Making a List, Checking It Twice: When Employees Resign, Employers Should Be Prepared
For many employers, it is also performance review season that is often accompanied by announcements concerning employees' compensation for next year. As a result, this time of year can sometimes cause employees to consider a change of scenery. Employers should therefore be prepared for the possibility that an employee will voluntarily resign their employment and move on to another opportunity.
December 07, 2023 at 09:45 AM
5 minute read
With the holiday season in full swing, many of us are busier than normal. We have parties to attend, shopping to finish (or in my case, start and finish), and year-end goals to accomplish, in addition to our "regular" work duties. This is also the time of year that many employers begin to wrap up financial matters and plan for the coming year by preparing goals, budgets, forecasts, and strategic plans. For many employers, it is also performance review season that is often accompanied by announcements concerning employees' compensation for next year. As a result, this time of year can sometimes cause employees to consider a change of scenery. Employers should therefore be prepared for the possibility that an employee will voluntarily resign their employment and move on to another opportunity. Accordingly, employers should consider the following checklist if and when an employee announces their resignation:
|- Employers should compile an inventory of the departing employee's contractual obligations. If a departing employee is bound, for instance, by an enforceable restrictive covenant, employers should assess the potential for harm in the event of a violation. While the ever-broadening attempts to limit the use of post-employment, noncompetition agreements have been well documented in the past year, reasonable restrictive covenants remain enforceable in Pennsylvania. Employers should have a full understanding of which employees are covered by such agreements as well as a full understanding of the terms of those agreements.
- Employers should determine whether the departing employee has access to trade secrets or other sensitive, proprietary information. If the employee does have access to such confidential information, the employer should ensure that appropriate steps are taken to protect the information. In many instances employers should suspend the departing employee's continued access to sensitive information by prohibiting the employee's access to the employer's electronic files or computer system.
- Employers may also consider whether the departing employee's continued access to sensitive information warrants continuing to pay the departing employee throughout the notice period contained in a restrictive covenant, even if the employee has already separated from the employer.
- If the departing employee has already misappropriated trade secrets or other confidential information, the employer should call its attorney, who will formulate a strategy for retrieving the information and any potential damages caused by the departing employee.
- Counsel will also help to determine whether the departing employee's new employer should be contacted to inform them of the departing employee's post-employment obligations and their obligation to preserve evidence, including metadata.
- In some circumstances, employers may decide to conduct a forensic review of the electronic devices and network access of the departing employee to confirm the misappropriation or the extent of the misappropriation. While not inexpensive, forensic evaluation often provides important evidence that can be pivotal in litigation.
- Employers should also determine whether, when, and how customers or other third parties should be notified of the employee's departure and send appropriate notice to them. When doing so, employers should remain mindful of the fact that the departing employer may have developed personal relationships with these customers and third parties.
- Employers should compile an inventory of any other property that belongs to the employer but may be in the possession, custody, or control of the departing employee, whether inadvertently or intentionally. Employers should determine the location of the property—whether electronic devices, keys, equipment, tools, or passwords—and develop a plan to ensure its return.
- Employers should schedule (and follow through with actually conducting) an exit interview with the departing employee to: |
- Determine whether the departing employee has secured a new job and learn any pertinent details about the new position;
- Remind the departing employee of any post-employment legal or contractual obligations related to trade secrets, confidentiality, non-competition, or non-solicitation of customers or former colleagues;
- Arrange for the return of company property, including passwords to accounts or computer systems that may only be easily accessed by the departing employee;
- Coordinate a plan for the departing employee to potentially assist the employer with transitioning the departing employee's duties and responsibilities to a replacement;
- Clarify the employer's expectations of the departing employee prior to the departing employee's last day of employment; and
- Obtain constructive feedback from the departing employee regarding the employer, its management, policies, practices, and procedures.
This checklist is certainly not meant to imply that every resigning employee does so with ill intent. To be clear, that is not the case the vast majority of the time. Instead, this checklist is to help ensure that employers are not caught off guard by those rare situations in which a departing employee plans to retain information that does not belong to them. To the extent an employer is ever unsure about the motives of their departing employee, it should consult its attorney.
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 AllRisk Mitigation: Employee Engagement Results in Fewer Lawsuits (and Other Benefits)
5 minute readDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readJudge Awards $200K in Attorney Fees Following $80K Employment Discrimination Award
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Alston & Bird Matches Market Rate for Associate Bonuses
- 2Commentary: Freedom's Just Another Word
- 3Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 4First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 5The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
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