Bottom Line Business Insights : Maryland Business Lawyer & Attorney : Wagonheim Law Firm : Mergers & Acquisitions & Contractual Negotiation

In a disturbing development, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that an employee may take confidential files for the purpose of helping in the prosecution of a discrimination claim. The Court, ruling in Joyce Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, found that the employee’s use of the confidential materials was a protected action for which termination would be improper.

Joyce Quinlan had worked for Curtiss Wright for approximately 20 years when she came to believe that she had been wrongfully passed over for promotion in favor of a male employee. She then devoted herself to the collection and copying of over 1,800 documents from personnel files and project work files to which her position gave her access. 

Selecting documents she believed were helpful to her assertion of gender bias within Curtiss Wright, Quinlan turned the documents over to her attorneys. The documents were admitted at trial and served as the basis for a significant award against Curtiss Wright, including punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the verdict.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court attempted to balance the interests of aggrieved employees with those of employers seeking to preserve the confidentiality of their information.   In so doing, the Court acknowledged the competing interests of each party, stating:

In making these evaluations, the court must be mindful that both employers and employees have legitimate rights. Employers have the right to operate their businesses within the bounds of the law and legitimately expect that they will have the loyalty of their employees as they do so. Employees have the right to be free of discrimination in their employment and the right to speak out when they are subjected to treatment that they reasonably believe violates that right. Balancing all of those considerations is a difficult and important task.

Applying a 7 point balancing test, the Court made it clear that employees are generally safe copying and using an employer’s confidential documents if: (1) the employee acquires the documents in the normal course of his or her job duties; (2) the documents are delivered only to counsel; (3) the employee has a good faith basis for believing s/he has a meritorious case; and (4) the copying of the documents does not interfere in the employer’s business. 

What made the Quinlan ruling so alarming was that it was rendered after a thorough review of applicable federal and state case law. The prospect that the Quinlan decision could be adopted by Maryland and other states should send a shock wave through employers seeking to protect their trade secrets and confidential records. 

While certainly not urging employers to shield illegitimate or improper discriminatory behavior, we would highly recommend that companies review their document management and security policies with an eye toward preventing unauthorized access. Our recommendations are as follows:

1. Ensure that applicable written policies place employees on notice that copying or scanning documents as well as removal of documents from the workplace without proper authorization is a termination-level offense.
   
   
2. Review security measures for personnel files – both medical and administrative – as well as other confidential documentation, including trade secrets, pricing, and customer lists. Determine: (a) who has access; (b) when access is permitted; (c) whether unauthorized access is possible; and (d) how management would know if there was unauthorized access, copying, or removal of files.
   
   
3. Update any security measures, document control technology, and access procedures necessary to ensure that your documents only go where you want them to go.

Sure, I know this may sound a bit alarmist, but consider one thing about document management and security: 

It is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Raise it for discussion on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is no such thing as privacy. You would know that if you were inclined to take even a casual glance at Sports Illustrated as 2010 ran down. The sports world was consumed with stories about Brett Favre’s alleged texts to Jets sideline reporter, Jenn Sterger and now two massage therapists as asserted in recent court filings. Not to be outdone, Jets head coach, Rex Ryan, found himself on the sidelines while all of New York seemingly became obsessed about his wife’s internet persona. 

Now, a Michigan court is preparing to weigh in on the subject of online privacy. According to the ABA Journal, a Michigan man is facing felony charges for reading his wife’s e-mail in an effort to determine whether or not she was having an affair. He was charged under a statute intended to apply to computer hacking, but is read to apply to a circumstance in which someone uses another person’s password, without permission, to, in this case, do a little investigative research.

Given the prevalence of online activities in our society, the issue of online privacy has almost universal ramifications.   A week doesn’t go by when we do not hear a question from one of our clients involving employees texting, using Facebook accounts, or simply shooting e-mails around the office. The legal issues can run the gamut from unauthorized use of equipment to sexual harassment and the creation of a hostile work environment.

But what are the employer’s rights?

There are three statutes which have to be considered when an employer contemplates monitoring the employee’s use of e-mail, telephone or the internet: (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; (2) the Maryland Wiretap Act; and (3) the Maryland Stored Communications Act.   Maryland courts have consistently explained that the purposes of Maryland law on the subject is to prevent the unauthorized interceptions of conversations where one party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

If asked, many employers would maintain that no employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy if company equipment is being used for the communication. But that is not always the case. The question can turn on the type of monitoring at issue and the employer’s goals in taking the offending actions. For example, videotaping employees is different than recording their phone conversations or perusing their e-mail after they have left for the day.

In each case, there may be a legitimate business purpose behind the company’s actions. We’ve all heard the recorded message that “calls may be monitored for quality assurance.” Another reason for monitoring, this time relating to e-mail, is that companies can be sued for copyright infringement or even sexual harassment, depending upon information downloaded by employees onto company systems. 

By far, the best policy for any business where monitoring will take place or even where employees have access to e-mail and the internet is to create and distribute a written policy explaining the company’s right to engage in the specific type of monitoring anticipated by the company. The warning alone, if well drafted and universally distributed, will serve to limit or eliminate the employee’s expectation of privacy. And in the end, that’s what it comes down to – fair warning, reasonableness, and the question of what a normally intelligent person’s privacy expectations should have been.

We’ll just have to see how the court defines “reasonable expectation of privacy” where Brett Favre and the Michigan husband are concerned.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Raise it for discussion on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, we received the catalog from Despair.com. One of their demotivators featured the legend: “Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.” I thought about this as I was working with a client on revamping her company’s employee handbook. We discussed everything from dress code to paid-time-off, to the point where she was so tired that she asked, “Do you think that all of these details really matter? Can’t we be a little more vague and worry about addressing some of these issues when they come up?” 

But the point is, you can't -- not if you want to avoid unwanted results from your employees or claims from DLLR.  As time-consuming as the redrafting effort was, we needed to get it right.  The devil is in the details.

It’s easy for this idea of the devil being in the details to be lost on some. In this economy, we are tempted to rush, rush, rush to get the end product completed. We’re stretched thin, and our only goal tends to be the almighty dollar. However, we have got to stop and be reminded that, in any endeavor, the devil – the difficult part – is getting those small details just right, so that the end result is excellence. 

When we neglect the details, people notice. For instance, in that employee handbook, if we failed to note that jeans were impermissible for office staff, you can bet that employees would notice and would expect that jeans were acceptable attire. What’s worse, the client who walks through the door to your business and sees the office staff wearing the jeans may be turned off by the lack of professionalism. And if you later tried to enforce a “no jeans” policy, or ultimately let an employee go as a result of the lack of professionalism, not having this detail documented in the handbook may allow that employee a legitimate claim for wrongful discharge and/or continued benefits.

Of course, the flip side is also true. Sometimes the more details you tend to, the less that people really notice. But this is a good thing. Allow me to explain:

You come home from work today, check your mail, and find an invitation to a party in a few weeks. The date comes along, and you go to said party, where you eat, drink, mix and mingle for a few hours, and then head home. Do you really think about all of the details that went into the party?

If I were your hostess, here’s what would have gone into that party (at a bare minimum!): 

• 2 hour to select the perfect theme (season, occasion, etc.), date (no Ravens home game, or other obvious conflict), time and location (backyard, fancy restaurant, art gallery, you name it!)
• 30 minutes forming a guest list (taking care to stay within proper friend and family circles and to be as inclusive as possible),
• 2-3 hours to select the perfect invitation (considering everything from the theme to the font, because the invitation sets the tone of the event),
• 30 minutes choosing stamps and timely mailing the invitations (there is such a great selection of stamps out there, you may as well find one that works well with your event!),
• 2 hours selecting decorations (even more if some decorations are homemade or require any kind of legwork)
• 3 hours selecting a menu
• 2 hours shopping for decorations and food (if you aren’t using a caterer)
• 4 hours preparing food (again, if you aren’t using a caterer)
• 5 hours cleaning and/or setting up the space (placecards or nametags… labels to identify food selections… fresh flowers on tables and in the powder room…)
• 2 hours assembling my own wardrobe for the event

And then, the guests arrive.

Paying attention to all of these details is exactly why the party will go off flawlessly. And exactly why not one guest will think twice about everything that went into making the party fabulous. But guess what? It’s exactly why every guest will remember the evening.

Both personally and professionally – whatever your business, give great care to those details! 

• Tuck in your shirt. Look the part.   
• Proofread. Yes, even emails.
• Avoid saying “um.”
• Remember people’s names.
• Make eye contact. Smile!
• Create an outline before your next presentation. Practice.
• Ditch the AOL, Yahoo, or Gmail account and get your business its own domain name! For $75, two guys in a pickup are transformed into a solid company you can trust.

If you take the time to battle those devilish details, they are sure to produce returns tenfold.

I wore maroon, patent leather, pointed-toe, crocodile-printed pumps to work today. They pick up the hint of burgundy in my brown checked suit and truly complete the outfit. They even make me feel more confident as I attend my morning, lunch, and dinner meetings today. 

As I said…the devil is in the details.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link