Recent DOJ Guidance is Employers' Compliance Program Roadmap
In April 2019, the DOJ's Criminal Division released its updated guidance document, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, intended to assist…
December 04, 2019 at 04:51 PM
6 minute read
In April 2019, the DOJ's Criminal Division released its updated guidance document, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, intended to assist prosecutors in exercising their discretion to investigate, bring charges or negotiate plea deals or other agreements with employers. The updated guidance supplements the DOJ's original guidance issued in February 2017 and does not affect the DOJ's standards or policies but sets forth the DOJ's current approach in evaluating corporate compliance programs. The information contained in the updated guidance should be used as a roadmap for companies to better develop their compliance programs to withstand the DOJ's scrutiny.
When evaluating whether to investigate, bring corporate criminal charges or negotiate pleas or corporate agreements, the DOJ considers specific factors, including whether a corporation's compliance program was "adequate and effective" at the time of the criminal offense and at time of the charging decision and, if it was inadequate or ineffective, the corporation's remedial efforts to implement or improve a corporate compliance program to make it adequate and effective.[i] The updated guidance provides examples and considerations for prosecutors in determining whether a compliance program is adequate and effective.
According to the DOJ, prosecutors should consider three fundamental questions:
- Is the corporation's compliance program well designed?
- Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith? In other words, is the program being implemented effectively?
- Does the corporation's compliance program work in practice?[ii]
This article addresses several, but not all, of the factors presented in the updated guidance to be considered by prosecutors in responding to the fundamental questions. Companies are instructed to consult with competent counsel to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of their compliance programs.
Written Policy
To determine whether the compliance program is well designed, the updated guidance instructs prosecutors to first look to the corporation's policies and procedures. Companies should have policies and procedures that clearly express the company's conduct expectations and disciplinary consequences for noncompliance. Conduct expectations should address and seek to reduce the type of misconduct most likely to occur in the company's (and any relevant third party's) specific business. The policy should set forth, at a minimum, the company's commitment to comply with relevant laws. Prosecutors are instructed to assess the effectiveness of a compliance program by determining whether a company has disciplinary procedures in place and is enforcing discipline consistently and commensurate with the violation.
The policy should also contain a confidential reporting procedure and investigation process. Complaint procedures should encourage participation, provide an appropriate process for submitting complaints and ensure that a complainant will not be retaliated against. Likewise, the company should document, investigate and respond to all complaints, through properly trained and empowered personnel, and issue discipline, as necessary. An effective investigation should be adequately scoped, independent and objective.
Communication and Training
Having a well-drafted policy is only the first step. The policy and procedures should be disseminated to all employees and relevant third parties. The updated guidance instructs prosecutors to assess the steps taken by the company to ensure the policies and procedures are "integrated into the organization," through proper dissemination of the policies and effective training.[iii] Companies should distribute their policies and procedures in a manner tailored to be received and understood by all intended recipients. This may require that the company publish its policy in multiple languages and in multiple forms.
Additionally, training should be comprehensive and appropriate for the audience. For example, training provided to senior management may differ from the training provided to nonmanagerial employees.
Effective Implementation
Equally important to having a well-designed compliance program is effective implementation of the compliance program. Prosecutors are instructed to assess whether the compliance program is just a "paper program" or one that is "implemented, reviewed, and revised, as appropriate, in an effective manner."[iv] Effective implementation requires fair and consistent administration of the compliance program. This means holding all employees accountable and ensuring that midlevel and senior management lead by example. These managers are expected to be knowledgeable about the compliance program and reinforce and encourage compliance through communication and modeled behavior. Prosecutors are instructed to consider whether companies incentivize compliance by recognizing compliant employees with promotions, bonuses and other rewards.
The final analysis is whether the compliance program is actually working in practice. If a compliance program identified the criminal misconduct and allowed for timely remediation and self-reporting, prosecutors are instructed to view this as a strong indicator that the program was working effectively. Even in cases where the compliance program did not identify the criminal misconduct, the program may still be working effectively. Prosecutors are expected to make case-by-case determinations. Some things a company can do to establish the effectiveness of its program are collect, track, analyze and use the information obtained through its reporting and investigation mechanisms to evolve its program to better address risks and remedy systemic vulnerabilities. Where improvements to the compliance program are made after undetected criminal misconduct and the company demonstrates that similar future misconduct would be prevented or detected, the DOJ is less likely to determine that future monitoring is necessary.
Conclusion
In short, a company's adequate and effective compliance program is integral to avoiding or minimizing the possibility of criminal investigations, charges and monetary penalties against a company for its employees' criminal misconduct. Companies should have well-designed, properly implemented and effective compliance programs in place. While these programs should be reviewed and revised periodically to ensure they appropriately address corporate risks, now is a good time for companies to reevaluate their policies in light of the DOJ's updated guidance.
Dana Chang Dikas, an attorney in the Fisher Phillips Dallas office, focuses her practice on representing management in all types of employment-related matters. She can be reached at [email protected]
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 All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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