However, given how many returning service members complain that they have been discriminated against, it seems there are many Sacramento employers who probably don't know that, or at least don't quite know how to best accommodate our service members.
]]> Each year, about 1,000 National Guard, reserve and active-duty troop members come back from service abroad. Of course, we want to support these men and women, but their absence can be hard for their employers, too; suddenly, they have to deal without a skilled worker and, because tours of duty can be extended, do not know how long they are going to have to be without that worker. Sometimes, it is simply necessary for an employer to make something work so he or she can get his or her business needs met.If any Sacramento business gets into trouble with a returning service member, no one involved should feel too bad. Consider this: the federal government is the body that enacted the law against discriminating against active-duty personnel, and yet last year, 18 percent of the complaints filed alleging a violation of that law pertained to work for the federal government. If the federal government has trouble sticking to this policy, then it is understandable that other people will, too.
As we said, everyone here in Sacramento believes in supporting our military, but that doesn't mean complying with laws around the employment of service members is a walk in the park and sometimes slip-ups happen.
Source: The Daily Republic, "Returning military members: Feds not offering jobs back," Steve Vogel, Feb. 22, 2012
]]>San Francisco-based Diamond Foods was going to pay $2.35 billion for Pringles. The acquisition would have made it one of the largest dealers of snack foods anywhere on the globe.
]]> However, P&G instead sold Pringles to Kellogg's for $2.7 billion, meaning Kellogg's has become the world's number two snack food purveyor, behind PepsiCo.Kellogg makes its signature cereals, Keebler crackers and Cheez-Its. Diamond makes Emerald Nuts, Pop Secret Popcorn and Kettle Chips. A food analyst said that given the two company's portfolios, Pringles is probably a better fit for Kellogg's than it is for Diamond.
Because the agreement to call off the deal between Diamond and P&G was mutual, Diamond does not have to pay P&G the contractually agreed-upon $60 million "breakup fee."
Interestingly enough, there is some speculation that Kellogg will now try to acquire Diamond Foods. Snack foods are a $63 billion-per-year industry and Kellogg and Diamond together could take on PepsiCo than could either one alone.
As most Sacramento readers know, Diamond Foods started out as a cooperative of Northern California walnut growers. It's nice to see it has come so far and while business is a dog-eat-dog world, it would be too bad if Diamond Foods were no longer based in the state.
Source: The San Francisco Chronicle, "Diamond Foods calls off Pringles acquisition," Andrew S. Ross, Feb. 16, 2012
]]>According to the EEOC, the federal agency that enforces our employment laws, there were 4,151 claims of religious discrimination filed with the agency during the fiscal year 2011. The number of religious discrimination claims reported to the agency is now double what it was in 1997.
]]> The issues most employees complain about are not being allowed to wear religious garb when they are at work and not getting adequate time off to observe certain religious days.Sociology experts point out this kind of conflict is arising more and more lately because America is getting ever more diverse. There are social factors as well, ranging from the tenacity with which people grasp onto their religion during tough economic times like this to an increased awareness of religious rights at work.
Given how many competing demands employers have to balance, it is understandable that they may be unsure of how to proceed when an employee ask for some type of special accommodation for religious reasons. This is why many businesspeople develop working relationships with employees who understand employment law; it can be very helpful to know to whom you should turn when a question like this arises.
Source: Business Insurance, "Religious discrimination claims in the workplace rising," Judy Greenwald, Feb. 12, 2012
]]>Of the 3 million people who work in computer-focused occupations, 408,000 of them work in California, the most of any state in the U.S. Big firms like IBM and Intel say that if they are to keep jobs in the U.S., rather than sending them overseas, they need to keep overtime costs under control.
]]> Employees counter that they are entitled to be paid for their work, which often includes very long days and, sometimes and in some industries, all-nighters.At issue are the class-action lawsuits employees have brought against major tech employers, claiming that they were expected to work more than 40 hours a week but were deliberately misclassified so that they would not be able to seek overtime.
As is the case with many issues in labor and employment law, it is definitely possible to see both sides of this story. On the one hand, employees deserve to be paid for the work they do and they should not be expected to commit their entire lives to their jobs; they are allowed to have lives outside of their work. On the other, if we want jobs that pay a decent salary to stay in the U.S., we might need to adjust outdated or outmoded laws to better fit the realities of the industry and we can't blame employers for wanting the work they have to get done without it costing an arm and a leg.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
Source: The Kansas City Star, "Overtime bill pits needs of high-tech employers vs. workers," Franco Ordonez, Feb. 7, 2012
]]>Assuming all the corporate law concerns are satisfactorily met, the $341 million deal will close as soon as the Securities and Exchange Commission gives its blessing. However, SureWest is now being "investigated" by several law firms who claim to represent clients concerned that SureWest breached its fiduciary to shareholders for not angling for a better deal. SureWest's CEO said he is not concerned about the potentiality of lawsuits because he is confident future SEC filings will vindicate the company.
]]> The announcement of the acquisition is something of a blow to the Sacramento area because it means there will be one less company headquartered in the vicinity. The announcement of SureWest's purchase followed on the heels of the news that Waste Connections Inc. would be moving from Folsom to Houston. The CEo of the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization called the loss of SureWest's and Waste Connections' headquarters "a big loss."Although SureWest's headquarters is moving, the impact of the deal 600 or so Sacramento-area employees is expected to me "minimal," according to a SureWest spokesman.
Spokespeople for both companies said the merger would allow them to compete more effectively in their newly pooled markets. In particular, the newly formed company is interested in attracting new customers for its cable television and Internet services because demand for the once-core product of landline telephone service is dropping.
Source: The Sacramento Bee, "Roseville' Surewest to be taken over by larger company," Dale Kasler, Feb. 7, 2012
]]>All told, the complaints equaled $455.6 million in relief and represented the concerns for 5.4 million people.
]]> The chief concern reported to the agency was that of retaliatory discharge. Those claims represented about 37 percent of the total complaints. Coming in second were claims of discrimination based on disability, followed by complaints of age discrimination. A Sacramento employment law professional commented that he was not surprised that retaliation took the top spot, but said he was surprised that disability and age discrimination complaints were so numerous.That same industry expert observed one reason why retaliation may rank so high among complaints to the EEOC is that employers are forgetting that when an employee reports an injury or illness, employers sometimes forget that they have to look at such a report while keeping in mind employment law statutes like the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Of course, that is easier said than done. Those laws are famous (or should we say infamous?) for their length and complexity. Reading them can be daunting, to say nothing of understanding them and implementing them properly. That is why many California business owners work closely with attorneys who understand these laws. Having the guidance and counsel of an attorney who works in this field can go a long way towards ensuring you are running your workplace in a fair and legal manner.
Source: The Sacramento Business Journal, "EEOC gets record number of complaints; many were retaliation," Kathy Robertson, Feb. 1, 2012
]]>Recently, a lawsuit was filed in San Jose alleging that many of these companies had a "gentleman's agreement" with each other not to recruit each other's employees. The lawsuit claims this is a violation of employment law because the agreement keeps wages artificially low by discouraging companies from competing with one another for talent and labor. The employees are also unhappy because offers from other companies give them a sense of what they are worth and so helps them establish a bargaining position from which they can demand higher pay or other employment perks.
]]> The plaintiffs included several emails in their lawsuit that include language that seems to indicate that the higher-ups at these tech companies new of the agreement not to poach employees from one another and that they did not want this agreement to be widely known.A spokesman for one of the companies, however, said the emails referred to situations in which the companies were working together on projects and had agreed to temporarily not woo away the employees who were working together. The companies have also pointed out that there is no evidence of any signed "nonrecruit" agreement.
Legal insiders are watching this case closely because it may have a significant impact on how employees are able to recruit and retain the valuable employees they need to succeed in business.
Source: The Indianapolis Star, "High-tech firms fight nonrecruit allegations," Jan. 30, 2012
]]>Bloggers were given gift certificates by Hyundai to provide links to videos of their Super Bowl ads and provide hype for their products. The trouble came when some bloggers did not disclose that they were receiving compensation for the promotional work. When consumers are not made aware that a blogger is receiving compensation for an endorsement, they are being misled, according to the FTC.
]]> Federal regulations also stipulate that endorsements must disclose what kind of authority the person providing the endorsement has to make such claims. Hyundai should have alerted the bloggers to tell readers that they were "experts" or just "consumers."In the end, the FTC did not take punitive action against Hyundai, primarily because they did not aim to "deceive the public." Hyundai is known for having a particularly good record of following regulations. Additionally, Hyundai was not even aware that compensation was being offered when the campaign started and some bloggers decided to disclose they were being compensated anyway.
The lesson to be learned from this incident is that companies need to make sure they are in compliance with all government regulations regarding promotions by installing compliance programs. This is especially important as new regulations and forms of media emerge. With careful attention to regulations, companies will not have to worry about being investigated and punished by a federal agency. Instead, they can sit back and enjoy the Super Bowl festivities.
Source: Law.com, "Super Bowl Ads Meet Corporate Compliance," Melissa Maxman and Robert Magovern, Jan. 24, 2012
]]>Readers in Sacramento might think a decision like that would settle the issue, but they'd be wrong. Evidently, some female employees are still casting about for a reason to sue Wal-Mart for violating employment law.
]]> The women originally sued because they felt they were being promoted more slowly than their male coworkers were and were not being paid as much as male workers were, even though they were doing the same or similar tasks. Sex discrimination is wrong, but it could be argued that these employees had their chance and made a mistake. Taking a second swing at the piñata, so to speak, might strike some as a little opportunistic.Now, groups of these aggrieved female employees are said to be meeting and planning their next moves. Even one of their lawyers has acknowledged that Wal-Mart has shown renewed sensitivity to the issue of gender in the workplace, but that apparently is not enough for these would-be plaintiffs.
Business owners in Sacramento need to remember that plaintiffs certainly have their lawyers, but they have access to attorneys, too. Attorneys who often represent business owners against claims of employment law violations can often be very valuable allies. These lawyers understand employment law and know how courts work, so they can make sure that disgruntled employees run roughshod over you and your rights.
Source: The Huffington Post, "Wal-Mart Faces Long Battle On Sex Discrimination, Despite Supreme Court Ruling," Lila Shapiro, Jan. 24, 2012
]]>That last business venture, though, might be getting her into trouble. Department store Macy's Inc. recently sued her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, over an agreement it entered into with rival department store J.C. Penney Co. Inc.
]]> The heart of this business litigation is that Macy's claims Martha Stewart agreed to sell certain products only through Macy's and is now selling those products at J.C. Penney in violation of that agreement.Macy's claims it signed a 2006 contract with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia that gave it the exclusive right to sell Stewart's line of bath, home and cooking products. Macy's said it recently renewed the agreement's exclusivity provision, so until 2018 it should be the only store selling Stewart's products.
Neither J.C. Penney nor Martha Stewart has commented directly on the lawsuit, though late last year the two companies announced that J.C. Penney would be selling some Martha Stewart products.
It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit develops. Business at Macy's has been on the upswing lately, in no small part thanks to Martha Stewart products, so it will likely be reluctant to see this popular and successful line of merchandise go. Naturally, J.C. Penney would want to offer the popular products to it its own customers, though, so it is not likely to go down without a fight.
Source: Reuters, "Macy's sues Martha Stewart Living," Jan. 23, 2012
]]>Regardless of the company's financial position, it still has some kick in it left. Kodak recently sued Apple, HTC, Fujifilm, Samsung and HTC after those companies allegedly infringed on patents that Kodak owns.
]]> The genesis of this business litigation centers around five patents that help cameras (such as those on smartphones) send images without needing to compress or save them. Kodak claims the companies it is suing have used the technology without obtaining the required permission from Kodak. Kodak has said that Nokia, Motorola and LG have all paid a license fee to Kodak and so are allowed to use the patented technology.This issue is especially important to Kodak because it has reportedly been shopping its portfolio of 1,100 digital imaging patents around in the hopes of raising millions of dollars in quick cash. Obviously, if other companies are getting away with unauthorized use of Kodak's patented technology, then the whole portfolio is not worth much. That could explain why Kodak is fighting so hard.
It will be interesting to see whether these suits make it to trial or get settled out of court. As we observed, Kodak has a big stake in this fight, so it is not an issue that is likely to be resolved easily.
Source: Forbes, "Kodak Sues Samsung Alleging Infringement Of 5 Patents," Eric Savitz, Jan. 18, 2012
]]>Take the case of Pepsi Beverages, one of the largest Pepsi bottlers in the Midwest. It recently announced that it has to pay over $3 million to settle claims that it engaged in racial discrimination in reviewing job applicants. Furthermore, it has to extend job offers and provide employment training to applicants whom it chose not to hire and may have been affected by its allegedly discriminatory hiring policy.
]]> The Midwest branch of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the issue here was a background-check policy that prohibited workers who had been arrested, but not convicted of anything, from ever being hired. Such a policy unfairly affects the black community, according to the EEOC.Employers are permitted to look at criminal histories as they review applicants, but the kind of offenses that make an applicant unemployable must be connected to the work in some way (i.e. a bank could refuse to hire a teller who had been convicted of embezzling, but probably not if he had been convicted of arson). In the case of Pepsi Beverages, workers who were arrested and released or convicted of trifling offenses were turned down, even though their infractions had nothing to do with the work they were seeking.
This is a good example of why man business owners have attorneys review their policies and practices. Having an attorney tell you that your business is doing things properly can provide great peace of mind.
Source: The Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Pepsi bottler to pay $3.1 million to resolve discrimination charge," Dee DePass, Jan. 11, 2012
]]>Sacramento has been trying to develop a dilapidated railyard and has been wanting to make improvements to the blighted K Street Mall for a long time. City leaders thought they were due to receive subsidies in the neighborhood of $80 million to finish these project, but now a state supreme court decision that upholds the legislature's decision to ban redevelopment agencies means that funding might never see the light of day.
]]> This is especially a problem for a few real estate development firms that had purchased projects or entered into agreements with the city with the idea that they would get redevelopment funds. If those funds never see the light of day, it may mean that these businesses are not going to get to enjoy the fruits of their agreements. Or, even worse, it could mean they are left with deals, agreement and land acquisitions that are now unprofitable because the redevelopment money never materialized.In situations like this, it can be helpful to have an attorney who handles business and corporate law whom you feel like you can turn to. A good lawyer can simplify and explain a complex situation and may be able to help you chart your next steps.
Source: The Sacramento Bee, "Ruling threatens millions slated for downtown Sacramento redevelopment," Ryan Lillis, Jan. 5, 2012
]]>Four deputies are suing and three still work for the department. All four are suing separately.
]]> The deputies are suing because they claim that several of them were insulted. One woman, for instance, was told that she was "too old." A second plaintiff, who is of Korean descent, was told he should "go back to Korea."After they filed internal complaints about the alleged discrimination, the plaintiffs allege they were retaliated against. They claim they were forced to work almost entire days without breaks, water or trips to the bathroom as punishment for reporting the improper behavior. They also say they were held back professionally and were transferred several times, apparently without any regard for their personal wishes regarding the transfers.
A Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department spokesperson has denied all the claims, although they are still under investigation by the Office of Independent Review.
Now, egregious misconduct is one thing. If the plaintiffs really were forced to work for 19 hours at a time without breaks of any sort, that is a terrible violation of our labor laws. However, in circumstances involving insults and perceived discrimination, things get much trickier. Subjective personal reactions come into play and it often devolves into a case of "he said, she said." This is why many employers form relationships with attorneys who have experience defending against these kinds of claims. Such attorneys can become very useful when an employer is accused of allowing conduct such as this.
Source: KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Sheriff's deputies file discrimination, criminal conduct lawsuits against department," Jan. 10, 2012
]]>Generally, employers will now only be able to check an applicant's credit score if he or she is applying for a managerial position or for a job that regularly deals with certain confidential information, like bank accounts and Social Security numbers. Laws like this are worth paying attention to because they shape corporate law compliance by changing the way companies must do business to stay in good legal standing.
]]> States that have similar laws include Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut and Washington.A big reason the law was enacted is that there was a fear that people's bad credit histories would prevent them from getting the jobs they would need to earn the income required to get back in good financial standing. A San Diego staffing professional pointed out that if a hiring manger has three applicants to choose from and one has a bad credit score, he or she will likely disregard that candidate and pick from the two who have better credit.
Now, there is probably some truth to that philosophy. But then again, shouldn't employers have an avenue to investigate whether a person is responsible and judicious in his or her personal life? There is a benefit to that, too.
What do you think? Do you think employers should have more discretion to inquire into a job applicant's credit history, or do you think this is an unnecessary intrusion into someone's life?
Source: WHEC-TV Channel 10, "Some states working to block companies from checking credit scores of prospective employees," Jan. 3, 2012
]]>