If employees within your company write code . . . or anything else for that matter, you may want to consider launching a short course on copyright law so those employees can “issue spot” and avoid problems, or at least refrain from discussing the risks and problems in an email like the google employees did.

Earlier this week, the New York Times published the results of its anti-bribery investigation regarding Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary – Wal–Mart de Mexico. The Times investigators spent many hours with several former executives, including Sergio Cicero, who resigned from Wal-Mart de Mexico in 2004 after nearly a decade in the company’s real estate department. In interviews, Mr. Cicero recounted how he had helped organize years of payoffs . . . approximately $25 million dollars worth. He described personally dispatching two trusted outside lawyers to deliver envelopes of cash to government officials. They targeted mayors and city council members, obscure urban planners, low-level bureaucrats who issued permits — anyone with the power to thwart Wal-Mart’s growth. The bribes, he said, bought zoning approvals, reductions in environmental impact fees and the allegiance of neighborhood leaders. The bribery removed any obstacles to growth and Wal-Mart quickly became the dominant retailer in Mexico. In 2005, Mr. Cicero reported the bribery to Wal-Mart International’s General Counsel. However, Wal-Mart’s most senior executives, including its current CEO, allegedly decided to quickly squash the complaint and cover it up.

Now Wal-Mart faces hundreds of millions of dollars in possible fines, criminal charges, shareholder suits, competitors’ antitrust suits, potential action by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a drop in stock price, almost 5% at last check. FCPA and the UK Bribery Act are serious and should not be ignored. If you’re in compliance, take a few minutes to review our recorded webinar and/or our business compliance checklist. You can access either by clicking here.

Also, we promise we did not have any inside information when we shot our most recent anti-bribery workplace video, but it is interesting to watch in light of Wal-Mart. Click here to view it.

We’ve tried to make this very easy for you. So, click here for a Sample Wage & Hour Policy (but please tailor it for your own operation) and click here to request a Complimentary Policy Mini-Course so you can train employees on your Wage & Hour policy without incurring any expense. Happy Friday!

What does that mean? It means your employees may get up to a 30% cut (similar to plaintiffs’ lawyers by the way) for reporting any ethical breaches within your company to the U.S. Government. The SEC is already reporting an increase in the number of reports.

As always, we’re trying to help our valued clients protect themselves and manage their risk. So, click here to get a complimentary Business Compliance Checklist and/or listen to the recorded webinar.

See the Facebook note by clicking here.

The list of those with whom the DOL is coordinating include:

• California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah, and Washington,
• State labor officials in Hawaii, Illinois, and Montana,
• and New York’s Attorney General.

In the various cooperation agreements, the state agency and the DOL typically pledge to:

• Conduct joint investigations periodically,
• Coordinate enforcement activities and provide mutual assistance,
• Refer potential violations of statutes enforced by the other,
• Develop “methodologies” for exchanging leads and complaints, and
• Otherwise share information “as appropriate.”

Also, keep in mind that the DOL has a similar cooperation agreement with the IRS. Companies and other organizations would be safe to assume that experiencing any audit or investigation by any agency, will trigger the scrutiny of other government agencies. Given the current landscape, it would be wise for every organization to conduct a risk assessment with respect to the contingent workforce and whether there is any vulnerability to a claim of misclassification. If so, now is the time to address it.

In January, the Justice Department announced a $54.6 million settlement in the Marubeni case, involving bribery of Nigerian officials to gain engineering and construction contracts. In February, the Justice Department announced a $16.8 million settlement with Smith & Nephew as part of an investigation into bribery by medical device companies of physicians employed by government institutions.

2012 could be a record year for the Justice Department in terms of collecting settlements and may exceed their record 2010 year of $16 billion collected in settlements. Further, there are a number of investigations close to resolution, particularly in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Do you understand your risk? The government is interpreting “foreign official” and “payment” very broadly, and you may have risk you’re not aware of. Also, the government is targeting pharmaceuticals, medical device, biotech, technology, defense contractors, and telecommunication companies, among others.

If you want a concise overview of the enforcement landscape and how to avoid or minimize your risk, join our panel of experts on April 4th at 11:00 PST. Click here to access our registration page.

The new rules go into effect on April 23, 2012 and will:

• create a national registry for all H-2B job postings and an increase in the amount of time during which U.S. workers must be recruited.
• require employers to rehire former employees where possible.
• extend H-2B program benefits, such as transportation costs and wages, to U.S. workers performing substantially the same work as guest workers.

For additional information, see the DOL’s website at www.dol.gov.

Many employers ask us if EEO and harassment training are statutorily required. Implicit in the question is the idea that if it isn’t required, they won’t do it. Here’s the deal. A few states have an actual training law on the books. Most do not. But, if you get any claim asserted against you, the first question you’ll get is to hand over your training documentation and proof that you trained everyone in your workforce.

Just this week, I met with a large staffing firm that told me the following story. One of their clients terminated a contractor because she was pregnant. The staffing firm was sued along with their client. The state agency asked for all EEO training documentation and proof of training. While the staffing firm conducts an annual 20 minute awareness training, they don’t have it in a format where they can quickly produce a training script and database records of learner participation in the training. In short, their awareness training didn’t stop the questions of the EEO investigators and instead prompted more questions such as, how long does each person spend in the training? do they need to get the questions correct to proceed? what case studies are included in the training? Ideally, you should be able to produce a course transcript and litigation training record that tells the whole training story from the face of the document. After looking at your training “evidence”, there shouldn’t be any further questions . . . Which is one of the first things you learn as a litigation attorney. . . If you have to explain and walk people through your evidence, then it’s not great evidence. Same concept applies to training. The more you need to explain your training documentation, then its not great documentation and it won’t help you in a claim.