Employment Flash - September 2017

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

This edition examines recent labor and employment developments at the U.S. federal, state and local levels, including a Texas district court ruling invalidating the Department of Labor's overtime rule; a New York appellate court's ruling regarding the unenforceability of a class action waiver, recent restrictive covenant and NLRB developments; and the overturning of an NLRB joint-employer holding by the D.C. Circuit. The newsletter also looks at how the U.K. and France are addressing concerns over the rights of workers in the gig economy.

Eastern District of Texas Rules DOL’s Final Overtime Rule Invalid

New York Appeals Court Holds Class Action Waivers Are Unenforceable

Recent Developments Regarding Restrictive Covenants

DC Circuit Overturns NLRB Joint-Employer Holding

Ninth Circuit Refuses to Give Deference to DOL Guidance on Tip Credit

Third Circuit Rules That Single Slur Can Establish Workplace Harassment

Firing an Employee for Being ‘Too Cute’ May Constitute Gender Discrimination

Regulatory Update

  • NLRB Nominations and Confirmations
  • EEO-1 Report’s Controversial Pay Data Collection Suspended

International Spotlight

  • Update on UK’s Gig Economy and Taylor Review’s Recommendations
  • France Creates Specific Rights for Independent Workers in Gig Economy

Eastern District of Texas Rules DOL’s Final Overtime Rule Invalid

In an August 31, 2017, order, a court in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the final overtime rule (Final Rule) issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on May 23, 2016, is invalid. The Final Rule, which was enjoined by that same court on November 22, 2016, would have raised the salary threshold from $455 per week to $913 per week for the executive, administrative and professional exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). After conducting a Chevron analysis, the court found that the Final Rule impermissibly replaces the FLSA’s duties test with a salary threshold, effectively transforming the duties test into a minimum salary test. In reaching its conclusion, the court cited the DOL’s estimate that 4.2 million workers who are currently ineligible to receive overtime pay would become eligible for it under the Final Rule without any change to the workers’ duties. The court held that the DOL had exceeded its authority granted under the FLSA and invalidated the Final Rule. The DOL previously indicated in a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 30, 2017, that it “has decided not to advocate for the salary level ($913 per week) set in the [F]inal [R]ule at this time and intends to undertake further rulemaking to determine what the salary level should be.”

New York Appeals Court Holds Class Action Waivers Are Unenforceable

In Gold v. N.Y. Life Insurance Co., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5627 (1st Dept. 2017), a New York state appellate court ruled that a class action waiver in an agent contract that barred employees from bringing class or collective actions against their employer was unenforceable and violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In Gold, a group of former employees filed a wage and hour class action asserting that the employer made illegal wage deductions and failed to comply with state minimum wage and overtime laws. One of the employees had signed an agreement requiring any claims or disputes to be arbitrated. The arbitration clause prohibited any claims from being brought “on a class action, collective action or representative action basis either in court or arbitration.” The former employees proceeded with their claims as a proposed class action, and when the employer moved to compel arbitration, the Supreme Court of New York County granted the employer’s motion to compel arbitration and, except for the one employee whose agreement contained the arbitration provision, dismissed the other plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims. On appeal, the New York state appellate court relied on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), which invalidated a class action waiver. The New York state appellate court stated that class action waivers violate Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA by interfering with employees’ “right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.” In addition, the New York state appellate court found that the class action waiver violates the Federal Arbitration Act. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear a case in January 2018 that will resolve the circuit split between the Seventh Circuit decision in Lewis invalidating such class action waivers and the Fifth Circuit decision in D.R. Horton v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (2013), upholding such class action waivers.

Recent Developments Regarding Restrictive Covenants

In May 2017, a California district court enjoined an employer from using materials allegedly stolen by one of its engineers from a former employer and required that the materials be returned to the former employer. The engineer was prohibited from working on his current employer’s version of the former employer’s technology.

In June 2017, a federal district court in New York declined to enforce a nonsolicitation agreement. The court found that the employer’s interest in avoiding resignations by a group of key employees did not constitute a legally cognizable protectable interest. Such interests are limited to protection from (i) misappropriation of trade secrets or confidential customer lists or (ii) competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary. The same court held — consistent with New York state precedent — that preparations to compete do not violate a noncompete agreement. Further, a New York City bill proposed in July 2017, if enacted, would bar employers from enforcing noncompete agreements against nonexempt, “low-wage” workers.

A new law that was adopted in Nevada in June 2017 restored the ability of state judges to “blue-pencil” noncompete agreements — meaning overbroad provisions can be enforced in a revised form — after the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that doing so exceeds judicial authority. The new law also describes a clear blueprint for a valid noncompete (i.e., a protectable interest, no “undue hardship” and restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the value they protect), legally permits enforcement of noncompetes against laid-off workers only while they are paid their respective salaries and benefits, and limits the extent to which employers can prohibit former employees from soliciting customers.

In addition, there have been recent nonsolicitation developments in Illinois. In June 2017, an Illinois appeals court held that requests to connect on a LinkedIn site do not amount to a violation of a nonsolicitation agreement because such requests are generic invitations to connect rather than attempts to poach workers.

DC Circuit Overturns NLRB Joint-Employer Holding

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently reversed a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that CNN was a joint employer with Team Video Services. NLRB v. CNN America Inc., No. 15-1112 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 4, 2017). For decades, CNN has contracted with outside vendors to supply technicians, and those technicians have been consistently represented by a union. In 2003, CNN announced that it was terminating its contract with outside vendors and would begin directly hiring technicians. When the union sought recognition and bargaining, CNN did not recognize or bargain with the union, and CNN did not directly hire more than 100 of the contract technicians. Affirming the administrative law judge’s decision, the NLRB found that CNN was a joint employer and violated the NLRA by terminating the contract because of anti-union animus and by failing to bargain with the union about its decision to terminate those contracts. In addition, the NLRB found that CNN was a successor employer and violated the NLRA by failing to recognize and bargain with the union.

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit found that the three-member panel of the NLRB did not follow its precedent in finding that CNN was a joint employer and by “sidestepping” the direct and immediate control test, which requires the showing of direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment to prove a joint employer relationship. The three-member panel decided the CNN case before the full panel changed the joint-employer standard in Browning-Ferris, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). The D.C. Circuit drew a distinction between the decisions of the three-member panel and the full panel. The court found that in Browning-Ferris, the NLRB explicitly considered and overruled its precedent that found a “direct and immediate control” requirement, but in CNN, the NLRB ignored its precedent. The D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the case with respect to the joint-employer issues and found that “[s]ilence in the face of inconvenient precedent is not acceptable.” The D.C. Circuit noted that its decision did not affect the current appeal in Browning-Ferris, which is pending before a different panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit.

Ninth Circuit Refuses to Give Deference to DOL Guidance on Tip Credit

On September 6, 2017, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the DOL deserves no deference with respect to its 2016 administrative guidance about whether employers can claim a tip credit for certain nontipped duties that an employee performs. The panel issued this ruling for a consolidated group of nine cases in which former servers and bartenders alleged that various restaurants underpaid them by improperly claiming tips as a credit toward the federal minimum wage.

The FLSA allows employers of workers who customarily earn more than $30 per month in tips to pay such workers a cash wage of $2.13 per hour and claim the workers’ tips as a credit toward the $7.25-per-hour federal minimum wage requirement. A DOL regulation addresses how this tip credit applies to employees who have two different job roles for the same employer. It states that an employer cannot claim a tip credit for hours that an employee works in a nontipped position. In its 2016 administrative guidance, the DOL interpreted this regulation to mean that an employer cannot take a tip credit for the time a tipped employee spends performing duties that are not related to the tipped occupation if that time exceeds 20 percent of his or her hours worked. In contrast to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in Fast v. Applebee’s International Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the DOL’s interpretation was not entitled to deference because the guidance is inconsistent with the regulation it purports to clarify and creates new substantive rules regulating how employees spend their time performing work.

Third Circuit Rules That Single Slur Can Establish Workplace Harassment

On July 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a single racial slur may be enough to establish a workplace harassment claim. In Castleberry v. STI Group, No. 16-3131 (3d. Cir. July 14, 2017), two black laborers brought harassment, discrimination and retaliation claims against their staffing agency and the client company where they worked. The laborers alleged that their employment was terminated because they reported a manager’s use of a racial slur. The staffing agency and client company argued that no courts have found that a single, isolated incident could constitute a hostile work environment. The Third Circuit disagreed and stated that for a workplace harassment claim to survive the pleading stage, the laborers must allege that the harassment is “severe or pervasive” rather than “severe and pervasive.” The Third Circuit reasoned that “the Supreme Court’s decision to adopt the ‘severe or pervasive’ standard lends support that an isolated incident of discrimination (if severe) can suffice to state a claim for harassment ... Otherwise why create a disjunctive standard where alleged ‘severe’ conduct — even if not at all ‘pervasive’— can establish a plaintiff’s harassment clam?” In contrast to other courts that have held that a single racial epithet is not actionable, and overturning a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing the laborers’ claims, the Third Circuit found that a manager’s use of a racial slur in front of the laborers constitutes severe conduct that could create a hostile work environment.

Firing an Employee for Being ‘Too Cute’ May Constitute Gender Discrimination

A New York state appellate court allowed a gender discrimination claim to proceed where a former employee alleged that her employment was terminated because she was too attractive. The former employee filed her complaint against married co-owners of a business that employed her. She alleged that the husband said his wife might become jealous because the former employee was “too cute.” Approximately four months later, the wife allegedly texted the former employee demanding that she stay away from her husband and family. The husband fired the former employee later that same day.

Courts in other jurisdictions, including Georgia and Iowa, have routinely dismissed similar gender discrimination claims where employees were fired due to concerns expressed by the employer’s spouse about the relationship between the employer and employee. The New York court distinguished those cases by emphasizing that the impetus for the employment termination in this case was based solely on the employer’s actual or perceived attraction to the employee, whereas the other cases focused on the employee’s attraction and behavior. In its brief filed in support of the former employee, the New York City Commission on Human Rights argued that employment decisions based on “sexual desire or perceived sexual attractiveness” amount to prima facie gender discrimination. The court ultimately ruled that adverse employment actions motivated by sexual attraction are gender-based and constitute unlawful gender discrimination under New York law.

*      *      *

Regulatory Update

NLRB Nominations and Confirmations

The NLRB is comprised of five board members who act collectively as a quasi-judicial body tasked with deciding cases in administrative proceedings. Board members are appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate to serve two five-year terms, with one board member’s term expiring each year. The general counsel position, which is independent from the NLRB, investigates and prosecutes unfair labor practices cases and has the broad authority to determine which cases the NLRB pursues and prioritizes. The general counsel has the final authority to issue complaints and dismiss charges. The general counsel also supervises all NLRB attorneys and officers and employees in the NLRB’s regional field offices. The general counsel holds a four-year term.

On September 15, 2017, the White House announced that Peter B. Robb, a management-side labor attorney, was nominated to become the next general counsel of the NLRB, a position currently held by Richard F. Griffin, Jr., a Democrat who was appointed by President Barack Obama and whose four-year term ends on October 31, 2017. Robb formerly worked as an NLRB field attorney from 1977 to 1979 and returned to the NLRB in 1982 to serve as a staff lawyer and chief counsel to Republican NLRB member Robert P. Hunter.

If confirmed, Robb will join an agency in transition. The NLRB is currently comprised of four board members — Democrats Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran, and Republicans Marvin E. Kaplan and Chairman Philip Miscimarra. Kaplan, a former attorney for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, was recently nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2017. Chairman Miscimarra recently announced he will not seek another term when his current one expires in December 2017. President Trump has not yet announced a nominee to fill this impending board vacancy, but he has nominated Republican management-side labor attorney William Emanuel to fill the existing fifth vacancy. If Emanuel is confirmed by the Senate, the NLRB will have its first Republican majority composition in nine years.

A Republican majority on the board could set the stage for reconsideration of prior pro-labor board decisions, including decisions regarding joint employer relationships, employee handbooks, work-related policies, employee rights under the NLRA and other decisions that broadly construed workers’ rights under the NLRA.

EEO-1 Report’s Controversial Pay Data Collection Suspended

On August 29, 2017, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum suspending implementation of the EEO-1 Report’s pay data collection and reporting requirements, which certain employers would have had to comply with starting in March 2018. The new EEO-1 reporting requirements would have required employers with more than 100 employees to report summary wage data and hours-worked data categorized by employees’ gender, ethnicity and race. Though some opposed such requirements and claimed they would be overly burdensome to businesses, others viewed the compensation data as a useful tool for identifying pay discrimination and assessing potential pay violations.

The OMB’s decision to stay the implementation of the new requirements was purportedly prompted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s acting chair, who emphasized the amount of time that employers would need to change their payroll systems in order to meet the March 2018 deadline. The OMB’s memorandum cited the Paperwork Reduction Act as the justification for its review and immediate stay of the new EEO-1 requirements, and stated that the pay data collection requirements “lack practical utility, are unnecessarily burdensome and do not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.” Despite the indefinite stay of the new requirements, the pre-existing EEO-1 requirement that employers submit ethnicity, race and gender data by job category will remain in effect.

*      *      *

International Spotlight

Update on UK’s Gig Economy and Taylor Review’s Recommendations

The April 2017 edition of Employment Flash considered the recent case law in the U.K. concerning the categorization of staff and their respective employment rights, particularly in the gig economy. Following a string of high-profile cases and the recent rise in the U.K. of self-employment, “causal work” (i.e., certain types of nontraditional work) and “zero-hours contracts” (i.e. contracts that do not require employers to provide employees with a minimum amount of work), the U.K. government commissioned the report “Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices,” which was published on July 11, 2017. The Taylor Review includes a wide range of recommendations aimed at improving the working conditions of all staff, particularly those employees and workers who are not employed full-time.

The key recommendations of the Taylor Review are:  

  • A new category of “dependent contractor” should replace the current legal definition of “worker,” and legislation should be changed to adopt a clearer definition of dependent contractor or worker. An individual’s classification as a dependent contractor should be determined by the level of control an employer maintains over an individual at work. A dependent contractor should be entitled to certain employee rights such as holiday pay and statutory sick pay. The Taylor Review notes that this new category might help to clarify workers’ rights and improve enforcement of those rights.
  • The government should create a free online tool to make it easier to determine an individual’s employment status and related rights. A similar tool is operated for tax purposes by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a tax department of the U.K. government.
  • The government should encourage certain workplace practices and employment relations by, for example, promoting strategies to ensure the development of workers’ skills, career advancement and an increase in earning potential. The Taylor Review does not recommend significant employment-related legislation and regulation.
  • Tax treatment of employees and workers/dependent contractors in the U.K. should be the same (it is not currently), but independent contractors should remain subject to a separate tax regime. Moreover, if someone is classified as an employee by a tax tribunal, that decision should be binding for both tax and employment law purposes.

With the U.K. unemployment rate at a 42-year low, the Taylor Review recognizes the importance of maintaining a balance between a flexible labor market and workplace fairness to ensure that good quality work, good working conditions and income security are at the forefront of business and government strategy. The government is currently considering the Taylor Review’s recommendations.

France Creates Specific Rights for Independent Workers in Gig Economy

The legal status of the approximately 200,000 independent workers in France’s gig economy has been the subject of recent public scrutiny because such workers do not benefit from employee protections under the French labor code even when they are subject to employer control. The new gig economy has triggered concerns that such workers are not truly independent and that legislators should consider changes in work-related practices. In response to these concerns, a French law was passed in 2016 that offers specific protection to certain independent workers. This new law will take effect in January 2018.

The new law imposes a form of social responsibility for digital platforms that engage the services of independent workers. In particular, it mandates such platforms to provide some of those workers with insurance against occupational accidents, access to professional education and the right to create workers unions that protect their collective interests. The digital platforms will be required to pay for such insurance and contribute financially to workers’ professional education. The protections will be required only for workers who earn more than $6,000 (about €5,099) per year and who contract with digital platforms that control both the manner and the price of services provided or goods delivered. They include platforms such as Uber, which sets the prices of rides through its digital application. The digital platforms will be prohibited from terminating the engagement of, or taking any adverse action against, such workers in the event of collective work stoppages.

Moreover, French legislators are considering creating a worker status between those of “employee” and “independent contractor,” similar to one that currently exists in the U.K. Until then, if a labor court concludes that the relationship between a worker and a digital platform is a type of employment relationship, the worker would be entitled to the benefits and protections afforded to employees under the labor code.

Download pdf

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.