Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Brian D. Lipkin and Carly Loomis Gustafson)

When an employee quits, the employer might dig through its files, dust off an old noncompete agreement, and see what rights (if any) it has under the agreement. Does this scenario sound familiar?

Unfortunately, by the time an employee has quit, it’s too late to go back and correct an outdated or insufficient agreement. So, we recommend that each fall, employers look through their existing noncompete agreements (and other restrictive covenants, such as nonsolicitation agreements), and fix these eight common problems:

Problem No. 1: Over the years, the employee signed multiple, conflicting agreements.

Fix: When an employee signs a new agreement, it should clearly state that it replaces all previous agreements.

Problem No. 2: The employee did not receive consideration—such as a new position, raise, bonus or promise of employment for a fixed time period—in exchange for signing the agreement.

Fix: If an employer realizes that an employee may not have received adequate consideration, the employer can pay a bonus in exchange for signing a new agreement. By timing its review of restrictive covenants in the fall, an employer can prepare for employees to sign updated agreements when they receive year-end bonuses or raises.

Problem No. 3: The agreement doesn’t detail what the employee is restricted from doing.

Fix: We often see agreements that prohibit an employee from going to work for a “competitor.” The problem with this language is that it inevitably leads to a dispute about whether the new and old employers really compete with each other.

If an employer is concerned about employees leaving for specific companies, those companies should be named in the agreement. …

Justine M. Kasznica spoke at the Pennsylvania AV Summit on September 4-6 on a panel focused on autonomous vehicle regulations and standards.  Leaders within the industry discussed AV regulations and standardization, balancing safety and innovation, consumer expectation, and self-certification vs. third-party verification.

Panelists photographed left to right: William Gouse, Ground Vehicle Standards – SAE International, Justine M. Kasznica, Attorney at Law – Babst Calland, Monica Lopez, Chief Science and Art Officer – La Petite Noiseuse Productions, Kelly Funkhouser, Head of CAV/Program Manager for Vehicle Usability and Automation – Consumer Reports, Auto Test Center, Matthew Wood, Safety Engineering Lead – Aptiv, and Jackie Erickson, Senior Director of Communications – Edge Case Research.

Employment & Labor Alert 
(by Stephen Antonelli and Alexandra Farone)
In May 2019, we issued a Client Alert after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to collect employers’ pay and hours worked data (commonly referred to as “Component 2 Data”) from certain employers. Specifically, the Court ordered the EEOC to collect such data from employer-selected pay periods during the years 2017 and 2018.
We issue this follow-up Client Alert because, by September 30, 2019, all employers with at least 100 employees are required to collect and submit Component 2 Data for a “workforce snapshot period” as selected by the employer for the reporting years 2017 and 2018. 
The mandate for employers to collect Component 2 Data is the subject of an ongoing federal lawsuit. The Department of Justice has appealed the court order, but the requirement to comply and produce the data by September 30, 2019 remains in full force and effect during the pendency of the appeal.
The EEOC portal website through which employers can submit information can be found at: https://eeoccomp2.norc.org/.
Employers should keep the following steps in mind when preparing to produce Component 2 Data:

1. Identify an appropriate workforce snapshot period—one pay period—for each reporting year.
2. Gather, sort, and verify the relevant Component 2 Data including employees’ race/ethnicity, sex, W-2 payroll information, and hours worked.
3. Provide actual hours worked by employees who are not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For employees who are exempt from the FLSA, employers can provide either proxy hours or actual hours worked.
4. Determine the number of full- and part-time employees pursuant to each of the 10 EEO-1 job categories.

…

Environmental Alert
(by Christopher (Kip) Power and Robert Stonestreet)
On August 12, 2019, the federal District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Judge Irene C. Berger) entered an order dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and other organizations (Citizen Groups) seeking to halt operations under a mining permit issued to Republic Energy, LLC (Republic) by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).  Coal River Mountain Watch, et al. v. Republic Energy, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-01449, S.D. W.Va. (Memorandum Opinion and Order, August 12, 2019). The Citizen Groups had sought to bring an end to mining under the permit because operations were not initiated until 2018, even though the permit was originally issued by the WVDEP in June 2008.  Pursuant to W.Va. Code § 22-3-8(a)(3) (a part of WVDEP’s approved program under the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §1201, et seq. (SMCRA)), a mining permit terminates if mining activities under it are not initiated within three (3) years of its issuance, unless extended by the WVDEP.  The company that previously held the Republic mining permit never requested such an extension.  The WVDEP, however, granted an extension of the permit at issue in February 2012, after the agency had notified the permit holder of the expiration of the three-year limit and provided that company with an opportunity to seek a late (retroactive) extension.  After the permit was transferred to Republic, it sought and received a further extension in 2015 on the basis of financial hardship, which the Court noted “is not a recognized statutory justification for an extension.”
Before filing the federal civil action, the Citizen Groups had filed an administrative complaint about the situation with the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), which is the oversight agency under SMCRA.  …

The PIOGA Press

(by Robert Max Junker)

The argument that the Pennsylvania Constitution compels municipalities to classify natural gas extraction from shale formations as a “heavy industrial use” and therefore mineral development cannot occur in agricultural and rural residential zoning districts was roundly rejected by both the Commonwealth Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Frederick v. Allegheny Township Zoning Hearing Board, 196 A.3d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc), appeal denied, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa., No. 449 WAL 2018, filed May 14, 2019). Nevertheless, opponents of natural gas development continue to be undeterred and refuse to give up this mantra. Attacks on municipalities’ legislative decisions on where natural gas development is appropriate within their own borders are still playing out in several Western Pennsylvania communities, with opponents seeking just one judicial decision that will breathe life into this moribund concept. With the June 26 decision from the Commonwealth Court in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Middlesex Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 2609 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 26, 2019) (unreported decision), this tenuous theory was put on life support and yet its few remaining proponents stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the inevitable demise.

Middlesex Township is a rural community in Butler County. In 2014, the Board of Supervisors enacted a zoning ordinance amendment to expressly provide for the use and regulation of oil and gas operations within the township. The board decided that oil and gas well site development should be a permitted use by right in the rural residential, agricultural, residential agricultural and the restricted industrial districts; should be allowed as a conditional use following a public hearing in the commercial districts; and should not be permitted in certain other districts. …

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Alexandra Farone)

As social media continues to play an ever-more prominent role in our culture, employers are frequently faced with the uncomfortable situation of encountering an employee’s social media post that, at best, reflects unfavorably upon the employer or, at worst, is outright harassment or discrimination. Pennsylvania court decisions on the intricacies or enforceability of employers’ social media policies are few and far between, and do not create particularly useful guidance for employers in navigating the minefield of social media. Without such clarity, employers are encouraged to be mindful when drafting, revising or enforcing these policies to ensure compliance with existing guidance.

While public employers face the unique challenge of balancing employees’ constitutional free speech rights against protection of the employer’s reputation, private sector employers must also consider federal law when drafting a social media policy. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives unionized and nonunionized employees the right to act together to address wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of employment. Such “protected, concerted activity” could come in the form of an employee’s social media post complaining about, for example, vacation time, inadequate supervision or perceived poor safety measures. As early as 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (the board) issued a decision finding that a Facebook conversation can be protected, concerted activity, see Hispanics United of Buffalo and Carlos Ortiz, 359 NLRB No. 37 (2012). To qualify for protection, the speech has to be more than “mere griping.” Moreover, if the speech is egregiously offensive or knowingly and maliciously false, or if it disparages the employer without relating complaints to a term or condition of employment, it will likely not be protected. If, however, the speech raises a concerted or group complaint about a term or condition of employment, the employer must take care not to discipline the employee in a manner that runs afoul of the NLRA. …