![]() |
![]() |
{Potentially} Coming Soon to North Carolina: E-VerifyApril 25, 2011Filed on February 3, 2011, North Carolina House Bill 36 proposes an act prohibiting state and local government contracts with contractors who employ illegal immigrants. Moreover, House Bill 36 would require that prior to submitting a bid or entering into a contract with any State department, institution or governing body of any political subdivision of the State, a contractor would have to verify the legal status of each individual employee employed by the contractor to perform work under the contract, in accordance with the E-Verify Program. According to the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, E-Verify is described as “an internet-based system that compares information from an employee’s Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records” in order to confirm employment eligibility. Should House Bill 36 become North Carolina law, a violation would render the contract void which could, in turn, provide the contracting entity defenses to remitting payment to the violating contractor. Additionally, if a contractor is discovered to have knowingly employed illegal immigrants on a project, the contractor would be prohibited from submitting a bid or entering into a contract with any State department or political subdivision of the State for one (1) year from the date the violation was discovered. Following suit, the North Carolina Senate filed Senate Bill 204 on March 3, 2011, which seeks to require each county and city to register and participate in the E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of its own employees as well as prohibit counties and cities from entering into contracts with contractors unless the contractor registered and participates in the E-Verify program. Both House Bill 36 and Senate Bill 204 are currently undergoing the review process in their respective committees. Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements: Legal Implications of Social MediaApril 18, 2011An issue garnering considerable attention from employment lawyers and human resource coordinators is the impact of social media on employment relationships. As social media has evolved into corporate networking and recruiting through sites like LinkedIn and Facebook, it has brought to light new issues for employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants in employment agreements. In TEKsystems, Inc. v. Hammernick, Case No. 10-cv-819, filed last year in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, an IT staffing firm sued its former employee for using LinkedIn to “connect” with, and allegedly solicit, its contract employees to work for a competing firm. The named defendant, Brelyn Hammernick, worked as a recruiter for TEKsystems. Her employment agreement contained non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure provisions extending for a period of eighteen months following employment. When her employment ended, she went to work for another IT staffing firm in a similar role and used LinkedIn to “connect” with employees under contract with TEKsystems. This action was perceived by TEKsystems to violate the restrictive covenants of her employment agreement. The terms of the employment agreement, however, made no mention of social media or its use to contact employees. This case highlights new challenges for employers in an area of law traditionally disfavored by courts. Restrictive covenants in employment agreements are closely scrutinized and narrowly construed in their application. To ensure enforceability, terms must be carefully drafted and tailored to specific facts and circumstances. This includes accounting for changes in technology, such as social media, and adapting policies, handbooks and employment agreements to address its use by employees. Revising The Lien Law: A Work In ProgressApril 11, 2011House Bill 489 is pending before the North Carolina House of Representatives. As the economy slowed, the construction industry ground nearly to a halt, and the courts made several decisions, voices from across the industry demanded changes to modernize the lien law to assure that it remains for mechanics and laborers the source of an “adequate lien on the subject-matter of their labor.” To that end, the Construction Law Section of the North Carolina Bar Association set about revising the lien law in an effort to address the industry-wide concerns. House Bill 489 is the result of that effort. The draft was authored by a group of five lawyers whose clients comprise virtually every constituency within the industry and approved first by a committee then by a council which means a total of some 50 construction lawyers reviewed, debated and contributed to the draft legislation. Industry groups were given input. Still, there is opposition to moving from the known to the new. Efforts are now underway to foster the discussions among industry groups to find the common ground and compromises which will strengthen the bill and improve the process. In today’s political world, too many individuals and groups simply want to say “no” to things they do not like or understand. “No” rarely resolves an issue. This process requires creative thinking, positive suggestions, and a willingness to compromise for the common good. Keep an eye on this process as we work to improve the flow of funds through construction projects. |
|
| 1720 Hillsborough St | Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27605 919-510-8585 919-510-8570 fax |
1200 East Morehead St | Suite 251 Charlotte, NC 28204 704-496-7495 704-496-7480 fax |
|
The information contained on our website, video blogs, newsletters or blogs is provided as general information as a public service. Neither the presentation of this information or the use of this information creates an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of the attorneys at Vann & Sheridan, LLP. The information provided in the website, blogs, video blogs and newsletters are based upon general information for North Carolina law.
The information contained in this website, video blogs, newsletters or blogs is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and is therefore not legal advice. Legal advice should be tailored to the specific situation and fact pattern of each case, thus, nothing provided herein should be used as legal advice given the general nature of this information. Please note that Vann & Sheridan, LLP and Attorneys are unable to provide legal advice via email for people or companies who are not established clients of Vann & Sheridan Attorneys at Law. Sending us details of your legal issue(s) via email does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.