A growing trend among employers is requesting applicants’ usernames and passwords to gain access to restricted social media in order to investigate applicants during the hiring process.  In response to this trend, Illinois and Maryland have each recently proposed laws that would essentially ban employers from requesting this type of information.  The main arguments for and against the proposed laws are centered around constitutional privacy concerns, however,  employers should consider that restricting their hiring personnel’s access to this type of information is not as harmful as some opponents have argued.

There are several federal statutes that prohibit employers from considering age, color, race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, medical conditions/information, family history, etc. in making employment decisions.  These laws typically provide that employers may not even elicit such information during the hiring process and sometimes even after an offer of employment has been made.  Social media, like Facebook, is likely to contain some or even all of this information for any particular person.  

For example, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects persons age 40 and over from discrimination in the workplace.  In most instances, employers may not ask when the applicant was born, when they graduated high school, or any other questions likely to elicit a person’s age.  A person’s age, however,  is almost always listed prominently on their Facebook ‘info’ page. 

Also, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.   In most instances, employers are prohibited from considering any of these attributes during the hiring process.  Again, all these are usually readily apparent on any given person’s Facebook profile.  

If employers are openly asking for usernames and log-in information for various social media during the hiring process, they risk an employment discrimination claim by a rejected applicant.  There are many ways to judge an applicant’s ability to perform a job without resorting to these types of social media investigations.  The proposed laws, however restrictive on employers’ ability to deeply investigate its applicants, may save employers heartache down the road.  

Bookmark and Share

 

In its 2011 legislative session, the Alabama Legislature made significant changes affecting the construction industry, specifically relating to the Prompt Payment Act and the Statute of Repose.  This article provides practitioners with an update on those amendments.

A.      Prompt Payment Act

Since 1995, Alabama law has provided a Prompt Payment Act, Ala. Code § 8-29-1 et seq., to assist contractors and subcontractors with recovering prompt payment for their services on construction jobs.  The 2011 amendments modified the maximum retainage provisions included in the Act.  These amendments went into effect on September 1, 2011, and apply to contracts entered into on or after that date. 

The maximum retainage allowed to be withheld by the owner is 10% of the estimated amount of work properly done and the value of materials stored onsite or suitably stored and insured offsite.  Ala. Code § 8-29-3(i).  After 50% project completion has been accomplished, no further retainage may be withheld.  Id.

In practical terms, therefore, an owner is limited to retaining 5% of the total contract sum as security for proper completion of the job (10% of earned payments for the first half of the job). 

Contractors and subcontractors are limited by the same caps.  Any retainage withheld in excess of the allowable amount will accrue interest at the rate of 1% per month (12% per annum).

The owner is required to release and pay retainage to the contractor for work completed on any construction contract no later than sixty (60) days after completion of the contractor's work as defined in its contract or "substantial completion" of the project, whichever occurs first.  Ala. Code § 8-29-3(l)(1).  "Substantial completion" means "the stage in the progress of the project when the project or designated portion thereof is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract documents with all necessary certificates of occupancy having been issued so that the owner may occupy or use the project for its intended purpose."  Ala. Code § 8-29-3(l)(2).

The contractor is required to release and pay retainage to its subcontractors for work completed in accordance with the payment terms agreed to in the parties' contract, but if payment terms are not agreed to, then within seven (7) days of receipt of payment from the owner.  Ala. Code § 8-29-3(l)(1); Ala. Code § 8-29-3(b).  Owners, contractors, and subcontractors may condition payment on the receipt of a full release of any lien of the contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor for the amount of work being paid.  Ala. Code § 8-29-3(n).

The Prompt Payment Act does not apply to:  (1) residential home builders; (2) improvements to real property intended for residential purposes which consist of 16 or fewer residential units; (3) contracts, subcontracts, or sub-subcontracts in the amount of $10,000.00 or less; or (4) contracts with state or local governments (although these contracts do have the benefit of payment bonds under Alabama's Little Miller Act, Ala. Code § 39-1-1 et seq.).  Ala. Code § 8-29-7. 

In addition, the Prompt Payment Act is not applicable in civil actions to enforce mechanics' or materialmen's liens under Ala. Code § 35-11-210 et seq.  Ala. Code § 8-29-8.  Finally, the retainage caps and 60-day rule do not apply to construction projects for or by an electric utility regulated by the Public Service Commission.  Ala. Code § 8-29-3(m).

B.      Statute of Repose.

The 2011 legislative session also saw amendments to the Statute of Repose that significantly limit the potential liability of architects, engineers, and general contractors for damages relating to their work on construction projects.  Ala. Code § 6-5-220 et seq.

The amendments provide that no lawsuit may be filed against any architect, engineer, or licensed general contractor for any cause of action (whether in contract, tort, or otherwise) which arises more than seven (7) years after substantial completion of the construction project.  Ala. Code § 6-5-221(a).  (Formerly, lawsuits could be filed up to thirteen (13) years after substantial completion of a project.) 

Under the statute, a cause of action "arises" at the time of injury or, where the injury is latent in nature, at the time the injury should reasonably be discovered.  Ala. Code § 6-5-220(e).  In general, a lawsuit must be brought within two (2) years after the cause of action arises, Ala. Code § 6-5-221(a), but a latent defect may not cause any actual injury or be discovered for many years after the project has been completed. 

Before the current legislation, a latent defect could create a situation where potential liability could go on almost indefinitely.  Under the amended Statute of Repose, however, if the cause of action does not arise within seven (7) years of substantial completion of the project, then the injured party is forever barred from filing a lawsuit against the architect, engineer, and general contractor on the project. 

The amendments are not retroactive, so the new time limits will only apply to projects that are substantially completed on or after September 1, 2011.

Jaime W. Betbeze
Hand Arendall LLC
Mobile, AL
jbetbetbeze@handarendall.com

Bookmark and Share

 

As my pastor said in Church this past Sunday, "What are we waiting for?"  In other words, don’t wait until doomsday to get your house in order.  If you aren't in compliance with CSA now, take advantage of the winter slowdown to get there. Take 1 step this week to move towards compliance before you get hit. Here are few easy ways to save your company from racking up points. (All citations below to Code of Federal Regulations.)


Pull your drivers’ personnel files and double check everything is up to date:
Medical certificate not up to date – 1 point (391.41(b)(3))
No double-triple endorsement on the CDL – 3 points (383.93)
Operating without a valid CDL -- 3 points (383.23(a)(2))
Allowing driver to operate with a suspended or revoked CDL – 6 points (383.37(a))
Allowing driver under 21 years of ago drive interstate – 6 points (391.11(b)(1))

Hold a safety meeting and remind drivers about necessary details about their log books including:
Failure to sign the log book – 2 points (395.8(d)(5))
Failure to retain prior 7 days of log book – 5 points (395.8)
Hours of service violations – 7 points (various)
Failure to list motor carrier name in log – 2 points (395.8(f)(6))

Remind drivers that safety is priority one: 
Failure to wear seatbelt – 1 point (393.16)
Allowing an unauthorized passenger aboard – 1 point (392.60)
Smoking within 25 feet of a HM (hazardous material) vehicle – 1 point (397.13)

As you can see, some of these are heavily weighted, but so easy to prevent. Take the time now to protect your companies, your drivers, and yourself from a potential doomsday.

Bookmark and Share

 

Barbie Rockin' without Permission

Posted on December 28, 2010 07:06 by David H. Levitt

According to the article appearing on DRI Today from Courthouse News, Mattel/Barbie are once again heading to court.  The Hard Rock Barbie series sought permission from Cyndi Lauper and Joan Jett for dolls modeled after them, but neglected to seek permission from Patricia Day of HorrorPops for this version.  It is noteworthy that Ms. Day has chosen Indiana as the venue for her right of publicity lawsuit.  The right of publicity is a creature of state law, not federal law, and Indiana is considered by many to have among the most far-reaching right of publicity statutes.  The choice of law decision by the federal court will be interesting, since Ms. Day is from Denmark (the Complaint does not allege in which U.S. state she resides) and the target defendants are based in California (Mattel) and Florida (Hardrock International).  In addition to the right of publicity, the lawsuit also claims false association and false endorsement as a violation of Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act.

Bookmark and Share

Categories: Federal Law | State Law

Actions: E-mail | Comments

 
 

Submit Blog

If you wish to submit a blog posting for DRI Today, send an email to today@dri.org with "Blog Post" in the subject line. Please include article title and any tags you would like to use for the post.
 
DRI President's Blog
 
 

Search Blog


Recent Posts

Categories

Authors

Blogroll



Staff Login