In today’s Star Tribune business section, there is an interesting article about the new name that Kraft has chosen for its new global snack business: Mondenelez. The name is an interpretation of a mash-up of the Latin words for “world” and “delicious,” according to the article.

The article describes in depth the process that Kraft undertook to find a name that worked. Did they succeed? What do you think?

No.

While it is unlikely that doing so would violate any privacy laws (if we are dealing with private employment and thus not dealing with constitutional concerns), there is simply too much information on social media sites that an employer has no business knowing. I can look through someone’s Facebook page and learn their religion, if they are married, their sexual orientation, if they drink and what their political leanings are. Most employers know that they can’t ask these questions during a job interview, so why should they be able to learn about this information through social media, especially when the employee may have made the information “private” with the appropriate privacy settings?

In addition, there is nothing that says that even if someone did something stupid while on vacation, or went crazy at a party at took some pictures drinking beer or some cocktail, that he or she would not be a good employee. Private lives should remain that, and asking candidates for their social media passwords is prying too much into employees’ private spheres.

Social media has created new issues for everyone in today’s linked-in world: employers, employees, lawyers and courts. We are learning as we go on how to navigate social media websites learning from mistakes (hopefully of others) about what not to do.

This is a good piece of advice about how employers should not use LinkedIn:

Social Media and Employment Law

Be careful about giving glowing reviews and recommendations about employees on LinkedIn. We often get requests to write them, but think carefully before you do.  Employers risk having the recommendations used against them in a discrimination or harassment suit. Just like email, notes in personnel files and all other types of documentation and correspondence can be used against an employer in a lawsuit, so can a posting or recommendation on LinkedIn or any other social media website.

The article talks about the case of Phone Dog v. Kravitz, where a former employee who took his more than 17,000 Twitter followers with him after he left his job at Phone Dog, a website that reviews mobile gadgets, is now being sued by his former employer for ownership of those followers. While employed for Phone Dog, Noah Kravitz used the account name @PhoneDog_Noah; after he left, he changed his name to @noahkravitz. Once he set up this new account, he began sharing things he wrote for other tech sites, a move PhoneDog said wasn’t fair because the company had helped establish his online identity on Twitter and elsewhere. The employer is now asking for damage equal to $2.50 for each Twitter follower that he brought with him to the new account name. With 17,000 followers, that amounts to $42,500!

In the article, there is also mention of the importance of a social media policy and how many companies are now implementing one and requiring employees to follow it.

What about in your company? Have you got a social media policy? Is it followed and enforced? Have any employees ever been disciplined for their social media use?

The story provides inspiration and idea for how to face a situation that may seem dire, but with hard work and ingenuity, can end up having a good ending.

However, what is usual in this case is that rather than giving in, as most small companies do when faced with a cease and desist or any legal threat by a big name like P&G, Willa decided to fight. So far, the company has racked up approximately $750,000 in legal bills but intends to fight to the bitter end what it sees as its right to use the name Willa.

The NY Times Small Business Blog had an interesting take on the fight, claiming that although the legal fees might seem overwhelming for a new company and enough to send it under, a fight like this (especially when featured in the NY Times) can be a blessing in disguise. Americans love to root for the underdog and other companies that have been in a similar position have come out ahead as the publicity brings them more business than they ever would have had without the legal suit.

Trademark law prohibits a company from using the same or a similar name to describe goods or services in the same industry from one that is already used in commerce and/or registered with the US Patent and Trade Mark Office. The test is whether the names are confusingly similar. The author of the Small Business Blog, Tom Szaky, believes that Willa and Wella are confusingly similar. The founder of Willa alleges that the names aren’t confusingly similar, as Wella is only for hair-care products while the Willa line is for skin-care products.

What do you think? Is this trademark bullying?

• Access to one of our Minnesota business and employment attorneys, ranging from 2 hours per month to unlimited
• Discounts on other legal services that range from 5% to 15%
• Review and drafting of agreements

Here is a link with more details.

However, we aren’t the only ones who offer these services. For those businesses in California and in particular in the San Diego area, Top Floor Legal offers the same convenient service of a monthly retainer. Go to the home page and see the great video that Nasir Pasha, the owner of Top Floor Legal, has created. Like us, Top Floor Legal stresses the convenience and predicatability of working with a firm on a retainer or fixed-fee arrangement.

Another provision that can’t help but catch your attention is the state’s definition of disability. In almost all other states (including Minnesota) a disability is defined as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially (or materially in Minnesota’s Human Rights Act) limits a major life activity. In contrast, California defined a disability as an impairment that “limits” a major life activity, or that limits the “achievement” of a major life activity. This is a much more expansive and easy to reach standard than those imposed on employees in so many other states and under the federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Finally, the California FEHA has a list of conditions that are per se disabilities, like the EEOC has proposed in its recently released proposed regulations. These conditions include HIV/AIDS, hepatisis, epilelsy, seizure disorder, diabetes, clinical depression, bipolar disorder, multiple sclerosis, and heart disease. Including a list of per se disabilities is the best way to ensure that defendants/employers don’t try to play the game of arguing that a disabled employee isn’t disabled, as happened in this disability discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch.

It is hard to go to a restaurant, coffee shop or bar without seeing a tip jar. For anyone who has saved their spare change, you know how quickly those nickels and dimes (and even dollar bills) can add up to signficant money. For employees in these establishments, a tip jar can be an easy and non-confrontational way to increase their income. But what about Minnesota state employment law? Are they violated when businesses put out tip jars and when the employees split the tips?

Minnesota law states that pooling or sharing of gratuities “may not be a condition of employment.” Minnesota courts have stated that tips belong to the employee who earned it and for this reason, he or she can’t be forced to share the money. Thus, an employer cannot require an employee who normally receives tips directly from customers (a “direct employee,” according to the law) to share his or her tips with other employees. Federal law, and some other states, do allow tip sharing to be mandatory. But Minnesota is different.

So going back to the tip jar. The first question would be whether baristas at coffee shops are those type of employees who normally receive tips. The answer would likely be yes. So in this case, the next issue is who has decided to start a tip jar. If it was the employer and if the employer is requiring it, that policy would be in violation of Minnesota law.

It has to be up to the employees to decide if and how they will share the tips. It would be difficult (but not impossible) to divide up the tips according to who earned them if an employee decided not to participate in the tip sharing. It would simply require vigilance to remove from the jar that person’s tip immediately after a customer deposited it in the jar. It is important to remember that each employee has the right to decide whether to participate or not and his or her refusal cannot be a reason to terminate employment.

Violations of this Minnesota law can lead to investigations by the Department of Labor and fines.

Another issue could be whether the employee who refuses is harasses by other employees and coerced to participate. Allowing such behavior to take place could lead to other liability for the employer. Click here to read more.

We are all trying to cut costs and reduce spending these days. For employers whose employees wear a uniform, requiring the employees to pay for them can seem like a simple, yet cost-effective way to cut down on costs. But adopting such a policy wouldn’t be much of a cost-saver if it were in violation of Minnesota law and would expose the employer to potential fines and fees down the road. What does Minnesota law say about this?

Minnesota Statute 181.79 is the law that we have to look at for the answer to this question. The law is clear: employers may not require their employees to pay for uniforms. The statute states that employers can deduct from an employee’s wages for faulty workmanship, loss, theft, damage to property or “other claimed indebtedness running from the employee to the employer.” It talks about a loss and about an employee reimbursing the employer for such loss. A uniform would not be considered a loss.

Furthermore, it is very important to note that deductions cannot be taken from an employee’s wages unless he or she has given written authorization to the employer to do so. The written authorization must be signed after the loss has taken place.

So in a nutshell, deducations can be made and an employee can be made to pay for things like:

• breaking company property
• stealing company property
• poor workmanship that cost the company money to replace or repair

BUT, the deductions can be made only if the employee authorizes the deductions in writing after the loss, damage or theft took place.

Deducting for anything else, such as uniforms, and doing so without written authorization, can leave you open to investigations by the Department of Labor, fines and attorney’s fees. Any questions about what you can or can’t do? Give us a call.