Monthly Archives: January 2011

January 26, 2011

Precedent Regarding the Scope of Workplace Internet Posting Policies Delayed

by A. Dean Bennett

Employers may have to wait for another case for precedent regarding workplace internet posting policies.  In October 2010, the NLRB filed a complaint against the American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., after the company fired an employee who made disparaging comments on Facebook about her workplace and boss. 

The Complaint alleged violation of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act that protects workers’ rights to “self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representation of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining of other mutual aid protection.”

At issue in that case was an employer’s policy, which stated “Employees are prohibited from making disparaging, discriminatory or defamatory comments when discussing the Company or the employee’s superiors, coworkers and/or competitors.” 

Many commentators expected the new, more employee friendly NLRB, to conclude that such a broad policy was unlawful because it prohibits protected speech.  But today, the parties to that case called off a hearing and appear to be engaged in settlement talks. 

It might be time to revisit your workplace internet posting policies.  Is your policy so broad that it prohibits discussion about wages and working conditions?  If so, your policy may be unlawful.  Although a court has not expressly decided the issue, plaintiffs’ counsel are on notice that the argument and legal theory has some traction. 

January 22, 2011

Understanding the Idaho Trade Secrets Act and its Relevance to Former Employees

by Nicole C. Snyder

It is often concerning when an employee is discharged or quits her job and goes to work for a competitor.  In the absence of a non-competition agreement, the former employer may claim that the employee has stolen trade secrets and used them in her new job.

Idaho has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified under Idaho Code § 48-801, et seq.  The Act prohibits the misappropriation of “trade secrets,” defined as:

[I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, computer program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy… .

If an employer claims a former employee has violated the Trade Secrets Act, is the claim likely to succeed?

Maybe. It is important for employers to recognize that there are significant limitations on the protections against former employers under the Trade Secrets Act.  In a very recent case, Wesco Autobody Supply, Inc. v Ernest, the Idaho Supreme Court recited this language from a prior decision:

[T]he legislature did not intend the [Idaho Trade Secrets Act] to be read so broadly as to preclude the hiring of an employee from a competitor; the legislature also did not intend that merely hiring a competitor's employee constitutes acquiring a trade secret.”  Instead, “[a]n employee will naturally take with her to a new company the skills, training, and knowledge she has acquired from her time with her previous employer. This basic transfer of information cannot be stopped, unless an employee is not allowed to pursue her livelihood by changing employers.

In the Wesco case, the Court found it was possible that one employee violated the Trade Secrets Act when the employee took and used the former employee’s customer lists, lists showing customer buying preferences, history of customer purchases, and custom paint formulas.  The Court, however, was unwilling to say that other employees had violated the Trade Secrets Act based merely on the fact that their customer relationships caused the customers to follow the former employees to a new employer.

In sum, if a company’s leadership is worried about the risk of employees working for a competitor and using the knowledge and relationships they built for a competitor’s advantage, then reliance on the Idaho Trade Secrets Act may be inadequate.  In such cases, it is important to utilize carefully-crafted noncompetition agreements.

January 21, 2011

DRI 2011 Employment and Labor Law Seminar

I am member of DRI and will be speaking at the 2011 DRI Employment and Labor Law Seminar.  Anyone that may have interest in attending can link to http://events.linkedin.com/DRI-2011-Employment-Labor-Law-Seminar/pub/538168 for more information.  The seminar will be held at the Westin Kierland in Scottsdale, AZ from Wed, May 18 to Fri, May 20.

Steven M. Gutierrez–http://www.hollandhart.com/peopleprofile.cfm?IDName=PersonID&ID=5174.