Duff on Hospitality Law

At lunch time, Joy Ellis can be found at Addy’s Sandwich Bar, a food cart at the corner of SW 10^th and Alder. Here, she brings us an update on the thriving food cart industry in Portland.

Portland’s bustling food cart industry has come of age. With nearly 700 food carts actively dishing out some of Portland’s most creative and tasty cheap eats, the local food cart economy here is flourishing. Portland’s food cart industry has also helped build some thriving ancillary businesses, from food cart suppliers to sustainable to-go food containers to bicycle delivery services like Portland Pedal Power.

Food carts are generally a flexible, low-risk business model. They give an aspiring entrepreneur the opportunity to incubate a business idea and gather a following before taking the financial leap to a bricks-and-mortar restaurant, and they provide an affordable investment for business owners who prefer to stay small and avoid the risks and costs inherent in a storefront restaurant. 

The City of Portland is generally supportive of food carts, which pepper urban surface parking lots and occupy vacant lots and other underutilized sites. Portland’s regulations are relatively friendly (unlike some other cities, like New Orleans – where a food truck can’t park in the French Quarter, sell seafood, stay in one place for longer than 30 minutes or be parked near a restaurant). The various permits and licenses required of a Portland food cart vendor depend upon the size of the cart, its mobility, and its location (on private property or a public sidewalk). 

In May 2012, we blogged that the Hospitality Industry is on the road to recovery and Metro, Portland’s regional governing body, was once again considering an Oregon Convention Center (OCC) hotel. On September 13, 2012, Metro approved a proposal by local developers to construct a Hyatt Regency Hotel. The full development team consists of Mortenson Development, Mortenson Construction, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, ESG Architects, Ankrom Moisan Architects, Piper Jaffray & Co., Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels and Star Terra LLC/Schlesinger Companies.

The Mortenson team proposed four development options, two options for the StarTerra, LLC property (directly north of the OCC) and two options for the PDC-owned site (directly east of the OCC). For each site, Mortenson proposed two different development programs achieving approximately 600 rooms. The development program options include: 1) a 600-room Hyatt Regency or 2) a combination 420+/-room Hyatt Regency and 181-room Hyatt Place. Metro favored the Mortenson team because this team has extensive hotel development and financing experience. Further, Metro recognized that Hyatt currently does not have a strong presence in the Portland market and a Hyatt Regency hotel could serve national convention clients at the convention center as well as introduce new corporate Hyatt-based group business in Portland.

While the majority of hotel owners and operators rely on well-established cable companies and suppliers of in-room entertainment systems, this post serves as an important reminder of the need to ensure that these traditional providers of video programming do everything necessary to comply with the many laws and regulations that apply to the provision of video programming.

In the parlance of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a hotel that makes multiple channels of video programming available to its guests and customers is called a “non-cable multichannel video programming distributor” or “MVPD.” Typically, a non-cable MVPD does not cross a public right-of-way to deliver video programming.

While this type of video system may not meet the definition of a cable television system under the FCC’s rules, it is nonetheless subject to many of the same restrictions and requirements as a cable television operator. In fact, the FCC just recently issued a formal citation to a hotel located in Orange County, California, for violating the FCC’s rules. In addition, the FCC issued a Public Notice reminding all non-cable MVPDs of their obligations under the FCC’s rules.

• • The first obligation is to file a Notification on FCC Form 321 that the operator intends to operate on frequencies between 108 and 137 MHz and between 225 and 400 MHz – frequencies that correspond with cable channels 14-16, 25-53 and 98-99.  These frequencies are also used for aeronautical communications.
  • Because these systems have the potential to cause harmful interference to aeronautical communications, with potentially life-threatening results, the second obligation is to measure the systems on a regular basis to ensure that there is no excess “signal leakage.”  If there is, then the non-cable MVPD must suspend operations and fix the problem.  The most common cause for such “signal leakage” tends to be operators who seek to improve the signal within their facilities by “over-powering” the system or fail to properly maintain their systems (e.g. bare wires).
  • Except for certain small systems, operators must file with the FCC annual measurement reports (on Form 320).  In addition, operators must retain, for a period of two years, logs showing the date and location of each leakage source, the date of repair, and the probable cause of the leakage.

Remember when Facebook was just for college kids? Well, things have changed. These days it seems like even giant companies are using social media to show their warm and fuzzy sides and to connect with customers. Obviously, the CEOs of these companies are not spending their time maintaining the accounts and posting clever comments. On the contrary, companies usually dedicate one or more employees to speak on behalf of the company, through a company-sponsored Facebook, Twitter, or other social media account. If done right, an account can build up thousands of followers and grow to host useful information, photos, or communications, becoming an important resource for customers. 

But what happens if the employee who is running a company-sponsored account quits? In a perfect world, that employee would gladly relinquish control of the account back to the company. But what if the employee leaves on bad terms? What if the employee leaves for a rival company? What if the employee changes the password and starts posting negative comments, confidential information, or trade secrets? Sorry to get all lawyer-y, but these are the questions that keep me up nights.

Have you ever seen the iconic advertisements on the side of the Hotel Figueroa in Los Angeles? I bet you have - if not on a commute opportunity through the metropolis, then in a movie. Or, perhaps your business is similar to the Pier House 60, Clearwater Beach Marina Hotel where a condition of approval required compliance with both the public art requirements for the development and the local sign code. If you are interested in how to avoid an eight-armed strangle on your business’ commercial speech, read on for the latest on the enforceability of local sign regulations.

Some employers don’t take the Form I-9 seriously, but they should. The government has significantly increased its audits of all kinds of employers – not just the bad guys - and are assessing hefty fines for mere technical violations. This is particularly true in the hospitality industry, which can be a target for audits and which, because of employee turnover, has seen disproportionately high fines.

Every employer knows that the government’s one-page form, the “Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification,” must be completed for every new employee. And most make sure that they get theirs completed in a timely manner. But failure to be vigilant regarding the timelines or whether the forms are completed fully or correctly can cost even the best employer thousands of dollars in fines.

Most employers consider themselves good guys. They don’t purposely seek out or hire employees who are not authorized to be employed in the U.S. But those employers are mistaken if they think that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security, only audits unscrupulous employers. ICE does focus on certain industries in which there is a history of unauthorized employment, but the reality is that ICE has become very good at conducting audits, and has a team of forensic auditors on staff that it wants to keep busy. ICE does that by initiating seemingly random individual audits or nationwide actions in which up to 1,000 audits are served in a single day, providing as little as three days’ notice before documents have to be surrendered. The writing is on the wall – employers should plan for and expect a government audit of its Form I-9 documentation.

Managing a business is hard. Managing a hospitality business is even harder. You try to have your employees understand that top notch customer service is the be all and end all of your business. They are your reputation. They are your “face.” But, there is always that one employee…

Reality shows that use mystery diners or guests to demonstrate how the bad employee can drag down the entire business may be entertaining for the public, but are nightmares for hospitality managers. It is easy to do the immediate firing when the mystery diners have the bad behavior on film, but that rarely happens in the real world. So, how do you manage the employee who is causing you endless headaches? Set expectations, respond consistently and document your efforts to change the bad behavior.

The United Kingdom's Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a Statement of Objections this Tuesday alleging that industry giants Booking.com, Expedia, Inc. and InterContinental Hotels Group violated the UK’s Competition Act of 1998. The Statement of Objections will not be made public, but from OFT’s comments, its rate parity and best rate guarantees that are causing the trouble.

Back in February, we gave you the heads up that Oregon was in the process of adopting the 2009 FDA Food Code. Bar and food cart owners, restaurateurs, and folks employed in the food industry were urged to prepare for new changes in labeling laws and implement best practices to protect themselves from liability once the new rules were announced.

Last month the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Wyndham Worldwide Corporations and three of its subsidiaries (“Wyndham”) in U.S. District Court in Arizona. The complaint alleges that Wyndham engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to implement reasonable data security protections on computers used by independently owned Wyndham hotels and because the company’s public privacy policy misrepresented the security measures it actually employed to protect customer’s personal information. Specifically, the Commission alleged that Wyndham:

• • failed to use strong (and in some cases any) passwords to limit access to computer files;
  • failed to use firewalls to separate corporate and hotel computer systems;
  • improperly stored payment information in clear text;
  • failed to implement reasonable measures to detect security breaches;
  • failed to implement proper incident response procedures or  remedial steps after learning of a data breach; and
  • failed to adequately restrict access to company systems by third party vendors.

The claims stem from three separate data breaches over a period of two years in which hackers obtained the private information of more than 600,000 customers, which led to more than $10.6 million in fraudulent charges.