Posts Tagged BASICS

HAWAII EMPLOYMENT LAW AND LITIGATION BASICS: HOW DO I DRAFT A LITIGATION HOLD POLICY AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN FOR ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY?

Written on July 21, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Labor Law

HAWAII EMPLOYMENT LAW AND LITIGATION BASICS: HOW DO I DRAFT A LITIGATION HOLD POLICY AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN FOR ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY?

 

Electronic evidence is quickly evolving into one of the most difficult areas of litigation to navigate.  Hawaii businesses, especially human resource managers in employment disputes, must understand that it is extremely important to work closely with counsel to determine the extent of their discovery obligations.  Once the preservation requirement arises, Hawaii businesses must map out a sensible data gathering plan to minimize business disruptions and to avoid possible sanctions.

1.       Ensure the Company Buys Into What is Needed to Comply With the New Discovery Rules and Allocate Sufficient Resources.

Convince other managers/decisionmakers to make retention policies/electronic discovery planning a key initiative.  Those employees need to understand and appreciate the risks of court-ordered sanctions for the improper destruction of documents or electronically stored information.

2.       Understand Basic Retention/Hold Issues.

Understand that a litigation hold is required when: (1) The Company receives a demand to preserve the record(s); (2) the Company is aware that a lawsuit or administrative action has been filed; (3) the Company receives a preservation order from the Court, OR; (4) litigation is reasonably foreseeable.  Understand that a record is stale and therefore subject to destruction where the record no longer has any operational, business or legal value to the Company, any applicable retention period(s) has expired AND the record is not subject to a litigation hold.

3.       Draft and Review Policies on a Regular Basis.

Draft appropriate policies, such as retention and computer usage policies, and communicate with and train employees on them.

Understand that a retention policy should limit how long information is kept and that “business related” documents generally should be retained at least for the amount of time established by statute.  A document is “business related” when it documents a specific business related event or activity, it demonstrates a specific business transaction, supports facts of a particular business related event, activity or transaction, or it relates to specific legal, accounting, business or compliance issues.

4.       Have a Plan to Preserve Documents.

Understand when preservation obligations are triggered and work with your IT department, Administrative and Executive personnel to formulate a plan. The goal should be to incorporate necessary retention requirements with organizational needs to establish not only a retention policy, but also a policy regarding the manner in which documents will be stored or organized when the hold arises.

Ideally, the Company should have a response team in place when preservation obligations are triggered comprised of individuals from various departments within the organization such as Human Resources, Information and Technology and Administrative.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B) and 26(f)(3) now require parties early on in a case to disclose the category and location of electronically stored information and the forms in which they would be produced as part of the mandatory disclosure process.  Accordingly, it is important to be prepared early on in a case to specifically discuss with your attorney preservation issues, network systems, procedures, storage, and locations of potentially relevant electronically stored information.

5.       Understand that “Electronic Evidence” May Reside Not Only on Computers, But on Other Electronic Devices.

Information Technology (“IT”) professionals need to understand more than the technical side of computer network and Human Resource managers need to know more about the technical side of the computers/devices used by employees. IT should be able to help you determine to what extent “Instant messaging,” home computers, laptops, PDA’s, flashdrives, floppy disks, CD ROM’s, voice mail and similar devices both retain and communicate electronic/digital information.

On the other hand, understand that the IT department might not be aware of every server, hard drive, and file location and the impact the discovery rules may have on IT-driven policies/procedures.

 6.       Have a Response Team Prepared at all Times.

A response team should be comprised of individuals from various departments within the organization.  The team should also communicate early and often with legal counsel.

7.       Educate/Train Employees on the Importance of E mail.

Electronic mail essentially launched litigation into unknown territory that many employers have still not addressed with policies and/or training.  One of the best steps you can take is to educate and train your employees on the potential that e-mail will be the “smoking gun” or at the very least used against them. 

Employees think that when they delete an e-mail from their computers, it is gone and erased for good.  Of course, that is an incorrect assumption.  Employees need to understand that e-mail is not private, and that the employer reserves the right to inspect and view employees’ e-mail and on-line activities at work.

8.       Understand the Impact Metadata will have on the Production Process.

Fed. Rule Civ. P. 34(b) permits the requesting party to specify the production format for electronic documents. When the production format isn’t specified or if the responding party objects to the requested format, the responding party must state how the information will be produced.  The default production format may be a form (or forms) in which the information is “ordinarily maintained” or in a “reasonably usable” form. 

The federal discovery rule changes may not promote self-regulation.  Courts will likely get involved very quickly in discovery disputes involving electronically stored information.  The issue whether the producing party must allow metadata to be viewed by the requesting party may have to be decided by the Court since the issue is relatively unchartered area.

 

Roman Amaguin, Esq; romanamaguin@yahoo.com; www.amaguinlaw.com

Roman Amaguin, Esq. is a Hawaii attorney specializing in employment law, labor law, and civil litigation.  His philosophy is to provide practical solutions to both complex and common workplace, employer/employee, and civil disputes.  As a Hawaii attorney, Mr. Amaguin regularly appears before all federal and state courts in Hawaii, as well as state and federal administrative agencies such as the U.S. EEOC and Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Roman Amaguin, Esq; romanamaguin@yahoo.com; www.amaguinlaw.com

Roman Amaguin, Esq. is a Hawaii attorney specializing in employment law, labor law, and civil litigation. His philosophy is to provide practical solutions to both complex and common workplace, employer/employee, and civil disputes. As a Hawaii attorney, Mr. Amaguin regularly appears before all federal and state courts in Hawaii, as well as state and federal administrative agencies such as the U.S. EEOC and Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

HAWAII EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS: PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAW UNDER FEDERAL AND HAWAII LAW

Written on July 6, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Labor Law

HAWAII EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS: PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAW UNDER FEDERAL AND HAWAII LAW

 INTRODUCTION:

Along with other types of claims, there has been a significant increase in pregnancy discrimination complaints nationwide.  The increase in the number of complaints has outpaced the increase in percentage of women in the workforce during the same period.  

Accordingly, it is clear that employers need to become more aware of their obligations towards pregnant employees, especially under Hawaii state law, which covers all employers, and permits not only individual liability for violations of the law, but also unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to be awarded a plaintiff.

 FEDERAL LAW AND HAWAII LAW ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) makes it unlawful for an employer to limit, segregate or classify employees or applicants for employment in any manner which deprives or tends to deprive an individual of employment opportunities because of the individual’s race, color religion, sex or national origin.  Generally, the law covers all employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce with 15 or more employees.

Title VII was amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) to prohibit all forms of discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  Under PDA, pregnant employees must not be treated less favorably than a non-pregnant employee under similar circumstances.

Under the PDA, pregnant employees must not be treated less favorably than a non-pregnant employee under similar circumstances.  Thus, an employer that refuses to hire or promote a female because of pregnancy has violated PDA.  Also, an employer that forces a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence despite being able to perform her job has violated PDA.  Conversely, it is unlawful to force a pregnant employee to continue performing work she is incapable of doing due to her pregnant condition from which other similarly situated disabled employees are excused.

If the employee litigates her federal PDA claim the available remedies include the Court: Issuing an injunction prohibiting the employer from committing future violations of the law; granting equitable relief such as reinstatement or promotion; awarding back pay limited for a period beginning two years before the date the charge of discrimination was filed, less any interim earnings; awarding front pay, and; reasonable attorneys’ fees.

In addition, the total amount of compensatory and punitive damages are limited depending on the size of the employer.  Specifically, the caps are set by statute as follows:

Number of Employees            Cap

015-100 employees                $ 050,000

101-200 employees                $ 100,000

201-500 employees                $ 200,000

500 plus employees                $ 300,000

Under the Hawaii Employment Practices Act, HRS Chapter 378, covered employers are prohibited from discriminating in public and private employment on the basis of “sex.”  Like PDA, Hawaii law prohibits discriminating against women in employment because of “pregnancy.” 

There are significant differences between PDA and Hawaii law.  First, the Hawaii statute covers any employer with “one or more” employees, thus affecting many small business owners that perhaps lack resources to fully educate themselves on the law or implement risk reduction policies and procedures. 

Second, while it is clear under federal law that individual employees cannot be held individually liable for adverse decisions deemed unlawful under the law, there is virtually uniform authority amongst state court judges that no such protection is afforded under state law.  Thus, supervisors along with the employer are commonly named as individuals in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs in Hawaii state court pursuant to HRS Chapter 378.

Third, while federal law simply requires the employer to treat a pregnant employee as it would similarly situated non-pregnant employees under Hawaii law employers are required to do much more.  Specifically, Hawaii law requires by regulatory mandate that employers “make every reasonable accommodation to the needs of the female affected by disability due to and resulting from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Regardless of the policies applicable to non-pregnant disabled employees, female employees who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be permitted to take a leave of absence, paid or unpaid, for a “reasonable period of time.”  A “reasonable period of time” is that time determined by the employee’s health care provider.

Hawaii law requires the reinstatement of an employee returning from pregnancy leave to her original job or to a position of comparable pay, without loss of accumulated service credits and privileges.  Prior to the employee’s return to work the employer may request a physician’s certificate approving her return to work.

Finally, and in many cases most significantly, under Hawaii law a court may award unlimited punitive and compensatory damages in cases brought under HRS Chapter 378.   

 CONCLUSION:

            PDA and the Hawaii Employment Practices Act are significantly different in scope and breadth.   Under federal law employers must remember to treat pregnant employees the same as similarly situated employees.  However, under Hawaii law employers are required to afford pregnant special protections regardless of how similarly situated employees are treated. Employers should seek counsel if they have questions regarding the law.

Roman Amaguin, Esq.; romanamaguin@yahoo.com; www.amaguinlaw.com

Roman Amaguin, Esq. is a Hawaii lawyer specializing in employment law, labor law, and civil litigation.

 

Roman Amaguin, Esq. is a Hawaii attorney specializing in employment law, labor law, and civil litigation. His philosophy is to provide practical solutions to both complex and common workplace, employer/employee, and civil disputes. As a Hawaii attorney, Mr. Amaguin regularly appears before all federal and state courts in Hawaii, as well as state and federal administrative agencies such as the U.S. EEOC and Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Mr. Amaguin litigates a wide range of civil cases involving common law and statutory claims. He litigates claims involving torts, right to privacy, sexual and other forms of harassment, wrongful termination, discrimination and retaliation. He regularly provides counsel on Title VII, the Hawaii Employment Practices Act, FLSA, HIPAA, FMLA, ADA, ADEA, COBRA, non-competition agreements, contracts, workplace investigations, civil rights, whistleblower, drug-testing, and all other statutes that apply to Hawaii employers.

  • Page 2 of 2
  • <
  • 1
  • 2