Court Says Undocumented Workers Have Right to Sue Owed Wages

In a case where six undocumented workers sued the Jerusalem Cafe in Westport, Kansas City for owing them approximately $450,000 in wages and penalties, the court ruled in the favor of the illegal workers and decided that undocumented workers still have equal labor rights. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explained that in this incident, US labor law triumphed over federal immigration law.

The defendant tried to argue that the workers illegally immigrated to the US, and therefore could not sue for the unpaid wages. However, the appellate panel pointed out that if that argument is to be true, then Al Capone could not be sued for tax evasion since his earnings were illegal. They also said other district courts and the secretary of labor all agree that employers who hire illegal immigrants must follow federal employment laws.

The lawsuit claimed that the workers lacked legal work authorizations, were paid in cash, and five out of the six workers worked 77 hours each week. In 2010, the case was brought against the former owner and formal manager. Against Azzeh’s claims that he “never hired illegals”, the court upheld the decision that the Fair Labor Standards Act grants immigrants the right to recover underpaid or unpaid wages, whether they are documented or not.

The US Department of Labor also asserted there are no conflicts between immigration reforms and labor laws. Both try to discourage employers from hiring illegal workers, the court added.

美国诉讼概略

从大体上来讲，美国人把别人告上法庭的可能性比其他国家的人要大。美国人起诉一般是为了和平地就某事达成和解。其实，大部分的商业诉讼并不是由法庭或仲裁判定的，而是双方在诉讼开始后庭外解决的。有时候，采取法律行动的威胁足以让双方达成庭外和解。对美国人来说，外州人或外国人是好的诉讼对象，因为他们通常不懂美国的社会环境、心理、和诉讼的风险、理解美国仔细拟稿合同的风格，也不愿意付费请美国律师来降低自己的损失。殊不知，前面省下来一点律师费，将来远远不够诉讼律师的费用。

在美国法庭的商业诉讼一般较贵也较费时间。除非诉讼双方的合同里特别写明或者法律明文规定，你如果赢了诉讼有收回律师费的权利，你不能收回律师费。而且在美国的民事诉讼，不像在其他国家一样由法官来整理证据，而是由双方的律师在审前根据有关法律获取对方所要用的证据。其中包括证言（证人的口供以及其他跟案件有关的文件都必须在审前交给对方律师，这个过程往往需要花费很多时间）、质询书（书面问题通常很多，很复杂，也需要慢慢回答）、以及承认或否认的通知（要让对方证人承认或否认的声明）等。这些审前证据会给双方制造很高的法律费用，也可以被用来拖延时间。因为法律费用较贵，所以如果原告要求索赔的数额在十万美金以下，在美国启动商业诉讼是划不来的。

我建议在跟美方签合同的时候，你作为外国方应该记住几点： 1.如果可以，尽量不要在美国打官司；先通过律师发封律师信，起到一些威慑作用，然后商讨非诉讼和解 2.试图通过仲裁解决。 3.确保与美方的所有合同都是有经验的美国法律顾问拟定或审阅。

在某些情况下，你应该考虑是否在合同中注明具体某州的某个法庭有判定纠纷和索赔的权利，这样万一发生纠纷，就不用花很多时间和金钱去先让法庭判决哪个法庭有管辖权.

有时如果外国方许可美方使用它的商业机密，外国方最担心的就是怎样防止美方泄露那些机密。在这种情况下，美国法院可以先快速地下达临时禁止令，再通过该禁令来命令美方停止非法行动。而仲裁或审讯往往不方便快速解决问题。

在美国建立合资企业

在美国市场建立合资企业很重要的一点是要找到合适的合作伙伴。在跟别人合作之前，你最好先在美国律师的帮助下仔细地考察每位候选人。你应该也做规划的是如何让你的公司在合资分裂后继续在美国运营。

外资公司在美国与其他公司合资应该成为合资中介，而不应直接参与没有注册的美国合资企业。因为这样外资方有可能会要承担合资企业的债务、在美国可能发生的诉讼、以及税务上的债务。

通常在美国的合资方法有三种。第一种分销合资是美方和外资方在美国建立一个公司，并各自拥有公司的一部分。分销合资一般卖的是外资方的产品，而美方提供在美国的营销知识，销售队伍，制造产品的技术，设施器材，以及管理上的帮助等等。

第二种生产合资是合资公司生产或安装外资方或美方提供的原材料，并到市场上去出售。在生产合资的合同中需要有条款许可合资公司使用外资方或美方的技术知识。

第三种开发研究合资是美方和外资方在美国建立公司来做研究或类似的活动。

外资方应该全力争夺主动权，主动要求起草合同，征求对方意见。在为合同正式拟稿之前，先拟定好一分令双方满意的、不具法律约束力的主要款项的总结。而对外资方来讲，所有的合同最好在同一时间签署。

在专家的帮助下妥善地策划税率政策也是非常重要的。签合同前需要注意的几点还包括： 1）合资公司应该在建美国哪个省的法律下； 2）合资公司会发行哪种股份以及双方各得多少； 3）双方对公司资本的贡献以及将来怎样处理资本增多和借款； 4）怎么选择公司董事会的成员以及他们分别是谁； 5）公司高级人员的权利和职责； 6）哪些公司文件需要董事会和股东的许可以及公司哪些行动需要多数或全部分人同意； 7）怎么通过契约解决僵局； 8）转让公司股份、买断义务、购买或出售选择、以及第一拒绝的规定和限制； 9）解散公司的规定； 10）分销、就业、贷款、服务、和其他合资伙伴与企业之间的协议规定； 11）解决索赔和纠纷的方法以及哪些法条对合资合同有效。

需要注意的是，建立合资公司会需要外资方律师和美国律师紧密的合作与配合。不管是不是合资公司，只要有两个以上的股东，双方之间就得有一个股东协议以及为股东协议量身定做的公司规章制度。

谁是专利等工作成果的所有人-雇员还是雇主？

很多员工在为雇主工作时发明出来一些专利或其他工作成果，这些工作成果的所有人到底是谁呢？在这样的情况下，雇员并不是专利的所有人，而是雇主，因为那个工作成果是在受雇佣的情况下用雇主的资源研制出来的， 俗称“受雇工作成果”。

“受雇工作成果”通常在两种情况下取得。一是员工在受雇范围内所研制的工作成果，二是在发明人和雇主没有雇佣关系的条件下受特别委托、并且双方签署合同同意该发明人发明的专利被法律认可是“受雇工作成果”的九种中的一种。

雇佣方和受雇方可能没有非常清晰的雇佣关系，比如是独立合同工的关系，在这种情况系，几个因素要总结起来参考来决定谁是专利的所有人，其中包括： 谁提供材料，工作的地点，工作关系的长短，雇佣方是否可以给受雇方添加其他工作项目，以及雇佣方在雇佣和支付受雇方中起到的角色。

法律规定有九种“受雇工作成果”即使在没有明确雇佣关系的情况下，也应该被认同为“受雇工作成果”，前提是雇佣方和受雇方书面协议明确该研制成果是“受雇工作成果”。这九种工作成果是： 对集体工作的贡献，电影或其它音像作品的一部分（比如说录音），翻译，补充工作，汇编，说明文字，考题，考题的答案，或地图。如果委托的工作不属于这九种工作的一种，在没有雇佣关系的前提下，它就不能算是“受雇工作成果”，也就是说，雇主如果主张它是工作成果的所有人，雇员有法律依据进行挑战。

麻州职场员工的限制竞争（Massachusetts Non-Compete in Employment Context）

我们经常会遇到这样的情况。员工跳槽去前雇主的竞争对手，前雇主随即控告员工违法曾经签署的限制竞争合约，要求法院禁止该前员工继续为竞争对手工作并且索赔损失，很多时候也会控告竞争对手故意破坏雇主和前员工的合同关系，把员工挖走。在法院决定是否发放禁止令之前，法官首先审核该合约的合理性，即使员工签了协议，法官也有可能认为其不合理而宣判合约无效，那就意味着员工不受其条款限制。

麻省法庭通常限制雇主约束前员工从事与该雇主相同或相关的工作。 当雇主有合理的商业利益，而且能证明前员工进行的是不公平的竞争，法庭才会支持雇主强制执行该限制。法官的工作是要权衡雇主的合理商业利益与员工谋生就业的权利与自由。

雇主的合理商业利益有三种，为了保护 （1）商业秘密； （2）机密信息； （3）名誉等无形资产。“商业机密”和“机密信息”在法律上有一定的定义，必须满足一定的条件，具体可以阅读我今年一月五日的“Myths of Trade Secrets”。无形资产通常是指利用雇主的资源开发出来的客源、商标、专利等有价值的资产。通常来讲，销售人员利用自己人际关系开发出来的客源属于他自己的资产，雇主不能进行竞争限制。

如果雇主要只是要限制前员工为其竞争对手工作，这不属于雇主受保护的合理的商业利益。通常来讲，限制竞争的约束通常用于能接触到机密信息的各个部门的高层工作人员，一般不用于低层员工。

为了保护合理正当的商业目的，限制竞争的范围、时间长度、和地理范围也都要是合理的。当然每个行业由于销售范围和特性的不同有自己的特殊性。合理度由案例法所定义。雇主的意向和金融状况、员工的职位描述、以及员工谋生的能力和需求等因素都会是考虑因素。

如果必要，雇主应该在员工开始工作时就让其签署这个限制竞争的合约。如果雇主在员工即将离职时才匆忙地达成协议，就有可能造成很多问题。

买卖生意的限制竞争

大约一年以前，我的一个朋友买了一家按摩店。最近，他告诉我卖家打算在他的按摩店旁边再开一家按摩店，他问我作为买方，他应该采取什么行动防止他的正当权利受到侵害。

在买卖生意的大部分情况下， 买家很重要的一个考虑因素是卖家是否应该被一个防竞争的合约限制。卖家通常对卖出公司的名誉等无形资产做出了贡献，所以如果卖家在公司出手后跟原来的公司竞争，原公司就有可能在买家手里降值。所以我强烈建议在买卖合同中包括一个限制卖方竞争的条款。

在一般情况下， 法院审查买卖公司的防竞争协议会比审查雇主和员工防竞争协议稍微宽松点。他们会关注两方是否有相等的议价能力（比如双方是否都有律师代表审核合同等），出售所得款项能否在没有即时竞争的情况下支撑卖家，以及卖家有没有因为答应加入限制竞争的条件而提高卖价。如果名誉等无形资产是卖价的很大一部分，防竞争协议必须存在才可以保证买家公平地得到他所买到的商业的价值。即使如此，法院还会进行一些有限的审查来确认防竞争协议不违背大众利益。

在雇主和员工的防竞争协议与买卖生意限制竞争混合的情况下，就是说，卖家的高层管理人员在公司出售后到买方公司工作，法院更有可能按照买卖公司竞争协议判定。

如果买卖的公司是在麻省以外的州，双方应该参考哪个州的相关法律。就算合同上专门声明采用麻省法律，如果纠纷发生在其他省的管辖内，而那个省的法律与麻省冲突， 那个声明有可能会不适用。

Non-Compete Issues in Sales of Business

A good friend bought a message saloon about a year ago. He recently sought my advice on his causes of action against the seller who sold him the saloon. Why? The seller planned to open up a new message saloon next to his.

In most cases of the sale of business, it is important to consider whether the seller should be bound by a covenant to prevent competition in the selling of a business. The seller contributed to the value of the business's goodwill, if the seller competes with the old business after it has been sold, the value may be diminished in the hands of the buyer.

It is highly recommended that an express Non-Compete agreement or provision be included in the contracts of the sale. If it does not exist, Massachusetts courts take the position that an agreement not to compete in such a manner is usually recognized as implied.

The courts usually look at business sale Non-Compete agreements with less scrutiny than employer-employee Non-Competes, and focus on equal bargaining power, whether sale proceeds provide the seller with support without need of immediate competition, and if a premium is paid so the seller agrees not to compete. If goodwill is a large part of sale, a Non-Compete agreement is necessary to make sure the buyer fairly receives what he/she bought. However, the courts may still engage in some limited scrutiny to make sure the Non-Compete is not against public interest.

In hybrid situations when the seller becomes an employee in the sold business to provide assistance to the transition, both the business sale and employer-employee Non-Compete could be related. In such a case, the courts have ruled that the business sale agreement would most likely apply.

If the purchase is of a business in a state outside of Massachusetts, one should review that state's law. Even if the agreement specifically states that Massachusetts law applies, it might be rejected if the dispute ends up in foreign jurisdiction and the two laws contradict.

麻州工作场所的反报复申诉

麻州法律禁止雇主在雇员由于受歧视而行使法律保护的行为后报复雇员。看似简单的一条法律，雇员要证明雇主违反这条法令却不容易。

首先，雇员要属于某一个受麻州反歧视保护的范围，比如少数族裔、年龄（大于40）、残疾、怀孕、宗教信仰。国籍等。第二，雇主有歧视的行为发生。第三，雇员对雇主的歧视行驶法律保护的权利，最常见的是向公司人事部反映、在麻州反歧视委员会(Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination - MCAD)或者联邦平等劳工机会委员会（EEOC）投诉。最后，雇主必须对雇员采取不利行动，比如大量降薪、降低职位、大幅度减少职责、解雇等。

很多时候，这个反报复申诉与歧视诉讼是分不开的，但有意思的是，有时候，即使最后歧视的申诉被裁定不成立，如果员工能证明他合理相信雇主有歧视的行为发生，报复申诉还是可能成立的。歧视很难有直接证据，更多的是间接证据，从雇主的言行中总结归纳出来的。

雇员行驶法律保护的权利最好在雇主的报复行为之前发生，但两个事件之间间隔的时间不能太长也不能太短。太短太长都很难证明前面的事件和后面的事件有因果关系。如果是解雇，雇主的辩护通常是员工的表现问题不是由于歧视。这时员工要仔细看下雇主提出的工作表现问题是过去就存在还是歧视事件发生前后的新问题，同时员工也要竭力为自己辩护雇主提出的表现问题是否有任何是由于雇主恶意行为或报复所造成。

如果员工觉得雇主有可能违反该法令，应该向MCAD投诉，这是必经的行政途径。这类案子员工是投诉人，必须先举证。MCAD收到投诉后，会给雇主一定的时间提交答复。然后如双方同意案子既可以由MCAD调解，也可以开始调查，由MCAD决定有否有“可能原因”。调解是比较经济快捷的方法，大多数当事人都会采用。调解会通常安排在投诉之后几个月内，双方当事人必须出席，如有律师，律师必须出席，会议三个小时。目的是双方同意一个索赔方案。如果走调查判决那条路，时间会由一年到几年不等，路漫漫其修远兮，而且还不知道精力和时间的投入会带来什么结果。MCAD允许的索赔比较宽厚，包括失去的工资、有关医药费用、申诉人律师费用、精神索赔等。精神索赔很难放上一个筹码，每天案子不同。

Employee Misclassified as Independent Contractor; Employee Seeks Triple Damage for Owed Wage and Overtime

Employer shall be very cautious about classifying an individual as independent contractor rather than an employee. If you are an independent contractor and suspect that you should have been treated as an employee, you are protected by Massachusetts law. If your employer violates Massachusetts wage and hour law by owing you wages and overtime pay, you can be awarded treble damage.

It is illegal for an employer to misclassify an individual as an independent contractor rather than an employee in order to avoid paying payroll tax, social security, worker’s compensation, unemployment benefit premium, and other benefits. The biggest common mistake is that employers think if they call an individual independent contractor, IRS will simply acknowledge this characterization. This is not the case. This is not about the label, but about the factors that determine the label.

Our employment law presumes an individual performs services as an employee unless the employer can overcome the presumption by meeting some requirements. The general test is the employer’s right to control and direct the individual’s work. An employer of an employee controls not only what the employee does, but also how he does his work. Independent contractor enjoys more freedom and less control from the employer as to the content and the manner he performs his work. Factors to consider include degree of control, employer’s right to discharge, employer’s delegation of work, hiring practice, training, place of work, duration of relationship, nature of the trade, intent of the parties.

Massachusetts’s employment law makes it difficult to classify an individual as independent contractor. Employer’s misclassification may cause serious violations of employment law, tax law, and benefit law. The Attorney General’s Office will prosecute the employer who violates this law. The punishment is fine, civil and even criminal liabilities. Depends on employer’s intent of violation and seriousness of the offense, the fine could be $10,000 to $50,000 and up to 2 years jail time. Not only the company, but an officer, agent or employee of the company may also be personally liable for the misclassification.

Moreover, if an employee files the complaint in the court and prevails on claims of wage and/or overtime pay owed by the employer, whether due to misclassification or not, court can award the plaintiff triple damage plus attorney’s fee and cost.

What an Individual Needs to Know When Soliciting Investment in Massachusetts

The growing force of cross border equity investment, whether with respect to EB-5 immigration projects or other emerging businesses, have created alarming and ample opportunities for companies and individuals to violate Securities law.

Just recently, I am handling several investment disputes, when the company misrepresented material information that the investor relied on when making the decision. In all these cases, individuals working as the investment agents facilitating the investment and getting commission are not registered with the State government.

In Massachusetts, an individual who is getting paid by engaging in selling, effecting and soliciting securities or offers investment advice shall pass professional exams and register with Massachusetts Securities Division. Different rules apply to person who works for a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) registered company and those who are not FINRA registered company. Almost all financial service or broker dealers are FINRA companies. Narrow exception applies.

“Security” could be a lot of things. The most common ones are stock, equity ownership in any business and EB-5 investment. They may also be partnership interest in LLC, LP or LLP. Promissory notes, investment in real estate or derivative may also be counted. A lot of people become investment advisors by accident, most times, not even knowing their activities shall be governed by State securities agency. It is irrelevant what your title is on the business card, it is your actual activities that define whether you are investment agent or advisor. Failure to register may cause government to stop your activity and/or impose penalties. Federal Securities regulations have separate requirements.

Investment broker or advisor cannot intentionally or negligently misrepresent the investment opportunity. Meaning, they shall not lie about any material aspect of the company that investor rely on in making investment decisions. Neither can they lie about a known fact nor can they omit material information. Penalties could be administrative injunction, repay the investors capital they invested, or even criminal liabilities.

Myth of Trade Secrets

Every business likes to claim that it has some sort of proprietary information that qualifies as trade secret and warrants special protection. Employees in sales and technical positions are more likely to be prevented from misappropriating information involving customers or highly specialized business knowledge.

All proprietary information is not trade secrets. A trade secret could be in different forms. It may be a formula, device, business process, software, or information that gives the employer competitive advantage and is being used in the continuous operation of the business. A trade secret does not need to be a registered patent.

Simply sticking a label on whatever an employer claims to be trade secret will not cut it. There are steps an employer shall take to increase the likelihood that the information is to be defined as trade secret. Mass courts consider several factors: the value of such information to the employer, measures taken by employer to guard the secrecy, amount of capital and effort expended by employer to develop that information, degree of difficulty the information could be duplicated by others.

In terms of reasonable measures to protect the secrecy, an employer shall at minimum restrict outside visitors from the business areas where the trade secret is used, limit access to the secret to those with business needs, maintain the secret in a secure location; and communicate to those who have access to the secret that it is confidential.

Unauthorized access or misappropriating trade secret is not only a tort based on the theory that an employee breaches her or his duty to safeguard this information, but also a civil and criminal liability.

Covenant Not-to-Compete in Massachusetts

Massachusetts court has long limited an employer’s right to restrict a former employee from competing against the employer. Court only enforces such a restriction if employer can show “legitimate business interest” to protect itself from unfair competition by the former employee. Employer’s legitimate business interest has to be balanced against employee’s right and freedom to obtain employment in order to make a living.

An employer’s “legitimate business interest” falls into three general categories: (1) trade secrets; (2) confidential business information; and (3) goodwill. It shall be noted that free from ordinary business competition in the industry is not itself a legitimate business interest. I see the covenant more often with high level staff or senior executives rather than regular or lower level employees.

In addition to protect reasonable and legitimate business purpose, the not-to-compete term also needs to be reasonable in scope, time and geographic scope. The reasonableness is defined by case law. A lot of factors are used to assess the situation, such as, nature and financial position of the employer, employee’s job description, employee’s ability and need to make a livelihood.

Employer shall also enter into such a covenant with the employee at the outset of their relationship. It could become problematic when employer rushes to strike such a deal with the employee at the time of employee’s departure.