Happy Friday!  This Friday’s Five provides five legal requests and/or notices that, if ignored, can create huge liability for a California employer.

1. Requests for personnel records and time records

There are many different Labor Code provisions that obligate the employer to provide current and former employees with a copy of their personnel files and/or payroll records.  For example, Labor Code section 432 permits employees to obtain a copy of any document they signed, Labor Code section 1198.5 allows current and former employees to obtain copies of their personnel records, and Labor Code section 226(c) permits employees to inspect or copy payroll records within 21 days after making a request to do so.

2. PAGA notice

Employees seeking recovery under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) must comply with requirements that place the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer on notice that the employee will be seeking remedies under the Act and give the Agency a chance to investigate.  If the Agency does not investigate, then the plaintiff can proceed with the claim.  Employers have the the ability to cure some issues set forth in the plaintiff’s letter to the LWDA, which could bar the plaintiff from obtaining any penalties.  Plus, the PAGA notice usually results in litigation being filed shortly after receiving the notice, so employers should begin discussing defense strategies as soon as it receives a PAGA notice.

3. Labor commissioner or DOL investigation notice

Under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Department of Labor (DOL) has certain permissions to investigate and gather date about wages, hours worked, and other working conditions at workplaces. The FLSA also provides the DOL limited permission to enter employers’ premises, review records, and even potentially question employees about employment practices.  Under California law, the Labor Commissioner has subpoena power and the ability to review records and workplaces in order to enforce California employment laws.  Upon receiving a request from any public agency, such as the DOL or the California Labor Commissioner, an employer should immediately review what obligations and rights it has in responding to the request.

4. Subpoenas from third parties

Employers may receive subpoenas from third parties seeking employment records.  The “custodian of records” is responsible for responding to the requests and producing employment records in certain circumstances.  California law requires that a request for a personnel file include a “Notice to Consumer” notifying the employee that such records are being sought, and providing the individual an opportunity to object to the disclosure of the information.  If the employee or former employee has not been notified, or objects to the production of the requested records, the employer should not produce the information requested unless and until a court orders otherwise, or the affected employee agrees to the production.  If the subpoena seeks the disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, the employer should contact an attorney to see if the company has an obligation to move to quash the subpoena or seek an appropriate protective order to preserve the confidentiality of the information sought.

Employers should not produce requested documents without being satisfied that the proper subpoena procedures and notice requirements, if applicable, have been met.  Employers have a duty to maintain the privacy rights of current and former employees, which includes personnel files.

5. Service of a Complaint

Ultimately, once a lawsuit is initiated, Plaintiffs will serve the complaint on the registered agent of the company.  Generally speaking, defendants have 30 days to respond to a complaint once served.  It is important to immediately begin assessing the company’s rights and obligations once a complaint has been served in order to ensure its rights are protected.  If a company does not timely respond to a lawsuit, entry of default judgment could be entered against the company, which could result in providing the plaintiff a judgment in the full amount of damages sought.

With the arrival of 2017, many employers are recognizing the difficulties in navigating the complex set of paid leave laws in Southern California.  For regular readers of the blog, this may seem like a repeat, but this post is five items employers need to remember about paid sick leave laws in Southern California.

1. The law – either state or local –  that provides the most generous benefits to the employees must be followed by the employer.

California’s paid sick leave law applies to all employers and provides employees with 24 hour or 3 days of paid sick leave.  As set forth below, many local cities and counties have implemented their own paid sick leave requirements.  Employers must comply with the law that provides the most benefits to employees.

2. Southern California cities and counties that have implemented paid sick leave laws

State/City Minimum Wage Paid Sick Leave
California $10/hr January 1, 2016; $10.50 January 1, 2017 for employers with 26 or more employees Current: 3 days or 24 hours
Los Angeles – City July 1, 2016: $10.50/hr; July 1, 2017 $12; July 1, 2018 $13.25; July 1, 2019 $14.25; July 1, 2020 $15.00 * July 1, 2016: 48 hours*
Los Angeles – County Same as LA City No specific requirement – CA law applies
San Diego July 2016: $10.50; January 1, 2017 $11.50; January 1, 2019 indexed to inflation 5 paid sick days (effective July 11, 2016)
Santa Monica $10.50 July 1, 2016; July 1, 2017 $12.00; July 1, 2018 $13.25; July 1, 2019 $14.25; July 1, 2020 $15.00* January 1, 2017: 32 hours for small businesses, 40 hours for large businesses; January 1, 2018: 40 hours for small business, 72 hours for large businesses*
Malibu $10.50 July 1, 2016* No specific requirement – CA law applies
Pasadena $10.50 July 1, 2016* No specific requirement – CA law applies
* Employers with 25 or fewer employees the implementation is delayed one year.

3. How to determine which law applies to your business operating in the County of Los Angeles

There is a lot of confusion about what law applies to businesses operating in Los Angeles County.  The County of Los Angeles’ ordinance only applies to unincorporated cities within the county.  Here is a list of the incorporated cities in the County of Los Angeles. If the employer is located in an incorporated city, the employer must comply with the incorporated city’s paid sick leave requirements, and if the city does not have any requirements, California’s paid sick leave law would apply.

4. Understand the difference between use cap and accrual caps

Under California state law, employers may apply an accrual cap at 48 hours or 6 days per year.  The employees must be allowed to accrue up to this amount and carry it over from year to year.

The accrual cap is different from the annual use cap.  The annual use cap allows employers to limit the amount of paid sick leave used by the employee within one year.  Under California state law, employers can also impose an annual use cap of 24 hours or 3 days (whichever is greater) each year.

Employers need to pay careful attention about the differences in the state and local laws that apply to their companies in this regard.  For example, under Santa Monica’s paid sick leave ordinance, the accrual cap is 40 hours for large employers in 2017.  However, because accrual cap is less than what is permitted under California law, employers must follow California’s more generous requirements of allowing accrual of up to 48 hours or 6 days per year) and 72 hours in 2018.

5. Can employers change accrual methods after one has been implemented?

Yes, there is nothing that prohibits employers from changing accrual methods (i.e., up-front grant or the accrual method).  However, as employers are already required to provide non-exempt employees with an individualized Notice to Employee as required under Labor Code section 2810.5 that sets forth the employer’s accrual method, employers should consult an employment attorney about how to provide advanced notice to employees prior to changing the policy and how to treat already accrued and unused paid sick leave under the old policy.

Employers are strictly liable for the actions of its supervisors, managers or agents under the doctrine street cafeof respondeat superior.  Here are five key concepts employers must understand about the liability that could be created by managerial employees.

1. Respondeat superior holds employers automatically liable for actions by managers

The respondeat superior doctrine provides that “an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.”  As explained by the California Supreme Court in Patterson v. Dominio’s Pizza, there are “three policy justifications for the respondeat superior doctrine…prevention, compensation and risk allocation.”

2. Employers liability for non-supervisory employees

Under California’s FEHA, the employer is strictly liable for harassing action of its supervisors.  However, an employer is only liable for harassment by a coworker if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate corrective action.

3. Managers/supervisors under the respondeat superior doctrine

Under California’s FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all acts of a supervisor.  A supervisor is generally defined as someone who has the discretion and authority to hire, direct, transfer, promote, assign, reward, discipline, direct, or discharge other employees or to recommend these actions.  See Government Code section 12926(t).

4. Which entities may be considered the employer under the respondeat superior doctrine

 In terms of defining who is the employers, courts in FEHA cases have looked to “the control exercised by the employer over the employee’s performance of employment duties….This standard requires a ‘comprehensive and immediate level of `day-to-day’ authority’ over matters such as hiring, firing, direction, supervision, and discipline of the employee.”  FEHA also defines employer to mean “any person action as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly….”  This means that people not directly employed by the company can still create agency liability for the employer.

5. Issue: Can a franchisor be held liable for a franchisee’s supervisor’s conduct?

How far does the doctrine of respondeat superior extend when there are levels of agency, such as in a franchisor-franchisee relationship?  This was the issue addressed by the California Supreme Court in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza.  The Supreme Court held that given the facts in that case, Domino’s Pizza was not liable for the franchisee’s manager’s acts.  The Supreme Court explained:

A major incentive is the franchisee’s right to hire the people who work for him, and to oversee their performance each day. A franchisor enters this arena, and becomes potentially liable for actions of the franchisee’s employees, only if it has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee’s employees.  Any other guiding principle would disrupt the franchise relationship.

The Supreme Court did not hold the franchisor liable in the case because it did not “control the workforce, and could not have prevented the misconduct and corrected its effects.”  However, the Court issued a warning to franchisors:

A franchisor will be liable if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations that we have described, and cannot escape liability in such a case merely because it failed or declined to establish a policy with regard to that particular conduct.

Joint employer liability can arise in many different contexts, such as when using staffing agencies, management companies, or in even in the franchise context.  Companies must understand the factors a court could apply in determining if a potential joint employer relationship exists between the two entities to avoid being potentially liable for employment lawsuits filed because of the actions of another employer.

The California Supreme Court set out the factors that can create a joint employer relationship in Martinez v. Combs.  Under this test, to “employ” means (1) “to exercise control over… wages, hours or working conditions,” (2) “to suffer or permit to work,” or (3) “to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.”  The court in Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp. explained that “[a]ny of the three is sufficient to create an employment relationship.”  In addition to the factors that California courts apply, employers must understand the federal framework that could also apply to employees by the Department of Labor in enforcing the FLSA and other federal laws.  This Friday’s Five discusses five issues that could create joint employer liability under California and Federal law.

1. An entity can be held a joint employer if it exercises control over wages, hours, or working conditions.

Under California law, an entity can be held liable under the joint employer theory if it “directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control” over their wages, hours, or working conditions.  While this standard is potentially broad in scope, courts have limited its reach in holding that entities that may be able to influence treatment of employees but that do not have any actual “authority to directly control their wages, hours or conditions” are not joint employers.  Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp.  The court in Ochoa explained that the California Court of Appeal in Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. held that “control over wages means that a person or entity has the power or authority to negotiate and set an employee’s rate of pay, and that an entity that does not control the hiring, firing, and day-to-day supervision of workers is not an employer.”

2. An entity can be liable for “suffering or permitting” the work.

The California Supreme Court held in Martinez v. Combs that the “basis of liability is the defendant’s knowledge of and failure to prevent the work from occurring.”  The analysis is whether the entity had power to cause the employee to work or the power to prevent the employee from working.

3. Joint employer liability exists if the employee is “engaged.”

The Court in Martinez held that “to engage” means to create a common law employment relationship.  In terms of the franchisor and franchisee context, the California Supreme Court explained the test is whether the alleged employer “has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee’s employees.”  Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza.

4. “Ostensible” agency.

Ostensible agency holds a principal liable for acts of the “ostensible agent.”  This liability is created when: (1) the person dealing with the agent must do so with belief in the agent’s authority and this belief must be a reasonable one; (2) such belief must be generated by some act or neglect of the principal sought to be charged; and (3) the third person in relying on the agent’s apparent authority must not be guilty of negligence.  Put another way, “A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.”  Cal. Civil Code section 2334.

5. Department of Labor’s Administrative Interpretation issued in 2016.

In January 2016, the DOL issued an Administrative Interpretation regarding how the agency views joint employment liability.  The DOL explains that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), “an employee can have two or more employers for the work that he or she is performing. When two or more employers jointly employ an employee, the employee’s hours worked for all of the joint employers during the workweek are aggregated and considered as one employment, including for purposes of calculating whether overtime pay is due. Additionally, when joint employment exists, all of the joint employers are jointly and severally liable for compliance with the FLSA and MSPA.”  While not necessarily binding on courts, the DOL’s interpretation is instructive of how broadly it views the joint employer test.

I’m starting 2017 off with videos taken from my recent webinar discussing local minimum wage issues, California’s new employment laws, Los Angeles’ ban the box ordinance, the new Form I-9 required in 2017, and potential impacts President-elect Trump may have on employment laws.  Happy New Year!

California state and local minimum wage and paid sick leave laws in 2017

California’s new wage discrimination laws in 2017

Los Angeles bans employers from asking about criminal background information

New Form I-9 required in 2017

President-elect Trump’s impact on California’s employment landscape

In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on employer’s obligations to permit employees to take “off-duty” rest periods.  The Court’s ruling ends 2016 with a major ruling on issues surrounding rest periods under California law.

The plaintiffs worked as security guards for defendant ABM.  The employer required to the guards to keep their pagers and radio phones on at all times, even during rest periods, and to potentially respond to calls when needed.   The guards’ duties included when a building tenant wished to be escorted to the parking lot, a building manager had to be notified of a mechanical problem, or the occurrence of emergency situations.

The trial court “reasoned that a rest period subject to such control was indistinguishable from the rest of a workday; in other words, an on-duty or on-call break is no break at all,” and granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  The trial court awarded approximately $90 million in statutory damages, interest, and penalties.    ABM appealed the trial court’s ruling, and was successful in having the trial court overturned, but the California Supreme Court granted review of the case.

The company argued that it provided the required rest breaks under California law because it only required that the guards keep their radios and pagers on in case they were needed to respond to a call.  For the last Friday’s Five article of 2016, here are five key lessons for California employers from the Supreme Court’s decision:

1. Generally, what are employer’s obligations to provide rest breaks under California law?

Employer’s obligations to provide rest breaks is found in Labor Code section 226.7, enacted in 2000.  As enacted, subdivision (a) provided:  “No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.”  The Wage Orders generally require that employers must provide a 10-minute rest period per every four hours worked and the break should, whenever practicable, fall in the middle of the work period. (See Wage Order 4, subd. 12(A).  The rest period must also be paid, and the law does not require that employers record when the employee takes the rest period (unlike an employer’s obligation to record when 30-minute meal breaks are taken).

2. Does California law require employers to authorize off-duty rest periods? 

Yes.  The Supreme Court held that employers must provide employees with a paid rest break in which the employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control.  The Court examined the wage order at issue in the case, Wage Order 4, which provides, “Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods…. Authorized rest period time shall be counted, as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.”

The Court ruled that:

The most reasonable inference we can draw from the wage order and its context is instead that we should give the term its most common understanding – a reading consistent with requiring that employers authorize off-duty rest periods…. So, ordinarily, a reasonable reader would understand ‘rest period’ to mean an interval of time free from labor, work, or any other employment-related duties.

…

We accordingly conclude that the construction of Wage Order 4, subdivision 12(A) that best effectuates the order’s purpose and remains true to its provisions is one that obligates employers to permit –– and authorizes employees to take –– off-duty rest periods.  That is, during rest periods employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time.

3. Can employers satisfy the obligation to relieve employees from duties and control during rest periods if the employer requires the employee to remain on call? 

No.  The Court ruled that “one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods.”  The Court made clear that the employee must be “free from labor, work, or any other employment-related duties.  And employees must not only be relieved of work duties, but also freed from employer control over how they spend their time.”

4. If employees are required to carry a pager or phone during a rest break and must monitor the device during the rest break, is the employee provided a compliant rest break? 

No.  If an employee “must fulfill certain duties [such as] carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests,” the employee does not have the freedom to use the rest period for their own purpose.  The court used examples that employees should be permitted to take “a brief walk – five minutes out, five minutes back,” take care of personal matters like “pumping breast milk… or completing a phone call to arrange child care.”

5. Is there some flexibility for employers to reschedule rest breaks when needed?

Yes.  The Court provided, “[n]othing in our holding circumscribes an employer’s ability to reasonably reschedule a rest period when the need arises.”  However, the Court failed to provide any other clarification of what is reasonable in rescheduling a rest period.  The Court did explain, however, that employers have “several options” when employers find it burdensome to relieve their employees of all duties during rest periods.  As examples of these options, the Court stated that employers can provide employees with another rest period to replace the one that was interrupted, or pay the premium pay of one hour at the employee’s regular rate of pay for missing the rest period.

Looking for more information about California employers obligations to provide rest and meal periods?  See my prior post on five reminders about rest breaks here, and the timing of meal and rest breaks under California law here.

Quick video on the five things California employers need to pay attention to in 2017.

(Sorry for the wind noise in the video.)

I briefly discuss the following five issues:

1) Augustus v. ABM Security Services: A new California Supreme Court decision about whether rest breaks during which security guards were required to monitor a pager for a call actually counts as a rest break under California law.  Short answer: No.  The Court held that the guards had to be completely relieved of all duties during the rest break.  I’ll write more about this decision in the coming weeks.

2) Local ordinances banning criminal history inquiries, such as Los Angeles’ new prohibitions staring in 2017.

3) Local paid sick leave requirements (such as San Diego and Los Angeles).

4) Local minimum wage ordinances.

5) Arbitration agreements and class action waivers.

Happy holidays!

Mayor Garcetti signed into law the “Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring” ordinance on December 7, 2016.  The law takes effect January 22, 2017.  The Mayor’s holiday gift to employers leaves only a couple of weeks to them to change applications and hiring processes to comply with the new ordinance.  This Friday’s Five lists five aspects of the ordinance employers operating in the City need to understand:

1. New law applies to employers with 10 or more employees.

The new law applies to any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, labor organization, group of persons, association, or other organization however organized, that is located or doing business in the City of Los Angeles and employs ten or more employees.  The owners, management, and supervisory employees are counted when determining if the employer has ten employees.

Employers cannot inquirer into criminal backgrounds of applicants until after a conditional offer of employment is made.

2. The ordinance limits employers’ ability to gather information about applicants’ criminal history.

Employers cannot conduct any “direct or indirect” activity to gather criminal history from or about any applicant using any form of communication, including on application forms, interviews or Criminal History Reports.  This includes searching the internet for information pertaining to the applicant’s criminal history.

3. Employers must revise applications to remove any questions seeking information about criminal history.

The ordinance provides: “An Employer shall not include on any application for Employment any question that seeks the disclosure of an Applicant’s Criminal History.”

4. Employers must comply with stringent notice and written obligations if employment is not offered to applicant based on their criminal history.

Employers can require disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history only after a conditional offer of employment has been made.  The only condition on the offer of employment can be the review of the applicant’s criminal background.  There cannot be any other conditions on the offer.

If the conditional offer is made, but employment is denied, employer must perform “written assessment that effectively links the specific aspects of the Applicant’s Criminal History with risks inherent in the duties” of the job.  In conducting the assessment, employers must consider the factors set forth by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other factors set out by the City.

Prior to taking any adverse employment action against the applicant, employers are required to provide a “Fair Chance Process,” which includes a written notification of the proposed adverse action, a copy of the written assessment performed by the employer, and any other information or documents supporting the employer’s action.  The employer then must wait at least 5 business days for employee to provide additional information.  If the applicant provides additional information, the employer then must perform a written reassessment of the adverse action.  If the employer continues with the adverse action, it must provide the applicant with the written reassessment.

The process has many requirements employers must be careful to follow, and it is recommended that employers relying upon an applicant’s criminal background to deny employment should seek legal counsel to ensure compliance with the ordinance.

5. Employers’ other requirements to comply with the law

Some other obligations the ordinance creates for employers:

  • Employers “[s]hall state in all solicitations or advertisements… that the Employer will consider for employment qualified Applicants with Criminal Histories in a manner consistent with the requirements of this article.”
  • Post a notice informing applicants of the law at each workplace, job site or other location in the City of Los Angeles under the employer’s control and visited by the applicants.
  • Employers must retain applications and related information for three years.

Happy Friday!

CalifoTime Clock in Handrnia employers cannot forget about detailed employment provisions such as reporting time pay.  This Friday’s Five provide a list of five things California employers should understand about reporting time pay:

1.  What is reporting time pay?

California law requires an employer to pay “reporting time pay” under the applicable Wage Order.  This requires that when an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which cannot not be less than the minimum wage.

In addition, if an employee is required to report to work a second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two hours of work on the second reporting, he or she must be paid for two hours at his or her regular rate of pay.

California’s Labor Commissioner provides the following example:

For example, if an employee is scheduled to report to work for an eight-hour shift and only works for one hour, the employer is nonetheless obligated to pay the employee four hours of pay at his or her regular rate of pay (one for the hour worked, and three as reporting time pay). Only the one-hour actually worked, however, counts as actual hours worked.

Employers must remember, when an employee is scheduled to work, the minimum two-hour pay requirement applies only if the employee is furnished work for less than half the scheduled time.

2.  Time paid as reporting time pay does not trigger overtime pay.

Reporting time pay for hours in excess of the actual hours worked is not counted as hours worked for purposes of determining overtime.

3.  Reporting time pay and meetings.

There has been significant litigation over reporting time pay that is owed when employees are called in for meetings.  If an employee is called in on a day in which he is not scheduled, the employee is entitled to at least two hours of pay, and potentially up to four hours if the employee normally works 8 hours or more per day. See Price v. Starbucks.

However, if the employer schedules the employee to come into work for two hours or less, and the employee works at least one half of the scheduled shift, the employer is only required to pay for the actual time worked and no reporting time is owed.  See my prior post on Aleman v. AirTouch for a more detailed discussion.

4.  Exceptions to the reporting time requirements.

The Wage Orders provide that employers are not required to pay overtime pay during the following circumstances:

  1. When operations cannot begin or continue due to threats to employees or property, or when civil authorities recommend that work not begin or continue; or
  2. When public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or there is a failure in the public utilities, or sewer system; or
  3. When the interruption of work is caused by an Act of God or other cause not within the employer’s control, for example, an earthquake.

5.  What if the employee voluntarily leaves early?

Employers are not required to pay reporting time pay if the employee voluntarily leaves work early.  For example, if the employee becomes sick or must attend to personal issues outside of work and leaves early, then the employer is not obligated to pay reporting time pay.

Having just attended the Advanced Mediation Conference hosted by the State Bar of California Labor and Employment Law Section, it occurred to me how intimidating a mediation can be for even sophisticated business operators.  I wanted to share five concepts brought up at the conference that I would like all of my clients to understand about the mediation process:

1.     The mediator’s role – making you uncomfortable (but in a good way).

As I wrote in a prior post, a mediator’s only role is to get the case settled.  He or she is not there to be your friend, not to tell you what they feel the case is worth, or to protect your opponent’s position.  Their role is to get a settlement.  Put yourself in the mediator’s shoes, and you have two warring parties who hate each other and believe they will win if their case goes to trial.  How, as a mediator, do you get the parties to move off their respective beliefs?  You must attack both sides’ theory of the case by pointing out the weaknesses of each sides’ positions.  So don’t take the attacks personally, or think that the mediator is only attacking your position.  If the mediator is persuasive about how weak your case is, she is equally persuasive to other side.  Follow the Navy SEALs’ saying “Get comfortable being uncomfortable.”  Understand also, that the attacks are not personal, it is not about you as a person, but instead about the facts of the case and weaknesses of the case.  Finally, remember that the more uncomfortable you are, the opposing party in the other room is likewise feeling the same way.

2.     Understand when being cooperative will help you get a better deal.

A party involved in a mediation must understand that there are two parts to a mediation: (1) the process and (2) the content.  The process is how you interact with the other party being negotiating against.  Are you cordial?  Do you make small talk?  The content is the subject being negotiated, such as the dollar amounts.  A party that is cooperative about the process and competitive about the content will do better overall in a mediation than compared to a party that is competitive on both the process and content.  Think about how you interact with someone that is simply being a jerk to you on ever little issue, even issues that do not impact the subject being negotiated.  When dealing with the hyper-competitive negotiator, your guard goes up and the negotiation turns more personal.  This is a bad combination for attempting to reach a reasonable settlement.

3.     If you make a last, best and final offer, make it your last best and final offer.

Parties’ statements made during a mediation must have credibility.  If you make a “last, best and final offer” during a mediation, and the other side rejects the offer, but you continue to negotiate, you have lost credibility with the other party and the mediator.  As a result, even if you continue to negotiate and truly reach your last, best and final offer, the other side (and the mediator) will not believe that is your final number and will continue to push you beyond this number.  There are occasions to make a last, best and final offer, but if you qualify your offer as such, be ready to walk out of the mediation if the offer is rejected.

4.     Bracketing.

Ralph Williams, a mediator with ADR Services, explains bracketing as follows:

Negotiation “bracketing” is the process of making a conditional offer linked to an expected response from the other side.  For example, plaintiff states, “I will demand $500,000 if the defendant offers $200,000.”  Defendant responds by accepting the bracket or proposing a different bracket (Defendant will offer $100,000 if plaintiff demands $400,000) or offering an absolute number.  Plaintiff then replies with one of the same three options.  Using negotiation “bracketing,” the parties send clear signals about their expectations, save time and avoid the stress of the negotiating dance that starts with a $1 million demand and a $10,000 offer.

In addition, brackets are conditional offers.  Therefore, unless the other side accepts the proposed bracket, the party making the offer is not committed to those numbers.  This allows parties to potentially make larger moves without the fear of having those moves held against them later in the mediation or in the case.

The use of bracketing during negotiations can add another layer of complexity to the settlement negotiations.  However, with advice from counsel about how to negotiate using brackets, they are an effective tool in resolving cases.  Understanding the concept of bracketing before a mediation – even at a very basic level – will help save time during a mediation and allow you keep your focus on the negotiation.

5.     Enter the mediation prepared with a bottom walk-away number, but also a number that represents a goal.

It is important to know what your last best and final number is prior to going into the mediation.  Steve Pearl, a mediator with ADR Services (who presented at the conference today), explains:

Experienced negotiators will set not only the walkaway numbers beyond which they will not move, but also goals that are better than those walkaway numbers. Parties who set “shoot for” numbers as their reference points typically do better than those who only formulate walkaway numbers.

However, just like almost every negotiation “rule” there are drawbacks in setting a walk-away numbers.  Pearl explains that sometimes parties may have to shift their reference points to resolve the case.  So, parties should have clear numbers set going into the mediation, but must also have a mechanism to reevaluate these goals if the case will not settle within these predetermined numbers.

Happy Friday.