EEOC for pursuing a disparate impact discrimination claim based on “a theory in search of facts to support it.”

On November 6, 2013, the EEOC appealed the District Court’s dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Other than the loss of face over the Court’s rejection of their theory of liability, the EEOC has another strong motivation to appeal the adverse ruling. Following the ruling in its favor, Freeman filed a motion to require the EEOC to cover the company’s $1.2 million dollars in attorneys’ fees.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

Workplace Profanity Can Support Religious Discrimination Claim

A ruling by a federal District Court in Oregon should serve as a warning to employers that a co-worker’s use of profanity in the workplace may be enough to support a triable religious discrimination hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). In Griffin v. City of Portland, the Court noted that while not every use of profanity that occurred was enough to prove it was directed at the plaintiff because of her protected class, there was sufficient evidence to put the case in front of a jury.

For an excellent in-depth analysis of the case, I would direct you to an article authored by MaryJo Roberts, of my firm’s New Orleans office. For purposes of this posting the facts are as follows.

The plaintiff in the case, Kellymarie Griffin, described herself as a devout Christian. She alleged that co-workers frequently used profanity in the workplace, including the names of God and Jesus Christ in their curse words. The Plaintiff alleged that because of her deep religious beliefs, she was offended by such profanity and would inform her co-workers that such language was offensive to her. From the facts of the case, it appears that for the most part, such profanity from her co-workers was not directed at her because of her faith or on the basis of religious animus, and the co-workers generally refrained from cursing in her presence after she spoke with them.

More troubling were specific comments from plaintiff’s co-worker Theresa Lareau. According to the lawsuit, Lareau called plaintiff a “wacko” and told plaintiff that she prayed to something “that didn’t exist.” On one occasion, after plaintiff complained about profanity, Lareau allegedly told her "I'm sick of your Christian attitude, your Christian [expletive] all over your desk, and your Christian [expletive] all over the place" and Ms. Lareau accused Plaintiff of using her religion for attention.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming she was subjected to a religiously hostile work environment because of her religion. Her employer sought to have the case dismissed on summary judgment, but the District Court denied the City’s motion, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The Court held that "not every allegation of offensive conduct" by Plaintiff's co-workers will ultimately be pertinent to the question [of] whether Ms. Griffin was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her protected status”, but that she had "shown sufficient evidence of religiously discriminatory conduct to make out a claim for hostile work environment religious discrimination as a matter of law."

The Court’s opinion distinguished between profanity that directly implicated religious ideas and profanity that were simple secular epithets. Of note was the Court’s observation that the absence of a hostile intent was not enough to insulate an employer from liability and “if conduct occurred 'because of' a plaintiff's protected status, even if the actor does not intend hostility or even know that the conduct may be perceived as hostile, that conduct is relevant to whether the plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment." The Court also found there was a jury question as to whether the City had taken sufficient action to remedy the alleged religious discrimination.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijman@phelps.com

“Don’t Mess with Texas” . . . the Lone Star State Sues the EEOC over Employers’ Use of Criminal Background Checks

The State of Texas has filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that the federal agency has overstepped its statutory authority by imposing limits on employers’ use of criminal background checks in making employment decisions.

It has been over a year since the EEOC issued strict enforcement guidelines, seeking to limit employers’ ability to make employment decisions based on an individual’s criminal history. The stated rationale for the EEOC’s position is that employers’ reliance on criminal records as a factor in hiring decisions disproportionately affects minorities, who statistically have higher rates of arrest and criminal conviction, and has a disparate impact in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). While not completely banning the use of background checks, the EEOC guidelines place a burden on employers to prove that such reliance is based on business necessity.

The lawsuit by the State of Texas alleges that the EEOC “purports to limit the prerogative of employers, including Texas, to exclude convicted felons from employment” and that the State of Texas and “its constituent agencies have the right to impose categorical bans on the hiring of criminals, and the EEOC has no authority to say otherwise.”

Since the EEOC released the new enforcement guidelines in 2012, it has brought a series of lawsuits against employers, alleging violations of Title VII. However, federal courts have expressed skepticism over the federal agency’s theory of liability and in recent cases, have ruled against the EEOC and in favor of employers. In one such case, a U.S. District Court chastised the EEOC for pursuing a disparate impact discrimination claim based on “a theory in search of facts to support it.”

In its lawsuit, the State of Texas is asking the U.S. District Court to declare that the EEOC’s use of the guidelines are invalid and to enjoin the EEOC from challenging the State’s policy of not hiring convicted felons for certain state jobs.

At the time the EEOC released the stricter guidelines, many legal commentators noted that Congress had never granted the federal agency such rulemaking authority, and that the guidelines were an illegitimate exercise of authority.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

Employment Non-Discrimination Act Nears Senate Vote and Related "Lagniappe"

In a  posting last month, I noted on the improved prospects for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”), which would extend Title VII protection against employment discrimination to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender employees (“LGBT”). The law would make sexual orientation/sexual identity a protected class in the same manner race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability are protected under existing federal laws, and make it illegal for organizations with 15 or more employees to:

"[F]ail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

On Monday, October 28, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that he would bring the legislation to a Senate vote within the coming weeks. The legislation has picked up support from two Republicans in the majority Democrat chamber. Passage in the Senate would be a symbolic first for the legislation, which has been unsuccessfully introduced in one form or another for decades. However, it is unlikely that bill will get much traction in the House of Representatives.

This is an issue where the private sector has quietly taken action without the help or hindrance of lawmakers in Washington. A significant majority of Fortune 500 companies have voluntarily put in place policies prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity. Some states also have  passed similar legislation into law.

 

However, specific provisions of ENDA do raise concern among employers, on such issues as employer dress codes. The language of ENDA does not prohibit “reasonable dress or grooming standards” but would require employers to permit:

"[A]ny employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards as apply for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning."

Employers also have expressed worries about ENDA interpretations that would require employers to allow access to restrooms or dressing/locker rooms to employees who are biologically one gender, but identify with another gender. With the potential for sexual harassment liability or privacy issues, some business owners believe, for example, that ENDA would force them to ignore the legitimate concerns of female employees about having to share a restroom of dressing room with a male employee who self-identifies as a woman.

Regardless of how ENDA fares in Congress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is already trying to pursue some of the same goals of ENDA, within the existing structure of Title VII. As I’ve previously discussed, late last year, the EEOC released its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for 2013 – 2016. Among the agency’s targeted goals was to provide LGBT coverage under Title VII sex discrimination, even though such protection is not contained within the actual statute. The SEP also addressed the agency’s intent to curtail employer’s use of criminal background checks when making employment decisions.

In a somewhat related story, on September 27, 2013, in an en banc ruling, a ten-judge majority of a bitterly divided sixteen-judge Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the EEOC could establish a same-sex harassment claim with evidence of gender stereotyping in the form of sexually charged taunting directed at a male employee by his male supervisor. EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013).

In 2007, the employee filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sexual harassment stemming from the conduct of his male supervisor, who oversaw an all-male workforce on an ironworker construction site. The supervisor purportedly was lewd and vulgar to the employee on a daily basis, including instances of exposing his genitals to the employee while urinating, simulating anal intercourse whenever the employee bent over, and using homophobic slurs to refer to the employee. Upon completion of the administrative process, the EEOC brought an enforcement action on the employee’s behalf and, following a three-day jury trial, obtained a $300,000 verdict in favor of the employee.

The employer appealed the verdict. Initially, a Fifth Circuit panel tossed out the trial verdict for the employee, finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the supervisor had discriminated against the employee because of his gender. The EEOC subsequently sought and obtained an en banc review. Upon review, the en banc majority disagreed with the panel’s decision to overturn the jury verdict.

Although same-sex harassment has been judicially recognized for over a decade, this decision links the concept of unlawful gender stereotyping directly to same-sex harassment and reminds employers that same-sex taunting can be actionable. Moreover, the court noted that there was no evidence that either the employee or supervisor were homosexual, nor was evidence presented that the conduct at issue was motivated by sexual desire. The court’s opinion cautions that notions of sexual harassment based solely on sexual desire or exclusively between members of the opposite sex are misplaced and can increase risks for employers who are not aware that the prohibitions can be broader.

Employers should review their anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies in light of this opinion, and stay tuned for further developments in this area.

* Lagniappe: An extra or unexpected gift or benefit, i.e. “a little something extra”. (Chiefly Southern Louisiana & Mississippi).

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijman@phelps.com

 

“You’ve Got (Mass) Mail”…From the EEOC?

In an ironic reversal of roles, on Monday October 21, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asked a federal District Court in the District of Columbia to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the agency by an aggrieved employer. The lawsuit alleges the EEOC unconstitutionally solicited or “trolled” the company’s employees to become class members in a potential age discrimination class action. (Case New Holland, Inc. and CNH America LLC v. EEOC et al., Civil Action No. 1:13cv1176).

The suit claims the EEOC violated the law by sending a mass e-mail, utilizing the company’s business e-mail domains, to over 1300 management and non-management employees, requesting the employees complete a survey and supply evidence of discrimination against the employer.

For employers more familiar with the typical EEOC procedures associated with a Charge of Discrimination, the mass e-mailing and request for information, without any notice to the company, raises some serious red flags.

The facts of the case are as follows. In March 2011, the EEOC notified CNH America, LLC (“CNH”) that it was launching a nation-wide review of the company for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The company employs approximately 10,000 people in the United States. The EEOC made a sweeping request for information and documents.

According to the lawsuit, in January 2012, the company produced to the EEOC 300 documents totaling 5,707 pages and over 600,000 electronic records from CNH databases, totaling 66,630 pages of documents. After complying with the agency’s request, the company received no communications of any sort from the EEOC until June 5, 2013, eighteen months later.

At 8:00 a.m. on June 5, 2013, the EEOC conducted a mass e-mailing to the business e-mail addresses of 1330 CNH employees across the United States and Canada. Over 200 of the recipients were members of management. The e-mail stated the EEOC was conducting “a federal investigation” and making “an official inquiry” into allegations that CNH discriminated against job applicants and employees, and contained a link to an on-line series of questions. It also asked for the employee’s birth date, address and telephone number. The EEOC’s on-line survey instructed CNH employees to “Please complete and submit this electronic questionnaire as soon as possible.”

The e-mail had been sent without any advance notice to CNH and according to the lawsuit, the mass mailing disrupted CNH’s business operations at the start of the work day and communicated to employees they should cease their legitimate work duties and instead immediately respond to the agency’s questions. A significant concern was the company’s belief that the EEOC had deliberately cut the employer out of the investigatory process, and had solicited members of management, whose statements arguably could have bound the company.

CNH filed its lawsuit on August 1, 2013, alleging that the EEOC’s mass e-mailing: (1) was not authorized by any EEOC rule or regulation, (2) violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, (3) constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (4) violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (5) violated the EEOC’s own compliance manual, which requires that an employer be allowed to have a spokesman or attorney present during an interview of management employees, and that advance notice be given. The suit claims the EEOC engages in bullying tactics to force companies into monetary settlements of questionable claims.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the EEOC from soliciting CNH employees by e-mail, and additional injunctive relief to prevent the EEOC from utilizing any of the information obtained through the mass e-mailing. The lawsuit claims:

"The EEOC has never, before June 5, 2013, sent out emails through business email servers, without any prior notice to the respondent employer, in an attempt to unearth plaintiffs against the employer"

On October 21, 2013, after some extensions granted by the District Court, the EEOC responded with a Motion to Dismiss. While addressing CNH’s various claims, the EEOC’s primary argument was that the case should be dismissed because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider CNH’s claims because it was not a “final agency action”, and that the EEOC’s actions were within the agency’s investigative authority. Additional briefing by the parties will take place before any ruling.

I am not going to try to “read the tea leaves” as to how the District Court will ultimately rule in this case, but a few things are worth noting. First, the EEOC has been less than successful lately when it comes to telling U.S. District Judges what their authority is in regard to the agency. You’ll recall in a recent posting, I discussed the EEOC’s recently stated position that the agency’s conciliation efforts with employers, or lack thereof, were not subject to review by the federal courts. As noted in my article, the EEOC subsequently received a severe slap-down by a U.S. District Judge in Texas. The EEOC also has recently found itself subject to significant monetary sanctions by federal courts for some of its investigatory and litigation tactics.

Second, this extremely aggressive approach by the EEOC should concern employers because it seems to be a deliberate effort to cut employers and their legal counsel out of the investigatory process. The EEOC has always had the investigatory right to interview non-management employees without an employer representative or attorney present. However, because a statement by a member of management could be considered a binding admission on the part of the company, an employer is entitled to have legal counsel present for such interviews. It’s very easy to envisage a manager being cowed by a very official and intimidating e-mail into providing information, unbeknownst to the employer.

Third, heavy handed tactics, such as the mass mailing to the CNH employees described in the Complaint, or other EEOC actions that have caught the attention of the federal courts and resulted in sanctions, could conceivably result in blowback for the agency. This might include congressional action to limit the EEOC’s authority.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

Accessing Employee’s Personal E-Mails on Company-Issued Phone Exposes Employer to Liability Under Federal Stored Communications Act

Earlier this month, I posted an article on how employers could face liability under the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) if they solicited Facebook “friends” to access an employee’s social media postings. 

According to a U.S. District Court in Ohio, employers also could face SCA liability for viewing an employee’s e-mails on a company-issued phone.

In Lazette v. Kulmatycki and Cellico Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 3:12-cv-2416 (JGC) (N.D. Ohio June 5, 2013), Sandi Lazette received a company-issued Blackberry from her employer, Verizon Wireless.  Lazette would send and receive business related e-mails on the device. She was told that she also could use the company-issued phone for personal e-mail so she linked the device to her personal G-mail account.

When she left the company in September 2010, she returned the company-issued phone to her supervisor, Chris Kulmatycki. She understood that Verizon would “recycle” the phone for use by another employee.  However, when Lazette returned the phone, she neglected to delete the access to her personal Gmail account.

Over the next 18 months, without Lazette’s knowledge or authorization, Kulmatycki accessed her G-mail and accessed approximately 48,000 of her e-mails, which included communications about her family, career, financials, health, and other personal matters.  Lazette subsequently filed suit against Verizon and her former supervisor under the SCA. 

The company sought to have the case dismissed on a number of grounds, including its argument that the supervisor’s access was “not” unauthorized because: (1) he used a company-owned Blackberry; (2) he did not access a “facility,” as the statute uses that term; and that (3) Lazette authorized Kulmatycki’s access because she had not expressly told him not to read her e-mails and that she implicitly consented to his access by not deleting her G-mail account. Not surprisingly, the District Court rejected Verizon’s argument:

Turning to the substance of defendants’ contentions, defendants, in effect, contend that plaintiff’s negligence left her e-mail door open for Kulmatycki to enter and roam around in for as long and as much as he desired . . . Whether viewed through the lens of negligence or even of implied consent, there is no merit to defendants’ attempt to shift the focus from Kulmatycki’s actions to plaintiff’s passive and ignorant failure to make certain that the blackberry could not access her future e-mail.

After the District Court denied Verizon and Kulmatycki’s motion to dismiss, the case settled in August 2013 before it went to trial.

In this particular case, it’s obvious that the supervisor’s actions were not authorized by Verizon and his stalker-like review of the plaintiff’s personal e-mails were not for any legitimate business purpose. 

Aside from the inherent creepiness and “ick factor” of the plaintiff’s former supervisor, this case highlights the need for employers to have very clear policies as to what level of privacy an employee can expect in their use of a company’s devices or when an employee uses a personal mobile device or computer on behalf of their employer. 

In years past, such policies would simply inform employees that they should have no expectation of privacy, and that the company device is the property of the employer and may be subject to monitoring.  However, with companies allowing more personal use of company devices or moving to the practice of “BYOD” or “bring Your Own Device” for use at work, the lines have gotten blurred.  As such, employers need to regularly review and update their handbook policies to address how technology is actually being utilized by employees.

In light of this case, a good internal practice would be for a company’s IT department to review all returned devices and ensure they are scrubbed of any personal information before being recycled to another employee.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com.

EEOC Lawsuit Over Dreadlocks Sparks Criticism and Highlights Issues with Workplace Grooming Policies

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has filed suit against Catastrophe Management Solutions, a Mobile, Alabama based insurance claims company, alleging the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against an African-American job applicant on the basis of race because she wore dreadlocks. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00476-CB-M) The lawsuit highlights the employment issues that can arise over workplace grooming policies, and also has sparked sharp criticism from the business community.

According to the EEOC's suit, after completing an online job application, Chastity Jones was among a group of applicants who were selected for a group interview on May 12, 2010. At the time of the interview, Jones, who is black, had blond hair that was dreaded in neat curls, or "curllocks." Catastrophe's human resources staff conducted the group interview and offered Jones a position as a customer service representative.

Later that day, the human resources staff met with Jones to discuss her training schedule. During that meeting, they realized that Jones's curled hair was in dreadlocks. The manager in charge told Jones that the company did not allow dreadlocks and that she would have to cut them off in order to obtain employment. Jones declined to cut her hair, and the manager immediately rescinded the job offer.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC argues that Catastrophe's ban on dreadlocks and the imposition of its grooming policy on Jones discriminates against African-Americans based on physical and/or cultural characteristics. Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office, stated, "Generally, there are racial distinctions in the natural texture of black and non-black hair. The EEOC will not tolerate employment discrimination against African-American employees because they choose to wear and display the natural texture of their hair, manage and style their hair in a manner amenable to it, or manage and style their hair in a manner differently from non-blacks.

The lawsuit came under sharp criticism today in a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "The EEOC's Bad Hair Day".  The editorial notes the EEOC has a habit of "challenging perfectly legal business practices" and "[s]o is it any wonder that the agency is now expanding resources to workplace dress codes." The editorial had much harsher words for the EEOC’s position:

Apparently Ms. Franklin-Thomas has never seen dreadlocked whites (like the Counting Crow's Adam Duritz) or Latinas (like Shakira). Catastrophe's policy is in fact racially neutral because it enjoins all employees, regardless of race, "to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image," including "hairstyle." The company determined that dreadlocks don't meet that standard, as is its right.

By leveling a complaint on Ms. Jones's behalf, the EEOC is perversely suggesting that black people shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else. The larger travesty of this case and other misbegotten EEOC crusades of late is that they take time and resources away from individuals with legitimate claims of employment discrimination. Banning dreadlocks doesn't qualify.

Lawsuits over grooming policies and dress codes are nothing new, but usually arise in the context of Title VII claims of religious discrimination. These occur when a workplace policy conflicts with a religious practice. Such practices might include the wearing of a beard by Muslim men, the wearing of a skullcap or yarmulke by Jewish men, the wearing of a veil or hijab by Muslim women or the wearing of a turban by male practitioners of Sikh faith. As noted in an earlier article, the wearing of certain tattoos can be considered a religious practice under Title VII. Typical conflicts are policies against facial hair, or wearing attire that interferes with safety equipment or procedures.

In the context of religion, Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or job applicant’s religious observances or practices unless it can demonstrate that doing so would constitute an undue hardship on the conduct of its business. The reasonableness of an employer’s attempt to accommodate is a factual determination, made on a case-by-case basis. Each case necessarily depends on its own facts and circumstances, and in a sense every case boils down to whether the employer has acted reasonably. When putting together employee handbooks for clients, I typically advise including a provision in the dress or grooming codes that provides for a request for religious accommodation.

However, in the lawsuit against Catastrophe, the EEOC is claiming that the insurance company’s policy that employees "be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image," including "hairstyle" specifically discriminates against African-Americans on the basis of race. The aggressive position of the EEOC on this issue is a troubling development for employers, many of which likely have grooming and dress code policies very similar to the defendant in this case.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com.

Improving Prospects for Federal Law Protecting Against Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity Discrimination

For decades, legislation has been unsuccessfully introduced in Congress to include sexual orientation/gender identity as protected categories under Title VII.  As the law currently stands, an employee has no cause of action against an employer for adverse employment actions based on the employee being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (“LGBT”).  However, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of the Defense of Marriage act, and changing societal attitudes, that could be about to change.

According to political observers and employment law experts, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) has very good prospects of being enacted within the next year. ENDA would put in place put a nationwide ban on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

According to an article published by Ben James in Employment360, the evolving attitude of the American public on LGBT issues “has created a critical mass to make this the best time and the best opportunity for ENDA to pass.

ENDA’s improved prospects for passage comes after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) release late last year of its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for 2013-2016.  In the SEP, the EEOC made it clear, that despite sexual orientation not being a protected class under Title VII or any other federal law, it intended to bring cases against employers for LGBT discrimination by construing such instances as “sexual stereotyping” under Title VII’s general prohibition against gender discrimination.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EXTENDS FLSA REQUIREMENTS TO IN-HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS

 

On September 17, 2013, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Final Rule which limits the "companionship exemption" of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and extends additional minimum wage and overtime protections to an estimated two million direct care workers, including personal caregivers, home health aides and certified nursing assistants.

Hardest hit by the Final Rule will be home health care staffing agencies and similar health care business. This is because the Final Rule, which becomes effective on January 1, 2015, does not allow third-party employers to claim the FLSA’s companionship services or live-in domestic service employee exemptions.

Generally, the FLSA requires that all hourly non-exempt employees be paid at least the minimum wage and overtime for hours worked beyond the forty hour work week. However, the law provided an exemption for domestic service workers hired for "companionship services" and such workers were not required to be paid the minimum wage or overtime. Likewise, the exemption did not require live-in domestic service workers to be paid overtime.

The Final Rule clarifies that direct care workers who perform medically-related services for which training is typically a prerequisite are not companionship workers and therefore are entitled to the minimum wage and overtime. And, in accordance with Congress' initial intent, individual workers who are employed only by the person receiving services or that person's family or household and engaged primarily in fellowship and protection (providing company, visiting or engaging in hobbies) and care incidental to such activities, will still be considered exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime protections.

Because home healthcare agencies will no longer be able to claim the exemption, such business will have to review and revise their payroll and time-keeping practices and procedures to be in compliance with the FLSA.

For Further information, the Department of Labor has proved answers to frequently asked questions on the Final Rule.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com.

Pirates and Rogues: Employee Theft of Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information “or” Jack Sparrow, Esquire’s Tips for Battling Digital Raiders

I. Introduction

"Me? I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly ... stupid."
~ Captain Jack Sparrow

In the mid-18th Century, an owner of a merchant vessel on the high seas would clearly know when his ship came under pirate attack. Cannons would be fired and buccaneers armed with cutlasses would board the vessel, looking to carry off the ship owner’s gold and other treasure.

In the modern workplace, the theft of an employer’s treasure, i.e. trade secrets, proprietary information, customer data, is much less obvious but just as devastating. Unlike the pirates roaming the sea in the late 1700’s, this theft is most likely to be carried out by a trusted and supposedly honest employee, usually for the benefit of a business competitor or to assist the employee in setting up his own competing business.

To paraphrase the observation above by the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, employers need to watch out for the employees they “think” are honest but who are actually getting ready to do something “incredibly stupid” and most likely, illegal.

This is further complicated by the now common “bring your own device” or “BYOD” practice of many employers, who allow employees to use their personal computers and smart phones to perform their workplace duties. When the employee eventually sails out the door to another job, the employer’s trade secrets likewise can sail away inside the employee’s iPad, iPhone or other device.

According to a 2013 survey conducted by computer security software company Symantec, more than half of departing employees kept confidential information belonging to their former employer and 40 percent planned to use such misappropriated trade secrets in their new jobs.

The purpose of this article is to make employers aware of how such workplace theft can occur, how to best protect and defend your business against any would-be pirates in the workplace and the options for launching a legal counter-attack.

II. The “Pirate” Attack

"Worry about your own fortunes gentlemen. The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers."
~ Captain Jack Sparrow

The theft of company trade secrets and other information by former employees or executives has become so common, it regularly makes the news. For example, computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices just recently sued four former employees, alleging they stole hundreds of thousands of documents before leaving to work for a competitor. In August 2012, a former Intel Corporation employee was sentenced to three years in federal prison for stealing Intel’s confidential design information prior to taking a job with another high tech company.

According to a 2010 statistical analysis, the annual costs associated with the theft of trade secrets and intellectual property were estimated at that time to be as high as $300 billion dollars a year, and that number has only risen in the ensuing years. However, such theft is not limited to large corporations, and businesses of any size can fall victim to such misappropriation.

In the most typical instance, an employer will not be aware its trade secrets or proprietary information have been stolen until it discovers the information is already being used to lure away its business and customers. The following hypothetical scenario illustrates the very real types of improper conduct now common in the American workplace.

Port Royal Industries (“PRI”) is a successful marine engineering company founded twenty-five years ago by its owner, Will Turner. Back when PRI was a small family business, Turner hired Hector Barbossa and Edward Teach for entry level positions. They ultimately became top executives and corporate officers. Turner considers them friends and trusted employees.

Because of the level of trust Turner has in Barbossa, Teach and all of his employees, PRI has never required its employees to sign non-disclosure, non-solicitation or non-compete agreements. Because of the “family business” atmosphere, Turner is somewhat lax about security for the Company’s computer network, where PRI’s proprietary designs and customer information are stored. Barbossa has a company-owned laptop which he uses for work, while Teach uses his personal iPad to perform his duties.

Late one Friday afternoon, Turner receives an e-mail from Barbossa, informing him that Barbossa, Teach and three of PRI’s top design engineers are resigning, effective immediately.

Turner learns that Barbossa, Teach and the engineers now work for PRI’s chief competitor, Black Pearl Enterprises (“BPE”). After the return of Barbossa’s company laptop, a preliminary computer forensic examination reveals that days prior to the resignations, Barbossa downloaded thousands of PRI’s engineering and design blueprints off its server and copied them onto external hard drives and flash drives. Computer professionals examine PRI’s server and determine that the day before he resigned, Teach used his iPad to remotely access and copy PRI’s confidential customer and pricing information.

The forensic examination also reveals that months prior to their resignations, Barbossa and Teach engaged in regular e-mail communications with the President of BPE. Among the topics discussed in the e-mails are their plans to leave PRI, how the abrupt loss of the three design engineers will cripple PRI’s ability to serve its customers, and PRI’s internal pricing information for key customers.

BPE is now aggressively competing against PRI and has been able to underbid PRI on a number of projects using the stolen pricing information. Utilizing the misappropriated design information, which they otherwise would not have been able to obtain through legitimate means, Barbossa and Teach have been able to take a number of key customers away from PRI.

An angry Will Turner contacts the law firm of Davy, Jones & Locker, LLC, to determine the best way to give Barbossa and Teach a legal keelhauling, and makes an appointment to meet with the firm’s top employment attorney, Jack Sparrow, Esquire. Unlike his famous cousin of the same name, Mr. Sparrow has issues with sea sickness, and opted to attend law school as opposed to entering the family business of captaining sailing ships.

The tale of PRI, its mutinous former executives and the piracy of its confidential business information will serve as the backdrop for how employers can avoid finding themselves in the unfortunate position of Will Turner. The advice from Jack Sparrow, Esquire also will show employers how to turn the tide against would-be boardroom buccaneers.

III. Best Practices to Avoid Trade Secret Theft by Employees
"Prepare the cannons, wake all sailors and prepare to repel boarders." ~ Captain Jack Sparrow

In their first meeting, attorney Jack Sparrow agrees with Will Turner that Barbossa and Teach are indeed “scurvy dogs, yellow-bellied bilge rats and generally dishonest rapscallions.” However, he advises that PRI could have avoided many of the problems now facing it by having had in place some basic policies and practices. “Not only would these policies have prevented or at least discouraged your two former executives from trying to pillage your business, but it would have given us additional legal claims to bring against these scalawags.” Will asked, “what do we need to incorporate into our HR policies and practices.”

A. Confidentiality / Non-Compete / Non-Solicitation Agreements
Sparrow explained, “One of the easiest ways to prevent employees from stealing your company’s confidential information is to simply have them contractually agree in advance not to do it.”
For most companies, employee confidentiality is vital to a company's competitiveness. An employee confidentiality agreement establishes that an employee will keep the employer's confidential, private, secret and proprietary information private and confidential and that such information will not be disclosed to the general public or to outside third parties, such as competitors. Typically, such agreements also can prevent an employee’s unauthorized use of such information. Employee confidentiality agreements ensure that a company's private information and valuable knowledge stays where it belongs, within the company.

Sparrow noted that another option would be for PRI to have all of its higher level employees enter into non-compete / non-solicitation agreements. “These type of agreements prevent former employees from competing against you or soliciting your customers for a period of time after they leave the company.”

In most states, these type of “restrictive employment covenants” are generally not favored, 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 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.”

“In your instance” Sparrow observed, “you could justify the first factor because Barbossa and Teach were high level executives with access to confidential business and customer information, as opposed to one of your employees working on the loading dock. Courts look closely at the geographic restrictions of such agreements, because it would be against public policy for the restriction to be so broad as to prevent an individual from earning a living in his or her chosen field. For example, a restriction on competing within the entire United States would be considered overly broad and unenforceable. However, a limitation on competition in specific markets where you currently do business would be more likely to be enforced. As far as time restrictions, most courts will find a period of one to two years to be reasonable and enforceable.”

Sparrow also remarked that to be enforceable, these types of agreements must be supported by sufficient consideration. When Turner looked puzzled, Sparrow explained, “In non-lawyer talk, that means that the employee had to have received something of value in exchange for entering into the agreement.” What constitutes sufficient consideration can vary depending on the specific circumstances. However, in many states, courts have held that continued employment alone can be sufficient consideration to uphold a contract.

If Barbossa and Teach had been required to sign these types of restrictive covenants as a condition of their employment or continued employment with PRI, their actions would serve as the clear basis for a breach of contract claim. “However”, Sparrow noted, “because they never signed an agreement, that is one legal claim unavailable to us.” Turner sighed and noted, “I never expected I would need to have my employees contractually promise not to be dishonest” and he and Sparrow made arrangements for Davy, Jones & Locker, LLC to draft such agreements for PRI to use going forward.

B. “BYOD” or Bring Your Own Device Policies

The subject then turned to Teach’s use of his iPad to access and copy PRI’s confidential customer and pricing information. Sparrow asked “How long has PRI allowed its employees to use their personal computers and devices for work, and what kind of policies do you have in place to regulate how they are used?”

Turner replied, “Well, about two years ago, we started letting employees link their work e-mail to their personal smart phones. Over time, I let people use their personal laptops and tablets because they tended to be more efficient and productive with their own devices. It also saved the company money because it spared us the cost of buying a company-issued gadget. We instead pay a monthly stipend to the employees who use their own devices. We really don’t have any formal policy on how they are used.”

“You’re not alone,” Sparrow said. “In one recent survey, 92% of the companies reported that they had employees using their own personal devices for work. However only 44% of those organizations had ‘bring your own device’ or “BYOD’ policies that regulated the use of personal devices in the workplace. Even those employers who have BYOD policies are constantly having to scramble to ensure they are still relevant in light of the constantly changing technology.”

Sparrow continued, “While there are a lot of good reasons for having an effective BYOD policy, one key benefit is to prevent the misappropriation of your company’s confidential information. In a recent corporate survey, the most pressing concern was that sensitive information will be on a personal device that is lost, stolen, or in the possession of someone who leaves the company or other theft of data via uploading to a personal device.”
Turner requested that Davy, Jones & Locker, LLC draft a BYOD policy for PRI, and asked, “What should our policy include?” Sparrow said, “There is no ‘one-size-fits-all” policy, because every business is different and has different security and technology issues. He then outlined the following:

• Require devices to be pre-approved. Sparrow pointed out, “Different gadgets have their own pros and cons when it comes to security, and your company’s particular security needs will dictate which ones employees should be allowed to use.”

• Have mobile device management (MDM) software installed. “The two non-negotiable elements to look for in an MDM system are the ability to enforce security policies and to wipe remotely the personal devices used by employees.” Sparrow further explained, “Such software typically requires a strong password that's entered every time the device is turned on; ensures on-device file encryption; disables the camera; and specifies which applications are allowed, banned, or mandatory. It may also allow for monitoring to limit or deny access to certain company information. Data loss prevention (DLP) technologies also can automatically flag when sensitive files are touched or an unusual number of files accessed or copied.”

• Have employees agree in writing to security provisions. “You can save yourself a lot of grief if you address the issue with employees on the front end,” Sparrow said. “For example, an employee must agree to have their device remotely wiped if (1) the device is lost, (2) the employee terminates his or her employment, (3) if IT detects a data or policy breach, including unauthorized access to confidential company information, or (4) if there is any virus, malware or similar threat to the security of the company’s data and technology infrastructure.”

• Have an acceptable business use policy. The policy should define acceptable business use as activities that directly or indirectly support the business of the company. Devices may not be used for unauthorized storage or transmission of proprietary information belonging to the company or misappropriated from another company, to engage in outside business activities, to harass others, view pornography, etc.

• Disciplinary policy. “Employees need to know there will be consequences for lax computer security when using their own devices for work,” said Sparrow. “The company should reserve the right to take appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination for noncompliance with the BYOD policy.”

• Have a plan for departing employees. “The company should have a written agreement, signed by the employee, stating that the company’s IT department will be allowed to inspect and delete all confidential information from the device when the employee leaves the company.”

• Institute specific prohibitions on copying and forwarding of confidential information. Sparrow noted that a common thread in these types of cases is the downloading and copying of company information onto external hard drives/flash drives, or the forwarding of confidential information by e-mail to an employee’s personal e-mail address.

• Prepare a Departing Employee Checklist so nothing is ever forgotten. “The list itself will vary by the individual employer,” Sparrow noted, “but might include changing office lock codes, collecting keys, asking questions about any personal devices that may have company data, having the employees sign a statement acknowledging that all company data has or will be returned and another statement acknowledging that any post-departure access to the network would be a criminal act.”

• Consider other employment related issues. For example, a non-exempt employee’s use of a personal smart phone to check and respond to business –related e-mails or voice-mails off-the-clock can potentially expose an employer to liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages or overtime. A BYOD policy should address when an employee is allowed to use the personal device for business purposes.

Sparrow added that along with the BYOD policy, “You also should have your IT department be on the lookout for any unusual activity that would suggest unauthorized accessing and/or copying of company information.”

IV. Assessing the Damage/Preparing a Case

"I leave you people alone for just a minute and look what happens. Everything’s gone to pot."~ Captain Jack Sparrow

When a company suspects a former employee has stolen confidential information, time is of the essence, both to prevent additional losses, and to acquire and preserve digital evidence of the employee’s wrongdoing to build a case against them. Sparrow told Turner, “A company that sits idly by while its trade secrets are being used unlawfully invites significant commercial harm, and even potentially risks waiving its rights to an injunction to protect those secrets, or even from claiming them as secrets at all. An employer should be ready to immediately implement an action plan.” This should include the following:

• Sparrow said, “you need to immediately lock the digital door”. “Terminate any remote access privileges or user credentials that the employee may have to company proprietary information, and make sure that all company-issued electronic devices (e.g. laptop, smart phone, tablet, USB and external drives, etc.) have been returned. These steps should have been done at the time of the employee's termination but are sometimes overlooked.”

• “Not all the information you need will be on a computer,” Sparrow noted. “Interview the employee's manager and co-workers about what the employee was working on, had access to, and whether there was unusual activity during the employee's last days, and whether the employee was acting secretively or left the company on bad terms.”

• Pointing to the computer on Turner’s desk, Sparrow said, “A common mistake is for employers to immediately re-assign a former employee’s computer equipment to another employee without first having it examined by a qualified expert. It is best not to even turn on or ‘power-up’ any such returned equipment,” he warned. “Collect and sequester any electronic media (e.g. smart phones, laptops, and removable hard drives) that the employee used, and store it in a safe location accessible to one or only a few people to ensure the devices are not tampered with and that a chain of custody is preserved.”

• “You’ve already taken one important step,” Sparrow said with a smile. “Retain outside counsel experienced in trade secrets and hacking cases to oversee the investigation and analyze the intellectual property and other legal rights which are available.”

• Sparrow also strongly stressed that any employer victimized by computer theft needs to “Retain an experienced computer forensic consultant.”

Sparrow told Turner, “While it is tempting for a company to rely on its in-house IT personnel to look for evidence of computer piracy, I always advise retaining an outside computer forensic expert to do the job. They typically have the specialized training and software to analyze the data without altering the contents or operating parameters of the devices and drives in question. This preserves the evidence for any litigation. A common practice is for the forensic expert to create an exact forensic ‘image’ of the device’s hard drive for purposes of analysis, leaving the original device unaltered.”

“What are the computer forensic experts looking for?,” Turner asked. “Using specialized techniques and software, they are looking for proof that files or other information have been copied off the device or otherwise misappropriated,” Sparrow explained. “A registry analysis will identify every external device that was attached to the computer by the date the device was connected, the time the device was connected, and the name and serial number of the device that was connected. It won’t tell you who was on the computer at the time or which files were copied, but it will provide some evidence that can be followed up in further discovery that can establish the theft.”

For example, Sparrow said, “If an analysis shows that Barbossa’s laptop was used to illegally copy your files, and the copying was done on a date when he was the only one with access to the device, that can be strong evidence to support our case.” Sparrow laughed and remarked, “It still amazes me how people will put the most harmful evidence in e-mails and texts, thinking they can destroy the evidence just by hitting ‘delete’. We should be able to get a better idea of what Mr. Barbossa and Teach were up to once we get a good look at their e-mails.”

“In some cases, you have employees who are more sophisticated about their computer theft and this is where computer forensics really pays off,” said Sparrow. “Rather than copying files off a laptop, they may simply copy the entire hard drive using software such as Norton Ghost©, which creates an exact duplicate image which can be transferred to another computer or storage device. They may then try to cover their tracks by using software like EvidenceEliminator© or Evidence-Blaster©.”

“However, this ‘cleverness’ can come back to bite them, said Sparrow. “While they may succeed in overwriting deleted data, making the files unrecoverable, the fact that they installed and then uninstalled evidence wiping software a day or two before they quit will remain in the registry. This raises the interesting question of what type of evidence is more damning, the forensic recovery of deleted files showing proprietary information was on the employee’s computer but deleted, or the presence of unauthorized evidence elimination software that could only be present for the purpose of spoiling the evidence.”

Sparrow also noted that computer forensic information is important in determining what business losses can be attributed to the employee theft. “In any lawsuit, you’ll bear the burden of having to prove money damages because of Barbossa and Teach’s wrongdoing.”

V. Legal Action Against Former Employees and Others

"Send this pestilent, traitorous, cow-hearted, yeasty codpiece to the brig."~ Captain Jack Sparrow

Turner banged his fist on the table and demanded, “Is there anything I can do right now to stop these rogues? I’m afraid that by the time we get to trial, they’ll have already sunk my business using my own trade secrets against me.”

Sparrow said, “The first thing we can do is to ask the court to grant some immediate injunctive relief. Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy granted when money damages would not be enough to compensate you for your losses if an injunction was not granted.“

“The type of injunctive relief we’ll seek is a temporary restraining order or “TRO” against Barbossa, Teach and BPE to prevent them from disclosing or utilizing PRI’s trade secrets. We’ll later move the court to leave it in place until our lawsuit can be decided on the merits. To obtain a TRO, we’ll have to convince the court of four things: (1) that we’re likely to succeed on the merits of our claims, (2) that PRI is being irreparably harmed by the improper disclosure and use of its trade secrets, (3) that Barbossa, Teach and BPE will not suffer irreparable harm if the TRO is granted, and (4) that the public interest is served by issuing the injunction.”

Turner thought about what Sparrow had explained and said “Well, if I’m going to have to convince the court I’ll succeed on the merits of my claims, I guess I better know what kind of claims I can bring. I think we’ve clearly and painfully established that it was a mistake for me not to have Barbossa and Teach under a restrictive covenant, and that rules out a breach of contract claim,” said Turner. What other options do I have?” Sparrow chuckled and said, “There’s more than one way to have these treacherous scoundrels walk the plank!”

A. Uniform Trade Secrets Act

“In your case, there is statutory protection against the theft of your trade secrets by your former executives,” said Sparrow. “Most states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The purpose of the Act (“UTSA”) is to prevent a person or business from profiting from a trade secret developed by another, because it would allow them to acquire ‘a free, competitive advantage.’ To establish a claim of trade secret misappropriation under UTSA, we would have to be able to show: (1) that a trade secret existed; (2) that the trade secret was acquired through a breach of a confidential relationship or discovered by improper means; and (3) that the use of the trade secret was without the plaintiff’s authorization.”

“So can you tell me what is considered a trade secret under UTSA?,” Turner asked. Sparrow explained that under the Act, “A trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means, by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

“Skip the legal jargon,” Turner demanded, “What the heck does that mean?” “In essence,” Sparrow said, “It means that a trade secret is something that is valuable to your business because it is not generally known outside your business, you take reasonable efforts to keep it secret, and the only likely way your competitor could find out about it would be by stealing it or through other improper means. Sparrow noted, “It would seem that the engineering designs that were stolen would meet the definition under UTSA.”

“Would the customer information they took also be considered a trade secret?” Turner asked. Sparrow nodded “Courts interpreting this section of the UTSA have consistently held that lists of current and prospective customers, the requirements of customers, and other proprietary business information can constitute a trade secret.”

Sparrow continued, “UTSA refers to the theft of trade secrets as misappropriation. That means the acquisition of a trade secret by someone who knows or has reason to know that it was acquired by improper means, such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy. It also includes the disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent by someone who used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret. For example, if an ex-employee spilled the company secrets to a business rival, who starts using the trade secrets.”

“UTSA also prohibits the use of trade secrets by a company which ‘has reason to know’ that the material constitutes a trade secret. This is known as constructive knowledge (versus actual knowledge). In other words, even if a company was unaware it possessed purloined trade secrets, it can still be prosecuted if it should have known.”
Sparrow added, “With what we know right now, it looks like we have a good claim of misappropriation of trade secrets against Barbossa and Teach. In addition, we also should be able to go after BPE, because they clearly had reason to know that the information they were using belonged to PRI and was acquired by improper means. Under the Act, we can seek injunctive relief against them all and also seek money damages for the business losses they’ve caused to PRI.”

B. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

“Because of the way Barbossa and Teach stole information from PRI’s computer system, you also can assert a claim under federal law, said Sparrow. Sparrow continued, “The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA)” provides civil remedies for certain types of misuse of computers and computer files. “This law was originally enacted to bring criminal charges against computer hackers, but the civil component of the statute allows employers to seek damages against former employees for misuse of a protected computer,” Sparrow noted. “CFAA defines a ‘protected computer’ as a computer ‘used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication’ so a protected computer, in effect, could include any computer connected to the Internet.

CFAA prohibits numerous types of conduct, including the theft of data from a protected computer and the unauthorized access of a protected computer resulting in damage to a protected computer. Sparrow pointed out to Turner “The crucial evidence to support a successful CFAA claim will be the information you obtain from the forensic examinations you conduct early in the litigation process”

C. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
“What really bothers me about all this is that these two mutinous swine were my top executives and officers in the company and they were actively conspiring with my competitor. They were supposed to be working on behalf of PRI,” Turner said to Sparrow. “Surely that can’t be legal! Is it legal?”

“No, it’s not,” said Sparrow. Because they were trusted high level executives and corporate officers, they owed a legal duty of care and loyalty to your company. Because they clearly and intentionally worked against the best interests of PRI, we have a strong claim against them for breach of fiduciary duty!”
Sparrow explained to Turner that under the law in most states, a corporate officer has a duty of care which can be defined as follows: "A director or officer has a duty to the corporation to perform the director’s or officer’s functions in good faith, in a manner that he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation, and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person would reasonably be expected to exercise in a like position and under similar circumstances."

Sparrow continued, “The second fiduciary duty that all officers owe to their employer is that of loyalty, good faith and fair dealing. Officers have a duty to exercise ‘the utmost good faith and loyalty’ to the corporation. This includes the duty to refrain from engaging in self-dealing activities.”

“In this case, Barbossa and Teach are clearly fiduciaries because of their high level positions within the company. However, courts have recognized that even lower level employees, such as a store manager or an office manager, also may owe such fiduciary duties to their employer, depending on the individual circumstances.”

Looking through copies of the e-mails between Barbossa and Teach and the President of BPE, Sparrow said, “In these e-mails, your two back-stabbing executives are actively discussing with your chief competitor how to do damage to PRI. They’re doing this while serving as company officers and top executives who are ‘supposed’ to be working in the best interests of your company. This is hardly the conduct of loyal employees acting in good faith. These e-mails are ‘the smoking gun’ in our breach of fiduciary duty claim against them! Plus, juries generally don’t care for sneaky dishonest employees who are foolish enough to discuss all their wrongdoing in an e-mail.”

Turner asked, “Is there any type of claim we can bring against BPE? What about the engineers who left with Barbossa and Teach? They had to have known what those two pieces of shark bait were up to, and helped them to steal our information!”

Sparrow nodded and said, “A person or a corporation ‘who knowingly joins with or aids and abets a fiduciary in an enterprise constituting a breach of the fiduciary relationship becomes jointly and severally liable with the fiduciary for any profits that may accrue.’ In other words, if BPE, its President or your former engineers knowingly helped Barbossa and Teach in breaching their fiduciary duties to PRI, they also can be can be held liable for money damages. This could include any profits they made utilizing PRI’s information.”

D. Tortious Interference with Business Relations / Civil Conspiracy
“I’d really like to sink these sea rats” Turner said. “Is there one more claim I might be able to bring?” Sparrow laughed, “How about two?”

“One potential claim against them would be for tortious interference with business relations. To prove such a claim, we would have to show (1) their acts were intentional and willful; (2) their acts were calculated to cause damage to PRI in its lawful business; (3) the acts were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of BPE or its President, and (4) actual damage and loss resulted.”
“In our case, I think we’ll be able to prove all of that. First, their actions were clearly intentional and willful because we can show this scheme had been in the works for months. Second, their acts were calculated to cause damage to PRI, by taking away its business and customers using stolen information. Third, BPE has no lawful right to be using your information against you. Finally, we can show PRI has suffered actual damage because of their wrongful actions.”

Sparrow continued, “Another possible claim would be for civil conspiracy. Conspiracy requires a finding of “(1) two or more persons or corporations; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result.” The purpose of the conspiracy has to be to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose unlawfully.”
“In your case, Barbossa, Teach, BPE, its President and your engineers had the goal of hurting PRI’s business and clearly agreed on how they were going to go about it. Further, the unlawful acts involved the breach of fiduciary duty, violations of MUTSA and CFAA when they stole your information, as well as their tortious interference with your business relations.”

VI. Conclusion

'Well, then, I confess, it is my intention to commandeer one of these ships, pick up a crew in Tortuga, raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out."~ Captain Jack Sparrow

As illustrated by the fictional pirate tale above, dishonest employees rarely let you know in advance of their intention to “raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer” your company’s trade secrets. However, employers who put in place the proper policies and practices are less likely to find themselves in the position of the overly trusting Will Turner, and better prepared for any legal battles against pirates and rogues in the workplace.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com. An abbreviated version of this article has previously been published in the Mississippi Business Journal.