Employment Law

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

In This Issue:

  • Same-Sex Harassment Suits Yield Sizable Settlements

  • NLRB Reverses Employer Liability for Comments About Facebook

  • EEOC, FTC Collaborate on Background-Check Guidance

  • U.S. Supreme Court Expands SOX Whistle-Blower Protections

  • Employees Can Reject FMLA Leave, 9th Circuit Concludes

Same-Sex Harassment Suits Yield Sizable Settlements

Why it matters: Same-sex sexual harassment made headlines recently after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached settlements with two different employers. In a closely watched case out of Louisiana, the agency accused Boh Brothers Construction of turning a blind eye to gay slurs and taunting gestures by a supervisor targeting an ironworker. A federal jury found the construction company liable. On appeal, the en banc Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 68-page decision with multiple dissents affirming the liability finding and holding that gender stereotyping could form the basis of a sexual harassment claim. The parties then reached a $100,000 deal. In the second case, Washington-based Roy Farms refused to admit liability for allegations that a supervisor made inappropriate comments and touched orchard workers sexually. The company did agree to pay $85,000. For employers, the lesson is clear: regardless of the sex of the parties involved, sexual harassment violates Title VII and can lead to serious liability.

Detailed Discussion
An ironworker on a project near New Orleans, Kerry Woods reported to the EEOC that he was subjected to harassment by a male supervisor, from verbal abuse to sexual gestures to having the man expose himself.

Although Woods is heterosexual, the supervisor testified at trial that he thought the worker was “feminine” and failed to conform to gender stereotypes of “rough iron workers.” A jury sided with Woods on his Title VII hostile work environment sexual harassment claim and awarded a total of $450,000, including $250,000 in punitives. The federal court judge reduced the award but upheld the liability determination.

On the first appeal to the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel of the court reversed the jury’s liability finding. But sitting en banc, the court held in a 10-to-6 opinion that both the law and evidence supported the liability finding because gender stereotypes could form the basis of a Title VII sexual harassment claim.

In light of the September ruling, the parties reached a deal. Boh Brothers agreed to pay $125,000 in compensatory damages to Woods pursuant to a consent judgment. The settlement ends the high-profile litigation.

A second case reminding employers to be cognizant of same-sex harassment in the workplace occurred at a hops farm in Moxee, Washington. There, according to the EEOC, an orchard supervisor engaged in a two-year campaign of harassment against male workers. The agency said the supervisor used vulgar terminology to express his interest in having sex with the workers and made physical contact by caressing their faces, backs, and buttocks.

Despite the workers reporting the conduct, nothing was done, the EEOC claimed. Fearing for his safety, the complaint alleged that one of the workers quit.

After conducting a conciliation process and filing suit, the parties were able to agree upon a settlement. Although Roy Farms declined to admit wrongdoing for the conduct of the orchard supervisor, the company will pay four workers a total of $85,000.

The farm also promised to provide equal employment opportunity policies to its workers (in both English and Spanish), update the company’s complaint procedures to increase accessibility, provide training to managers, who will then be held accountable for harassment by their workers, and report any harassment complaints to the EEOC for a three-year period.

To read the consent judgment in EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction, click here.

To read the consent decree in EEOC v. Roy Farms, click here.

NLRB Reverses Employer Liability for Comments About Facebook

Why it matters: It is no secret that the National Labor Relations Board has been vigilant in its efforts to uphold the National Labor Relations Act in recent months, from striking down a confidentiality provision in an employment agreement to frowning upon an employer’s social media policy as violative of employee rights. But in a recent decision from a three-member panel of the Board, the agency reversed an administrative law judge’s imposition of liability where a supervisor criticized an employee’s Facebook comments and intimated they were the reason behind his shift transfer. Although the decision noted that employers could very well be liable under Section 8(a)(1) for impacting employee rights on social media, the panel refused to infer that the posts constituted protected concerted activity absent sufficient evidence.

Detailed Discussion
John Vollene, a member of the union’s negotiating committee at Nevada-based World Color Corp., a subsidiary of Quad Graphics, responded to another individual’s post on Facebook with comments criticizing World Color over a six-month period. Vollene was Facebook friends with several coworkers, including his shift supervisor.

A downturn in the economy impacted the company and reassignments occurred for all shifts. Vollene was one of many of the reassigned press operators. He asked his supervisor about the reassignment and was told that “it wasn’t always about production that – he said the management knew about my posts on Facebook. He – he asked me a question. He said don’t you think that they know about what you posted on Facebook.”

Last July an administrative law judge found the supervisor’s statement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. Specifically, the judge found that Vollene could have reasonably believed that his reassignment was retaliation for his Facebook posts, which constituted protected activity.

But the three-member panel disagreed. Acknowledging that the Board has found Facebook posts among employees about terms and conditions of employment to be protected concerted activity, the panel said “scant evidence” was presented about the actual content of Vollene’s posts – leaving a question about whether he engaged in protected activity.

“The testimony indicates only that Vollene posted unspecified criticisms of [World Color] and unspecified comments about the union over a period of 5 or 6 months, and that he responded to another person’s initial post,” according to the decision. Lacking stronger evidence – and an actual printout of the posts – the panel refused to infer that the posts amounted to protected activity. And the supervisor’s “statement impl[ying] that [World Color] had reacted adversely to critical posts is insufficient to bridge the evidentiary gap here.”

The panel took pains to note that employers can violate Section 8(a)(1) even where an employee has not engaged in protected concerted activity (with a rule that an employee could interpret as prohibiting his or her rights, for example).

But in Vollene’s case, there was insufficient evidence “to demonstrate that [the supervisor’s] statement was directed at, or in response to, either actual or suspected protected concerted activity by Vollene or that Vollene would reasonably understand [the] statement as interfering with, restraining, or coercing him from engaging in such activity.”

The decision wasn’t entirely in the employer’s favor, however. The panel upheld the ALJ’s determination that a rule about headwear violated the NLRA. World Color’s employee guidelines included the following rule: “. . .Baseball caps are prohibited except for Quad/Graphics baseball caps worn with the bill facing forward. . . .” Because World Color failed to demonstrate evidence of special circumstances that outweighed employee rights (like violence or interference with safety), the panel agreed that the hat policy violated Section 8(a)(1).

To read the decision in World Color Corp., click here.

EEOC, FTC Collaborate on Background-Check Guidance

Why it matters: In an effort to “explain the rights and responsibilities of the people on both sides of the desk,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Federal Trade Commission copublished guides on employment background checks for both employers and employees. “Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know” discusses the regulatory and enforcement perspective of each agency, with the FTC focused on compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, while the EEOC emphasized the need to comply with antidiscrimination laws like Title VII when using background information to make a hiring decision. As employers consider using information like credit history or criminal background checks for employment-related decisions – and the EEOC takes action against employers for allegedly using them illegally – employers would be well advised to review the new guidance.

Detailed Discussion
The EEOC and FTC jointly released two new documents: “Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know” and “Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Need to Know.”

The employer guidance begins with a basic premise: absent certain exceptions (like medical and genetic information), employers may legally ask questions about an applicant’s or employee’s background or require a background check.

While research about education, financial history, or social media use may be legal, the agencies reminded employers that federal antidiscrimination law must be observed. “That includes discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion; disability; genetic information (including family medical history); and age (40 or older),” the guidance explained, with enforcement of such laws falling under the EEOC’s purview.

Oversight by the FTC kicks in when an employer runs a background check through a company in the business of compiling background information, triggering the FCRA.

The agencies broke down the issue into three different time periods: before background information is collected, the use of such data, and how to safely dispose of it.

Prior to collecting background information, ensure that the request isn’t being made only to a certain race or those over a certain age, potentially triggering antidiscrimination laws, the EEOC said. And do not request genetic information or ask questions about medical history, which would trigger the protections of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

If an employer intends to conduct a criminal or credit background check using a company in the business of compiling the necessary data, the FTC noted that the FCRA requires additional procedures. Most importantly, inform the applicant or employee about the potential to use such information in writing and preferably in a stand-alone format (not tucked away in an employment application) and get the individual’s written permission.

Once the information is in hand, “apply the same standards to everyone,” the EEOC said, adding a warning to avoid potential disparate impact claims by taking “special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people” of a certain protected class, like race. The agency also suggested that employers should “be prepared to make exceptions for problems revealed during a background check that were caused by a disability,” and allow an individual to demonstrate his or her ability to do the job.

The FCRA imposes additional requirements if an employer takes adverse action based on background information obtained via a company, the FTC noted, like providing the applicant or employee a copy of the report and a pamphlet explaining the individual’s rights under the statute, such as the ability to dispute the accuracy or completeness of the report.

Finally, both agencies noted that the disposal of background information also requires action on the part of employers. Records must be preserved for at least a one-year period, the EEOC said, while the FTC cautioned that when disposal occurs, it must be undertaken securely. Options include “burning, pulverizing, or shredding paper documents and disposing of electronic information” so that it cannot be read or reconstructed.

To read “Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know,” click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Expands SOX Whistle-Blower Protections

Why it matters: Exposing a broad range of businesses to potential liability, a new decision from the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the scope of whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, holding that the statute applies to private contractors and subcontractors of public companies. Two employees of private companies contracted to manage mutual funds filed suit under SOX alleging retaliation after reporting concerns about possible securities fraud. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court determined that Section 1514A shelters employees of private contractors and subcontractors, just as it shelters employees of the public company served by contractors and subcontractors.” Speaking on behalf of employers facing potential liability under the statute, a dissenting opinion said the decision gives SOX a “stunning reach” and could lead to hypothetical suits like “a cause of action against a small business that contracts to clean the local Starbucks (a public company) if an employee is demoted after reporting that another nonpublic company client has mailed the cleaning company a fraudulent invoice.”

Detailed Discussion
Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang both worked for subsidiaries of a private company that came to be known as FMR LLC. Lawson and Zang were responsible for advisory and management services to Fidelity mutual funds. Both alleged that after expressing concerns about possible securities fraud, they faced retaliation in the workplace.

A federal district court in Massachusetts declined to dismiss their Sarbanes-Oxley complaints. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the suits and holding that the statute did not apply to employees of private companies.

But in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court reversed dismissal.

Section 1514A provides that “No [public] company. . ., or any officer, employee contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of [whistleblowing or other protected activity].”

The majority looked to the history of SOX – specifically the Enron scandal – to emphasize Congress’s recognition that contractors and subcontractors who tried to report wrongdoing also faced retaliation.

“We hold, based on the text of Section 1514A, the mischief to which Congress was responding, and earlier legislation that Congress drew upon, that the provision shelters employees of private contractors and subcontractors, just as it shelters employees of the public company served by the contractors and subcontractors,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “Given Congress’s concern about contractor conduct of the kind that contributed to Enron’s collapse, we regard with suspicion construction of Section 1514A to protect whistleblowers only when they are employed by a public company, and not when they work for the public company’s contractor.”

FMR’s interpretation of the text “requires insertion of ‘of a public company’ after ‘an employee,’” the Court said. But in other parts of the statute, Congress explicitly used the phrase “an employee of a public company,” demonstrating that lawmakers knew how to use the phrase when they wanted.

A contrary ruling would leave “a huge hole,” the majority added. “Contractors’ employees would be disarmed; they would be vulnerable to retaliation by their employers for blowing the whistle on a scheme to defraud the public company’s investors,” leaving mutual fund advisers and managers, as well as “legions” of accountants and lawyers, without the protections of Section 1514A.

Statutory headings – like “Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies” – were not dispositive of the actual statutory text, Justice Ginsburg wrote, dismissing one of FMR’s contentions. She also said that the dissent’s concerns about personal employees of company officers bringing suit – like housekeepers or gardeners – were overstated and “more theoretical than real.” Such floodgates arguments could be tempered by “limiting principles” like a recognition that the term “contractor” does not extend to every fleeting business relationship, the Court added.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, said the majority failed to recognize that Section 1514A “is deeply ambiguous” and therefore should be read narrowly to avoid “absurd results” and “impose costly litigation burdens on any private business that happens to have an ongoing contract with a public company.”

To read the opinion in Lawson v. FMR LLC, click here.

Employees Can Reject FMLA Leave, 9th Circuit Concludes

Why it matters: Can an employee affirmatively reject the use of Family and Medical Leave Act leave even where her reason for time off triggered statutory coverage? Yes, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, holding that circumstances can exist where an employee may seek time off but intend not to exercise his or her FMLA rights in order to save the protected leave for a later date. The decision alleviates employers from what could have been a significant burden had the court reached a contrary holding, making the refusal to exercise FMLA rights “legally impossible.”

Detailed Discussion
Maria Escriba worked at a Foster Poultry Farms processing plant in California. An 18-year employee, she met with her immediate supervisor to request time off to care for her sick father who lived in Guatemala.

Escriba claimed that she asked for time off, stating, “Linda, please for me, Linda, for me, vacation” because her “father is no good.” The supervisor agreed to two weeks of vacation. Escriba later said she asked for an additional week or two of unpaid leave that was rejected.

With an interpreter, Escriba again spoke with her supervisor, who confirmed she was only taking two weeks of leave as vacation time. Escriba was not instructed on her rights and obligations under the FMLA or Foster Farms did not take any steps to designate her time off as FMLA leave. Escriba left for Guatemala, where she stayed longer than her two weeks of vacation. She was terminated for failing to comply with Foster Farms’ “three day no-show, no-call rule.” She then filed suit under the FMLA and its California equivalent.

After a six-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Foster Farms.

Escriba appealed. She argued that by informing her supervisors of her reason for taking leave, her FMLA rights were triggered and she was automatically entitled to the statutory protections. Foster Farms was required to designate her leave as FMLA-protected, she told the Ninth Circuit, regardless of whether she expressly declined such a designation.

The federal appellate panel rejected Escriba’s position that refusing to exercise FMLA rights is “legally impossible.” Although the statute itself does not state whether an employee may defer the exercise of FMLA rights, regulations from the Department of Labor offered some guidance to the court.

Employers must ascertain “whether FMLA leave is being sought,” according to the DOL, which “strongly suggests that there are circumstances in which an employee might seek time off but intend not to exercise his or her rights under the FMLA,” the court said.

“Holding that simply referencing an FMLA-qualifying reason triggers FMLA protections would place employers like Foster Farms in an untenable situation if the employee’s stated desire is not to take FMLA leave,” the panel wrote. “The employer could find itself open to liability for forcing FMLA leave on the unwilling employee. We thus conclude that an employee can affirmatively decline to use FMLA leave, even if the underlying reason for seeking the leave would have invoked FMLA protection.”

Affirmatively declining the use of FMLA is not the same as waiving it, the Ninth Circuit added. An employee does not relinquish her rights, but preserves them for the future.

Turning to Escriba, the panel affirmed the jury’s verdict for Foster Farms, based on “substantial evidence” that Escriba elected not to take FMLA leave. In addition to specifically requesting vacation multiple times, she was no stranger to requesting FMLA leave, having requested it on 15 prior occasions. “A reasonable inference from this evidence is that, if Escriba had desired to take FMLA leave, she would have arranged for such leave,” the court said.

And Foster Farms provided evidence as to why Escriba could have elected not to take her leave. By taking vacation first, Escriba satisfied the company’s policy that paid vacation must be exhausted before using FMLA leave, essentially adding two more weeks of protected leave.

To read the opinion in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, click here.

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.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, 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.