Mary Siceloff, Author at Weintraub Tobin

Everything Old is New Again!* Not So!

Published: May 11, 2017

by Audrey A. Millemann
The IP Law Blog

*This line is the title of a song written by Peter Allen and Carole Bayer Sager that was performed in Bob Fosse’s movie “All that Jazz.” The song was a hit, and the phrase has a lot of relevance to everyday life, but the Federal Circuit isn’t buying it.

In RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017) 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7528, the Federal Circuit struck down a patent on the grounds that the invention was not new – it had been done before – way before– in 1775 by Paul Revere.

RecogniCorp’s patent covered a method and apparatus for encoding and decoding image data. The invention was intended to solve problems that arise in the digital transmission of images, including decreased image quality as the images are compressed and transmitted.

RecogniCorp sued Nintendo for patent infringement. The case was transferred to the Western District of Washington and stayed pending reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office. After the reexamination concluded, the district court lifted the stay. Nintendo then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the patent’s claims were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Under that statute and case law, just about every type of invention can be patented, except for those that relate to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Nintendo argued that RecogniCorp’s invention was an abstract idea, and therefore unpatentable.

The district court granted Nintendo’s motion, finding the claims to be directed to ineligible subject matter as an abstract idea.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court applied the Supreme Court’s two-part test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) for determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible. In applying the first step of the Alice test, the court determined that RecogniCorp’s claims were directed to an abstract idea. The method of encoding and decoding images was a standard method, which the Court said had been used before, in Morse code, in ordering fast food at restaurants using a number system, and in Paul Revere’s famous phase “one if by sea, two if by land.” The methods of RecogniCorp’s invention rely on encoding something at one end and decoding it at the other end, which is a concept or idea that has been used in many different situations.

Next, the Court applied Alice’s second step to decide whether there was an inventive concept that transformed the claim into a patent-eligible application. The court said that nothing in RecogniCorp’s claims transformed the abstract idea into subject matter that was patent-eligible. Because the claims failed both prongs of the Alice test, the court held that the claims were not patentable subject matter.

As most people know, Paul Revere was a Patriot during the American Revolution who is best known for warning the colonial militias that the British were getting ready to attack, before the battles at Lexington and Concord. He helped create an intelligence and watch operation by the colonists over the British. On April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was told that the British were leaving Boston for Cambridge by boat, heading on to Lexington and Concord, to seize the Patriots’ weapons at Concord and to capture their leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Revere had previously told the church’s sexton to alert the colonists to the British by signal using the lanterns in the church’s steeple: “one if by land, two if by sea.” On that night, Revere told the sexton to light two lanterns in the steeple. Revere then quietly rowed a boat past a British warship to get to Charleston, and then rode by horseback into Lexington, spreading the warning as he went. More riders joined him in the night, riding out through the countryside in a system the colonists called “alarm and muster.” Revere was captured by the British (but later released, although they kept his horse).

Paul Revere helped stop the British in 1775, and, 242 years later, helped stop RecogniCorp’s patent.

To read more Intellectual Property articles, please visit our IP Law Blog at: http://www.theiplawblog.com.

Protect Your Business: What You Need to Know About the New Defend Trade Secrets Act

Published: May 8, 2017

Businesses at every level – from Fortune 500 companies to solo-inventor enterprises – rely on trade secret protections to safeguard their intellectual property trade secrets. American companies and innovators now have additional protections for their valuable intellectual property assets in the newly enacted federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). This legislation represents the most significant trade secret reform legislation in years.

Essentially, the DTSA extends the current Economic Espionage Act of 1996, which criminalizes certain trade secret misappropriations, and allows trade secret owners the opportunity to pursue claims in federal court under federal law, in addition to traditional state court claims. The new federal trade secrets law also presents some very important practical considerations for businesses.

First, the DTSA has a broad reach, and it will likely affect every aspect of a company’s operations. Trade secret issues arise every time a company hires or fires an employee; every time a company enters into a contract containing a non-disclosure or confidentiality clause; and every time an employee discusses the company’s business with a business partner, the public, or friends. All of these activities are now governed by the DTSA.

Second, the DTSA will potentially increase the legal costs associated with protecting a company’s trade secrets. Because of the overlap between the DTSA and state law, companies will need to incur additional costs in order to understand and conform their practices to accommodate both sets of laws. When dealing with trade secret litigation, companies will now have to prosecute or defend against both state and federal claims, adding to the already expensive cost of litigation.

Finally, for better or for worse, the DTSA may create greater opportunities for trade secret owners to win more cases, and to file more lawsuits. By providing plaintiffs with another set of laws and another venue in which to litigate, the DTSA creates more strategic avenues to success. The increased odds of success could spur more litigation, some of which may be for illegitimate or anti-competitive reasons. This, again, could increase litigation costs.

For these reasons, companies would be wise to educate themselves on the DTSA in order to take advantage of, and protect themselves from, the important legal and business consequences of this new federal trade secret law.

Recent NLRB Decisions On Email And Protected Activities

Published: May 8, 2017

The Labor & Employment Law Blog

By: Michelle L. Covington

A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision affirmed the Board’s position on employer email policies under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In Purple Communications, Inc. and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO the Board held that employees who may use their employer’s email system for work-related communications have the right to send off-the-clock email communications through their work email system that are protected under the NLRA. The Act applies to most employees in the private sector, regardless of whether they are unionized, and gives employees the right to participate in activities or communications that are for their mutual aid or protection regarding the terms and conditions of employment. This could include complaints about management, wages, shift schedules, or safety concerns.

To read the full article, visit the HRUSA page at: http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/recent-nlrb-decisions-on-email-and-protected-activities/.

Federal Circuit Holds Non-Public Sales Can Still Satisfy the On-Sale Bar for Patents under the AIA

Published: May 4, 2017

by Eric Caligiuri
The IP Law Blog

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the America Invents Act’s (“AIA”) did not change the meaning of the on-sale bar provision in 35 U.S.C. § 102. The on-sale bar provision holds that sales of an invention one year prior to the patent filing are prior art even if the sale is made by the patent owner and does not publically disclose the invention. Under Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998), application of the on-sale bar requires satisfaction of a two-prong test that: (1) “the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale” and (2) “the invention must be ready for patenting.”

In the case, Helsinn Healthcare S.A. (“Helsinn”) brought suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”) alleging that the filing of Teva’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) constituted an infringement of various claims of four patents directed to reducing the likelihood of CINV. CINV is a serious side effect of chemotherapy treatment. In defense, Teva argued the asserted claims were invalid under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102.

In addressing the on-sale issue, the district court applied the two-step framework of Pfaff and found that the patents-in-suit were valid. With respect to three of the patents, all subject to pre-AIA § 102, the district court concluded that there was a commercial offer for sale before the critical date, but that the invention was not yet ready for patenting. With respect to the fourth patent, which is governed by the AIA version of § 102, the district court concluded that there was no commercial offer for sale because the AIA changed the relevant on-sale bar standard, and the invention was not ready for patenting.

In coming to the conclusion that the AIA changed the on-sale bar standard, the district court reasoned that before the AIA, the on-sale bar provision of § 102 stated that a person was entitled to a patent unless the invention was patented or “in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application.” Thus, courts held that even confidential sales could potentially trigger the on-sale bar under that provision. Congress amended the on-sale bar in the AIA, which applies to patents filed after March 2013. The new § 102 states patents are allowed unless the claimed invention was patented or “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” before a patent is filed.

The district court thus reasoned that the “otherwise available to the public” phrase means that only public sales trigger the AIA’s version of the on-sale bar, unlike prior to the AIA when private sales could satisfy the on-sale bar. Thus, in effect, the district court held that the AIA changed the meaning of the on-sale bar and § 102 now “requires a public sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention.” The district court concluded that, to be “public” under the AIA, a sale must publicly disclose the details of the invention.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were subject to an invalidating contract for sale prior to the critical date, and the AIA did not change the statutory meaning of “on sale” in the circumstances involved. The Federal Circuit also found the asserted claims were ready for patenting prior to the critical date.

In first addressing the on-sale bar and whether the AIA requires that the details of the claimed invention to be publicly disclosed before the on-sale bar is triggered, the Federal Circuit held “requiring such disclosure as a condition of the on-sale bar would work a foundational change in the theory of the statutory on-sale bar.” The Federal Circuit reasoned a primary rationale of the on-sale bar is that publicly offering a product for sale that embodies the claimed invention places it in the public domain, regardless of when or whether actual delivery occurs. The patented product need not be on-hand or even delivered prior to the critical date to trigger the on-sale bar.

The Federal Circuit further explained that “prior cases have applied the on-sale bar when there is no delivery, when delivery is set after the critical date, or, even when, upon delivery, members of the public could not ascertain the claimed invention.” The Federal Circuit found no indication Congress intended to overrule these cases. Instead, the Federal Circuit reasoned Congress, in stating that the invention must be available to the public, “meant that the public sale itself would put the patented product in the hands of the public.” Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that, after the AIA, if the existence of the sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed in the terms of sale.

The Federal Circuit also addressed whether the invention was ready for patenting as of the critical date. Under Pfaff, there are at least two ways in which an invention can be shown to be ready for patenting: “by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.” The Federal Circuit found the patented invention was ready for patenting because it was reduced to practice before the critical date. Thus, the Federal Circuit also reversed the district court on this point, and invalidated the asserted claims of all four patents.

California Employers – Revised Wage Orders Posted

Published: May 3, 2017

The Labor & Employment Law Blog

By Jessica Schoendienst

The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) updated all but Wage Order 14 and 17 recently. The DIR regulates wages and hours for employees. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) enforces the provisions of the wage orders, including the posting requirements. The Wage Orders are numbered 1 through 17.

The most recent updates were made to reflect the increases in California’s minimum wage. (To read more on the minimum wage increase, visit my prior L&E Blog here.) The update shows the minimum wage for 2017 and 2018 as follows:

Effective Date 26 or More Employees 25 or Fewer Employees

January 1, 2017 $10.50 $10.00

January 1, 2018 $11.00 $10.50

Employers are required to post a copy of the applicable Wage Order in an area frequented by employees, such as a breakroom or your employee entrance. The Wage Orders must be printed on 8.5″ x 11″ paper. If you are unable to post the Wage Order because of the work location or other conditions, you should inform employees that they may request a copy of the Wage Order from you. While the Wage Order does not specify what penalties can be imposed for failure to comply with the posting requirements, it is likely Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) penalties could be recovered by employees and/or the DLSE for noncompliance. PAGA’s default penalty provision under Labor Code section 2699(f) permits the recovery of a penalty of $100 per employee for initial violations, and subsequent penalties in the amount of $200 per employee per pay period. The updated version of the Wage Orders contains a revision date of “12/2016.” Employers can find this date on the cover page for each Wage Order.

Given that there are 17 different Wage Orders it may be unclear as to which Wage Order each employer must post. The DLSE has published a pamphlet to help guide employers in determining which Wage Order must be posted. This pamphlet can be found here.

Electronic versions of the Wage Orders for posting can be obtained from the DIR Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order webpage here. Printed versions of the Wage Orders can be obtained by contacting a local DLSE district office. A listing of these offices can be found here.

If you have questions about these revisions or which Wage Order applies to you, the attorneys in Weintraub Tobin’s Employment Law Group can assist you. Contact any one of us if we can be of assistance.

IF YOU SUE FACEBOOK, WHAT’S THE LIKELIHOOD YOU’LL BE ALLOWED TO DEPOSE MARK ZUCKERBERG?

Published: May 2, 2017

Companies are no strangers to litigation. In California, it is a cost of doing business. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for litigants to try to gain leverage in a dispute with a corporate party by attempting to depose its high-level executives to harass and embarrass them, and force the company into a quick and aberrant settlement. The strategy employed by a litigant may go like this: (1) put pressure on a company by noticing the deposition of an officer or director, (2) make clear the intent to delve not only into the high-level executive’s alleged wrongdoing, but also other points of potential embarrassment, and (3) the company will capitulate and pay a significant settlement to avoid the pain of the deposition. Some refer to this (and similar tactics) as judicial extortion. What, then, can a company and its counsel do to prevent an abusive deposition of a high-level executive?

California federal and state courts apply the “apex” doctrine to protect high-level executives, also referred to as apex executives, from harassing depositions. In considering whether to allow the deposition of a high-level executive, courts focus on two primary factors: (1) whether the high level executive has unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of facts at issue in the case, and (2) whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 282 F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D.Cal. 2012); Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289 (1992).

Courts understand that where an opportunity exists to game the system and harass a party it will likely be exploited, and, thus, are carful to protect against it. This was observed in one of the first cases to apply the “apex” doctrine. In 1985, a class of plaintiffs sued for personal injuries from an alleged defective design in the fuel system of the 1975 Dodge van. Plaintiffs’ counsel noticed the deposition of Lee Iacocca, then Chairman of the Board of Chrysler Corporation, claiming that statements Iacoccoa made in his recently published biography demonstrated that he had knowledge relevant to Chrysler’s alleged liability and the plaintiffs should be allowed to depose him to explore such knowledge. The court granted Iacoccoa’s motion for protective order preventing his deposition, noting: “the fact remains [Iacoccoa] is a singularly unique and important individual who can be easily subjected to unwarranted harassment and abuse. He has a right to be protected, and the courts have a duty to recognize his vulnerability.” Mulvey v. Chrsyler Corp., 106 F.R.D. 364, 366 (D.R.I. 1985).

Some chairman and officers are obvious “apex” executives – such as Iacoccoa or, say, the late Steve Jobs. See Affinity Labs of Texas v. Apple, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53649 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (court denied plaintiff’s attempt to depose Steve Jobs). However, most high level executives are not celebrities. They are not regularly quoted and their companies are not featured in the media. Yet, these less recognizable high-level executives responsible for running smaller to mid-size business are just as important to their companies as their high-profile counterparts, and equally vulnerable to harassment. Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of who qualifies for protection as an “apex” executive. Some factors that have been considered are job duties and the potential for business disruption, where the executive falls within the company’s executive hierarchy (e.g., how many people report to the executive), and the likelihood of harassment.

The most important factor considered by courts in applying the “apex” doctrine is whether the high-level executive has personal knowledge of relevant facts. Equally important is whether the information can be obtained through other less burdensome means, such as from a lower level executive or employee. When a CEO or other high-level executive lacks such personal knowledge, courts are inclined to deny their depositions.

However, the “apex” doctrine exists in tension with the otherwise broad allowance for discovery in litigation. Apple Inc., supra., 282 F.R.D. at 263. Although a deposition notice directed at a high-level executive with no personal knowledge of the facts involved should result in the issuance of a protective order denying that executive’s deposition – courts are likely to allow some manner of discovery. Now, in the case involving Apple, the court simply denied the deposition of Steve Jobs outright. But, in the matter involving Chrysler, although the court denied the deposition of Iacoccoa it allowed plaintiffs to propound written interrogatories to him. This is a less intrusive means of discovery of a high-level executive courts have allowed. See, e.g., Retail Brand Alliance, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 622810, at *6 (SD NY 2008). Likewise, rather than completely deny the deposition of a high-level executive, a court may limit the length or scope of the deposition to avoid harassment or undue burden. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 282 F.R.D. 259, 265-67 (ND CA 2012) (allowing depositions of high-level officers, but limiting them to 2-3 hours each); Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 306 F.R.D. 120, 124 (SD NY 2015) (limiting apex depositions to 4 hours).

From the outset of litigation or potential litigation, a company’s counsel must be mindful that higher-level executives are vulnerable to a deposition – particularly as a form of harassment and to gain leverage. Counsel should investigate alternative means for providing an opposing party with potentially relevant information that a high-level executive may possess, and develop a record early on establishing the limits of the high-level executive’s involvement, if any, and that such executive has no unique, personal knowledge of the relevant facts. It is important to be prepared to utilize the “apex” doctrine in order to protect against potential abuse or harassment of high-level executives.

Lawsuits are the Inevitable Cost of YouTube Success

Published: April 27, 2017

by Scott M. Hervey
The IP Law Blog

Whenever there is a report of a YouTube creator being sued for copyright infringement, the response from the creator and the community seems to be one of shock and surprise. The truth is, successful YouTube content creators should not be surprised when they get sued for copyright infringement. Any person or company that creates content professionally, whether that’s a television network, a motion picture studio or a YouTuber, is a likely target for a copyright lawsuit. When I began representing Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox of Smosh over 10 years ago, only a few people were making digital video content, even fewer understood what YouTube was, and the amount and types of revenue opportunities was nowhere near what it is today. But today, there are so very many successful YouTube content creators with millions and millions of subscribers and the amount of money flowing through the digital first content genera is significant. Like it or not, popular YouTube creators are just as much a target for infringement claims as a television network or movie studio. If a creator is surprised or caught off guard when they receive a claim of infringement, it means they were not adequately advised and prepared for this eventuality.

The truth is that, for the most part, anyone can sue anyone. As one of my first year law school professors explained, one of the basic elements of the American system of jurisprudence is the concept of the “American Rule” in which each party pays their own attorneys’ fees as opposed to the “English Rule” whereby the loser pays the winner’s attorneys’ fees. While the American rule does enable the bringing of questionable claims, the founders of our judicial system believed that this risk was outweighed by making the courts available to all without the fear of financial ruin.

Another truth about the American civil judicial system is that lawyers are expensive. While there are vastly different rates that certain lawyers may charge, good lawyers are expensive. And since most lawyers charge by the hour, this makes lawsuits a costly endeavor.

So with the reality that content creators are a likely target for lawsuits, that it’s relatively easy to bring a lawsuit and that lawyers (and thus lawsuits) are expensive, what is a content creator to do? Doing nothing to prepare for the eventual lawsuit is not it. Content creators should take the risk of lawsuits into account when doing business and take steps to hedge against that potentiality. Like all other media businesses, creators should consider making the following part of their general business practices. The following isn’t exclusive, but it’s a good place to start.

The first step any content creator should take is to “clear” the rights to any other person appearing on camera and any third-party music, pictures, videos or other content. This sounds more complicated that it is. Clearing rights is accomplished by using a written agreement to secure whatever rights are necessary that will allow you to feature that person, music or clip in your video. If you have people other than yourself appearing in your video, they should sign what’s known as an appearance release. Similarly, if you use third-party music or other content, there are specific documents that are appropriate for those situations as well.

Granted there are certain times when a content creator can’t obtain permission to include third‑party content in a video. In those situations, a creator may still be able to use the content if the use satisfies the judicial test established for fair use. I strongly suggest that all creators have a working knowledge of fair use. (A good place to start is the fair use presentation Rian Bosak and I give each year at VidCon.) However, unless a creator is absolutely certain that what he/she is doing qualifies as fair use, it may be best to consult an expert. When I was the attorney for YouTube Nation, fair use review took up a fair amount of my time. Fair use is a complicated legal theory that is constantly in flux; even our federal courts sometimes can’t agree on what is and what is not fair use.

Any content creator that includes third-party music, third-party pictures or videos or third-party brands in their video or that reviews products or services should consider the benefits of a media liability insurance policy. This is a type of Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance policy and generally covers against copyright and trademark infringement claims, privacy claims, defamation claims and others. The coverage provided by such a policy not only includes the damage award resulting from a covered claim, but also includes the cost to defend against such a claim. And while it is true that a media liability policy may be expensive, the cost to pay lawyers to defend against a claim is way more expensive.

In addition, YouTubers should consider adopting some of the methods television networks and film studios use in their production of content. I am not necessarily saying that creators would need to employ a full-blown production team, but implementing some of their practices could lessen the risks inherent with the production and distribution of content. Making use of some standard production forms and having a relationship with a lawyer who is extremely familiar with copyright, fair use and production issues will go a long way towards preventing claims.

The high odds of being on the receiving end of a cease and desist letter or a complaint (which are much worse than a strike or a takedown) is the cost of success as a creator. The smart bet is to prepare in advance so you are not caught off guard and doesn’t put your financial wellbeing in jeopardy.

*Scott Hervey represents top content creators, studios and production companies in a wide variety of matters including financing, acquisitions, production, clearance and general business matters. Scott’s clients include STX, DreamWorks/YouTube Nation, Pharrell Williams’ I am Other channel, Smosh, Sawyer Hartman and Nerdwriter. Scott previously served as the acting business affairs director for the publicly traded digital content company, Digital Music Group, Inc. (now The Orchard). Scott was featured in Variety’s Legal Impact Report and is a Super Lawyer®. Scott is a professor of entertainment law at King Hall law school, U.C, Davis and he serves on the board of directors of the Hollywood Radio and Television Society (HRTS).

Managing Your Business Under Mandatory Evacuation

Published: April 26, 2017

by Charles L. Post
The Labor & Employment Law Blog

Imagine this: Your business lies within a zone that is subject to a mandatory evacuation order from emergency response and law enforcement officials. Imagine that the evacuation order arises from a fire or imminent flooding. What do you do? Shut your business and get out of course. Most evacuation orders are short lived and the hazardous conditions are realized or not within a short period of time. But what happens when the evacuation order persists for a number of days or even weeks? Your plant operations or business remains shut down. You may have compelling business interests that demand attention during an extended evacuation order. You may need to respond to security alarms and alerts, or ensure that the premises are adequately secured. There may be a fear of product spoliation or destruction, and you may face a serious temptation to send a minimal or skeleton crew into the area covered by the evacuation order in order to ensure that those business concerns are addressed.

Lawyers are trained to look at scenarios like this in reverse. The employer sends a skeleton crew in to secure the premises or ensure that essential processes are completed or that products do not spoil. Something bad then happens. The wildfire burns down the surrounding area or the flood arrives and employees are injured. Now what?

To read the full article, visit the HRUSA blog at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/managing-your-business-under-mandatory-evacuation/

OC Jury Awards $20.3M in Settlement Breach Trial

Published: April 25, 2017

Mandatory AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training and Optional Supervisor Best Practices and Legal Compliance Training

When: May 18, 2017

Mandatory AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training: : $95/person

The regulations regarding California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for supervisors require that certain employers provide training to their supervisors every two years.
The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin is offering a two hour in-person training session that will comply with all the requirements outlined in the regulations including things like:

An overview of sexual harassment laws
Examples of conduct that constitute sexual harassment
Strategies to prevent harassment in the workplace
Lawful supervisory responses to complaints of harassment in the workplace
Training on prevention of “abusive conduct” in the workplace
Practical and inter-active hypotheticals and examples to help illustrate what bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation can look like

If you are an employer with 50 or more employees, and have supervisors who have not yet been trained, this training is a must. We look forward to hearing from you and helping you comply with your continuing sexual harassment training obligations.

Approved for two (2) hours MCLE (Elimination of Bias).

OPTIONAL: Supervisor Best Practices and Legal Compliance Training: $60/person

Most employers know that it is crucial to have well trained supervisors to help ensure that rank and file employees perform their jobs effectively and efficiently. However, many employers don’t realize how important it is that supervisors be trained to understand the many employment laws that govern the workplace. Untrained supervisors can take actions (or fail to take actions) that result in significant legal consequences for an employer.

This one-hour training will cover topics like:

Legal do’s and don’ts when hiring and firing
Tips for effective communication between supervisors and employees, including how to give constructive performance feedback
The importance of consistent, objective, and timely discipline
Important wage and hour laws
Workplace safety rules
Accommodating disabilities and understanding the many leaves of absence laws
The in’s and out’s of employee privacy rights

Date & Time:

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Seminar Program
AB 1825 Training: 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Optional Supervisor Best Practices: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm

Location

Weintraub Tobin Office
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor | Sacramento, CA 95814

Parking Validation provided. Please park in the Wells Fargo parking garage, entrances on 4th and 5th Street. Please bring your ticket with you to the 11th floor for validation.

Please RSVP by Monday, May 15, 2017

Please Note: AB 1825 Training: $95/person Supervisor Best Practices and Legal Compliance Training: $60/person. Please specify which training you will be attending in your RSVP.

Welcome to the Weintraub Tobin Resources Page