DUIEmployers Beware of Serving Alcohol
The San Francisco Chronicle Monday, January 8, 1996 · Page C1
By Reynolds Holding
Wine may be fine and liquor quicker but oh, the hangover from lawsuits.
It's the end of the office-party season, right about when some very unlucky bosses discover they've been sued for their employees' shenanigans at the holiday bash. Maybe somebody got drunk and slugged the guy in accounting, dropped M&M's down a colleague's blouse or -- God forbid -- killed a person in a car accident. These things happen, and sometimes the employer who served the cocktails gets blamed.
The good news is that California law usually does not hold people liable for serving alcohol, says employment law expert Jeffrey Wohl. But there are exceptions:
-- If you give drinks to obviously intoxicated minors -- otherwise known as kids -- and they hurt themselves or others, you may be responsible. And serving alcohol to anyone who is already drunk is a misdemeanor in California.
-- You can also get into trouble for providing a drunk driver with a car. If the car injures someone, you may have to pay.
-- If the drinking occurs at a business event, the boss can be held responsible. Fortunately, most office parties are considered social events. But a party can lose that distinction if employees are required to attend. Their actions become on-the-job behavior -- and the boss's problem.
The greatest danger for employers, though, is holiday sex harassment, says Wohl.
"As the workforce keeps getting more diverse, employers have to remember that what passes for fun and games for one person doesn't necessarily for others," he said.
So how does the boss stay out of trouble?
Don't hold the party at the office, don't make people go, don't serve drinks to minors -- and limit the amount of drinking.
And if you still want to get plastered, stay home.
Despite the risks, holiday office parties are more popular than ever. In fact, the percentage of companies that give parties has grown rapidly over the past five years, says executive search firm Battalia Winston International.
Only 16 percent of 101 large companies surveyed gave big parties in 1990, while 66 percent allowed small departmental events. This year, 89 percent held big bashes, almost all of them paid for by the company.
But corporate gift-giving to workers and clients is way down. About 66 percent of the companies were not planning to give any gifts this year, more than double last year's figure.
So what's with the Scrooge routine? "Gifts don't build teams," says Battalia Winston President Dale Winston.
JUST ADD WATER
Don't like your attorneys? Then grow your own.
Fed up with the lack of good patent attorneys, high-tech companies in Silicon Valley are sending their engineers to law school -- and getting back legal experts who really know the business.
Hewlett-Packard has been doing it for about four years, and now has three homegrown lawyers on staff and four in law school, says associate general counsel Stephen Fox.
"Folks in-house know the client -- the company as represented by various managers and engineers -- and with that comes considerable efficiency," Fox said.
Intel is also training its own lawyers, sending engineers to night school at Santa Clara University Law School and letting them learn about patents at one of the company's outside law firms in Sunnyvale.
Employees-turned-attorneys have an advantage over firm-trained colleagues because they are already comfortable with company culture. But they sometimes fall short when it comes to communication -- high-tech talk does not go over well in court. Several engineers at Intel, for example, have been forced to quit the legal program.
The big question: Will the homegrown movement spread to other areas of law?
It's possible, says AMD associate general counsel Mikio Ishimaru. He worked with one engineer who went to law school and ended up doing all sorts of legal work for the company.
But so far, it's the dire need for patent attorneys that is forcing companies to look inside.
"It's gotten to the point where you don't have much choice," says Ishimaru.
Cartoonists and publishers went bonkers a few months ago when the state Board of Equalization announced that it would tax the sale of cartoons to newspapers and other periodicals. But it looks like the crisis is over.
The board's committee on business taxes meets January 10, and it's sure to recommend some sort of sales-tax exemption for cartoons. From there, passage of an official exemption is just a matter of time.
How can you tell?
Of the five board members, three -- Dean Andal, Johan Klehs and Kathleen Connell -- say they are against the tax, and a majority is enough to kill it. Brad Sherman also says the cartoonists "have made some strong arguments." Only Ernie Dronenberg seems to be holding out.
It was a great year for Bay Area securities lawyers, with high-tech companies raising more money than ever through public offerings. So how do the lucky lawyers who did the deals feel about the experience?
"It was pretty miserable," said one to the Recorder, a legal newspaper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1995 San Francisco Chronicle · All Rights Reserved · All Unauthorized Duplication Prohibited
In the News
