Proactive Lawsuit Prevention LEADERSHIP Strategies

The focus of my business is about teaching other businesses how to prevent lawsuits. Much of my time is spent teaching awareness raising seminars, law based topics and CYA skills (that stands for Cover Your …you can figure it out on your own.) That is, I often train employees, management, human resources and even in-house counsel how to implement policies and procedures so that when an employee has an internal complaint, the company is primed to diffuse the lawsuit-bomb in order to avert a disgruntled employee from suing. These are what I have termed Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies.

For example, sexual harassment lawsuits are prevented when an employer has a strong policy which prohibits harassment, when employees are trained to take complaints to receptive managers, when human resources is prepared to investigate it, and when the company responsibly acts to remedy the harm done. These are examples of Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies and spreading this dogma is the mission of my business.

Yet, in reading a recent Harvard Business Review article, “The Big Idea: Leadership in the Age of Transparency” (April 2010) by Christopher Meyer and Julia Kirby, it occurred to me that I needed to be invoking an even more proactive “leadership” characteristic into my own curriculum. In their article, Meyer and Kirby make the case that “the true measure of corporate responsibility – and the key to a business’s playing a proper role in society – is the willing, constant internalization of externalities.” In my area of expertise, the “externality” is the extremely, remote, potential litigation. More than CYA tactics which prevent actual lawsuits, companies need to be looking at internalizing all the externalities inherent in employee relations, even the conflicts which may not necessarily give rise to litigation under the current laws or the externalities that a business is not forced to “pay for” by order of a court.

For example, although federal and state laws (Title VII and the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) in California) protect certain categories from unlawful harassment, i.e. sex, race, religion, etc., companies seeking to stand out as having leadership strategies would also respond to harassment based on “unprotected" categories. That is, when human resources receives a complaint from an employee that she is being “harassed” based on her weight or she complains about a singular “blond joke,” whether she can actually meet the legal criteria for a valid claim with the EEOC or Department of Fair Employment & Housing (in California) should be irrelevant. A leading company takes ownership of all complaints made by employees and seeks to provide a workplace free of any conduct that interferes with an employee’s ability to work optimally.

Why? According to Meyer and Kirby, the rationale goes beyond, “it’s the right thing to do.” Their article puts forth that our corporate society has become literally transparent. So that hiding a wrong is no longer an option. For example, the campaign by Phillip Morris in the 1980s to conceal evidence which linked smoking to lung cancer could not occur in today’s society of social media, whistle blower protections and instant messaging. According to the authors, “the worst of all worlds is to be made responsible, and still not be considered responsible.”

I agree with this premise that transparency demands higher accountability and recent case law supports it as well. In the case of Pietrylo v. Hillside Restaurant Group, disgruntled employees began a Myspace page which maligned their managers’ inappropriate behaviors. Although the company sought to force the employees to remove the page, the damage to the company’s reputation had been done. In a recent investigation I was asked to conduct, after interviewing the company’s employees, I learned that some employees, in reaction to the corporate officers’ secretive conduct, reactively began an anonymous blog which purposely leaked confidential company information to all employees. The availability of social media, the access to technology and the flattening of companies corporate structures encourages transparency. The company’s leadership role is to accept this and to act accountable to transparency’s offspring - heightened corporate responsibility to all externalities.

In the legal realm, that means protecting employees from conduct which has yet to be protected fully under the law, but which is still detrimental. For example, many companies employ an equal-opportunity bully. That is a person, who does not discriminate, but bullies all underlings similarly. Often under these circumstances, an employee may not be able to maintain a claim of unlawful harassment absent a showing of discriminatory behavior. (Although recent EEOC actions suggest that the agency and courts are beginning to recognize this behavior as actionable. See E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association (male supervisor’s temper tantrum had a disparate impact on female employees even when he treated male employees similarly.) A company that protects its employees from “bullying” by disciplining the bully is demonstrating its leadership by refusing to allow its employees to be mistreated, whether it can be “forced” to or not by a court of law or agency.

Similarly, employees who “haze” new employees must also be disciplined whether the law prohibits the specific hazing behavior or not. This is another example where a company can maintain a leadership policy which prohibits any hazing activities whether or not an employee can maintain a cause of action or not. (Some courts recognize hazing employees as actionable when the elements of sexual harassment or assault exist. The U.S. Supreme Court set this precedent in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services.

What are other Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Leadership Strategies or other examples that you can think of? What legal externalities should your company internalize and act to remedy?

No Woo-ries For California Employers

Ninth Circuit Hears Landmark Tip Pooling Case

On February 23, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Misty Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc. The court held that where the employer paid at least minimum wage before tips to restaurant wait staff, the employer did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) when it required the wait staff to participate in tip pooling with the kitchen staff.

This case involved an Oregon restaurant that tip-pooled. Tip pooling typically involves collecting all tips received by directly tipped employees (such as a waitress) so that they may be then redistributed among a larger group of employees (customarily the bussers and other “front of the house” employees.) In this case, Misty Cumbie was a waitress at Vita Café, owned by Woody Woo and Aaron Woo, where her tips were redistributed in a tip pool to members of the kitchen staff or “back of the house.” Ms. Cumbie argued that the “tip-pooling” violated the FLSA.

Under the FLSA, employers must pay their employees a minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). The FLSA’s definition of “wage” recognizes that under certain circumstances, employers of “tipped employees” may include part of such employee’s tips as wage payments. 29 U.S.C. §203(m). This is called a “tip credit.” Oregon law prohibits employers from paying their employees subminimum wages. Therefore, Vita Café did not take a “tip credit” and paid Ms. Cumbie Oregon’s minimum wage (which is higher than the federal minimum wage) plus her apportionment of tips from the tip-pool. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling and held that there is nothing in the FLSA which prohibits tip-pooling, even to members of the kitchen staff, when the employer does not take a tip credit. This case is significant for employers, such as restaurant owners, casinos, hotels, spas and others, where tips and tip-pooling is a customary part of that industry.

Cumbie v. Woo Does Not Significantly Alter Tip-Pooling Rules for California Employers
Similar to Oregon Law, California does not allow employers to pay subminimum wage. Therefore, California employers cannot take a tip credit and in the circumstances set forth in Cumbie v. Woo would also be exempted from the tip pooling restrictions of the FLSA. Nevertheless, California Labor Code §351 has specific tip pooling regulations for California employers. Recent California cases have interpreted this section of the Labor Code to allow tip pooling for most employees in the chain of service to customers, including busboys and bartenders. In Etheridge v. Reins Int’l California, Inc. the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, in a holding similar to Cumbie v.Woo, stated that tip pooling which included members of the kitchen staff and dishwashers did not violate the state law. Nevertheless, California case law clearly prohibits tip pooling when it includes supervisors, managers and shift managers, but carved out an exception in the case of Jou Chau v. Starbucks Corp., by allowing Starbuck’s shift supervisors to share in an apportionment of tips from a tip box.

Rules and Tools for Tip-Pooling
Employers in the effected industries, via their capable human resource departments, should implement the following Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies:

1) Ensure that nonexempt employees receive minimum wage for all hours worked and that the tips are supplemental to their wage.

2) Explain to all employees that the reasoning behind tip pooling is to ensure a team oriented atmosphere and to be fair to all employees whether they directly interface with the customers or provide support to those who do.

3) Emphasize the critical importance of team work and team benefits over individual rewards (such as tips) by having employees “train” in each role of a restaurant before they become servers. That is, they will be less inclined to resent tipping out the cook when they intuitively realize that their “tip” is contingent upon the kitchen staff’s hard work and efficiency.

4) Create policies and procedures that keep employees happy and reward them for their hard work in addition to tips, making them value their workplace and less inclined to sue.

5) Be clear from the first day as to who is a participant in the tip pool. In California, those who are managers or supervisors may not participate in the tip pooling. State in writing and inform employees how the tip pool will be distributed.

6) If the employer operates in more than one state, ensure that the company complies with federal law as well as the state laws where it operates. This may involve learning the different statutes and regulations for each jurisdiction.
 

To Facebook Or Not To Facebook? That Is the Question For Investigators.

Lessons I learned from attending the LACBA’s program “Brave New Web: Social Network's Challenges to Copyright, Privacy and Legal Ethics.”

Last night I attended a program presented by the Los Angeles County Bar Association on social media. The program was presented by and for the Entertainment Law and Intellectual Property section so it wasn’t unusual that I was the only employment lawyer in the room. I expected to get a general overview of legal issues inherent in social media, from the perspective of the entertainment law experts on the panel, so that I could glean new policies or procedures to recommend to my own clients -in-house counsel and human resource professionals, - for their company’s social media policies. As the panel’s discussion/debate turned to legal ethics, however, I was reminded of something Bill Vaughan said, “People learn something every day, and a lot of times it's that what they learned the day before was wrong.”

That is, before I attended the program, I believed that anything a person posted on their social media website page or profile was “public” information. That is, that a person could not expect to keep their age a secret if they posted on their Myspace page the year they were born. I am not alone in that thinking. One of the panelists, Adam Clayton Powell, III, Vice Provost for Globalization at USC stated his comparable opinion, “Anything on Facebook is as public as if it was published in the LA Times.” Although this specific circumstance has not arisen for me in my own investigations, I did not up until this point find any legal or ethical dilemma in looking at an employee’s Facebook page during an investigation into that employee’s wrongdoing. For example, if an investigator must discern whether an employee made sexually offensive comments about a coworker on their Facebook Wall, it made common sense that the investigator would go onto Facebook and look at the posting to verify the accuracy of the alleged misconduct.

But, to my surprise, another member of the panel, Chris Kelly, Chief Privacy Officer for Facebook (and candidate for California Attorney General),pictured with me above, pointed out that Facebook is unlike other social media websites (MySpace, Twitter, etc.) in that Facebook has selective privacy settings which allow the Facebook member to decide which of their “friends” can view certain posted comments, thereby creating an expectation of privacy over the “private” information. (MySpace and other social networking sites have a binary privacy setting, which is less selective.) Other sites have no privacy settings at all.) Moreover, Facebook’s Terms of Use prohibits the unauthorized sharing of information. That is, your Facebook “friend”, whom you have allowed to see your birthday, cannot then go tell all of his friends that you are 35 (but you don’t look a day over 30.) This was a point that even panelist, Ben Sheffner, Counsel for Legal Affairs at NBC Universal, found surprising. Last, it is unethical for an attorney/investigator to use deceit to obtain access to the Facebook page of someone they are investigating. Presumably, the alleged wrongdoer would not “friend” the investigator or their company’s human resources if they knew that that person through subterfuge was actually seeking access to information or pictures that might impeach the alleged wrongdoer’s version of events, a point made by the fourth panelist, Roland Trope of Trope & Schramm.

Yet, despite Mr. Kelly’s argument that users have a selective expectation of privacy on Facebook, the issue of whether a person has a right to privacy on their Facebook profile is not set in stone, even in California. Facebook is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit that challenges its “privacy settings” as misleading and alleges that the settings actually expose users’ private information without permission.

That being said, as an attorney /investigator, I have been persuaded that it is not prudent, whether it is 1) a question of ethics, 2) a concern for violating the Terms of Use or 3) an invasion of privacy, to look at a person’s Facebook profile without the users express permission during an investigation. I will, however, take a party or witnesses’ statements on the content of a Facebook page and, in all fairness, I will also seek permission from the “accused” to see their Facebook information in order to disprove the alleged behavior. In any other circumstance, however, pending an investigation, Facebook is off limits. Do you agree? Is this going too far? What should an attorney/investigator do when the alleged misconduct is a social media profile/page that’s purpose is to “badmouth” the employer, as was the case in Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group?,

Is the invasion of privacy justified? Do non-attorney investigators have to consider the ethical issues also? Leave your comments.

Another Reason to Shop at Costco

California Supreme Court Helps Keep the Lid on Pandora’s Box Investigations

I don’t need another reason to shop at Costco. I love the discounts, buying in bulk for my large family and the bin candy licorice. But, thanks to the California Supreme Court, I now have another reason to love Costco. According to the holding in Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (November 2009), a lawyer’s communications with clients, made for the purpose of giving advice, are absolutely protected from disclosure to adversaries, regardless of whether the communication contains factual or legal content. By upholding the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege, even when the attorney is conducting a fact-finding investigation in order to render a legal opinion, the California Supreme Court gave neutral attorney-investigators and their clients the ability to keep a lid on “Pandora’s Box Investigations.”

Yes, I made up that term. I made up the term “Pandora’s Box Investigation” based on my experience as a neutral attorney/investigator that has first-hand experience in conducting this type of investigation. A “Pandora’s Box Investigation” - named after the Greek mythological Goddess, Pandora who released all of God’s evils into the world by lifting the lid off her mythical box - is an investigation that through interviews and review of evidence reveals misdeeds well beyond the initial misconduct which instigated the investigation. The misdeeds are so egregious and create so much additional liability for the client if revealed, that the client, upon advice from her litigator, chooses to keep the investigation and the attorney/investigator’s conclusions or recommendations privileged. That is, an impartial investigation is often used as an employer’s defense in claims of harassment or wrongful termination so many employers opt to present the investigation in order to demonstrate that they acted reasonably with respect to the employee. In this instance, the employer is waiving its privilege. But, in the case of a Pandora’s Box Investigation, the employer chooses to keep the investigation under wraps so as not to expose itself to further liability and rely on the merits of the case or other available defenses in order to prevail.

For example, in Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Costco became aware that plaintiff’s attorneys were challenging the classification of retail industry managers as “exempt” from overtime and other wage laws. Anticipating a claim, Costco hired a wage and hour specialist, an attorney, to “investigate” Costco and provide an opinion as to whether Costco was properly classifying its own managers. For example, a company can call an employee Vice-President of Waste Management, but if the employee spends his day cleaning toilets, he will not be considered exempt. After interviewing Costco’s employees and analyzing their duties under the law, the attorney provided Costco with a legal opinion which contained a recitation of applicable facts, legal standards and analysis. A year after the receipt of the opinion letter, Costco reclassified many of its warehouse managers to non-exempt employees, making them eligible for overtime and other benefits. Presumably, the investigator found that Costco had misclassified the employees and Costco rectified this by making the appropriate changes.

A year and a half after that, Costco was sued in a class action lawsuit for misclassifying its employees and violating the wage and hour laws. The plaintiff’s attorneys wanted to see the content of that attorney’s report, assuming that it had evidence and an opinion that stated Costco was violating wage and hour laws – they wanted to open the Pandora’s Box, so to speak. Not surprisingly, Costco wanted to keep the lid on it. Costco’s counsel argued that the investigator/attorney’s factual findings and opinion should not be revealed to their adversaries or the court, i.e. it was protected by the attorney-client privilege, pursuant to Evidence Code 954. In November, 2009, the California Supreme Court agreed that the report was protected by the attorney-client privilege, even if the outside counsel gathered facts in the process of rendering legal advice, summaries of those facts were included in the written communications she prepared and those facts were otherwise discoverable in litigation.

Therefore, consistent with Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, employers should feel reassured when using a neutral attorney/ investigator to investigate employee wrongdoing, in that the investigation will most likely be privileged in the event that the investigation reveals unanticipated potential employer liabilities. In order to ensure the investigation is deemed privileged until the employer/client decides to waive that privilege during litigation, the following Proactive Strategies should be implemented.

• Make sure, when retaining your neutral attorney/investigator to put the request for “legal advice” in writing and that the retainer agreement includes a reference or provision which states that a “privileged” legal opinion, not just a fact-finding will be provided at the conclusion of the investigation.

• Make sure all communications between the client and the attorney/investigator are marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” Make sure that the final work product from the attorney/investigator is marked “ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT” and that it is not disseminated to third parties.

• In the memorandum (or letter) to the complainant or accused at the end of the investigation (which I recommend to inform the parties that the investigation is concluded and its results), provide a brief “summary” of the investigator’s conclusion, not the entirety of the factual findings and conclusions or recommendations. That way, a court will not deem the privileged “waived” by disclosure to third parties.

One last caveat, remember that ultimately, the investigator’s conversations, the investigation’s factual findings, the conclusions and recommendations will most likely be used as a defense in litigation and that the attorney-client privilege, in that instance, is waived by the company. That was the case in Wellpoint Health Networks v. Superior Court where the attorney/investigator was hired to determine whether misconduct occurred and demonstrate the employer made reasonable efforts to protect its employees from harassment. Therefore, an employer should anticipate this inevitability and only discuss confidential information with its company’s litigator, not with the neutral attorney-investigator. Once the privilege is waived, anything said to the investigator is discoverable and can be used against the employer.

Have you experienced a Pandora’s Box Investigation? What lessons did you learn?

Elvis Has Left The Building

How to Protect Your Company from the Legal Hazards of Social Media Abuse



I am often asked the question by clients, counsel and Human Resource professionals, “Do I think their company should ban employees from using social media while at work?” Often those concerned will complain that their employees spend too much time on Facebook rather than work. Or that they can’t make their employees “think” before they “tweet” something (in 140 characters or less) that another employee finds offensive. Or, they heard a rumor that there is an anonymous company blog that badmouths the bosses. These are valid concerns for employers and those who must manage employee’s behaviors and productivity. According to recent studies, the average worker admits to spending more than 2 hours per 8 hour workday on the internet. Employees surfing the internet, including social networking sites and blogs, account for nearly 45% of that wasted time.

Yet despite the drawbacks, social media sites (such as Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and Myspace) have many business benefits. Social media sites can help employees augment their computer skills, hone communication skills, connect them with colleagues and mentors, and can be used to promote the values, goals and marketing interests of their employer. The challenge for a company now is to allow for the innovation of technology, including access to social media, while protecting itself and its employees from abuses. Therefore, my response to the question of whether a company should ban employees from using social media at work is always, “Elvis has left the building.” The social media train is moving too fast now for employers to stop it. According to Andrew S. Grove, chairman of Intel, “There are two companies – one that operates (with technology) and one that doesn’t…you’re either going to do it or you disappear.” In other words, social media is here to stay. Banning it is no longer an innovative, competitive, forward-thinking company’s best option.

Employers must accept the inevitability of social media’s presence in the workplace as much as they have accepted email, the fax machine and the intranet. Rather the best practice now for employers is to proactively plan for their employee’s abuse of social media and implement an iron clad policy which protects the employer from liability in the event of social media abuse. Certainly, there are no one-size-fits all policies that I can draft that would satisfy the needs of each and every company. Industry, company size, social media use and many other factors must be taken into consideration when designing these innovative policies. Fortunately, the internet is riddled with example social media policies. In case you do not believe me, here are 200 Sample Social Media Policies. I do not recommend or endorse any of these.

Nevertheless, in drafting or evaluating a social media policy make sure you include the following provisions that will deter employees from abusing social media and will allow your company cause for discipline or termination in the event that an employee does not comply with it:

1) State that an employee is permitted to access social media sites while at work as long as the use does not interfere with the optimum performance of their job. The company’s primary interest is in its employee’s productivity and the use of social media at the cost of this productivity undermines the Company’s business objectives.

2) State that the Company’s internet and email policies apply to employee’s accessing social media sites from company computers. That is, the company owns the computers and technology and can and does monitor this usage. Employees should not have an expectation of privacy while using social media.

3) State that the Company’s discrimination and harassment policies apply to employee’s accessing social media sites. Employees should be considerate of visual content displayed on their computer screens. Moreover, accessing sites that are pornographic, violent or have sexual or discriminatory content is prohibited. Finally, writing harassing, bullying or discriminatory statements about coworkers or management may also violate the harassment policy and is prohibited.

4) State that the Company has an expectation of loyalty from its employees that the employee will not make statements on behalf of the company or use the Company logo without express, written permission. Moreover, the Company expects that employees will not disparage or defame the company, its employees or its products on any social media site. The Company does not want its employees to respond to negative comments about the company, its employees or products without express, written consent.

5) State that the Company expects employees to act with high ethical standards when accessing social media websites. An employee must never represent him or herself or the Company in a false or misleading way. All statements must be true and not misleading. All claims must be substantiated. Finally, using social media for unlawful purposes is prohibited.

6) State that the Company’s trade secret and confidential communications policies apply to employee’s accessing social media sites. The Company expects that employees will not share company secrets, confidential information or discuss company litigation on social media sites. In the event that an employee inadvertently reveals such information, he or she should inform management immediately.

7) State that an employee who violates this Social Media Policy may be subject to discipline up to and including termination.

As important as the policy is to a company in protecting against abuse, so is its enforcement. Training management and staff is integral to Katz Consulting & Associates Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies. Do not bury the policy in your handbooks. Train employees on the content of the policy. Train your management to treat employees consistently in the event that they determine employees are abusing social media. Inconsistent discipline may give rise to a claim of discrimination.

Finally, remind managers not to make promises or assurances that could amend the Company’s written policy. Once case, presently before the California Supreme Court, Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co, involves a sergeant on the Ontario, California SWAT team who sued his employer for violating his right to privacy because it monitored his sexual-text messaging (or “sexting”) from his department issued pager. Even though the department had a policy that expressly informed employees of its right to monitor their pagers, the sergeant’s supervisor promised him he would not monitor it. Appropriately training supervisory staff on the pitfalls of making these verbal assurances would have prevented this lawsuit.

Did I miss something? Is your policy consistent with my recommendations or do you have something to add? I’d love to hear your opinion.

Anyone Crying for Conan?

Feeling the rain pour down on the Golden Globes’ red carpet, Tina Fey commented “It’s not rain, it’s just God crying for NBC.” Though few are rushing to defend the network, not many human resource professionals or their employees these days are crying for Conan either. It seems that in this current economic climate, the conditions under which Conan is losing his job as host of The Tonight Show are not relatable for many employees.

As the harbinger of corporate change, HR professionals know all too well that, unlike Conan, employees do not have the expectation of job security anymore. Whether it was promised at the onset or not, no one outside of Team Conan, still relies on promises made in “happier times” from their employer. Economic circumstances have drastically changed. Corporate America has been forced to accommodate the strife. Layoffs are a grim reality. Gone are the days when one complained about one’s job or employer. No one can afford to be caught kvetching at the water cooler or, in the case of Conan, to an audience that one's employer “is headed downhill faster than a fat guy chasing a runaway cheese-wheel.” If a non-celebrity employee similarly disparaged his current employer, he or she would find themselves jobless without hope for new employment from another company sans positive references.

Moreover, HR knows that recently laid off employees are sadly grateful for the modest severance and COBRA benefits they receive upon losing their job. “Golden parachutes” are virtually extinct in corporate America these days. The $30-40 million that Conan will reap when negotiations are over do not resonate with the jobless. Certainly, no one is feeling bad for the person who stands to be financially rewarded as a multimillionaire from NBC’s misjudgment. Conan may know what time it is, but he doesn’t know that it is 2010. Times are tough for workers and the unemployed now. No one seems too invested in Conan’s plight.

Sorry he did not get to go on at 11:35 on NBC. The rest of the job market is not shedding a tear for Conan, especially since it will probably be laughing with him at 11:35 on another network soon.

Direct From the PIHRA Legal Update 2010

As a Breakout session speaker for the 23rd Annual PIHRA Legal Update, I am smack in the middle of Day 2 in what is a three day marathon conference designed to educate and update the human resource professionals of Southern California on recent laws and trends. Today I walked into the Ontario Hilton with my head full of the case law and statutes pertaining to my own presentation: “How HR Can Protect the Company Assets” - an update on unfair competition cases. Suddenly, I was struck by a sense of déjà vu. I realized that I had been in this exact hotel, in this exact foyer thirteen years prior for the exact same conference, at the very beginning of my career but I was younger, less experienced and my business, Katz Consulting & Associates, was in its fledging state. I was brand new to PIHRA and only just meeting the HR professionals that have since become my most faithful clients.

Well, aside from recognizing that my business mission to teach Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies has come to fruition in the past decade, I grasped how much I owed to the PIHRA organization for providing me the access to clientele who (in exchange for one hour legal updates) have enabled me to build a viable, rewarding career as an outsourced investigator, seminar leader and HR consultant. Certainly, I am one of the lucky California attorneys who get to use her law degree in a unique manner.

So, what else has changed in the decade since I last spoke at a PIHRA Legal Update? When I began Katz Consulting & Associates, very few employers advocated sexual harassment prevention training to their employees. AB1825 required training was unfathomable. The common perception was that it would be a huge mistake - telling employees that they had a right to sue their companies or managers. This was to remain a secret -something they would not know intuitively from being groped in a private conference room (or watching “Ally McBeal”.) Employers did not want to risk teaching the employees about harassment and discrimination laws. It was difficult for me to convince potential clients to be proactive about harassment prevention and to train their employees about their grievance procedures in order to prevent revenge litigation. In fact, my “Unlawful Harassment Prevention” seminar was the first “Proactive Strategy” that I recommended to clients – and a tough sell it was. Now, sexual harassment prevention training is mandatory for managers and introducing clients to other awareness raising seminars is welcomed.

Another change that has occurred in the last ten years is that I have competition in the marketplace. When I began my “niche” business to educate and train employers about lawsuit prevention, very few attorneys did the same. Law firms did not want their partners and associates counseling their clients in a way that undermined the likelihood of employment litigation – their bread and butter. Now, almost every employment law firm in the city incorporates some aspect of lawsuit prevention counseling into their client services, especially in the past year when the economy has forced employers to reduce legal fees and law firms are looking to provide alternative services to their clients. Albeit, few lawyers have the “flair” for entertaining while educating that I bring to my programs. (I also do my own PR.) Did I mention that prizes are given out in my training programs too?

The last major upheaval that I have noticed in my own business is the “flip-flop” that has occurred as a result of the recessionary economy. For the majority of the decade, my business was primarily a training company and occasionally, I conducted investigations. Or more often, I taught HR professionals how to do so themselves, in-house. Now, the training budgets and training departments of companies are diminished, but the occasion for an impartial investigator has risen. Terminations are more frequent, terminating for cause requires an investigation (see Blog Post, Dec. 31, 2009) and more executives and contract employees are being held accountable for their misconduct. Moreover, HR has been downsized so the few who remain are overworked and without the time to conduct consuming investigations. My business flip-flopped and now I am focusing primarily on building up the investigations arm of it. I’m not complaining -refocusing my own business strategy has been revitalizing. Certainly, instantly updating my website and blog is far easier than redesigning, reprinting and redistributing a laminated brochure. Times have changed.

And they are still changing. Based on what I have seen and heard at this PIHRA Legal Update, the issue that most of the PIHRA professionals are still intrigued and stumped by is social media, internet policies, performance and misconduct concerns as a result of the misuse or abuse of technologies and usage. PIHRA members are once again paving the way for future “Proactive Lawsuit Prevention” seminars and topics. As I have done for the past decade plus, I will let the PIHRA members lead my business direction. Look for the next post on HR’s Proactive Strategies related to these issues. In the meantime, leave your comments on what changes you've experienced that altered your own perspective in the last decade.

Looking forward to another day at the PIHRA Legal Update in Universal City tomorrow!