The Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston recently held that it is the date the employee is provided notice of termination, and not the termination date itself, that commences the statute of limitations in a breach of contract case.  You can read the Memorandum Opinion in Malallah v. Noble Logistic Services, Inc. here.

Bader Malallah entered a three year employment contract with Noble Logistic Services, Inc. (“Noble”) that could be terminated earlier, without notice, for certain enumerated acts or omissions. Prior to the end of the three year term, Noble terminated Malallah’s employment. Four years and seven days after Malallah was first advised that his employment was terminated, but less than four years after his termination was memorialized in writing, Malallah sued for breach of contract.

Noble defended the suit on the grounds that the claims was not filed within the four year statute of limitations that applies to breach of contract claims because it was filed more than four years after Malallah was first given notice of his termination. At trial, the jury found that Malallah was terminated without good cause but also found that his termination occurred on March 2, 2001 (the date he was first given any notice of termination) rather than on March 16, 2001 (the date his termination was memorialized in writing). Therefore, despite the jury’s finding that Malallah was terminated without good cause, the the trial court found that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations based on the jury’s answer as to the date of termination and entered judgment for Noble. The Houston Court of Appeals [14th Dist.] affirmed that judgment.

I’ve written several posts on the potential pitfalls that may befall a company that mistakenly classifies workers as independent contractors.  You can see those posts here and here.  A recent bill introduced in Congress would make it even more difficult to classify workers as independent contractors and would require companies to file more information with the IRS when independent contractor status is claimed.

In summary, the Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability and Consistency Act of 2009 would:

  • Increase the penalties applicable for the filing of a tax return with inaccurate information;
  • Provide that a company would only have a reasonable basis for classifying the worker as an independent contractor, for purposes of the safe harbor provision, when the company has classified no other worker holding a substantially similar position as an employee since December 1977; acts based on a written determination addressing the employment status of the individual or an individual holding a substantially similar position; or concluded an examination of whether the individual (or an individual holding a substantially similar position) should be treated as an employee.
  • Allow individuals the right to petition the Secretary of Treasury for a determination of their independent contractor status.

The Act, if passed, would apply to all payments that occurred beginning one year after passage.

The EEOC has released its FY 2009 Charge Statistics and they show a surprising decrease in the number of charges filed with the agency (although FY 2009 is compared against the highest charge filing fiscal year ever).  The total number of charges in FY 2009 dropped from 95,402 in FY 2008 to 93,277 in FY 2009.  While there was a drop in the overall number of charges filed, FY 2009 still recorded the second highest number of charges ever filed.  

The breakdown of the FY 2009 statistics shows that there were small increases in the number of charges alleging national origin, religious discrimination and retaliation.  There was a nearly 2,000 charge increase in disability-related charges.  The categories all saw record high filings.  All other charge categories saw a decrease in charge filings. 

Prediction for FY 2010 numbers –Expect to see continued increase in the number of disability and religious discrimination filings with other categories remaining relatively constant.  You can find full detail on the number of charge filings here.

Recently I wrote about ADP’s 12th Annual Screening Index summarizing employment screening and hiring trends.  Employers using third-party background screening services must remember to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) procedures prior to using consumer reports, in whole or in part, employment taking employment actions.  Moreover, while Texas has no specific statutes governing use of consumer reporting information in the employment context, some states have laws or regulations imposing more restrictive requirements than the FCRA that must also be followed.

In summary, the FCRA requires employers using consumer reports (i.e., information about your personal and credit characteristics, character, general reputation, and lifestyle) to:

  • Disclose, in writing, your intent to obtain consumer reporting information before requesting the information;
  • Obtain written authorization to obtain the consumer reporting information before requesting the report;
  • Prior to taking an adverse employment action, provide the applicant/employee with pre-adverse action notification containing a copy of the report and a summary of rights under the consumer reporting act;
  • After taking the adverse employment action, provide the applicant/employee with post-adverse action notification that contains the name and contact information of the consumer reporting agency (CRA) that prepared the report; a statement that the CRA did not make the decision and advising the individual of his or her right to dispute the information in the report with the CRA within 60 days.

Background checks and pre-employment screening are effective tools to use in hiring qualified employees.  Doing so,  however, without understanding an employer’s obligations under state and federal law, can give rise to liability. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the FCRA.  For more information on an employer’s rights and obligations under the FCRA, click here.

Earlier: Annual Survey of Employment Screening and Hiring Trends Released.

This month ADP released its 12th Annual Screening Index report summarizing its evaluation of employment screening and hiring trends.  The summary was gleaned from nearly 5.5. million individual background checks and 1.7 million criminal background checks performed during calender year 2008.  The Screening Index:noted several interesting data points:

Because employers utilize background screens to identify appropriate candidates for employment; confirm the veracity of information provided on employment applications and as part of a comprehensive strategy of maintaining a safe workplace, the ADP summary provides interesting information about the American workforce –on a macro level. A copy of the full report can be downloaded here (must provide ADP with some identifying information prior to download).

The Texas Supreme Court held that unilateral contracts can be formed with at-will employees when employers make promises to employees and those employees perform based on that promise.  In Vanegas v. American Energy Services, Inc. the Supreme Court was asked to decide the enforceability of an employer’s alleged promise to pay five percent of the proceeds of a sale or merger of the company to employees who were still employed at the time of the merger.  The alleged promise arose in the context of a period when the company was performing poorly and the employees were complaining about working long hours with antiquated equipment. 

According to the Court’s opinion, a vice-president of the company, in an effort to encourage employees to stay with the company, promised those original employees (of whom there were eight) that if they stayed with the company, they would be paid five percent of the value of any sale or merger.  When the company was sold, the seven remaining employees demanded their share of the proceeds.  The company refused and the employees sued.

The company argued that because the employees were at-will, any promise to pay those proceeds to the employees was illusory and unenforceable because the employer could have avoided the promise by firing the employees at any time.  The employees argued that the promise represented a unilateral contract that, once performed, became a binding enforceable obligation on the part of the employer.

The Court agreed with the employees and held that where an employer makes a unilateral promise to an at-will employee and the employee performs, a binding contract is formed upon that performance.  

In an unpublished opinion, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a former employee cannot avoid the effects of a noncompetition agreement under the doctrine of unclean hands, as a matter of law, when the inequitable conduct the employee complains of is separate from the issue in dispute.  (Opinion available here). 

In Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. v. Espinoza, CTOP sued Espinoza after he resigned his employment and went to work for a direct competitor in violation of a noncompetition agreement he signed with CTOP.  Espinoza contended that the noncompetition agreement could not be enforced against him because CTOP had violated a separate Compensation Agreement by failing to pay all wages and commissions owed to him.  The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for Espinoza.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for Espinoza and held that since CTOP’s alleged failure to pay Espinoza did not grow out of the obligations outlined in the Noncompetition Agreement, the alleged breaches of the separate Compensation Agreement could not, as a matter of law, constitute an unclean hands defense to the noncompetition agreement.

Employees frequently try to avoid the effects of restrictive covenants claiming that the employer violated some obligation to the employees; thereby precluding the enforcement of the restrictive covenant under the doctrine of unclean hands.  CTOP continues the Texas judiciaries’ trend of making it easier to enforce noncompetition agreements in the state of Texas.

Earlier:   Texas Supreme Court holds that Covenants Not to Compete that Contain Implicit Promises to Provide Confidential Information are Enforceable.

Texas Appellate Court Continues Trend of Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements.

 

 

Manpower has published its most recent research on jury verdicts and the news is not good for employers.  According to a summary of the full report:

  • Employers won the lowest percentage of discrimination jury trials this decade; only 39 percent.  Employers won on 33 percent of age cases and 52 percent of disability discrimination cases.  Expect employer’s winning percentage to decrease in disability discrimination cases in the next years as post-ADAAA cases make their way to juries.
  • Age discrimination cases result in the largest verdicts followed by disability, sex and race.
  • Employers are better off in federal court than state court.  Employers won 43 percent of the cases in federal court versus only 37 percent in state court.  The median federal jury award was also lower at $164,925 v. $270,000 in state court.
  • Median settlement rose to the highest this past decade at $90,000.

Several reasons may explain Manpower’s most recent findings.  First, the economy, and juror attitudes may be affecting outcomes.   In my two most recent jury trials this year, there was a significant number of potential jurors who were either out of work or had a close family member who was unemployed.  With the national unemployment rate topping 10 percent, the increase in the unemployment rate may signal that there are more prospective jurors who may sympathize with an unemployed plaintiff-employee. 

Second, in a poor economy, some employers may choose to try cases they might have settled in the past.  Some employers may elect to try those cases that can be tried to verdict for less than they can be settled.   This may be a fiscally sound decision only in the short term or if the employer prevails at trial.

Finally, the results may reflect the fact that employers are having to try tougher cases to defend.  In any event, Manpower’s research suggests that juror attitudes in employment discrimination cases are swinging in favor of plaintiff-employees and against employers.

Mad MenLast week’s season finale of AMC’s critically acclaimed series "Mad Men" shows a prime example of how to get involved in big time litigation when leaving a former employer to start-up a competing enterprise or work for a competitor. Mad Men is a made for cable series set in the 1960’s about a Madison Avenue advertising firm.

In the season finale, Don Draper, Roger Sterling and Bert Cooper learn that their New York subsidiary of a London-based advertising firm ("PPL") is being sold to a competitor.  Shackled by noncompetition agreements they signed when their firm was purchased by the London firm and intent on not working for their competition, they evaluate their options. 

The solution –conspire with the office manager (a long-time PPL employee who will be cast aside following the sale) to terminate their contracts (fire them) in return for a partnership interest in the new venture.  To ensure that their plans are not discovered, the office manager strategically waits to advise PPL’s home office of the terminations until the close of business Friday afternoon thereby ensuring that PPL will not learn of the change until Monday morning.  Over the course of the weekend, Draper and company loot client files; take account and marketing materials; and go on a wholesale campaign to solicit firm clients to join the new firm.  This is the season finale and so we don’t yet know whether the 1960’s London-based company response will be to file lawsuits or do nothing. 

In today’s times, I would expect the next season would begin, and end, as follows.  The episode opens in a courtroom where Draper, Sterling and Cooper are about to be sentenced for certain criminal offenses.  The next scene then flashes back to last season’s finale with Draper and company wheeling out boxes and boxes of information from their old employer; making solicitations to the customers of their old firm; and competing fiercely for new business.  Lawyers are engaged; lawsuits are filed.  Draper and company are slapped with injunctions that prohibit them from calling on or doing business with old firm clients and from using the confidential, proprietary information that was misappropriated from the old employer.  Next, a grand jury is summoned by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Our heroes are indicted for theft of trade secrets and a whole host of other misconduct.  Draper files for bankruptcy since his resources are drained by being a partner in an advertising firm that is enjoined from working with clients –not to mention the divorce from his lovely wife Betty.  Finally, our Mad Men plead guilty to criminal offenses and are sentenced to moderately lengthy prison sentences.  Next season’s opener ends up being the series finale because the protagonists misappropriated and used information that belonged to their old employer.

What this episode of "Mad Men" teaches is that if one is going to leave an employer and either work for a competitor or start a competing venture; don’t do it like the Mad Men.  Departing employees should 1) honor reasonable and enforceable contractual agreements regarding competition and nondisclosure of confidential information; 2) not take or use anything from the former employer; and 3) compete fairly.

Let the Festivities Begin.

It’s that time again. The leaves are changing; there is crispness in the air and it’s time to start planning the company’s annual end of year or holiday party. While these events are wonderful opportunities for employees and their families to get together to celebrate the season, they can have unanticipated legal implications and bring with them the potential opportunity to create employer legal liability. 

Not only can the fun and festivities of a company Christmas party lead to employer liability resulting from alcohol related accidents or injuries, but the relaxed environment and the introduction of alcohol can also lead to allegations of sexual harassment. The following ideas are a few suggestions an employer should consider in planning and carrying out a company-sponsored event.

Don’t Require Attendance And Don’t Take Roll.

There are several reasons why an employer does not want to mandate that its employees attend the company party as a condition of employment. For example, if the company sponsors an annual Christmas party, there may be some employees who subscribe to religious faiths that do not celebrate or recognize Christmas. Mandating employees attend these parties, or disciplining employees because they do not attend, could result in charges of religious discrimination. For this reason, many companies have elected to use secular names for their seasonal parties such as “Holiday” or “Winter” party.

Another reason to avoid mandating attendance at the company party is to minimize the possibility of accidents or injuries to employee-guests occurring at the event being compensable injuries and covered by workers’ compensation.

Discourage Overindulgence of Alcohol.

One of the most effective ways of avoiding many of the adverse issues that arise from company sponsored events is to avoid serving alcohol. However, if a company is going to supply or permit the use of alcohol at a company event, it should plan effectively so that alcohol is used responsibly. 

Through pre-party meetings or memos, employees can and should be subtly reminded that, while occurring outside of working hours, the party is still a company-sponsored event and to avoid excessive alcohol consumption (i.e., drink in moderation). Employees should also be reminded that while certain workplace conduct policies may be relaxed during this nonworking time, the policies directed at prohibiting harassment (sexual and otherwise) continue to apply at all company-sponsored events. 

Unfortunately, some employees incorrectly believe that the company party is the time and the place to let it all hang out and that there will be no consequences for their conduct occurring outside of regular working hours. Unlike Las Vegas, things that are said and done at the company party don’t necessarily stay there and may have to be investigated by Human Resources after the event. Employees must understand that there can be consequences for their behavior –even at the company holiday party.

Pay To Play Or Distribute Drink Tickets.

Two ways to reduce the alcohol consumption at the company party include offering a cash bar or distributing a limited number of drink tickets to each guest. Many companies have elected to use cash rather than open bars at company-sponsored events. Frequently, when guests have to purchase their own drinks, they tend to consume fewer drinks. If an employer is going to have an open bar at its expense, another alternative is to distribute drink tickets that can be redeemed for a beverage of choice. While there is always the possibility of a guest collecting unused drink tickets from teetotaling guests, drink tickets can help limit or reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by guest employees.

Invite Spouses.

It is important when determining who will be invited to attend the company’s annual holiday party to consider including spouses.  Many sexual harassment claims arising out of the company’s sponsored events would likely be avoided if employee-spouses were invited and attended.  I analogize inviting spouses to annual holiday party in a similar way to this, "Would you jay walk if a policeman were standing on the corner to observe you?"  Probably not, and for the same reasons, spouses served as the policeman on the corner for some bad behavior that might occur in their absence.  Conversely, including spouses can sometimes create conflict such as when an employee perceives that his or her spouse’s honor has been disrespected.  This typically involves an overindulgence of alcohol making use of drink ticket or other limitations on alcohol important.

Location, Location, Location/Hire A Caterer To Operate The Bar.

Another consideration should be the location of the event. It is often appropriate to schedule the event away from the office at an offsite location. This helps protect the employer’s property and assets. It can also be particularly important in preventing unauthorized access to confidential or trade secret information in the workplace or access to hazardous or dangerous equipment that may be used in the employer’s business. 

Employers can also employ the use of a coat check system where guests can check their coats and other personal articles. Guests should also be encouraged to leave their automobile keys with the coat check. Prior to leaving, guests can be individually observed to ascertain their ability to drive home when retrieving their coats and keys. Another alternative is to use a complementary valet system. Most guests will use the valet service. The employer (or its third party valet service) will then have possession of the guests’ keys and can evaluate each guest at the end of the party before returning the car keys. In either situation, it is important to have a responsible person that is trained in identifying the signs of intoxication. Off duty, plain-clothed law enforcement officers can usually be employed for this task.

Finally, hire a caterer or other third party to operate the bar. Ensure that the caterer is instructed verbally (and even better yet in writing) that they are not to serve any guest that appears to be intoxicated and the employer should designate a representative whom the caterer should notify in the event a guest may have overindulged.

Offer Plenty of Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages.

Be sure that as a part of the event the company offers a variety of food and that it stays well-stocked so that employees can eat plenty with their cocktails. While everyone loves salty, greasy and sweet foods, those kinds of foods make guests feel thirsty and can have the effect of increasing alcohol consumption. Try to include foods that are high in starch and protein which stay in the stomach longer and slow the absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream.

Last Call and No Roadies.

Close the bar long before the party is expected to conclude. After the bar has closed, continue to serve food and other non-alcoholic beverages. This will give guests an opportunity to let some of the effects of any alcohol they may have consumed subside and may give the employer additional time to identify guests who need additional assistance getting home.

Arrange alternative transportation.

Despite your best efforts, there may be an employee who needs assistance in getting home. Anticipate this need and make arrangements for some alternative means of transportation such as a taxi or car service. Encourage all employees to make use of this service if they consume any alcohol.

If the event is being held at a hotel, negotiate discounted room rates when booking the event. Some employees might prefer to stay the night after the party rather than travel home. If this is negotiated in advance, it can be advertised to employees with the holiday invitations and they can better plan their evening activities.

Investigate Complaints.

Occasionally, a company sponsored event like a holiday party may spawn an employee complaint such as an unwelcome sexual advance. Some employers incorrectly believe that because the conduct complained of occurred during non-working hours or away from work that such conduct need not be investigated. This can be an expensive mistake. Prudent employers investigate all complaints that they receive from their employees having any nexus to the workplace. Complaints about conduct occurring at the annual party should be investigated like any other complaints as the conduct may affect an employee’s working relationship with co-workers.

Company parties are intended to be fun, rewarding occasions for co-workers and their families to share time away from the stresses of the workplace. With careful planning an employer can maximize the opportunity for fun and celebration and minimize the chances that the event becomes something the company might prefer to forget.