By: Kun Zhao, Esq.

In the course of conducting business, companies rely on their employees to carry out their duties.  The relationship between company and employee is a principal-agent relationship. When employee is acting on behalf of the company within the scope of his authority, the company is bound to the employee’s decisions and activities dealing with third parties on behalf of the company. Disputes arise when employees act outside their scope of authority and third parties have no knowledge or notice that the employees were acting in such a manner.

Situations involving employees acting outside their scope of authority generally fall into three categories. Under the first scenario, an employee has no authority to perform certain actions on behalf of the company. For example, a salesman cannot dispose of his company’s real property. Where one deals with an agent who is apparently without authority to act, he must inquire into the agent’s authority to represent the company. If a third party fails to make such an inquiry, the company has no liability and the third party can only seek remedy against the employee agent.

Under the second scenario, an employee’s act is within the scope of his authority but his conduct is in fact unauthorized by the company and there is no surrounding circumstance that alerts the third person. For example, a salesman may have the authority to collect non-cash payments for transactions, but he has no authority to receive cash payments. In this situation, the company is accountable for the conduct of its agent acting within the scope of his authority even though the conduct is unauthorized and the company receives no benefit from it. The rationale underlying this doctrine is that even though the employee agent may have deceived the principal company, as well as the third person victim, it is more equitable to hold the company accountable rather than the innocent third party because the company placed its employee in a position to perpetuate the act.

The third scenario is identical to the second scenario except that there are circumstances that cause the third party to suspect something is amiss. For example, past payments may have been made by wire transfer, but the salesman suddenly demands substantial cash payment. Such circumstances serve to put the third party on notice and to charge him with the duty of making an inquiry. If the third party fails to make an inquiry and confirm the employee’s authority with the company, the risk shifts to him.

Multi-party relationships in the business world are normally inevitable. Thus, companies should be careful about giving authority to employees to properly notify employees about the scope of their authority. Companies should also firmly enforce their policies and procedures in dealing with third parties. Third parties should adhere to their customary dealings with company employees and make alert inquires if there are any deviations from past practices.

By: Kun Zhao, Esq.

During the employment relationship, employer and employee may encounter wage payment issues, especially when employer is a small business. Under what circumstances an employer can deduct from employee’s wages and how wage dispute should be dealt with properly are often at issue. Employers are often confronted with the issue of whether employees must be reimbursed for certain expenses or for economic loss or damage purportedly sustained by employees.

New Jersey law is very strict as to what may be deducted from employee wages. Other than very limited situations where the employer is allowed to deduct monies for the benefit of the employee, such as employee-authorized contributions to employee welfare, insurance, pension, retirement plans, etc., an employer may not withhold, deduct, or divert any portion of an employee’s wages.

Employers may not deduct wages for the purchase of necessary items for employment, such as tools, uniforms or clothing.  However, with employee consent, employers may deduct wages for the rental or cleaning of required uniforms or clothing. Employers are not allowed to withhold or deduct employee wages even when employees damage employer property or when employees steal employer funds. If an employer suffers losses due to employee misconduct and cannot resolve the matter with the employee, it should seek judicial relief rather than engaging in self-help measures that may be illegal.

Additionally, in the event of disputes over the amount of wages between an employer and employee, the employer is required by law to timely pay, without condition, all wages, or parts thereof, conceded by him to be due, leaving to the employee all remedies to which he might otherwise be entitled as to any balance claimed. The acceptance by an employee of a payment of the conceded amount does not constitute a release as to the balance of any claim. Any release required by an employer as a condition to payment is null and void.

Therefore, when dealing with wage issues with employees, employers should be very careful to comply with state and federal laws to avoid unnecessary state investigations and penalties due to violations.

By: Kun Zhao, Esq.

Where an employer’s most valuable assets are trade secrets, such as sensitive technical and commercial information that are not generally known to the public, the employer will often require its employees execute two types of agreements to protect its trade secrets and maintain its competitive edge in the marketplace: (1) a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement and (2) a non-competition agreement.

The purpose of a confidentiality agreement is to require an employee who receives confidential information not to disclose such information to any other person and to keep it a secret. On the other hand, the purpose of a non-competition agreement is to limit the employee’s actions following termination and to prevent the employee from using resources, knowledge, sensitive trade secrets, and/or leads gained during the employment to directly or indirectly compete with the employer.

While confidentiality agreements are generally enforceable in New Jersey and New York, restrictive covenants on competition, such as a non-competition agreement, are not favored in the law. Under the New Jersey and New York law, only a reasonable non-competition agreement is enforceable by the court.

The reasonableness of a non-competition agreement is to be determined on a case by case basis. In drafting a non-competition agreement to protect its business interests, an employer needs to determine whether (1) the restrictive covenant is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, (2) whether it would cause undue hardship to the employee, and (3) whether it would be injurious to the public.

To be reasonable, employers need to show that they have a legitimate interest in restricting competition, such as protecting confidential business information, protecting its investment in the training of its employee, or protecting its client bases. Beyond that, three additional factors should be considered in determining whether the restrictive covenant is not overbroad: (1) its duration, (2) the geographic limits, and (3) the scope of activities prohibited. Each of these factors must be narrowly tailored to ensure the covenant is no broader than necessary to protect the employer’s interests.

We at Hill Wallack LLP stand ready to assist with any questions and assistance needed in drafting and preparing confidentiality agreements and non-competition agreements to protect your business interests.

By:  Christina L. Saveriano, Esq. and David J. Truelove, Esq.

Your most important business asset is that which sets you apart from your competitors. If that asset is protectable, confidential information and/or a “trade secret,” reviewing and analyzing recently-passed New Jersey legislation is required reading.

Gov. Chris Christie has recently signed the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act. This law has significant implications for employers that possess information protected under the Trade Secrets Act. This warrants review of any current employment agreements and restrictive covenants currently in place for revision. Likewise, employers should consider entering into such agreements with employees if no such agreements are in place.

As a starting point, employers should review any existing agreements which define the term “trade secret” to confirm that it is consistent with the definition under the Trade Secrets Act. In addition, employers should consider alerting employees to the consequences of misappropriation of the employer’s trade secret which under the Trade Secrets Act include the entry of injunctive relief, imposition of punitive damages and an award of costs and attorney’s fees.

Furthermore, employers should be aware that an action for misappropriation of a trade secret against an employee, under the Trade Secrets Act, must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered. Passage of the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act now creates a statutory right for employers where only case law has existed to date.

We at Hill Wallack LLP stand ready to assist with any questions and assistance needed in view of this new legislation.

By: Susan L. Swatski

Wage and hour matters are prominent in employment law news these days as a result of the new Federal health care laws – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-148 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152 (collectively, the “Health Care Laws”). These laws not only will change the availability of health insurance, but also how health care is delivered in America, specifically with respect to direct-care staff.

Direct-care staff are individuals who provide domestic services such as nursing aides, companionship and home heath assistants. As the population ages and people shy away from institutional health care, direct-care workers comprise one of the nation’s fastest growing occupations.

A primary focus of the Health Care Laws is the wages of direct-care staff . According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the real wages for these workers, which are far below the median for all occupations, have remained flat over the last decade. As a result, the Health Care Laws required HHS to establish a workforce advisory panel for direct-care workers. Beginning in 2011, this panel will be responsible for tackling the challenge of improving wages for these workers.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was enacted to ensure a minimum standard of living for workers by establishing a minimum wage, overtime pay and other protections. The FLSA traditionally has excluded direct-care workers from its umbrella of protection. In a landmark 2007 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld HHS’s authority to define exceptions to the FLSA (see Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke). Current law, however, still excludes direct-care workers.

Pending Legislation

In response to Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. and the Health Care Laws, on July 30, 2010, Representative Linda Sánchez (D-CA) introduced the Direct Care Workforce Empowerment Act (H.R. 5902) to limit the FLSA exclusion of direct-care workers to those who work 20 hours or less per week. On August 3, 2010, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced a companion bill (S. 3696) in the Senate. The proposed bills’ Findings state that in the direct-care industry “working conditions are often difficult and turnover is high because of low pay, access to health insurance and other benefits, strenuous conditions…”

The Findings also report that 13 million Americans currently are receiving such services and that “two-thirds of older adults will need some form of long-term care at some point in their lives.” Although both bills are languishing in their respective committees (the House bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions), strong support from HHS and the White House likely will keep this issue in the forefront in the 112th Congress, regardless of which party is in the Congressional majority.

Record keeping and timekeeping issues are an inevitable consequence if the proposed amendment is enacted, because direct-care workers generally have significant “down time” when they are able to pursue their own activities. Such gaps in active work time will raise issues as to whether the worker is “engaged to be waiting” or “waiting to be engaged” and thus, “on the clock.” The key is to be proactive and not get caught unaware in a wage and hour dispute.

Confronted With a Clear Wage and Hour Violation – Make An Offer

A recent U.S. District Court case provides a good example of an employer turning a bad situation into a win simply by making an offer. See Simmons v. United Mortgage and Loan Investment, LLC . In Simmons, the defendant mortgage company misclassified a group of “junior asset managers” as salaried “exempt” employees. The employees sued in an opt-in class action.

In an effort to stave off years of class action litigation and recognizing that a likely violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act occurred, the employer confronted the situation head-on by making an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The offer provided for “full relief for all parties,” including those that would be opt-in plaintiffs. In sum, the employer offered full relief to which the plaintiffs could have been legally entitled.

For unidentified reasons, the plaintiffs rejected the offer, pounding the death knell into their case. The court held that the defendants’ offer mooted the action by depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction – no justiciable case or controversy – resulting in the dismissal of the case.

Employers are turning to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook to conduct background checks of job applicants and employees. Social networking profiles allow employers to get a sense of what a potential applicant is like and to check up on activities of current employees. Profiles provide employers the opportunity to search out information about applicants and employees that would otherwise be unattainable.