Category: Labor & Employment

Employee Retaliation Claims: Will the Supreme Court Stem the Tide?

Barnes & Thornburg

It was no surprise for practitioners and their clients alike to learn that, statistically, retaliation claims remain the largest number of claims brought before the EEOC (in 2012, almost 38,000 charges alleged retaliation—38.1% of all charges). Worse, retaliation claims are expensive to defend. This point is painfully highlighted in this week’s submissions with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (along with the Retail Litigation Center) filed with the Supreme Court an amici curiae brief in a case in whichretaliation is the central issue. The case, captioned Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (U.S. No. 12-484), has been appealed from the 5th Circuit.

The underlying case arose when a doctor was not hired after he complained about his treatment at another organization. But, his complaint is of little consequence on the big stage. The central question before the Court—and the one on which the U.S. Chamber focuses—is the standard required to prove retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of Title VII.   Should employees be required to prove that their employers would not have taken an adverse action against them but for an improper motive?  Or, does the standard require employees only to show that an improper motive was one of multiple factors? The latter—a mixed-motive standard—is the one the 5th Circuit applied.

The U.S. Chamber’s brief argues that the “mixed-motive standard” lowers the bar for retaliation claims, resulting in increased costs for employers. The Chamber’s brief is boldly specific—it cites research estimating that in 1988, the cost of defending a wrongful discharge claim averaged more than $80,000.  The brief cites research supporting that today, it costs employers “possibly over $500,000 to defend a case at trial.”

As businesses on the front line, we, of course, already knew that.

Oral argument is scheduled for April 24, 2013.

You can follow the case and read the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s brief at the SCOTUS Blog by clicking on the following link: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

New Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Regulations Effective: New Notice Poster and Model Forms Available

Poyner Spruill

As of March 8, 2013, employers with 50 or more employees are required to post the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) notice poster incorporating the recently issued final regulations, which incorporate amendments made by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act (AFCTCA).  The new notice poster can be found at the DOL’s website here.  Federal law requires that all covered employers post the FMLA notice in a conspicuous place, even if no employees are eligible for FMLA leave.  The deadline for employers to begin posting the new notice poster was March 8, 2013, so any employer who has not already done so should act now.

In addition to the new poster, the DOL has issued revised model forms that reflect the final regulations.  Most notably, the DOL has issued an all-new certification form: Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Veteran for Military Caregiver Leave (WH-385-V).  This form reflects the FMLA’s expanded provisions that allow eligible employees to use Military Caregiver Leave to care for a veteran who was (not dishonorably) discharged from the military within the past five years.

While there are several new provisions of the FMLA that relate to job–protected leave for airline personnel and flight crews, there have been significant changes made that apply to all employees.  Specifically, there have been significant changes made to Qualifying Exigency Leave which include the following: expanding the number of days that an eligible employee may take for rest and recuperation qualifying exigency leave, revising the definition of  “military member” for purposes of leave, changing the type of duty required for coverage, and granting certain employees leave rights to care for the parents of a military member.

In addition, Military Caregiver Leave under the FMLA has been expanded.  Under the new regulations, the definition of “covered servicemember” has been expanded to include covered veterans who are undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy for a serious injury or illness.  Under the final regulations, a “covered veteran” is an individual who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable at any time during the five-year period prior to the first date the eligible employee takes FMLA leave to care for the covered veteran.  Moreover, the definition of a “serious injury or illness” for a current servicemember has been expanded to include injuries or illnesses that existed before the beginning of the member’s active duty that were aggravated by service in the line of duty while on active duty in the Armed Forces.

For more detailed information, the DOL’s side-by-side comparison of the 2008 and 2013 regulations can be found here.

While many of the changes relate to provisions that are seldom used by most employers (with the exception of airlines), every FMLA-covered employer must post the new notice poster and should review its forms and policies to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

© 2013 Poyner Spruill LLP

USCIS Correction: Most Employers Must Complete English Version I-9

Varnum LLP
On March 12, 2013 the USCIS announced the new Form I-9 is available and may be completed in English or Spanish. Today, March 13, 2013, USCIS clarified that Spanish I-9 is available for completion only by Puerto Rico employers.
USCIS incorrectly announced full use during a teleconference but has now clarified onwww.USCIS.gov that the Spanish new form I-9 may not be used by employers (except Puerto Rico employers). Employers may continue to use the Spanish form for reference, but the English version must be completed.

The new Form I-9 is available in English and Spanish. In addition, USCIS has published aHandbook for Employers to provide guidance for completing the new Form I-9.

Employers are required to use the new Form I-9 beginning on May 7, 2013, but it may be used immediately. USCIS will accept prior versions of Form I-9, “(Rev. 08/07/09) Y” and “(Rev. 02/02/09) N”, until May 7, 2013.

Internal Corporate Investigations and Forum for In-House Counsel – April 24-26, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Internal Corporate Investigations and Forum for In-House Counsel by the ABA:

Internal Corporate Investigations April 24-26 2013

 

April 24 – 26, 2013

Where

  • St. Regis
  • 923 16th St NW
  • Washington, DC 20006-1701
  • United States of America

This intensive National Institute remains incomparable in its examination of the demanding issues that define corporate internal investigations.   Our distinguished faculty is comprised of in-house & outside counsel, and government lawyers along with nationally-acclaimed forensic accountants and investigators.  These professionals, top in their field from years of corporate practice, will share key strategies for avoiding the pitfalls often faced by in-house counsel on a daily basis and particularly during corporate investigations.

Attendees of this advanced national curriculum will:

  • Learn strategies to avoid new challenges facing in-house counsel
  • Gain practical knowledge about the Responsible Corporate Officers Doctrine
  • Increase their proficiency in current compliance and fraud investigation procedures
  • Walk away with information that will address unique challenges and needs during daily practice

Final Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Military Leave Regulations Issued

The National Law Review recently published an article by John A. Vering, III, Shelley I. Ericsson, and Michael B. Kass with Armstrong Teasdale regarding FMLA Military Leave:

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

 

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued final regulations addressing an amendment to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that requires employers covered by the FMLA to provide certain types of military-related leave. The regulations, which will take effect on March 8, 2013, determine how the provisions  are to be interpreted and implemented. The DOL’s new regulations will require employers to update their FMLA policies, posters and forms and, among other things, change the way they administer family leave for servicemembers caregivers and employees with family members in the military. The text of the Final Rule can be found here: www.dol.gov/WHD/FMLA/2013rule/.

A brief overview of some of the changes in this Final Rule is set forth below. Please take specific note of the new FMLA poster requirement and new forms near the end of this Alert.

Qualifying Exigency Leave

The Final Rule revises regulations dealing with qualifying exigency leave to (a) include eligible employees with family members serving in the regular armed forces in a foreign country; (b) more clearly define what constitutes a qualifying exigency and adds a new qualifying exigency for parental care; and (c) increase the length of time an eligible family member may take for qualifying exigency leave for rest and recuperation from five days up to a maximum of 15 days.

Military Caregiver Leave

With respect to military caregiver leave, the new Rule: (a) specifically defines what conditions constitute a serious injury of illness for a current member of the Armed Forces or a covered veteran, and expands that definition; (b) defines who is a covered veteran; and (c) allows private physicians, outside the military healthcare system, to certify a serious injury or illness, but allows employers to request a second or third opinion if the employer questions the certification of one of these private physicians.

Calculation of Intermittent or Reduced Schedule Leave

The Final Rule also clarifies the calculation of intermittent leave for FMLA purposes to make clear that an employer cannot require that intermittent FMLA leave be taken in increments longer than the shortest period of time that the employer uses to account for use of other forms of leave provided that it is not greater than one hour and provided further that FMLA leave entitlement may not be reduced by more than the amount of leave actually taken.

New FMLA Poster and New Forms Required

The DOL is requiring a new FMLA poster and use of new FMLA forms effective March 8, 2013. A copy of the poster can be found on the DOL’s website and downloaded atwww.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/posters/fmla.htm. DOL has also created at least one new form and revised other key forms (the new form is WH-385-V, and the revised forms include WH-381, WH-384, and WH-385). The following FMLA forms can now be found on the internet atwww.dol.gov/whd/fmla/2013rule/militaryForms.htm:

 Conclusion

The FMLA generally applies to employers who have at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of a single site of employment. If the FMLA applies to your company, in light of these new regulations, you will want to review and likely revise your written FMLA policies and ensure your compliance going forward.

© Copyright 2013 Armstrong Teasdale LLP

Protect Your CEO’s Tweets and Posts from U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Enforcement Action

vonBriesen

The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Enforcement Division altered the jet stream of blogosphere commentary last December by, for the first time, recommending legal action against a CEO on account of a Facebook post. Immediately after the announcement, a blizzard of articles, tweets, and blogs buried the mediascape with opinions about the critical role of CEO social media use in the new economy, the wisdom or foolishness of allowing CEO’s to Tweet or post, and whether the SEC should be time warped back to the Stone Age it seems to prefer.

Sweeping away the accumulated hyperbole reveals two important takeaways from the SEC’s announcement, applicable to both public and private companies: i) the more things change, the more they remain the same, and ii) this latest “grave threat” to the modern world is not a crisis, but an opportunity. Social media can be a valid, legal, and effective way to communicate with investors, if it’s done right.

About Regulation FD

The SEC’s action responded to a July 2012 Facebook post by CEO Reed Hastings stating that members watched over 1 billion hours on Netflix in June. Netflix estimated that Hastings had reached 200,000 people through his Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn accounts. The SEC felt this was material information for investors and that by announcing it through social media, rather than more traditional outlets, Netflix had violated Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg. FD).

The SEC adopted Reg. FD in 2000 to fix a perceived lack of fairness in the public securities markets. Before Reg. FD, public companies could share material information with analysts who participated in conference calls or meetings not open to smaller investors. Well-connected investors got trading advantages over the general public. Reg. FD prohibits public companies from providing material information to limited groups of investors without simultaneously making the information available to the entire marketplace.

Under Reg. FD, public disclosures must be made by “filing or furnishing a Form 8-K, or by another method or combination of methods that is reasonably designed to effect broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public.” The “other method” most often employed is a press release to an array of media outlets likely to disseminate the information broadly and quickly. Individuals and companies violating Reg. FD risk injunctions and monetary penalties.

Use of Social Media Growing, Creating Risks

Social media channels first became critical communication tools for companies after adoption of Reg. FD. A 2010 study of the 100 largest companies in the Fortune 500 found that 79% were using at least one of the four most popular social media platforms. See Burson-Marsteller Fortune Global 100 Social Media Study, Feb. 23, 2010, available at http://www.burson-marsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=160

A 2012 Forbes article cited an IBM study saying 57% of surveyed CEO’s likely would be using social media by 2017. Mark Fidelman, IBM Study: If you Don’t Have a Social CEO, YourGoing to be Less Competitive, FORBES, May 22, 2012.

The SEC itself uses social media to disclose important information such as speeches, trading suspensions, litigation releases, and administrative proceedings.

While some CEOs see social media as “part of their job description,” others try to minimize risk by having employees write or review tweets before posting, and some CEOs have already tried social media and moved on. See Leslie Kwoh and Melissa Korn, 140 Characters of Risk: Some CEO’s Fear Twitter, WALL STREET JOURNAL, September 26, 2012.

Not everyone does, or should, use all forms of social media. The point of Twitter, for example, is to provide information contemporaneously with the occurrence of a thought or an event. This promptness is both the differentiating touchstone of the medium and its source of danger. Quick, unconsidered, unscripted communications by senior executives of public companies pose risks in the form of leaked intellectual property, disclosed business plans, angered customers, litigious investors, and frothy regulators. The SEC Netflix announcement demonstrates the potential for liability arising from disclosures of information requiring consideration through social media focused solely on promptness. A Facebook post subjected to prior review might have been a better choice.

Even where the SEC does not act, executives may be at risk. In May 2012, retailer Francesca’s Holdings Corporation fired its CFO, Gene Morphis after he tweeted: “Board meeting. Good numbers = Happy Board.” Mr. Morphis, who was also active on other social media outlets, had a history of postings about earnings calls, road shows, and other work related matters. Morphis lost his job even though the SEC took no action. Rachel Emma Silverman, Facebook and Twitter Postings Cost CFO His Job, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 14, 2012.

Social Media Without Big Risk

The SEC has never issued guidance about the use of social media, but it has issued guidance that websites could be deemed sufficiently “public” to satisfy Reg. FD when: (1) it is a recognized channel of distribution, (2) posting on the web site disseminates the information in a manner making it available to the securities marketplace in general, and (3) there has been a reasonable waiting period for investors and the market to react to the posted information. Indeed, “for some companies in certain circumstances, posting … information on the company’s web site, in and of itself, may be a sufficient method of public disclosure,” SEC Release No. 34-58288 (Aug. 7, 2008) at 18, 25.

This is an example of how “the more things change, the more they stay the same” when it comes to the intersection of law and technology. The purpose of Reg. FD is to make sure that all investors have access to the same information roughly simultaneously. The specific communications method is not important so long as the principle of public disclosure to the general market, not subsets of investors, is served. Because 8-K filings and press releases were the most common ways to quickly and broadly disseminate information in the past, investors knew where to look for them and could monitor those information outlets. Now, when companies establish their websites as well-known places to find press releases, SEC filings, and supplemental information, they, too, have become acceptable means for Reg. FD disclosures.

The same analysis applies to social media, as well as any new communications technology that may exist in the future. The critical question is: has the company sufficiently alerted the market to its disclosure practices based on the regularity, prominence, accuracy, accessibility, and media coverage of its disclosure methods? If so, social media should be just as acceptable as any other communication tool.

One company seems to have found the right balance. Alan Meckler, CEO of WebMediaBrands Inc. drew the SEC’s attention after a pattern of regularly disclosing company information through social media back in December 2010. The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance questioned whether Mr. Meckler’s Tweets “conveyed information in compliance with Regulation FD.”SEC letter dated December 9, 2010. Despite, the investigation, the SEC brought no enforcement action.

To use social media with minimum SEC risk, the company must educate investors so that they know such communications will always occur at a particular place and at least simultaneously with other outlets. This is done by a regular pattern of social media disclosure and links to other sources, such as SEC filings, showing the way. A company should not force investors to win a shell game, finding the nut of important information in Twitter this time, on Facebook the next time, and Instagram after that. Consistency, predictability, and transparency are key. Used this way, social media present an opportunity to communicate with investors in new ways, not a source of legal problems.

©2013 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

Can Having Employees Pose for the Camera Pose Problems for You?

The National Law Review recently featured an article regarding Employee Photos written by Amy D. Cubbage with McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC:

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Employers have a variety of reasons for using employee photos, including:

  • internal company use (for a company directory or in the break room);
  • external use (such as the company website or a blog post—you’ll find my picture below);
  • for safety precautions (name badges or scan cards); and
  • for commercial use in advertisements or marketing.

Employees are usually amendable to having their picture taken. But, there may be a few who express their genuine disinterest in being photographed. Such employees could simply be camera shy; others may have a more serious reason to refuse to have an image published.  Some may need to protect anonymity for personal reasons, such as past domestic abuse.  Others may adhere to religions forbidding taking pictures.

There are generally no legal ramifications for using employee photos, unless it is for commercial purposes.  Most states, including Kentucky, have laws that require permission before using an individual or their “likeness” for commercial purposes. This is due to the commonly held notion that a person has property rights in his or her name and likeness and those rights should be shielded from exploitation. Kentucky’s law is codified in KRS 391.170.

If you need to use employee photos for a commercial use, there is a simple solution. Have employees sign releases in which they acknowledge that their picture may be used in a company advertisement and they will receive no compensation for the use of their photo. Keep these releases on file.

Even in a state where consent is not required, it is always a smart approach to use a release so that employees will not be surprised when they see their face plastered on a promotional piece. If minors appear in the commercial materials always use extra caution. Use a consent form, whether required or not, to be signed by the child’s parents.

A warning about taking photos of potential employees: if you take photographs of applicants applying for a job (to help remember who’s who), it may put you at risk for a discrimination claim. A photograph creates a record of certain protected characteristics (i.e., sex, race, or the presence of a disability) that employers generally cannot use in hiring considerations. If this information is collected and a discrimination claim arises, the burden will be on the employer to prove the photographs were not used to make a discriminatory employment decision.

I will leave you with a little common sense about employee photos. Always remember to publicize when the office picture day will be; no one likes showing up ill-prepared. Offer a “redo day” for those who are truly unhappy about how their picture turned out. If all else fails, resort to photoshopping. A little lighting adjustment or cropping can work wonders for a shutterbug humbug.

© 2013 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC

Federal Court Rejects Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Suit Over Random Alcohol Testing of Probationary Plant Employees

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Random Alcohol Testing written by Robert S. Nichols, Robert E. Sheeder, and Amy Karff Halevy with Bracewell & Giuliani LLP:

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

 

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission challenge to U.S. Steel Corporation’s random alcohol testing of probationary employees at one of the company’s most safety sensitive facilities. The Court’s ruling in this carefully watched suit is significant for employers because it represents a forceful rejection of one of the more extreme positions the EEOC has taken in interpreting how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulates workplaces.

EEOC’s Restrictive Interpretation of Employer Rights

The EEOC has adopted a very restrictive view of an employer’s right to conduct across-the-board medical examinations or inquiries of current employees even when the examination or inquiry is plainly motivated by workplace safety concerns. According to the EEOC, employers are prohibited in most circumstances from conducting generalized medical examinations, including random alcohol testing or periodic physical examinations of current employees.

The EEOC has pointed to a provision of the ADA that provides that an employer may not “require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). Conducting random testing for the unlawful use of drugs, as opposed to testing for the use of alcohol, does not create the same legal impediments because a test for the unlawful use of drugs is generally not regarded as a “medical examination” under the ADA.

The very limited exceptions to this prohibition on across-the-board medical examinations or inquiries of current employees that the EEOC has recognized include examinations of certain public safety employees in police and firefighter positions as well as, of course, examinations or inquiries that are required by other federal agencies, such as the Department of Transportation.

EEOC Lawsuit Against U.S. Steel

In the U.S. Steel suit, the EEOC argued that across-the-board medical examination or inquiries, including random or other generalized alcohol testing, could not be justified by the business necessity defense even in a highly safety sensitive work environment. Rather, the EEOC has taken the position that alcohol testing can only be justified based upon individualized suspicion that the particular employee to be tested was under the influence of alcohol at work.

U.S. Steel argued in a motion for summary judgment that given the highly safety sensitive nature of the plant at issue, where employees work with materials that are at temperatures of more than 2,100 degrees, random testing was justified as a matter of business necessity.

The judge in the case granted U.S. Steel’s motion and dismissed the EEOC’s claims finding that the random alcohol testing of probationary employees was justified by the business necessity defense. The Court first pointed out that there was no disputing that safety in and of itself can be a matter of business necessity. As a result, according to the Court, the only question remaining was whether the policy of random alcohol testing served that asserted business necessity. After analyzing the facts at issue, the judge found that the alcohol testing policy plainly served the business necessity of workplace safety.

In doing so, the Court specifically rejected the EEOC’s position that across-the-board medical examinations or inquiries of current employees could only be justified in the case of law enforcement or firefighting employees. The Court explained that there was no legitimate basis for not extending the same rationale to employees in other highly safety sensitive positions. Also, the Court noted that in this instance selecting employees for testing based on individualized suspicion would not work effectively because personal protective equipment obscures the U.S. Steel employees’ faces and speech.

Additionally, the Court concluded that the random alcohol testing approach was not inconsistent with the ADA’s goal of preventing employers from targeting specific employees with disabilities based upon stereotypes and misconceptions. The Court pointed out that, after all, random testing, as opposed to individualized suspicion testing, was not potentially based upon conclusions about particular individuals with disabilities.

The Court also noted that the testing program at issue was the product of negotiations with the union representing plant employees and not a process unilaterally imposed by the employer.

Takeaways

The decision in the U.S. Steel case offers employers new hope that more federal courts will reject the EEOC’s very restrictive view of the right to conduct across-the-board medical examinations or inquiries, including, across-the-board random alcohol testing of employees in certain safety sensitive positions. While this decision is encouraging, employers need to recognize that the EEOC continues to adhere to its position regarding this issue and other federal courts may ultimately side with the EEOC. Nonetheless, the Court’s decision in the U.S. Steel suit is an encouraging sign for employers that courts, recognizing the importance of workplace safety, may adopt a far more reasonable and pragmatic view than the EEOC on this question of across-the-board medical examinations and inquiries of current employees.

© 2013 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

SEC Approves NYSE, NYSE MKT and NASDAQ Compensation Committee Listing Standards

The National Law Review recently published an article by Jeff C. Dodd and Scott L. Olson with Andrews Kurth LLP regarding, SEC regulations:

Andrews Kurth

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently approved amendments to the compensation committee listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE),1 the NYSE MKT2 and the NASDAQ Stock Market (NASDAQ)3 that were initially proposed in September 2012 to comply with Rule 10C-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.4 In approving the listing standards, the SEC did not require any changes to the exchanges’ proposals, as amended.

The new listing standards will impact the authority and responsibilities of compensation committees with respect to their advisers and the independence analysis for compensation committee members. Although the SEC has approved the new compensation committee listing standards, issuers with listed equity securities subject to the new standards will have time to comply as follows.

NYSE- and NYSE MKT-listed issuers have until:

  • the earlier of their first annual meeting after January 15, 2014, or October 31, 2014, to comply with the enhanced compensation committee independence standards; and
  • July 1, 2013 to comply with the remaining standards (e.g., the authority to retain and fund advisers to the committee and the responsibility to consider specified independence factors before selecting or receiving advice from advisers).

NASDAQ-listed issuers have until:

  • July 1, 2013 to establish in the compensation committee charter, board resolutions or other board action the compensation committee’s new responsibilities and authority (i.e., the authority to retain and fund advisers to the committee and the responsibility to consider specified independence factors before selecting or receiving advice from advisers); and
  • the earlier of their first annual meeting after January 15, 2014, or October 31, 2014, to comply with the remaining standards (e.g., have a formal compensation committee of at least two independent directors, have a compensation committee charter and satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standards).

Current compensation committee listing standards will apply pending the transition to the new standards.

Click here to read about key aspects of the NYSE’s new compensation committee listing standards.

Click here to read about key aspects of the NYSE MKT’s new compensation committee listing standards.

Click here to read about key aspects of NASDAQ’s new compensation committee listing standards.

Click here to read about practical considerations for NYSE-, NYSE MKT- and NASDAQ-listed issuers to consider in response to the new compensation committee listing standards.

NYSE Compensation Committee Listing Standards

Committee charter requirements for compensation committee authority and responsibilities regarding its advisers. In addition to current NYSE charter requirements, compensation committee charters must specify the following:

  • the committee’s authority, in its sole discretion, to retain or obtain the advice of a compensation consultant, legal counsel or other adviser (collectively referred to throughout the discussion of the NYSE’s new listing standards as advisers);
  • the committee’s direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of any adviser retained by the committee;
  • the issuer’s responsibility to provide for appropriate funding (as determined by the committee) for the payment of reasonable compensation to any adviser retained by the committee; and
  • the committee’s responsibility to conduct an independence assessment before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser to the committee (as discussed in more detail below under “Assessment of adviser independence”).

The new authority and responsibilities regarding advisers do not:

  • require the compensation committee to implement or follow its advisers’ advice or recommendations; or
  • affect the ability or obligation of the compensation committee to exercise its own judgment in fulfilling its duties.

Assessment of adviser independence. As noted above and subject to limited exceptions discussed below, before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser (for compensation or non-compensation matters and regardless of who retained the adviser), the compensation committee must consider all factors relevant to that adviser’s independence from management, including:

  • the provision of other services to the issuer by the adviser’s employer;
  • the amount of fees received from the issuer by the adviser’s employer, as a percentage of the employer’s total revenue;
  • the policies and procedures of the adviser’s employer that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest;
  • any business or personal relationship between the adviser and a compensation committee member;
  • any issuer stock owned by the adviser (as the SEC noted in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, it interprets this to include stock owned by the adviser’s immediate family members); and
  • any business or personal relationship between either the adviser or the adviser’s employer and an issuer’s executive officer (as the SEC noted in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, this would include, for example, situations where an issuer’s CEO and the adviser have a familial relationship or where the CEO and the adviser or the adviser’s employer are business partners).

These factors are considerations for the compensation committee rather than bright-line standards. Although compensation committees must consider the specified factors, they are also responsible for identifying and considering all additional factors relevant to an adviser’s independence from management. After conducting the required independence assessment, compensation committees may select or receive advice from any adviser they prefer, even those that are not independent.5 In response to comments that compensation committees should be specifically required to also consider whether an adviser requires a contractual agreement to indemnify the adviser or limit the adviser’s liability, the NYSE noted that it is not apparent that the existence of such indemnification agreements or contractual limitations on liability is relevant to an independence analysis.6

Compensation committees must conduct the independence assessment for any adviser that the committee selects or receives advice from, other than:

  • in-house legal counsel; and
  • any adviser whose role is limited to:
    • consulting on any broad-based plan that does not discriminate in scope, terms, or operation, in favor of executive officers or directors of the issuer, and that is available generally to all salaried employees; or
    • providing information that either is not customized for a particular issuer or that is customized based on parameters that are not developed by the adviser and about which the adviser does not provide advice.

In response to comments, the NYSE made it clear that the independence assessment requirement applies to any outside legal counsel consulted by the compensation committee, including any regular outside counsel to the issuer consulted on matters such as SEC filing requirements or federal tax issues associated with equity compensation plans.

In response to a comment expressing concern about the possible need to conduct a new independence assessment before every compensation committee meeting for those advisers that regularly provide advice to the compensation committee, the NYSE indicated that the frequency of the assessment will be a facts and circumstances determination. Specifically, the NYSE noted that “[w]hile an annual assessment may be sufficient in some cases, in other circumstances a more frequent review may be warranted.” In approving the new standards, the SEC noted its expectation that the assessment would be conducted at least annually.

Compensation committee independence. Current listing standards require that a compensation committee be comprised solely of independent directors, and the board must affirmatively determine that a compensation committee member is independent under the general board independence standards set forth in Section 303A.02 of the Manual.

Under the new standards, in making an affirmative independence determination regarding a compensation committee member the board must also consider all factors specifically relevant to determining whether a director has a relationship to the issuer that is material to that director’s ability to be independent from management in connection with the duties of a compensation committee member, including:

  • the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the issuer to the director; and
  • whether the director is affiliated with the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the issuer.

These factors do not include any specific numerical or materiality tests, and are considerations for the board rather than bright-line standards. For example, the NYSE did not adopt an absolute prohibition on a board making an affirmative independence finding for a compensation committee member solely because the member or any of his or her affiliates are significant stockholders. Although the board must consider the specified factors, it must also identify and consider all additional factors that would be relevant to a compensation committee member’s independence from management. In response to comments, the NYSE confirmed that a single factor or relationship considered in the independence analysis may be sufficiently material to render a director non-independent.

When considering the source of a director’s compensation, the board should consider whether the director receives compensation from any person or entity that would impair his or her ability to make independent judgments about the issuer’s executive compensation. Likewise, when considering any affiliate relationship, the board should consider whether the relationship places the director under the direct or indirect control of the issuer or its senior management, or creates a direct relationship between the director and senior management, in each case of a nature that would impair the director’s ability to make independent judgments about the issuer’s executive compensation.

In response to comments that director fees should be an explicit factor to be considered in compensation committee independence determinations, the NYSE noted that it does not believe that it is likely that director fees would be a relevant consideration for the independence analysis. However, if “excessive” board compensation might affect a director’s independence, the NYSE noted that the listing standards would require the board to consider that factor in its independence determination, as the standards require the board to consider all relevant factors. The NYSE did not indicate what constitutes “excessive” board compensation.

If a compensation committee member ceases to be independent for reasons outside that member’s reasonable control, the member may, with prompt notice by the issuer to the NYSE, remain a compensation committee member until the earlier of (1) the next annual stockholder meeting or (2) one year from the event that caused the member to cease to be independent. This cure provision is limited to situations where the compensation committee continues to have a majority of independent directors.

Exemptions. The new compensation committee listing standards will not apply to the following issuers that are exempt from the NYSE’s current compensation committee listing standards:

  • controlled companies (i.e., issuers where more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, a group or another company);
  • limited partnerships (for example, master limited partnerships (MLPs));
  • companies in bankruptcy;
  • closed-end and open-end funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act);
  • passive business organizations in the form of trusts (for example, royalty trusts);
  • derivatives and special purpose securities; and
  • issuers whose only listed equity security is preferred stock.

Smaller reporting companies (generally issuers with less than $75 million of public equity float) are exempt from the new enhanced compensation committee independence and consideration of adviser independence standards. As a result, their compensation committee charters will not have to reflect these matters. However, these issuers are subject to the other new standards. An issuer that ceases to qualify as a smaller reporting company will have:

  • six months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to comply with the consideration of adviser independence standard;
  • six months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to have one member of its compensation committee satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standard;
  • nine months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to have a majority of its compensation committee members satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standard; and
  • 12 months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to have a compensation committee consisting entirely of members that satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standard.7

Foreign private issuers that elect to follow home country practice are exempt from the new compensation committee listing standards provided that they comply with the disclosure requirements of Section 303A.11 of the Manual.

Transition periods for newly-listed and other issuers. The current transition periods available to newly-listed issuers and certain other categories of issuers (e.g., issuers listing in connection with a carve-out or spin-off transaction) apply to the new compensation committee listing standards. For example, an issuer listing in connection with its initial public offering (IPO) must have one independent compensation committee member by the earlier of the IPO closing date or five business days from the listing date, a majority of independent members within 90 days of the listing date, and a fully independent committee within one year of the listing date.

Click here to read about practical considerations to consider in response to the new compensation committee listing standards.

NYSE MKT Compensation Committee Listing Standards

Compensation committee authority and responsibilities regarding its advisers. A compensation committee8 must have the following authority and responsibilities:

  • the authority, in its sole discretion, to retain or obtain the advice of a compensation consultant, legal counsel or other adviser (collectively referred to throughout the discussion of the NYSE MKT’s new listing standards as advisers);
  • the direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of any adviser retained by the committee;
  • the issuer must provide for appropriate funding (as determined by the committee) for the payment of reasonable compensation to any adviser retained by the committee; and
  • the responsibility to conduct an independence assessment before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser to the committee (as discussed in more detail below under “Assessment of adviser independence”).

The new authority and responsibilities regarding advisers do not:

  • require the compensation committee to implement or follow its advisers’ advice or recommendations; or
  • affect the ability or obligation of the compensation committee to exercise its own judgment in fulfilling its duties.

Assessment of adviser independence. As noted above and subject to limited exceptions discussed below, before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser (for compensation or non-compensation matters and regardless of who retained the adviser), the compensation committee must consider all factors relevant to that adviser’s independence from management, including:

  • the provision of other services to the issuer by the adviser’s employer;
  • the amount of fees received from the issuer by the adviser’s employer, as a percentage of the employer’s total revenue;
  • the policies and procedures of the adviser’s employer that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest;
  • any business or personal relationship between the adviser and a compensation committee member;
  • any issuer stock owned by the adviser (as the SEC noted in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, it interprets this to include stock owned by the adviser’s immediate family members); and
  • any business or personal relationship between either the adviser or the adviser’s employer and an issuer’s executive officer (as the SEC noted in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, this would include, for example, situations where an issuer’s CEO and the adviser have a familial relationship or where the CEO and the adviser or the adviser’s employer are business partners).

These factors are considerations for the compensation committee rather than bright-line standards. Although compensation committees must consider the specified factors, they are also responsible for identifying and considering all additional factors relevant to an adviser’s independence from management. After conducting the required independence assessment, compensation committees may select or receive advice from any adviser they prefer, even those that are not independent.9 In response to comments that compensation committees should be specifically required to also consider whether an adviser requires a contractual agreement to indemnify the adviser or limit the adviser’s liability, the NYSE MKT noted that it is not apparent that the existence of such indemnification agreements or contractual limitations on liability is relevant to an independence analysis.10

Compensation committees must conduct the independence assessment for any adviser that the committee selects or receives advice from, other than:

  • in-house legal counsel; and
  • any adviser whose role is limited to:
    • consulting on any broad-based plan that does not discriminate in scope, terms, or operation, in favor of executive officers or directors of the issuer, and that is available generally to all salaried employees; or
    • providing information that either is not customized for a particular issuer or that is customized based on parameters that are not developed by the adviser and about which the adviser does not provide advice.

In response to comments, the NYSE MKT made it clear that the independence assessment requirement applies to any outside legal counsel consulted by the compensation committee, including any regular outside counsel to the issuer consulted on matters such as SEC filing requirements or federal tax issues associated with equity compensation plans.

In response to a comment expressing concern about the possible need to conduct a new independence assessment before every compensation committee meeting for those advisers that regularly provide advice to the compensation committee, the NYSE MKT indicated that the frequency of the assessment will be a facts and circumstances determination. Specifically, the NYSE MKT noted that “[w]hile an annual assessment may be sufficient in some cases, in other circumstances a more frequent review may be warranted.” In approving the new standards, the SEC noted its expectation that the assessment would be conducted at least annually.

Compensation committee independence. Current listing standards require that executive officer compensation be determined, or recommended to the board for determination, either by a compensation committee comprised solely of independent directors or by a majority of the independent directors. Moreover, the board must affirmatively determine that a compensation committee member is independent under the general board independence standards set forth in Section 803A(2) of the Guide.

Under the new standards, the board must also affirmatively determine that all of the compensation committee members (or all of the independent directors if an issuer does not have a compensation committee) are independent for compensation committee purposes. To make this determination, the board must consider all factors specifically relevant to determining whether a director has a relationship to the issuer that is material to that director’s ability to be independent from management in connection with the duties of a compensation committee member, including:

  • the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the issuer to the director; and
  • whether the director is affiliated with the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the issuer.

These factors do not include any specific numerical or materiality tests, and are considerations for the board rather than bright-line standards. For example, the NYSE MKT did not adopt an absolute prohibition on a board making an affirmative independence finding for a compensation committee member solely because the member or any of his or her affiliates are significant stockholders. Although the board must consider the specified factors, it must also identify and consider all additional factors that would be relevant to a compensation committee member’s independence from management. In response to comments, the NYSE MKT confirmed that a single factor or relationship considered in the independence analysis may be sufficiently material to render a director non-independent.

When considering the source of a director’s compensation, the board should consider whether the director receives compensation from any person or entity that would impair his or her ability to make independent judgments about the issuer’s executive compensation. Likewise, when considering any affiliate relationship, the board should consider whether the relationship places the director under the direct or indirect control of the issuer or its senior management, or creates a direct relationship between the director and senior management, in each case of a nature that would impair the director’s ability to make independent judgments about the issuer’s executive compensation.

In response to comments that director fees should be an explicit factor to be considered in compensation committee independence determinations, the NYSE MKT noted that it does not believe that it is likely that director fees would be a relevant consideration for the independence analysis. However, if “excessive” board compensation might affect a director’s independence, the NYSE MKT noted that the listing standards would require the board to consider that factor in its independence determination, as the standards require the board to consider all relevant factors. The NYSE MKT did not indicate what constitutes “excessive” board compensation.

If a compensation committee member ceases to be independent for reasons outside that member’s reasonable control, the member may, with prompt notice by the issuer to the NYSE MKT, remain a compensation committee member until the earlier of (1) the next annual stockholders meeting or (2) one year from the event that caused the member to cease to be independent. This cure provision is limited to situations where the compensation committee continues to have a majority of independent directors.

The NYSE MKT amended its listing standards so that only smaller reporting companies (generally issuers with less than $75 million of public equity float) may rely on the current exception that allows one non-independent director to serve on the compensation committee under exceptional and limited circumstances, even for a director who fails the enhanced compensation committee independence standards. Under the exception, one non-independent director may be appointed to the compensation committee if:

  • the committee consists of at least three members;
  • the non-independent director is not currently an executive officer, employee, or an immediate family member of an executive officer or employee;
  • the board, under exceptional and limited circumstances, determines that the individual’s membership is required by the best interests of the issuer and its stockholders; and
  • the non-independent director serves for no longer than two years.

A smaller reporting company relying on the exception must provide certain disclosures required by NYSE MKT listing standards in the proxy statement for the next annual meeting following the determination (or annual report on Form 10-K if a proxy statement is not required), and any disclosure required by Instruction 1 to Item 407(a) of Regulation S-K regarding reliance on the exception.

Exemptions. The new compensation committee listing standards will not apply to the following issuers that are exempt from the NYSE MKT’s current compensation committee listing standards:

  • controlled companies (i.e., issuers where more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another issuer);
  • limited partnerships (for example, MLPs);
  • companies in bankruptcy;
  • closed-end and open-end funds registered under the 1940 Act;
  • asset-backed issuers and other passive business organizations (for example, royalty trusts);
  • derivatives and special purpose securities; and
  • issuers whose only listed equity security is preferred stock.

Smaller reporting companies are exempt from the new enhanced compensation committee independence and consideration of adviser independence standards. However, these issuers are subject to the other new standards. An issuer that ceases to qualify as a smaller reporting company will have:

  • six months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to comply with the consideration of adviser independence standard;
  • six months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to have one member of its compensation committee satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standard;
  • nine months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to have a majority of its compensation committee members satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standard; and
  • 12 months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to have a compensation committee consisting entirely of members that satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standard.11

Foreign private issuers may seek an exemption on the basis that they follow home country practice if they comply with the requirements of Section 110 of the Guide.

Transition periods for newly-listed issuers. The current transition periods available to newly-listed issuers apply to the new compensation committee listing standards. Thus, an issuer listing in connection with its IPO must have one independent compensation committee member at the time of listing, a majority of independent members within 90 days of listing, and a fully independent compensation committee within one year of listing.

Click here to read about practical considerations to consider in response to the new compensation committee listing standards.

NASDAQ Compensation Committee Listing Rules

Compensation committee authority and responsibilities regarding its advisers. A compensation committee must have the following authority and responsibilities:

  • the authority, in its sole discretion, to retain or obtain the advice of a compensation consultant, legal counsel or other adviser (collectively referred to throughout the discussion of NASDAQ’s new listing standards as advisers);
  • the direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of any adviser retained by the committee;
  • the issuer must provide for appropriate funding (as determined by the committee) for the payment of reasonable compensation to any adviser retained by the committee; and
  • the responsibility to conduct an independence assessment before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser to the committee (as discussed in more detail below under “Assessment of adviser independence”).

For those issuers without a standing compensation committee, until the requirement to have a standing compensation committee is effective (as discussed in more detail below under “Compensation committee composition and independence”) these requirements will apply to the independent directors who determine, or recommend to the board to determine, the compensation of executive officers.

Issuers will need to consider under the corporate law of the state of their incorporation whether to grant by July 1, 2013 the authority and responsibilities discussed above through a charter, board resolution or other board action.

The new authority and responsibilities regarding advisers do not:

  • require the compensation committee to implement or follow its advisers’ advice or recommendations; or
  • affect the ability or obligation of the compensation committee to exercise its own judgment in fulfilling its duties.

Assessment of adviser independence. As noted above and subject to limited exceptions discussed below, before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser (for compensation or non-compensation matters and regardless of who retained the adviser), the compensation committee must consider the following six independence factors:

  • the provision of other services to the issuer by the adviser’s employer;
  • the amount of fees received from the issuer by the adviser’s employer, as a percentage of the employer’s total revenue;
  • the policies and procedures of the adviser’s employer that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest;
  • any business or personal relationship between the adviser and a compensation committee member;
  • any issuer stock owned by the adviser (as the SEC noted in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, it interprets this to include stock owned by the adviser’s immediate family members); and
  • any business or personal relationship between either the adviser or the adviser’s employer and an issuer’s executive officer (as the SEC noted in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, this would include, for example, situations where an issuer’s CEO and the adviser have a familial relationship or where the CEO and the adviser or the adviser’s employer are business partners).

These factors are considerations for the compensation committee rather than bright-line standards. After considering the six independence factors, compensation committees may select or receive advice from any adviser they prefer, even those that are not independent.12

Compensation committees must conduct the independence assessment for any adviser (including outside legal counsel) that the committee selects or receives advice from, other than:

  • in-house legal counsel; and
  • any adviser whose role is limited to:
    • consulting on any broad-based plan that does not discriminate in scope, terms, or operation, in favor of executive officers or directors of the issuer, and that is available generally to all salaried employees; or
    • providing information that either is not customized for a particular issuer or that is customized based on parameters that are not developed by the adviser and about which the adviser does not provide advice.

In approving the new listing rules, the SEC noted its expectation that the independence assessment would be conducted at least annually.

Compensation committee composition and independence. NASDAQ’s current listing rules require that an issuer’s executive officer compensation must be determined, or recommended to the board for determination, either by:

  • a compensation committee comprised solely of independent directors; or
  • independent directors constituting a majority of the board’s independent directors in a vote in which only independent directors participate.

NASDAQ eliminated the second alternative and by the relevant 2014 compliance date issuers, including smaller reporting companies (generally issuers with less than $75 million of public equity float), must have a standing compensation committee comprised of at least two members. Each compensation committee member must be an independent director (as defined in current Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)), and boards are required to make an affirmative determination that no independent director has a relationship that, in the board’s opinion, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.

In addition to satisfying the requirement that each compensation committee member be an independent director, the new rules provide that:

  • each member is prohibited from accepting directly or indirectly any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from the issuer or any of its subsidiaries; and
  • the board must consider whether a compensation committee member is affiliated with the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the issuer to determine whether any affiliation would impair the member’s judgment as a member of the compensation committee.

These independence factors do not include any specific numerical or materiality tests. In approving the listing rules, the SEC confirmed that, despite any explicit statement by NASDAQ on the matter, a single factor could disqualify a director from being independent under the enhanced compensation committee independence rules.

Although director fees are not an explicit factor to be considered in compensation committee independence determinations, NASDAQ noted that as boards must make an affirmative independence determination that each independent director has no relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director the board could, if appropriate, consider director fees in that context.13

The enhanced independence rules adopt the same bright-line prohibition against compensatory fees applicable to audit committees. The prohibition does not include a “look-back” period and, therefore, would apply only during a director’s service on the compensation committee. “Compensatory fees” do not include:

  • fees received for board or board committee service; or
  • the receipt of fixed amounts of compensation under a retirement plan, including deferred compensation, for prior service with the issuer (provided that the compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service).

Unlike the prohibition regarding compensatory fees, the rules do not impose a bright-line prohibition on affiliation, but rather impose a requirement to consider such affiliations when making a compensation committee independence determination. Although a board may conclude differently based on the specific facts and circumstances, NASDAQ does not believe ownership of issuer stock by itself, or possession of a controlling interest through ownership of issuer stock by itself, precludes a board from finding that it is appropriate for a director (for example, as a representative of a significant stockholder) to serve on the compensation committee. The board will not be required to apply a “look-back” period and, therefore, need consider affiliation only with respect to relationships that occur during a director’s service on the compensation committee.

Issuers, including smaller reporting companies, may rely on the current exception that allows one non-independent director to serve on the compensation committee under exceptional and limited circumstances, even for a director who fails the new enhanced compensation committee independence rules. Under this exception, one non-independent director may be appointed to the compensation committee if:

  • the committee consists of at least three members;
  • the non-independent director is not currently an executive officer, employee, or a family member of an executive officer;
  • the board, under exceptional and limited circumstances, determines that the individual’s membership is required by the best interests of the issuer and its stockholders;
  • the non-independent director serves for no longer than two years; and
  • the issuer provides certain disclosures required by the listing rules either on its website or in the proxy statement for the next annual meeting following the determination (or annual report if a proxy statement is not required), and the disclosures required by Instruction 1 to Item 407(a) of Regulation S-K regarding reliance on the exception.

If an issuer, including a smaller reporting company, fails to comply with the compensation committee composition requirements due to one vacancy, or one compensation committee member ceases to be independent for reasons beyond that member’s reasonable control, the issuer must regain compliance by the earlier of (1) its next annual stockholder meeting or (2) one year from the event that caused the non-compliance. If the annual stockholder meeting occurs within 180 days after the event causing the non-compliance, the issuer would instead have 180 days from the event to regain compliance. An issuer relying on the cure period must provide notice to NASDAQ immediately upon learning of the event or circumstances that caused the non-compliance.

Committee charter requirements. Issuers must certify that they have adopted a formal written compensation committee charter and that the compensation committee will review and reassess the adequacy of the charter on an annual basis.14 The charter must specify:

  • the scope of the committee’s responsibilities and how it carries out those responsibilities, including structure, processes and membership requirements;
  • the committee’s responsibility for determining, or recommending to the board for determination, the compensation of the issuer’s executive officers;
  • that the CEO may not be present during voting or deliberations by the committee on his or her compensation; and
  • the specific committee authority and responsibilities discussed above under “Compensation committee authority and responsibilities regarding its advisers.”

Smaller reporting companies must adopt either a formal written compensation committee charter or a board resolution that specifies only the matters in the first three bullets above. These issuers are not required to specify the compensation committee authority and responsibilities set forth in the fourth bullet above or to certify that they will review and reassess the adequacy of the charter or board resolution on an annual basis.

Exemptions. The new listing rules do not apply to the following issuers that are exempt from NASDAQ’s current compensation-related listing rules:

  • asset-backed issuers and other passive issuers;
  • cooperatives;
  • limited partnerships (for example, MLPs);
  • management investment companies registered under the 1940 Act; and
  • controlled companies (i.e., issuers where more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, a group or another company).

Smaller reporting companies are exempt from the new compensation committee listing rules, except as follows:

  • they must have (and certify that they have and will continue to have) a formal compensation committee comprised of at least two independent members based on the current independent director definition in Listing Rule 5605(a)(2), but not the enhanced compensation committee independence standards; and
  • they must certify that they have adopted a formal written compensation committee charter or board resolution as discussed above under “Committee charter requirements.”

An issuer that ceases to qualify as a smaller reporting company will have six months from the date it ceases to be a smaller reporting company to:

  • comply with the committee authority and responsibilities standards; and
  • certify to NASDAQ that it (1) has adopted a formal written compensation committee charter, including all of the matters specified above under “Committee charter requirements,” and (2) has, or will within the required phase-in schedule,15 comply with the enhanced compensation committee independence standards.

Foreign private issuers that follow their home country practice are exempt from the new listing rules provided that they comply with the disclosure requirements in current Listing Rule 5615(a)(3). In addition, foreign private issuers that follow their home country practice in lieu of having an independent compensation committee as required by NASDAQ listing rules must disclose in their annual reports filed with the SEC the reasons why they do not have an independent compensation committee.

Certification. Issuers must certify to NASDAQ within 30 days after the final implementation deadline applicable to them, on a form to be provided by NASDAQ, that they have complied with the new compensation committee listing rules. Although smaller reporting companies, foreign private issuers and controlled companies are exempt from some or all of the compensation committee listing standards, based on a sample certification form provided by NASDAQ in one of its rule filings these issuers would need to complete and file the required certification form.16

Transition periods for IPO issuers. Although issuers listing in connection with their IPO are subject to the new rules, they can phase-in compliance with the compensation committee composition requirements in accordance with current phase-in schedules. Thus, these issuers must have one independent compensation committee member at listing, a majority of independent members within 90 days of listing and a fully independent committee within one year of listing.

Practical Considerations

NYSE-, NYSE MKT- and NASDAQ-listed issuers and their boards and compensation committees that are subject to the listing standards should consider the following matters. In addition to the following, issuers should not forget to conduct a review of “conflicts of interest” with compensation consultants who had any role in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation (subject to certain exceptions). A new SEC rule requires any such conflicts of interest to be disclosed in proxy statements for meetings involving the election of directors held on or after January 1, 2013.17 As part of this process, issuers should update their director and officer questionnaire to solicit information about the existence of business or personal relationships with compensation consultants and the consultants’ employers and establish policies and procedures for collecting and analyzing information about compensation consultants to determine whether a conflict of interest exists.

By July 1, 2013:

  • Grant required compensation committee authority and responsibilities regarding advisers.
    • NASDAQ- and NYSE MKT-listed issuers should consider under the corporate law of the state of their incorporation whether to grant the new authority and responsibilities to the compensation committee (or, in lieu of such a committee, the independent directors who determine or recommend executive compensation) through a committee charter amendment, board resolution or other board action. Although the authority and responsibilities must be granted by July 1, 2013, NASDAQ-listed issuers are not required to include these matters in their compensation committee charter until 2014 (as discussed below). NYSE MKT-listed issuers are not required to have a compensation committee charter, but must determine how best to grant the required authority and responsibilities by July 1, 2013. Although not required until 2014, NASDAQ-listed issuers with existing compensation committee charters may determine it is best to amend their charters by July 1, 2013 to grant the required authority and responsibilities instead of relying on a board resolution or other board action.
    • NYSE-listed issuers should review their compensation committee charters and amend as necessary to grant the new authority and responsibilities.
  • Conduct adviser independence assessment.
    • Discuss the new listing standards with each existing and potential adviser to the compensation committee, even those advisers retained by management or the issuer, to determine whether an independence assessment is required.
    • As specifically noted by the SEC in its adopting release for Rule 10C-1, establish policies and procedures for collecting and analyzing information about advisers before the compensation committee can select or receive advice from those advisers. Steps issuers could take include (1) collecting information internally on the services provided by advisers, including identifying the individual advisers that perform services for the issuer and such advisers’ employers, and the fees paid for such services, (2) having the advisers complete a questionnaire or requesting specific representations and covenants in the adviser engagement letter to solicit the information necessary for the compensation committee to consider the enumerated factors set forth in the listing standards and any other factors deemed relevant to the compensation committee, and (3) updating the director and officer questionnaire to determine the existence of any business or personal relationship with any adviser to the compensation committee or such adviser’s employer. Ensure that any policies and procedures developed are consistent with the compensation committee charter and other issuer procedures, and that they provide that the required independence assessment is conducted prior to selecting or receiving advice from new advisers and at least annually for existing advisers.
    • For existing advisers to the compensation committee where an independence assessment is required, assess their independence and then schedule the next assessment for that adviser at least annually thereafter. As part of this exercise, boards of NYSE- and NYSE MKT-listed issuers should identify and consider any factors in addition to the six specified factors that would be relevant to an adviser’s independence from management. The listing standards are clear that advisers are not required to be independent if the independence assessment is conducted before selecting or receiving advice from an adviser. However, compensation committees may want to consider whether to adopt a policy that guides their actions if an adviser is not independent.

By the earlier of the first annual meeting after January 15, 2014, or October 31, 2014:

  • Evaluate compliance with enhanced compensation committee independence standards.
    • Update the director and officer questionnaire to address the enhanced compensation committee independence standards.
    • Evaluate the independence of compensation committee members to ensure they satisfy the enhanced compensation committee independence standards. Except for NASDAQ’s absolute prohibition on compensatory fees from the issuer or its subsidiaries, the enhanced independence standards do not impose a prohibition on committee membership if the enumerated independence factors are not satisfied. However, as stockholders and proxy advisory firms may be concerned if any factor is not satisfied boards should carefully consider how they will respond if a member does not satisfy the enumerated independence factors. Issuers may choose to conduct such an evaluation in 2013, and develop contingency plans in the event one or more of the existing compensation committee members would not be deemed independent under the enhanced independence standards (for example, in the case of a NASDAQ-listed issuer if a member receives any compensatory fees from the issuer or its subsidiaries). In such case, issuers should consider updating their 2013 director and officer questionnaire to include, for compensation committee members, questions that solicit the information that will enable the board to conduct an evaluation under the enhanced independence standards.
  • Establish a compensation committee. For NASDAQ-listed issuers without a formal compensation committee, establish a committee in accordance with the new listing rules.
  • Adopt a compensation committee charter. For NASDAQ-listed issuers, adopt a compensation committee charter that complies with the new charter standards or ensure that the existing compensation committee charter complies with the new charter standards.

Provide compliance certification. NASDAQ-listed issuers must certify to NASDAQ within 30 days after the final implementation deadline applicable to them, on a form to be provided by NASDAQ, that they have complied with the new compensation committee listing rules.

1. New York Stock Exchange LLC, Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval for Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, to Amend the Listing Rules for Compensation Committees to Comply with Securities Exchange Act Rule 10C-1 and Make Other Related Changes, Release No. 34-68639 (Jan. 11, 2013), 78 Fed. Reg. 4570 (Jan. 22, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-22/pdf/2013-01106.pdf. The amendments impact Sections 303A.00, 303A.02(a) and 303A.05 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (Manual). The text of the amended listing standards is included in Exhibit 5 to this NYSE rule filing.

2. NYSE MKT LLC, Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval for Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, to Amend the Listing Rules for Compensation Committees to Comply with Securities Exchange Act Rule 10C-1 and Make Other Related Changes, Release No. 34-68637 (Jan. 11, 2013), 78 Fed. Reg. 4537 (Jan. 22, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-22/pdf/2013-01104.pdf. The amendments impact Sections 110, 801(h), 803A and 805 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide (Guide). The text of the amended listing standards is included in Exhibit 5 to this NYSE MKT rule filing.

3. The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to Amend the Listing Rules for Compensation Committees to Comply with Rule 10C-1 under the Act and Make Other Related Changes, Release No. 34-68640 (Jan. 11, 2013), 78 Fed. Reg. 4554 (Jan. 22, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-22/pdf/2013-01107.pdf. The amendments impact compensation committee- and corporate governance-related Listing Rules 5605(d) and 5615, and add new Listing Rule 5605A. The amendments also include conforming amendments to audit and nominations committee-related Listing Rules 5605(c) and 5605(e)(3) and corrections of typographical errors in other listing rules. The text of the amended listing rules is included in Exhibit 5 to this NASDAQ rule filing.

4. Please see our client alert dated October 22, 2012 for a discussion of the listing standard amendments as originally proposed, NYSE, NYSE MKT and NASDAQ Propose Amendments to Compensation Committee Listing Standards.

5. Issuers should remember that pursuant to new Item 407(e)(3)(iv) of Regulation S-K their proxy statements for meetings involving the election of directors held on or after January 1, 2013 must include disclosure of any “conflict of interest” involving compensation consultants (but not other advisers such as lawyers) who had any role in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation (subject to certain exceptions). “Conflict of interest” is not defined, but to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, issuers should use the factors set out in Exchange Act Rule 10C-1(b)(4) relating to adviser independence, which are the same six factors identified in the new NYSE standards.

6. See Letter from Janet McGinness, Exec. Vice Pres., Corp. Sec’y & Gen. Counsel, NYSE Markets, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Sec’y, SEC (Jan. 10, 2013), availableat http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2012-49/nyse201249-8.pdf.

7. These issuers would also need to update their compensation committee charters to reflect these matters.

8. For the remainder of the discussion of the NYSE MKT’s new listing standards, references to compensation committee are meant to refer to an issuer’s independent directors as a group where the issuer does not have a compensation committee, but instead relies on its independent directors to determine, or recommend to the board for determination, executive officer compensation.

9. Issuers should remember that pursuant to new Item 407(e)(3)(iv) of Regulation S-K their proxy statements for meetings involving the election of directors held on or after January 1, 2013 must include disclosure of any “conflict of interest” involving compensation consultants (but not other advisers such as lawyers) who had any role in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation (subject to certain exceptions). “Conflict of interest” is not defined, but to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, issuers should use the factors set out in Exchange Act Rule 10C-1(b)(4) relating to adviser independence, which are the same six factors identified in the new NYSE MKT standards.

10. See Letter from Janet McGinness, Exec. Vice Pres., Corp. Sec’y & Gen. Counsel, NYSE Markets, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Sec’y, SEC (Jan. 10, 2013), availableat http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2012-49/nyse201249-8.pdf. Although no comments were submitted on the NYSE MKT’s proposed listing standards, comments were submitted on the NYSE’s and NYSE Arca’s proposed listing standards. In response to these comments, NYSE Euronext (the parent company of NYSE, NYSE MKT and NYSE Arca) issued one response letter that addressed the comments on behalf of all NYSE exchanges, including NYSE MKT, as the comments raised are in substance applicable to all three proposals. 

11. Any such issuer that does not have a compensation committee must comply with this transition requirement with respect to all of its independent directors as a group.

12. Issuers should remember that pursuant to new Item 407(e)(3)(iv) of Regulation S-K their proxy statements for meetings involving the election of directors held on or after January 1, 2013 must include disclosure of any “conflict of interest” involving compensation consultants (but not other advisers such as lawyers) who had any role in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation (subject to certain exceptions). “Conflict of interest” is not defined, but to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, issuers should use the factors set out in Exchange Act Rule 10C-1(b)(4) relating to adviser independence, which are the same six factors identified in the new NASDAQ rules.

13. See Letter from Erika J. Moore, Assoc. Gen. Counsel., NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Sec’y, SEC (Dec. 12, 2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-NASDAQ-2012-109/NASDAQ2012109-9.pdf.

14. NASDAQ also proposed, and the SEC approved, amendments to NASDAQ’s audit committee listing rules that require listed issuers to proactively certify that the audit committee “will review and reassess” the adequacy of the audit committee charter on an annual basis. Current listing rules require the certification to provide that the audit committee “has reviewed and reassessed” the adequacy of the audit committee’s charter on an annual basis. NASDAQ noted that this change is consistent with its current interpretation of the audit committee charter requirements and will harmonize the audit committee charter requirements with the new compensation committee charter requirements.

15. A smaller reporting company that loses that status must comply with the enhanced compensation committee independence requirements as follows: (1) one member in compliance within six months from the date smaller reporting company status is lost, (2) a majority in compliance within nine months from the date smaller reporting company status is lost and (3) all members in compliance within one year from the date smaller reporting company status is lost.

16. See Exhibit 3 to this NASDAQ rule filing for the form of compensation committee certification NASDAQ intends to use.

17. For more information on this SEC disclosure requirement, please see our client alert dated July 9, 2012, SEC Adopts Rules Implementing Dodd-Frank Requirements for Compensation Committees and Compensation Advisers.

© 2013 Andrews Kurth LLP

I’m Too Sexy It Hurts… My Employment

Giordano Logo

Studies often show that attractive workers tend to get hired sooner, get promotions more quickly, and are paid more handsomely than their less-attractive co-workers. But can good looks get you fired without any job protection? According to a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, they can.

In Nelson v. Knight, the Iowa Supreme Court considered whether a female employee could be lawfully terminated because her boss believed that she was an irresistible attraction and keeping her employed was a threat to his marriage. Nelson, the terminated employee, had worked for Knight’s dental practice for ten years along with Knight’s wife.  Ultimately, Knight’s wife became jealous and demanded that Knight terminate Nelson.  Knight too believed that if Nelson remained employed he would likely have (or attempt to have) an affair with her.  Consequently, Knight notified Nelson that she was terminated because she was too irresistible and a threat to his marriage.  Nelson then brought a cause of action against Knight alleging that she was terminated because of her gender in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.  Nelson did not allege at any time that Knight sexually harassed her.

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld Nelson’s termination.  In doing so, the Court drew an important distinction between an isolated employment decision based on personal relationship issues (which is lawful in most cases) and an employment decision based strictly on one’s gender (which is unlawful in most cases).  The court reasoned that this case fell under the first scenario in which Knight terminated Nelson because of personal relationship issues and not because of her gender.  Therefore, the court found that Nelson’s termination was lawful under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

Although this may seem like a novel decision, it should not be a surprise.  In New Jersey, it is well-established that physical attractiveness is not a protected class under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  It is also well established that an employee can be terminated because of relationship issues stemming from a consensual workplace relationship with his or her employer absent sexual harassment. In applying these principles, it is fair to conclude that a similar decision might have been rendered by a court in New Jersey.  On the other hand, Nelson was a threat to Knight’s marriage only because she is a woman; thus, it is not difficult to imagine that a court in New Jersey might have gone the other way.

© 2013 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.