United States: 2015 Employment Law Issues Tournament: First Round Results And Recaps

This past weekend, while college basketball teams across America finished up their conference tournaments, 64 employment law issues played in the first round of our tournament, and boy did it live up to the hype.  Filled with upsets galore and exciting finishes, employment law fans everywhere were not disappointed.

Kevin, a Human Resources professional at a Midwest-based butter sculpting company and die hard Paid Sick Leave fan even remarked: "I deal with employment madness all day, and I've simply never seen madness like this and it's Awesome with a capital A baby."  Rebecca, the General Counsel at the same company as Kevin said: "I'm really not amused by this; my entire HR department is now a lost cause for the next two weeks – thank you Mintz Levin!"  And then there was Marvin, the CFO at a second-tier nap pod manufacturer and distributor, who asked: "What is happening right now?  Seriously, someone tell me."

We'll tell you what is happening Marv – we are trying to figure out the most important employment law issue of the day, and while there is no real answer to this question, we thought we'd take a stab at it anyway.  And now, below, we are pleased to present you with the results from the round of 64, including some recaps of the best matchups.

But before we continue however, we are contractually-obligated to restate the following:

Employers should pay careful attention to the workplace issues associated with March Madness.  We wrote a wonderful post on these issues last year entitled Does March Madness = Workplace Madness? Some Thoughts on the Legality of NCAA Bracket Pools, the Tournament's Effect on the Workplace, and of course, a Rendition of One Shining Moment.  We encourage you to revisit that post to prepare for this year's tournament.  The basketball references are a bit dated (obviously), but the analysis still holds water.


Now on to the first round results and recaps.

ROUND 1 RESULTS

Here are the full results from Round 1 with the winners in BOLD.  You can find the updated bracket with the Round 1 winners here.

Wage and Hour Region

IC Misclassification (1) v. Posting Requirements (16)
Non-Solicitation Covenants (8) v. Non-Recruitment Covenants (9) (recap below)
Wage Deductions (5) v. Background Check Disparate Impact Claim (12) (recap below)
Minimum Wage (4) v. Accrued But Unused PTO (13)
At-Will Employment (6) v. Wage Theft Acts (11) (recap below)
Social Media Policies (3) v. Unemployment Discrimination (14)
Written Job Descriptions (7) v. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment (10)
Hostile Work Environment (2) v. Payment of Final Wages (15)

Discrimination Region

Overtime Pay (1) v. Short Term Disability (16)
Unpaid Interns (8) v. Performance Evaluations (9) (recap below)
Joint Employers (5) v. Bring Your Own Device Policies (12)
Pregnancy Accommodations (4) v. Contractually-Shortened SOLs (13)
Arbitration Agreements (6) v. Interactive Process (11)
Mental Disabilities (3) v. Associational Discrimination (14)
Paid Sick Leave (7) v. Warn Liability (10) (recap below)
Retaliation Claims (2) v. Employee Drug Testing (15) (recap below)

Restrictive Covenant Region

Wage & Hour Collective Actions (1) v. Workers' Compensation (16)
Age Discrimination (8) v. Religious Discrimination (9)
Reasonable Accommodations (5) v. Non-Disclosure Agreements (12)
NLRB In White Collar Workplace (4) v. Off-The-Clock Work (13)
Gender Discrimination (6) v. Automatic Meal Deductions (11) (Recap Below)
Exemption Misclassification (3) v. Employee Handbooks (14)
OSHA Whistleblowers (7) v. Parental Leave (10)
FMLA Leave (2) v. Severance Pay (15)

Leave Management Region

Disability Discrimination (1) v. Exit Interviews (16)
Wellness Programs (8) v. Genetic Information Discrimination (9)
OWBPA Waivers (5) v. Anti-Discrimination/Harassment Training (12) (Recap Below)
Non-Competition Covenants (4) v. Unemployment Benefits (13)
Trade Secrets (6) v. Ban The Box (11)
Collective/Class Action Waivers (3) v. Post/Pre-liminary Activities (14)
Intermittent Leave (7) v. Reductions In Force (10) (Recap Below)
Wage & Hour Class Actions (2) v. Anti-Bullying Laws (15)

ROUND 1 RECAPS

These were the featured matchups from the weekend:

Wage and Hour Region: No. 8 Non-Solicitation v. No. 9 Non-Recruitment

By Jennifer Rubin

The Matchup:

Team Non-Recruitment Covenants, which I understand completely resents its low seed, has been nipping at Team Non-Solicitation Covenants' heels all season.  Isn't it equally important to prevent a former employee from siphoning off your customers and employees?  Given how dangerous a former employee can be – operating from the outside, no longer under an employer's control, and with deep and perhaps long time knowledge of the business operations, failing to take the right steps – or worse, taking the wrong steps to protect the business – can be disastrous.  Evenly matched?  You can say that.  But this game comes down to this: what is more important: your business?  Or your employees?  Can't decide?  Does that formula change depending on factors outside of your control?  These are headliner issues folks and frankly, I share in the collective resentment for the middle of the road seed.  They are contenders.

The Result:

Evenly matched as they are, Team Non-Solicitation Covenants prevails in a "narrowly enforced" game.  Time, money and effort are spent recruiting, training, compensating, and grooming employees ... but let's face it, if any employee wants to go, they can go.  Customers on the other hand would seem to win out every time – after all, isn't it the customer who throws off the revenue that is used to pay those employees?  Isn't the customer the reason you are in business?  Stay tuned however for the next round, because the flaws for Non-Solicitation Covenants lie in careless drafting and a lack of attention to governing law – kind of like running the baseline on an inbound pass – when can you do it and when is it traveling?  And the coaching is suspect too: knowing what play to call when will make the difference between a win and a loss (an enforceable provision and an unenforceable one) – those are the kinds of challenges this team will face in the next round.

Discrimination Region: No. 8 Unpaid Interns vs. No. 9 Performance Evaluations

By Michael Arnold

The Matchup:

Team Unpaid Interns burst onto the employment law scene in 2011 as that year's Cinderella success story after two former unpaid interns sued Fox Searchlight claiming that the company should have classified them and other interns as employees and therefore, paid them at least the minimum wage and overtime.  Two years later they made a run deep into the tournament after a New York Federal Court allowed the interns to seek collective relief.  After dozens of other collective and class action lawsuits were filed against fashion and media companies last year, the Unpaid Interns entered this year at No. 4 in the pre-season issue rankings.  But a recent oral argument before the Second Circuit that was highly critical of the DOL's six-factor unpaid intern test resulted in a late-season slipping in the rankings.  Don't be fooled however, this team still has a couple of blue chippers ready to make some noise.

The Unpaid Interns present a formidable matchup for the Performance Evaluations, which had another decent year, piling up wins against other ranked teams, yet they still finished just third in Employee Performance Management Conference.  The Performance Evaluations continue to play an important role in the workplace – they measure an employee's expected vs. actual performance, help set employee expectations and goals for the future, and perhaps just as importantly, they help employers defend against potential employment discrimination claims.  But often times, employers give the Performance Evaluations short shrift or fail to complete them altogether.  In other words, the Performance Evaluations are like the Kansas of employment law issues – well-coached, loaded with talent, solid defensively and consistent offensively, and while always in the mix, they have faltered in the tournament where other similarly constructed teams have prevailed.

The Result:

Upset Alert: The No. 9 Performance Evaluations squeak by the No. 8 Unpaid Interns in a double overtime thriller.  While a recent up and comer, studies show that most employers already pay their interns and, in light of these recent lawsuits, other employers have modified or eliminated their intern programs to mitigate against potential liability . With the Second Circuit about to make it harder to win these cases, we think the so-called "next wave" of class action lawsuits will cause little more than a tiny ripple in the litigation ocean.  Performance evaluations remain one of the most effective tools employers have at their disposal to help with employee development and to defend against discrimination claims.  They were around before the unpaid intern issue and they'll be around after, and off to the second round they go.

Discrimination Region: No. 2 Retaliation vs. No. 15 Employee Drug Testing

By George Patterson

The Matchup:

Team Retaliation has come on strong again this year, drawing on a deep bench of talent that has enabled it to dominate the tournament for several consecutive seasons.  In 2014, retaliation claims were once again the preeminent category of EEOC charge, rolling over all competitors, including second-place Race Discrimination, which garnered a paltry 35 points (as a percentage of EEOC filings) to Retaliation's 42.  Retaliation's renowned position no doubt stems from its strong fundamentals, which have been bolstered significantly in recent years by the Supreme Court's decisions in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, which expanded the type of employer conduct that constitutes retaliation, and Thompson v. North American Stainless, which broadened the categories of workers entitled to bring retaliation claims.  Retaliation also benefits from an increased awareness among U.S. workers that they can seek damages when an employer punishes them for challenging discriminatory practices, a fact that will be especially formidable if brought to bear on game day.  If Retaliation can continue this trend, it may well become the Kentucky of the Employment Law Issues Tournament.

Awaiting a chance to upset Retaliation is the often underestimated Team Employee Drug Testing.  The Drug Testers were soundly defeated earlier in the season by their traditional rival Disability Discrimination shortly before eking out a narrow victory against newcomer Medical Marijuana.  More recently, the Drug Testers faltered after giving up one too many offensive rebounds to their nemesis' sister school, Reasonable Accommodation.  In two federal decisions in late 2014 and early 2015, two companies settled lawsuits by job candidates who could not provide urine samples in connection with their applications because they were on dialysis due to kidney disease.  The employers likely recognized that offering to deviate from their standard drug testing procedures by obtaining blood or hair samples would not have been particularly unreasonable accommodations.  Granted, these were extremely hostile road games in the Fourth Circuit against some surprisingly good offenses supported by enthusiastic EEOC cheerleaders. Still, with its weaknesses exposed, Drug Testing remains the underdog in its match-up against Retaliation.

The Result:

The No. 2 Retaliation conquers No. 15 Employee Drug Testing.  Drug Testing seemed to commit a turnover on every possession and had difficulty navigating its own tricky regulatory requirements concerning post-offer and reasonable suspicion testing.  As a result, many employers avoid the thorny liability issues associated with drug testing by simply foregoing the practice altogether.  Moreover, in safety-sensitive industries where testing is essential, such as transportation, testing protocols have been largely standardized and are less susceptible to legal challenges.  Retaliation, on the other hand, is a fixture at every level of the workforce, with claims brought by everyone from Wall Street executives to hourly manufacturing workers. Retaliation fans can thus look forward to seeing their team in the next round.

Leave Management Region – No. 7 Intermittent Leave vs. No. 10 Reductions in Force

By Tyrone P. Thomas

The Matchup:

Previously a mainstay at the Division II level, employee handbook favorite Team Intermittent Leave makes its long-awaited appearance in the big dance.  As employers increasingly recognize the need for greater flexibility with work schedules, the bright lights of the tournament are a reminder that a clearly articulated and consistently applied intermittent leave policy may not only be considered good management, but that such leave is protected by the FMLA.  Employees are allowed to take intermittent leave or work a reduced schedule when medically necessary to care for a serious health condition of the employee or family member.  It does not extend to care of a newborn child or newly adopted or placed foster care child unless the employer approves.  With the expansion of adoption by same sex couples, employers need to be mindful of uniformity of their practices across the workforce.

Their opponent, Team Reductions in Force – the Ragin' RIFs – remains irate about their low seeding in the Leave Management Region.  After being on the forefront of every HR mangers' mind during the Great Recession, this team has not received the television coverage it was accustomed to in its heyday.  However, we were reminded this past year by the Sixth Circuit that this team is not to be underestimated as that court refined its standard for RIF discrimination cases.  In its ruling in Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp., the court found a question of fact existed as to whether the employee's position as plant facilities manager had been eliminated as opposed to being reassigned.  Of important note, the court deviated from a prior standard under which an employee who was assigned a discharged employee's duties in addition to their own, would not have been considered a replacement.  The employer in Pierson also learned the important lesson that the appearance of shifting reasons for the basis of termination will not be looked upon favorably in discrimination claims.

The Result:

Despite a great effort by Team Intermittent Leave, the RIFs were not their ideal opponent in a tournament that is based on the NCAA tournament.  This year's tournament begins with numerous collegiate athletic departments facing critical financial decisions to sustain the operation of their teams.  The pressure will only increase with the "Big 5" conferences positioned to provide larger athletic grants-in-aid, a pressure that may cause across-the-board reductions in non-revenue generating sports.  These hard financial decisions with ultimately impact many jobs in the intercollegiate athletics space.  This outcome was never in doubt.  The RIFs will move on.

Leave Management Region – No. 5 OWBPA Waivers vs. No. 12 Anti-Discrimination / Harassment Training

By Jillian Collins

The Matchup:

Fans of Team Older Worker Benefit Protection Act Waivers were on the edge of their seats to find out if their team would even make the tournament this year.  Team OWBPA Waivers should know better than anyone how important the rules and proper timing are, but earlier this season they tried to lock in a recruit before the mandatory seven-day revocation period and almost found themselves sidelined from the tournament for rules violations.  In light of their knowing and voluntary self-reporting, though, the Tournament Selection Committee showed leniency and allowed them to go to the Big Dance (sorry Syracuse fans).  Team OWBPA Waivers is not limping into the tournament by any means, though.  With a roster made up almost entirely of seniors, Team OWBPA Waivers has the depth and experience to make a long run this year (or at least to stick around for the next 21 days).  The key to OWBPA Waivers' success will be its ability to enforce itself offensively and not be whistled for overreaching.  If they follow their very detailed game plan, they could outlast their competition.

Anti-Discrimination/Harassment Training, on the other hand, is under-ranked yet again this year, setting them up for a potential VCU-like run.  No one seems to show this team the respect they deserve.  Maybe it is fact that their Princeton-style offense is not flashy (and is sometimes outright boring) or that attendance at the games is mandatory for all students, but no one seems to like sitting through a Training game.  Still, ADHT's fundamentals have proven time and time again that they can win with their stifling defense – they can always stop their opponents from getting to the basket.

The Result:

This matchup was ripe for the obligatory 5 v. 12 upset, and Team Anti-Discrimination / Harassment Training delivered, winning easily.  This matchup showed that sometimes, the best offense is a great defense.  If your managers follow the ADHT game plan and know how to avoid discriminatory or harassing conduct, then you don't need to worry quite as much about whether or not departing employees validly release their ADEA claims against the company.

Wage and Hour Region: No. 6 At-Will Employment vs. No. 11 Wage Theft Acts

By Frank Hupfl

The Matchup:

Talk about comeback kids.  After huge wins in New York and California in 2011 and 2012, this program largely floundered for the past couple of years, until returning in a big way this year.  The buzz behind team Wage Theft Acts has been growing recently, due in large part to their decisive victory in D.C. in late February.  Are they contenders?  Probably not this year, though we definitely think this is a program to follow in the future.  Consider yourself on notice.

What to say about this dynasty that hasn't already been said time and time again?  A staple of the tournament, any year could be team At-Will Employment's year.  Their embarrassingly low ranking is deceiving, and is due mostly to two bad losses against a plucky NLRB who exposed them for their carefree playing style in employee handbooks.  If At-Will Employment wants to stick around, they should stick to the fundamentals, and not stray too far from what they know works.

The Result:

No upsets here; team Wage Theft Acts was simply outmatched and it showed.  This was a statement game: Team At-Will Employment came out and said we're not going anywhere.  That said, keep your eyes on team Wage Theft Acts in the future, their phoenix-like reappearance on the scene may lead to increased recruitment on a national scale, and in a few years, a lot more employers may have a team Wage Theft Acts poster hanging on their wall.

Discrimination Region: No.7 Paid Sick Leave v. No. 10 WARN Liability

By Jennifer Rubin

The Matchup:

Here is yet another example of bracket disrespect, but this time to No. 7 Paid Sick Leave.  Let's face it, No. 10 WARN liability is so yesterday.  Kind of like the old glory days of the Big East when you counted the days to the conference tournament because it never disappointed.  Paid Sick Leave is THE newest and latest and greatest in local government activism.  And anyone gets to play.  Yes, not just San Francisco, a long-time leader in this field, but now New York City, Oakland, Jersey City, Seattle, and even smaller localities like Montclair, New Jersey are getting in the game.  How can an employer possibly comply with a crazy patchwork of laws?  But WARN just won't quit.  At least one court has recently concluded that an investor may be subject to WARN liability for the abrupt closure of a portfolio company.  If paid sick leave didn't scare you, that holding should send chills down employer's spines.

The Result:

Even the recent WARN scare won't be enough to outlast paid sick leave.  WARN just doesn't have the legs.  We all know the statute is out there and will do everything possible to comply with it – but does it really impact an employer's daily life?  Paid sick leave on the other hand – now that is something that employers are going to need to be sorting through – and it will become a real chore for the multijurisdictional employer looking to put a single sick leave policy in place.  While we are at it, how do we handle plain old vanilla PTO policies?  And does the dribbler need to have one or both feet over the line for an over and back violation?  Stay tuned to the next round – this could be exciting!

Wage and Hour Region:  No. 5 Wage Deductions v. No. 12 Background Check Disparate Impact Claims

Written by Brent Douglas

The Matchup

Most analysts were miffed by Wage Deductions low ranking.  Perhaps we are too.  But we do know that the No. 5 Wage Deductions remain a misunderstood enigma by most employers. As Mintz Levin Employment Law Bracketmaster Michael Arnold opined almost a year and half ago: "If you haven't thought about this issue for some time, there's a reasonably good chance you were doing it wrong before, and if you don't pay attention to this issue now, there's an even better chance you'll be doing it wrong in the future."  The same holds true today.  Employers with the best of intentions want to deduct modest amounts from employee's paychecks for entirely innocuous reasons like: employee purchases of tools, equipment, and work-required uniforms; recoupment of unauthorized expenses; and repayment of employer losses like breakages and cash shortages.  Guess what?  In most cases: They can't!  And that's just New York.  In California, employers cannot make these deductions or recoup things like advanced vacation time from when an employee is allowed to carry a negative PTO balance.  Further, if employers do make the illegal deduction, they are now on the hook for waiting time penalties, potential minimum wage violations, statutory penalties, liquidated damages in the amount of wages wrongfully withheld, and attorneys' fees.  In other words, this team will lure you into the lane Duke-style, take the charge and get your best players into foul trouble.  Before you know it, the game may get away from you.  No one likes watching teams win this way, but that's what the Dunkin' Deductors do and have been doing for years.

On the other bench is No. 12 Background Check Disparate Impact Claims – a relatively newcomer to the tournament.  Although Background Check DI Claims hail from a strong conference, this team's bubble probably should have burst this year.  Mintz Levin Bracketologist Jessica Catlow warned fans at home at the start of the season that the EEOC's recent attempts to curb companies' use of background checks were failing.  Last spring, a federal court shot down the EEOC's claim in EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. that Kaplan's use of credit checks caused it to screen out more African-Americans because of its exclusion of applicants with poor credit scores and delinquent child support payments.  Then, just two months ago, two Defendants in EEOC-led background check diverse impact claims alleged that the EEOC conducted discriminatory background checks of their own!  And then last month, in a decision that was heavily critical of eth EEOC's actions, the 4th Circuit said that a lower court properly excluded expert testimony proffered by the EEOC to establish the alleged disparate impact of the employer's background check policies.

The Result

While fans love a good No. 12-No. 5 upset, the Background Check DI Claims were no match for the Wage Deductions.  The DI Claims have been struggling all year and it showed.  Overpowered early, BCDIC teammates began to publicly attack each other, until they decided it best to place blame their shortcomings on another governmental department, likely the IRS.  The sanctity of accurate pay and the staggering array of penalties that come from infractions make Wage Deductions a rising star.   And it's off to the next round, where the Wage Deductions will face upstart Team Accrued But Unused Vacation Pay who defeated No. 4 Minimum Wage in the biggest surprise of the tournament thus far.

Restrictive Covenant Region:  Gender Discrimination (6) v. Automatic Meal Deductions (11)

Written by Michael Arnold

The Matchup

Team Gender Discrimination is loaded with potential claim talent: all-stars like pregnancy, transgender, and gender identity discrimination each put up consistent stats over the course of the season.  And they continue to dominate the sports page headlines out in Silicon Valley.  But bad losses in Equal Employment Opportunity Conference play to powerhouses Retaliation and Race Discrimination and also to lower-ranked National Origin discrimination saw Gender Nation fall down to the six spot.  But they will make a run, rest assured, and if anyone refers to them as this year's Cinderella team, we can guarantee you a process server will be knocking on your door.

Meanwhile, what can we say about the Automatic Meal Deductions that hasn't been said already?  The answer is pretty much anything, because few people are writing about this issue.  But they should, as automatic deduction violations have proven costly to employers who get it wrong.  When an employer's meal deduction timekeeping practice is as automatic as Gonzaga's Kyle Wiltjer's three-point shot, then it may have a problem.  To have a chance against the AMDs, your team better (i) have a clearly articulated policy regarding substitutions (deductions), (ii) require that your players report to the scorer's table before they sub into the game (report when they've worked through a meal period), and (iii) inform them that they will be T'd up if they don't report (will be subject to discipline if they don't report working through a meal).

The Result

Gender Discrimination moves on in a laugher.  This team continued to improve during the year and shows no signs of slowing down:  We are seeing gender discrimination law develop in interesting ways, especially with respect to transgender discrimination as the EEOC is starting to file lawsuits focusing on this protected class.  And freshman phenom Caregiver Responsibilities Discrimination helped lead a second half (non-EEOC-related) charge that bolted the Gender Discriminations past the Automatic Meal Deductions.  Team Automatic Deduction never really stood a chance especially as courts have recently signaled that they are not keen on certifying these claims as class or collective actions.  Next up for the Team Gender Discrimination is heavily-favored Exemption Misclassifications.

————————————-

The Round of 32 winners and recaps will be posted later this week, so check back soon!  In the meantime enjoy the "First Four" in the real NCAA tournament tomorrow.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Michael S. Arnold
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions