Source: http://www.koffskyschwalb.com/blog/category/corporate
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 14:21:40
Document Index: 23493213

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1833', '§ 2104', '§2104', '§ 2104', '§2104', '§ 9', '§ 28']

Category: Corporate - Koffsky Schwalb LLC
Employment agreements generally include non-disclosure provisions (“NDAs”). Without an NDA, an employer may not be able to stop an employee from misappropriation of company trade secrets or other confidential information. By signing an NDA, an employee agrees to keep the details of his or her work confidential.But what about illegal activity that employees may witness? Are they prevented from reporting that too, for fear of breaching their NDAs? Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act 2016 (“DTSA”), signed into law by President Obama on May 13, 2016, the short answer is “No.” The DTSA expressly states that an individual cannot be held criminally or civilly liable under any federal or state trade secret law if they disclose a trade secret “(A)…in confidence to a federal, state or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.”(18 U.S.C. § 1833.) In other words, DTSA provides immunity to “whistle-blowers.”The DTSA requires employers to alert their employees about the trade secret "whistle-blower immunity" clauses in any employee contract or agreement that is entered into or updated after May 13, 2016. In practice, this means employers should revise employment agreements, alert anyone who has signed one (e.g., employees, third-party contractors, and consultants) about the new law, and have them sign a revised agreement. Each company will need to determine its own appropriate revised NDA language. There is no particular penalty per se for non-compliance, but failure to comply may prevent the employer from recovering exemplary damages or attorney fees in an action brought under the DTSA for theft of trade secrets against an employee to whom no notice was provided.While the full impact of DTSA on the area of trade-secrets law remains to be seen, one thing is clear: Employers should ensure that their NDAs comply with the new law. And that means changing employment agreements - right now. Picture Copyright
New York litigators are familiar with CPLR § 2104, which requires all stipulations, including stipulations of settlement, to be “in a writing subscribed” by a party or the party’s attorney. Thus, to ensure that the settlement of a dispute is binding, an attorney should obtain the settlement terms in writing and have them “subscribed” by the opposing party or that party’s attorney. Under New York law, however, this requirement does not necessarily require a physically signed formal settlement agreement. In the world of electronic communication, New York courts have generally expanded the scope of what constitutes a "writing subscribed by him or his attorney" pursuant to CPLR §2104 to include certain electronic communications, such as email. For example, in Forcelli v. Gelco, 109 A.D.3d 244, 251 (2d Dept. 2013), the Court stated that "it would be unreasonable to conclude that email messages are incapable of conforming to the criteria of CPLR § 2104 simply because they cannot be physically signed in the traditional fashion.” As a result, the Court held that an email message containing the material terms of a settlement and the typed name of the sender (as opposed to an automatically generated signature line) constituted a subscribed writing within the meaning of CPLR §2104. The writing and subscription requirement, however, does not apply if the parties’ dispute has not resulted in the filing of “an action.” If a dispute between parties has not yet proceeded to actual litigation, the traditional rules governing contract formation apply. A settlement agreement is enforceable where there is an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound. See 22 N.Y. Jur. 2d, Contracts § 9; Kowalchuk v. Stroup, 61 A.D.3d 118, 121 (1st Dep’t 2009). To determine whether there has been a meeting of the minds demonstrating mutual assent and intent to be bound, a court should examine the words and deeds that constitute objective signs in a given set of circumstances. See 22 N.Y. Jur. 2d, Contracts § 28; Kowalchuk, 61 A.D.3d at 121. Significantly, provided there is objective evidence establishing that the parties agreed on the terms and intended to be bound, a settlement occurring before a lawsuit is filed need not be signed in order to be an enforceable agreement, whether oral or written. See, e.g., Mun. Consultants & Publishers, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo, 47 N.Y.2d 144, 148-49 (1979); Kowalchuk, 61 A.D.3d at 118. Once formed, a settlement agreement is binding and enforceable even when one party later refuses to execute a formal written agreement. Forcelli, 109 A.D.3d at 247-48 (finding binding e-mail agreement, where defendant sent e-mail stating in pertinent part “Per our phone conversation today, May 3, 2011, you accepted my offer of $230,000 to settle this case. . . . You also agreed to prepare the release . . . Please forward the release and dismissal for my review. Thanks Brenda Greene.”); Kowalchuk, 61 A.D.3d at 121-22, 124 (holding that settlement agreement was formed by initial e-mail communications between the parties’ counsel even though parties were subsequently negotiating formal settlement agreement). In the event that a party does not want to be bound until a formal settlement agreement and release is executed, the party’s attorney should make it clear that the contract is not binding until a formal document is completed and executed. See, e.g., Kowalchuk, 61 A.D.3d at 123. Picture Copyright
Political satirist, writer, and comedian Stephen Colbert has taken to the airwaves, joining the uproar over a new patent that was granted to Amazon Technologies, Inc. Even before things got personal recently between the pundit and the online bookseller, The Colbert Report host dedicated a segment on his show last month to expressing his incredulity about the long-winded claims in Amazon’s new “studio arrangement” patent. While Colbert focused on the nutshell-version of the patent—namely, ownership of the idea of photographing something against a seamless white background—there is more to this patent than just the color of a studio backdrop. Many believe that this patent is invalid altogether, claiming that the “white backdrop, shiny floor” technique has been employed for ages by photographers who wish to reduce or eliminate the need for post-processing and retouching. To them, Amazon is illegitimately claiming ownership of an obvious and decidedly non-novel idea. There are even grassroots efforts cropping up trying to prove the existence of such prior art, drawing responses from long-retired photography professors and more recent practitioners alike, in the hopes of overturning this patent that Colbert mercilessly satirized. To be sure, Colbert oversimplified the perceived threat here, claiming that “if anyone displays something on a white background, Amazon could serve them with a lawsuit.” It’s the very specific process of setting up that shot that is being patented here, not the aesthetic look of the resulting photograph. However, the concern is still very real for some photographers and publishers who worry that the broad terminology used in the patent’s claims and disclaimer-heavy closing paragraphs will serve as a catch-all that could potentially be used against anyone suspected of infringing on the internet giant’s business. Amazon hasn’t come after any photographers yet (as far as we know), so only time will tell if they’re planning on flexing their patent muscles in a potential anti-competitive manner. The Colbert Report Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive 0 Comments
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently filed an amicus brief in support of a group of interns who brought a class action suit against the Hearst Corporation. The plaintiffs worked in unpaid internship posts at a number of the defendant’s magazines, and then alleged that they were entitled to minimum wages and overtime. They claim that their work earned them the protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL points to its Wage and Hours Division (WHD) Fact Sheet #71, which outlines six specific criteria to determine whether or not an intern or trainee is considered a full employee under the law. The DOL asserted that the six-part test more accurately “captures the economic reality of the relationship,” as it provides more objectivity in its definition of what does or does not constitute an employee, and “ensure[s] that the agency applies a consistent standard across the country.” In addition to those six criteria, there are other factors to determine the legality of an unpaid internship in the “for-profit” private sector. When an internship is structured more as an extension of an individual’s educational environment than as an integral part of the employer’s operations, there may be more room to justify an unpaid internship. But once an intern’s responsibility shifts towards filling more productive roles normally handled by salaried employees, compensation may be required. Similarly, if the employer takes on an intern for a “trial period” in anticipation of possibly hiring the individual as a full employee (essentially treating the internship as an extended job interview), that intern would generally be entitled to the same benefits as an employee under the FLSA. In an increasingly competitive job market, internships serve as a particularly attractive “foot-in-the-door” for students who want to improve their chances of securing a job once they graduate. However, as valuable as that experiential learning is, “the hope for a better ‘someday’ should not come at the cost of working without pay today,” according to WHD deputy administrator Laura Fortman. For this reason, many legal and career service professionals believe that unpaid internships are unfair. Interns may be unaware of their legal rights under employment law, and thus not know enough to demand fair compensation. Also, an unfortunate result of the oft-cutthroat race to job placement and success is an uneven playing field. Says Mikey Franklin, co-founder of the Washington, D.C.–based Fair Pay Campaign: “People who can afford to work for free get ahead. People who can't afford to work for free fall behind.” Franklin initiated his grassroots organization last year, and is working to develop it into a national campaign to end unpaid internships. After all, he quips, one “cannot pay for groceries with college credit.” 0 Comments