Category: Constitutional Law

Imperfect Fit: Abercrombie Store Threatens Location In Tailored-Clothing Mecca Savile Row

Womble Carlyle

We’ve all heard the various means of describing the inappropriate place for an otherwise benign thing, rendering the otherwise benign thing a hazard or a liability or just plain offensive.  In 1855, the author Robert De Valcourt referred to, “An awkward man in society is like a bull in a china shop, always doing mischief.”  Robert De Valcourt, The Illustrated Manners Book: A Manual of Good Behavior and Polite Accomplishments (1855).  In 1926, Justice Sutherland opined, “A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.”  Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

Village of Euclid, of course, upheld the constitutionality of the zoning concept, a replacement of single purposes ordinances and private litigation for land use management.  See David Owens, Land Use Law In North Carolina (2d ed. 2011).

bull china shop retail real estate land use

“Late Ming dynasty, kaolin and pottery stone foundation, cobalt firing enamelling with Arabic lettering.  If only I could find a well-tailored suit and some skinny jeans to go with this vase.” 

Well, the “pig” or the “bull” in one particular instance is anticipated to be an Abercrombie and Fitch children’s store in the heart of London.

The “china shop” or the “parlor”?  Well, that may be Savile Row, legendary collection of fine British tailors and suitmaker to the rich and famous.  Consider this quote from Mark Henderson, chairman of “heritage tailor Gieves & Hawkes”, reported by CNBC about objection to the Abercrombie store:

“Opening a kids store on Savile Row is a somewhat bizarre thing to do. It’s a fairly narrow street, it’s got its own atmosphere to it.  It’s just fundamentally a mistake from Abercrombie – they don’t get everything right.”

We don’t purport to know the land use laws in London, we’ll leave that to the Ealing Common Land Use Barrister blog, but it’s always interesting to see just how common and universal land use issues can be.

It’s also interesting to see how different motives underpin all land use issues.  For example, one might assume the “hubub” over the Abercrombie store is a degradation of the historical nature of the narrow street, as Mr. Henderson alludes.  Well, maybe the distaste is different for another, even another from a seemingly similar perspective.  Consider this worry about “higher rents”, from John Hitchcock of “bespoke tailor Anderson & Sheppard” (man, I love the British):

“One or two of the tailors are concerned it might put the rents up, and it will do, I suppose.  There’s only so much rent we can pay. Our costs are already high as we make every suit by hand – unlike the big chains which don’t make their products on the premises.”

The Lesson of the Day

Land use decisions are nuanced legally but they are also very nuanced politically.  In this one space, one street within one small universe of British tailors, we have two very distinct motives for refusing the Abercrombie store.  Yes, both are opposed to the store, but each is opposed for a different reason, which means a political salve must address, at least, two distinct concerns.

One must fully and fairly understand the forces against which one is working, before success is at hand.  I think Sun Tzu, the Zhou Dynasty Land Use Litigator, said that.

Article By:

 of

Picture This: The National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice Wants to Sue Employer for Issuing Social Media Policy with Photo/Video Ban

Michael Best Logohe National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice (the Division) recently recommended that the Board issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing its social media policy without first bargaining with two unions, and for maintaining a social media policy that included unlawful provisions. Although the Division analyzed several social media policy provisions, its criticism of two provisions in particular—a ban on using photo and video of company premises, and restrictions on employees’ use of company logos and trademarks—makes it very difficult for employers to protect their brands while at the same time complying with federal labor laws.

Giant Foods’ social media policy forbade employees from using company logos, trademarks, or graphics without prior approval from the company. The policy also prohibited employees from using photographs or video of the “Company’s premises, processes, operations, or products” without prior approval as well.

The Division concluded that these provisions were unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) should issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing them. As employers are becoming keenly aware, the NLRA safeguards employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity. Such activity includes group discussions and some comments by individual employees that relate to their wages, hours, and other terms conditions of employment.

The Division concluded that banning employees from using company logos or trademarks was unlawful because: (1) employees should be allowed to use logos and trademarks in online communications, including electronic leaflets or pictures of picket signs with the employer’s logo; and (2) those labor-related interests did not raise the concerns that intellectual property laws were passed to protect, such as a business’ interest in guarding its trademarks from being used by competitors selling inferior products.

Additionally the Division concluded that restricting employees from using photo and video of company premises unlawfully prevented them from sharing information about participation in protected concerted activities, such as snapping a picture of a picket line.

Unfortunately, the Board’s expansive view will likely hamper companies’ ability to prevent damage to their brand and reputation.  Not allowing employers to ban the taking of videos and photos on their premises, or restricting the use of company logos/trademarks could lead to public relations nightmares such as the one Subway Foods recently endured after it was revealed that an employee posted a graphic picture on Instagram of his genitalia on a sub, with the tag line “I will be your sandwich artist today.”

Given the prevalence of cell phones with photo and video capabilities, and the ease of uploading photos and videos to the internet, a company that cannot control its employees’ use of those devices on their premises will be one bad employee decision away from public embarrassment.

What else can be gleaned from the Giant Foods Advice Memorandum? That the Board’s General Counsel will continue to prod employers to eliminate blanket bans on certain kinds of employee conduct from their social media policies and replace those bans with provisions that include specific examples of what employee conduct the policy prohibits. The Board and its General Counsel have previously found social media policies that restricted employee use of confidential information and complaints about an employer’s labor practices as unlawful; Giant Foods makes clear that the agency is also scrutinizing other kinds of policy provisions that potentially could infringe on an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activities.

Accordingly, employers should review their policies with counsel so that they can tailor them to restrict employee conduct that will damage the company and its brand, but not be “reasonably” read to restrict employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activities.

New Requirements for Illinois Businesses under Concealed Carry Act

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Illinois employers may be surprised to learn what action items may be necessary for their businesses following enactment of Illinois’ new Concealed Carry Act.

Facing a deadline imposed by the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 ruling that the state’s concealed carry ban was unconstitutional, on July 9 the Illinois state legislature overrode Governor Quinn’s amendatory veto to enact Public Act 98-0063, which includes the new Firearm Concealed Carry Act (“Act”) and related laws and amendatory legislation. The Act makes Illinois the 50th state to enact legislation allowing concealed carry, and permits Illinois residents and non-residents who meet specified qualifications to apply for a license to carry a “concealed firearm” — defined as a concealed loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person or within a vehicle — in the state. Among other provisions, the Act specifies qualifications, procedures and content of applications for licenses and areas where those holding licenses will be prohibited from carrying firearms. Individuals cannot apply for a concealed carry license in Illinois until the Department of State Police issues the applications (the Department has up to 180 days to do so).

Required Postings for “Prohibited Areas”

The Act prohibits authorized licensees from carrying a firearm into “prohibited areas” and further mandates clear notices at entrances of such venues that firearms are prohibited. (Required signage and accompanying rules will be issued by the Department of State Police and are not yet available.) Among others, the following are types of establishments subject to these requirements that must post clear notices prohibiting the carrying of firearms:

  • Areas controlled by public or private hospitals or their affiliates, mental health facilities, nursing homes, public or private elementary or secondary schools, pre-schools, and child care facilities.
  • Areas under the control of an establishment serving alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment’s gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol. (The Act further provides that owners of such establishments who fail to prohibit concealed firearms are subject to penalties up to $5000.)
  • Buildings, classrooms, laboratories, clinics, hospitals, artistic, athletic or entertainment venues and other areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.
  • Events authorized by Special Event Retailer’s license during the time alcohol will be sold.
  • Areas under the control of a gaming facility licensed under the Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975.
  • Public gatherings or special events conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a government permit.
  • Any stadium, arena, or the property or areas under the control of a stadium, arena, or any collegiate or professional sporting event.
  • Areas under the control of a museum, amusement park, zoo, or airport.
  • Any areas owned, leased, controlled or used by a nuclear energy storage, weapons, or development site.
  • Buses, trains, or other forms of transportation paid in whole or in part with public funds, and any areas controlled by a public transportation facility.
  • Areas where firearms are prohibited under federal law.

Prohibition by Other Owners Desiring to Maintain Gun-Free Facilities

Employers and other property owners can still prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on property under their control that is not among the enumerated “prohibited areas” provided they post the state-approved sign indicating that firearms are prohibited. (Owners of private residences desiring to prohibit firearms need not post the sign.) Because this provision of the Act applies to owners of “private real property” however, it raises questions for businesses operating on leased premises who desire to ban firearms. At a minimum, such businesses should ensure that their landlord’s concealed carry policy is consistent with their own.

Special Provisions for Parking Areas

Note that while the carrying of concealed firearms may be prohibited in buildings, facilities and properties — including parking areas — authorized licensees can still drive with concealed firearms into the parking areas, and can store the firearms and ammunition in a case in their locked vehicle or in a locked container out of plain view. Thus while licensed employees and visitors may be prohibited from bringing a firearm into a business or venue, they cannot be prohibited from keeping the firearm in their car. Employers must be sure that any policies or procedures governing handguns in the workplace do not infringe on the rights of employees to keep authorized handguns locked in their cars, even if in employer-owned parking lots.

An Evolving Area of Law

This area of the law continues to evolve. On July 16, Chicago’s City Council unanimously voted to strengthen the City’s assault weapons ban with measures that prohibit more weapons, add stricter penalties for violations, and outline student safety zones in order to meet a 10-day deadline imposed by companion amendments within Public Act 98-0063.

Article By:

 of

Michigan Supreme Court Won’t Give Advisory Opinion on Right-to-Work

barnes

Saying simply that “we are not persuaded that granting the request would be an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion,” the Michigan Supreme Court on Friday denied Gov. Rick Snyder’s request that the high court render an advisory opinion about the constitutionality of Michigan’s new right-to-work law.

Relying upon the provision in the state’s constitution’s that allows the governor to request the “opinion of the supreme court on important questions of law upon solemn occasions as to the constitutionality of legislation after it has been enacted into law but before its effective date,” the Governor had asked the Court for a ruling largely because the state’s public workers’ collective agreements are set to expire at the end of 2013. In a brief filed in support of the request for an advisory opinion, Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch said that an advisory opinion would prevent an “impasse at the negotiating table.”

Notwithstanding the Court’s decision, six lawsuits continue challenging the Act. Two of them are brought by unions or labor coalitions. Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Callaghan has been brought in federal court and challenges the constitutionality of the Act as to private sector workers. UAW v. Green, currently pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals, challenges the constitutionality as it applies to public sector workers. Here’s a helpful link to a chart describing the pending litigation.

SG Bursch also said in his filing with the Supreme Court that barring Supreme Court action, the state would consider filing a motion seeking an expedited ruling in the Green case.

The Detroit Free Press coverage on the court’s decision can be found here.

Article By:

 of

Defense of Marriage Act’s Demise (DOMA) – What it Means for Canadian Residents with U.S. Ties

Altro Levy LogoLast week, the US Supreme Court issued an historic and landmark ruling in the case of US v. Windsor. It has been hailed in the media as the demise of the Defense Of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), and celebrated as an extension of more than 1,000 federal benefits to same-sex couples.

In US v. Windsor, Edith Windsor brought suit against the US government after she was ordered to pay $363,000 in US estate tax upon the death of her wife Thea Spyer. Edith and Thea were legally married in Canada in 2007, but the US federal government did not recognize their marriage when Thea passed away in 2009. Under DOMA gay marriage was not recognized, even if it was legal in the jurisdiction where it was performed. This lack of recognition meant that Edith could not take advantage of the marital deduction that would have allowed her to inherit from her wife without paying US estate tax.

In its ruling on June 26th, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US federal government could not discriminate against same-sex married couples in the administration of its federal laws and benefits as previously dictated by DOMA. Same-sex couples, who are legally married in one of the 13 states that recognize gay marriage, or a country like Canada, now have access to the same federal protections and benefits as a heterosexual married couple.

Tax Benefits

The demise of DOMA will bring with it a multitude of changes under US tax law. We will not attempt to enumerate all of them here, though we will provide a brief overview of key changes for our Canadian and American clients.

i. US Estate Tax

The case of US v. Windsor was based on the US estate tax, which is imposed by the US federal government on both US citizens and residents, as well as non-residents who own US assets worth more than $60,000 USD. Currently US citizens and residents with less than $5.25 Million USD in worldwide assets do not owe US estate tax on death. Canadians with worldwide assets of $5.25 Million USD or less receive a unified credit under the Canada-US Tax Treaty that works to eliminate any US estate tax owed on their US property.

Under federal law a US citizen may pass his entire estate to his US citizen spouse tax-free upon death. Up until last week this rollover was unavailable to same-sex couples.

Canadian same-sex couples should now benefit from the Canada-US Tax Treaty provisions that provide a marital credit to the surviving spouse. This allows for a doubling up of credit against any potential US estate tax due on US property. Now a Canadian same-sex spouse can inherit a worldwide estate worth up to $10.5 Million USD and should see little to no tax on US assets due upon the death of the first spouse.

ii. Gift Tax

The US imposes a tax on gifts if they exceed $14,000 USD per recipient per year. There is an exemption for gifts between spouses, which are generally not taxable.

Gifts made in the US between non-US citizen non-resident spouses are taxable, but the annual exemption is $139,000 USD instead of $14,000 USD. Canadian spouses who gift each other US property, US corporate stocks, etc. may gift up to $139,000 USD per year without incurring US gift tax.

These exemptions have now been extended to same-sex couples, expanding their ability to use gifting for tax and estate planning.

iii. US Income Tax

Many Canadians move to the US each year, in part because of the lower personal tax rates. In the US spouses are allowed to engage in a form of income splitting by filing a joint income tax return. By filing jointly, married couples are also generally able to take advantage of further credits and deductions not afforded to individual or single filers. Being able to file jointly can be highly tax advantageous.

Previously, same-sex couples had to file either separately or as head of household. Now they have the option of filing jointly as spouses, and gaining access to the aforementioned income splitting, credits and deductions.

Couples may file up to three years of amended US Income Tax returns if they believe that they would have been entitled to a larger tax return by filing jointly in those years.

iv. Other Tax Benefits

In the US most individuals receive health insurance through their employer at least up until they qualify for US Medicare at age 65. Previously, if the employer sponsored health insurance plan covered the same-sex spouse as well, then it was considered a taxable benefit. Such coverage will now also be tax-free for same-sex couples.

Retirement Benefits

Among the many benefits now extended to same-sex couples are a variety of “Retirement Benefits.”

i. Social Security and Medicare Benefits

With the end of DOMA, same-sex couples may now qualify for retirement, death, and disability Social Security benefits based on their spouse’s qualifying US employment history. For example, same-sex couples that do not have the required US employment history to qualify for US Social Security benefits on their own may now qualify for spousal Social Security benefits based on their spouse’s qualifying employment history. These spousal Social Security benefits are typically equal to 50% of the Social Security benefits received by the spouse with the qualifying employment history.

Additionally, spouses can qualify for US Medicare based on only one spouse’s qualifying US employment. This allows access to premium-free, or reduced-premium, health coverage in retirement.

Previously these important retirement benefits were not available to same-sex spouses.

ii. Individual Retirement Accounts

Important changes to the rights and recognition of spouses under US retirement savings plans result from the end of DOMA. Same-sex couples will now be recognized under 401(k), 403(b), IRA, Roth IRA, and similar plans. Spouses will be required to give their consent for any non-spouse beneficiary designations for these accounts. They will be treated as spouses for purposes of determining required distributions. For example, an inheriting same-sex spouse will not have to begin IRA distributions until age 70 ½, whereas previously he would have had to begin required distributions immediately as would any non-spouse beneficiary.

Immigration

One of the biggest questions after the US Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA was whether there would be immediate changes to US immigration policy. Previously the US government did not recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. This meant that a US citizen spouse could not sponsor his husband for immigration to the US as a permanent resident (a.k.a. green card holder).

Last week, shortly after the ruling on DOMA, Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference that the USCIS would begin issuing green cards to qualifying same-sex couples.

As of Friday, June 29, 2013, USCIS began issuing green cards to same-sex spouses. USCIS has stated that it has been keeping a record of spousal green card petitions denied only due to a same-sex marriage for the past two years. It is expected to reopen and reconsider these spousal sponsorship petitions that were previously denied due to same-sex marriage.

Conclusion

The demise of DOMA is exciting news for Americans, and Canadians with US ties. It provides same sex couples a wealth of new tax and estate planning opportunities, not to mention new opportunities for retirement and immigration planning. It is not too early to review your current planning, and take advantage of these changes.

Article By:

 of

What Windsor Means for Same-Sex Married Couples Seeking U.S. Immigration Benefits

Mintz Logo

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is unconstitutional. This Section of DOMA prohibited the U.S. government from conferring any federal benefits to same-sex couples who were married in any jurisdiction in the world.

horshoe ring

What does the Windsor decision mean for same-sex couples seeking immigration benefits?

On the immigration front, DOMA has been the main obstacle prohibiting married same-sex couples from accessing any immigration benefits that would otherwise flow to a spouse. For example, a U.S. citizen may sponsor a spouse who is a foreign national for permanent residence, and that foreign national spouse is considered an “immediate relative” of a U.S. citizen and exempt from annual numerical limitations on immigrants. Before Windsor, this option of “immediate relative” sponsorship did not exist for same-sex couples. Same-sex spouses also were not able to qualify for derivative nonimmigrant visas, or to qualify as dependents in an employment-based immigrant visa or adjustment of status process. Windsor has permanently shifted this landscape, with same-sex married couples being recognized as married and therefore able to access immigration benefits, provided they can demonstrate eligibility under the law for the specific benefits sought.

What marriages are valid under Windsor?

Generally, if a couple’s marriage is valid where it is performed, it is valid for purposes of immigration law. If you and your foreign national spouse were married in one of the 12 U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriage or in a foreign country that recognizes same-sex marriage, such as Canada, your green card sponsorship and application process should be treated exactly like the application of a different-sex couple. In fact, Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in Windsor, married her wife in Canada. To determine the validity of the marriage, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) focuses on the place where the marriage took place, not the location where one or both spouses live. This same principle is applied by other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security as well as at U.S. Embassies and Consulates.

Recent Guidance from the Federal Government

We expect government agencies to implement the Windsor decision swiftly. This means that immediately we will see changes at the various federal agencies that process applications for immigration benefits and visas. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a statement following the Court’s decision. She directed USCIS “to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.” Recent Department of Homeland Security guidance is now clear that family-based immigrant visas will no longer “be automatically denied as a result of the same-sex nature of your marriage.” Following the Court’s decision, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the Department of State (DOS) will work with the Department of Justice and other agencies “to review all relevant statues as well as benefits administered” by DOS. We expect to see guidance from U.S. Consulates in the coming weeks.

Conclusion

Same-sex couples who are married now have equal access to immigration benefits. The scope of the Windsor decision extends to same-sex spouses of individuals pursuing employment-based immigration benefits, such as green card and nonimmigrant visa sponsorship. We will continue to monitor developments in the law and provide guidance on immigration options for LGBT families.

Article By:

 of

In a Pro-Employee World, U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Offer Employers Hope

GT Law

In a pair of important opinions released last week, both of which are helpful to employers, the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar for employees asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. _, No. 12-484 (2013), the Court ruled that an employee claiming retaliation must do more than show that retaliatory animus was a “motivating factor” for discipline – it must be the “but-for” cause.  In Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. _, No. 11-556 (2013), the Court ruled that for employers to be held vicariously liable for the actions of a “supervisor,” the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “supervisor” had power to take a “tangible employment action,” such as transferring or terminating the employee. Authority merely to direct aspects of the employee’s work will not suffice.

Nassar and Vance represent significant victories for employers faced with Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims. The heightened requirements that charging employees now face should enhance an employer’s prospects for obtaining summary judgment and, failing that, impose a more rigorous hurdle for plaintiffs at trial.

Nassar Imposes More Stringent “But-For” Causation Test for Title VII Retaliation Claims

Plaintiff in Nassar was a physician of Middle Eastern descent. The defendant university hired him as a member of its medical faculty, and under the terms of the university’s affiliation agreement with a local hospital, the plaintiff also worked at the hospital as a staff physician. The plaintiff alleged that the University’s Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine harassed him because of her discriminatory “bias against Arabs and Muslims.” The plaintiff ultimately resigned from the university faculty, and accused his superior of discriminatory bias in his letter of resignation, which he sent to the university’s chair of Internal Medicine and other faculty members. The chair was allegedly dismayed by the public accusations of discrimination, and said that the chief must “be publicly exonerated” of the charges against her. When he learned that plaintiff had been offered a staff physician position at the hospital, the chair objected that the affiliation agreement required all staff physicians to also be faculty members, and the hospital therefore withdrew its offer to plaintiff.

Plaintiff brought suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that he had been constructively discharged by reason of the chief’s discriminatory harassment, and that the chair subsequently allegedly retaliated against him for complaining of that harassment. A jury found for plaintiff on both claims, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed only as to the retaliation claim, holding that retaliation claims under Title VII required a showing merely that retaliation was a “motivating factor” for an adverse employment action rather than its “but-for” cause.

The Supreme Court vacated that decision, concluding that “the text, structure and history of Title VII demonstrate that a plaintiff making a retaliation claim … must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” The Court reasoned that because Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision appears in a different section from the status-based discrimination ban, which utilizes the lesser “motivating factor” causation test, the “but-for” standard applies to Title VII retaliation claims. Accordingly, “Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” To establish a retaliation claim, employees must now show that their employer would not have taken the challenged employment action but for the employee’s protected activity.

Vance Limits “Supervisors” to Those with Power to Take a Tangible Employment Action

In a second critical decision for employers, plaintiff in Vance, an African-American woman, worked in the university’s Banquet and Catering Division of Dining Services. Plaintiff alleged that a fellow employee, a white woman named Davis, harassed and intimidated her because of her race.  Plaintiff sued under Title VII, alleging that her white co-worker created a racially hostile work environment. “The parties vigorously dispute[d] the precise nature and scope of Davis’ duties, but they agree[d] that Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Vance.”

The District Court granted defendant summary judgment, holding the university was notvicariously liable for Davis’s alleged actions because she could not take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff and therefore was not a “supervisor.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide “who qualifies as a ‘supervisor’” under Title VII. The Court held that “an employee is a ‘supervisor’ for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII [only] if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim” and affirmed.

In analyzing when an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, the Court defined “tangible employment actions” to include effecting “‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.’” The Court specifically rejected the EEOC’s definition of “supervisor,” which tied “supervisor status to the ability to exercise significant direction over another’s daily work[,]” as “a study in ambiguity.” Hence, under Title VII, if an employee is not authorized to impose tangible employment actions against another, the employer cannot be vicariously liable for the subject employee’s alleged harassment.

Vance enhances an employer’s ability to limit the company’s responsibility for harassment. Employers should remain mindful of the duties of their employees, ensuring that only key management and supervisory personnel possess the power to effect a “significant change in employment status”. Clear definitions of an employee’s responsibilities should greatly limit any future claims of vicarious liability against employers. This more precise definition of “supervisor” should, like Nassar, increase the likelihood of dismissal at the summary judgment stage and help obtain favorable in limine and trial rulings.

Conclusion

Nassar and Vance afford significant advantages to employers defending against discrimination and retaliation claims.  Importantly, although the decisions themselves were concerned with claims arising under federal anti-discrimination (not just Title VII) laws, the Court’s reasoning may well find acceptance among state courts, which frequently apply the Title VII analysis to claims asserted under analogous state laws. Nassar and Vance are likely to prove valuable tools to employers defending against claims of discrimination and/or retaliation, increasing both the prospects of obtaining summary judgment and, if necessary, the odds of success at trial.

Article By:

Estate Planning Opportunities Arising from Recent Landmark Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Marriages of Same-Sex Couples

Katten Muchin

On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in the case of United States v. Windsor (“Windsor”). In a related case, the Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal from the federal district court ruling that struck down California’s Proposition 8 (which overturned marriages of same-sex couples in California) as unconstitutional in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry (“Perry”), leaving intact the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. This advisory summarizes the estate and income tax planning opportunities and other topics for consideration arising from the Windsor and Perry decisions. Married same-sex couples should consult with their advisors in light of their particular facts and circumstances in order to take maximum advantage of the change in the law. Unmarried same-sex couples should now consider whether to marry.

In Windsor, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple, were married in Canada in 2007 after having been together in New York for over forty years. New York law did not permit marriages between same-sex couples at the time but recognized marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions. Spyer died in 2009, and Windsor inherited all of Spyer’s estate as Spyer’s surviving spouse. However, because of DOMA, which defines “marriage” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”, the federal government refused to recognize the couple’s marriage for federal estate tax purposes. As a result, Windsor’s inheritance from Spyer was not entitled to the unlimited marital deduction from federal estate tax that would have been available had Windsor and Spyer’s marriage been recognized by the federal government. After paying the estate taxes owed on her inheritance as a result of DOMA, Windsor sued for a refund of the estate taxes on the grounds that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex married couples. Windsor prevailed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and also in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court has now agreed with Windsor, holding that “DOMA seeks to injure the very class [of married same-sex couples] New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.” The Supreme Court further explained that DOMA’s “demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law.”

In Perry, two same-sex couples wished to become married in California. Though the California Supreme Court held in 2008 that the California Constitution required the State of California to recognize marriages of same-sex couples, California voters passed Proposition 8 later the same year, amending the California Constitution to provide that only “marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” As a result of Proposition 8’s passage, the two couples were unable to marry. They sued the California governor, attorney general and various other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws (the “California officials”), claiming that Proposition 8 violated their rights to due process and equal protection under the US Constitution. In the US District Court for the Northern District of California (the “district court”), the California officials refused to defend Proposition 8, but the private parties who were the proponents of Proposition 8 (the “Proposition 8 proponents”) successfully intervened to defend the measure. After the district court held that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, the California officials declined to appeal the decision and the Proposition 8 proponents appealed. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the district court on the grounds that the Proposition 8 proponents lacked standing to appeal because they were merely private parties and were not properly authorized under state law to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional remains in place and California soon will be required to permit same-sex couples to marry. As a result of the Windsor decision, such marriages also will be entitled to federal recognition.

Estate Planning Opportunities Arising from Windsor 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor requires the federal government to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Note, however, that the Supreme Court limited the scope of its decision to “lawful marriages”. Therefore, the decision likely will not be interpreted to require the federal government to recognize so-called “marriage equivalent” status that is not actually “marriage” under state law, i.e., civil unions, domestic partnerships and registered domestic partnerships. The District of Columbia and thirteen states permit marriages of same-sex couples. Those states are California (effective once the stay issued by the Ninth Circuit is lifted pursuant to the Perry decision, which is likely to be imminent), Connecticut, Delaware (effective July 1, 2013), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (effective August 1, 2013), New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (effective August 1, 2013), Vermont and Washington.

Another unresolved issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision applies to married same-sex couples who lawfully married in a jurisdiction that permits marriages of same-sex couples (e.g., New York), but who are domiciled and/or resident in a state that does not permit or recognize such marriages (e.g., Texas). Accordingly, until these issues are resolved as a result of subsequent litigation, legislation and/or regulation, it is not clear whether Windsor will be interpreted also to apply to same-sex couples with a marriage-equivalent status (but not marriage) or married same-sex couples who are domiciled and/or resident in a state that does not permit and/or recognize marriages of same-sex couples.

Against that background, at a minimum, married same-sex couples domiciled and/or resident in states that permit and/or recognize marriages of same-sex couples likely will be entitled to the more than 1,000 benefits available to married opposite-sex couples under federal law. Some of those 1,000 benefits present immediate estate planning opportunities, including the following:

1. Review estate planning documents to ensure that the amount and structure of any spousal bequests remain appropriate. 

Federal recognition of marriages of same-sex couples leads to the availability of the unlimited marital deduction from federal estate tax and gift tax for transfers between same-sex spouses. Existing estate planning documents may have been drafted with the assumption that any gift or bequest to a spouse of the same sex over and above the individual’s applicable exclusion amount from federal estate tax and/or federal gift tax (the “Applicable Exclusion Amount” —currently $5,250,000, adjusted annually for inflation) would be subject to federal estate tax (currently at a maximum rate of 40%). However, that assumption is no longer true. Indeed, such gifts and bequests, if properly structured, are now entitled to the unlimited marital deduction. In addition, under the so-called “portability” provisions of federal gift and estate tax laws, under certain circumstances a surviving spouse of the same sex will also be entitled to use any portion of the deceased spouse’s unused Applicable Exclusion Amount (the “DSUE”), allowing the surviving spouse to make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce the amount of estate taxes owed upon the surviving spouse’s death (note, however, that DSUE does not increase the surviving spouse’s applicable exemption from the federal generation-skipping transfer tax (“Federal GST Exemption”)). Accordingly, a married same-sex couple may wish to modify their estate planning documents to provide that any assets included in their estates in excess of the Applicable Exclusion Amounts will pass to the surviving spouse, either outright or in a properly structured marital trust for the spouse’s benefit, thus deferring all federal estate taxes until the death of the surviving spouse.

Estate planning documents may also be revised, if appropriate, to include a separate marital trust that is designed to permit a spouse to use any of the individual’s unused Federal GST Exemption that remains after the individual’s death.

2. Review retirement account beneficiary designations and joint and survivor annuity elections to ensure that they remain appropriate. 

A surviving spouse is entitled to roll over a decedent spouse’s retirement account into the surviving spouse’s retirement account without being required to take minimum distributions or lump sum distributions until such time as the surviving spouse ordinarily would be required to take minimum distributions (usually upon reaching age 70½). As a result of the Windsor decision, this benefit is now available to married same-sex couples. Accordingly, married same-sex spouses should consider naming each other as the beneficiary of his or her retirement accounts in order to defer income tax on the rolled over retirement account as long as possible.

With regard to any retirement plans that are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the spouse of a participant in such a plan may automatically be a beneficiary of the retirement plan as a result of the Windsor decision. Accordingly, if a participant in an ERISA-covered plan (e.g., a 401(k) plan) wishes to designate someone other than his or her spouse as a beneficiary, such participant will need to obtain the consent of his or her spouse to make such a designation effective. Prior to Windsor, consent was not needed from a spouse of the same sex. However, afterWindsor, such consent is now required. Separately, if a participant previously made an election to waive joint and survivor annuity benefits after the date of the marriage, the participant may be able to make a new election at this time, and a new election may be required in order to be valid if the marriage is newly recognized under Windsor.

3. Consider replacing individual life insurance policies with survivor policies. 

Many same-sex spouses previously purchased individual life insurance policies of which the other spouse is the beneficiary (either directly via beneficiary designation or indirectly through a life insurance trust) in order to provide the surviving spouse with sufficient liquid assets that may be used to pay federal estate taxes due upon the death of the first to die. With the unlimited marital deduction and DSUE now available to married same-sex couples, as explained above, there may be little or no need for such liquidity upon the death of the first spouse to die. Thus, a married same-sex couple should consider replacing such individual policies with so-called “survivor” or “second-to-die” policies that pay benefits only upon the death of the surviving spouse. Such policies will still provide liquidity to children or other beneficiaries of the married same-sex couple and are generally less expensive than individual policies having the same death benefits.

4. Consider splitting gifts between spouses. 

Until now, each spouse could make gifts only up to the annual exclusion amount from federal gift tax and/or federal generation-skipping transfer tax (the “Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount” and the “Annual GST Exclusion Amount”, respectively—each currently $14,000) without using any portion of his or her Applicable Exclusion Amount. Going forward, however, each spouse may now make gifts from his or her own assets and, with the other spouse’s consent, have such gifts deemed to have been made one-half by the other spouse for purposes of federal gift tax and GST tax laws. Both spouses acting together in this way currently may give up to $28,000 to any individual without using any portion of either spouse’s Applicable Exclusion Amount (note that the Annual GST Exclusion Amount does not always apply to gifts made in trust).

5. Amend previously filed federal estate, gift and income tax returns and/or file protective claims as appropriate.

Gifts made to spouses. If one spouse previously made taxable gifts to the other spouse and reduced the donor’s Applicable Exclusion Amount by the amount that the gift exceeded the Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount and/or the donor’s Federal GST Exemption by the amount that the gift exceeded the Annual GST Tax Exclusion Amount, it may be possible to amend the donor’s prior gift tax returns (subject to the limitations period discussed below) and retroactively claim the marital deduction for the gifts made in those years, thus increasing the donor’s Applicable Exclusion Amount and/or reclaim the Federal GST Exemption used. By doing so, the donor may make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce federal estate and/or GST taxes due upon his or her death. Similarly, any gift taxes or GST taxes actually paid may be refundable.

Gifts made to third parties. To the extent that either spouse previously used a portion of his or her Applicable Exclusion Amount and/or paid gift taxes or GST taxes by making gifts to third parties over and above his or her Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount and/or Annual GST Exclusion Amount, it may be possible to amend prior federal gift tax returns in order to retroactively split such gifts with the other spouse, thus increasing the donor’s Applicable Exclusion Amount and/or Federal GST Exemption. Again, doing so will allow the donor to make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce federal estate taxes and GST taxes due upon the donor’s death. Similarly, any gift or GST taxes actually paid may be refundable.

Inheritances from decedent spouses. In cases where a decedent spouse’s estate paid federal estate taxes on assets that were inherited by a surviving spouse of the same sex, it may be possible to amend the decedent spouse’s federal estate tax return (subject to the limitations period discussed below) and retroactively claim a refund for the estate taxes paid. If the decedent spouse’s estate did not pay estate taxes and he or she died in 2010 or a subsequent year, under the portability provisions of federal estate tax laws, the surviving spouse may be able to claim the deceased spouse’s DSUE, thus allowing the surviving spouse to make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce the amount of estate taxes owed upon the surviving spouse’s death (note, however, that DSUE does not increase the surviving spouse’s Federal GST Exemption).

Income taxes. Both spouses may also amend prior year income tax returns to change their filing status from single to married filing jointly and obtain a refund if the amount of tax owed based on their married filing status is less than that owed based on their prior single status.

Retroactivity. The extent to which married same-sex couples will be allowed to amend prior tax returns depends on the extent to which Windsor is applied retroactively and whether the applicable limitations period has passed with regard to each tax return (i.e., ordinarily three years from the date the tax return was originally due or filed (if on extension) or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later). For example, it may no longer be possible to amend a 2009 individual income tax return due on April 15, 2010, that was not put on extension, but individual income tax returns for 2010, 2011 and 2012 likely may be amended. That said, it is conceivable that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will permit amendments as far back as the year of the marriage on the basis that neither spouse lawfully could have amended his or her tax returns prior to theWindsor decision. In either case, it will take some time for the IRS to develop policies and procedures to implement Windsor, and amended returns should be filed in accordance with applicable published guidance from the IRS, if available. In any situation where the limitations period is about to expire for a particular tax return, a married same-sex couple should consider filing a protective claim for a refund with the IRS in order to preserve the ability to obtain such a refund after the IRS has provided a means to amend the return.

6. Reside in a state that permits and/or recognizes marriages of same-sex couples. 

If a married same-sex couple was lawfully married in a jurisdiction that permitted the marriage but now reside in a state that does not permit and/or recognize the marriage, that couple should consider moving to a state that either permits marriages of same-sex couples or recognizes such marriages lawfully performed in other states if they wish to be certain to enjoy the federal benefits now potentially accorded to marriages of same-sex couples.

7. Non-citizen spouses should consider seeking permanent residency and/or becoming citizens. 

Until now, non-citizen spouses were not eligible for citizenship or permanent residency on the basis of their marriage to a spouse of the same sex who was a US citizen. As a result of the Windsor decision, however, non-citizens may be eligible for permanent residency and/or citizenship on that basis. Though there are many benefits to becoming a permanent resident or citizen, there are also numerous tax and non-tax consequences that should be carefully considered before making such an important decision.

Estate Planning Opportunities Arising from Perry 

California will now be required to permit marriages of same-sex couples, but other states that do not permit and/or recognize marriages of same-sex couples will not be required to do so. California married same-sex couples will enjoy all of the benefits available to married couples under federal law and thus should consider the above recommendations. In addition, married same-sex couples in California should consider the following recommendations:

1. Amend previously filed California income tax returns and/or file protective claims as appropriate. 

Married same-sex couples may be permitted to amend prior year California income tax returns to change their filing status and obtain a refund for any income taxes that were overpaid. Note that the normal limitations period for amending California returns expires four years after the original due date of the return (or the actual filing date if the return was put on extension) or one year from the date the tax was paid, whichever occurs later. If the limitations period for any particular tax return is about to expire, a married same-sex couple should consider filing a protective claim for a refund until such time as the State of California provides appropriate guidance for amending prior returns. Note that, as discussed above with regard to the limitations period for federal tax returns, it is conceivable that a married same-sex couple may be permitted to amend their returns through the first year of their marriage.

2. Amend previously filed tax returns and/or file protective claims with other states as appropriate. 

Married same-sex couples may also be entitled to amend prior gift tax and/or estate tax returns filed with other states that recognized marriage but not marriage equivalents (e.g., California registered domestic partnerships) at the time in question and receive a refund of taxes paid and/or reclaim any state gift tax and/or estate tax exemption. Again, the limitations period (if one applies) for amending such returns will vary by state. If the limitations period for any particular tax return is about to expire, a married same-sex couple should consider filing a protective claim for a refund until such time as the state provides appropriate guidance for amending prior returns.

 of

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Goes Down – Copyright Goes Up – U.S. v. Windsor, Supreme Court, No. 12-307, Decided June 26, 2013

Sheppard Mullin 2012

The Supreme Court handed down a far reaching decision throwing out an attempt by Congress to deny the benefits conferred by federal law on same sex couples legally married under state law holding that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), as so applied, constituted a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment. In so doing, and perhaps without realizing it, the Supreme Court was also writing an important copyright case.

Much of copyright law is devoted to legal protection for intellectual property under a social contract allowing authors to exclusively benefit for a limited time from the fruits of their creative endeavors in exchange for enhancing the marketplace of ideas. The presently effective Copyright Act of 1976, and its predecessors including the Copyright Act of 1909, further establish a mechanism for succession assuring that certain defined classes of individuals, the author’s “statutory heirs”, may continue to enjoy those benefits following the author’s death. These classes generally include the author’s surviving spouse and children and, in certain circumstances, the grandchildren next of kin and/or the author’s executor. Since copyrights are expressly solely a matter of federal law for the federal courts, any such federal benefits would have likely been denied by DOMA had it survived judicial scrutiny.

For example, the renewal copyright provisions allow the recapture of a deceased author’s original term copyright (copyrights secured prior to 1978) by an author’s surviving spouse and children as a class. Should there be no surviving spouse or child, the renewal right passes to the author’s executor, if there is a will, or to the author’s next-of-kin in the absence of a will. Clearly DOMA would have denied the benefits of renewal to a surviving, non-author, gay spouse even though such was legally married under state law. What would instead have happened is that an author’s children (possibly by a first marriage) would have enjoyed the entire renewal copyright to the exclusion of the legal, non-author spouse. It should, in this regard, be noted that, much to the surprise of many estate attorneys even today, the renewal and other copyright privileges flow directly from the statute to the statutory heirs without regard to the author’s plan of testamentary distribution or the state laws of intestacy.

Another example would have been the right of termination of transfers by which the author’s statutory heirs are allowed to serve Notices of Termination on prior transferees. In most cases, the author’s surviving spouse and children must jointly exercise the termination. Of course, if DOMA had survived instead of the non-author gay spouse, the children would have exclusively owned the termination rights with no legal obligation to a possibly disfavored second spouse who might be left with nothing from the estate of his or her devoted marital partner.

Neither of these scenarios will now happen…at least not from a direct application of DOMA to the provisions of the Copyright Act. Instead, the Copyright Act will continue to neutrally apply to all legally married spouses regardless of their sexual orientation.

The children, whatever their feelings may be about their father or mother’s choice of marital partner, should not feel deprived. The Supreme Court had already long ago shown favor to them. In an often forgotten decision, De Sylva v Ballentine, 351 US 570 (1956), the Supreme Court determined that even children born out of wedlock were entitled to the benefits conferred by the copyright laws on “children” as a class. However, the Supreme Court just as clearly stated that identifying who qualified as a “child” was a matter left to the states, hence, entirely consistent with the DOMA ruling. Following, De Sylva, the New York federal appellate court, the Second Circuit, applied the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court to hold that Cathy Yvonne Stone, the out of wedlock daughter of the famous country singer, Hank Williams, was entitled to share the benefits of Williams’ renewal copyrights. Once Alabama state law identified Stone as a legal child, the Copyright Act then extended renewal copyright benefits to her as a member of the federally defined class of “children”. Stone v. Williams, 970 F2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992).

Trusts and Estates attorneys, however, are not entirely out of business. The DOMA decision leaves substantial need for their services if only to determine the impact on pre-planned and future estates. The Supreme Court, both in De Sylva and Windsor, has made it clear that state law still governs who will be considered a legal spouse or child. In fact, Windsor expressly leaves intact the state law provisions of DOMA. If that were not enough, the Supreme Court’s companion decision, Hollingsworth v Perry, No. 12-144, decided June 26, 2013, leaves in place a determination, under California state law, that same-sex partners could not be denied the benefits of marriage. In short, DOMA is one piece in the same-sex marriage mosaic, but not the final piece…not close to it. Instead, the Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions will only increase the need to carefully examine the impact of state law on the effective and predictable management of literary and artistic estates.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Earlier this morning, in the case of U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the United States found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA deprived same-sex couples of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Note that the Windsor decision only applies to Section 3 of DOMA (which previously prohibited same-sex couples from enjoying any benefit under federal law). The decision does not apply to another key provision of DOMA that allows one state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.

In the separate Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenging California’s Proposition 8 (which prohibited same-sex marriages), the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. This ruling has the effect of reinstating the original opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California which found Proposition 8 unconstitutional under California law and prohibited the enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide. As a result, same-sex marriages will resume in California relatively shortly (perhaps in as soon as a month). As widely expected, the Court did not declare a constitutional right to marry in all states.

For more information on these cases and the immediate impact on employee benefit programs, please join our webinar on “DOMA and Proposition 8: Immediate Implications for Employee Benefit Plan Sponsors” scheduled for July 2, 2013.

Article By: