Federal Trade Secret Enforcement Initiative Results in Swift Action

By James P. Flynn

In February 2013, the Justice Department announced a federal trade secret enforcement initiative that rested in large part on encouraging American businesses to adopt best practices in the area and diligent pursuit of civil remedies, and on parallel criminal law enforcement. As noted in the initiative outline, "The Department of Justice has made the investigation and prosecution of corporate and state sponsored trade secret theft a top priority."

Over the last ten days, events unfolded in New Jersey that showed this new policy initiative to be one involving real action. Those events began with a timely filed civil action by Epstein Becker Green ("EBG") on behalf of Becton, Dickinson & Company ("BD") that led to a May 31, 2013, restraining order against Ketankumar Maniar, a former BD employee planning to leave the country in days with BD trade secrets in his possession. The facts developed by BD and EBG, along with the civil court filings, were provided to federal law enforcement officials.

Realizing that the material Maniar had taken amounted to a "tool kit" for manufacturing a soon-to-be-released disposable pre-filled pen injector in which BD had invested substantial time and money, federal agents opened a investigation. They later executed a search warrant to retrieve from Maniar a number of storage devices and, on June 5, 2013, arrested him for criminal violation of 18 USC section 1832. The arrest was widely reported locally, nationally, and internationally after it was announced by the US Attorney for District of New Jersey and the FBI.

Such publicity is itself consistent with the initiative, which makes public awareness of the effort a foundational concept: "Highlighting [such cases and issues] can help mitigate the theft of trade secrets by encouraging all stakeholders, including the general public, to be aware of the detrimental effects of misappropriation on trade secret owners and the U.S. economy in general."

Employers in the tech industry can take some comfort in knowing that the Justice Department’s initiative is more than theoretical. But they must remain vigilant and prepare to respond quickly when a threat arises.

Trade Secret, Proprietary Information, & Regulatory Requirements Concerns Contribute To Veto of New Jersey Social Media Bill

By:  James P. Flynn

The New Jersey Legislature was overwhelmingly in favor of a measure that would have barred employers from obtaining social media IDs and other social media related information from employees and applicants. Click here for A2878 as passed. But Governor Chris Christie vetoed A-2878 because it would frustrate a business’s ability “to safeguard its business assets and proprietary information” and potentially conflict with regulatory requirements on businesses in regulated industries such as finance and healthcare. Click here for the Governor’s Veto Statement. While the Governor thought the bill well-intentioned, he conditionally vetoed it for painting “with too broad a brush,” citing the trade secrets/proprietary information concern as a primary motivation: “In view of the over-breadth of this well-intentioned bill, I return it with my recommendations that it be more properly balanced between protecting the privacy of employees and job candidates, while ensuring that employers may appropriately screen job candidates, manage their personnel, and protect their business assets and proprietary information.”

The Governor specifically recommended the bill be revised to:

  • Create an exception to allow investigation of work place misconduct or unauthorized transfer of confidential or proprietary data to a personal account;
  • Add language confirming that an employer may view, access, or utilize information about a current or prospective employee that can be obtained in the public domain;
  • Carve out of the definition of “personal account” any account, service or profile created, maintained, used or accessed by a current or prospective employee for business purposes of the employer or to engage in business related communications;
  • Eliminate provisions that would create a civil cause of action for affected employees or applicants;
  • Add a proviso stating that nothing in the act shall prevent an employer from implementing and enforcing a policy pertaining to the use of an employer issued electronic communications device or any accounts or services provided by the employer or that the employee uses for business purposes; and
  • Add a proviso stating that nothing in the act should be construed to prevent an employer from complying with the requirements of State or federal statutes, rules or regulations, case law or rules of self-regulatory organizations.

Click here for the bill as revised after the Governor’s veto statement.

These last two provisos are important ones, especially for the financial services industry and the healthcare industry. They are important because FINRA, for example, has laid out certain monitoring and record keeping requirements concerning social media used to communicate with clients and prospective clients concerning potential financial transactions. See, e.g., FINRA Guidance here.

There are likewise data security requirements emerging out of HIPAA and other bodies of law that may require security and monitoring of social media. Click here for a discussion of such issues by Dan Goldman (@danielg280), legal counsel at Mayo Clinic and Advisory Board member to the Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media. In an age of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the consolidation of business and personal activity to a single mobile device, failure to include such exceptions would force employers into hard choices between required monitoring and desired seamlessness of the business/personal transition.

While many states have in the last year adopted such statutes, the interplay between the Governor and the Legislature in New Jersey plays out the competing interests nicely, and hopefully starts a trend toward a more measured approach to such questions. Accommodating these competing interests is not only a legislative challenge, but is one faced by employers and businesses every day.

Affordable Care Act: Important Deadline for Employee Notices of the Health Insurance Marketplace (Exchange) Due October 1, 2013

By Gretchen Harders and Michelle Capezza

On May 8, 2013, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued Technical Release 2013-02 (the “Release”) providing important guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) with regard to the requirement that employers provide notices to their employees of the existence of the Health Insurance Marketplace, generally referred to previously as the Exchange. These employee notices must be provided to existing employees no later than October 1, 2013. This deadline is intended to correspond to the open enrollment period for the Marketplace commencing October 1, 2013 for coverage through the Marketplace beginning January 1, 2014. The Release includes temporary guidance and two model employee notices of the Marketplace upon which employers may rely. The Release further provides an updated model election notice for group health plans for purposes of the continuation coverage provisions under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”) to include information of the health coverage options offered to individuals through the Marketplace for comparative purposes.

Employee Notice of the Marketplace. The Affordable Care Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to require employers to issue employees a notice of the health coverage options available under the Marketplace. The FLSA requirement was required to have been satisfied on or before March 1, 2013; however, given the regulatory delays in establishing and approving the Marketplace, the DOL extended the deadline. The guidance under this Release is temporary through the applicability date of October 1, 2013, but may be relied upon until future guidance and regulations are issued.

Which employers are required to comply with the notice requirements?

Whether or not required to “pay or play” under the Affordable Care Act, all employers subject to the FLSA must provide the employee notice. The FLSA generally applies to employers that employ one or more employees and are engaged in or produce goods for interstate commerce. The FLSA also covers, among other things, hospitals, schools, institutions of higher education and federal, state and local government agencies. To determine whether an employer is subject to the FLSA, the DOL provides an internet assistance tool at http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/scope/screen24.asp.

Which employees must receive the notice?

Employers must provide the employee notice to each employee whether or not the employee has part-time or full-time status. It does not matter whether the employee is enrolled or eligible to enroll in a group health plan. A separate notice is not required to dependents or other individuals who may become eligible for coverage under the plan, but are not employees.

What information must the notice provide?

The employee notice must contain the following information:

  • The existence of the Marketplace;
  • The contact information and description of services offered on the Marketplace;
  • A statement that the individual may be eligible for a premium tax credit if the employee purchases a qualified plan on the Marketplace; and
  • A statement that if the employee purchases a qualified plan on the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution to any health benefit plan offered by the employer and all or a portion of employer contributions may be excluded from federal income.

What are the DOL model notice(s)?

The DOL has provided two model employee notices available on its website, one for employers who do not offer a health plan and one for employers who offer a health plan to some or all employees. The Release provides that employers may use the model notice(s) provided the notice(s) include the information described above.

The model employee notice for employers who do not offer health coverage includes the information described above, as well as an explanation of the impact of the availability of employer health coverage on the employee’s eligibility for subsidies on the Marketplace. The model employee notice does not require the employer to provide specific contact information for the Marketplace in the state where the employee resides, but rather refers the employee to the http://www.healthcare.gov website for contact information for the Marketplace in the employee’s area. This model employee notice requires the employer to provide contact information for the employer, including the employer’s EIN. This is the information an employee will need to include in an application for a premium subsidy on a Marketplace.

The model employee notice for employers who do offer health coverage generally includes the same information as the model employee notice for employers who do not offer health coverage. This model employee notice does, however, require the employer to provide contact information to obtain more information about the employer’s health care coverage. The disclosure requires the employer to state whether the health care coverage is offered to all employees and, if not to all employees, a description of those employees eligible for health care coverage. It also requires the employer to state whether it offers dependent coverage and which dependents are eligible. Finally, the employer is required to disclose whether the health care coverage offered meets the minimum value standard and that the cost of coverage is intended to be affordable. The Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service recently issued proposed guidance to assist employees in assessing whether the coverage offered provides minimum value. See our prior blog post New Proposed Guidance for Determining Whether Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Provides Minimum Value.

The model employee notice includes optional information that an employer may provide to the employee based on the Marketplace Employer Coverage Tool to better understand their coverage choices, including whether the employee is eligible in the next three months for employer coverage, whether the employer offers a health plan that meets the minimum value standard, the premium for employee-only coverage under the lowest-cost plan that meets the minimum value standard if the employee received the maximum discount for any tobacco cessation program, and what changes the employer will make for the next plan year. Although this information is optional, it may be to an employer’s benefit to demonstrate, where appropriate, that its plan is providing minimum value and is affordable.

When must the employee notice be provided and what are the acceptable delivery methods?

Current employees before October 1, 2013 must be provided with the notice no later than October 1, 2013. Beginning October 1, 2013, the employer must provide each new employee the notice at the time of hire, which will be considered timely provided in 2014 if provided within 14 days of the employee’s start date.

The employee notice must be provided free of charge in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average employee. The employee notice may be provided by first class mail or electronically if in accordance with the DOL’s electronic disclosure safe harbor.

COBRA Model Notice. Under COBRA, an individual who was covered by a group health plan the day before a qualifying event occurred may be eligible to elect COBRA continuation coverage. These qualified beneficiaries must be provided with an election notice within 14 day after the plan administrator receives notice of a qualifying event. The COBRA election notice is required to include specific information.

The DOL updated its model COBRA election notice to provide information about the Marketplace for the purposes of informing qualified beneficiaries that they may also be eligible for a premium tax credit to pay for coverage offered through the Marketplace. It also includes clarification on the limit on pre-existing conditions exclusions beginning in 2014. Such information is not specifically required under the Affordable Care Act and should have no impact on whether an employer is subject to the employer responsibility penalties if in fact a former employee obtains coverage on the Marketplace.

The Release provides that the use of the model COBRA election notice completed appropriately will be considered good faith compliance with the COBRA election requirements. The model COBRA election notice does not provide a specific deadline or compliance date. Employers may wish to review their existing COBRA election notices for changes relating to the Affordable Care Act.

Employers have long been waiting for specific guidance from the DOL on the employee notice requirements. Now that it is here, compliance should be addressed well before the October 1, 2013 deadline.

Why the Technology Industry Can Help Build A Better Workplace

By Michelle Capezza

I recently read Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, which includes a call to action for men and women to end gender bias in the workplace.  Yet, Lean In is not only a discussion about gender bias and stereotypes, women being held back or holding back themselves but, it’s a call to action as a society to work together toward equality.  A common question that has followed for many who have read the book is where do we begin; how can we move forward as a society to address the issues that face all of us in the workplace, men and women of all races, cultures, ages, and religious backgrounds.  How do we all, regardless of our backgrounds or position in life, move forward to lead more happy, prosperous, fulfilling lives while delivering to our employers.  It seems insurmountable, and, also unfortunate to say we cannot do anything unless the entire world changes.    But from an economic standpoint, can’t we make changes one business at a time, one industry at a time?

The technology industry seems well-poised to make advancements in this regard as it is an industry replete with intelligent, creative, forward-thinking people and the perfect place to set standards, trends and changes.  The technology industry is also fertile ground for start-up businesses to start from scratch and implement new ways of thinking about getting things done.  This industry can advance the workplace of tomorrow by implementation of progressive workplace policies and benefits while achieving what has yet to be achieved in technological advancements.

The time is long overdue to examine workplace policies and benefits which are already governed by a myriad of employment and benefit laws in the U.S., and find ways to further develop or expand these policies.  Research has shown that one of the keys to productivity and improving the company bottom line is fostering an engaged and happy workforce.  When workers feel valued and able to progress in their positions, they are more likely to contribute their all to the job and the company. Workplace policies alone will not end workplace biases or discrimination, but they can provide the workplace culture and supportive infrastructure that will enable all workers to perform their jobs to their best ability, to have their performance judged based on objective, realistic and attainable goals, and allow them the flexibility to juggle their personal and familial responsibilities in order to be the happy and fulfilled workers they need to be in order to attend to their employer’s demands.

In this vein, and as a starting point, I encourage our technology business leaders to strategically think about the following types of workplace policies and benefits that can be implemented or enhanced in their companies to foster revolutionary change:

  • Creative solutions to the 24/7 workweek (which may include flexible work schedules, shifts or mid-day siestas that can still equate to 40 hours per week minimums)
  • Remote Working Arrangements (which may include certain standards for in-office time)
  • Incentive Compensation Programs based on objective metrics and hours of service
  • Performance reviews conducted by objective third-parties
  • Paid maternity and paternity leave policies (which may include gradual return-to-work programs during the first 3 to 6 months following birth or adoption)
  • On-ramp and off-ramp Programs for men and women to re-engage workers who may have left or need to leave the workplace for a myriad of reasons
  • Business Development and Mentoring Programs to provide roadmaps for business-specific progression tailored to the company’s needs
  • Sabbaticals (which can include time-off for professional enhancement to serve business needs)
  • Wellness Programs (to promote the health and well-being of workers)
  • Dependent Care Reimbursement Account Plans
  • On-Site Child Care
  • Access to long term care policies at group rates

This list is not exhaustive.  Once an assessment is completed regarding the business’ current workplace and benefits policies in effect,  I encourage business leaders to work with legal counsel to determine how to further develop or implement these types of policies and benefits in compliance with applicable laws.  We at Epstein Becker & Green are well-positioned to assist in this endeavor.

Technology has brought us the ability to accomplish tasks that were previously unimaginable.  The technology industry can also help us re-design the workplace of tomorrow.  All businesses can thrive and be more profitable when everyone is engaged, valued and firing on all cylinders.

Emerging Technologies: An Interview with Jonathan Blitt, CEO of aTEXT, Incorporated

By Michelle Capezza and Hylan FensterJonathan-Blitt.jpg

Jonathan Blitt, CEO and Co-Founder of aText, Incorporated, has over 24 years of experience in the application of high technology in industries ranging from software, telecommunications, and network infrastructure and is an expert in the application of multimedia technology to a myriad of operations. In this interview, Mr. Blitt provides his insights into the benefits of leveraging legacy technologies and leading with passion:

What is the mission and vision of aText, Incorporated? On one level, the mission of aText is to take an intimate , interactive, and immediate legacy form of technology and apply it to industries that need to disseminate and collect information in real time. However, the real impact of leveraging this type of completely ubiquitous technology has yet to be tapped. With 97 Percent of all text messaging read within the first 15 minutes of being sent there is no other method of communication that can so consistently reach its recipient wherever they are. The most advanced device found around the world is a mobile phone, not computers, the internet and not smartphones. This became apparent when I visited Liberia upon the invitation of President Sirleaf in 2008. My business partner and I visited Liberia to assist with education reforms. We soon discovered that the lack of infrastructure and a centralized power grid would present huge obstacles to development of any computer-based instruction to the people. We decided then that there had to be a way to find a solution to atext.GIFthis problem. Interestingly the solution came in looking backward not forward. By creating a layer of intelligence to overlay an existing form of technology we were able to reach nearly every person carrying a legacy phone, rather than only those few that had access to more expensive methods of communication. This principle is just as valid domestically as it is on the international stage. Innovation over invention can often open up huge markets to young companies. While our focus is primarily domestic at this time, the need to access people irrespective of infrastructure is a global concern.

How were your communication services recently utilized in Hurricane Sandy? The recent hurricane caused severe power outages and many levels of destruction. Many people found that text messaging was the only form of communication they had with family, neighbors and co-workers to obtain information. aText leveraged this technology with its own employees and was able to be in constant contact with them. In addition, we reached out to several companies and municipalities to offer them free access to our SMS collaboration tool which can facilitate real-time information sharing by and between people working for different organizations via text messaging. From power outages and downed trees to the collection of clothing, food and clean up materials the ability to communicate is paramount to any successful response to crisis. The events of Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that text messaging can be a very viable resource for mass communications during a disaster and this event has driven us to look for ways to develop this technology further to address the needs of all organizations needing communications in crisis, including the healthcare service industry.

What best prepared you for your role as CEO of this emerging technology company? The best preparation for me was being an actual user of text messaging. I travel a lot and see various problems with communication and technology and want to solve those problems. It is important to be passionate about what you are doing and when you actually use the technology you work with every day, you are definitely passionate about trying to find ways to make it better, or ways to use it in different, creative ways.

What have been some of the greatest business and legal challenges in growing your company? The patent process has been challenging as well as navigating the securities laws on investments and disclosures. In addition, it is important to know with whom you can communicate your ideas and technology with while maintaining the security of intellectual property.  As aText grows and explores global opportunities, it will also be challenging to determine the right business partners and navigate the laws of foreign countries.

What advice would you give to other start-up and emerging technology companies? It is important to obtain proper funding for growth and development. Being cash strapped, however, can also help a start-up learn business efficiencies early on. It is also imperative that you believe in what you are doing, be passionate and tenacious about it, and don’t let others tell you what you can or cannot do. Many folks had disregarded text messaging as an effective means of communication. However, text messaging is a powerful, legacy technology that can be extremely useful and vital for communications. The possibilities are endless and the impact will be profound.

Editor’s Note: In today’s fast-paced environment, it is also important to understand the potential legal implications of various communication technologies, including use of social media in the workplace.  Consulting with legal advisors  sensitive to such issues is the best way to tap into the power of such communication tools in a sensible, risk-reducing way.

Katherine Lofft on the Perils of Using Unlicensed Brokers to Connect to Investors

Katherine LofftFrom our colleague at Epstein Becker Green Katherine R. Lofft, on the TechHealth Perspectives blog:

There are myriad opportunities right now for new businesses and talented entrepreneurs targeting healthcare, particularly in the IT sector. It’s an exciting time for people and companies looking to harness the promise of innovation and the power of technology to improve health care delivery, empower patients and lower costs.

However, even the best ideas usually require money to get off the ground. Sometimes they require more capital than the founders or management, or their family and friends, have available. While there are many individuals and institutions around the country with money to invest, it can be hard for the average start-up or emerging business to identify and appeal to them, or to distinguish itself from competing investment opportunities.

In view of existing prohibitions on the use of general solicitation and advertising in private offerings of equity, many entrepreneurs, founders and early-stage business leaders turn to so-called “finders” (sometimes called “brokers” or “promoters”) to access capital. Finders are typically individuals, often with no other relationship to the company, who commit to leverage their network of contacts and connections to help a company identify investors and/or secure funding. The consideration under these arrangements often involves payment of a fee or commission based on a percentage of the funds invested.

Now, you might be asking, what’s the problem with this kind of arrangement? Only this: If an individual is involved in the purchase or sale or securities and receives or expects to receive a commission (whether payable in cash or other consideration, such as stock) as a result of the transaction, the individual must be properly licensed under federal, and often under state, law. The use of unlicensed “finders” or brokers can result in serious consequences not only for the individual finder or broker, but also for the company/issuer.

Read the full post on the TechHealth Perspectives blog

New York Labor Law Significantly Expands the Scope of Permissible Wage Deductions

by Jeffrey M. Landes, William J. Milani, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Dean L. Silverberg, Anna A. Cohen, and Jennifer A. Goldman

New York State has finally codified its position on permissible deductions from employees’ wages. On November 6, 2012, an amendment to New York’s Labor Law (“Labor Law”) will take effect. The amendment expands the list of employee wage deductions that New York employers may lawfully make, so long as the employee authorizes such deductions.

On September 7, 2012, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the legislation that he introduced, which amends Labor Law Section 193 (“Section 193”), relating to permissible deductions from employees’ wages. Currently, the Labor Law expressly prohibits deductions from wages, with limited exceptions. Over the past few years, the New York State Department of Labor has issued several opinion letters severely limiting the types of permissible deductions—essentially forbidding any deductions not specifically set forth in pre-amendment Section 193.

The amended Section 193, on the other hand, includes several deductions that are now permitted and provides employers with the ability to recoup inadvertent mathematical or clerical wage overpayments. The amendment also permits employers to create repayment schedules, via wage deduction, for wage advances to employees. One caveat, however, is that the amendment to Section 193 expires and will be deemed repealed three years after its effective date.

Read the full advisory on EBGlaw.com

Requiring Confidentiality During HR Investigations May Violate National Labor Relations Act

by Steven M. Swirsky, Adam C. Abrahms, Donald S. Krueger, and D. Martin Stanberry

In another foray by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) into new territory affecting non-union workplaces, a divided three-member Board panel found that an employer’s direction that employees not discuss matters under investigation with their co-workers violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) because it “had a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in the exercise of their rights” under the Act. Banner Health System, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012).

In concluding that the request for confidentiality “had a reasonable tendency to coerce employees,” the majority gave no weight to the fact that the request was not tied to a threat of discipline. Instead, without offering any explanation, the Board held that “[t]he law… does not require that a rule contain a direct or specific threat of discipline in order to be found unlawful.”

Read the full advisory online

Internet Business Activities--Are They Now the Bull's-Eye for ADA Public Accommodation Lawsuits?

by Frank C. Morris, Jr.

Two recent decisions involving Netflix again raise the question of whether all online business activities are covered by the public accommodation requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") or whether a "bricks and mortar" presence is required to invoke ADA protections. In late June, in National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Judge Ponson of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts denied Netflix's motion for judgment on the pleadings that challenged the application of the ADA to its video streaming website. The court found that, despite the absence of a bricks-and-mortar business, the ADA's requirement to provide goods and services accessible to the disabled still applied. Netflix has asked Judge Ponson to permit an immediate appeal of his ruling that the ADA applies to closed-captioning on Internet-supplied videos.

Read the full advisory online

NLRB's Scrutiny of Employment-at-Will Disclaimers Signals a Trend to Employers

by William J. Milani, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Dean L. Silverberg, Steven M. Swirsky, and Jennifer A. Goldman

In a move that signals a trend to employers, the Acting General Counsel ("AGC") of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") recently claimed in two unrelated cases that allegedly overly broad "employment-at-will" disclaimers contained in employee handbooks have the effect of chilling or interfering with employees' exercise of their right under the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") to engage in protected concerted activity. As we previously discussed in "Helpful Guidance Summarizing the National Labor Relations Board's Position on Social Media Issues: Two Reports and One Decision" and "NLRB Acting General Counsel Issues Follow-Up Report on Social Media Cases," both the AGC and the Board have focused significant attention on employers' social media policies. Similar to the employment-at-will disclaimer cases discussed below, a principal issue of the social media cases has been whether such policies interfere with employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activities under the Act when such policies are overly broad. Importantly, and as we have reported in the past, the Board's pronouncements affect non-unionized employers as well as employers with unions, since the Act applies to almost all private sector employers—not only those whose employees are represented by unions.

Read the full advisory online