Social Networking Unforeseen Risks for Your Company
Talking Business on Social Networking Sites
Whether you personally post or tweet, chances are good your company’s employees participate actively on any number of social networking websites. According to the Pew Research Center, adult use of such sites accounted for almost fifty percent of the internet activity in America in 2009. Aside from its personal and entertainment value, social networking can be a valuable tool for fostering successful business relationships. The blurry line between personal and business use, however, can create unforeseen risks for your company, including the risk that posted comments by your employees will be treated as official statements from the company.
Consider the case of an overzealous sales representative who proudly brags about the company’s products online (so far, so good) but in the process decides to talk trash about a competitor. Does the competitor now have a libel or slander case against your company? Or how about a company supervisor who offers the following recommendation on LinkedIn for a subordinate who is also pursuing an approved sideline business: “I have worked with Sally for five years and have always found her to be hard working and high performing.” 
If the company later lets Sally go for poor performance, can the supervisor’s post be used as evidence that Sally’s performance was fine and that she is being discriminated against because of gender? In both instances, the answer is probably “yes.”
Employers must be careful in monitoring or regulating employees’ personal, online activity too closely. If you track employee use regularly, you are bound to learn information that you would have preferred not to know and that may actually limit your ability to supervise and discipline the employee. Nonetheless, when it comes to employee comments about workplace activities or relationships, serious thought should be given to updating the company’s handbook or policy manual to provide some basic “dos and don’ts” governing this category of online statements.
Questions? Give me a call … or just post them here on our blog.
Dan A. Penning
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in March of 2010. One of the first provisions to go into effect from the Act is the small business health care tax credit. The purpose of the credit is to encourage small businesses to offer health insurance coverage to their employees for the first time or maintain coverage they have, and to help small businesses that employ primarily low- to moderate-income employees.
If for 2010, your total number of employees is less than 25, the average annual wages is less than $50,000, and you satisfy #3, the credit is likely available to you. The maximum credit, which goes to employers with 10 or fewer full-time equivalent employees and annual average wages of $25,000 or less, is 35 percent of premiums paid by eligible small business and 25 percent of premiums paid by eligible tax-exempt organizations.
After seventeen years practicing law, I find that most business clients appreciate the services I have to offer and are willing to pay a fair fee for them. But I have yet to meet a client who feels at all inclined to pay the legal bill of a competitor who has just sued. That’s like being thirteen and kissing your sister. Yet when corporations sue each other over the alleged theft of a valuable employee, the dispute can quickly become a fight over attorney fees.
If the competitor goes to the trouble of suing you, it will probably bring every plausible claim available against you. In non-compete cases, this usually involves a claim that the employee and you have conspired to steal the competitor’s trade secrets and proprietary information. In most lawsuits between business competitors, each side pays its own legal expenses – win, lose or draw. But under Michigan’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a prevailing plaintiff can recover attorney fees if it shows that the defendant willfully and maliciously stole a trade secret.
Obviously, the judge’s decision on the injunction will either strengthen or weaken the suing party’s claim that you acted maliciously. Either way, both sides will need to consider carefully how much more legal expense they are willing to incur solely to fight over who should pay the fees to date. If the case appears ready for settlement even before the judge rules on the request for an injunction, you still may face a fight over attorney fees. I have seen plaintiffs with no real damages become all the more insistent that they recover attorney fees as a matter of principle to ensure that the perceived misconduct does not go unpunished. If you are defending, do you buckle and pay some portion of the other side’s fees, or do you hold ground as a matter of principle? If you hold fast, you may end up paying far more money in the long run, albeit to your own attorney rather than to your competitor’s. As a colleague once told me, “It is perfectly appropriate to stand on principle, once you have acknowledged that principle is expensive.”
Over the last several years, Michigan has experienced extraordinary job loss. One fruit of those job losses has been an unusual number of business start-ups. All over the state, laid off workers have “reinvented” themselves, sometimes going back to school to pursue a different or more advanced degree, and sometimes going into business for themselves doing either the kind of work they have always done or something entirely new.
These online tools don’t replace the need for tax or legal counsel, but they can help you make better and more efficient use of both your time and our office, which in turn can save you money. If you are considering a new business venture or you need our assistance with a legal matter affecting your ongoing business, please contact any of the attorneys at Wright Penning & Beamer. We would be pleased to help you!
In response to challenging economic times, a number of employers have announced reduced work hours or “furlough” days. Generally speaking, reducing work hours for hourly employees is a safe and fair way to help control labor costs in difficult times. When dealing with salaried employees who are exempt from state and federal overtime pay requirements, the rules become more complicated.
Another alternate would be for the employer to implement an actual salary reduction to correspond with anticipated reductions in hours worked. This is permissible so long as the reduction takes effect for a consistent and foreseeable period of time. The employer may not manipulate the salary from week to week in order to correspond with fluctuating work hours.
In December of 2009, Congress and the President approved an extension and expansion of a COBRA premium subsidy law that was due to expire on December 31, 2009. The program now runs through February 28, 2010, rather than December 31, 2009, and the subsidy period is expanded from nine to 15 months. Additionally, there is no requirement that COBRA coverage begin by February 28, 2010, only that the COBRA qualifying event (involuntary termination of employment) occurs by February 28, 2010, and that the individual is eligible for COBRA coverage.
Employers will also need to calculate any overpayments for COBRA beneficiaries who may have paid their full premiums upon receiving notice that their eligibility for the pre-extension subsidy ran out. Upon calculation of the overpayments, employers will have to decide either to issue refund checks to the beneficiaries or to offset future COBRA premium payments by the amount of the overpayment.
