May 21, 2012

The Benefits of Properly Drafted and Administered Document Retention Policies: HR Tip of the Month

Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

In a discrimination case in which the plaintiff is alleging that the employer treated others more favorably, a company manager testifies at deposition about another employee who violated the same policy as did the plaintiff. That other employee’s personnel file is then requested, but the employer cannot produce it because the file had been purged pursuant to the company’s document retention policy. The plaintiff cries foul, and at trial, wants the jury advised that the contents of that personnel file were harmful to the company. Should such an instruction be given? 

This hypothetical is analogous to the scenario presented in Hicks v. Wegmans Food Market, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13047 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2011). The court refused to give an adverse inference charge to the jury because it did not find any bad faith by the employer. In the absence of any such bad faith, the company’s destruction of the personnel file pursuant to its ordinary document retention practices prior to the date that it first knew that the file might be connected to plaintiff’s case did not want warrant the issuance of a spoliation inference. 

Document retention policies serve a number of goals. Many categories of business documents are required by applicable federal, state, or local statute or regulation to be kept for specific periods of time. A properly implemented document retention policy will enable a company to monitor and comply with these requirements. Retention (or destruction) policies also help save companies from being buried under the sheer magnitude of documents, both paper and electronic, which are generated year after year. In addition, a properly administered document retention policy can limit a company’s exposure in another important way: documents that are purged in good faith pursuant to such a policy will not damage the company’s case (though by the same token, purged documents would not be available to support a company’s defense). 

Even if a company has a written document retention policy, there are a couple of important points to note.

  • First, it is critical for a company to follow its own policy. A company’s failure to follow its policy on a consistent basis or an employer’s haphazard destruction/retention of documents may subject it to a variety of unfavorable outcomes, from liability to sanctions to adverse jury instructions.
     
  • Second, when employment litigation arises or appears reasonably foreseeable, additional legal obligations arise to preserve certain documents, which would trump standard document retention policies. These obligations are commonly known as a “litigation hold,” and have become increasingly critical in the conduct of litigation in recent years, with the advent of electronic communications. 

This Alert has been prepared by Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising or solicitation and should not be used or taken as legal advice. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their state. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Confidential information should not be sent to Sills Cummis & Gross without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship. 

© Copyright 2011 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

About the Author

Trent S. Dickey has 29 years of experience representing major domestic and foreign corporations in all aspects of complex commercial and management-side employment litigation. His clientele spans a broad spectrum of industries in both the public and private sectors. Mr. Dickey has successfully litigated hundreds of cases, both jury and bench trials, in federal and state courts throughout the nation.

Mr. Dickey’s clients range from Fortune 100 companies and public utilities to significant private enterprises. His practice encompasses the defense of employment claims including...

(973) 643-5863

About the Author

Jill Turner Lever practices in all aspects of employment law. She advises clients on a wide range of employment law issues including day-to-day advice and counsel on compliance with federal, state and local employment laws. Ms. Lever drafts employment agreements, separation agreements, employee handbooks and human resources policies. She provides advice on handling complaints of sexual and other forms of workplace harassment. Ms. Lever has significant experience preparing for and guiding clients on implementing reductions in force, as well as due diligence and other employment issues...

(973) 643-7000

Contributors

David H. Ganz is Of Counsel to the Sills Cummis & Gross Employment and Labor Practice Group. His practice involves representing management in employment-related litigation in state and federal courts and before the American Arbitration Association and state and federal agencies, as well as conducting employment-related investigations and counseling.

Mr. Ganz has litigated cases involving gender, race, age, national origin and disability discrimination, as well as wrongful termination, sexual harassment and retaliation claims. His experience also includes defending corporate...

(973) 643-4852

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.