Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On June 30, 2017, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed a bill into law, Senate Bill 43 (SB 43), that makes substantial changes to Missouri’s employment discrimination laws. The Bill, which goes into effect on August 28, amends the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and creates the “Whistle Blower Protection Act.”

Numerous changes have been made to the MHRA, so the Bill is worth a read.  A few key changes that are likely of particular interest to employers relate to who may be liable for violations, the level of proof required to establish a violation, and the amount of damages that may be awarded.

On April 1, 2015, the US Securities and Exchange Commission brought its first enforcement action against a company for asking employees to agree to confidentiality terms during internal investigations.

Continue Reading

Unpaid interns have increasingly become a hot topic among lawmakers and courts.  Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation which prohibits New York State employers from discriminating against, or sexually harassing, unpaid interns.  New York State enacted this legislation only a few months after New York City passed a law which prohibits discrimination against unpaid interns.  New York City unanimously enacted its legislation in response to a district court ruling in October 2013, which found that an intern could not proceed with a sexual harassment claim because she was unpaid, and therefore, she was not entitled to protections under Title VII or the New York City Human Rights Law.  (Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)).  Although few jurisdictions currently offer unpaid interns protection from discrimination or sexual harassment (only New York, Oregon and Washington, D.C.), legislators in New Jersey and California have introduced bills which would grant unpaid interns these same protections.  The California bill has already passed the State Assembly and is being reviewed by the State Senate.

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court held that the whistleblower protections that apply to employees of publicly traded companies under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also  extend to employees of private contractors and subcontractors that serve those public companies.

The Second Circuit this week overturned the conviction of a pharmaceutical sales representative for conspiracy to engage in “off-label” marketing in violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (the “Act”) in a decision that has implications for “whistleblower” cases brought against pharmaceutical employers by their employees.  In United States v. Caronia, No. 09-5006-cr, 2012 WL 5992141 (2d Cir. Dec. 2, 2012), a divided panel held that the Act could not be interpreted to criminalize truthful “off-label” marketing because such a reading would render the Act an unconstitutional violation of the drug manufacturer’s First Amendment rights.  “Off-label” marketing occurs when a drug or device is approved for one purpose but is marketed for other, non-approved purposes.

At an SEC enforcement conference held last Thursday, October 18, 2012, several SEC speakers remarked that the agency had received an average of eight whistleblower tips per day, for a total of nearly 3000 tips from 45 countries, in the first year of operation of the SEC’s Dodd-Frank whistleblower rules.  The SEC’s revised whistleblower rules, which took effect in August 2011, permit each whistleblower to receive a bounty of 10-30% of all monetary sanctions collected by the SEC on cases associated with the whistleblower’s tip.  To be eligible for a bounty, a whistleblower must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action in which the SEC obtains monetary sanctions greater than $1 million.  This announcement follows the first award (and first denial of an award) of bounty payments to SEC whistleblowers in August 2012.

On March 12, 2012, OSHA issued a memorandum expanding on specific policies and practices that OSHA asserts can discourage employees from reporting workplace injuries or illnesses, and thus, violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act” or “Act”) and/or the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”).  Intended as guidance to both field compliance officers and whistleblower investigative staff, the memorandum notes four programs or practices that, while potentially useful to management as a metric for safety performance, cannot be condoned without careful scrutiny because of the risk they could chill employee reporting of workplace injuries or illnesses.

On May 3, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Tides v. Boeing Co., No. 10-35238, that the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) do not protect employees who disclose information to the media. Although SOX bars public companies from retaliating against employees who report conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes certain types of fraud or securities violations to Congress, federal regulatory or law enforcement agencies, or a person with supervisory authority over the employee, the Ninth Circuit held that this protection does not extend to employee disclosures to the media. Federal appeals courts have previously ruled on press disclosures under other whistleblower statutes, but the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is the first to analyze such disclosures under SOX.

On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which seeks to promote food safety by enacting strict safety standards in the food industry. In addition to the enactment of safety standards, Section 402 of the FSMA ensures sweeping protections for whistleblowers in the industry. The FSMA whistleblower protection applies to any “entity engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing, transporting, distribution, reception, holding, or importation of food.” The anti-retaliation provisions protect any employee of a covered entity who provides to the employer, the federal government, or the Attorney General of a State information that the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of the FSMA; testifies or is about to testify about any such violation; assists or participates in any such proceeding; or objects to or refuses to participate in any activity that the employee reasonably believes is a violation of the FSMA.

Section 351 of California’s Labor Code prohibits employers from taking any gratuity patrons leave for their employees, and provides that such gratuity is “the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for.”  A number of Courts of Appeal have consistently held that this prohibition does not extend to employer-mandated tip pooling -- where employees must pool and share their tips with other employees.  Louie Hung Kwei Lu, a former card dealer with Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., decided to test these rulings.

Though the primary focus of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) is the reduction of systemic risk in financial markets and increased regulation of large financial institutions, Dodd-Frank also contains executive compensation, corporate governance and enforcement provisions applicable to most public companies.  Some of these provisions are highlighted below.  For more insights on the full range of business and legal issues associated with current market and regulatory changes, including the Dodd-Frank Act’s executive compensation, corporate governance and enforcement provisions, please visit Hunton & Williams LLP's Financial Industry Resource Center.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act just signed into law by President Obama, H.R. 4173, 111th Cong. (2010) (“Dodd-Frank”), creates new statutory rights and incentives for whistleblowers and also expands already existing rights, such as under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”).  Now more than ever, clear policies and procedures backed by strong audit, compliance and investigatory functions are critical to managing the anticipated increase of regulatory enforcement and private party whistleblower litigation that this expansive legislation likely will create.

As a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit makes clear, the fact that an employer prevailed against an employee’s Sarbanes-Oxley claim in an administrative proceeding cannot be used to bar a new trial of the claim in federal court.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a former employee’s SOX lawsuit on the ground that it was precluded by an administrative law judge’s granting of the employer’s motion for summary decision.  The Court of Appeals, in a ruling of first impression, held that the lower court erred and vacated its dismissal in Stone v. Instrumentation Lab Co., 4th Cir., No. 08-1970, 12/31/09.

A recent decision of the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia has cast doubt on the view that employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in work email accounts.  Specifically, in Convertino v. United States Department of Justice,  Judge Royce C. Lamberth held that an employee’s communications with his attorney, sent to and received on the employee’s work email account, were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, even though the employer regularly accessed and saved such email communications.