Last year, effective for 2012, New York State enacted the “Wage Theft Protection Act”, amending wage notice requirements and establishing penalties for failing to comply with the new rules.  The Act expands on ways workers must be notified of wages through wage statements while creating additional protections for workers against retaliation for expressing concerns about working conditions.

Wage Notice Requirements

Starting with 2012, the Act requires that employees must be given a pay notice between January 1 and February 1 of each year or at any time a worker’s wages change.  If an employee is hired after February 1, he or she must still be given notice upon hire as well as the annual notice with other employees.

Notices must provide the following information: An employee’s wage, including the rate of wage including the hour, shift, day, week, salary and frequency of payment.  Additionally, the notice must include allowances and whether or not allowances are included in pay, for example tips, meals and other accommodations.  Lastly, the employer’s name, address, telephone number and other reasonably appropriate information must be included in notices.

Continue reading

This past November, the Virginia Supreme Court overruled a 1989 opinion on the wording of non-compete clauses.  In Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer, the court held Home Paramount’s non-compete clause to be too broad, thus reversing a 22-year old decision in which the same court had upheld the same employer’s almost identical language.

Justin Shaffer, the defendant in Home Paramount Pest Control, signed an employment agreement in connection with his hiring by the pest control company in January 2009.  The agreement contained a non-competition clause forbidding Shaffer for two years from engaging in a pest control business in any area that he had worked as an employee of Home Paramount, specifically:

The employee will not engage directly or indirectly or concern himself/herself in any manner whatsoever in the carrying on or conducting the business of exterminating, pest control, termite control and/or fumigation services … in any city, cities, county or counties in the state(s) in which the Employee works and/or in which the employee was assigned during the two (2) years from and after the date upon which he/she shall cease for any reason whatsoever to be an employee of [Home Paramount].

Shaffer resigned from Home Paramount in July 2009, and soon thereafter began work at a competing pest control business.  Home Paramount then filed a complaint against Shaffer claiming he had violated his non-compete clause.  Shaffer responded by filing a plea contending that the provision was legally overbroad and therefore unenforceable.  The circuit court of Fairfax County ruled in favor of Shaffer, holding that the provision was indeed overbroad and therefore unenforceable.  On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed. Continue reading

Kate Tummarello is a Research and Social Media Intern with Mirsky & Company and a reporter at Roll Call/Congressional Quarterly.  Follow Kate on Twitter @ktummarello.  Andrew Mirsky of Mirsky & Company contributed to this post.

Gone are the days of bashing your boss in the breakroom. Now, colleagues gather online to anonymously air their grievances.  A group of disgruntled Demand Media, Inc. employees did just that with their website DemandStudiosSucks.com.  Then Demand Media struck back.

Late last month, attorneys for Demand Media, a content production company whose properties include eHow, LIVESTRONG.com, Cracked.com, typeF.com, Trails.com and GolfLink, sent a letter to DemandStudiosSucks.com asking it to remove content that had been copyrighted by Demand Media.

The media company accused the people behind this censorious website of creating and maintaining “a forum in which users can, and do, post and misuse Demand Media’s trademark, copyrighted material, including confidential and proprietary copy editing tests.”  The letter also referenced “an internal presentation regarding the company’s business plans”, published without permission on DemandStudiosSucks.com.

Immediately, of course, the letter was posted on DemandStudiosSucks.com.

The next day, a user named “Partick O’Doare,” who has posted the majority of the content on the site, published an open letter addressing the claims made by Demand Media’s attorneys.  Although the website removed the content addressed in the letter, O’Doare explained that the site’s creators had not acknowledged any infringement in removing the content.

Instead, those behind the website claimed that their use of the Demand Media content fell under fair use guidelines, specifically protections for commentary and criticism.  “Let’s be honest,” the open letter says, “if ever there was a case of unequivocal fair use, this would be it.”  A statement which should raise flags to anyone who previously felt similarly.

Fair use is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement, but not other claims.  A fair use argument cannot simply succeed on its merits where other legal rights are violated.  Context matters.  So, for example, as seen in some Facebook “suck site” cases, fair use will not protect against a claim of defamation.  Employees who publish company trade secrets and other proprietary information cannot rely on fair use to defend against claims of violations of corporate and employment law.

O’Daire’s letter proudly boasts that the voices behind DemandStudiosSucks.com were fully prepared to defend themselves, citing the fair use cases Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. and Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.

Last month I wrote about an NLRB complaint against a Connecticut ambulance company, American Medical Response (AMR), for wrongful termination of an employee who had complained on Facebook about her supervisors and the company. The NLRB had begun proceedings against AMR for violating the employee’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act, specifically rights to take “concerted activity” related to working conditions.

The New York Times reported yesterday that the company had reached a settlement with the NLRB. In particular, The Times reported that the company agreed to modify its workplace policies “to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.”

It is believed that this case was the first of its kind, where the NLRB took action against an employer related to an employee’s comments and conduct on a social media site like Facebook.

According to the San Jose Business Journal, the company reached a separate private settlement with the fired employee, the terms of which were not disclosed by the NLRB, the company or the employee.

Interestingly, while the case obviously did not get to a full precedent-setting decision, a publicly-acknowledged condition to the settlement was the company’s acknowledgment that outside discussions of work conditions could not be acted upon detrimentally by the company. And without explicitly stating so, these outside discussions obviously included facebook and other social media outlets.