Verrill Dana, LLP

Verrill Dana, LLP is one of New England's preeminent regional law firms. With offices in Portland and Augusta, ME; Boston, MA; Stamford, CT; Providence, RI; and Washington D.C. Verrill Dana provides sophisticated legal representation to businesses and individuals in the traditional areas of litigation, real estate, business law, labor and employment law, employee benefits, environmental law, intellectual property and estate planning.  The Firm also has industry-focused specialties including higher education, health care and health technology, energy, and timberlands. 

Disclaimer:  The content presented in this blog is for general information only, is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice.  U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to notify you that any tax-related material in this blog (including links and attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties, and may not be referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.  While we welcome you to contact our blog authors at, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you. 


Using Outside Counsel When Dealing With Internal Investigations 

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reaffirmed the application of the attorney-client privilege to protect materials generated during the course of internal investigations by corporations, particularly in the context of regulated industries or other businesses which have compliance programs that are mandated by law. The decision is In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Click to read more ...


Eighth Circuit “Check-Up” Finds ADEA Violation After Health Insurance Based Lay Off

Last week, the Eight Circuit held that where an employer terminated an employee over the age of 65, allegedly in an attempt to lower health care plan premiums, the employee could state a claim for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., No. 13-2546, 2014 WL 4977396 (8th Cir. 2014). The ruling reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer by the District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Click to read more ...


The OFCCP Publishes Proposed Rule Prohibiting Pay Secrecy

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to prohibit pay secrecy policies and actions by covered Federal contractors and subcontractors (“Contractors”). The NPRM seeks to implement Executive Order 13665, signed by President Obama earlier this year, by proposing to prohibit pay secrecy policies and practices.

Click to read more ...


Throw-Back Thursday: Mr. Brown is “Losing His Religion”

Kozy Kitten Cat Food (if you are unfamiliar a YouTube Video is available here) has affected some of our lives more significantly than others. In 1977, a Southern District of Florida court was faced with the religious discrimination claims of Mr. Stanley Oscar Brown. Mr. Brown claimed that he was discriminated against because of his religion. His Complaint alleged that his employer was interfering with is “‘personal religious creed’ that ‘Kozy Kitten People/Cat Food . . . is contributing significantly to (his) state of well being . . . (and therefore) to (his) overall work performance.’” While not spelled out in the Complaint, our guess is that Mr. Brown himself enjoyed the taste of Kozy Kitten Cat Food. The Court found “Plaintiff’s ‘personal religious creed’ concerning Kozy Kitten Cat Food can be described as . . . a mere personal preference and, therefore, is beyond the parameters of the concept of religion as protected by the constitution or, by logical extension, by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.”


Sixth Circuit Taps the Brakes on Its Ford Decision

Three months ago, we reported on EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., in which a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit brought by a fired Ford Motor Company employee Jane Harris. In 2011, the EEOC had filed suit on her behalf, alleging that Ford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate Ms. Harris' disability and by retaliating against her for filing a charge with the EEOC. A U.S. District Court in Michigan granted Ford summary judgment, however, the Sixth Circuit panel threw out that decision, ruling that Ford had not met its burden of proving that Ms. Harris’ physical presence was an essential function of her job. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling raised potentially significant issues for companies that allow employees to telecommute. (Our prior post on the case can be found here:

Recently, however, a majority of the Sixth Circuit’s judges voted to rehear the case and the Court issued an Order vacating its prior opinion pending rehearing.

We will continue to follow this case and keep our loyal viewers updated. If you have questions about it, or about any aspect of your company’s telecommuting policy, please contact Verrill Dana’s Labor & Employment Department.


Are You Remote Wiping?

Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog yesterday posted a great piece on employers with BYOD policies and the importance of remote-wipes. Take a look at it here and consider the importance of instituting such a policy if you currently have a BYOD policy.