Bryan Cave Labor and Employment Blog

Main Content

GDPR HR Series: Employee Information Notices About Personal Data – Your Key Questions Answered

Following the combination of the Labor & Employment practices at Bryan Cave and BLP, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s combined team now includes over 120 employment lawyers in offices across the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia, with excellent capabilities and a strong network in Asia. Committed to collaboration, and with our strengthened offering, experience and substantive knowledge advising clients on GDPR, we bring you our new ‘GDPR HR Issues’  blog series. Drawing on key insights from across our team, the series highlights the key GDPR issues affecting employers.

The General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) comes into force in less than two months. From an HR perspective it imposes data obligations on any US, European or other employer with EU-based staff. Failure to comply with the GDPR regime can result in significant fines and disruption to your business. Are you ready?

Our first blog deals with ‘privacy notices’ aimed at staff.

Supreme Court Rejects “Narrow” Reading of Overtime Exemption and Concludes that Auto Dealership Service Advisors are Exempt From Overtime

On its second trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, a six-year-long dispute between five auto dealership employees and their employer came to an end when the Supreme Court found that the employees were properly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  In the case, plaintiffs Hector Navarro and four other employees worked as service advisors—employees who meet and greet customers bringing their cars to dealerships for service or maintenance and suggest and sell such services to customers.

The service advisors in this case filed suit in 2012, claiming back pay under the FLSA for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week on the basis that they were misclassified as exempt.  Specifically, the employees argued that they neither sold nor repaired vehicles and, therefore, were improperly denied overtime in violation of the FLSA.  The employees also alleged violation of California state wage and hour laws.

Employers Can Maintain a Drug Free Workplace in California Despite State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

California’s passage of the “Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act,” commonly referred to as Proposition 64, legalized the sale, possession, and use of recreational marijuana under limited circumstances. Marijuana still remains an illegal Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act and therefore still subject to prosecution under federal law. Many employers wonder what effect, if any, Proposition 64 has on their ability to maintain a drug free workplace.

Bryan Cave attorneys just released a client alert on this topic. Click here to read the Alert in full.

Bryan Cave LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers comply with California law. If you or your organization would like more information on Proposition 64, or any other employment issue, please contact an attorney in the Labor and Employment practice group.

Less than 90 days to go – are you GDPR compliant?

“GDPR – please not again …” In recent times there is hardly any other legal topic more often written and talked about than the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

In light of the severe penalties and with less than 100 days until the GDPR goes into full effect (on May 25th, 2018), it is time for U.S. companies to take steps to prepare. Below are some key points to consider and pragmatic to-dos to assist in assessing whether your organization is ready for GDPR compliance.

  • GDPR may apply to U.S.-based companies with zero employees and no offices within the boundaries of the EU territory

While the EU Data Protection Directive of 1995 did not apply to businesses outside the EU territory, this is no longer the case under GDPR.

Now any business may be subject to the new law if it processes personal data of an

Investigating Claims of Harassment: A Step-by-Step “How To” Part 6: Closing the Investigation and Additional Steps Thereafter

This final installment of a six-part series on harassment investigations discusses how to close the investigation and steps to take after the investigation has been closed.  As always, bear in mind that each harassment investigation is different and must be tailored to fit the particular circumstances.

Close the Investigation

Once the investigation has concluded, it is essential to close the investigation with the complainant, each witness, and the accused.  It may also be prudent, in some circumstances, to follow-up with the entire workforce. All close-out meetings that are held should be documented. When closing the investigation with the complainant, and generally with each witness, here are the key points to tell each person:

  • We are closing our investigation based on the information as we know it now. (This allows you to reopen if you learn more later.)
  • The Company has a strong non-discrimination and non-harassment policy. (Consider providing or

Supreme Court Narrowly Construes the Definition of a Whistleblower Under Dodd-Frank

The Supreme Court held that an individual must report alleged wrongdoing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to qualify for protection from whistleblower retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Click here to read the Alert written by Bryan Cave attorneys on 2/21/18.

For more information about the SEC Whistleblower Program, click here. For more information about this update, or if you have any questions regarding Bryan Cave’s White Collar Defense and Investigations or Securities Litigation and Enforcement Groups, contact Mark Srere or Jennifer Mammen in Washington, D.C., at +1 202-508-6000, or for Bryan Cave’s Labor and Employment group, contact Elaine Koch or Jennifer Berhorst in Kansas City, MO, at +1 816-374-3200.

Investigating Claims of Harassment: A Step-by-Step “How To” Part 5: Other Sources of Evidence, Summarizing the Investigation, and Reaching a Conclusion

Before concluding a harassment investigation, the investigator should follow up with other possible sources of evidence, record and summarize the investigation, and reach a conclusion.  This fifth part of a six-part series discusses these final steps in the investigation process.  As always, bear in mind that each harassment investigation is different and must be tailored to fit the particular circumstances.

Follow Up With Other Possible Sources of Evidence

The investigator should consider whether any other sources of evidence exist that could aid in the investigation process and gather any such evidence. If the evidence is in the possession of either the complainant or the accused, the investigator should ask that the evidence be shared with him/her.

Some examples of physical evidence that may aid in the investigation process are:

  • Time cards
  • Calendars or diaries
  • Telephone records
  • Travel logs
  • Expense reports
  • Notes, letters, cards, and/or handwriting samples
  • Emails, voice mails,

Works Council Elections in Germany – Avoid mistakes and be aware of special termination protections! Final Part III

February 16, 2018

Categories

March 2018 is getting closer and works council (re)elections will again be on the agenda in Germany. We started this three-part blog last November with an overview to this topic and the second part highlighting the election proceedings. See link to November 7, 2017 blog and link to January 11, 2018 blog. In this final Part III, we briefly address the potential risks of reruns of elections due to mistakes and provide you with an overview of the special termination protection resulting from works council elections.

Avoid mistakes – elections can be challenged or even be null and void!

German employers are well advised to closely monitor the election proceedings. In the event of substantial breaches of the election process, the elections can be null and void, i.e., if such serious mistakes occurred that no democratic process was granted, or in less obvious breaches, elections can be challenged

Investigating Claims of Harassment: A Step-by-Step “How To” Part 4: Note-Taking Techniques and Tips for Assessing Witness Credibility

In any investigation of a harassment complaint, the investigator must interview people and take notes.  This fourth part of a six-part series addresses techniques for note-taking and tips for assessing the credibility of witnesses.  As always, bear in mind that each harassment investigation is different and must be tailored to fit the particular circumstances.

Helpful Witness Interview Note-Taking Techniques

Make sure that your notes are legible and that they are clear on who said and did what and which part of the story is according to whom.

Start a new page for each interview.

At the top of the page, state the names of those present at an interview, the date, time and place of the interview.  Sign (or initial) and date the notes.

Although it is not necessary to write in complete sentences, the notes should be free from misspellings or grammatical errors so that the interviewer is not

Antitrust Division to Criminally Prosecute No Poaching Agreements

February 9, 2018

Categories

Antitrust Division to Criminally Prosecute No Poaching Agreements

February 9, 2018

Authored by: Bryan Cave At Work

The DOJ has indicated that it intends to prosecute companies that have entered into no-poaching agreements, an activity that has previously only been subject to civil enforcement. No-poaching agreements are arrangements between companies to not solicit or hire each other’s employees. Companies engaged in this conduct do not have to compete for customers to be susceptible to government scrutiny; they only need to compete for the same employees.

Our Antitrust practice group has recently written a client alert on this topic. Click here to read the full alert.

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.