As the federal government wades deeper into the realm of mobile "apps" (among the most useful, of course, the Smithsonian Institution’s “MEanderthal” app, which enables users to morph personal photos into prehistoric images of themselves), various U.S. agencies are promoting new apps that allow the public to access official information from “the palm of [one’s] hand.”

Not to be left behind, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently rolled out a smartphone app to help employees independently track the hours they work. The “DOL-Timesheet,” as the app has been dubbed, is currently available in English and Spanish for use on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. The app is designed to assist employees in recording their hours worked and calculating the wages – including overtime – that they’re owed. (Overtime pay is computed at a rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate for all hours worked each week in excess of 40 – though California also has a daily overtime requirement for hours worked in excess of eight.) Users are currently able to view and email summaries of their logged hours and gross pay, and additional features have been promised, including the ability to track tips, commissions, bonuses, deductions, holiday and weekend pay, shift differentials, and paid time off.

On Wednesday, June 22, from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m., Anthony Oncidi of Proskauer and plaintiff-side attorney, Andrew Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, will summarize the latest developments and discuss the practical implications of this year’s most significant employment decisions. Among other developments, attendees will hear about the new U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding the “cat’s paw” liability theory (Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131

U.S. v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (2011)

In this criminal proceeding brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), the United States government filed a 20-count indictment against David Nosal (a former employee of Korn/Ferry International) and his accomplices (also from Korn/Ferry) as a result of their obtaining information from their employer’s computer system for the purpose of defrauding Korn/Ferry and helping Nosal

As we reported previously, in December 2007 the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision relating to company e-mail policies in The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (2007), holding that an employer (i) may restrict the use of its computer systems to business related uses only, and (ii) could distinguish between personal and organizational solicitation in enforcing its no-solicitation policy.

Earlier this week, in The Register-Guard v. NLRB, No. 07-1528 (D.C. Cir July 7, 2009), the D.C. Circuit issued its decision reversing, in part, the Board’s decision.

Neither party requested review of (and, thus, the court did not address) the Board’s general holding that allowed restricting the use of company e-mail to business purposes.  The Court also chose not to address the Board’s position on distinguishing between the types of solicitation. Instead, it held that based on the facts of this particular case — where the policy in question did not actually make a distinction between types of solicitation — the employer could not discipline an employee for a union-related solicitation. As discussed below, the decision highlights the risks to employers who act based on the current Board law in the absence of a clear written policy that makes an explicit distinction between types of solicitation. Moreover, even if employers have such a policy now, the future Obama Board is likely to modify the current law.

As of this writing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 109 cases of the H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu, in the United States. The World Health Organization has confirmed 331 cases of swine flu worldwide and has raised the pandemic threat level to Phase 5 on its six-step scale (Phase 5 designation essentially means that infections from the outbreak that originated in Mexico have been jumping from person to person with relative ease). This Client Alert outlines a few of the myriad legal issues that employers may face with regard to swine flu. As every situation is different, employers are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of counsel with respect to any questions related to these issues. We are, of course, available to provide a more detailed analysis as to any of the matters discussed below or to advise on any other questions that you may have on pandemic flu planning and its implications for the workplace.

Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008)

Arch Wireless contracted to provide wireless text-messaging services for the City of Ontario, including its police department. Pursuant to the city’s general Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy, the use of the city’s computers and other electronic equipment, networks, etc., was limited to city-related business, access was not confidential and “users should

Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 113 Cal. App. 4th 273, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 325 (2003)

Varian and two of its executives, George Zdasiuk and Susan B. Felch, sued two former employees, Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day, after Delfino and Day used Internet bulletin boards to post more than 13,000 derogatory messages about Varian and the two executives. Among other things, Delfino (whose employment Varian

Du Charme v. IBEW, Local 45, 110 Cal. App. 4th 107 (2003)

Frank Du Charme sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 45 and Cecil Wynn, the individual who was assigned to operate Local 45 after it was placed in trusteeship in conjunction with an investigation into its financial operations. Among other things, Du Charme alleged defamation in connection with Wynn’s posting

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003)

Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, a former Intel engineer, formed an organization named Former and Current Employees of Intel (FACE-Intel) to disseminate information and views critical of Intel’s employment and personnel policies and practices. Over a 21-month period, Hamidi sent as many as 35,000 messages to e-mail addresses at Intel. The trial court granted Intel’s application for