Employers victimized by trade secret misappropriation appropriately express righteous outrage, both at the offending ex-employee and sometimes at the new employer. However, on another day the roles can reverse: That same employer may unwittingly — or worse, intentionally — have hired someone who has stolen trade secrets or confidential information. Failure to take appropriate precautions or implement sufficient remedial measures can expose the hiring employer to a variety of civil, and even potentially criminal, claims. Burying your head in the sand is not a winning strategy, especially given how easy technology has made it to copy and take confidential information.
Rudyard Kipling famously noted, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” Many employers may feel that this quote aptly describes the relationship between immigration law and wage & hour law — certainly, it is not often that these two areas are discussed in the same article, let alone the same sentence. However, a recent U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) policy memorandum illustrates a circumstance in which the government will take wage & hour considerations into account when addressing a visa petition.
A few months ago, we reminded our readers about the need to maintain accurate time records for non-exempt employees. This consideration is especially important for those employers who are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), meaning that most readers of this article should take note. An appeal currently pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) once again reminds us of the importance of maintaining accurate time records and policies – and how good recordkeeping practices and policies helped reach a verdict in favor of the employer.
It appears that the days of expanded joint employer liability may be numbered, as the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) 2015 Browning-Ferris decision comes under attack on multiple fronts.
When administering an employee benefits plan, it is critically important to provide clear and specific instructions as to how a participant can designate a beneficiary. A recent federal district court opinion in Florida demonstrates the potential pitfalls that plan administrators may face with respect to disputes over beneficiary status and provides guidance as to how administrators may avoid costly disputes.