Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Clauses In Severance Agreements Violate NLRA

Just about every single severance agreement I've ever seen in 36 years of law practice have two standard clauses: the former employee cannot disparage the former employer, meaning they can't say anything negative about the company or its employees and frequently to a broader list of entities; and a confidentiality clause prohibiting the former employee from telling anyone about the agreement, frequently prohibiting them from even saying it exists.

Well, the National Labor Relations Board has just ruled that both provisions are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

Regarding nondisparagement: 

This far-reaching proscription—which is not even limited to matters regarding past employment with the Respondent— provides no definition of disparagement that cabins that term to its well-established NLRA definition under NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co.), supra, 346 U.S. at 477. Instead, the comprehensive ban would encompass employee conduct regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment of the Respondent. As we explained above, however, employee critique of employer policy pursuant to the clear right under the Act to publicize labor disputes is subject only to the requirement that employees' communications not be so “disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue as to lose the Act's protection.” Emarco, Inc., 284 NLRB 832, 833 (1987).  

Further, the ban expansively applies to statements not only toward the Respondent but also to “its parents and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.” The provision further has no temporal limitation but applies “[a]t all times hereafter.” The end result is a sweepingly broad bar that has a clear chilling tendency on the exercise of Section 7 rights by the subject employee. This chilling tendency extends to efforts to assist fellow employees, which would include future cooperation with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices with regard to any matter arising under the NLRA at any time in the future, for fear of violating the severance agreement’s general proscription against disparagement and incurring its very significant sanctions. The same chilling tendency would extend to efforts by furloughed employees to raise or assist complaints about the Respondent with their former coworkers, the Union, the Board, any other government agency, the media, or almost anyone else. In sum, it places a broad restriction on employee protected Section 7 conduct.  We accordingly find that the proffer of the nondisparagement provision violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Our scrutiny of the confidentiality provision of the severance agreement leads to the same conclusion. The provision broadly prohibits the subject employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person.” The employee is thus precluded from disclosing even the existence of an unlawful provision contained in the agreement. This proscription would reasonably tend to coerce the employee from filing an unfair labor practice charge or assisting a Board investigation into the Respondent’s use of the severance agreement, including the nondisparagement provision. Such a broad surrender of Section 7 rights contravenes established public policy that all persons with knowledge of unfair labor practices should be free from coercion in cooperating with the Board. The confidentiality provision has an impermissible chilling tendency on the Section 7 rights of all employees because it bars the subject employee from providing information to the Board concerning the Respondent’s unlawful interference with other employees’ statutory rights. See Metro Networks, supra, 336 NLRB at 67.

Regarding confidentiality:

The provision broadly prohibits the subject employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person.”  The employee is thus precluded from disclosing even the existence of an unlawful provision contained in the agreement. This proscription would reasonably tend to coerce the employee from filing an unfair labor practice charge or assisting a Board investigation into the Respondent’s use of the severance agreement, including the nondisparagement provision. Such a broad surrender of Section 7 rights contravenes established public policy that all persons with knowledge of unfair labor practices should be free from coercion in cooperating with the Board.  The confidentiality provision has an impermissible chilling tendency on the Section 7 rights of all employees because it bars the subject employee from providing information to the Board concerning the Respondent’s unlawful interference with other employees’ statutory rights. See Metro Networks, supra, 336 NLRB at 67.

The confidentiality provision would also prohibit the subject employee from discussing the terms of the severance agreement with his former coworkers who could find themselves in a similar predicament facing the decision whether to accept a severance agreement. In this manner, the confidentiality provision impairs the rights of the subject employee’s former coworkers to call upon him for support in comparable circumstances. Additionally encompassed by the confidentiality provision is discussion with the Union concerning the terms of the agreement, or such discussion with a union representing employees where the subject employee may gain subsequent employment, or alternatively seek to participate in organizing, or discussion with future co-workers.  A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment. Id. Conditioning the benefits under a severance agreement on the forfeiture of statutory rights plainly has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of those rights unless it is narrowly tailored to respect the range of those rights. Our review of the agreement here plainly shows that not to be the case. We accordingly find that the proffer of the confidentiality provision violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 

So, is this a magic wand? Did such provisions suddenly go poof? No. Management side will fight this decision like cornered rats. Still, keep an eye out for further developments. In the meantime, you might want to file with NLRB if your employer presents you with any such provisions in a proposed severance agreement.

Trump Campaign Noncompete Agreements May Break Multiple Laws

You may have seen that the Trump campaign is imposing confidentiality and noncompete agreements on its staffers that are quite broad. Here's the agreement, posted online. It's a great example of what not to do. Let's take a look at what they did wrong for a moment.

Election law: The agreement is with The Trump Organization. If Wikipedia has it right, “The Trump Organization (formerly Elizabeth Trump & Son) is an American privately owned international conglomerate based in Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It serves as the principal holding company for Donald Drumpf's [okay, so some John Oliver fan has been playing with the site, but I think the rest is correct] business ventures and investments.” So they may well be violating election laws here because it is the campaign, not “the Trump Organization” that should be hiring campaign workers. If they work for The Trump Organization, then there are some serious in-kind contribution issues going on. On the other hand, if they are being paid by the campaign, why is the campaign paying for legal issues relating to his family members? I wonder if the Federal Election Commission has already opened an investigation on this.

National Labor Relations Act: Onto the employment law issues, NLRB has been cracking down on non-disparagement agreements that seem to prevent or discourage criticism of management during employment, and this one does that. An example is Quicken Loans, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 141 (June 21, 2013), where an administrative law judge found that a similar provision would have a chilling effect on employees who wanted to discuss working conditions. The judge said the "line between lawful and unlawful restrictions is very thin and often difficult to discern." The judge found the agreement language violated the law and that prohibiting disclosure of "non-public information relating to . . . the Company's business, personnel . . . all personnel lists, personal information of co-workers . . . personnel information such as home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, addresses and email addresses" would hinder employees' exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Antitrust: I don’t know what level employees that The Trump Organization is imposing these agreements at, but there can be serious antitrust issues if the company has no legitimate interest to protect other than preventing competition. The New York AG has been going after companies imposing noncompetes with no legitimate interest. A good example is the Jimmy John’s case. The FTC and Department of Justice also have antitrust divisions that could scrutinize a noncompete agreement imposed solely to prevent competition. Here are some pieces I’ve written on topic:

Non-Compete Agreements Can't Be Used to Prevent Competition

Low-Wage Worker Noncompetes? Can You Say Antitrust?

The White House Wants Your Horror Stories on Noncompetes and Wage Collusion

I'm not the only one who has noticed problems with these agreements. For an excellent analysis of some legal problems with this agreement, take a look at Robert Teachout's piece on SHRM's website, Trump Noncompete Agreement Draws Criticism.

So if you're drafting a noncompete or confidentiality agreement, the Trump campaign's agreement is a good example of what not to do. If your employer's agreement looks a lot like this one, it may be time to get some legal advice from an employee-side employment lawyer in your state, because the laws on noncompete agreements vary from state to state.

Why Should Employers Have All the Injunction Fun? How To Stop Your Ex-Employer From Harassing You

By: Associate Attorney who now chooses to be anonymous, Donna M. Ballman, P.A., Employee Advocacy Attorneys

When you leave a job and start working somewhere else, you may be greeted with a letter from your former employer threatening legal action against you unless you quit your new job. The ex-employer may claim you are bound by a non-compete agreement, non-solicitation agreement, or a confidentiality agreement. Your ex-employer may allege that you were privy to trade secrets or other confidential information and claim you are forbidden from working for the new employer, because it is a competitor of your ex-employer. (Ms. Ballman has tackled the ins and outs of these agreements in length in prior posts, so I will not waste your time explaining these dreadful contracts).

Most employees who get letters like this are forced to quit the new job, usually because they cannot afford to defend against a lawsuit if the employer makes good on his wicked promise. However, you may be able to get an injunction against the employer’s anti-competitive and restrictive actions.

An injunction is a court order that would require your former employer to perform an act or restrain the employer from acting in a particular way. In order get a court to issue an injunction, the you’ll have to prove (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm, (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest.

Almost every state has an antitrust statute, or similar law, prohibiting anti-competitive behavior in the market place. Federal law also provides injunctive relief in limited circumstances. Sometimes these antitrust statutes specifically permit injunctive relief against the types of behavior discussed above. For instance, when a person violates Florida’s Anti-Trust Law, the aggrieved party is entitled to injunctive relief against threatened loss or damage and even authorizes attorney's fees and costs to a plaintiff who substantially prevails on such a claim.

Make sure you check your local state statute to see if similar relief is available. Some states do not have antitrust laws, others only have criminal penalties for antitrust violations, and some only permit a civil action to be brought by the state attorney general.

It is common for employers to move for injunctions against ex-employees it believes are violating non-compete agreements and the like. This is usually because antitrust laws, such as Florida’s, have specific provisions providing that the violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of that covenant. This makes it much easier for the employer to obtain an injunction. However, non-compete laws are an exception to anti-trust laws. They are only enforceable if they are supported by a legitimate business interest, not expired, not over-broad, and that satisfy other requirements that vary from state to state.

Normally, proving “irreparable injury” is an uphill battle. In most cases, the irreparable injury must be immediate. This is probably why many employees have not been successful in getting courts to issue injunctions against former employers. However, it is a positive sign for employees that state law makers have drafted these statutes providing injunctive relief. It demonstrates that legislators recognize the importance of preventing monopolies. This means you may be able to persuade a court to enjoin your employer if it tries to restrict you from freely working and competing in the marketplace.

If you believe your ex-employer’s actions may be considered an illegal restraint on trade or commerce, you should contact an employee-side employment attorney in your state. Proving the elements for injunctive relief and antitrust violations can be difficult and you should have an attorney assist you.

If you are successful in getting the injunction, the Court will attempt to maintain the status quo. This means, for the time being, no more pesky letters from your ex-employer. You may now freely enjoy your new job without your ex trying to ruin it all for you.

Non-Compete Agreements Can't Be Used to Prevent Competition

Whether you work in the copy room or in a corner office, you may have been presented with something called a Non-Competition Agreement. Or maybe it was called something sneakier, like a Confidentiality Agreement or Intellectual Property Agreement. Whatever it was called, it said you can't work for a competitor of the company for a year or two after you leave.

If you haven't been forced to sign one yet, beware. They're all the rage with management these days. Physicians, managers, executives, professionals and employees are often given the choice: sign or be fired.

While companies claim all kinds of reasons why they want a non-compete agreement from their employees, there's only one reason they really want it: to prevent a competitor from luring you over to work for them. They want to do everything they can to inhibit and prevent competition. But they will almost never admit that's the real reason.

Why not? Because preventing competition is the one reason that will never, ever justify a non-compete agreement.

While every state has different laws regarding enforceability of noncompetes, most allow them in some form or other. I'll use Florida's as an example, since I'm most familiar with it.

Florida law says:

542.18 Restraint of trade or commerce.—Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.

 This law is similar to the Federal equivalent, the Sherman Antitrust Act, which makes all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade illegal. There are both civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Sherman Act and the Florida antitrust law.

The Florida noncompete statute is a very specific exception to the antitrust laws. It says, in part:

542.335 Valid restraints of trade or commerce.—

(1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business, is not prohibited. In any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant:

 

(a) A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.

 

(b) The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant.

 
The statute sets out some things the legislature considers legitimate interests, such as trade secrets, substantial relationships with customers and client goodwill. But preventing competition is not a legitimate interest to protect.

If your employer doesn't have a truly legitimate interest to protect, then they are violating antitrust laws by enforcing or trying to enforce a non-competition agreement. Unless you're the holder of the company's secret recipe, you might want to talk to an employment lawyer in your state about defenses you have to your noncompete obligations before you decide you have no choice but to step out of your industry for a year or two.

Your Ex-Boss Wants You In Jail

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend recently. Not only are former employers suing ex-minions, but they’re trying to have them tossed in jail. That’s right: quit and go to jail, especially if you go to work for a competitor. The criminalization of employment law shows just how hostile employer-employee relations have gotten.

Here are some laws your employer might try to prosecute you under:  

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: This is a law that was geared to hackers. Basically, it says if you access a computer without authorization, or if you exceed your authorization, you can go to jail. An employer recently tried to claim that an employee who used his authorized access to download customer contact lists violated this law. Fortunately, the 9th Circuit said the law didn’t apply to misuse of information employees were authorized to obtain. He had to appeal twice, because the 9th Circuit originally ruled against him. Does that mean courts in other circuits won’t let your employer toss you in jail if you copy something they think you shouldn’t have when you leave? I wouldn’t bet my freedom on it.

The 9th Circuit pointed out that other circuits out there disagree: “We remain unpersuaded by the decisions of our sister circuits that interpret the CFAA broadly to cover violations of corporate computer use restrictions or violations of a duty of loyalty. See United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010); Int’l Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006).”

Your employer wants to make violating your trade secret or confidential information agreement a crime.  

National Stolen Property and Economic Espionage Acts: A computer programmer found out the hard way after downloading the code he wrote for a program that employers are playing hardball. He was convicted under these two laws and had to appeal. The 2nd Circuit said the National Stolen Property Act didn’t apply to intellectual property. It also said the Economic Espionage Act didn’t apply to a product that wasn’t intended for sale, but was only for internal corporate use. Still, employers are successfully prosecuting former employees if they think trade secrets were stolen.

It’s bad enough that employers are making everyone from the janitor and receptionist to their top sales people sign noncompete agreements that limit their right to work for competitors. Most employees don’t have the resources to fight, so they end up out of their chosen field for 1 – 2 years. Now, they can face jail time too.

It cost these employees a boatload of money to defend themselves. Most employees couldn’t afford to fight. I wonder how many employees will end up in jail in other circuits because they couldn’t afford to fight.

Another concern is that employers will use the threat of criminal prosecution to chill whistleblowers from copying information about employer illegal activities. Whistleblowers have a tough enough time and take enough risk for their heroic efforts. They shouldn’t have to risk their freedom in order to bring down a criminal enterprise.

It’s time to urge legislators to make employment laws fair to employees. Nobody should be forced out of their profession or lose their freedom just because they don’t have enough money to fight a bully employer.

Don’t Make Me Gag: Confidentiality of Settlements When The Other Side Blabs

The Herman Cain sexual harassment case brought up an issue that has concerned me for years: one-sided confidentiality agreements. As you may recall before your holiday eggnog distracted you, Mr. Cain settled some sexual harassment cases before he ran for President. The agreements said the women couldn’t disclose the terms of the settlements or comment about the cases. When the press dug up the story, he publicly accused the women of making false allegations. The women were gagged, but could they defend themselves?

When I settle cases, I always ask for mutual confidentiality. That would have solved the problem in this case. If the women were prohibited from speaking about the settlement or saying negative things about Mr. Cain, he should have also been prohibited from doing the same thing to them. I ask for mutual confidentiality for a more common (and possibly South Florida only) phenomenon: HR people getting cute in references and saying, “I need to look at the agreement to see what I’m allowed to say.”

When I’ve carefully negotiated neutral references, so the employer can’t say negative things in job references, that kind of statement violates the spirit of the agreement. It also probably violates the letter, because a neutral reference clause says the employer can only give out dates of employment and job title and no other information. Still, because I’m dealing with South Floridians, I like to drive the point home. As much as I enjoy dealing with some of my opposing counsel, I prefer to avoid unnecessary conversations about stupid things like this.

Let’s say you did sign a one-sided confidentiality agreement and the other side leaks like a sieve. You also agreed not to disparage them, but they didn’t do the same. Can you defend yourself? Here are a few things that might help:

Implied covenant of good faith: Every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. If you are gagged and suddenly find your reputation smeared, they may have violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Waiver: If they’ve blabbed to the press, you certainly can argue that they waive the right to confidentiality. Once it’s out, you can argue that you have the right to defend yourself.

Defamation: If they’re saying you are a liar, that you made it up, and you have proof it’s true, then you may have a case for slander or libel. Truth is a defense to a defamation case, so if you did make it up you’ll lose. If you were telling the truth, then your reputation is damaged and you might have a claim.

Herman Cain gave me one more good reason to ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses to be made mutual. Management-side lawyers should want this too, so they don’t have to deal with the specter of seeing their client doing a press conference about a settlement they worked hard to keep secret. But they’ll say, “I can’t bind everyone in the corporation.”

True, they can’t bind the janitor. However, they can bind management-level people. Anyone who reads the agreement will also read that it’s confidential. And they can caution everyone involved that it’s confidential. So don’t buy the silly argument that they can’t bind everyone.

If both sides have to keep agreements confidential, it’s less likely that there will be Cain-sized problems down the road.

Donna’s Employment Law Predictions for 2012

I’m getting out my iPad’s magic 8-ball app and looking into the future. I see a big year for employment law issues in 2012. Here’s where I think we’ll see lots of litigation or legislation:

Military: With loads of returning military members, Congress will scramble to plug any new loopholes that keep military service people from being protected in their jobs. Look for lots of USERRA litigation when employers realize they don’t want to let the person who has been in the position go when Johnny comes marching home. Without a doubt.

Sexual harassment: Now that sexual harassment has become a hot-button political issue again, watch for attempts to weaken sexual harassment protections. Also watch the federal courts continue to erode what few protections employees have left. Will the Democrats have the will and the ability to stop sexual harassment from becoming legal? Very doubtful.

Retaliation: Retaliation has been hot, hot, hot, and it will continue to be so. Watch for attempts to weaken whistleblower laws, both legislative and judicial. While the courts have consistently enforced retaliation laws, they’ve been reluctant to rule in favor of employees in any situations where there was doubt about the legislative intent. For instance, the Fair Labor Standards Act doesn’t expressly prohibit employers from discriminating against potential employees who have sued former employers for overtime or unpaid wages. Watch for more courts to hold that the word “employees” doesn’t mean “potential employees.” Will there be a public outcry when potential employers refuse to hire people who demanded they be paid? My sources say no.

Bullying: No state will have the political willpower to pass anti-bullying laws, despite the growing evidence that bullying is more traumatic for employees than sexual harassment. It is decidedly so.

Tax relief: The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act will stall yet again, meaning that employment law settlements will continue to be taxed where personal injury cases aren’t. Try again later.

Unemployed: The unemployed will start to get some rights. More states will pass laws protecting the unemployed against discrimination. Employers will get more creative in denying them jobs by using credit checks and other excuses. Eventually, Congress will have to take action, but gridlock is likely in this election year. Outlook not so good.

Wage theft: As more employers decide the way to save money is to fail to pay employees or former employees, wage theft laws will begin to spread across the country. Maybe seeing a few deadbeat employers hauled off in handcuffs will be good for the economy. As I see it, yes.

Noncompete: Desperate employers trying to prevent employees from skipping to competitors who will treat them better and pay more money are using noncompete agreements as virtual indentured servitude. You’d think that elected officials would look at noncompete abuse and side with their constituents, but instead the trend is to give employers even more right to restrict competition. I predict more states will beef up employers’ ability to enforce noncompetes. The good news is that employees with resources will be using antitrust laws and the lack of legitimate interests to enforce to fight back. Noncompetes will continue to be the weapon of choice to bully former employees. Without a doubt.

Confidentiality and trade secrets: Agreements where employees promise to keep employer confidential and trade secret information confidential will go hand in hand with noncompetes as a weapon against former employees. Employees who never signed noncompetes will be told by former employers that working for a competitor would inevitable result in disclosure of confidential information. Will judges side with employees who resist indentured servitude? Don’t count on it.

Employees strike back: Working people and the unemployed will eventually wake up to what is happening to them. They’ll start standing up for their rights and demanding that their elected representatives work for them to restore their right to quit and work somewhere else, to get paid and not have a potential employer hold that against them, and that they be able to work free from sexual harassment. Will they do it in time for the November election? Ask again later.

8 Things Every Employee Should Know About Trade Secrets

You might have read about the suit PayPal filed against Google and two of its former executives, accusing them of stealing trade secrets. But you don't need to be a high-ranking executive to get caught up in a trade secret suit these days. It's common for companies to have employees sign an agreement saying they won’t take trade secrets or confidential information when they leave. Many employees wrongly assume that, just because they never signed an agreement, they can take their employer’s customer list or other confidential information and use it to form their own business or give it to their new employer.

On the other hand, most company information is not a trade secret. Even if you did sign a confidentiality agreement, some information isn’t protected. Whether or not you signed an agreement regarding your company’s trade secrets, every employee is affected by trade secret law. Here are some things you need to know about trade secrets and your employment:

• Independent value. It’s only a trade secret if the very fact of it being unknown to competitors makes it have independent value. In other words, if it would be something a competitor would value, then it might be a trade secret. If you are the safekeeper of the KFC secret recipe or know the formula for Coca Cola, it’s a no-brainer that you have a trade secret. But competitors might find other, less obvious information valuable, such as client lists, manuals, or pricing.
• Kept confidential. Your company will almost always claim that their customer list is a trade secret. Yet many companies brag about customers on their websites. Some even put their whole customer list, pricing, brochures and manuals out there on the web. If the company put it on the web, it can’t be a trade secret. Same with anything they put out in the public. If they put their “secret recipe” into a charity cookbook, goodbye trade secret. If they apply for a patent for the information, the information becomes a public record and is no longer a trade secret.
• Not available through public sources. If the way your company gets its business is through cold-calling the yellow pages, business directories, Chamber of Commerce listings, or Google, then they probably can’t protect their customer list. If, for instance, you sell widgets to airplane manufacturers, your potential client list is a finite one. If you search for “airplane manufacturer” on the web and can generate a potential client list, the courts will probably say you’re allowed to do so when you work for a competitor.
• Not available for purchase. If your company gets leads from a purchased source, the leads are not a trade secret. Let’s say everyone in your industry gets leads by an email alert that they pay to subscribe to, so that when an event occurs that causes your customers to need you, everyone who pays gets an email and the first to contact the customer or the one with the best price wins. That’s treated the same as a publicly available source. It isn’t a trade secret.
• Not ascertainable. Just because the company keeps it under lock and key and thought of it first still doesn’t necessarily make it a trade secret. For instance, if the company compiles a “secret database” of leads, but their compilation consists of buying up yellow pages, Dun and Bradstreet listings, and a chamber of commerce directory and merging them into one list, it’s not hard for a competitor to come up with the same list. The information has to be something they used considerable time and expense to put together, and that a competitor wouldn’t be able to figure out on their own.
• Noncompetes and trade secrets. Noncompete agreements can only be used to protect a legitimate interest of the employer, such as trade secrets. The one thing a noncompete agreement can never be used for is to prevent competition – that’s antitrust and a violation of federal and most state law. If your noncompete agreement says its purpose is to protect the company’s trade secrets, then the company can only enforce it if you had access to actual trade secrets.
• Don’t do it. If you had access to a trade secret, you can’t blog or tweet about it. You can’t email it to yourself and use it. You can’t give it to your new employer. You can’t give or sell it to a friend.
• Bully tactics. Some companies will use an employee’s access to trade secrets to bully them into not working for a competitor or going out on their own. When the employee announces they’re leaving, the company lawyer sends a letter threatening the employee with a trade secret suit. Many employees get scared and stay or get jobs outside their industry because they can’t afford to fight or lose their jobs. Just because you had access to a trade secret doesn’t automatically mean you can’t work in a competing business. Most company information isn’t a trade secret.

If you signed a confidentiality agreement or had access to something you think might be a trade secret, get advice from an employment lawyer in your state about your rights and responsibilities before you accept a job from a competitor or copy the information to use after you leave.

Who Owns My Social Media Contacts and Posts?

Most employees think their social media is none of their employer’s business. So, who owns your social media contacts and posts? While you may think you own your contacts and posts online, the answer may depend on what agreements you’ve signed with your employer.

When you leave, it is possible for your former employer to make a claim to some or all of your social media contacts or posts.

My guest post on Monster.com tells what you need to know about who owns your social media when you leave your job.

Thanks to my friends over at MonsterThinking for continuing to ask me to post. It's such an honor to be asked to guest blog for the nation's best job hunting site (and the one I use when I need to hire employees).

Stupid HR Stuff: Can Anyone Tell Me the Point In Not Giving Copies of Contracts and Policies?

I’m sure this doesn’t apply to you. You’re one of the smart HR people. You have no dumba-- tendencies at all. But maybe you know someone who does this, so feel free to pass it on.

Noncompete, Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreements

At least once a month, I have to request a copy of a former employee’s noncompete, confidentiality or non-solicitation agreement. Why? Because HR refused to give them a copy when they signed it.

My conversation with the client after they get the nastygram from the company lawyer usually goes like this:

Me: “Do you have a copy of the agreement?”

Client: “No.”

Me: “Why not?”

Client: “They told me it’s their policy not to give copies.”

Me: Pounds head on desk. “Then how are you supposed to know what you’re not allowed to do?”

Client: Shrugs.

Better yet, there’s this conversation:

Me: “Do you remember even signing an agreement?”

Client: “I don’t think I did. They handed me a bunch of papers my first day, but I think I’d know if I signed a noncompete.”

So I ask you, what the heck is the point of withholding the agreement? Better yet, I’m having a conversation right now with a company representative where, even after the nastygram, they’re refusing to give me a copy of the agreement. Apparently, I’m supposed to rely on their good word that: a. my client signed anything and b. they agreed not to work in their profession anywhere in the universe for a year. Hello? Anyone in there? It’s your burden to prove the contract exists, not mine.

If you can’t prove it to me, I assume what you’re saying is BS. Because about 1/3 of the time, employers claim that employees signed agreements that don’t exist just to scare and bully them into not working for a competitor. And don’t even think about forging one. I have a handwriting expert, and I’m not afraid to use him. (Yes, this really happens.)

The point of a noncompete agreement is to tell the employee what they are and aren’t allowed to do. If you don’t give them a copy, they have no idea. So you can’t blame them when they accidentally breach, can you? I’d like to hear you explain to a judge or jury how the employee was on notice of their obligations when you wouldn’t give them a copy. Can anyone say unclean hands?

Employee Handbook

Even better than this idiocy is the company that has the employee sign a paper saying they’ve been given the company handbook. When I ask where it is, the employee tells me they didn’t get a copy. Why? The company considers the handbook confidential. Say what?

The point of the handbook is to inform employees what is expected of them. What’s the point of refusing to give it to them? Are you that financially desperate that you can’t afford the $2.50 to copy it for them? Is it worth risking losing out on the defense you have if they fail to report sexual harassment when there’s a published sexual harassment policy? Do you think having them sign a paper saying they received it will make a difference when the jury hears that you made them sign something that wasn’t true? Why on earth wouldn’t you want employees to understand what conduct is prohibited? Why wouldn’t you want them to understand your absentee, discipline, and dress code policies?

Enlighten Me, Please

Maybe someone out there in HR can enlighten me. Because I see this refusal to make copies as pointless and stupid, maybe even dangerous to the employer and its ability to win a lawsuit down the road.

Some advice if you don’t want someone like me sitting across from a table taking your deposition: make sure your employees get copies of everything they sign, and that they understand what they’ve agreed to. Otherwise, how can they possibly do what you want?

Okay. Rant over. For now.