PayThePeople.com

Posts Tagged ‘Employer’

When preparing for a job interview, one of the most important things you can do is research the company with whom you are interviewing. Taking the time to learn some facts about the company will better prepare you for possible interview questions and will also impress the interviewer, letting them know your interest in working for their firm is serious.

An easy way to get information about a company is through the internet. Various websites specialize in providing information about companies to potential workers. Additionally, many companies have their own websites. Perusing the website of a prospective employer can provide valuable insight into the firms corporate culture as well as their history, and standing within their industry. Many companies also include a careers section which can provide you with enough information to formulate a few intelligent queries of your own to ask at the interview.

Another excellent source of information is the local library. Review recent periodicals to find listings for recent magazine or newspaper articles about the business. These can provide current information about the company such as recent changes in stock values, any recent layoffs or downsizing, or changes in the corporate structure that may be of interest.

Finally the most direct method of gaining information about is company is by visiting them and speaking with people who already work there. Most companies are not averse to providing potential employees with literature about their firm. It may also be possible to mingle among your potential co-workers to gain some insight directly from them. Of course take care not to ruffle feathers or venture into any secure areas without authorization. This should be a friendly fact finding mission not a covert operation.

Always be mindful of the source of the information you receive and whenever possible confirm the information you find with multiple sources. Following these guidelines will enable you to have a much more successful interview.

Get tips on doing employer research before applying for jobs and interviewing. Jessica Garver shares research tools and techniques to help you investigate employers before applying.

What happens when you have a rogue or even out of control employee that uses an office computer to send or even post threats of great bodily harm or uses an office computer to generate other highly offensive communications? Can an employer who ends up being sued for such conduct assert a defense of immunity under the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230. This particular federal law defense of immunity actually does preempt inconsistent state law that might otherwise impose liability in certain circumstances. The Act immunizes “provider[s]… of an interactive computer service” (the employer) where “another information content provider” (the employee) has initiated the offending activity.

While the facts considered recently by a California Court of Appeal in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790 are unquestionably extreme and will not likely be encountered in garden-variety employment situations, the CDA immunity defense could well apply in more benign or commonplace circumstances as a result of the court’s ruling in this particular case.

In the Delfino case, the court considered a situation in which unbeknownst to his employer, a very angry and upset employee sends anonymous emails to various adversaries. He also created posts on Internet bulletin boards, threatening great bodily harm and death to these various individuals.

In making this illicit communications, the employee used the computer systems of his employer. The victims of these horrible threats and postings ended up contacting the FBI. The FBI in turn traced the emails and postings to the employee’s office computer. This was accomplished by by tracking the emails and postings back through the originating IP address.

The employee admitted that he engaged in the in the conduct of which he was accused. In the end, criminal charges are filed against him.

The employer terminated the employee. The victims of the employee’s threats sued the employee and the employer for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed the employer was aware that the employee was using its computer system to threaten them. The further argued that the employee took no action to prevent the co-defendant employee from continuing to make threats over the Internet.

The ultimate question before the court in the case was: Can the employer be liable under these circumstances?

Some may consider this particular scenario far fetched. The case was presented as one of first impression in Delfino v. Agilent. The California appellate court determined that an employer could in fact assert the immunity defense under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230.

In asking the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it asserted that the employer was a “provider… of an interactive computer service”, and therefore entitled to complete immunity under the CDA. Section 230(c)(1) states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The statute also preempts inconsistent state law that would impose liability, saying: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Section 230(e)(3), italics added.

The primary goal of the CDA has been to control the exposure of minors to indecent material over the Internet. Nonetheless, one of its other important purposes is “to encourage [Internet] service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive materials over their services.” This was determined in the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 331, cert. den. (1998) 524 U.S. 937.

The CDA also been enforced in a manner so as to avoid the chilling effect on Internet free speech that would occur if tort liability ended up being imposed on companies that do not create potentially harmful messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery. Id. at 330-331.

Accordingly, Section 230(c)(2) immunizes from liability an interactive computer service provider or user who makes good faith efforts to restrict access to material deemed objectionable. However, the provider must make a good faith effort to restrict access to material that is deemed objectionable.

Drawing on prior CDA cases that actually were beyond the employment context, the Delfino court ruled that there are three essential elements that a defendant must establish in order to claim section 230 immunity. These three elements are determined by the court are:

(a) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service;

(b) the cause of action treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and

(c) the information at issue is provided by another information content provider. Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 830.

In considering the first element (whether the employer was a provider or user of an interactive computer service), the court ruled the question a matter of first impression. In its judgment, the court specifically held: “We are aware of no case that has held that a corporate employer is a provider of interactive computer services under circumstances such as those presented here. But several commentators have opined that an employer that provides its employees with Internet access through the company’s internal computer system is among the class of parties potentially immune under the CDA.” Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 805.

Prior courts had interpreted the term “interactive computer service” broadly in their own decisions and rulings. (For example, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003) 333 F.3d 1018, 1030, fn. 15, cert. den. (2004) 541 U.S. 1085), the court held that the employer was a “provider of interactive computer services” under the CDA. Id. At 806.

Considering the second element of the test, (whether the cause of action treated the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information), the court found that plaintiffs, in alleging that the employer was liable for the employee’s cyber threats, sought to treat the employer “as a publisher or speaker” of those messages. (sec. 230(c)(1).) Id.

On the last element of the test, (whether the information at issue was provided by another information content provider), there was no dispute that the employee was the party who had authored the offensive e-mails and postings. Moreover, there was no evidence that the employer played any role at all in “the creation or development” of these threatening and offensive messages and postings. Id. at 807-08.

In the end, the court concluded that the employer satisfied all three of the elements necessary to establish immunity under the CDA. Therefore, the court of appeal did affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court of appeals agreed that the grant of immunity under the CDA was proper pursuant to the terms and conditions of that law.

In its decision, the court also noted that, even if plaintiffs’ claims had not been barred under section 230(c)(1), granting summary judgment to the employer was nonetheless proper. The court reached this conclusion because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case on their claims against the employer. Id. at 808. In this regard, the court specifically held that there was no indication that the employer ratified in any manner the employee’s conduct, and that the employer could not be liable under theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 810-12. In addition, there was not even any evidence that the employer was even aware of the employee’s conduct. Id. at 815.

In its holding and order, the court affirmed the long established principle that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for an employee’s malicious or tortious conduct in a situation in which the employee substantially deviates from his employment duties for personal purposes. The court additionally offered what can be considered an important teaching point on the theory and principle of ratification under California law.

The court noted that imposing derivative liability on the employer for an employees actions need not be founded on respondeat superior. Such liability can also be based upon the doctrine of ratification as discussed in Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App.4th 833, 852). In that case, the court observed that an employee’s actions may be ratified after the fact by the employer’s voluntary election to adopt the employee’s conduct. This is done, in essence, by treating the conduct as that of the employer’s own. Id. at 810.

In considering what evidence can support the ratification theory, the Delfino court cited the California Civil Code 2339. The court, in citing that provision, determined that an employer’s failure to discharge an employee after knowledge of his or her wrongful acts may be used as evidence that can support ratification of that employee’s conduct.

In the end, there were a number of lessons that have been learned in the aftermath of Delfino. This includes the fact that although employers can take some degree comfort that the CDA can offer them immunity if out of line employees make offensive or threatening Internet postings or emails, conservative employers should take corrective actions immediately against offending employees when such conduct is discovered. This action potentially should include termination, if the circumstances so warrant. Employers should institute certain policies and procedures that prohibit employees from using the employer’s computers to post or send threatening or offensive information. Moreover, since CDA immunity will be lost if the employer cannot establish that the information at issue was “provided by another information content provider”, cautious employers will also need to avoid any conduct that would suggest the employer has promoted, sponsored, initiated, or ratified the offending material in any way, shape or form.

Many states have enacted mini-I-9 laws. Employers, especially companies that operate in more than one state, must closely monitor their compliance with the employment eligibility and verification laws for each state in which they do business.

The most common regulation states have imposed on businesses in recent years is requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm workers immigration status and employment eligibility or work authorization, specifically illegal immigrant employment eligibility, work authorization and immigration status.

E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by Department of Homeland Security (DHS/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA). E-Verify is currently free to employers and is available in all 50 states. E-Verify provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility or work authorizationof new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

Employers or “Designated Agents” (e.g., payroll companies) must register online and agree to the terms of participation to use E-Verify. [Registration includes agreeing to the DHS/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). A discussion of the ICE E-Verify MOU is outside the scope of this post.]

E-Verify will soon be required of all federal contractors. DHS is now promulgating “final” E-Verify regs. I present an E-Verify overview and update in this post.

(The National Conference of State Legislatures does a remarkable job of monitoring these new developments and I include a variation of their chart and summary of the new state legislation below.)

Review of Relevant State Laws

State Laws Requiring Use of E-Verify

Arizona
Arizona

The Arizona Fair and Legal Employment Act (HB 2779), enacted in 2007, prohibits employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized workers and requires all employers to use the Basic Pilot Program to verify employment eligibility. It establishes substantial penalties and threatens noncompliant employers with suspension and potential revocation of their business licenses. Effective date Jan. 1, 2008.

Colorado
Colorado HB 1343 (signed 6/6/2006) prohibits state agencies from entering into contract agreements with contractors who knowingly employ illegal immigrants and requires prospective contractors to verify legal work status of all employees. The contractor must confirm that the Basic Pilot Program has been used to verify the status of all employees. If the contractor discovers that an illegal alien is employed, the contractor must alert the state agency within 3 days.

Georgia
The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act, SB 529, covered employment, enforcement, and benefits and was signed by the Governor on April 17, 2006. The bill requires public employers, contractors and subcontractors with 500 or more employees to participate in E-Verify for all new employees beginning July 1, 2007. The law is phased in for public employers, contractors and subcontractors with 100 or more employees effective July 1, 2008; and for all employers by July 1, 2009.

Idaho Executive Order
On December 13, 2006, Governor Jim Risch issued an executive order requiring that state agencies participate in the E-Verify system. Also, all workers employed to the state through contractors must also be from companies that have been verified to have eligible employees.

Minnesota Executive Order
Governor Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order on Jan. 7, 2008, stating that all hiring authorities within the executive branch of state government as well as any employer seeking to enter into a state contract worth in excess of $50,000 must participate in the E-Verify program. The Executive Orders effective date is January 29, 2008.

Mississippi
Mississippi SB2988 (signed 3/17/08) requires public and private employers to participate in E-Verify. The phase-in period is: all government agencies and businesses with more than 250 employees by July 1, 2008; companies with 100 to 250 employees by July 1, 2009; those with 30 to 100 employees by July 1, 2010; and all remaining companies by July 1, 2011. An employer violating the law is subject to the cancellation of public contracts, ineligibility for contracts for up to three years, and loss of business license for up to one year. The law also makes it a felony to accept or perform employment knowing or in reckless disregard of the immigrants ineligibility to work, with penalties from one to five years of imprisonment and/or $1,000 to $10,000 in fines.

North Carolina
All state agencies, offices, and universities must use E-Verify, required by SB 1523 in 2006. This applies to employees hired on or after January 1, 2007, except for employees of local education agencies hired on or after March 1, 2007.

Oklahoma
The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (HB 1804) addressed multiple issues: transporting and harboring, drivers licenses, public benefits, law enforcement and employment. It made it a felony to transport or harbor unauthorized immigrants, with exceptions for health or benefits guaranteed by federal law. It requires public employers, contractors and subcontractors to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system and requires income tax withholding for independent contractors who do not have valid Social Security numbers. The law became effective Nov. 1, 2007.

Rhode Island Executive Order
On March 27, 2008,Governor Carcieri issued an executive order requiring executive agencies to use E-Verify; and for all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify.

Utah
SB 81 was signed into law 3/13/08. The law address multiple issues, including drivers licenses, law enforcement, harboring and transporting, public benefits and employment. It requires public employers to register and use the Basic Pilot program for new employees; state contractors must use Basic Pilot effective July 1, 2009. The law makes it a Class A misdemeanor to conceal, harbor, transport or shelter undocumented immigrants, though church, charitable and humanitarian assistance groups are exempted.
Encourages the Use of E-Verify (1)

Tennessee
HB 729, signed into law on June 26, 2007 and effective January 1, 2008 states that employers who “knowingly employ, recruit or refer for a fee for employment an illegal alien” are subject to a temporary suspension of their business license; repeat offenders are subject to a one-year suspension. Employers who comply with the requirements of the current I-9 process or who verify new hires through the E-Verify within 14 days of employment are shielded from sanctions.

One State Limits The Use of E-Verify
Illinois
Illinois enacted HB 1744, which bars Illinois companies from enrolling in any Employment Eligibility Verification System until accuracy and timeliness issues are resolved. Illinois also enacted HB 1743, which creates privacy and antidiscrimination protections for workers if employers participating in E-Verify dont follow the programs procedures.

State Laws Targeting Employers On Immigration Status

Current Litigation Over State Laws: Federal Pre-emption
Two lawsuits now making their way through the federal court system could restrict states ability to continue to crack down on businesses that hire unauthorized workers. One is a court challenge to the 2007 Arizona employer sanctions law filed by a coalition of Arizona trade groups. In February, a federal judge denied the coalitions request to delay implementation of the law with a temporary restraining order, and the plaintiffs took their case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are scheduled for this summer and a decision is expected in the fall.

Another lawsuit making its way through the federal courts originated last year in Hazleton, PA, where a local ordinance enacted in 2006 denies business permits to employers who hire illegal immigrants and fines landlords who rent to them. In a ruling issued last summer, a federal judge struck down the Hazleton ordinance, saying it treads on federal terrain and violates illegal immigrants constitutional right to due process.

The town is appealing the decision, and the case will be heard in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals this summer. A decision in this case is also expected in the fall.

If the two appellate courts hand down similar rulings; either both upholding the local laws, or both asserting federal authority, the battle over federal preemption could end there. But if the courts hand down opposing decisions one supporting state authority and the other backing federal preemption the debate will likely go to the Supreme Court. The consequence: no clear direction for state lawmakers for at least a year or two.

Many legal experts say the bills being passed in state capitals are not constitutional, and many of the new laws are being challenged in court. The U.S. Constitution gives federal law supremacy over state statutes. My personal understanding of the fundamental pre-emption issue is that the federal laws do not pre-empt these state laws. Frankly, this is a very complex constitutional issue.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) explicitly prohibits states from imposing sanctions on businesses that hire unauthorized workers. But one phrase in the 1986 law a seven-word parenthesis allowing states some leeway in the matter of licenses and similar laws has created a contested gray area.

Many states have taken the IRCA parenthesis to mean they have the authority to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers who hire unauthorized workers. Businesses and many constitutional lawyers disagree.

You have this complex overlay of statutes and regulations and court cases, and youve got this federalism question of what has traditionally been federal power and what the states can do, Jan Ting, a Temple University law professor, told the Washington Post. There could not be an area of law that is less clear than this.

Because states have until recently stayed away from imposing sanctions for immigration violations, federal preemption has rarely been tested and few court precedents exist.

Private Rights of Action
While E-Verify requirements have so far proven the most popular method to deter the hiring of illegal immigrants, some states are beginning to make use of another tool: giving employees a private right of action. Oklahoma was the first state to pass such legislation, in 2007, allowing fired U.S. workers to sue their employers if unauthorized workers were subsequently found to be working in their place. Mississippi, Utah and South Carolina followed with similar provisions this year, allowing fired workers to sue if they are then replaced by illegal immigrants. Some say the laws could open businesses to lawsuits if they employ any unauthorized workers, whether or not they have hired them to replace fired legal workers. Other states are expected to adopt this approach next year.

Also still in place are provisions mandating that all businesses in Arizona enroll in E-Verify and allowing prosecutors to investigate anonymous tips made against businesses alleged to be employing unauthorized workers.

State Felony Laws
Companies should also be concerned about a Mississippi law that makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to accept unauthorized employment. Violators are subject to imprisonment from one to five years and fines of between $1,000 and $10,000. And while the measure seemingly applies only to unauthorized workers, if I had clients who do business in Mississippi I would be strongly cautioning them. I have many clients, both individual and business, where the kind employer assists driving the very good employee to work because the employee does not have a valid state driver license because s/he lacks immigration status. In my opinion a business can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a felony or harboring a felon under this law.

Oklahoma also imposed felony penalties, in 2007 in that case, against anyone caught transporting, concealing, harboring or sheltering illegal immigrants in any location,
including any building or means of transportation. Utah, Missouri and South Carolina passed similar measures this year, and many fear the provisions could be used against employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers.