Delaware to Get Its Very Own Background-Check Center

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 18, 2012In: Background Checks, Delaware Specific, Legislative Update

Email This Post | Print this Post

Delaware employers in the long-term- and community-care industries are subject to new background-check requirements.  The Delaware Code as amended by S.B. 216 to establish an electronic web-based “background check center” for employment in long-term care or community settings.  S.B. 216 was signed by Gov. Markell on July 5, 2012. 

Creation of a Background Check Center

The biggest change is the creation of a new “Background Check Center.”  The stated purpose of the Center is to “consolidate various data streams” from inside and outside the State of Delaware, as necessary to conduct a proper background search. 

In short, it requires covered employers to use the Center to perform mandatory criminal background checks for new employees.  Nursing or similar facilities, hospice, home-health, and home-care agencies are subject to the law. 

There will be a fee for the background check, which is subject to change each year based on the Center’s operating costs. The statute specifically provides that applicants will be provided with “due process protections of notice and opportunity to be heard,” as well as the right to appeal.

Criminal-History Checks

S.B. 216 also amended the law relating to criminal-history checks performed by employers operating long-term-care facilities.  For example, these employers are now required to use the Background Check Centers, as described above.  Some other key changes for employers include:

  • An applicant may be “conditionally hired” for 60 days but only if the employer has first received verification that the applicant has been fingerprinted by the State Bureau of Identification
  • Criminal histories are to be treated as “strictly confidential” and must be stored in manner that maintains such confidentiality.

Employers aren’t the only ones with new obligations, though.  Employees who were grandfathered in under the original version of the statute have 120 days from the date the Background Check Center is implemented to submit to fingerprinting and a criminal background check. 

Applicants have some new obligations, too.  They are required to execute a release that allows the employer to obtain a criminal history before the time of hire and post-hire for the purpose of updating the history during employment. 

Failure to comply will be costly.  Employers and applicants who fail to comply will be subject to a civil penalty of between $1,000 and $5,000 for each violation.

Key Take-Aways for Delaware Employers

The changes to the law is significant—but only for employers and potential employees in the long-term-care industry.  Employers in other industries are not affected and should be aware of the national trend away from the use of criminal histories as part of the hiring process.  However, for covered employers, the changes are many take effect immediately following the creation of the State’s Background Check Center, so be sure to consult with your employment law counsel about the steps you should be taking to prepare.

See also:

EEOC Publishes Guidance on Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records

5 Reasons Why Criminal Background Checks Are a Perfect Storm for a Lawsuit

New Philly Law Limits Use of Criminal-Background Checks

Discovery of Plaintiff's Social-Networking Profile

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 17, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

An employer facing litigation brought by a current or former employee often has good reason to seek discovery of the plaintiff-employee's Facebook posts. For example, an employee who alleges that she was subject to an unlawful hostile work environment in violation of Title VII must show not only that the allegedly harassing conduct was objectively severe or pervasive but also that she subjectively believed it to be so.

I'll use myself as an example. I tend not to be easily offended. In fact, I'm usually the one who has to watch her comments so as not to offend others. If I were to claim that I was subject to unlawful harassment based on my gender, I would first have to point to comments or conduct that a reasonable woman in my position would find offensive--the objective component. But the inquiry does not end there. I would also have to show that I found the comments or conduct to be offensive--the subjective component.

A plaintiff who says that she was not adversely affected by the conduct defeats her own claim. In other words, plaintiffs are not doing themselves any favors when they respond that they were "tough" or "didn't let the conduct bother [them]." Instead, the plaintiff must point to some evidence tending to show that she was affected by the conduct--so much so that the nature of the workplace itself was transformed (negatively) by the allegedly unlawful conduct.

This evidence can take the form of depression, inability to sleep, weight loss or gain, anxiety, etc. And that is precisely why posts on social-networking sites, such as Facebook, can be so critical to the defense of these claims. A harassment claim can be defeated by the plaintiff-employee's Facebook posts that reflect a happy, not-anxious state of mind.

But getting access to a plaintiff's social-networking profile is easier said than done, as many defense lawyers have learned already. A recent decision from a federal court in Nevada grants broad access to this content but doe so in a fairly unusual manner.

In Thompson v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., the plaintiff alleged personal-injury and product-liability claims, arising from an automobile accident in April 2007. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained significant injuries due to a defective seat belt and airbag. Before making a formal discovery request, the defendant obtained posts and photos from the plaintiff's publicly available Facebook profile, which, according to the defendant, constituted evidence of her "post-accident social activities, mental state, relationship history, living arrangements, and rehabilitative progress," all of which were relevant to the underlying claims and defenses.

Thereafter, though, the plaintiff changed the privacy settings on the account so that the information was no longer publicly available. In response, the defendant sought to compel a complete copy of all of the plaintiff's social-networking accounts from the date of the accident to present. the plaintiff objected, arguing that the request was a mere fishing expedition.

The court granted the defendant's motion--with some unusual conditions. Recognizing that "litigation does not permit a complete and open public display of Plaintiff's life," the court ordered the plaintiff to upload onto an external storage device "all information from her Facebook and MySpace accounts" from the date of the accident to the present and to provide defense counsel with an "index of redacted social networking site communications." Once received, counsel was to review the content--but was ordered not to share the content with anyone other than support staff.

Venkat Balasubramani posted about the case at Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog and, as usual, takes an interesting perspective on the practical implications of the court's order. He raises questions that I had, as well, such as: (1) what is an "index;" and (2) why would there be any redacted communications if the plaintiff is required to produce all contents.

Thompson v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-01375-PMP-CVF, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85143, 2012 WL 2342928 (D. Nev. June 20, 2012).

See also:
Access to Party's Facebook Account During Discovery
Facebook Message Leads to Disability Claim
Employee's Facebook Posts Protected by First Amendment

Stop Workplace Negativity With Email Surveillance. . . . Huh?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 15, 2012In: Electronic Monitoring, Privacy In the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

FDA officials developed "a wide-ranging surveillance operation" against a group of its own employees, according to the N.Y. Times. The federal agency is said to have surreptitiously captured "thousands of emails" that disgruntled employee-scientists sent to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, and journalists.

The surveillance began as a workplace investigation of a possible leak of confidential information. The investigation was limited to five scientists. But it developed into a far broader-ranging endeavor, eventually culminating in 80,000 pages of documents. The massive surveillance was an effort to curb the "collaboration" of the agency's opponents, according to the report.

This story is interesting on several levels. First, on the most basic level, the idea that an employer the size of the FDA determined that a massive surveillance endeavor was the best way to stop what it perceived to be disparaging or antagonist commentary between employees and outsiders. I don't know what the culture has to be or what the level of negative murmurs has to be to prompt an employer to consider this type of effort in the first instance, nevertheless what it takes to push it to cross that line.

Second, the nature of the communications that were monitored is particularly striking. According to the NY Times report, the emails "were collated without regard to the identify of the individuals with whom the user may have been corresponding. Although the law is not particularly well settled on this issue, there are cases that have upheld significant consequences for employers who monitor, intercept, and/or access emails between an employee and his attorney. Thus, it seems potentially risky for the agency to have disregarded "the individuals with whom the user may have been corresponding."

There are potential consequences beyond the issue of attorney-client privilege, though. We'll have to wait to see what the legal consequences are, if any. I don't suppose we'll ever know what the real impact is on morale, although I can imagine only that it won't be a very positive one.

Here's to All the Lovey-Dovey Lawyers!

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 12, 2012In: Hiring

Email This Post | Print this Post

Charlie Plumb, Oklahoma's super-star employment lawyer of the year, ECN rock star, and, according to Jon Hyman, the "world's nicest guy," wrote a great post on his firm's Employer LINC blog yesterday about a Philadelphia case straight from the we-can't-make-this-stuff-up department. In shortened form, the story goes as follows:

Customer goes to KFC for a bucket of chicken and is pistol whipped by a gun-toting employee working behind the counter. What incited the employee to violence? Apparently, Customer took too long to choose which of the mouth-watering sides he wanted with his chicken. And, because nobody likes to get pistol whipped--not even for a bucket of the Colonel's finest--the customer sued the restaurant chain, alleging negligent retention based on its failure to conduct a background search on the pistol-packing employee, who, you may not be surprised to learn, did in fact have a criminal history.

Being the all-around funny man that he is, Charlie tells this saga in a very funny way. But, rightly so, he emphasizes out the importance of the court's decision dismissing the customer's claims. If the court had ruled differently, it could have set precedent that employers must, as a matter of law, conduct a criminal background search on every potential employee, regardless of position.

Now, if I can just figure out how the guy from Tulsa beat me to such a great story in my own backyard . . .

Regarding Jon Hyman's complimentary description of Charlie Plumb, I suppose it would be appropriate to say, "it takes one to know one." On his Ohio Employer Law Blog this week, Jon wrote a great post about the TLC employers should give to new employees during the onboarding process.

And, sticking with the lovey-dovey theme, I'll point you to Dan Schwartz's post from Wednesday, in which he tosses a whole bunch of kudos all around the blogosphere, calling particular attention to 10 of his favorite employment-law bloggers--including me and Jon--thanks, Dan.

Now, one for the haters. Admittedly, there is a time and a place for all of this warm and fuzziness. And that place is not always the workplace. A post on MSNBC.com highlights the problem of the awkward office hug. The post quotes various professionals who lament the awkward moment when they went in for the hug only to realize, mid-embrace, that a handshake definitely would have been the better choice.

Awwwwkward!

I've had this discussion with female colleagues on many occasions but have never seen any kind of consensus. I tend to just do whatever I'm inclined to do at the moment--I certainly don't give any kind of advance thought to whether I'm going to greet a coworker or client with a handshake, hug, or cheek kiss. I suppose I'm more casual about these interactions than some of my friends. But maybe that's because I've not yet had the unfortunate experience of the awkward office hug.

Here's to hoping you have absolutely no awkward encounters this weekend and that you meet lots of kind and heartwarming folks, including a lawyer or two.

I Admit It, I Am a Sucker for a Compliment . . . Sort of

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 12, 2012In: Employee Engagement

Email This Post | Print this Post

Everyone likes a compliment. Believe me when I say that I am no exception. In fact, I've been accused on more than one occasion of being a real sucker for a compliment. A guaranteed way to win me over is to compliment this blog. Works like a charm just about every time.

There's a difference, though, in appreciating when others take notice of your work and working in the hopes that others take notice. I would write the blog, subject to the approval of my employer, of course, regardless of whether anyone ever complimented it. There are so many benefits to blogging that any compliments or recognition that I may get is, truly, a bonus.

If you're wondering, I write the blog because it's a tremendous service to my clients; because it keeps me up-to-the-minute current in my practice area; because it's wonderful to make connections with other e-law bloggers; because it serves as a research repository for me and my colleagues; and because it's a great creative outlet. These are just some of the many reasons that I devote time every day to read other blogs and to write interesting posts that our readers will find valuable. It is, indeed, a labor of love. And that is why the occasional complimentary word about the fruits of my labor mean so much to me. But, again, the kind word or recognition is not the reason, it's just one of the results.

Which leads me to the actual topic of this post. Yesterday, HR Examiner released its list of the Top 25 Employment Law Online Influencers. Apparently, I didn't make the list. Truth be told, I would never have known about the list--or the fact that I'm not on it--but for Twitter and, more specifically, Dan Schwartz. On my walk home from work last night, I was skimming my Twitter feeds and saw a whole flurry of posts that mentioned me.

As it turns out, Dan, who writes the award-winning Connecticut Employer's Law Blog, is on the list, as are a few other employment lawyers. Dan thanked the authors of the list and was kind enough to note that he felt the list was incomplete without me and our friend, Jon Hyman, of the Ohio Employer's Law Blog. This, of course, was totally gratuitous on Dan's part and an all-around super nice gesture.

Following a lengthy Twitter exchange about who should and should not be included on the list, Dan decided to simply make his own list--an excellent idea, indeed--and did so in a post today. Jon and I both made Dan's list, I'm proud to say.

But here's the more important story. Although it can be easier said than done, we should try to remember that it's not the recognition that motivates us. If we love what we do--and I do--then the work motivates us. The rest of it is great when it happens; and it's perfectly fine when it doesn't. We can't be named to every list or win every award, nor should we try. Lucky for me, I am the recipient of far more kind words than I deserve. It's my job to make sure I pass it forward and continue to at least try to earn the compliments that I am given.

Thanks, Dan. And thanks to all of our loyal readers! Now, go check out Dan's list and the 9 other bloggers who made the cut. Then say something nice to someone who is trying hard to get it right.

Access to a Party’s Facebook Account During Discovery

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 10, 2012In: Purely Legal, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

As tempting as it may be to believe, judges don’t always get it right. Every lawyer has seen an opinion that misapplies the law or applies the wrong law altogether. And maybe that’s why we get so giddy when a court really nails it, particularly when the issue is complicated or novel or the law unsettled. Allegheny Court of Common Pleas Judge hit one of these legal homeruns in a 20-plus-page decision issued last week in Trail v. Lesko. The unsettled legal issue that Judge R. Stanton Wettick addressed was the discoverability of social-media content. 

The case arose from a motor-vehicle accident, from which the plaintiff alleged to have been seriously injured. The parties both sought to have the other side produce Facebook posts and pictures.  Neither side complied and both parties filed motions seeking to compel their opponent to turn over his Facebook password and username.

Put differently, “Ask me to show you mine and I’ll ask you to show me yours.”

Plaintiff’s Requests for Access to Defendant’s Facebook Account

The defendant denied driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and alleged that he did not remember who had been driving the vehicle at the time.  The  plaintiff sought access to the defendant’s Facebook account, arguing that it could be “relevant in determining defendant’s whereabouts or in uncovering any potential witnesses who could shed lights on the events in question.” 

After making the plaintiff’s request, though, the defendant admitted in his written discovery responses that he was the driver at the time of the accident. The defendant also admitted that he had been intoxicated while driving. Thus, the court found that any information that might be available on Facebook was rendered “seemingly irrelevant.”  Moreover, the court explained, the defendant’s own admission about driving under the influence of alcohol would render any of the Facebook information irrelevant to a claim for punitive damages.

Defendant’s Requests for Access to Plaintiff’s Facebook Account

And, as is usually the case in litigation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  In other words, the defendant responded to the plaintiff’s Facebook request by issuing a Facebook request of his own.  The plaintiff had alleged that he was “disabled or limited in his normal activities” and that his disabilities were “possibly permanent.”

So the defendant sought access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account on the grounds that the account may contain evidence of the “extent and severity” of the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant supported his motion with pictures of the plaintiff “socializing” at a bar and “drinking at a party,” which the defendant had obtained from the publicly available portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook account.

The court was not persuaded, though, explaining that the plaintiff had not alleged that he was so disabled that he was unable to leave his home and that the pictures were not “inconsistent with plaintiff’s alleged injuries.”

Motions Denied: Unfettered Access to Accounts Unnecessary

The parties’ cross motions to compel both sought to have the Court require the other party to turn over his username and password to his Facebook account.  Judge Wettick rejected the idea, ruling that a blanket request for log-in information is just plain unreasonable. A party does not get free-reign access to non-public social-networking posts of his opposing party merely because he asks the court for it. To enable a party to roam around in an adversary’s Facebook account would result in the party to gain access to a great deal of information that has nothing to do with the litigation and [] cause embarrassment if viewed by persons who are not ‘Friends'.’”

Before a requesting party will be granted “access” to a Facebook account, the party must show a “sufficient likelihood” that the non-public postings would contain information that is relevant to the litigation that is “not otherwise available.”  Otherwise, the court held, Rule 4011(b), which protects against discovery that is unreasonably annoying or embarrassing, prohibits unfettered access to a social-networking site.

Brava, Judge Wettick, Brava!

The ruling in Trail is a refreshing example of well-reasoned legal analysis applied with common sense.  It is a bad idea for any person to voluntarily turn over his password to any online account to another person.  And it is an equally bad idea to request that a court facilitate such a practice. Yet, much to my disappointment, this is a practice that has become more common in the past few years, as courts struggle to deal with questions relating to discovery of social media and other forms of electronic evidence.  The opinion’s holding sets an important baseline for discovery of social-networking content.  Specifically, a litigant will not be ordered to turn over his password or other log-in information to an opposing party to enable that party to gain unfettered access to the litigant’s social-networking site.

Trail v. Lesko, No. GD-10-017249 (Allegheny C.P. July 3, 2012).

What Constitutes Contact Via Facebook

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 10, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

In my law-review article on legal ethics and social media, I argue that lawyers have an ethical duty to understand social networking. In support of this premise, I pointed out that courts have held that a friend request sent via Facebook constitutes "contact" for the purpose of a no-contact order. Thus, a person subject to a no-contact order is prohibited from sending a friend request to the person protected by the order in the same way he is prohibited from calling her or approaching her in person.

A recent arrest in Iowa City, Iowa extends the concept even further. Last week, Paul Stoneking, 27, was arrested for violating a no-contact order for his Facebook activity--but not for sending a friend request. Instead, Stoneking is accused of having posted a comment on a picture of himself and the woman protected by the order. And here's the real kicker--the picture was on Stoneking's own Facebook page.

Stoneking admitted to having commented on the photos on his Facebook profile but explained that he didn't realize the victim would be notified of his comments, reports the Eastern Iowa News. He thought that, because the victim was "no longer tagged in the photos," she would not be sent notice of his comments. Not terribly unreasonable, I would argue.

However, depending on the user's Facebook settings, the site may email her when she is mentioned in a comment, tagged in a picture, or whenever someone comments on those pictures. So, if you are Stoneking's lawyer, how comfortable would you be advising your client about what will and will not result in "contact" with the protected individual? Unless you're fairly proficient with the ever-changing Facebook terms of service and privacy settings, it seems to me that this is an area riddled with potential peril.

Is Your Boss a Bert or an Ernie?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 9, 2012In: Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Navigating office politics can be difficult. Even in workplaces without backstabbers and manipulators, we all have days when it can be, well, shall we say, difficult to play well in the sandbox with others.

The best piece of advice I ever received when it comes to getting along with others is to remember that not everyone thinks like I do. Of course, I know that this is true. But even the obvious can be easily forgotten. There is a novel way to keep it mind, though.

If you want to manage your workplace (or other) relationships better, try starting with a personality analysis. And Muppet Theory may be the analysis you've been looking for. Muppet Theory, in short, proffers that everyone can be classified as either a Chaos Muppet or an Order Muppet.

As the creator of the Theory, Dahlia Litwick, writes on Slate:

Chaos Muppets are out-of-control, emotional, volatile. They tend toward the blue and fuzzy. They make their way through life in a swirling maelstrom of food crumbs, small flaming objects, and the letter C. Cookie Monster, Ernie, Grover, Gonzo, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and--paradigmatically--Animal, are all Chaos Muppets. So, I must tell you, is Justice Stephen Breyer. bertandernie200x200.jpg

Order Muppets--and I'm thinking about Bert, Scooter, Sam the Eagle, Kermit the Frog, and the blue guy who is perennially harassed by Grover at restaurants (the Order Muppet Everyman)--tend to be neurotic, highly regimented, averse to surprises and may sport monstrously large eyebrows. They sometimes resent the responsibility of the world weighing on their felt shoulders, but they secretly revel in the knowledge that they keep the show running. Your first grade teacher was probably an Order Muppet. So is Chief Justice John Roberts.

Litwick goes on to explain that you can determine which type of Muppet your office mate is by the workspace that he or she keeps. She likens a Chaos Muppet's desk to Oscar's garbage can. But Chaos Muppets aren't all bad, she reminds us--too many Order Muppets means no cookies for anyone.

You may find that the quirky behavior of that coworker who drives you buggy is a little less quirky when think of him as an Ernie instead of a Bert. Go ahead and try it. Then have a cookie.

And, in case you are wondering why the reference to two Supreme Court justices, Litwick writes about the law and courts for Slate, which just confirms for me that she's totally awesome, as if her Muppet Theory didn't do that already.

Friday Quick Hits: Twitter Edition

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 6, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

It's Friday. I've got a short day today but a long list of things to do. I haven't posted in a couple days because of the holiday. So, I'm going keep this post to a reasonable length in an attempt to keep my sanity. And, keeping with the theme of short and sweet, I'm going to write about some news relating to Twitter. twitter icon.png

Let's start with Legal News.

A New York judge ordered Twitter to turn over three months' worth of an Occupy Wall Street protester's tweets. Initially, the protestor attempted to have the subpoena quashed but was unsuccessful, as the judge ruled that he did not have standing. Twitter intervened and sought to avoid having to turn the protester's tweets over to the State. The judge disagreed with Twitter's arguments and ruled that the company must comply with law enforcement's demand. But the judge did decide that he would review the tweets and determine which ones are relevant to the case before turning them over to the prosecution. Via WSJ Online.

Yesterday, a Florida judge set George Zimmerman's bail at $1 million, setting off a firestorm of death threats and calls to arms from Twitter users. Threats of violence violate the site's terms of use. The threatening tweeters have been deemed a "Twitter lynch mob." Via Examiner.com

Moving on to Sports.

Baltimore Ravens play-by-play announcer Gerry Sandusky has had a similar experience, being on the receiving end of hateful tweets sent by users who have confused him for the recently convicted former Penn State assistant football coach, Jerry (with a "J") Sandusky. Via USA Today.

The ugly side of Twitter also showed itself during the final rounds of the Euro 2012, when fans tweeted racist comments directed at two English soccer players. Because the laws do not protect free speech in the same way they do in the U.S., the tweets are being investigated by police and the Football Association has called the comments "appalling and unacceptable." Via Fox Sports

Jameer Nelson, point guard for the Orlando Magic, reached a deal in principle with team management and announced the news via Twitter yesterday. Via the Washington Post.

Another athlete, Chad Ochocinco, had some Twitter announcements of his own but of a very different kind. Ochocinco made news when he invited a grieving widow from Franklin, Ohio, to his wedding after she sent him a message Twitter. Then, on his big day, he kept fans up to to date with a Twitter play-by-play, tweeting before, during, and after his nuptials. Via US Today.

We'll wrap up with the Entertainment news. (It is Friday, after all).

For those of you who may have been devastated by the news newlywed Alec Baldwin quit Twitter, you can breathe easy. Just two days after deactivating his account, Baldwin is back, tweeting under a different name. Although Baldwin has committed to a new marriage, he apparently can't commit to leading a Twitter-free life with his new bride. Via MSN.com.

Matthew McConaughey tweeted his own big news this week, when he used Twitter to announce that he and his wife are expecting their third child. Via the Washington Post.

Have a great weekend and we'll see you next week! If you're on Twitter, I'd love to hear from you. You can find me at @MollyDiBi or y clicking the "Follow Us" icon on the top right side of the blog's home page.

Poor Client Management and High Expectations

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 3, 2012In: Jerks at Work, Performance Evaluations

Email This Post | Print this Post

There has been a common element in each of the most difficult cases I've litigated--poor client management. What this means in a broad sense is a lawyer who fails to properly manage his client's expectations. This occurs for any number of reasons. For example, the lawyer may not have a good grasp of the case or of the applicable law and, for that reason, may have a severely inflated sense of the value of his client's claims.

The client is not always without fault, either. I've seen particularly manipulative or just plain bossy clients push their lawyer to do one thing or another and simply refuse to relent until they get their way. I usually see this exhibited during depositions. My opposing counsel brings his client to the deposition of my witness. Throughout the deposition, the client scribbles notes frantically, ripping pages out of a notebook and thrusting them across the table to his lawyer.

Inevitably, the lawyer relents and asks the question proposed by his client. And, inevitably, it's a flop. The question is out of context, irrelevant, and often poorly stated. It makes the lawyer look foolish and throws him off course.

A good lawyer knows better than to let this happen in the first place. When it is appropriate to bring a client to a deposition or court hearing, the good lawyer explains in advance what his role is and what the client's role is. If the client gets caught up in the moment and temporarily forgets those instructions, the lawyer simply takes a break at the next opportunity and tells the client to please keep her notes until the next break, when he will be glad to review them.

So what does client management have to do with today's workplace? In short, the transferrable lesson relates to managing expectations. Whether you are dealing with your direct supervisor, your assistant, or your own clients or customers, expectations are essential.

We are all responsible for setting our own rules and then abiding by them consistently. If you give your cell phone number to clients and encourage them to call you "anytime," don't be short with them when they do. Similarly, if you allow employees to "tease" a coworker because of his accent, don't be surprised when the "teasing" spreads to gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

It is the responsibility of every manager to set the expectations for employee behavior. These expectations are set in part by example and in part by responding immediately and consistently to every failure to meet those expectations.

Workplace Email: The Devil Made Me Do It

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 2, 2012In: Jerks at Work, Resources, Tech Tips

Email This Post | Print this Post

People manage email in different ways. Some of us use our Inbox as a task list, filing everything that does not need attention.  Others use their Inbox as a storage site for any email that they may ever want to refer to again. You can imagine which group is better liked by IT departments across the globe.

We also have different standards for what is and is not acceptable from a usage or style perspective.  Emails that disregard sentence capitalization, for example, opting to use only lower-case letters, may drive some readers bonkers. Others may be more troubled by email senders who elect to use an atrocious and distracting “stationery,” which translates roughly to a pale beige background with fuzzy gray dots arranged in a grid pattern on which it is impossible to read any text smaller than 24 pts in bold font.

But what about the content of our emails?  There are tricky aspects of that, too, as many of us are all too well aware. Why is it that readers so often misinterpret messages as having a far more sinister or simply unfriendly intent?

Scott McDowell suggests some reasons in his post, Email Etiquette II: Why Emoticons (And Emotional Cues) Work.  I’ve been seeing a lot of articles like this lately and am thoroughly convinced of the accuracy of their premise. In short, despite our attempts to sound conversational in email correspondence, the electronic nature of the exchange prevents an actual conversation from occurring.  Without the chance to translate body language, intonation, and facial expressions, as we do so naturally during in –person conversations, we’re left to our own imaginations when putting emotions to the text we see on the screen.

And, as the post explains, if an email’s content is neutral (as many of us aim to achieve in our day-to-day business correspondence), he reader is more likely to assume that the tone is negative.  This theory of “negativity bias,” which is credited to Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, also holds that, when the email’s tone is positive, the reader interprets the tone as neutral, as Mike Maslanka previously explained. 

So what’s a well-intended email author to do? smiley face icon

McDowell suggests an increased use emoticons.  Admittedly, I use a lot of smiley faces in my casual correspondence. I know, I know, it’s not exactly the most lawyerly way to write an email but it does the trick.  When used properly, the winking smiley face can lighten the tone of an otherwise serious-sounding sentence.  But I don’t imagine that I ‘d use a smiley face or even a winking smiley in an email to a new client with whom I don’t already have a rapport or who doesn’t already know smiley-type personality. 

Perhaps there’s an app waiting to be developed here—emoticons for the business environment. A little bow-tie wearing smiley face, maybe? Or maybe the smiley face could don a pair of wire-rimmed glasses, thus appearing both smart and friendly.

Until then, I’ll offer my own humble suggestion—not to to senders but to recipients. If you receive an email from a coworker or other person you generally consider to be on your side of the shooting range, and you have a moment of doubt about the tone or intention behind an email you receive, make an effort to start from the assumption that it’s positive or, at the very least, neutral. In other words, be consciously careful to avoid assuming that guy or girl down the hall has suddenly switched sides and is now a covert agent operating for the enemy.

U.S.S.C. to Hear FLSA Appeal of "Terrible" 3d Cir. Decision

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 29, 2012In: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Email This Post | Print this Post

The Internet is buzzing with discussions of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act today. Many, many lawyers far better versed than I are typing their little hearts out as I write this post and I'm happy to leave the analysis in their capable hands. Instead, I'm writing about another important decision announced earlier this week.

On Monday, the Court announced that it had granted certiorari to hear the appeal of a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Smyczyk, was filed as an FLSA collective action. Before any other plaintiffs joined the suit, the defendant tendered an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and argued that its offer of full relief had mooted the claim of the single named plaintiff. The district court agreed and dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding that defendant-employers could not use Rule 68 to avoid liability in a collective-action claim. In so finding, the Third Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit, which had issued a similar decision only a couple of weeks earlier in Pitts v. Terrible Herst, Inc. I (respectfully) dubbed them the "Terrible Decisions" and wrote a fairly lengthy post about why I think the cases rely on flawed logic and shaky legal analysis.

Most troubling aspect of the Third Circuit's decision from an employer's perspective is that it can make it virtually impossible to resolve an FLSA collective action until after a class has been certified and notice sent to putative class members. By then, of course, many employers have expended a tremendous amount of money on fees to defend the case. And the result will be unchanged even if the employer concedes liability and agrees to pay the plaintiff the full amount of his claim, plus liquidated damages, plus fees! Payment of the full amount potentially recoverable by the plaintiff will not end the case, according to the Third Circuit's decision.

Thus, employers would have no choice but to continue to litigate even after full payment has been tendered. Sounds a bit like extortion, wouldn't you say?

For context, you may want to read more about the Third Circuit's decision in my previous post, 3d Cir. Agrees With "Terrible" Decision, or my equally critical commentary about the Pitts decision. Then, if you're a die-hard like me, you can download the certiorari briefs on the SCOTUS Blog. And, while you're there, maybe you'll be tempted to read what some of those brilliant minds have to say about the Court's health-care ruling. Or, if you're like me, you could just peruse the incredibly cleverly worded titles.

Password-Privacy Bill Approved by N.J. Assembly

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 26, 2012In: Hiring, Privacy In the Workplace, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

The New Jersey Assembly passed that State's version of a password-privacy law yesterday by a vote of 77-0. The Bill, AB 2878, is now sent to the State's Senate, reports NJ.com. Much like the Delaware Workplace Privacy Act, which currently is pending in the Delaware House of Representatives, the New Jersey Bill has some significant flaws.

Like Delaware's Bill, and similar Bills pending in States across the country, the New Jersey Act is being promoted as a "password-privacy" law, intended to prevent employers from asking employees and applicants for their passwords in order to access the individual's social-networking site, such as Facebook or Twitter. However, as I have written about the Delaware Bill, the proposed law goes much farther than that.

In the case of New Jersey's Bill, employers would be prohibited from asking not only for an individual's password, but also for his or her user name and even whether the individual even has a social-networking site in the first place. Even more bizarre is the provision of the law that would prohibit an employer from requiring whether an employee or applicant to provide the employer with "access" to the individual's social-networking site "in any way." It is not clear whether this provision would prohibit a supervisor from sending a Facebook friend request or an invitation to connect via LinkedIn.

This lawmaking trend continues to make the news, despite the continued absence of any stories of employers who engage in the practice. Maryland was the first State to sign a similar law into effect. Illinois was the second State to pass a similar law, which now awaits the Governor's signature. You are welcome to join me for a free webinar on the topic, sponsored by the Employment Law Alliance, on Thursday, July 12.

Free Webinar: Employers' Demands to See Facebook Pages

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 25, 2012In: Seminars

Email This Post | Print this Post

Can employers demand to see an employee's or applicant's social-networking profile? To learn the answer to that and related questions, I hope you will join us for a free 90-minute webinar on Thursday, July 12, from 3-4:30 p.m. EDT.

About the Webinar

Recent press reports indicate that many employers are beginning to require job applicants to disclose their login information and passwords in order to access Facebook accounts and other private information contained in various forms of social media. They are doing this in large part out of frustration due to resume fraud, an inability to obtain meaningful references, and concerns over allegations of negligent hiring. These practices raise a number of significant privacy concerns and legal issues. This session will provide a national perspective on issues including:

  • Why employers are seeking to obtain this information
  • A review of current federal and state laws triggered by these practices
  • An overview of proposed federal legislation and state laws being considered around the country
  • How this practice may affect your corporate culture and ability to recruit the best and brightest
  • Alternative methods for obtaining meaningful applicant information

Speakers

This timely webinar is sponsored by Employment Law Alliance, the world's largest network of employer's lawyers, with members in all 50 states and 140 countries.  Young Conaway is a proud long-time member of the ELA.  I'm thrilled to be presenting on this topic again with Steve Hirschfeld, CEO of the ELA and Partner, Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, San Francisco, CA.   Completing the line-up will be Angela Rud of Gray Plant Mooty, Minneapolis, MN, and Kara E. Shea, of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC, Nashville, TN.

Registration

Because of our affiliation with the ELA, we are able to offer this webinar to blog readers at no cost.  To register, visit the webinar's page on the ELA website and enter "Young Conaway" as the referring law firm. 

Feel free to share this invitation with as many of your colleagues as you want.  Since registration is per site, only one person needs to register if you will be in the same room listening together.  If you will be in different offices or locations, each person will need to register.  You will listen to the webinar and view the power point slides via your computer; please be sure you are able to do that (instructions for downloading the meeting software will be included in your registration confirmation).  A phone option will be available, but you will need to cover any related charges.

Recap

I hope you'll be able to join us on Thursday, July 12, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern for what is sure to be an informative webinar on a timely and important topic.

Taking the Mystery Out of Bad Hiring Practices

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 25, 2012In: Age (ADEA), Gender (Title VII), Harassment, Hiring, Interviewing, Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Want some free anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training? Well, have I got a deal for you! Mystery Diners is a reality show on the Food Network. The show's concept involves a father-daughter team who pretend to be employees and/or customers at a target restaurant in order to help the owner uncover the "leaks in the dam" so to speak.

An episode that aired last week, called, "Managing Disaster," could be used as a workplace best-practices training video. In short, you could use the video to train employees that any of the conduct by the restaurant's manager should be considered prohibited conduct in your workplace.

Yes, it really was that bad. And I mean bad. Let me take a moment to run through just a few examples of conduct that occurred during the hiring process.

Candidate #1: Sarah the "Old Lady"

Two women are sent into the restaurant to interview for a waitress position. One of the women is Sarah, who is in her mid-30s and has lots of waitressing experience. She interviewed with the bad-guy-manager (we'll call him "Manager," despite he did anything but manage the employees).

During the interview, he asked her how old she was. Yes, you read that correctly. When she answered "I'm 35," Manager nearly fell out of his seat. He quickly sent her on her way and told her he'd be in touch. After she was out the door, he ran over to the bar, where he told the bartender that Sarah "was like, in her 30s--she'd be like a mother in here!!"

Candidate #2: Destiney In a Short Skirt
The second candidate was Destiney, the daughter of the father-daughter team, who I'd guess to be maybe 21 years old. Destiney was young and cute and wore a short skirt to herinterview. As if Manager hadn't already shown his true colors during Sarah's interview, he took it to an entirely new level with Destiney. By the end of the "interview," though, you can be sure that Destiney had been offered the job.

For starters, he made her sit on a couch for the interview, which was not only way too informal but also clearly uncomfortable for Destiney in light of her attire. When Destiney admitted that she had no real experience to speak of, Manager assured her that experience was not important--"as long as you're cute."

Ethical Standards Lower than a Short Skirt

Seeing that he couldn't ask her about anything relevant to the duties of the job, I guess it's natural that Manager turned to other topics. In this case, Manager chose "partying," and began a series of questions about Destiney's after-hour activities, such as whether she liked to "party" and whether she liked to go clubbing, which "they" (presumably, Manager and his creepy friends), "did all of the time."

The low point of the "interview" came when Manager touched Destiney's knee as he sat way too close to her on the low-to-the-ground couch and talked about low-life topics like "partying" and assuring her that his standards for hiring were as low as his morals. What a dirt bag. And you can imagine what the father, who sat in a trailer watching the live video stream with the restaurant's owner, must have thought as he saw Manager Creepy touch Daughter Destiney's bare knee. Nice.

When Busted, Blame Others
Folks, the take-aways from this episode are, admittedly, obvious to most of us. They weren't, apparently, as obvious to Manager Creepy, who was shocked and appalled that the owner had secretly videotaped these antics. And, in a demonstration of some of the best blame-shifting skills I've perhaps ever seen, Manager Creepy, furious about the intrusion, turned the entire situation around and accused the owner of being an unsupportive boss.

Be sure to catch the show for some free anti-harassment-and-discrimination training.