Duff on Hospitality Law

By now, nearly every revenue manager, electronic distribution manager and sales and marketing manager is familiar with the significance of keywords and the need for brand owners to manage third parties’ use of keywords in search-based Internet marketing. Every negotiation of an online distribution agreement (whether direct-to-consumer, wholesale or otherwise) should include careful consideration about reasonable restrictions or conditions a hotelier will place on a distributor’s use of keywords.

As technology continues to evolve and to disrupt many traditional travel sales, marketing and distribution channels (Tnooz alone seems to report on new search-based tools weekly), owners and operators must reconsider their historical (and by now standard) approaches to critical contract provisions that address how and to what extent a distributor may use the hoteliers’ trademarks, trade names, logos and other intellectual property, including use as keywords. The recent and much publicized launch of Promoted Hotels by Google served as an important reminder of this fact.

Promoted Hotels is Google’s new search-based marketing tool that allows hoteliers, OTAs and anyone else interested in securing a preferred booking position over other channels to bid for the right to be the primary (and sometimes, sole) booking option in ads that appear at the top of the Google Hotel Finder search results. As you might expect, nearly all of the searches that I ran for hotels in various locations across the U.S. featured ads and links placed by OTAs and not the featured properties themselves. Does any of this sound familiar?

If you are anything like me, you have been eagerly awaiting another update from the NLRB on its social media decisions. Well, wait no longer. On May 30, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel issued a third report on recent social media cases. This complements the two previous reports from January 12, 2012, and August 18, 2011. For more information on the first two reports, see my recent post.

The new report does not offer any groundbreaking new principles for employers seeking to implement or enforce social media policies. This is good news, as it means that you don’t need to rewrite your social media policy every time the NLRB issues a report. This report does elaborate on a few of the key principles, however, and it offers some new and interesting examples. It also includes as an example an entire social media policy that was found lawful.

A recent Field Assistance Bulletin issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on February 29, 2012, announced a substantial change of the DOL’s enforcement position regarding mandatory tip pooling with back-of-the-house employees. 

As we have discussed in this blog previously tip pooling is the practice by which the tips of regularly tipped employees are pooled together and then redistributed among employees, including, on occasion, employees who do not customarily receive tips. Employees may voluntarily participate, or they can be required to participate by the employer.

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc. (596 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2010), which held that DOL limitations on an employer's use of the employee's tips did not apply when the employer does not take a tip credit. In states like Oregon and Washington, where the employer must pay a tipped employee the full minimum wage and is prohibited by state law from taking a tip credit, the employer is permitted to impose a mandatory tip-pooling arrangement and insist that tipped employees share their tips with back-of-the-house employees, not just with employees who customarily receive tips. The court's ruling was a significant win for employers in the Ninth Circuit; the employer was represented by Garvey Schubert Barer, amicus briefs were filed by Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association and others, and the DOL even submitted a brief and argued part of the case for the employee -- and lost.   

In Mike Brunet’s April 16, 2012 post, he discussed the history and potential future of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) controversial requirement that hoteliers install permanent lifts at all swimming pools to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Today, he writes about a recent extension on the deadline to satisfy DOJ’s mandate. 

As of May 16, hotel owners and others operating swimming pools open to the public had a mere five days, until May 21, to install permanent pool lifts at their facilities pursuant to the DOJ’s interpretation of the 2010 Standards to the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, on May 17, the DOJ extended the deadline for compliance with its requirement by over eight months, to January 31, 2013. The fact that DOJ extended the deadline is not a total surprise, as the agency has been accepting comments on a possible six-month extension since March of this year, and interested parties, including hoteliers and trade associations, have been vocal in their support. However, the length of the extension is somewhat of a surprise, especially given DOJ’s hard-line stance on this issue in the past.

Portland received another sign that the local hospitality industry may be on its way to a full recovery late last month. On April 26, Metro, Portland’s regional planning entity, voted to issue again a request for proposal (RFP) on a large hotel project that was brought to a halt in 2008 due to the economic downturn. The earlier incarnation of the project asked for responses to a 2004 RFP for the project, available here, that called for 800 rooms. 

The April 26^th vote brings back to life a plan to develop a large headquarters hotel project that will serve as the designated hotel space for the Oregon Convention Center (albeit slightly smaller in scale than what had been considered in 2008), that will provide an additional 500 rooms for group visitors to the Rose City. Local revenue generated by attracting large conventions is big business for the hospitality industry and the region. Metro estimates that national events at the Oregon Convention Center, such as the Specialty Coffee Association of America’s Convention that took place earlier this year in April and the 2012 World Brewing Congress scheduled for August of this year, result in millions of additional dollars flooding area businesses over just one weekend.

Bringing in an operator, restaurateur or celebrity chef to provide food and beverage service in a hotel can provide immediate and significant benefits for a hotel and its guests. Hotel owners and operators use the experience, vision and creativity of third party food and beverage providers to generate attention, energy and business for hotel properties. Further, while hotels brand their properties and earn their reputations over decades, pockets of a hotel property can be made available to third party food and beverage providers to create a more immediate change in brand direction or environment. Despite the lure, however, chemistry and contract details are important. To avoid being left with a bad taste, owners and executives should consider a number of important contracting details while evaluating or courting a third party food and beverage provider.

What do the Oregon Zoo, the Portland Timbers, NBC Universal’s television series Grimm, Timberline Lodge, the Oregon Brewers Festival, the Safeway Waterfront Blues Festival, the Intertwine, the Portland Highland Games and the Oregon Dental Association all have in common? They were all recognized at the 33rd Annual Tourism & Hospitality Industry Awards Celebration breakfast, hosted by Travel Portland. Hosted during the celebration of Travel & Tourism Week presented by the U.S. Travel Association May 8-15, 2012, Travel Portland had a lot to celebrate.

In a previous employment law update, Hospitality, Travel & Tourism practice group member, Diana Shukis, summarized the much discussed National Labor Relation Board's (NLRB) new notice posting rule. Diana provides below a brief update on the deadline for complying with the rule and her thoughts on where things go from here.

Recent court decisions have delayed the April 30, 2012 deadline for complying with the NLRB's notice posting rule. Based on the court decisions, employers are not required to post the statement of employee rights at least for now.

In Mike Brunet’s January 2012 post, he shared a PowerPoint presentation concerning the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design, adherence to which became mandatory for places of public accommodation, such as hotels, on March 15, 2012. In this month’s post, Mike focuses on one of the most controversial elements of those 2010 Standards, pool accessibility, and brings you up to date on the current requirements.

Thank you Mike . . .

The 2010 Standards require that public accommodations provide at least one accessible means of entry to small swimming pools, which must either be a sloped entry or a pool lift. Larger swimming pools must have two accessible means of entry, one of which must be a sloped entry or a pool lift. After analyzing the cost and safety issues associated with methods of accessible entry, most hoteliers decided that a portable pool lift would be the safest and most cost-effective option. However, the 2010 Standards did not specifically address portable pool lifts or when or how those lifts would be put in place. 

This post looks at two recent National Labor Relations Board reports and their impact on employers' social media policies. Several planned upcoming posts will also be looking at social media and its effects on hoteliers's and restaurateurs' operations - stay tuned.

Thanks to the internet, a single disgruntled employee can now do dramatic damage to a company’s image through posts on social media sites. (Just ask Domino's Pizza or Hotel Renaissance). The social media policies employers have instituted in the last few years may work to inhibit online employer-bashing; however, they can also come perilously close to violating the law. To assist employers in navigating this rapidly changing area of law, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has issued two social media reports in the last seven months, explaining their rulings in several recent social media cases. As this posting demonstrates, even if you think you have a good social media policy, you may want to revisit it, given the latest NLRB guidance.

Employees in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces have protected rights to certain types of speech under the National Labor Relations Act. These include, briefly, the right to discuss terms and conditions of employment and unfair labor practices with coworkers and the right to engage in concerted activity. Employers who want to restrict employees from making disparaging comments about the company online must carefully phrase their policies to avoid trampling on these rights.