Leadership Series, Article # 2, Another Lesson from Kids
Earlier this month, I started a series of articles on the subject of leadership. The first article, written by Brian McDermott, was entitled, “Everything You Wanted to Know about Leadership . . . and Should Have Asked Your Kids.” (That article is still available on the Blog and can be found by using the “View By Topic” bar to the upper left and clicking on “Leadership,” or simply by scrolling down this Blog page to Brian’s May 5 article.) As Brian’s article suggests, you can find examples of leadership in many different contexts . . . if you simply pay attention.
I’ve spent a considerable portion of my non-work time coaching youth sports. Like Brian, I try to keep my eyes open to examples of leadership from those around me, young and old. Let me offer an illustration.
I have coached a lot of boys traveling baseball teams. These teams typically start when kids are 9 years old and continue until they are 15, when their high school sports careers begin. Practices almost always begin with stretching exercises, followed by a 3-5 minute jog around the baseball fields. On a team of 12 boys, the players are in different shape and of varying athletic ability, strength and stamina. Consequently, when they run, the kids often spread out, in bell curve fashion. The two or three fastest, strongest kids take the lead, about six kids are in the middle group, and two or three kids lag behind. As the run progresses, the last few kids get farther and farther behind the leaders. Read more
Everything You Wanted to Know About Leadership . . . and Should Have Asked Your Kids
[Readers: Those of you who have been reading my Blog for some time know that on the first Wednesday of each month, I typically publish a 'West Coast' Quirky Employment Question, written by my colleagues in one of our four West Coast offices (Anaheim, Anchorage, Palo Alto and Seattle). This month, I’m going to mix things up a bit.
I have long been interested in the subject of “Leadership.” I’m intrigued by questions such as: what makes a leader effective or ineffective; what are the cardinal sins of leadership; what are the attributes that make an outstanding leader; when should a leader be replaced; what risks are associated with replacing a leader; what risks are linked to the failure to replace; and like inquiries.
For the last couple of months, I have been soliciting articles on the subject of “Leadership” from people I like and respect. I have asked individuals in a variety of professions and positions to write on any aspect of “Leadership” that interests them. I anticipate submissions from those in consulting, business, law, politics, faith based communities, non-profits, and other disciplines. I occasionally will include articles written by my colleagues or me. I will try to publish at least one of these articles each month. (If you would be interested in writing on this topic for my Blog, please contact me at .) Read more
The Lovable Litigator: Employment Litigation Truths from the Secret Inner Life of Judges and Juries
The Lovable Litigator
By: Judge Lloyd Zimmerman
“See you in court!”
Those dreaded words by the soon-to-be-ex employee, screamed out with red face and eyes bulging, as the workplace door finally swings behind him (but not quite hard enough, you think), marking the end of years of careful documentation of irritating, boorish, and downright scandalous behavior. Yes, this is the employee you finally fired after the entire office refused to come into work and threatened to go to the newspapers, if he remained another day.
The threat leaves one with a visceral sensation, much like waking up in the morning and facing an early dental appointment for a root canal; for others, the words convey a sinking feeling, a premonition that one is about to enter a labyrinth never to emerge – except poorer, fatigued, and worse for wear. To the trained employment law litigator, or the human resources manager, the words leave one wary: What happens in the “day in court”?
I am here to tell you those secrets. After being inducted nine years ago into the tribe of trial judges, following 21 years litigating employment cases, I learned the secret handshake, acquired the decoder ring, and was exposed to the hitherto secret inner life of judges and juries. Several hundred jury and court trials later, here’s a little advice from one who wears the robe: the good, the bad, and the ugly of what happens in court, on the witness stand, at counsel tables, in the jury box and in the deliberation room.
First of all, it’s not what you think. The typical employment case takes at least a year to wind itself through the court system in anticipation of the first day of trial.
Alas, for the plaintiff’s lawyer, increasingly, the question is: “trial, what trial?” As the published volumes of specialized labor and employment law attest, in most parts of the country, over 90 percent of employment cases never make it to trial. They are dismissed under a procedure known as “summary judgment,” in which judges assess whether the disputed facts are sufficiently “material” to warrant a trial. The employment law world is increasingly marked by summary dismissals. But that’s not much consolation to the employer who has to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees, or even the plaintiff’s lawyer who invests blood, sweat, and tears only to have the case thrown out on its rear.
How to avoid those costs of combat? The studies show that only about five percent of all employees who are angry about an employment decision even take the time to complain internally to the employer, much less file a discrimination charge or lawsuit. What provokes an employee’s threat to “see you in court” rarely requires a fancy degree or three decades of litigation practice to understand. It is behavior that violates the kindergarten rules. Chewing out an employee in a loud temper tantrum. Viewing workplace rules of behavior as no different than at a bar. Court studies show that people remember how they felt long after they remember the words that were spoken and that 80 percent of all meaningful communication is nonverbal.
So sitting down with a problem employee at the get-go, in a polite, classy, quiet way, with specifics, is the way to go.
Conversely, at the root of many a thorny lawsuit is the employer who becomes a raging bull. As a sign I saw posted in a grocery store once read, “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” Stay calm.
Beyond that truth, it is amazing how many employers manage to fire the problem employee on the Friday before Thanksgiving or Christmas, or in what has become an accustomed workplace ritual, by escorting the employee out of the building in the equivalent of a “perp walk,” holding the box of his or her possessions and bracketed by two security guards.
Juries find this very annoying. They tend not to have law degrees or special human resources training, but they know a bully when they see one. And they know what it feels like to go home after being treated like a door mat, especially after years of dedicated service.
Don’t do it. Make your point with class. Use words suitable for church, or court, so you won’t worry about how they sound if they’re read back to you, as they may be, in a five-day deposition, or someday, at a trial.
Now about that day in court.
A short aside. If you have that day in court, the hard truth is you have already lost. If you’re an employer, it means that you spent thousands of dollars in legal fees getting to that day, along with the time, distraction, and irritation of defending a lawsuit rather than addressing whatever you thought the true reason was you went into business. It means you have handed off a business decision to a jury of six people who don’t really know you. If you’re the employee, it means that you have lived and breathed a lawsuit for years rather than writing that novel, running a marathon, or taking a trip to the place you’ve always wanted to see. You’ve taken all of that emotional energy and focused it on the awful experience, much like a bad marriage, which is what many bad employment relationships resemble.
It’s why practitioners of family law and employment law will tell you that on the emotional Richter scale, the two are often indistinguishable.
What happens on that first day of court – the most amazing thing! Out of years of orderly preparation, you have chaos.
First of all, you’re tired. Of course you’re tired! You’ve been up most of the night, unable to sleep, thinking about this event that has been the focus of your dreams, hopes, and prayers for these many months: The Trial.
If you are a litigant, meaning that no one is paying you to be in the courtroom, you did not sleep the night before. It’s not good if the judge has the same look; a cranky, disheveled looking judge does not bode well. Even if the judge is neither cranky nor disheveled, but remarkably polite and charming, there is this matter of The Large Docket – a fact of life for judges. The fact that your immensely important case, which has taken all of your waking hours, what you think about going to bed, and what you think about waking up, is but one of hundreds of cases on the judge’s docket. Your judge has probably read all of the lengthy trial briefs the night before, and just hope that there have been no late night calls or family emergencies in the judicial household to interfere with the orderly absorption of your legal briefs.
And then there is that feeling, that inevitably worrisome feeling, when the jury that will be yours, that will decide your fate, files into the courtroom, to begin the process of voir dire, or questioning to see if they can be fair and impartial. They have been caged in the jury assembly room, removed from their jobs and their family life, for your case. If you are an employer, the odds are good that they will have had a negative workplace experience; or someone they love, or their best friend, will have recently been fired inhumanely and without just cause. There are no special training requirements to be a juror. You can’t be a judge, and you should be over 18 and generally, not a convicted felon.
If you are an employee awaiting your day in court, don’t rest easy. Juries are instant experts in workplace behavior. They know the person who spends all day gossiping on the phone or surfing the Internet, adding their undone job to another person’s workload. They know about office favoritism. They are experts. They don’t need an expert, even if you’ve hired someone for thousands of dollars to explain with twenty dollar words or concepts what every juror intuitively knows.
And juries tend to award money as if it was coming out of their own pocket. Yes. They’re often cheap, or at least frugal. They make flow charts and decision trees about the evidence and the law. They view the law from the judge as gospel. No one gets rich in a jury trial unless the employer or its attorney manages to inflame the jury. At one time, the largest sexual harassment jury verdict in the country came after defense counsel gave the jury the finger, while demonstrating what he claimed the plaintiff did to the supervisor on her last day of work, after enduring years of sexual harassment. Just hope that your lawyer doesn’t inflame the jury with a too-cute show of the finger.
Lest we forget: So yes, you’re nervous, anxious, and upset about trial, but You Have a Lawyer. A highly trained skilled professional adept in the ways of the courtroom.
Maybe. Or Maybe Not. The most surprising fact about many civil lawyers in trial is that they have spent years getting to trial without having a good clue about how to actually try a case. It’s a fact. What do people talk about in employment law seminars? They talk about the one case somewhere in the country that went to a jury verdict, and they analyze it to death. And that one case becomes the bluebook value of what that sort of claim is worth, or not.
The good, the bad, and the ugly of what happens at trial with lawyers is this: They spit toward the jury box during their opening statement. They use big lawyer words that make the jury think the lawyer is talking down to them, or is too busy to use plain English. Lawyers sometimes well up with tears – juries will tell you in the post mortem – it’s embarrassing. They forget to dress right. They let their shirt flap hang over their pants, their tie is hopelessly loud or clashing, or their hair is a distraction. Tsk, you say, juries don’t focus on those things. Trust me: they watch you like a hawk. Everything. You. Do.
And then there is you, the client. Your lawyer is perfect. She does none of those bad things. She is poised, eloquent, a gifted communicator. She never uses a $20 word when a 25 cent word will do. She’s like your favorite neighbor talking to you over the fence. The good host telling a good story when you’re a guest at dinner.
So what happens when your lawyer is up making the world’s best argument for you. You sit there, in front of the jury, and show by your body language that you know your lawyer is putting on a good show, but it ain’t all true. Or just as bad, the opposing lawyer is dicing up your case in closing argument, and you look like you believe her.
It’s true. After years of preparation, it comes to this: No one thinks of how you should look when the opposing lawyer is making the final pitch before the jury goes back to deliberate. If you look sad and dejected, it screams out: you’re guilty. You have no case. Or if you’re the lawyer, do you sit next to your client like you like him, and believe in him, or do you sit like he has a contagious virus?
The bottom line for lawyers is this: explain your case before the day in court to a neighbor, over the fence. Don’t tell it to an associate who depends on you for a promotion. They will always tell you how brilliant you are. Talk to the jury. Maintain eye contact. Don’t guess who the foreperson will be. You’ll be wrong. Don’t assume you’ll be calm, relaxed, or well-dressed. You’ll be exhausted and disheveled. Look in the mirror before you go into court and say to yourself: you’re not much to look at. Lose the arrogance and cockiness. If you’re tired, tell the jury – you didn’t get much sleep last night. You lost your suit on the way to the airport. Be genuine. Juries love a human being.
And if it’s a judge you face, don’t assume that judges love a boring presentation, any more than a jury does. Don’t put the fact-finder into a coma on the first day of trial. Be funny. Be charming. Be real. If you can’t be any of those things, be yourself. Don’t oversell your case. Judges know that lawyers who have neither facts nor law make up for it with volume. It doesn’t work.
It’s okay to be short, to be brief, and to remember that the two sweetest words in the English language, other than “I’m done,” the words that convey a sense of peace, contentment, and happiness, are “In closing.” And then make sure that you really are closing. Juries will fold their notepad with that happy feeling upon hearing those words. You don’t want to let them down. Your word is your bond.
If you’re the one headed for court because you’ve either sued or been sued, remember that it really isn’t a lottery. You won’t hit the jackpot. The folklore is wrong. If you get a runaway jury verdict, it might feel good, if you’re the plaintiff, for the minutes, days, months, or years until it’s reversed on appeal. If you’re the employer and the jury rules in your favor, that moral vindication will pale after you open the bill from your lawyer.
Court is a funny, scary, amazing place where people spend two years prior to trial saying the answer is yes, and then on the stand, when you least expect it, say the answer is no. People laugh when they mean to cry. Lawyers spend all night practicing their lines and stand up and tell the jury that their client’s name is Smith when it’s really Jones.
The American system the world has come to know for the resolution of disputes, going back to the time of ancient Greece, is better, most days, than resolving the disagreement in a duel, or determining truth by who lasts longer on the rack. But a kind word in the face of a disagreement, taking the time to listen, to be respectful, to walk in the other person’s shoes, can save a lot of angst. It might save you from spending your retirement years on a hobby called litigation, when you would rather be living out your dream of the Peace Corps, or playing in a rock band.
And I’ll end on a note of what might seem like heresy. Litigators connote the image of pit bulls. But the best litigators are kind, warm, thoughtful people, who are good listeners, likable, and maybe even lovable (lovable litigator: oxymoron you say!) Most cases settle. Take the time to know your opposing lawyer, to know about her family, her dog, her dog’s name, her successes, her favorite sport: 98 percent of the time, your case will settle unless you really annoy the opposing lawyer or her client, where they make it their goal to exact revenge for bad litigation behavior.
See you in court!
Employment Law in China
Best Practices to Ensure that a Non-Competition Agreement is Enforceable in China
By: Richard Chao and Haidong Yang
Introduction
After more than a year since the implementation of the PRC Employment Contract Law (the “Law”) (the PRC Employment Contract Law was promulgated on August 5, 2007 and became effective on January 1, 2008; the Implementing Regulations for the PRC Employment Contract Law became effective on September 18, 2008), the law governing non-competition agreements remains unsettled. Employers should work closely with counsel to ensure that their non-competition agreements are up to date and enforceable in China. The general rule is that the employee must receive reasonable compensation for the non-competition agreement to be enforceable. Underneath this general rule, however, two traps wait silently for the unwary.
To Specify or Not to Specify Compensation?
The first trap for the employer is whether the non-competition agreement must specify the amount of compensation. The statutory language would lead one to conclude that the amount of compensation does not have to be specified when the employee signs the non-competition agreement. Article 23 of the Law states that an employer may specify the monthly compensation payable to the employee. The word “may” suggests discretion on the part of the employer, which means that a non-competition agreement is enforceable even if the agreement does not specify compensation payable.
The employer would be right if the non-competition agreement were to be enforced in Shanghai. According to the local judicial guidance, a court in Shanghai has the authority to determine the amount of reasonable compensation at the time when an employer seeks to enforce the non-competition agreement2. But, a local jurisdiction could act in contrary to the plain language of the Law. A recent case demonstrates the risk to employers. In that case, the non-competition agreement failed to specify amount of compensation for the employee. After the employee was terminated, the employer and the employee could not agree on compensation, and the case went before a municipal court in Beijing. The court could have imposed reasonable compensation and upheld the non-competition agreement. Instead, it ruled that the non-competition agreement was void partly because the agreement did not specify compensation payable.
How Much Compensation is Reasonable?
The second trap relates to the amount of compensation. How much compensation is reasonable in the eyes of a court and enough for it to enforce the agreement? The Law offers no guidance because the statutory language is silent regarding this issue. In practice, the amount of compensation that would be deemed reasonable—which greatly increases the likelihood that the agreement is enforceable—varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may even vary within the same jurisdiction from time to time. Because the rate of increase in the cost of living varies from region to region, the local jurisdictions are better positioned to judge what is considered reasonable compensation. For example, the Shanghai Municipal Higher People’s Court issued guidance on reasonable compensation in March 2009. The Shanghai authority said that the amount of compensation could be between 20 to 50 percent of the employee’s income if the employer and the employee cannot agree on the amount of compensation.
Nonetheless, what is considered reasonable compensation may change over time. Employers should not assume that the range of 20 to 50 percent of income would remain constant over time. The best practice in navigating safely through this unsettled area of law is to contact the relevant local authority at or near the time when entering into an employment agreement that contains a non-competition agreement.
Best Practices
When contemplating the use of a non-competition agreement under PRC law, an employer should follow these steps:
(a) prepare a well-drafted agreement and have the employee sign the agreement;
(b) clearly define competition (or the specific competitors), geographic coverage, the scope of competitive activities, and the non-competition time period (the maximum period is two years);
(c) specify the amount for liquidated damages or a formula for calculating liquidated damages;
(d) clearly define compensation for the non-competition agreement and use language to indicate the employee’s acknowledgement for the adequacy of such compensation;
(e) during the enforcement of non-competition, obtain the employee’s acknowledgment for the receipt of compensation; and
(f) with the assistance of counsel, understand and comply with any additional local employment regulations where the employee will work.
Conclusion
PRC law governing non-competition agreements remains unsettled. The general rule is simple but traps remain for the unwary. Employers should work closely with counsel to ensure that their non-competition agreements comply with both the Law and guidance from local jurisdictions.




