.,.... •. .1 . i(‘i.•t (: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND WORKPLACE LIABILITY SECTION’S NEWSLETTER As the holidays are approaching and after our terrific...
Author: Dorthy Floyd
0 downloads 2 Views 2MB Size
.,.... •.



i(‘i.•t (:

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND WORKPLACE LIABILITY SECTION’S NEWSLETTER As the holidays are approaching and after our terrific Annual Meeting in Williamsburg, we gear up for 2012 and an exciting year for our Section! — -


We are now about three months away from our Winter Meeting at the Biltmore in Arizona, from March 3rd to the 10th in Phoenix, Arizona. This Newsletter highlights the wonderful festivities and CLE planned for our Winter Meeting by Convention Chairs, Deb and Jim Varner! No matter where you live, Arizona is a popular destination and easy to get to. Please join us for a wonderful week ofjustice, knowledge and fellowship. Remember, if you do not come, YOU WILL BE MISSED! In our last Newsletter, we included an article on the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. Since that time, in a decision which is sure to give Wal-Mart (and many employers) a large sigh of relief, the Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant class certification to nearly 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees in a discrimination based lawsuit, No. 10-277. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of current and former Wal-Mart employees, generally alleged that local Wal-Mart managers disproportionately favored men through the exercise of their discretion over pay and promotions, which had an unlawful disparate impact on female employees. Plaintiffs further alleged that Wal-Mart refused to limit the amount of discretion given to managers, 4 resulting in disparate treatment. In the Supreme Court’s decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held class certification improper on two significant grounds.


Team means

Together Everyone Achieves More?

—Author Unknown’-’






‘III —— — —

A special thank you to our Vice Chair, Michele Ballard Miller of the Miller Law Group for her excellent article, included in this Newsletter, analyzing the Court’s recent opinion and best practices for employers to follow to minimize class action risks. We also include an article on recent developments from the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). This article highlights the need for virtually all employers to understand their obligations under the NLRA. First, the NLRB is taking on and challenging employers’ social media policies (because they presumably chill employee rights) and the right of employers to discipline their employees for violating those policies. Secondly, the NLRB has promulgated a controversial new rule which requires almost all employers to notify their employees of the employees’ rights under the NLRA. This new rule was originally scheduled to become effective on November 14, 2011, but the NLRI3 recently postponed that effective date until January 31, 2012, most likely in response to lawsuits that have been filed challenging the rule. Many thanks to Michele Miller for also authoring this article. In the spirit of fellowship and laughter going a long way, we include another Order, this one emanating from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division concerning a “kindergarten party”. Yes, this was a real Order which apparently stemmed from a frustrated judge’s dealings with counsel in which they were subsequently ordered to come to court to listen to “an advanced seminar on not wasting the time of a busy federal judge and his staff because [they were] unable to practice law at the level of a first year law student”. To all of our section members, if you come across these type of orders, please send them to me so we can get them in our Newsletters. These are always a gentle, yet precious reminder to us on just how important civility is special and why you are all treasured! in the practice of law, why the FDCC is so very

Finally, please join me in welcoming our three new Vice Chairs for the 2011-20 12 year: Michele Ballard Miller of the San Francisco, California firm, Miller Law Group; Tony Zarillo of the Basking Ridge, New Jersey firm of Bevan, Mosca, Guiditta & Zarillo; and, John Quinn of the Nashville, Tennessee firm of Manier & Herod. On behalf of the Chairs and new Vice Chairs, we wish you and your families a joyous holiday season!




Il 1








(I I



3’ In Williamsburg, the Employment Section teamed up with the Civil Rights and Public Entity, International Law and Premises Sections to present the Blockbuster Presentatio&’:

Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel 2011 Annual Meeting

“Sleep Tight, Don t Let the Bed Bugs Bite!- The Impact ofBed Bugs on our Daily and Legal Lives” which was held on July 29th.

Please join me in extending a special thank you to our terrific panel: John Intondi AXIS US Insurance Alpharetta, Georgia

Williamsburg, Virginia July 2011 Presentation by the Employment Section At the Williamsburg Inn

Martin P. Lavalle, Travelers Hartford, Connecticut David Mims, Sr. Vice President, La Quinta-L.Q. Mgmt Irving, Texas Peter M Di Eduardo, Senior Manager, Bell Environmental Parsippany, New Jersey David E. Cassidy Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA Bridgewater, New Jersey Michael L Glascott Goldberg Segalla LLP Buffalo, New York

Our panel discussed exactly what bed bugs are, what is driving their population explosion, novel legal issues from both a coverage and liability perspective and practical advice. A special thank you to Norris McLaughlin’s David Cassidy (and his associate Chris Elko), Goldberg Segalla’s Michael Glascott, Bell Environmental’s Peter Di Eduardo and Gordon & Rees’ associate Scott Heck for writing the paper for our program, which was just accepted for publication for the Fall 2011 Edition of the FDCC Quarterly.

/J jJ _ 4





WaldorfAstoria Arizona Biltmore Phoenix, Arizona -

The perfect way to celebrate the FDCC’s 76th year, is to join our President and First Lady, Mike and Jan Neil and our Convention Chairs, Deb and Jim Varner, for the Winter Meeting at the Arizona Biltmore on March 3rd to the 10th, 2012. This Saturday to Saturday meeting will be held at the beautiful Arizona Biltmo ded by Frank Lloyd Wright, and built in 1929. Surrouncfd by mountains, the Biltmore offers fantastic scenery and plenty of activities!


Our Program Chair, Don Myles, has planned a phenomenal, cutting-edge program, “Legal Spring Training: Working on the Fundamentals.” Opening the program will be the 2012 Trial Masters “Fundamentals of Trying the Big Damage Case.” Another high profile plenary session topic is “Negotiations and Sports,” with NFL referee (and FDCC Member) Ed Hochuli, agents, and NFL staff discussing how the league and players negotiated and litigated in 2011. Do not miss the plenary program on “Legal Apps to Make Your Life Easier,” which will address 10 legal applications for your phone, computer and ipad that you must have to keep up in the new age of change. Roger Crawford, an inspirational speaker and national award winner will mesmerize you with his thoughts. Fitting for Arizona, our Section’s Plenary presentation on Thursday, March 8th at 9:00 a.m. will be: “Borders and Fences: Immigration and its Impact on Employment and Civil Rights”. Closing out the week of sports and CLE will be George Will whose writings include Men At Work: The Craft of Baseball, Bunts: Curt Flood, Camden Yards, Pete Rose and Other Reflections on Baseball, a best selling collection of new and previously published writings. Take your family out to the ballgame and enjoy some of the many spring training exhibition games occurring during the first week of March, 2012. With the “Valley of the Sun” playing host to spring training for fifteen (15) major league baseball teams, it is guaranteed that there will be at least three to five major league spring training games a day while the FDCC is in town.


FDCC Spring Training


Please visit www.cactusleague.com for game information and ticket options. Make sure to buy some peanuts and crackerjacks along the way. Phoenix and its surrounding area is a mecca for outdoor enthusiasts. Hiking, biking, and rafting are being offered. For the more adventurous, throw the ball in air and enjoy the ride on the Desert Dog Hummer Tour. For the golfing enthusiasts, there are over 200 golf courses in Phoenix and its surrounding area. The Biltmore has (2) golf courses on property. To book tee times and check prices for other courses, go to www.golfhub.com.


After participating in the outdoor activities, food will be a necessity. By all accounts, there are over 200 restaurants within twenty minutes of the Biltmore property. Cooking and tasting events are also scheduled. “A Taste of Old Town Scottsdale,” a walking food and cultural tour full of stories of the Old West, demonstrations and delectable food and wine, is available early in the week. At the end of the week, grill masters can take advantage of the “Backyard Barbeque.” This is not your ordinary barbeque. Chef Todd will show off his culinary expertise with bourbon, scotch, Irish whiskey, and a grill. An FDCC cookbook will be compiled and presented to participants in this event. Chefs may also cook their own lunch during the “Taste of the Southwest Cooking Demonstration” at the Desert Botanical Gardens. Covering over 50 acres, the garden has 6 major trails and exhibits and is home to over 21,000 plants. —


As for the more traditional events, on Tuesday, the RecepciondelPresidente will take place in the mountain splendor of the Squaw Peak Lawn. Celebrating with a Mexican theme, guests can enjoy the sounds of the Mariachi band and the tastes and smells of the Mexican Cuisine. Sombreros encouraged! Schedule your spa appointment early for FDCC’s spa day. On Wednesday, March 7, the spa has agreed to a 20% discount on all services. Appointments should be made in advance of the meeting. Space is limited. We look forward to seeing you all on Thursday night at the theme party, an FDCC All-Star Bash. Grab your hat and glove and wear your baseball jersey to this interactive event. Former pitchers can test their pitching skills; hitters can show off their form. Enjoy the tastes from ballparks throughout the country. The week will close with the traditional FDCC Black Tie Dinner and Dance. Snake Eyes, an FDCC favorite, will perform, for the evening. Be on the lookout though, courtesy of our Convention and Program Chairs, there will be surprises throughout the week. Electronic registration will be available through January 21, 2012 on the FDCC website. To register online, log in as a member and click on “Meeting Registration” listed on the left under Member Services. If you have not already booked your hotel accommodations, reservations may be made directly with the Arizona Biltmore by calling 1-800-950-0086. Please use the booking code FDCC when calling. You may also access the reservations link on the FDCC website to make your reservations electronically. Please do not book more rooms than you need. Did you know when you book a room in our room block that gets cancelled close to meeting, the FDCC may not be able to rebook it to another member which results infinancialpenalties to the FDCC? Please help us make sure this does not happen so that the FDCC can preserve ourfinancial resourcesfor our programming, festivities and the like.


l1 Our panel includes: • Robert Christie Christie Law Group

“The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources-because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples.” Lyndon B. Johnson

• Mercedes Coiwin Gordon & Rees, NY • Steven Montoya Montoya Jimenez, AZ • Elizabeth Lorell Gordon & Rees, NJ This is going to be a cutting edge seminar as we discuss immigration in general, how we got to where we are, what is driving this emotionally charged issue all over the country and how it impacts employers, employees, students, civil rights and our society in general. We will also address some novel cases, in which immigration was the key issue and which triggered insurance coverage. Join us, we promise you that you will learn something new, which will help you, your firm’s and companies prepare for immigration related litigation which is expected to exponentially increase over the next decade.


2012 FDCC Winter Meeting

It’s headline news and a hot button topic all over the country. This program will illustrate how this highly charged issue effects employment practices, businesses and litigation. A highly spirited discussion will address both the pro and con positions of states’ and local governments’ enactment of laws due to a perceived failure of the federal government to solve the problem. And, some of the states, including Arizona, Alabama and Georgia have enacted immigration laws that place immigration enforcement on both employees, employers and public schools. Our panel will explore how and why these laws were drafted, its immediate economic effects upon the border states, novel cases being brought and what the future holds as immigration controversies continue to emerge and escalate.

“Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” Franklin D. Roosevelt



—— — —

_Bi:Miche1e BallardMilIerLaw Gioun —

,,sj,) I


Handing a big win to employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that upheld certification of a nationwide employee class action alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court dubbed the case as “one of the most expansive class actions ever,” and for good reason the class was comprised of approximately 1.5 million women and Wal-Mart’s potential exposure was estimated to be around $4 billion. This sprawling class set the stage for the Court’s consideration of the nature of proof a named plaintiff must present to satisfy the commonality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and whether class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) when the class seeks individualized monetary relief. --




Background of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes Case The plaintiffs are current and former female Wal-Mart employees who contended that Wal Mart violated Title VII by engaging in gender bias with respect to pay and promotions. In particular, they alleged that Wal-Mart’s policy of vesting local managers with discretion in pay and promotion decisions had a disparate impact on women as those decisions tended to favor men, and that Wal-Mart’s knowledge of the problem amounted to disparate treatment. On behalf of themselves and the putative class members, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages and back pay. In seeking to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s requirement that the action present “questions of law or fact common to” all class members, the plaintiffs relied on several forms of proof: statistical evidence about pay and promotion disparities; anecdotal reports of discrimination from about 120 female employees; and testimony from a sociologist who conducted a “social framework analysis” of Wal-Mart’s culture and personnel practices and concluded that the company was “vulnerable” to gender bias. Plaintiffs also contended that even though they were asking for monetary relief, in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief, it was appropriate to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief. with respect to the class as a whole.” .


The district court certified the class, and Wal-Mart appealed. A divided en banc Ninth Circuit panel substantially affirmed the district court’s certification order. Wal-Mart then asked the Supreme Court to reverse the certification decision on the grounds that the class of hourly and salaried female employees who worked at Wal-Mart stores nationwide at any time since 1998 was too large and diverse to meet class certification requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.




i’r1-hgh CourtI)cisiOn: Rule 23(a)(2) Wal-Mart’s argument that the class action failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement I split the Court. Justice Scalia authored the majority opinion, in which the Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.



, AThe majority opinion sets a high bar for plaintiffs to meet to demonstrate commonality under Rule 23(a)(2), holding that a court must perform a “rigorous analysis” at the class certification stage to ensure that plaintiffs have “significant proof” that they have “suffered the same injury,” not merely that the defendant allegedly violated the “same provision of law.” The Court emphasized that the claims must rest upon a common contention that “must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” The Court further explained: “What matters to class certification. is not the raising of common ‘questions’—even in droves— but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceel11lIt1YRJeiierate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. --



Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.” Applying this standard, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented by the Wal-Mart plaintiffs regarding the company’s policy of allowing managers discretion in promotions and pay decisions was “worlds away” from significant proof that Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination. Not only does Wal-Mart have a written policy barring sex discrimination, said the Court, but in a corporation as large as Wal-Mart, proof about how one manager may exercise discretion does nothing to prove how other managers make their decisions. Indeed, as the Court noted, the plaintiffs’ expert admittedly could not identify, even within a very broad range, what percentage or number of employment decisions were in fact biased, and the Court found that anecdotal evidence of bias (from 120 putative class members) was too limited relative to the class size and geographic scope. The Court also pointed out that a policy of allowing local supervisors to exercise discretion was “just the opposite of a uniform employment practice” that would provide the commonality needed for class certification. Rather, it was “a policy against having uniform employment practices,” particularly in light of a lack of evidence demonstrating any common way that the managers actually exercised that discretion. The High Court’s Decision: Rule 23(b)(2) The Supreme Court then held, unanimously, that the plaintiffs’ back pay claims were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2), concluding that such claims for individualized relief do not satisfy the rule. In particular, once a class qualifies for certification under Rule 23(a), the next inquiry is whether the class can be certified under either Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). The lower court certified the Dukes class under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief. with respect to the class as a whole.” Courts in previous cases have allowed claims for monetary relief such as back nay in 23(b(2 cases, if the monetary relief is not the .




— In rejecng certification, the Supreme Court explained: “The key to the (b)(2) class is ‘the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.” The Rule, said the Court, does not allow for class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of money damages. While the plaintiffs argued that any back pay was merely incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief, the Court made clear that Wal-Mart was entitled to litigate any statutory defenses to individual back pay claims, which was not a possibility in a case certified under 23(b)(2).

—— — —


The Impact of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes Case The Supreme Court’s decision places a heavy evidentiary burden on plaintiffs who seek to pursue class certification in large cases. In employment class actions in particular, the case makes clear that alleging a corporate practice of delegating decision-making to lower level managers will not be sufficient to support class certification absent detailed proof that the practice injured all class members in the same way. At the same time, however, employers should tiêafarefuIly and not assume that the case automatically forecloses all, or even a significant number of, class actions. Employers may remain vulnerable to systemic discrimination claims by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Furthermore, while the decision clarifies important principles offederal class action jurisprudence to the benefit of corporate defendants, the plaintiffs’ bar is likely to file similar cases in the friendlier climes of state courts, where more relaxed class certification standards may apply. Employers can also expect that plaintiffs’ attorneys will take care to assert claims based on policies and practices that have a more visible common impact, such as the use of a biased testing procedure or a single decision-maker, and that they will seek to file smaller, focused class actions that more easily meet the Dukes commonality standard. The Supreme Court’s decision also teaches that employers may consider taking several steps as a means of reducing class action risks, and the risk of employment litigation more generally: Review pay and promotion practices and decision-making subjective or not to determine whether they are adversely impacting any protected class. --


Consider eliminating subjective decision-making processes by clearly linking promotions, demotions, raises or bonuses to objective goals and job performance. Despite Wal-Mart’s win, subjective decision-making in the hands of the wrong supervisor can lay the groundwork for employment litigation. Alternatively, carefully tailor any processes that include subjective decision-making so that managers make effective, lawful decisions, and provide effective training to ensure that managers understand their legal obligations. Have an appeal process for employees who are considered, but not selected, for promotion or training opportunities. The ability to review challenged decisions at the early stages may help fend off lawsuits, including class actions. Similarly, take employee complaints seriously, document the company’s response and follow up, and promptly address each issue/complaint on its merits. As a general matter, implement corporate policies that have the purpose and effect of increasing diversity in the workplace and preventing discriminatory practices. Michete Ballard Miller is a shareholder in Miller Law Group, a 22-attorneyfirm in San Francisco that devotes its practice exclusively to representing business in all aspects of California employment law and related litigation. Ms. Miller currently serves as Vice Chair of the FDCC’s Employment Practice and Workylace Liability Section.


Remember the difference between a boss and a leader; a boss says “Go!” a leader says “Let’s go!” E.M Kelly

The FDCC’s Funny Orders of2Oll I



A leader leads by example, whether he intends to or not. A uthor Unknown’—

It is important in our daily lives, both personally and professionally, to remember the important things in life. We all, as lawyers, partners and senior members of our companies, lead by example. We thought that we would share this Order, from United States District Judge Sam Sparks, who sits in the Western District of Texas on his idea of a “kindergarten party: for lawyers”

STAMPED AND FILED..................


a — St


ZU,wr’ 2.



4 Fb

ThERESA MORRIS, WIFE OF 1 BOB MORRIS Pbintiff, Case Nos. A.1h-MC-i12-SS A-il -MC-7i3-SS A-i1-MC-714-SS A-il -MC-? 15-55



OR!) ER BE rr REMEMBERED on Ihis day ‘he Ctnr( revEewed the fiLes m [he


and iio nhm ihe foItuwcig opinioi an. orcLcn. Non-parties Lance Langford. Erik hoover, and &igham Oil & Gas, L.P. qnsh iubpoenas isued tu thc2r on WlaJfofJonaFhan L. Wuods.


the Court (0

relation to a rnttr currenIly

pending in Lile United States Disriet Cmzri ibr the Western Uss Ltyecce.OousDivis[on. Weaure the suhpoe


s;ere not proper]


of LmLisiar2a,

scncd, are nvcly bread and

unduly burdensome, and s&k privilcgnl mLotmatLotL En rcsponse,. the Couft ssues ¶hc ö[[awin jnvT!atina of its own:

(heel hgs arid Salutations! 1 SEPTEMBER 1,2011, it 10:00 You are invited to a kindcTgartcn party oa THURSVAY am. in Courijooni

ci the [mEted States Courthuuse. 2(X) W. Eighth Street. Austin, Tvxa.s.

I &; 1





‘ill -

The panv wifl kawie many exciting and mformntive lessons, meludmg •

[kw to ieieflor and curntnunicae nih a bwyc

How lo vc1ter into ieasonablc tgremeivs about deposition dates

flow to kink deposidons hi reasustabLe subject macr

Why it is neither ewe nor cle!er o alempi to quash a sctbporms :orlechnical fail us oLsenrec

when nOtite

is asonably given: and

An advanced seminar on not wasting [ho time cia b’asy fëdeaI jdgc and his siaff

because you arc untthk lo practice Law at the cveL of a irst year Law t-adem. [nvitation to this ecciwive egeri: is not RSVP. Please retneatiberto brnu! à stick iLLOC1? Lite linied States Marshals have beds avaiLahe if necessary, so you 3rayish to bLing a tooihbrush n case [he party runs late. AvcoTding]y. 11 IS ORDERED that defètse vounsc Jonathan L Woods. aid movants’ auoxriey TravIs Barton. shall appear in Coutiroom 2itheUrü1ed States Loni1hoisc. 200W, Eighth Street Austin. Texas. on THURSDAY SFPTFMiER I, 2011., at 10:01) a.mi• for a memor.ahLe and ex[iling event

IT IS FINALLY ORDER RI) that M Barton is rcsponsih]e for noli ving Mr. Woods of this order by providing him with a copy by mart or lax on this dale.

SiGNED this the 4


day of Aucust 20 LI.


ti ‘[3



qLu%ii ;r:IiiIJhTrp


’ 1 p.

NLRB DEVELOPMENTS IMPACT NON- UNION WORKPLA CES By Michele Ballard Miller ofMiller Law Group Non-union and union employers alike should take notice of two new developments from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRI3). Recently, the NLRB issued a rule requiring that all employees be informed of their National Labor and published a memorandum 4 Relations Act (NLRA) ri hts analyzing when discip me or employee social media conduct violates the NLRA. Here is an overview of what corporate counsel should know. New Notice Requirement The NLRB finalized a rule requiring employers to post a new workplace notice by November 14, 2011 (which was extended to r 31, 2012), informing employees of their rights under 3 Januar the NLRA. The poster informs employees that the NLRA guarantees their right to organize, to form, join or assist a union, to bargain collectively, and to engage in other protected concerted activity. It also provides examples of employee rights and employer and union misconduct and includes information on how employees can contact the NLRB.

Making a difference....

The posting requirement applies to private-sector union and non-union employers, with the exception of agricultural, railroad and airline employers. Federal contractors are also covered by the rule but will be deemed in compliance if they post the existing U.S. Department of Labor notice required by Executive Order 13496 (“Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act”).


The NLRB notice must be physically posted in a conspicuous area where it can easily be seen and read by employees. In addition, an employer must electronically post the notice if it , typically communicates personnel rules and policies to 1 employees electronically, whether via the internet or an intranet. The employer can electronically display an exact copy of the poster or provide a link labeled “Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act” to the NLRB’s web site.




‘III —— —


— -


The notice must be posted in English, and where 20 percent or more of an employer’s workforce is not proficient in English and speaks a language other than English, the employer must post the notice in that other language. If two or more groups comprising at least 20 percent of the workforce speak different languages, the employer must either physically post the notice in each of those languages or post the notice in the language spoken by the largest group of employees and provide a copy in the other language(s) to each of the other employees.


The NLRB has made the poster available in both English and Spanish (and is currently translating the poster information into “26 other commx gd langjges”). The poster can be downloaded from the NLRB’s website and must be displayed on 11x17 inch paper or on two 8x11 inch pages taped together. It can be in color or black and white. Employers can also order hard copies from the NLRB or a commercial poster service. Failure to post the notice may constitute an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. The NLRB will not initiate an enforcement action on its own for a failure to post, but could investigate cases based on complaints by employees or other parties. On a final note, legal challenges to the new rule are expected, challenging the NLRB’s authority to issue an employee notice rule. But in the meantime, employers should be ready to comply with the notice requirement come November. The new poster could trigger increased interest in union organizing in non-union workplaces, as well as an increase in complaints from non-union employees about work rules that may run afoul of the NLRA according to the information on the poster. As a proactive measure, these employers should review their workplace policies and procedures on matters such as solicitation, distribution, and confidentiality to ensure, to the extent possible, that they are not in conflict with the NLRA. More information about the poster is available on the NLRB’s website at www.nlrb.gov/. Report on Disciplinefor Social Media Activity In other developments, the NLRB has issued a memorandum discussing the resolution of cases handled by the agency’s Division of Advice concerning the application of the NLRA to employee Facebook, Twitter, and other social media activity a topic that has been making headlines all year. The report looks at whether employees who were disciplined for social media postings were engaging in protected concerted activity as opposed to airing individual gripes such that the discipline interfered with the workers’ NLRA rights. The report also identifies social media policy terms that the agency may consider overbroad absent policy language making clear that the provisions do not apply to activity protected by the NLRA. The full report, which is available on the NLRB’s website, is recommended reading for companies looking to implement or revise their social media policies. --



• 1 :








bJJ (



March 3-10, 2012 WINTER Meeting 2012 Waldorf Astoria Arizona Biltmore Phoenix, AZ July 28Aiuisf 4. 2012 ANNUAL Meeting 2012 The Fairmont Chateau Whistler Whistler, British Columbia March 2-9, 2013 WINTER Meeting 2013 The Westin La Cantera Resort San Antonio, Texas July 28-August 4,2013 ANNUAL Meeting 2013 The Broadmoor Colorado Springs, Colorado --

March 1-8, 2014 WINTER Meeting 2014 Marriott Marco Island Beach Resort Golf Club & Spa Marco Island, Florida


July 26-August 2,2014 ANNUAL Meeting 2014 Silverado Resort Napa Valley, California

I Do notfollow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

‘-‘Harold R. McAlindon

I ,



If you have any suggestions for

program ideas, newsletter topics, new member nominations, hot cases or articles, please contact Elizabeth Lorell or one of the Vice Chairs. Also, please send us news concerning you or

CHAIR Elizabeth F. Lore!! Gordon & Rees, LLP New Jersey Tel. No.: (973) 549-2506 elorell(gordonrees.com VICE CHAIR Michele Ballard Miller Miller Law Group San Francisco, California Tel. No.: (415) 464-4300 mbm(milIerlawgroup.com VICE CHAIR John Quinn Manier & Herod Nashville, Tennessee Tel. No.: (615) 242-4203 [email protected] VICE CHAIR

Anthony .L Zarillo Bevan, Mosca, Guiditta & Zarillo, PC Basking Ridge, New Jersey Tel. No.: (908) 753-8300 Ext. 24 [email protected]

your practice. If you have had a trial victory, an article, an announcement or other good news you would like us to include in our Section’s newsletter, please let us know. In short, help all of us get to know each other as teamwork is what will propel our Section forward!

zir I

DID YOU KNOW THAT.... A website, The Judicial View (https :Ilwww.j udicialview.com/Law-Review), compiles legal information including articles published in law journals. The Federation Quarterly is one of the journals that the website follows and provides links to the articles. Recently, the Top 10 articles read on The Judicial View are all articles written by FDCC members and published in The Quarterly (including our Section ‘s Munich 2010 paper, “Sex, Lies & Videotape: Cyber Liability Issues in a Digital World’9! This statistic is a testament to the high quality of our members’ legal knowledge and writing skills.

Suggest Documents