Auto-Deduct Meal-Break Policies Live to See Another Day

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 11, 2014In: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Email This Post | Print this Post

The number of FLSA lawsuits filed each year continues to rise.  See The Wage & Hour Litigation Epidemic Continues, at Seyfarth Shaw’s Wage & Hour Litigation Blog.  Often, the lawsuits follow certain trends, targeting a particular industry, job type, or claim.  One such trend, which I’ve written about previously, is meal-break claims.  In these suits, the plaintiffs allege that their pay was automatically deducted for meal breaks that they never received. Auto-Deduct Meal Break Policies FLSA

Although this has been a popular claim, it’s not been a very successful one.  And a recent case from the Eastern District of New York gives employers real reason to believe that meal-break claims are all but dead upon arrival.

In DeSilva v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., the court decertified a collective action of 1,196 plaintiffs who had alleged that they were subject to automatic deduction of meal breaks that they didn’t receive.  In its opinion, the court makes clear that such claims will have a difficult time proceeding as a collective action:

In the time since this action was initially filed, mounting precedent supports the proposition that [the employer’s] timekeeping system and system-wide overtime compensation policies are lawful under the FLSA. 

The court explains that this “mounting precedent” has resolved any doubt about the validity of auto-deduct policies, which require an employee to report a missed break to his supervisor in order to be paid for it.  If no report of a missed break is made, the break period (usually 30 minutes) is automatically deducted from the time worked.  This timekeeping system has the benefit of not requiring that employees clock in and out during their breaks—only at the beginning and end of each shift.  The court reiterated that “automatic meal deduction policies are not per se illegal” and:

[w]ithout more, a legal automatic meal deduction for previously scheduled breaks cannot serve as the common bond around which an FLSA collective action may be formed."

This decision continues to build on the growing body of case law dismissing or decertifying FLSA collective and class actions arising from auto-deduct meal-break policies.  Good news for employers, particularly in health care, where these policies are commonplace.

DeSilva v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., No. 10-CV-1341 (PKC) (WDW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77669 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2014). 

 

See also

2d Cir. Drops the FLSA Hammer (Dejesus v. HF Mgmt’s Servs., LLC, No. 12-4565 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2013).

Another Auto-Deduct Case Bites the Dust (Raposo v. Garelick Farms, LLC (D. Mass. July 11, 2013)).

8th Cir- FLSA Plaintiffs Must Spell It Out (Carmody v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs (8th Cir. Apr. 23, 2013)).

2d Cir- FLSA Does Not Cover Gap Time (Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)).

Another Employer's Auto-Deduct Policy Is Upheld (Creeley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2013)).

6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FLSA Gotcha Litigation (White v. Baptist Mem'l Health Care Corp. (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012)).

The Legality of Automatically Deducting Meal Breaks (Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2012)).

E.D. Pa. Dismisses Nurses' Claims for Missed Meal Breaks, Part I and Part II (Lynn v. Jefferson Health Sys., Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2012)).

FLSA Victory: Class Certification Denied (Pennington v. Integrity Comm’n, LLC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2012)).

Calling Your Students "Hoes" Can (And Should) Get You Fired

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 5, 2014In: Off-Duty Conduct, Public Sector, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Kimble was employed as a cook and cheerleading coach at a high school.  In December 2007, she took the cheerleaders on an overnight Christmas party held in a cabin located outside the county.  The trip was not approved as was required by district policy.  When administration learned about the trip, Ms. Kimble was instructed that all future out-of-county trips must have prior approval.

The following year, Ms. Kimble worked as a cook at an elementary school and as the cheerleading coach at the same high school at which she had coached the prior year.  In December 2008, Ms. Kimble took the cheerleaders to the same cabin for another overnight Christmas party.  Ms. Kimble and a parent went as "chaperones" but Ms. Kimble did not seek or obtain approval for the trip.

During the party, Ms. Kimble was photographed in the hot tub, surrounded by several female cheerleaders.  Although Ms. Kimble was clothed, most of the girls were topless.  All of the girls were minors. 

Ms. Kimble posted several photos of the party on her MySpace page, although the girls were fully clothed in all of the pictures that she posted.  To one of the photos, in which the girls were wearing Santa Claus hats, Ms. Kimble added the caption:

my girls acting like their self[sic] . . . hoes.

The photos were discovered and reported to the school and Ms. Kimble was suspended without pay.  After a hearing, she was terminated from both her position as cook and as coach based on the determination that she had committed insubordination, immoral conduct, and sexual harassment. 

Ms. Kimble challenged the termination.  An administrative law judge overturned the board's decision to terminate her from her position as cook.  The board appealed and the circuit court affirmed the finding of the ALJ.  The board appealed to the state's highest court, which reversed, siding with the board and finding the termination lawful. 

As the grounds for its opinion, the state's Supreme Court held that Ms. Kimble had been insubordinate by ignoring the directive and policy to first obtain permission from the school prior to taking students on any out-of-county trip.  That was the easy part.

The more difficult part (at least for the ALJ and the lower court), was the finding that Ms. Kimble had, indeed, engaged in immoral conduct by:

sitting in a hot tub surrounded, literally, by several topless female students.

The court also found that calling your minor students "hoes" also is relevant to the immorality question. 

Finally, the court rejected Ms. Kimble's argument that she could not be disciplined for conduct that occurred off duty.  This argument is a favorite among plaintiff-employees everywhere but always a loser.  The conduct was within the scope of Ms. Kimble's employment--she, as cheerleading coach, took cheerleaders on an authorized trip outside the county, was photographed with several of them topless, and then called them "hoes" on her MySpace page. 

The fact that she was not on duty at the time of these acts does not serve as a defense.  This case serves as yet another example of how off-duty conduct can (and should) serve as a basis for discipline and/or termination.  When an employee engages in conduct off-duty that undermines or interferes with his or her ability to effectively carry out his or her job duties, discipline is appropriate . . . and lawful.  The same rule applies when the conduct is carried out in cyberspace, particularly on social-media sites.

On the most basic level, it's difficult to imagine that the parents of the female students would appreciate their daughters being called "hoes" by anyone but especially not by their cheerleading coach. 

Kanawha County Bd. of Ed. v. Kimble, No. 13-0810, 2014 W. Va. LEXIS 584 (W. Va. May 30, 2014).

Are Your Employees Takers or Givers?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 28, 2014In: Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employers should hire nice people.  That’s according to Adam Grant, author of Give and Take, anyway.  Grant writes that there are three types of employees: Takers, Matchers, and Givers.  And he advocates that employers should focus their hiring efforts on the last type—Givers are good, in other words.   image

Takers, as you may have guessed, are people who put their own interests first.  Workplace bullies fall into this category, of course.  Matchers believe in quid pro quo—something for something.  Most employees fall into this category.  Then there are Givers.  Givers do nice things for others with no expectation of reciprocity, writes Seth Stevenson at Slate.com.

The problem with Givers, though, is that they can be too nice.  More often than not, they are so selfless, they spend too much time helping others and, as a result, are overlooked for promotions and other opportunities.

But that is not the case for all Givers, says Grant.  Some Givers make it all of the way to the top.  Takers and Matchers, on the other hand, get stuck in the middle.  Why? According to Grant, Givers will because people like them for all of those selfless acts. 

So, in a sense, what Grant is saying is that success is a type of long-term popularity contest.  He is also saying that employers should hire nice people. What he doesn’t say is that employers should take care to help the Givers avoid getting run over or falling behind because of their commitment to kindness.

Have a nice day. 

See also:

Is Your Boss a Bert or an Ernie?

Workplace Revenge and the Equal Opportunity Jerk

Management Monday: Quit Oversharing

Employers, If You Fire for a Facebook Post, Please, Get a Copy of It First!

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 20, 2014In: Public Sector, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

The plaintiff is a Michigan lawyer.  She was placed on the assignment list of the County Probate Court and, as a result, received several case assignments.  She made a comment on Facebook about what she believed to be inefficiency at the Clerk’s Office at the Court in a particular case she was handling. She tagged two people in the post, mistakenly identifying them as employees at the Clerk’s Office.  how_to_permanently_delete_or_deactivate_facebook_account

One of the two employees brought the post to the attention of the Court administrator.  The administrator never saw the actual post.  Two days later, the Court administrator notified the plaintiff by letter that she had been removed from the assignment list because of her comment on Facebook. 

The plaintiff attempted to get back on the list multiple times but was unsuccessful and filed suit.  The suit alleges several constitutional claims, all but one of which were dismissed by the court.  The claim that survived is a claim for unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment—i.e., a free-speech claim.

The court declined to dismiss the free-speech claim for several reasons.  First, it held that the plaintiff was speaking as a private citizen—not as an employee—when she made the post.  I tend not to agree but, well, we can’t all be right all of the time. 

Second, the court held that she was speaking on a matter of public concern.  This finding was based, in large part, on the fact that no one could produce a copy of the actual post and, therefore, the court was left to decide the nature of the speech without ever having seen the speech.  Yikes. 

Why, you ask, did no one produce the post?  According to the opinion, because the plaintiff deleted it.  Hmmm.  That doesn’t seem like exactly the right outcome, does it?  Because the plaintiff destroyed evidence, she gets the benefit of the doubt?

Maybe not.  But it does teach an important lesson to employers.  If you are going to discipline or terminate an employee due to something the employee posted on Facebook—get and keep a copy of the actual post if at all possible. Taking someone’s word for what the post says doesn’t mean that the termination is unlawful but it does likely mean that you’re going to have to work a lot harder to prove your case.

Butler v. Edwards-Brown, No. 13-13738, 2014 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 62032 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2014).

The Role of a Distracted-Driving Policy in a BYOD Workplace

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 12, 2014In: Policies

Email This Post | Print this Post

“Risks and Rewards of a BYOD Workplace” was the subject of one of my presentations at our annual employment-law seminar last week.  [FN1]  More and more employers are adopting BYOD policies.  BYOD, which stands for “Bring Your Own Device,” eliminates the need for employers to give employees a smartphone or tablet for work-related purposes.  Instead, the employee brings his or her own device and uses it for both work and personal purposes.  text message on cellphoneThe State of Delaware was an early adopter in the BYOD arena.

Although BYOD policies are popular, they are not risk free.  One (of the many) dangers of employee use of mobile technology is the potential for distracted driving.  Regardless of who owns the device, employers may face liability for an employee who harms a third party due to the employee’s negligent use of a smartphone while driving. 

Many cities and municipalities now prohibit drivers from operating a vehicle and using a cellphone unless they use hands-free device.  Although this is a great start, it may not be enough to prevent liability for employers.  The U.S. Department of Labor, for example, takes a very firm stance on this issue, stating:

Employers have a responsibility and legal obligation to have a clear, unequivocal, and enforced policy against texting while driving.

I’m not entirely sure that I would agree with this statement—I don’t know of any “legal obligation” to have a distracted-driving policy.  But I do think that employers should have a distracted-driving policy.

The good news is that the federal government has provided a sample distracted-driving policy for employers to use.  The policy is short and to the point and it makes clear that employees are prohibited from using a hand-held cellphone or smartphone while operating a vehicle. 

If you don’t have a distracted-driving policy, consider whether this sample policy, provided by the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration, isn’t worth implementing.  Even if it’s just a starting point, employers are well advised to have something in place to prevent employees from endangering themselves or others while operating a vehicle.  The NHSTA offers additional resources to employers who want to take further steps to prevent distracted driving by employers. 

And, remember, just because it’s the employee’s own device does not mean that the employer won’t be held liable.  A BYOD workplace is not a defense to a claim of negligence for harm caused by an employee in the course and scope of his or her employment. 

 

[FN1]  Thank you to everyone who attended—it’s always great to see clients and friends in a context that does not involve pending or threatened litigation.

Delaware Joins the Ban-the-Box Bandwagon

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 6, 2014In: Background Checks, Hiring, Legislative Update

Email This Post | Print this Post

Criminal histories and credit scores will soon be an off-limit topic for job applications in Delaware’s public sector.  HB 167 passed the Delaware Senate on May 1, 2014, and is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Markell soon.  Criminal Background Checks

As we previously reported, the bill would prohibit public employers and contractors with State agencies from:

inquiring into or considering the criminal record, criminal history, or credit history or score of an applicant before it makes a conditional offer to the applicant.

Once a conditional offer of employment has been made, the employer may perform a background check but, even then, 

may only consider felonies for 10 years from the completion of the sentence, and misdemeanors for 5 years from the completion of the sentence.

The bill would also require employers to "several enumerated factors” (i.e., the EEOC’s factors) when deciding whether to revoke a conditional offer based on the results of a background check.

The scope of the bill is broader than you may suspect.  It would apply not only to public employers (i.e., State government), but also to “contractors with State agencies.”  It does, however, provide for an exception for contractors who are subject to conflicting State or federal laws.  For example, a child-care facility that contracts with the State would not be subject to the new law because it is obligated by other State laws to comply with certain background-screening requirements. 

The trend towards prohibiting employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history or credit score does not appear to be going away any time soon.  Although, for now, only public employers in Delaware will be subject to this ban-the-box law, it may be just a matter of time before the scope is expanded to include private-sector employers, as well. 

See also

Bill Would Limit Use of Criminal Histories for Delaware Employers

Wilmington Joins the Ban-the-Box Bandwagon

Other posts on criminal-history checks for potential employees

Yes, Employers, Words Really Do Matter

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 1, 2014In: Discrimination

Email This Post | Print this Post

It's easy to underestimate the power of words. Many supervisors fail to appreciate the importance of the words used in a performance review or evaluation, corrective action, termination letter, or other employment-related document. But it can go beyond the obvious instances.

In an age-discrimination case, a supervisor had attended a presentation by a contractor who was trying to bid work with the employer. The supervisor wrote in his notes that the type of work would be perfect for "young engineers." What the supervisor meant was that the work being bid was well suited for entry-level engineers, who could gain valuable experience that, often, was quite difficult to find.

You may imagine that the plaintiff's lawyer jumped on the word "young" from the supervisor's notes, using it as an opportunity to make it look like the supervisor preferred young engineers over older ones. An age-based preference such as this would, of course, be unlawful if used in decisions to hire, fire, or assign work. As you also may imagine, it made for an unpleasant deposition of the supervisor--an experience he surely did not forget any time soon.

On the other hand, it also is possible to get far too caught up in the definition or meaning of a particular word. Lawyers are great at this, as this very funny video from the N.Y. Times makes clear.


The lesson to be learned? Words really do matter in every context. Be aware of what you put into writing--generally, less is more and the more specific, the better. But don't play word games when the basics can get the job done.

Documentation in the workplace can be absolutely critical in preventing and defending against claims by employees. It may be time to consider a refresher course about best practices in HR documentation. If so, let us know--we have an excellent training program on this subject.

Employment-Law Legislation In Delaware's General Assembly

Posted by Lauren Moak RussellOn April 23, 2014In: Delaware Specific, Legislative Update

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employment legislation has been a popular topic for the Delaware General Assembly in recent months. Here are two recently proposed legislation that Delaware employers should keep an eye on.

Employment Protection for the Disabled

The General Assembly has proposed a very simple change to the Delaware Persons with Disabilities Employment Protections Act (DPDEPA), which would change the definition of "employer." More specifically, they have proposed decreasing the threshold for coverage from 15 employees (the same as the Americans with Disabilities Act) to 4 employees (the same as the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act).

Expanding statutory coverage is always worrisome for employers. However, the proposed change would also provide consistency under Delaware law, which could benefit employers in their decision-making processes. Whatever your business's philosophy, for that small subsection of businesses employing between 4 and 14 individuals, this is something to watch.

The Minimum Wage . . . Again

As many readers know, Delaware will increase its minimum wage--in two waves--resulting in a July 1, 2015 wage of $8.25. Since that legislation was signed by Governor Markell, the General Assembly has drafted another bill that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. If passed in its current state, the bill would add a third step to the increases already legislated, requiring a jump from $8.25 to $10.10, effective June 1, 2016.

The proposed increase would put Delaware's minimum wage far above the current federal requirement, and nearly in line with San Francisco, California, which has the highest minimum wage in the country ($10.74 per hour, effective January 1, 2014). The change mirrors legislation that President Obama is expected to propose, and which will face stiff opposition from Republicans in Congress. With that in mind, it is unclear whether Delaware's proposed legislation has any chance of passing the General Assembly. But it is certainly an issue that employers should be monitoring.

Bottom Line

Keep in mind that these bills reflect proposed legislation, only. If you believe that your business would be adversely affected, reach out to the General Assembly, or bring these issues to the attention of any advocacy groups to which you belong.

Hurt Feelings Do Not a Lawsuit Make . . . Even on Twitter

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 20, 2014In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

To establish a claim of defamation, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendants made a statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) that the statement could damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the community; (3) that the defendant was at fault in making the statement; and (4) that the statement either cause the plaintiff economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss.  Defamation via Twitter

There are several possible defenses to a claim of defamation.  Two of the most common are that: (1) the allegedly defamatory statement is true; and (2) that the statement was one of opinion, as opposed to fact.  Thus, if you make a negative statement about someone that is true, there can be no liability for defamation.  Similarly, if you merely comment about your opinion, as opposed to purporting to make a factual statement, there has been no defamation.

Defamation by Twitter is no different.  Comments that are merely expressions of opinion, whether made in person, in the local newspaper’s letter to the editor, or on Twitter, cannot form the basis for a claim of defamation.  A federal court in Massachusetts recently explained this idea in Feld v. Conway.

In Feld, the plaintiff brought a claim for defamation based on the defendant’s tweet that the plaintiff was “f—ing crazy.”  The comment was made in response to a thoroughbred horse that disappeared after it was supposed to have been shipped to a horse farm in New Jersey.  The event was the subject of “great debate” in the thoroughbred race horse community, which included the defendant, Crystal Conway.  The tweet at issue was apparently intended to imply that the plaintiff, Feld, was involved somehow with the horse’s disappearance.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the comment was merely opinion and, therefore, could not constitute the basis of a defamation claim.  The court agreed.  Finding that, when viewed in the context of the online discussion regarding the horse’s disappearance, the comment that the plaintiff was “f—ing crazy” “cannot reasonably be understood to state actual facts about plaintiff’s mental state.”  Instead, it was “obviously intended as criticism—that is, as opinion—not as a statement of fact.”  As a result, the defamation claim was dismissed.

So, what’s the lesson from this case?  Primarily, it’s this: don’t go suing over cheap insults.  Comments like the one at issue in the above suit are not comments to be taken seriously.  Does that mean that they are not annoying, insulting, and/or distracting?  No, of course not.  Online attacks, like “real-life” attacks, are not pleasant.  But that does not mean that there is a basis to run out and file suit. 

It is a different world today, when individuals and entities alike must deal with negative online commentary.  But hurt feelings do not a lawsuit make.

Feld v. Conway, No. 13-13122-FDS (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2014).  [H/T to Jay Yurkiw, of Technology Law Source at Porter Wright].

Is It Time to Reconsider Your Personal Email Policy?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 14, 2014In: Privacy In the Workplace, Privacy Rights of Employees, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

The Heartbleed Internet-security flaw has compromised the security of an unknown number of web servers.  This is just one story in a string of recent headlines involving the vulnerability of the Internet sites.  But consumers aren’t the only ones affected.  The companies whose websites have been attacked are employers, after all. computer help button

Although data security has become increasingly impossible to ensure, it has also become increasingly critical to employers’ viability.  So employers are looking for ways to mitigate the exponentially increasing risks associated with the Internet.

One option being considered by some employers is blocking employees from their personal, web-based email accounts from the company’s servers.  Companies can install powerful (albeit not impenetrable) spamware that can catch and prevent many Internet-based security threats.  But that spamware works only on emails that come through the Company’s email servers.  Email that is opened through a web-based account, such as GMail or Hotmail is not subject to the company’s protective measures.

Which is precisely why many IT professionals see web-based email accounts as a major security threat.  But what’s an employer to do?  Employers have long been trying to prevent the productivity loss associated with employees’ personal use of the Internet during working time.  But now this effort has become a top priority.

Will employees stop checking their personal email at work if they’re asked nicely?  If they understand the risks?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it certainly wouldn’t be a bad place to start.  Perhaps your company should consider explaining to its employees exactly why you don’t want them to check their personal email during working time.  Hey, it’s worth a try.

By the way . . .

Data Security is the topic of one of the sessions at this year’s Annual Employment Law Seminar, which is coming up on May 8.  If you haven’t registered, there’s still time.  Just click here to get to the Seminar Registration page.

Management Monday: Quit Oversharing

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 30, 2014In: Jerks at Work, Training & Metrics

Email This Post | Print this Post

Supervisors and their direct reports are not equals.  If you are a supervisor, I advise that you keep this golden rule in mind.  When you are required to communicate a decision to your subordinate, understand that communicating does not mean “explaining.”  Employees do not want to hear the full story behind the decision.  Bosses Oversharing

You are not your employees’ equal.  You are the boss.  And, as the boss, your employees count on you to be the one who holds the ship together.  By over-explaining the reasons for a decision, by seeming too apologetic, you have failed your employees.

This does not mean that you must be aloof and reserved.  But it does mean that you should quit oversharing.  When you try to explain the behind-the-scenes politics, you confuse employees and lead them to believe that there are unanswered questions within the organization.  This can be a costly endeavor.

Employees with doubt emanate their doubt  and doubt is contagious and infectious.  We all have our crosses to bear—supervisors should not share the burden of their own crosses with their subordinates.  Subordinates want their bosses to be in control, to have the answers.

Of course, it’s rare that we, as supervisors, do have all of the answers.  But it is our job, as supervisors, not to reveal this inevitable fact.  Instead, it is our job, as supervisors, to put on the brave face of control and act as if everything is under control.

Sometimes, the “full-disclosure” route is very much the wrong route.  We, as supervisors, fix problems, not merely share the weight of those problems.  Supervisors should keep in mind this mantra the next time desire the need to share the burden of responsibility.  Don’t do it.  Seek advice from your higher ups.  But do not shoulder the burden with your direct subordinate.  Not, that is, if you want to keep your position and any semblance of true authority.

Registration Now Open for Annual Employment Law Seminar

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 25, 2014In: Seminars

Email This Post | Print this Post

The wait is over!  Registration is now open for YCST’s Annual Employment Law Seminar.  This year’s seminar will be held on May 8, 2014, at the Chase Center on the Riverfront in Wilmington.   Check out the registration brochure for specific topics, speakers, and schedule.  We hope to see you there!

YCST Emloyment Law Seminar 2014

Story of Delaware Medical Examiner Offers Lesson for Employers

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 20, 2014In: Off-Duty Conduct, Policies

Email This Post | Print this Post

Delaware Chief Medical Examiner Richard T. Callery has made news headlines for his off-duty conduct.  According to The News Journal, Callery is the subject of a criminal investigation relating to his testimony as an expert witness in cases outside of Delaware. 

In short, the claim is that Callery spent a lot of time serving as a paid witness in cases in other States, while neglecting his own duties.  And, to add insult to injury, Callery apparently testified on behalf of the defense in several cases, which, some argue, diminishes his credibility when called to testify in Delaware on behalf of the State.

The lesson to be learned for employers is an important one.  Many employers put limitations on moonlighting by employees.  Such limits may be included in an employment contract or in a personnel handbook. 

The policies vary.  For example, some employers prohibit employees from working in a second job altogether.  Others prohibit only secondary employment in the same field or with the same duties that the employee performs in his or her full-time employment.  And others only prohibit secondary employment that conflicts with the employee’s job duties. 

The State of Delaware, like many employers, does not have such a policy.  But, if it had, it would likely have prohibited Callery from working as an expert witness, even in his off-duty time.  Do you have such a policy?   Should you?

See ME’s side work under criminal investigation, by Jonathan Starkey and Sean O’Sullivan.

Father Learns a Costly Lesson about the Importance of Keeping Promises

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 2, 2014In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

When considering whether to settle a lawsuit filed by a current or former employee, many of my employer clients have serious doubts about the usefulness of a confidentiality provision. For good reason, employers don’t want the plaintiff to brag about the settlement, thereby encouraging other potential litigants. But, my clients often ask, will the employee really be silenced? Or will the employee just ignore his confidentiality obligation.  via Shutterstock

My answer has a few parts. First, having a confidentiality provision is better than not having one. Second, if the employer learns of a breach, it will, at least, have some options for holding the employee accountable. A story from last week’s news headlines confirms the validity of both points.

Teenager Dana Snay’s father settled an age-discrimination case brought against his former employer, Gulliver Preparatory School, for $80,000. When the girl learned about the settlement, she did what most teenagers would do—she posted about it on Facebook, broadcasting the news to her 1,200 Facebook friends:

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. . . . Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.

Snay was just kidding about her European vacation—there was no such vacation in the works. But that’s probably not what bothered Gulliver. When it learned about the post, it refused to tender the settlement payment to Snay’s father, claiming that the post constituted a breach of the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement.

And a Florida appellate court agrees. The Miami Herald reports that the court found in favor of the employer when Snay’s father sought to compel payment.

So what are the lessons to be learned, dear readers?

First, don’t underestimate the value of a confidentiality provision.

Second, understand your contractual obligations and abide by them strictly. Although many commentators are blaming Snay for her Facebook chattiness, the real fault lies with her father. He promised that he would keep the agreement confidential and he failed to keep his promise. There are consequences to such failures, which is why we spell them out in written contracts.

Chefs and Employment Law: A Valentine's Day Post

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn February 14, 2014In: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

Rumor has it that today is Valentine's Day.  Being married to a chef-restaurateur, Valentine's Day doesn't mean "romantic holiday" to me as much as "very, very busy workday."  And, for that reason, I'll dedicate today's post to the food-service professionals who have a long weekend of work ahead of them.

There are plenty of employment-law topics with a chef or restaurant connection.  Here are a few stories from recent history that come to mind.love heart tattoo art

 Wage-and-Hour Claims

Certainly, restaurants are not the only industry subject to wage-and-hour claims by employees.  But there does seem to have been a recent proliferation of settlements of such claims by businesses owned by famous-name chefs. 

There was the $5.25 million settlement forked out by Chef Mario Batali in March 2012, over allegations that servers' tips had been improperly withheld.  Then there was the January 2014 settlement agreement that Chef Daniel Boulud reached with 88 workers who alleged that their pay had been improperly reduced to account for tips, resulting in payment of overtime at an incorrect rate.  The amount of that settlement is confidential.  And, even more recently, there was the $446,500 settlement agreement reached to resolve the wage claims of 130 servers at two NYC restaurants owned by Chef Wolfgang Puck.

Why are so many wage claims against restaurants?  One reason is the complexity of the laws in this area.  The overtime laws are complicated even in the context of an employee who receives hourly wages only.  But, add to that tip credits, earned tips, and tip pooling, and you've got a virtual maze of complex issues.  The laws are not easy to navigate, especially without guidance from experienced legal counsel.

Social-Media Use and/or Misuse

I'd be remiss, of course, if I didn't give at least one social-media related story, too.  So I will end today's post with a reference to a story about a chef who sent a bunch of not-so-nice tweets from the restaurant's official Twitter account after he'd been fired but before (apparently) the restaurant had changed the password on its account.

Chef Grant Achatz, owner of Alinea in Chicago, landed in hot water when he tweeted about a couple who brought their 8-month old to dinner.  I have a definite opinion on this story.  Having been to Alinea, I feel very comfortable saying that it is not a place where an 8-month old needs to be and, if the 8-month old is crying at the top of his lungs, it's not a place where that baby should be.  The restaurant is very expensive, with meals starting at more than $200 per person.  Reservations are wickedly difficult to get with only 80 seats. 

Most important, though, is the nature of the experience.  Diners fight for reservations and pay big bucks for a reason--the meal is something you remember forever.  The food is so far beyond anything else, it's almost an Alice-In-Wonderland experience.  And to have that be ruined by the guests at the table next to you would be, to me anyway, a crushing disappointment. 

So, there.  That's where I stand on the question.  Chef Achatz's tweet did not offend me or make me adore his restaurant any less.