Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32JULY 2016 • FOGHORN 15 By Steven E. Bers, Esq., PV A General Counsel LEGAL O n May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) creating a cause of action under federal law for trade secret mis- appropriation, which previously had been governed only by state common law and each state’s adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The new law took effect immediately upon signing. To greatly summarize, the DTSA was enacted in order to address the rise of trade secret misappropriation generally, facilitate trade secret pro- tection in a technologically connected global economy, and promote unifor- mity in trade secret law and enforce- ment. For vessel employers who have contracts or policies with employees or contractors, which require the main- tenance of confidentiality, the DTSA requires certain affirmative action for all such contracts entered prospectively. TheAct itself provides the following directive to employers which issue confidentiality agreements to their employees: “(A) IN GENERAL—An employer shall provide notice of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.” “(B) POLICY DOCUMENT—An employer shall be considered to be in compliance with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A) if the employer provides a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer’s reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.” In compliance with the directives, the following is sample language which may be considered by vessel employers as a necessary addition to generic confi- Defend Trade Secrets Act: Requiring Change to Employer Confidentiality Agreements dentiality agreements: “Any provision to the contrary not- withstanding, it shall not be a violation of the Employee’s confidentiality obli- gation if disclosure of confidential in- formation (A) is made (i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.” n About the Author Steven E. Bers, Esq., is Chairman of the Maritime and Employment Law Sections of the law firm of Whiteford Taylor & Preston, Baltimore/Washington, D.C. He serves as PVA’s General Counsel, advising passenger vessel owners relating to marine and employment matters. He may be contacted at 410-347-8724, or sbers@ wtplaw.com.