Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Federal. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Federal. Tampilkan semua postingan

Jumat, 11 April 2014

Did Sprint violate federal law when it laid-off 1,440 workers?

sprint logo

TheDarkThing

Last March, Sprint may have violated federal law when it laid-off 1,440 workers.

In a release, the Communications Workers of America say that Sprint Corp. could owe $4.5 million in back pay to the recently laid off workers. Sprint would owe an average of about $3,100 in back pay to the call center workers and also would be obligated to continue benefits for its former employees through May 17.

Specifically at issue is whether Sprint provided the required 60-day notice under certain federal and state laws. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires 60 days’ notice before an employer cuts pay and benefits in the event of mass layoffs of 50 or more.

Sprint allegedly laid off the workers on March 18 and told the employees that their jobs would be terminated on March 25 with pay through April 8. Sprint filed a report to the Kansas Department of Commerce on March 18, saying layoffs would affect 477 employees, according to kansasworks.com.

Sprint spent more than $165 million in severance and other expenses as part of layoffs in the fourth quarter, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Late Tuesday, Sprint issued a response rejecting the claims.

“Every employee impacted by these job reductions received a minimum of 60 days’ pay and benefits. In some states, where the law requires it, employees received 90 days’ pay and benefits.”

It should be noted that what the CWA alleges is that that Sprint didn’t provide adequate notice under the WARN Act, which requires at least 60 or 90 days’ notice before an employer cuts pay and benefits in the event of mass layoffs of 50 or more.

Violations of the WARN Act are not uncommon. Early in 2013, ESPN lost a lawsuit alleging that ESPN Zone in Baltimore shut down one of their restaurants without giving proper notice to the employees. During August of 2012, Solyndra LLC, the a solar-panel maker, reached a $3.5 million settlement with former workers who claimed they received inadequate layoff notices.

Jumat, 21 Maret 2014

Microsoft Will Now Deploy Two Legal Teams, Outside Former Federal Judge To Approve User-Data Searches

Following a court document revealing that Microsoft read the email of a third-party blogger to uncover an internal leak, the company this evening announced a policy change, effective immediately, regarding how it searches user data that is part of its own network of services. Noting that it couldn’t, in its view, get a court order to search itself as none is needed, it will instead add layers of protection between it and its own users’ data.

First, the company will deploy a second legal team apart from the “internal investigating team” to vet the need for the data search. Following, a “former federal judge” will review the case, such as it is, and grant a decision. Microsoft will only execute a search into, say, an Outlook.com account if the retired judge consents that there is “evidence sufficient for a court order.”

And the number of this type of searches will be revealed in the company’s regular transparency reports. Microsoft exempts its own employees from the above. If you are an employee and have data on any Microsoft service, consider it public to your employer.

The change in tack is interesting given its speed – Microsoft came under fire in the last day or so. The online reaction to Microsoft’s admittedly legal search of the blogger’s personal emails and IMs has been swift and negative. We need better legal guidelines to protect user data from the service-providing company. That said, the boundaries that the company erected, provided they are extended and strengthened in the coming months, are at least a decent start. I say that at the risk of being too optimistic.

Here’s Microsoft’s statement:

We believe that Outlook and Hotmail email are and should be private.  Today there has been coverage about a particular case.  While we took extraordinary actions in this case based on the specific circumstances and our concerns about product integrity that would impact our customers, we want to provide additional context regarding how we approach these issues generally and how we are evolving our policies.

Courts do not issue orders authorizing someone to search themselves, since obviously no such order is needed.  So even when we believe we have probable cause, it’s not feasible to ask a court to order us to search ourselves. However, even we should not conduct a search of our own email and other customer services unless the circumstances would justify a court order, if one were available.  In order to build on our current practices and provide assurances for the future, we will follow the following policies going forward:

  • To ensure we comply with the standards applicable to obtaining a court order, we will rely in the first instance on a legal team separate from the internal investigating team to assess the evidence. We will move forward only if that team concludes there is evidence of a crime that would be sufficient to justify a court order, if one were applicable. As an additional step, as we go forward, we will then submit this evidence to an outside attorney who is a former federal judge.  We will conduct such a search only if this former judge similarly concludes that there is evidence sufficient for a court order.
  • Even when such a search takes place, it is important that it be confined to the matter under investigation and not search for other information.  We therefore will continue to ensure that the search itself is conducted in a proper manner, with supervision by counsel for this purpose.
  • Finally, we believe it is appropriate to ensure transparency of these types of searches, just as it is for searches that are conducted in response to governmental or court orders.  We therefore will publish as part of our bi-annual transparency report the data on the number of these searches that have been conducted and the number of customer accounts that have been affected.

The only exception to these steps will be for internal investigations of Microsoft employees who we find in the course of a company investigation are using their personal accounts for Microsoft business.   And in these cases, the review will be confined to the subject matter of the investigation.

The privacy of our customers is incredibly important to us, and while we believe our actions in this particular case were appropriate given the specific circumstances, we want to be clear about how we will handle similar situations going forward. That is why we are building on our current practices and adding to them to further strengthen our processes and increase transparency.  

IMAGE BY FLICKR USER Robert Scoble UNDER CC BY 2.0 LICENSE (IMAGE HAS BEEN CROPPED)