California employees are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state laws. An employer cannot discriminate on the basis of:
• Race
• Gender, gender identity, or gender expression
• Sexual orientation
• Religion
• National origin
• Disability
• Medical conditions
• Sex, including pregnancy, childbirth, or breast-feeding
• Citizenship status
• Age
• Genetic information
• Ancestry
• Color
• Marital status Continue reading ›
Does your company have a social media policy for employees? Policies regulating Internet use in the workplace can be very effective for maintaining your business’ positive reputation online. Last week, we discussed the first 3 items to think about when writing a social media policy. Here are 3 more considerations for writing an effective and appropriate company-wide policy.
3 More Considerations When Drafting a Social Media Policy
1. Define “Appropriate”
Your employees need to know what is acceptable to say online and what isn’t. Make sure you set clear boundaries on what business and trade information is private and for internal-use only, and what information is acceptable for online discussion or even marketing purposes. Continue reading ›
Instituting a company-wide social media policy is one of the best ways to protect your business’s brand and image on the Internet. Disgruntled employees may say negative things about your business online, harming your reputation and putting your company at risk. A well-written social media policy sets reasonable restrictions on your employees’ use of the Internet. Here are 3 considerations to think about when drafting a social media policy.
3 Considerations When Drafting a Social Media Policy
1. Read Other Policies
It’s important to do your research when writing a social media policy for employees to make sure yours is in line with current industry standards. You don’t want to institute a policy so unforgiving that you drive potential talent away from your business. Search for other social media policies and contact an experienced lawyer to make sure your policy is appropriate. Continue reading ›
An employment contract can be a useful tool to protect your business while providing clarity and structure for your employees. An effective agreement should clearly spell out the terms of both employment and termination. In this post we’ll take a look at the basics of creating an employment contract.
Understanding Employment Contracts
A well-designed contract outlines an employee’s roles and responsibilities. What tasks is the employee expected to perform? What does the job pay? What benefits will the employee receive? Clearly stating this information upfront will protect your business from future lawsuits, provided you abide by the contract.
One of the first things any newly formed corporation should do is draft bylaws. Bylaws are a corporation’s operational blueprint. They identify what the business does, how it is run and who is in charge. Here then are five steps to drafting a set of bylaws.
5 Steps to Creating Corporate Bylaws
1. Detail relevant information concerning shareholders. This includes who holds stake in your corporation, what rights they hold and when and where meetings are to be held.
Converting a limited liability company to a corporation is a relatively easy process. Before I take you through the steps, let’s take a quick look at the differences between the two types of business structures.
3 Differences Between Limited Liability Companies and Corporations
1. LLCs are formed by one or more people (members). These members file Articles of Organization and craft an Operating Agreement. Corporations file similar paperwork. However, unlike LLCs, corporations have shareholders and governing bodies like a Board of Directors.
You’re ready to hire. Should you go with an employee or independent contractor? Your decision will have implications for your business. In this blog post we’ll address the differences between employees and independent contractors, the benefits of both and how to tell the difference between the two.
What is an Employee?
A simple definition of an employee is someone you hire and directly manage. Employees are generally provided training by the business and work for only one employer. A benefit of hiring an employee is that you get to set a schedule and train the person in the way you want things done. Employers generally have more control over the end result in this situation.
Business is an ongoing back-and-forth between interested parties. Contract negotiations, whether they be with employees or a competing business, can be contentious. There’s a lot at stake and big feelings are involved. A successful contract negotiation is one where all parties feel they got something out of the deal. This isn’t wishful thinking. By following these four simple tips you can create an environment where everyone is heard and respected.
1. Multiple Meetings
The first tip is pretty straightforward. Break down the negotiation into multiple sessions. The longer you sit at a table arguing over the same points the less likely you’ll come to an agreement. Give the person time to digest the information. Clear eyes and a fresh head make for better judgment.
Having practiced corporate law in Silicon Valley for 15 years, I must say that there is nothing more frustrating for my clients, who are mostly closely held businesses in the San Jose area, than spending months or years training an employee only to have her leave and go on to compete with the company that trained her. In particular, I represent several staffing and consulting companies and have had to listen to their complaints of how unfair this is from the employer’s perspective. Often, I have to tell these hard working, small business owners that there is almost nothing they can do (except pursue a claim against the employee for misappropriation of trade secrets). In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, making it clear that employee post-employment non-compete agreements are unenforceable in California except in certain very limited circumstances, including in connection with the sale of a good business involving goodwill.
Now, a new California Court of Appeals case, Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas (August 24, 2012) further enforces California’s attitude towards fostering open competition and disfavoring restrictions on employees. In the Fillpoint case, a major shareholder and key employee signed both a three year non-compete agreement related to the sale of his stock, and a one year post-employment non-compete in his new employment agreement. The Court paid particular attention to whether the stock purchase agreement and the employment agreement should be read together as one document. The employment agreement alone would violate California’s view of post-employment non-compete agreements as against public policy. However, in connection with the sale of the business, it could be enforceable. In this case, the shareholder/employee worked for the acquired company until the three year non-compete ran out, but then terminated his employment and went to work for the competition. The company claimed that the one year non-compete covenant in the employee’s employment agreement should restrict him from such competing employment. The employment agreement non-compete provision specifically prohibited him from making sales contacts or actual sales to any customer or potential customer of the company, working for or owning any business that competes with the company, and employing or soliciting for employment any of the company’s employees or consultants.
The court found that the two agreements should be considered integrated because the covenants were executed in connection with the sale or disposition of stock in the acquired company. In particular, they noted the integration clause in the documents, which stated that if there were any conflicts between the two documents, the stock purchase agreement would control. The court went on to consider whether the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants should be void and unenforceable, and found that they were because they were overly broad. In particular, the court noted the over-broad restriction against selling to potential customers of the company.
Whether it is a group lunch to welcome a new employee to our law firm, a birthday dinner for family, or Moms’ Night Out with friends, I often find myself enjoying Silicon Valley restaurants from San Jose to Palo Alto with a group of six or more. It is not uncommon to have the restaurant automatically add the gratuity, which is usually 18%, to our bill. This has always bothered me – not because I have a problem with paying the 18% (I often tip more than that), but because it is sometimes not obvious on the bill, and they still provide the blank line for you to add a tip, as if they are trying to trick people into double-tipping. Well, if you do not like the automatic 18% gratuity added to your bill, you will be happy to hear about a recent IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2012-18, June 25, 2012). This ruling clarifies the definition of tips verses service charges, each of which is treated differently for tax purposes. The result will likely be the end of automatic gratuities.
The IRS ruling states:
“The employer’s characterization of a payment as a “tip” is not determinative. For example, an employer may characterize a payment as a tip, when in fact the payment is a service charge. The criteria of Rev. Rul. 59-252, 1959-2 C.B. 215, should be applied to determine whether a payment made in the course of employment is a tip or non-tip wages under section 3121 of the Code. The revenue ruling provides that the absence of any of the following factors creates a doubt as to whether a payment is a tip and indicates that the payment may be a service charge: (1) the payment must be made free from compulsion; (2) the customer must have the unrestricted right to determine the amount; (3) the payment should not be the subject of negotiation or dictated by employer policy; and (4) generally, the customer has the right to determine who receives the payment. All of the surrounding facts and circumstances must be considered. For example, Rev. Rul. 59-252 holds that the payment of a fixed charge imposed by a banquet hall that is distributed to the employees who render services (e.g., waiter, busser, and bartender) is a service charge and not a tip. Thus, to the extent any portion of a service charge paid by a customer is distributed to an employee it is wages for FICA tax purposes.”
Business Lawyers Blog