Labor: New Technologies can Present Legal and Business Risks
Smart phones and new communication technologies expand the workplace, but present challenges for employers.
November 14, 2010 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
“Smart phones” (Blackberrys, iPhones, and Droids, to name a few) are cell phones on steroids. Most smart phones have email, texting, video display, internet access and all of those cool apps. Employers are already enjoying the benefits of employees' use of smart phones, but often without realizing that there are also legal and business risks involved too. Now is the time for employers to make strategic decisions about smart phones and establish policies, procedures and other practical steps in order to keep up with the new technologies that employees are using in connection with work.
Employers reap enormous benefits in terms of improved customer relations, expedited work flow and enhanced bottom lines when employees use personal and company-owned smart phones to call, text, e-mail and tweet with clients, co-workers, suppliers and the public. These devices allow employees to access the internet and company computer systems 24/7 from virtually anywhere in the world. Moreover, smart phones are just the tip of the iceberg; other emerging technologies such as iPads, cloud computing (the use of servers and software owned by third-party vendors), Wikis (interlinked collaborative websites) will help employees work more efficiently, but also further complicate things for employers.
Not surprisingly, smart phones and other new technologies do not come without a price–they present employers with some major compliance risks. These risks can arise whether the smart phones are company-owned or personally purchased by employees and include the legal liabilities that can arise when:
- Managers improperly try to determine whether employees are using smart phones for work purposes
- Employers fail to pay employees for time spent on smart phones
- Smart phone usage compromises corporate data security
- Employees use smart phones to post messages on social media sites that disparage company products, harass co-workers and/or injure corporate brands.
The first step for employers is to determine how and to what extent employees use smart phones for work. As a general rule, whenever hourly-paid non-exempt employees work on smart phones during off-duty hours, they must be compensated unless the time spent working on the phones is de minimis. Employers can avoid some of these wage-hour issues involving non-exempt employees by either (i) prohibiting them from using smart phones for work while off-duty or (ii) utilizing the “fluctuating workweek” method, which requires, among other things, a written agreement paying the non-exempt employee a salary for all straight time hours worked in a week and providing overtime pay at a fluctuating rate for more than 40 hours of work in a week. However, the time that a non-exempt employee merely has to carry a smart phone, but does not use it for work is usually not compensable as long as he or she is free to engage in personal activities.
Exempt employees' work-related use of smart phones can also be problematic. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, exempt employees who perform no work in a workweek or during absences of one or more full days due to personal reasons other than sickness or disability do not have to be paid for such time off. However, if exempt employees use smart phones to call into work, check work e-mails or respond to job-related texts during those absences, refusing to pay them can jeopardize their exempt status and leave employers open to overtime claims.
How big is this potential problem? The average white-collar employee (whether exempt or non-exempt) spends 50 minutes a day sending e-mails after work and more than 25 percent of them stay in contact with work during vacations and on days off, according to recent surveys. Employers should review their payroll practices and other procedures to make sure they do not deter exempt and non-exempt employees from putting in extra work on their smart phones when it is appropriate, but at the same time do not create legal risks by improperly monitoring smart phone usage and failing to pay these employees for time spent on smart phones based on misconceptions about the law and the extent that employees are using smart phones for work.
Smart phones are signaling a change in the way employees work and employers need to answer this call with new strategies that include up-to-date policies, supervisor training and protocols on monitoring the usage of new technology.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Ballooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Am Law 100 Partners on Trump’s Short List to Replace Gensler as SEC Chair
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 2Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
- 3The Elliott Management vs. Southwest Airlines Faceoff: Who Won and What Determined the Outcome?
- 4November Court of Appeals Roundup
- 5Trellis Launches Trellis AI, a New Suite of Automated Litigation Tools
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250