BCLP At Work

Main Content

Tips for Drafting Executive Employment Agreements – Tip #3 – Restrictive Covenants

July 28, 2017

Categories

This article continues with another tip for drafting executive employment agreements and the importance of consulting counsel.

For every well drafted executive employment agreement in the business world, there seem to be multiple, poorly drafted agreements.  Too often, employers simply copy and paste from older agreements without knowing anything about the identity or qualifications of the author of the original agreement, the jurisdiction, or circumstances in which the agreement was intended to be used.  Moreover, employers sometimes borrow terms from an agreement that was heavily negotiated by an executive with considerable leverage.  Under such circumstances, the agreement likely will contain terms that are less favorable to the employer than those that can be negotiated with another executive.  Most employers do not realize their mistakes until they are consulting an employment attorney regarding their rights and obligations with respect to an executive who has engaged in misconduct or is simply performing

$2.5 Million SEC Whistleblower Award Goes to Government Employee

July 28, 2017

Categories

On July 25, 2017, the SEC announced another whistleblower award — this one for almost $2.5 million. What sets this award apart from earlier awards is its recipient — “an employee of a domestic government agency.” The Order spends more words in its footnote explaining why a government employee is entitled to a whistleblower award than the Order does in discussing the substantive award itself.

Click here to read the Alert in full.

Bryan Cave LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers understand the SEC Whistleblower Program. If you or your organization would like more information on this or any other employment issue, please contact an attorney in the Labor and Employment practice group.

Other Perspectives on Trends in Employee Noncompetition Agreements

In mid-May, the New York Times published a long article reporting a national trend that employers are expanding both the number of employees who are required to sign non-competition agreements and the types of employees required to sign these agreements.  The article emphasized stories of low-paid, low-level employees who could not find a new job, or had to take a lower paying job, because they signed a non-competition agreement.  The Times ran an editorial that urged legislatures to prohibit employers from restricting the employment opportunities of lower paid employees.

What is missing from this picture?

While the Times article mentioned states vary in enforcement of non-competition restrictions, noting that California prohibits all restrictions on employees moving to new jobs, it did not explain the important differences in how states other than California enforce non-competition restrictions.  The Times article also did not report the damage to a business that may

Tips for Drafting Executive Employment Agreements -Tip #2 – Severance Conditions

July 20, 2017

Categories

This article continues with another tip for drafting executive employment agreements and the importance of consulting counsel.

For every well drafted executive employment agreement in the business world, there seem to be multiple, poorly drafted agreements.  Too often, employers simply copy and paste from older agreements without knowing anything about the identity or qualifications of the author of the original agreement, the jurisdiction, or circumstances in which the agreement was intended to be used.  Moreover, employers sometimes borrow terms from an agreement that was heavily negotiated by an executive with considerable leverage.  Under such circumstances, the agreement likely will contain terms that are less favorable to the employer than those that can be negotiated with another executive.  Most employers do not realize their mistakes until they are consulting an employment attorney regarding their rights and obligations with respect to an executive who has engaged in misconduct or is simply performing

German Co-Determination Laws are Compliant With EU Law

July 19, 2017

Categories

July 18, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) followed the Advocate General`s motions to hold German laws on Employee Representation on Board Level do not violate EU law. See our detailed article of May 11, 2017, linked here.  Thus, the exclusion of all employees of global group entities employed outside of Germany in participating in employee representatives elections is not discrimination based on nationality. The freedom of movement for workers does not grant employees’ rights outside Germany, which only exist within, and under the national laws of, Germany. Co-determination laws and rules regarding the Employee Representation on Board Level belong to German corporate and collective employment law and, therefore, may legitimately be restricted to employees employed in Germany.

Today`s decision of the ECJ is the right decision. It brings clarity and transparency to the boards of global entities. It also eliminates time-consuming and costly court procedures, not to mention

Act on Transparency of Pay Structures – Another hassle for Companies in Germany

July 17, 2017

Categories

Although Germany faces next elections in September, the current government still establish new employment law acts, inter alia the new Act to Promote Transparency of Pay Structures (Entgelttransparenzgesetz) which came into effect July 6 2017.

In an effort to advance pay equity between men and women who perform the same work or work of equal value, the new act will allow employees, starting after January 6 2018, to claim for information about their pay structures and impose reporting obligations on particular companies.

Companies who employ more than 200 employees may face claims for information about

  • the average of monthly gross salary of at least six colleagues of the other gender who perform the same work or work of equal value,
  • information about up to two remuneration components (e.g. bonus), and
  • the criteria and procedure for the determination of the remuneration.

Companies which do not provide the requested information

One year after the Brexit vote – Scotland Yard (still) drives BMW (Aston Martin being reserved for Hollywood)

July 14, 2017

Categories

This is why Theresa May`s Secretary of State for Business visited BMW´s headquarters in Munich to lobby for BMW`s plant in Oxford.

Exactly one year after the Brexit vote, on June 22, 2017, a group of renowned employment lawyers from leading law firms met in Frankfurt to discuss recent developments and trends in German and EU labor and employment law (WoltersKluwer` Round Table Arbeitsrecht).  Brexit and its potential employment consequences in Germany and the EU were (of course) among the key topics. Even if it is still too early to detail the consequences, the exit procedures are officially underway.  What is clear is Brexit will substantially impact the freedom of movement for workers and the freedom of establishment.

There is little doubt a so-called “Hard Brexit” will result in thousands of job losses in the German Automotive industry, with every 5th exported German car currently being shipped to the UK.

The Italian Labor Reform and the new “Horizontal Mobility”

The Labor Court of Milan and the Italian Supreme Court issued two decisions (No. 3370/2016 and 618/2017) interpreting the updated Section 2013 of the Italian Civil Code, concerning the “repêchage obligation.”

In particular, before dismissing an employee for objectively justified reasons (e.g., abolition of the department or functions in the company), the employer has the obligation to evaluate whether the employee could be employed in another role in the company.  In this respect, the Italian reform law, so-called “Jobs Act,” allows employers to reclassify staff categories, as well as introduce mobility within and among staff levels. This means the criterion of equivalent tasks has been replaced by the principle of horizontal mobility with the possibility to give job tasks attributable to the same level and staff category of the latest functions performed by the employee.  Therefore, the employer may assign to employees any functions included in the classification system of

Tips for Drafting Executive Employment Agreements -Tip #1 – Define “Cause” Broadly

July 10, 2017

Categories

Tip No. 1:  Define “Cause” Broadly

Executives and other high-level employees often negotiate a contractual provision requiring the payment of severance if terminated without “Cause” prior to the expiration of a term agreement.  While the definition of Cause often depends on the parties’ respective bargaining power (highly sought talent typically has considerable leverage), the employer should attempt to negotiate as broad a definition of Cause as possible.  Too often, employers limit the definition of Cause to intentional misconduct that harms the company, criminal behavior, or the executive’s death.  Such a narrow definition ties the employer’s hands when an executive is not making a good-faith effort to perform well or is performing very poorly despite reasonable efforts.  Under these circumstances, the employer’s options are limited to continuing to employ the underperforming executive or terminating the executive and paying out severance.

It is also fairly common for Cause definitions to include a

Religion in the workplace in France – Part 2

July 7, 2017

Categories

PART 2, Continued from PART 1, posted on June 26, 2017.

What about wearing religious symbols at work? Is this subject to a specific legal framework?

The French Constitutional Council (“Conseil Constitutionnel”) reminds that the neutrality of the State (and its agents) derives from the principle of secularism, which is recognized by the declaration of human and citizens’ rights (“déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen”) and by the Constitution of 4 October 1958 which provides that “France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic”.

Private companies and their employees are not subject to the same restrictions as the State and its agents. This is borne out by so-called “oriented” companies (eg educational institutions or denominational charities) where religious beliefs are freely expressed.

Can the employer put a limit on the religious expression of his employees (especially regarding clothing) and how can he do so?

The judges of the

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.