A tree trimming company has been handed the largest penalty imposed in a United States immigration case, totaling $95 million, after pleading guilty to employing illegal immigrants, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.

Reuters reports that Asplundh Tree Experts Co., which trims trees and clears brush for power and gas lines across the country, hired employees who provided fake identification documents from 2010 to 2014, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia said.

The prosecutor said the company’s managers were “willfully blind” as supervisors and foremen hired illegal immigrants, writes Brendan O’Brien.

Read the Reuters article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

When The Wall Street Journal broke a story about the firing of PepsiCo Inc.’s general counsel, the newspaper had some inside information: someone at WilmerHale accidentally sent a privileged memo about the case to the publication.

Above the Law recounts the story of how the memo, discussing a subpoena whistleblower/GC Maura Smith received, was sent to a group of lawyers — and the Journal.

Writer Joe Patrice speculates that “someone’s inline autocomplete got the better of them.” He also has some tongue-in-cheek advice for WilmerHale: call the whole thing fake news.

Read the Above the Law article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Former general counsel for PepsiCo Inc. Maura Smith is now the focus of an investigation by the SEC after she claimed she was fired in retaliation for the way she handled earlier internal probes concerning allegations of wrongdoing in Russia, according to a report at TheStreet.com.

The Wall Street Journal originally reported on the investigation.

Smith was Pepsi’s general counsel for little more than a year, until June 2012, when she was tasked with overseeing outside lawyers the company hired to investigate business practices with Wimm-Bill-Dann, a Russian dairy product and juice maker Pepsi acquired for $5 billion in 2011.

Read TheStreet.com report.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Some general counsel are starting to push back against big law firms charging $400 an hour for the work of associates, writes Joe Patrice for Above the Law.

Patrice quotes from an Am Law Daily report on a recent summit:

At a Manhattan conference on legal innovation this month, Mark Smolik, the general counsel of DHL Supply Chain Americas, had a message for the law firm representatives in his audience.

“Sorry, law firms. You spend on the training,” Smolik said. “I cannot afford to pay your associates $325 an hour.”

Smolik warned the group that he could hire those associates himself and “pick them up right out of law school.”

Read the Above the Law article.

Above the Law reports that Hogan Lovells recently decided to offer “voluntary retirement” packages to about 400 of its senior business support staff members in the U.S.

Staci Zaretsky writes that those who have been with the firm for at least five years were offered an out, and it’s expected that 5 to 10 percent of those who received the offer will take it.

“In addition to the hundreds of voluntary buyouts Hogan Lovells is offering to business staff members here in America, the firm is set to cut up to 90 jobs in London thanks to a recent restructuring,” Zaretsky adds.

Read the Above the Law article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

When the Supreme Court opens its 2017 term on the first Monday in October, its very first cases will serve as a stark reminder of why elections matter, predicts USA Today.

Reporter Richard Wolf writes that the upcoming term stands “a real chance of being a one-two punch against workers’ rights,” says Claire Prestel, associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union.

Wolf points out how things have changed:

When the court was asked to hear three cases on labor arbitration agreements last September, Barack Obama was president, Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to succeed him, and federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland was in line to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Garland had a strong record of defending workers’ rights.

Read the USA Today article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The executives of some Silicon Valley companies have been forced out of their corporate positions because of sexual improprieties between themselves and employees, but one company has weathered a similar ordeal with little apparent repercussion.

The New York Times discusses the case of Upload, an entertainment and news hub for the VR industry. When the former digital media manager sued the company after she was fired, allegedly because she complained about the hostile atmosphere, the company at first denied the allegations. Then, as the Times‘ story about the suit neared publication, Upload’s CEO and president issued a statement saying, “We let you down and we are sorry.”

The Silicon Valley story took a turn. As reporter David Streitfeld writes:

In contrast to the venture capitalists who were knocked off their perches this summer by harassment complaints, Upload was scarcely dented by the publicity surrounding [the] suit. [The CEO and president] were not forced to resign. Investors did not pull their money. The company’s events continued, if in terms that were a bit more muted.

Read the NYT article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Bloomberg Law reports that Google Inc. was accused in a class action of systematically paying male employees more than females, adding the internet giant to a growing list of technology companies sued for gender discrimination.

“Three women who worked at Google in recent years sued in San Francisco Superior Court alleging that the company pays women less than men for equal or similar work,” according to reporter Erik Larson. “They also say it puts them on career paths with lower pay ceilings, according to a copy of a complaint provided by their lawyer. The filing couldn’t be immediately verified in court records.”

Some other tech companies, including Microsoft Corp. and Twitter Inc., have been targets of similar litigation claiming men are favored for advancement.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

After weeks of growing scrutiny of alleged sex-related improprieties involving Social Finance CEO Mike Cagney, the start-up said he would leave as chief executive by the end of the year and that he would step down immediately as chairman, reports The New York Times.

“Although many of the issues at other firms stemmed from the actions of midlevel executives or investors, Mr. Cagney personally faces questions about his role,” write reporters Nathaniel Popper and Katie Benner. “His conduct was described by more than 30 current and former employees, most of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.”

Cagney’s position with the company had become delicate after a sexual harassment suit was filed against him by a former employee.

Cagney denied any improprieties.

Read the NYT article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Above the Law follows up on an earlier report on the disparity of benefits offered to staff members of big law firms, compared to those offered to lawyers, this time with a focus on family leave.

“There’s a reason, grounded in scarcity and specialization, to pay attorneys more than the staff,” writes Joe Patrice. “But there’s not much reason why an attorney needs more time to bond with a newborn than someone in human resources would. Perhaps the firm knows that its associates are so socially dysfunctional they need an extra several weeks to seem human? That’s certainly a colorable argument.”

The article points out that some firms avoid the attorney-staff disparity by making benefits equal.

Read the Above the Law article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A post on the website of Nilan Johnson Lewis addresses a question about hiring: What specific steps should you take to set up your best defense to a claim that your company interfered with a new hire’s non-compete agreement with her current employer?

The article defines tortious interference and then discusses five considerations: selecting counsel, proving reasonable reliance, selecting the witnesses, proving the advice happened, and proving the substance of advice.

“By taking these actions with future litigation squarely in mind, your company can create the best evidence to support a justification defense when hiring a new employee with a questionable non-compete,” the article concludes.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Alison Frankel reports for Reuters that briefing wrapped up this week on Proskauer’s motion to end a sex bias suit by an anonymous partner in its Washington, D.C., office.

She writes that Proskauer’s motion for summary judgment, the woman simply can’t sue the firm under federal and state anti-discrimination laws because those laws protect employees and she’s an equity partner — not an employee.

“The woman, who is represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp, tells a different story in her brief opposing summary judgment,” Frankel writes. “According to her, Proskauer’s rank-and-file partners have effectively no control over the firm. All important decisions about hiring, firing, governance and compensation are delegated to Proskauer’s seven-member executive committee, which she depicts as the power center of the firm.”

Read the Reuters article.

Jackson Lewis has posted an on-demand webinar exploring recent developments and important decisions in whistleblower litigation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.

Presenters are Richard J. Cino and Joseph C. Toris.

Topics for the free webinar include:

• The expansion of the definition of a whistleblower;
• The weakening of the standard of proof in employee whistleblower cases;
• The necessity for an effective policy and a thorough and prompt investigation.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Potentially significant policy changes are on the horizon regarding federal rules that determine how and whether workers are entitled to overtime pay, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing. Businesses hoping to avoid overtime obligations for hourly workers must jump through three hoops in most cases. One of those hoops is to pay at least the minimum salary set by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Last year, the Labor Department under the Obama administration more than doubled the minimum salary threshold that is exempt from overtime, raising it from $23,600 to $47,476. But the salary increase proposal was stiff-armed by a Texas federal judge’s injunction before the change could take effect. While not endorsing the Obama-era regulations, newly appointed Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta mused in recent congressional testimony that the current salary threshold is too low and should be raised to “somewhere around $33,000.”

“The DOL is now seeking comment on how the overtime exemptions should be determined, as well as issues including whether salary levels should be allowed flexibility based on various factors, such as size of employer or region of employment,” says employment attorney Audrey Mross of Dallas-based Munck Wilson Mandala.

“There’s a lot on the line for employers who could be affected by these changes,” she said. “More than anything, employers are seeking consistency in order to plan for the future. This information-gathering phase provides parties a chance to be heard. If the salary threshold for exemption does increase, employers will be making hard decisions about whether to raise affected worker pay to maintain overtime exemptions or closely monitor worker hours, or otherwise be prepared to start paying overtime.”

Join Our LinkedIn Group

HR Dive reports on a federal case in which an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act suit will go to trial over how she was fired after confusion about how much leave she had available.

Reporter Kate Tornone explains: “The employer’s handbook had two separate sections: one discussed employees’ entitlements to 12 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave, while the other offered workers eight weeks of paid maternity leave, with the option to take four more weeks unpaid.”

The company fired the employee when she didn’t return to work after 12 weeks absence.

Read the HR Dive article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The Associated Press reports that Google’s CEO canceled an internal town hall meant to address gender discrimination after employee questions for management began to leak online from the company’s internal messaging service.

“Sundar Pichai said in an email to staff that several Google employees became fearful for their safety and grew concerned about being outed for speaking up at the town hall,” writes technology writer Ryan Nakashima.

Employees had used an internal system to submit questions for executives to address, but some of those questions leaked and were published online.

Read the LA Times article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

When a Google employee wrote in a memo that women are not as qualified as men to be software engineers, he learned the hard way that free speech protections only go so far, writes Tracey Lien for The Los Angeles Times.

“One thing many misunderstand about the 1st Amendment is that it only protects the public’s right to free speech from government censorship — meaning it doesn’t apply to the relationship between private employers and employees,” Lien points out.

In her article, she discusses what protections employees have, what Google’s case entails, Google’s options, and how things might have been different.

Read the LA Times article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Employers must ensure that their supervisors do not unwittingly modify the at-will relationship with employees, warns Pullman & Comley.

“Statements such as ‘you’ll have a long career here’ or ‘you’ll be taken care of’ may be interpreted by an employee to mean that an implied contract of employment has been formed,” writes Margaret Bartiromo. “Connecticut courts recognize a claim for wrongful termination based on an implied employment contract if the employee can prove that the employer agreed, by words or action, not to terminate the employee without just cause and that the parties agreed on definite terms (such as compensation and fringe benefits) that are supported by consideration (such as a bonus or pay raise).”

She added that employee handbooks should state that the at-will arrangement can only be altered in a writing signed by the employee and an authorized officer of the company.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Some companies have taken the idea of demanding loyalty through noncompetition agreements a bit too far, writes Alan Greenblatt in Governing.

“They are forcing workers at all levels of the business to sign noncompete agreements, barring them from leaving to join another company in the same field for a specified period of years. Those contracts may be defensible for the head of research at a pharmaceutical company, or even a top-flight software engineer, but sandwich makers, yoga instructors and summer camp counselors have also been prevented from jumping to competitors,” according to Greenblatt.

He quotes Evan Starr, a management professor at the University of Maryland: “If only CEOs were signing these, I don’t think anybody would care about it.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Aliya Ramji, director of legal and business strategy for Figure 1 Inc., responds to a question from a corporate lawyer who asks about the most important parts of a non-disclosure agreements.

Writing in the ACC Docket, she explains that she uses two strategies to keep up with the volume of NDAs.

The first is to draft a template NDA for the business unit. Then, in order to better facilitate the review process, she develops negotiation parameters for the business units.

In the article, she discusses some key elements to include, including identification of the parties, defining the confidential information, the purpose of the disclosure, what is excluded, and the term.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group