JOB APPLICANTS ASKED TO DIVULGE FACEBOOK PASSWORDS

California has more employment laws than most states, many employers would say too many employment laws.  The recent news that some employers are asking for Facebook passwords from potential employees raises the question whether this is illegal under California law. 

It is likely such a practice would violate the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, which provides that all persons have a right to privacy in their personal affairs.  This Section has been interpreted broadly in some cases, and held applicable to the employer-employee relationship.

Moreover, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, codified in the Government Code, provides that employers cannot discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of sex, national origin, race, religion, or disability.  If an employer could not ask a job applicant what religion they are in an interview, the argument is “why should the employer be allowed to view private information on Facebook that may very well lead to the discovery of the same information?” 

Two U.S. Senators are asking U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the alleged practice.  Facebook itself has recently warned employers not to ask job applicants for their passwords, and has even threatened legal action for violations of Facebook’s policy regarding sharing passwords. 

It is questionable how widespread this practice really is.  That being said, employers in California would be well advised to steer clear of it. 

What’s in the Beef?

I found a recent article indicating that Taco Bell is being sued for deceiving customers about the products that they put in there beef. I am kind of happy that I found this article, as it combines three things that I find interesting… the law, health and food.

So be careful when you want to “run to the border” to satisfy a craving. That beef burrito, chalupa or crunchy taco you desire may not be filled with the all natural beef that you were hoping for. Rather, according to the plaintiff, Taco Bell’s beef is an un-natural concoction of beef, water, wheat oats, soy lecithin, maltodrextrin, anti-dusting agent and modified corn starch. I must admit maltodrextrin and the anti-dusting agent sure do not sound as tasty as all-natural pure angus beef. What makes things worse, the lawsuit alleges that Taco Bell’s beef contains less than 35% beef. So, when you bite into that satisfying double decker taco, see if you can taste the wheat oats and soy lecithin.

I could go on and on about eating “real” food, but that is not really the point of this blog. Rather, we must ask why is Taco Bell being sued over this beef concoction. Why can’t Taco Bell sell its “beef”? According, to the lawsuit it is more of a false advertising issue. The plaintiff is simply seeking to stop Taco Bell from advertising the beef as “seasoned beef” when in reality, Taco Bell is selling a seasoned beef concoction that contains very little beef. So, the plaintiff is asking the court to stop Taco Bell from selling its “beef” as beef. Nevertheless, I’m sure Taco Bell could resolve this lawsuit by simply changing its “beef” practices and putting a little more beef into its beef.

I must say that seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want to sell beef, actually sell beef. But, if you want to sell a beef concoction, tell everyone that you are selling a beef concoction. But don’t advertise it as something that it is not… beef.

And if you don’t mind putting a bunch of chemicals in your body, go eat the beef concoction… it’s tasty. But before you make a run for fast food, check out Supersize Me. It may make you rethink your fast food craving.

You can read the AP article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_bi_ge/us_taco_bell_lawsuit

Rad|Kro Out in the Community

We are pleased to announce that several members of our team were selected for positions in the community:

1. Jaclyn Powell was appointed as an Ambassador for the West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce; and

2. C. Jason Smith and Brad McDowell were elected to the Board of Directors for the East Sacramento Chamber of Commerce.

We would like to congratulate Jaclyn, Jason and Brad for their accomplishments. If you have any questions about the West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce or the East Sacromento Chamber of Commerce feel free to contact Jaclyn, Jason or Brad.

Local Crook… I Mean Businessman… Goes to Jail

I am sure many of our clients will be happy to hear that Abe Alizadeh was arrested on Thursday. The California Attorney General arrested Abe on behalf of the California Board of Equalization because Abe failed to pay employment taxes.

Abe owes Kobra Properties and Stonegate Construction as well as a number of Jack-in-the-Box Franchises. Apparently, Abe was using the Jack-in-the-Box franchises to prop up Kobra and Stonegate. But soon Abe’s plan of robbing Peter to pay Paul fell apart and he failed to pay the payroll taxes for the Jack-in-the-Box franchises.

Abe hurt many of our clients and other subcontractors throughout the region by failing to pay his bills. He left many contractors in financial peril and drove others into bankruptcy. Nobody will be made whole from his actions. It is good to see him go to jail.

You can read the Business Journal article here: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/01/21/abe-alizadeh-arrested-for-grand-theft.html

Relief Coming for Small Business

What does every small business owner hate… Taxes. Yes, the government is the silent partner of every small business. Nevertheless, there may be some relief for your 2010 tax return. CNNMoney.com outlined 6 new tax breaks. You can check them out here: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/smallbusiness/small_business_new_tax_credits/index.htm?hpt=C2

Rules of the Courtroom and What Really Happens

Many people ask basic things about the courtroom that attorneys take for granted, such as: (1) where do you sit? (2) when do you talk? (3) are you required to stand. I thought I would talk about some common rules and discuss how they actually occur in the business.

1. Proper seating. If you are observing the proceeding you sit in the gallery where there are many seats for people to observe the proceeding. The jurors will sit in the juror box which is generally to the left or the right of the counsel table depending on the courtroom. As an attorney, you sit at the counsel table. If you are representing the plaintiff in a civil matter (or a criminal defendant) you sit near the juror box. If you represent a defendant in a civil matter (or the prosecution in a criminal matter) you sit at the table furthest away from the counsel table. The judge sits up on “the bench”… usually the highest seat in the room. As a witness, you will sit in the witness box near the judge. Also, in the courtroom will be a clerk, a court reporter, a bailiff and/or a court attendant. They are generally seated around the “well”. If you watched Law & Order or some other lawyer show, you are pretty familiar with the well as this is the area that the attorneys make their persuasive argument at the end of the case.

In practice, things are a bit different. First and foremost, in a law and motion hearing, people observing the proceedings will sit just about anywhere, counsel table, juror box and gallery. Frankly, I find it pretty annoying. To me the juror box is for jurors. Not the attorney who wants a little more room to spread out. Second, counsel in law and motion hearings rarely step up to the correct side of the counsel table. I think the attorneys just step to the side of the counsel table that is closer to them.

2. Standing when the judge enters the courtroom. This depends on the judge. In many courtrooms, the judge does not require you to stand. I noticed this to be especially true in Sacramento county. However, in other venues, judges will require everyone in the courtroom to stand when the judge enters. Ultimately, the bailiff will let you know what to do as the judge enters. He, or she, will say either “all rise” or “please remain seated as the courtroom comes to order”.

I will admit that when it comes to this rule I am a little bi-polar. Whenever, I am in a courtroom where you can remain seated, I think that the judge needs to class the joint up a little bit and make us stand. However, when I am in an “all rise” courtroom, I think the judge is a little full of himself/herself. Either way, the judge cannot win with me.

3. Interrupting the Court and/or Opposing Counsel. Probably every court has a rule that prohibits people from interrupting the court and/or opposing counsel. To be honest this is probably one of the least followed rules. And attorneys are the worst violators. Of course the very nature of being an attorney causes you to try to get your point out as loud and as often as possible. Ultimately, attorneys can never admit that they might be wrong… so, if they keep repeating the argument over and over and louder, they believe that the court will ultimately adopt that attorneys’ line of reasoning. As a result, attorneys wind up interrupting everyone during the course of a trial or hearing.

I am not saying that attorneys are intentionally rude. Rather, I think that they cannot help it. Many attorneys are competitive by their very nature and do not want to lose. That is how they became attorneys. Nonetheless, it leads to some rudeness and violation of common court rules.

4. Avoiding Undue Repetition of a Witness’s Answers. One court has a rule that prohibits attorneys from repeating a witnesses answers. I find this rule somewhat comical. I do not find it comical because it is a bad rule. I find it comical because we were taught the opposite in law school. In fact, my trial advocacy professor used to say that if we get a good answer from a witness, try to get the witness to repeat that answer as many times as possible.

5. Scheduling with Opposing Counsel. Generally, you are supposed to consult with opposing counsel before scheduling hearings or depositions. I will be honest, I never follow this rule. I remember early on in my career, I would try to comply with this rule. However, I kept getting the run around from opposing counsel. As a result, now I just set depositions and hearings to benefit my own calendar. Nonetheless, if opposing counsel has a problem with the date, I will generally move the deposition or hearing… provided that they give a firm date that they are available. So, far my practice has worked out well and nobody has complained. So, I don’t feel bad. If I followed this general rule to the letter, I would never get anything done.

6. Conducting Discovery by Agreement. Courts do not want to get involved with discovery disputes. Consequently, lawyers are encouraged to conduct discovery by agreement. In many cases this works fine. However, in other cases, it doesn’t work at all. As a result, you wind up in front of the judge a lot… and unfortunately, the client spends a great deal of money.

Please remember, this is just one attorneys’ take on general courtroom and litigation decorum. I do not mean to mock these general rules as they are put in place for a reason. However, the way they are followed is a bit funny.