Common Sense Prevails: Working From Home Sometimes Will Not Work


Well, phew.

We like when legal developments we believe raise troubling questions with problematic implications later develop into something seemingly more rational based on the intersection of law and logic. One such pleasant development occurred last week, when a federal appellate court reversed an earlier decision suggesting employers could no longer require many workers to actually come to work. However, employers should also be careful not to mistakenly conclude that telecommuting is not a reasonable accommodation as a general matter. Continue reading this entry

Don’t Let the Door Hit You … Oh, and I Have a Few Questions Before You Go


Regardless of how great you are as an employer, not all of your employees will stick around forever, especially your most valuable employees. If the employee is valuable to you, you can be sure he or she would be just as valuable, if not more so, to a competitor. When the day comes to say goodbye, make sure to have an exit strategy in place to guard against your confidential information and trade secrets walking out the door with your former employee.

Continue reading this entry

SEC Blows the Whistle on Confidentiality Agreements


Thanks to a recent enforcement action brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it may be time to review and revise the confidentiality provisions in employment agreements, severance agreements, employee handbooks, and other similar material.

What Happened?

As part of its regular compliance program, an employer routinely conducted internal investigations in response to allegations of potential illegal or unethical conduct. The SEC discovered that the employer conducted interviews with employees as part of the internal investigations and, in connection with the interviews, asked employees to sign form confidentiality agreements that: (i) prohibited the employee from discussing the interview without prior authorization from the legal department; and (ii) made it clear that unauthorized disclosures may result in disciplinary action, including termination of employment. The SEC determined that these confidentiality agreements violated whistleblower protections under federal securities laws and required the company to revise the confidentiality agreements as part of its settlement with the SEC to make it clear that nothing in the agreements would interfere with the employees’ ability to exercise their rights under whistleblower provisions of any federal law or regulations (what we’ll call a “whistleblower carve out”). Continue reading this entry

U.S. Army Loses Battle to Regulate Bathroom Selection of Transgender (Civilian) Employee


On April 1, 2015, the EEOC ordered the Army to pay damages for discriminating against a transgender employee when it prevented her from using the common women’s bathroom and routinely demeaned her by calling her “sir” and other names meant to deprive her of equal status, respect, and dignity in the workplace.

The complainant is a transgender woman. She talked with her employer about transitioning her gender presentation/expression, and these talks initially went well. An agreement was reached that during transition, the employee would use a single-user bathroom rather than the common women’s restroom until she had undergone an undefined surgery. The plan was for the employee to start using the common women’s bathroom only after the surgery was complete. Continue reading this entry

Labor and Employment — The TMZ of Law


We employment lawyer types proudly boast that no one has better legal stories to tell than we do (if only we could tell all of our stories). Some of our best stories were thrust into the media during the first quarter of 2015. Not only are these stories juicy, but they are cautionary tales and a learning experience for employers.

On February 5, 2015, a jury in Manhattan found the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and one of the firm’s partners, partially liable for creating a hostile work environment. A former associate claimed that the partner, a reputed rainmaker, repeatedly spoke to her using crude and vulgar language, kissed her and touched her breasts without her consent, and propositioned her. She alleged his conduct culminated in a sexual assault following an office holiday party. The partner testified that the former associate voluntarily returned to the office with him, but that no sexual encounter ever occurred. Following a highly publicized three week trial, the jury found that the law firm and the partner did not violate the federal anti-harassment law. However, the jury did award the former associate $140,000 in damages, representing $90,000 in lost compensation, $45,000 in punitive damages against the partner, and $5,000 in punitive damages against the firm. Continue reading this entry