Financial Services Employment Law

News, Updates, and Insights for Financial Services Employers

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

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

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

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

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.

April 2013 Immigration Alert

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

For the benefit of our readers, we have excerpted two issues from our April 2013 Immigration Alert of relevance for employers in the financial services industry:

USCIS Reports That H-1B Cap Is Reached in First Week

On April 8, 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced that it had received sufficient H-1B petitions to reach the annual quota for fiscal 2014.  As most H-1B employers know, the quota is 65,000 for regular H-1B petitions, plus another 20,000 for H-1B petitions filed for foreign nationals (“FNs”) who have obtained a master’s (or higher) degree from an accredited American university. According to the USCIS, it received approximately 124,000 H-1B petitions during the initial, one-week filing period.  The USCIS then used a computer-generated random selection process (“lottery”) to choose a sufficient number of petitions necessary to reach the applicable caps.  The USCIS will issue receipts for those cases and then proceed to adjudicate them.  In addition, the USCIS will return those petitions not selected by the lottery.

Under the “Gang of 8” proposal, the quota for new H-1B petitions would be raised this year from 65,000 to 110,000, and the advanced degree quota would be raised from 20,000 to 25,000.  In future years, the quota for new H-1B petitions could be raised to 180,000 based on a statutory formula, but it could not be increased/decreased by more than 10,000 from year to year.  At the same time, employers seeking H-1B employees would be required to pay significantly higher wages and to recruit American workers through a U.S. Labor Department (“DOL”) website before they could file any new H-1B petitions.

New Form I-9 Becomes Effective on May 7, 2013

On March 8, 2013, the USCIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it had recently revised the Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9”), and that employers must start using this new form by May 7, 2013.  Employers using prior versions of the Form I-9 on or after May 8, 2013, will violate the law and be subject to worksite enforcement fines and other penalties.

To read the full  April 2013 Immigration Alert, please click here.

Announcing Our Expanded Coverage of Whistleblowing and Compliance Law

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

We’re happy to announce that Epstein Becker Green’s Whistleblowing & Compliance Law Blog has joined our blog.  Readers of both blogs will benefit from our coverage of whistleblowing and compliance law, in addition to the financial services employment law topics our readers have come to expect.

This combination represents the addition of more than 40 posts dating back to April 2010, with a focus on Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, the False Claims Act, and whistleblowing-related topics.

In addition, we welcome Allen B. Roberts as a primary contributor to the Financial Services Employment Law Blog. Allen, a founding contributor and editor of the Whistleblowing & Compliance Law Blog, is a Member of Epstein Becker Green and Co-Chair of the firm’s Whistleblowing and Compliance Subpractice Group.  He represents public and privately held domestic and international businesses and not-for-profit organizations in developing and effectuating strategy and policies in employment law and labor relations matters, employment agreement formulation and enforcement, employment policy audits, employment due diligence for mergers and acquisitions, and union relations and maintaining union-free status. Allen leads the firm’s representation of several national and multinational clients, counseling on labor and employment compliance, litigation avoidance and strategy, and case management.

We are also pleased to add Lauren Malanga Casey as one of our primary contributors.  Lauren, a Member of the Firm in the New York office, is actively involved in Epstein Becker Green’s Financial Services Subpractice Group.

If you were a regular reader of the Whistleblowing & Compliance Law Blog, we welcome you to the Financial Services Employment Law Blog and encourage you to join its conversations and get to know the blog’s authors.  You can also follow us on Twitter: @fsemployer.

For those who’d like to automatically receive updates via email, please sign up in the “Subscribe” box, in the right-hand margin. Just be sure to click the confirmation email that you’ll receive to confirm your subscription.

April 2013 Take 5 Newsletter: Five Recent Actions Employers Should Consider

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

The April 2013 issue of Take 5 was written by David W. Garland, Chair of Epstein Becker Green’s Labor and Employment Steering Committee and a Member of the Firm in the New York and Newark offices.

In it, he summarizes five recent labor and employment actions that employers should consider:

  1. EEOC Releases Letter Addressing Wellness Programs and Reasonable Accommodation Obligations
  2. Paying Interns May Not Be Enough to Stave Off Wage and Hour Claims
  3. House Committee Votes Out Bill Prohibiting NLRB from Acting Without a Quorum
  4. New York City Human Rights Law Expanded to Prohibit “Unemployment” Discrimination
  5. New Jersey May Become the Latest State Law Banning Employers from Requesting Social Media Passwords

Click here to read the full version on ebglaw.com

Cease and Desist Letters Enjoy An Absolute Privilege From Libel Claims

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

It is common practice for financial services companies, through in-house or outside legal counsel, to send letters to former employees upon the employee’s resignation in an effort to remind the employee about his or her post-employment contractual obligations to the company, whether through a non-competition agreement, or non-solicitation / non-disclosure restrictive covenants. A recent court decision affirms that companies and their counsel are shielded from liability for defamation that may arise from the publication of those letters due to the absolute privilege protection.

Our colleagues at the Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog have written an excellent summary of the decision in Wendy Murphy v. Living Social, Inc..

To continue reading, click here.

Impact: Employers Brace for Change – Top 5 Issues Facing Businesses, as appeared in Insurance Advocate

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

Allen B. Roberts, a Member of Firm in the Labor and Employment practice and co-chair of the firm’s Whistleblowing and Compliance Subpractice Group, in the New York office, wrote an article titled “Impact: Employers Brace for Change – Top 5 Issues Facing Businesses, as appeared in Insurance Advocate.”

Following is an excerpt:

By popular account, the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) would preserve the base of insureds and extend health insurance coverage to as many as another 32 million Americans. That estimate could be wrong if ACA disrupts patterns and experience of spouse and dependent coverage on employer-paid policies. Much of the political and media comment has focused on mandates, exchanges, and reasons that employers may maneuver to satisfy requirements concerning employee coverage, or drop it completely. Left out of the discussion has been the cost of covering family members of employees and the opportunity to shift employer dollars away from spouse and dependent premiums and place more dollars in premiums for individual employees. If that happens, spouses and dependent children will receive insurance coverage under employer-provided plans only if their premiums are paid by the employee, a household member, or some third party. Otherwise, those family members must obtain insurance elsewhere or join the ranks of the uninsured, something that might have been unimaginable for many of them—and perhaps for advocates of ACA who have considered it a move towards universal health care coverage.

Click here to read the article in its entirety.

The attached file is used by permission from Insurance Advocate - Vol. 124, No. 6 / March 18, 2013.

Second Circuit Finds Individual Arbitration Agreement Acts as Title VII Class Waiver

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

By:  John F. Fullerton III

The Second Circuit has given class action waivers another shot in the arm.  In Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (pdf), plaintiff argued that because she had agreed to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims against her employer, but could not proceed in a class-wide arbitration, she must be permitted to pursue her Title VII pattern-or-practice sex discrimination claim as a class action plaintiff in court; otherwise, her arbitration agreement would constitute an impermissible waiver of a substantive statutory right.   The Court firmly rejected this argument, holding that there is no substantive statutory right to pursue a pattern-or-practice claim in court.  The Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that had refused to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim individually.

When plaintiff was promoted to managing director, she signed an agreement that included a mandatory arbitration clause.  She was required to pursue “any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or based upon or relating to Employment Related Matters,” which included Title VII discrimination claims, before NYSE or NASD (the predecessors of FINRA Dispute Resolution), or, if they declined to administer the case, before the American Arbitration Association.  The agreement was silent, however, regarding the possibility of proceeding in a class-wide arbitration.  Because the Supreme Court subsequently held in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., (pdf) that a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate on a class-wide basis unless it has expressly agreed to do so, and the arbitration provision in question was silent on that issue, plaintiff argued, and the lower court agreed, that “the agreement’s preclusion of class arbitration would make it impossible for Paris to arbitrate a Title VII pattern-or-practice claim, and that consequently, the clause effectively operated as a waiver of a substantive right under Title VII.”

The Second Circuit reversed.  Relying on previous Second Circuit case law, the Court noted that “in Title VII jurisprudence ‘pattern-or-practice’ simply refers to a method of proof and does not constitute a ‘freestanding cause of action.’”  Further, because Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, which governs federal class actions, is only a procedural vehicle “ancillary to the litigation of substantive claims,” the undisputed fact that private, non-governmental plaintiffs do not have a substantive a right to bring individual pattern-or-practice claims in court means that there is “no entitlement to the ancillary class action procedural mechanism.”

The decision is another great outcome in favor of class action waivers.  (We recently reported here, for example, that a FINRA disciplinary hearing panel permitted Charles Schwab & Company, Inc. to maintain its predispute arbitration provision in its customer agreement that includes a class action waiver).   It also sets the stage for the Supreme Court’s pending decision in American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, which, reviewing another Second Circuit decision, will decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts, invoking the “federal substantive law of arbitrability,” to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal law claim.  Depending on the outcome of that decision, expected before the end of the current term in June, we could see a dramatic increase in the use of class action waivers in both the employment and consumer context.

Risks of the Staggered Group Resignation Strategy

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

The scenario of a group departure to a competitor is one that arises time and again in the financial services industry, from trading desks to private wealth management teams.  These cause significant concern and anxiety for the employer from whom the employees depart, but also some concern and risk for the hiring employer.  Often the teams quit all at once, but sometimes, in an attempt to avoid claims of violations of fiduciary duties or non-poaching clauses, teams have the junior members resign first and the senior members follow later.  Our colleagues at the Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog have written an excellent summary of a case filed by Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. in Texas state court yesterday against former employees who staggered their departures to a competitor.  The post highlights the risk involved for the team when it departs over time, and is therefore a worthwhile read for financial services employers who can find themselves on either side of such transaction, as either the hiring employer or the former employer . . .

To continue reading, click here.

Second Circuit Confirms Burden of Proof in SOX Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn Comment

By:  John F. Fullerton III

On March 5, 2013, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the burden-shifting framework applicable to whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.  In Bechtel v. Administrative Review Board et al., (pdf), the Court issued a decision, consistent with prior decisions of several other Circuits, that affirmed the burden of proof standard applied by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) in its decision, which affirmed an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision that had dismissed the employee’s retaliation claim, but applied an erroneous standard in so doing.

“To prevail on Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claim under 18 U.S.C. §1514A, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer knew that he or she engaged in the protected activity; (3) he or she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action . . . If the employee proves these four elements, the employer may rebut this prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the protected behavior.”

Under this standard, the Court agreed with the ARB that the employee had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged protected activity was a contributing factor to the company’s decision to terminate his employment.  Although the ALJ had applied an erroneous standard in sustaining the discharge, the Court found the mistake to be “immaterial” and, under the correct standard as applied by the ARB, the employee had failed to prove that the protected activity was a contributing factor.  “[T]he correct outcome was clear,” wrote the Court.

A few things to note.  First, the case serves as a good reminder that the employer has a heightened burden in SOX whistleblower cases to rebut the employee’s prima facie case with “clear and convincing” evidence, a higher evidentiary standard than that applied in cases under the federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA.  Second, in January the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim under Title VII must prove that the protected activity was the sole or “but for” cause of, or merely a motivating or contributing factor to, the adverse employment action.  The Supreme Court has previously held that standard under the ADEA’s retaliation provision is the more employer-friendly “but for” requirement, but under SOX, the more employee-friendly “contributing factor” standard is already firmly in place.  Finally, over ten years since the passage of SOX, there finally seems to be a growing trend toward increased consistency in the law under the statute, although in many instances the clarifications have been more favorable to employees than employers.