Category: Uncategorized

Federal Court Strikes Down Portions of Department of Labor’s Final Rule on COVID-19 Leave, Expands Coverage

On August 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down portions of the DOL’s Final Rule regarding who qualifies for COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), collectively referred to as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).

Of particular importance to retail employers, the Court invalidated two provisions of the DOL’s Final Rule pertaining to: (1) conditioning leave on the availability of work and (2) the need to obtain employer consent prior to taking leave on an intermittent basis.

Neither the EPSLA nor the EFMLEA contains an express “work availability” requirement. The EPSLA grants paid leave to employees who are “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave because” of any of six COVID-19-related criteria. FFCRA § 5102(a). The EFMLEA similarly applies to employees “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for . . . [a child] due to a public health emergency.” FFCRA § 101(a)(2)(A).  In its Final Rule, the DOL concluded that these provisions do not reach employees whose employers “do not have work” for them, reasoning a work-availability requirement is justified “because the employee would be unable to work even if he or she” did not have a qualifying condition set forth in the statute.

In rejecting the DOL’s interpretation, the Court stated that “the agency’s barebones explanation for the work-availability requirement is patently deficient,” given that the DOL’s interpretation “considerably narrow[s] the statute’s potential scope.”  Under the Court’s interpretation, employees are entitled to protected leave under either the EPSLA or EFMLEA if they satisfy the express statutory conditions, regardless of whether they are scheduled to work during the requested leave period.

The Court also rejected part of the DOL’s interpretation that employees are not permitted to take the protected leave on an intermittent basis unless they obtain their employer’s consent.  As an initial matter, the Court upheld the DOL’s interpretation that employees cannot take intermittent leave in certain situations in which there is a higher risk that the employee will spread COVID-19 to other employees (i.e., when the employees: are subject to government quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19; have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and are taking leave to obtain a medical diagnosis; are taking care of an individual who either is subject to a quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19 or has been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19).

In those circumstances, the Court agreed that a restriction on intermittent leave “advances Congress’s public-health objectives by preventing employees who may be infected or contagious from returning intermittently to a worksite where they could transmit the virus.”  Therefore, in those situations, employees are only permitted to take the protected leave in a block of time (i.e., a certain number of days/weeks), not on an intermittent basis.  As a result, the Court upheld the DOL’s restriction on intermittent leave “insofar as it bans intermittent leave based on qualifying conditions that implicate an employee’s risk of viral transmission.”

The Court, however, rejected the requirement that employees obtain their employer’s consent before taking intermittent leave in other circumstances (i.e., when an employee takes leave solely to care for the employee’s son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed).  In doing so, the Court ruled that the DOL failed to provide a coherent justification for requiring the employer’s consent, particularly in situations in which the risk of viral transmission is low.  The Court’s opinion brings the EPSLA and EFMLEA in line with the existing FMLA, which does not require employer consent.

It is unclear if the DOL will challenge the Court’s decision or revise its Final Rule to bring it in compliance with the Court’s opinion.  Regardless, the Court’s decision takes effect immediately and retail employers should be mindful of this ruling and revisit their COVID-19 leave policies.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

COVID-19: FTC Acts Fast, Lambasts Missing Masks

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. Section 45(a)) provides worthwhile remedies for the types of unfair competition that intellectual property practitioners find quite familiar, and practitioners should give them due consideration.  Selling COVID-19 masks you don’t have provides a good example.

In a case filed in early July (FTC press release) the FTC took a Staten Island business to task, along with its owner, for claiming that masks, respirators and other “PPE’s” (personal protection equipment) was “in stock” and “would ship the next day” (Complaint).  The website “supergooddeals.com” continues to lead off with its signature slogan, “Pay Today, Ships Tomorrow” (https://supergooddeals.com/; also accessed by the author on July 31, 2020).

Apparently starting in March 2021, supergooddeals.com began selling PPE.  According to the FTC complaint, the website claimed that the desired masks were “IN STOCK” (complaint paragraphs 19 and 20).  The FTC complaint gives no indication as to whether or not the “in stock” claim was accurate, but instead pleads the examples of several consumers who never received masks, and numerous complaints to which supergooddeals.com never responded.

The FTC complaint also implies that to the extent that some orders may have been shipped, they were shipped on terms that were far less favorable than supergooddeals.com advertised, and when shipments never arrived (or perhaps were never sent) supergooddeals.com failed to give buyers the opportunity to change their mind, or offer a refund or any modification in price terms (e.g. Complaint paragraphs 29-31).

Supergooddeals.com also apparently attempted to conceal their failures (worse verbs could be applied) by producing shipment labels carrying the promised shipping date, but for packages that either would never ship, or shipped much later than the labelled date.  Supergooddeals.com apparently didn’t realize that when a business creates its own USPS shipping labels, “An electronic record is generated on the ship date indicating that your package has been mailed and the Postal Service is expecting to see your package that day.” Click-N-Ship Field Information Kit

(For those of us that may merely be tardy, the same USPS webpage suggests mailing the package on the next business day.  Checking for a friend.)

The FTC also asserted MITOR (“Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise,” 16 CFR Part 435) which defines the terms in the name, defines unfair and deceptive practices in context, requires certain activities, and lists some exceptions (including, for reasons known only on K Street, “orders of seeds and growing plants”).

So, the alleged infractions include:

  • Advertising a delivery date that you know you cannot meet,
  • Advertising items that you don’t have in stock
  • Producing a false mailing label in an attempt to prove the shipping date, and
  • Failing to cancel orders when requested or provide prompt refunds

The Federal Trade Commission Act has worthwhile remedies for such activities, and as the Complaint indicates (paragraphs 58 and 59) the FTC plans to seek them against supergooddeals.com.

So, the people get their money back from supergooddeals.com and all’s well that ends well. Right?

Not exactly.  The FTC Act offers no private right of action in these circumstances.  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 USC Section 1692(d) which is generally under the Federal Trade Commission, provides private remedies in the consumer debt arena, but a private party otherwise has no right to the remedies sought against supergooddeals.com under the FTC Act.

At this point, however, the intellectual property (“IP”) practitioner may have an extra arrow up his or her sleeve:  Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 USC 1125(a)) if—IF—the parties can be defined as competitors in the section 43(a) sense.

FTC § 5(a)

Lanham Act § 43(a)

Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

(1)Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

Anchor(A)

is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

Anchor(B)

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

The Lanham Act applies to false representations (etc.) about goods and services in interstate commerce, but plaintiffs attempting to stretch section 43 (a) too far have been turned down e.g., Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 786 F.3d 316 (4th Cir., 2015) (The Radiance Foundation, an African American influenced pro-life organization, criticized the NAACP over the NAACP position on abortion.  The NAACP issued a cease and desist letter and the Radiance Foundation filed a declaratory judgment complaint arguing that neither trademark infringement nor dilution had occurred.  The NAACP counterclaimed under (inter alia) section 43(a).  The Fourth Circuit held that for a number of reasons, including the lack of competing goods or services in the section 43(a) sense, the NAACP did not have a trademark remedy in these circumstances.)

Supergooddeals.com certainly dealt (and continues to deal) in “goods” in the sense of section 43(a).  Nevertheless, the “hundreds of” consumers listed in (e.g.) paragraph 26 of the FTC complaint don’t have a section 43(a) remedy against supergooddeals.com because such customers are not “competitors” of supergooddeals.com in the sense required by section 43(a).  Stated more formally, for individual defrauded customers, the answer to, “whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim” is “no.” (Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 132 (2014). (“A consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product may well have an injury-in-fact cognizable under Article III, but he cannot invoke the protection of the Lanham Act—a conclusion reached by every Circuit to consider the question.”)

Does Pat Peoples have any Silver Lining here?  Well, yes. In addition to a possible contractual remedy, most states have some form of general “unfair competition is illegal” statute as well as consumer protection remedies.

For the time being, however, these defrauded consumers have Uncle Sam on their side, and when “Uncle” sues he usually gets the job done.

 

Copyright 2020 Summa PLLC All Rights Reserved

ARTICLE BY Philip Summa and Summa PLLC.
For more FTC PPE Actions see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Legal News: Law Firm Hires, Professional Recognition and Legal Innovation

With plenty of adjustments and creativity, the legal industry churns into August.  The legal industry has shown remarkable ingenuity as law firms adapt to the challenges of COVID-19 and the ancillary impact of the pandemic.  Below we highlight some law firm hires, law firm innovations and accolades, and legal technology news.

Law Firm Hires and Lateral Attorney Moves

Labor and employment lawyer Ryan McCoy rejoined Norton Rose Fulbright as a partner. McCoy split the past seven years between Baute Crochetiere Hartley & Velkei and Alston & Bird, previously spending eight years as part of Norton Rose Fulbright’s dispute resolution and litigation practice from 2005 until 2013.

McCoy represents clients from the healthcare, pharmaceutical, retail, insurance, transport and insurance industries, focusing his practice on wage and hour class actions, discrimination suits, wrongful termination and retaliation, commercial litigation, and complex insurance coverage. He has also defended clients before the American Arbitration Association in wage and hour violations, sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination as well as meal and rest period disputes.

“Ryan impressed us as a young lawyer, and we are thrilled to have him return in his prime. The client demand for employment and labor law seems to be at an all-time high during this unusual time for businesses,” said Shauna Clark, Norton Rose Fulbright’s U.S. head of employment and labor.

“I am delighted to return to Norton Rose Fulbright and collaborate once again with these talented lawyers. The firm’s unmatched global reach and wide range of offerings will benefit my clients significantly,” McCoy said.

Patent attorney Pierre R. Yanney joined Bressler, Amery & Ross law firm as a principal in its Corporate and Commercial Transactions Practice Group. Previously, Yanney was a principal at Baker & Hostetler law firm.

Mr. Yanney focuses his practice on all aspects of patent law, ranging from patent litigation, opinions and counseling, to Patent Office prosecution, and has experience in handling a wide range of technologies including RFID, cellular systems, medical electronics and devices, signal processing, communication systems, electronic tolling, and elevator control systems.  Yanney has prosecuted more than 2,000 patent applications and written more than 100 patent opinions, in addition to arguing several cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial & Appeal Board.

“I’m excited to welcome Pierre Yanney to our New York office. Pierre is known for the breadth and depth of his IP experience. It’s rare that you come across someone like Pierre who can write a patent application, get it allowed at the Patent Office, and also litigate patents in district court. His talents and business insights will be a positive addition to our active Corporate and Commercial practice,” said Bressler New York Managing Principal, Mark Knoll.

Labor and employment attorney Scott Nelson joined Hunton Andrews Kurth as a partner in the law firm’s Houston office. Nelson previously was a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and led Baker McKenzie’s domestic U.S. Employment Counseling and Litigation practice.

Nelson’s practice focuses on complex employment litigation, specifically wage and hour class and collective actions, ERISA litigation, and trade secret and restrictive covenant matters. He also counsels clients on employment law compliance, including international employment law issues, restrictive covenants, wage-and-hour matters, internal investigations, executive terminations, mass layoffs, employee policies, employee training and due diligence.

“Scott’s thorough understanding of the many complex issues our clients face and his impressive track record of experience handling ERISA litigation and advising on international employment law matters complement the strengths of our comprehensive labor and employment practice,” said Emily Burkhardt Vicente, co-chair of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s labor and employment group. “We are pleased to welcome him to the firm.”

Bergeson & Campbell attorney Timothy D. Backstrom passed away on July 24. Backstrom joined Bergeson & Campbell in 2007, and was an expert in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also contributing to the law and regulation of fuel and fuel additives under the Clean Air Act.

“Tim was an incredibly gifted lawyer, respected by his peers, loved by his fellow colleagues here at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., and a wonderful man, husband, and father.  He is survived by his wife Lydia Cox Backstrom, his (step) son Christopher Blancato, his brother Paul Backstrom (Kathy), and his cousins Dan and Don Backstrom,” Bergeson & Campbell said in a statement following his death.

Backstrom grew up in Illinois and Wisconsin, later moving to the East coast to earn his undergraduate degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He earned his law degree at Yale Law School, and then went on to work for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of General Counsel on pesticide, toxic substances, and air quality issues for 25 years, developing a deep understanding of FIFRA.

“We will miss Tim’s uncompromising commitment to legal excellence, his passion for the law, his exuberance for any work composed by Gustav Mahler, and his unrelenting belief that the rule of law will ultimately prevail over the societal challenges we are now experiencing,” Bergeson wrote in a statement.

Law Firm Innovation

Winston & Strawn announced the formation of an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Advisory Team, designed to help companies navigate their ESG profiles. The advisory board will be co-chaired by Winston & Strawn partners Mike Blankenship and Eric Johnson, and utilizes the firm’s experience across disciplines to oversee the ESG issues companies are facing during these challenging times.  Blankenship identifies the correlation between successful businesses and their attention to ESG values, saying, “successful businesses are placing ESG principles at the forefront of their core values and leveraging those principles to chart a path for financial success and future growth to the benefit of all their stakeholders, including employees, customers, vendors, local communities, and stockholders.”

The team includes Chicago partners Mike Melbinger, Eleni Kouimelis, Cardelle Spangler, and Rex Sessions, of counsel Stephanie Sebor; New York partner Tara Greenberg, London partners Peter Crowther and Anthony Riley.  The group will focus on ESG disclosure and messaging, Board oversight of ESG risks, shareholder activism, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.  With an eye to these principles, the Winston & Strawn ESG team will “work closely with clients to develop and execute ESG-related initiatives that best fit their specific needs to the benefit of all of their stakeholders,” Eric Johnson says.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed law firm launched a coronavirus and CARES Act tracker that monitors enforcement actions across the country, targeting Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud, fraudulent COVID-19 cures, as well as violations of state and federal laws. Hughes Hubbard & Reed is monitoring coronavirus government agency filings, and will update the tracker frequently.

To date, Hughes Hubbard & Reed has identified 110 coronavirus and CARES act cases brought by the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, with 12 state attorneys general bringing cases. Pennsylvania’s attorney general’s office has been the most active with COVID-19 related legal actions. Forty percent of cases involve alleged criminal violations, and 30 percent of coronavirus related cases include a suspension of securities trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission, with the number of cases growing steadily since April.

The tracker can be accessed here with detailed information on each case, including links to court filings and relevant statutes.

DLA Piper law firm received the 2020 Beacon of Justice Award from the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA), recognizing the growth of the firm’s pro bono practice focusing on the needs of immigrant children facing abuse, neglect and abandonment. The NLADA also recognized the firm’s collaboration with the American Bar Association to develop habeas corpus petition template pleadings and practice advisories for unaccompanied children.

“We are honored to play a role in advocating for the rights of vulnerable individuals and families seeking a better life in the US,” said Lisa Dewey, pro bono partner and director of New Perimeter, DLA Piper’s nonprofit affiliate that provides long-term pro bono legal assistance in under-served regions around the world. “I am proud of the dedication to serving immigrants that our lawyers have demonstrated through their pro bono service, and we look forward to continuing this important work.”

Jay Bender, a partner at the Birmingham, Ala. office of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings law firm, received the Alabama Commendation Medal from the Alabama Army National Guard for his work on the “Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act of 2019” (HAVEN Act; H.R. 2938).

Bender was presented the award by Amy Quick Glenos, an of counsel attorney at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., and a reserve component soldier and captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps, Alabama Army National Guard, for which she also serves as trial counsel.

The HAVEN Act was signed into law last year, changing bankruptcy laws to protect disabled veterans experiencing financial hardship. Bender worked pro bono alongside other Bradley attorneys on the law, serving as co-chair of the Legislative Committee of the American Bankruptcy Institute Task Force on Veterans and Service Members Affairs – of which Mr. Bender is a founding member.

“We congratulate Jay on this prestigious recognition of his many years of work and unwavering commitment to protecting disabled veterans in financial distress and ushering the HAVEN Act into reality,” said Bradley Birmingham Office Managing Partner Dawn Helms Sharff. “This recognition is reflective of Jay’s outstanding work and the importance of this landmark law in helping disabled veterans and their families achieve financial stability.”

Tycko & Zavareei law firm won a $11 million settlement representing a healthcare whistleblower in a False Claims Act lawsuit.  Jonathan Tycko of Tycko & Zavareei and Felix Gavi Luna of Peterson Wampold Rosato Feldman Luna law firm represented the whistleblower.

The settlement involved allegations that a testing laboratory owned by Cordant Health Solutions paid kickbacks to two major clients of the laboratory to encourage further testing referrals to the laboratory from those clients. The whistleblower, who was a former employee of Cordant, filed the lawsuit under the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act five years ago. Cordant agreed to pay the government $11,942,913 to settle the claims. The government awarded the whistleblower approximately $2.4 million, or 20 percent of the settlement amount.

“This settlement shows that the False Claims Act works,” Tycko said.  “Through the qui tam provisions of that law, our client was able to bring the kickbacks to the attention of the government in a way that led to both criminal and civil remedies.  We are proud and humbled to represent brave whistleblowers, such as the individual who brought this case.”

“We are grateful for how seriously the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and all the government lawyers and investigators who have worked on this matter, took our client’s allegations, and for the work they did to reach this settlement,” said Luna.

Bryan Cave Leighton & Paisner recently announced that Denver associate, Ivan London, was recently elected to serve on the Board of Advisors for Western Energy Alliance.  Comprised of 300 member companies, the Western Energy Alliance focuses on environmentally responsible exploration and production of oil and gas in the region.  The Western Energy Alliance supports policies to encourage investment and job growth in the region.  London’s practice with Bryan Cave focuses on regulation in energy, environmental and with other natural resource matters.

Legal Technology Innovations

At the end of July, Clariviate Plc announced an agreement to combine with CPA Global, a global leader in IP software and tech –enabled services.  The transaction will be all-stock with an enterprise value of approximately $6.8 billion.  The transaction is expected to go through regulatory approvals, is expected to close fourth quarter of 2020. By combining efforts, CPA Global and Clarivate will provide an IP solution that provides market-leading software, data, technology and services throughout the IP lifecycle, from academic research to IP portfolio management.

Jerre Stead, CEO of Clarivate indicates the company’s share similar core values and expects the partnership to lead to more innovation.  He says, “This is a transformative combination with a strong strategic fit between the two companies. It will create a full-service IP organization which will provide customers with a wide range of products and services to help them make faster and smarter critical decisions.”  Simon Webster, the CEO of CPA Global, echoes the sentiment, calling the move “a natural next step.”  He says, “The fit between our respective product offerings across the innovation and IP lifecycle, the commonality of our vision for the future of the industry, and the alignment of both companies’ cultures and values makes for an extremely exciting future for our customers, employees and shareholders alike.”

Leading accounting firm BDO USA, LLP launched Athenagy, a business intelligence platform for legal professionals, designed to provide the legal department with transparency and critical insight throughout the litigation cycle.  Athenagy is designed to integrate with Relativity®One and can provide critical insight into where data lives and what it does through the steps of a legal hold, providing information to legal professionals.

Daniel Gold, managing director of BDO Managed Services practice, says “Athenagy solves persistent problems that legal departments face when it comes to managing their data. By providing transparency and detailed analytics throughout the data lifecycle, Athenagy is empowering legal professionals to make better, more informed decisions at every step of the e-discovery process, and beyond.”

That’s it for now.  We’ll have more soon.

 

Copyright ©2020 National Law Forum, LLC

Debunking Five Business Development Myths to Help You Achieve Success

Business development, marketing and public relations initiatives can be intimidating to even the most-seasoned legal veteran. The idea of creating a successful plan seems daunting, much less the prospect of executing, maintaining and measuring the plan’s performance metrics. The steps to effective business development are rooted in creating visibility and thought leadership that successfully position both you and your firm within the marketplace and that translate into new clients and business referrals.

Here are five business development myths that make creating and executing a successful business development plan seem impossible. It is important to remember that most attorneys did not go to law school or begin their legal practices with the aspiration of becoming a seasoned marketer. However, it is possible to become successful at business development by reevaluating how you measure success and how you focus your efforts  — and debunking these myths.

Myth #1- There Is a “One Size Fits All” Marketing & Business Development Plan

Each individual’s marketing and business development plan should be customized to highlight not only their unique strengths but also to incorporate their priorities, experience, capabilities and commitment level. For example, if you’re more extroverted, your plan could include large networking events or speaking engagements. If the idea of speaking to a group of strangers is intimidating, then perhaps your plan includes writing articles or providing your expertise in small roundtable discussions. Additionally, before creating a business development plan, each individual needs to evaluate factors like where they are in their career, what their short-term and long-term goals are, and what they need to get out of their business development initiatives to be considered effective.

Myth #2- Being Successful at Business Development Means You Are a “Rainmaker”

There is often a stigma that the successful business developer is defined as a rainmaker. Business development success should be measured on an individual level and not compared to the firm as a whole or measured against any other attorney’s business development contribution. There are too many factors for each person and their experiences and circumstances to label only the rainmaker as successful. Just like a law firm requires many layers of expertise to run smoothly, there are different levels of contributors to business development, and each level should be valued and encouraged if individuals are participating to the best of their ability and expanding their business development experience.

Myth #3- New Clients Are the Only Measure of Business Development Success

While the obvious end goal of all business development initiatives is more business which equals more billing and revenue, signing new clients is not the only measure of successful business development. Expanding your network to broaden the exposure of your expertise is a fundamental part of a successful business development plan. Often, attorneys get too focused on cultivating the relationship with a potential client and miss opportunities to connect with valuable referral sources, thus limiting their network.

There are also other business development initiatives that can be measured as successful beyond singing a new client- including getting a bylined article published, being honored with a significant award or ranking, or being quoted in the press. Each of these things help to create an integrated and effective business development plan that sets up the foundation for long-term success.

Myth #4- Executing Your Plan Needs to Be Done Alone

Simply because your business development plan “belongs to you” doesn’t mean you have to execute it on your own. Working with someone to hold you accountable is crucial to the process. This is not to say you need to immediately run out and find a business development coach to be successful, but you do need someone to discuss which initiatives are working in your plan and identify any challenges you’re facing. This should include regular check-in meetings to make sure your plan is progressing the way you’d like and to ensure your goals are being achieved. It also includes evaluating the success, or lack thereof, of initiatives and adjusting or revising goals to be more effective.

Having a mentor or aspirational influence is also a helpful tool for both planning and execution. While you don’t have to model your plan to mirror someone else’s, there is value in knowing where you’d like to be and seeing someone else achieving that level of success. A mentor will serve in a more interactional role, but if that model doesn’t fit with your personality or your business, identifying with a person or people whose success you would like to emulate is helpful when crafting a strategy and long-term goals in your business development plan.

Myth #5- Business Development Is a Fancy Term for Networking

Many people declare they don’t need a business development plan because they are “active” within their industry and regularly attend events. Event attendance is a piece of a larger initiative that creates a successful and measurable business development plan. Often, attorneys put all their marketing eggs in one basket. They become frustrated when those efforts are unsuccessful and give up. An integrated approach is key to being successful in business development. This includes not only networking but also incorporating other things like writing, ranking and honors, digital strategy, and public relations.

It’s easy to focus on client work and push business development initiatives to the side or add them to a to-do list. The idea behind breaking down these common myths is to empower everyone to feel they can create a manageable business development plan, use the tools and resources they need to execute these plans successfully, and to execute these plans with short-term and long-term goals that are easily achieved. Business development does not need to be intimidating, overwhelming or time-consuming if your plan is personalized to highlight your strengths, comfort level and readiness. The goal of business development is not just to meet people and hope they’ll hire you, but to create lasting impressions through initiatives and actions that enhance your visibility and position you as a thought leader.

© Copyright 2008-2020, Jaffe Associates

ARTICLE BY Evyan O’Keefe at Jaffe PR.
For more on law firm business, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

COVID-19 Update: NY Governor Cuomo Extends Tenant Protections, Including Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium

On August 5, 2020, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.551 (the “New Order”) to provide additional relief to renters impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and extended the time periods for certain other protections that had been previously granted to renters and property owners pursuant to Executive Order 202.82, as extended by Executive Order 202.283 and Executive Order 202.484 (the “Prior Orders”).

The Prior Orders provided for (i) a moratorium on evictions of commercial tenants through August 5, 2020, and residential tenants through July 5, 2020, and (ii) a moratorium on eviction and foreclosure of any residential or commercial tenant or owner through August 20, 2020, if the basis of the eviction or foreclosure is the nonpayment of rent or the mortgage, as applicable, and the tenant or owner, as applicable, is eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law or is otherwise facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Executive Order 202.48 previously had removed the restrictions on residential foreclosures and residential evictions, as those has been superseded by legislative action.  The Laws of New York 2020, Chapter 112 provides for 180 days of mortgage forbearance for individuals, which period may be extended by the mortgagor for an additional 180 days.5  The Laws of New York 2020, Chapter 127 prohibits evictions of residential tenants that have suffered financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic for the non-payment of rent.  In each case, the relief granted extends through the period commencing on March 7, 2020, until the date on which “none of the provisions that closed or otherwise restricted public or private businesses or places of public accommodation, or required postponement or cancellation of all non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size” continue to apply.

The New Order extends a number of existing Executive Orders, including the Prior Orders for an additional 30 days, to September 5, 2020, effectively continuing the moratoria on commercial and residential evictions and foreclosures – whether instituted by executive order or passed into law by the legislature – until such date.

1       Executive Order 202.55, available here.

2       Executive Order 202.8, available here.

3       Executive Order 202.28, available here.

4       Executive Order 202.48, available here.

5       The Laws of New York 2020, Chapters 112 and 127.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more on COVID-19 related rental relief, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Return to Work COVID-19 Testing Considerations

As employees increasingly transition back into the physical workplace, employers have begun to grapple with whether and how to deploy COVID-19 diagnostic testing as a return-to-work solution.  Many employers want to avoid extended employee quarantine or isolation requirements that prevent their employees from returning to the office for weeks and disrupt their operations.  But is this potential solution legal?  And is it effective?  Below we discuss practical considerations for employers considering a return to work COVID-19 testing strategy.

Is it Legal?

For the most part, yes.  While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has approved of COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the workplace generally, it has, as explained further below, recently modified its guidance to discourage its use as a return to work strategy.  Further, approaches vary widely across the states and localities that have taken a position on return to work testing.  For example, while Illinois permits its use, an ordinance in Dallas, Texas prohibits return to work testing.

Is it Effective?  

It depends.  Before mandatory vaccination becomes an option (which we wrote about here), requiring employees to test negative for COVID-19 before returning to work may at first glance seem like a reasonable way to ensure employee attendance while keeping the workplace safe.  For some employers, particularly those that are able to test frequently, quickly and accurately, this may be a sound approach.  But for other employers, they will have to weigh their options carefully.  Recent updated guidance from the CDC, employee complaints about the invasiveness of testing, and very real ongoing concerns about testing availability and accuracy may militate against pursuing a testing strategy at this time.

More specifically, recent guidance from the CDC discourages a test-based strategy as a primary solution finding that a symptom-based screening strategy is sufficient to identify when an individual with symptoms may return to work.  However, if an employer nevertheless decides to proceed with diagnostic testing as part of their COVID-19 mitigation strategy, the CDC recommends having employees test negatively twice with the two consecutive tests coming at least 24 hours, before returning to work.

State and local guidance does not necessarily provide additional clarity on how best to proceed.  For example New York State’s guidance only addresses situations where an employee experiences symptoms upon arrival at work or while at the office, advising that in those instances an employee may return to work with a single negative COVID-19 test (in contrast to the CDC’s recommended two consecutive negative tests).  But New York’s guidance does not currently address whether testing is a solution to a host of other scenarios – for instance, where an employee’s remote screening indicates recent symptoms, known exposure, or where an employee traveled to a place with significant community spread.  In those instances, the New York guidance does not incorporate testing as a return to work solution, instead asserting that individuals who have had known close contact with someone who has COVID-19 (i.e. within 6 feet of someone for ten or more minutes) should (1) isolate for 10 days from the onset of symptoms (if the individual has symptoms); or (2) isolate for 14 days from the date of exposure (if the individual does not have symptoms).  New York’s guidance also states that employees who test positive for COVID-19 must complete at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms or 10 days of isolation after the first positive test if they remain asymptomatic.

Putting all the guidance aside for the moment, testing may prove futile in many cases regardless.  First, COVID-19 reportedly can take 2-14 days after exposure to become identifiable in a diagnostic test, and thus, employees who test negative may return to work and later discover they have indeed been infected.  And in other cases, testing may prove futile if an employee cannot access a test readily, and thereafter receive their results in a timely manner, which effectively sidelines them from returning to the office anyway.  Further, there is also the possibility of a false negative, particularly when an employee takes a rapid test.  Other employer considerations include how COVID-19 testing, and the resulting disciplining of employees if they refuse to be tested, might affect overall employee morale.

Employers should consider these issues and weigh them against the vitality of other preventative measures such as whether an employee can telework or take a paid or unpaid leave in lieu of returning to work.  If the employee must return to work, employers should consider using other safety measures (whether in lieu of or in addition to testing), such as symptom/exposure questionnaires, temperature checks and workplace social distancing requirements.

What if an Employee Refuses to Take a Diagnostic Test? 

In selecting any of these options, employers should consider creating a policy or procedure that, among other things, discloses the circumstances under which an employee must take a test, the specific test or tests that the employer will accept, and the consequences of an employee’s refusal to be tested prior to returning to work.  Employers should also consider whether they will afford an employee the opportunity to take an unpaid leave of absence where they refuse to take a test in lieu of a disciplinary action.

Further, before resorting to disciplinary measures, employers should first consider the nature of the employee’s objection.  If the employee is simply annoyed or frustrated about the testing policy, disciplinary measures may be appropriate as the employees is failing to adhere to a company safety policy.  However, employers should evaluate whether the employee is asking for a disability accommodation, and if so, should consider alternative options to testing.

A Note about Isolation Practices and Employee Abuses.

In jurisdictions that do not require employees to isolate after potential symptoms or exposure, employers that need employees to work in the office may be turning to COVID-19 diagnostic testing as an alternative or supplement to isolation practices they consider impractical or prone to abuse.  Indeed, some employers are facing scenarios in which employees attempt to take advantage of company isolation policies in an effort to take extended time away from the workplace.

Employers facing this situation may consider implementing a diagnostic testing strategy (where permitted and feasible), but should also consider addressing the various employee abuse scenarios that might unfold and provide cautionary warnings to employees.  For example, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and some other jurisdictions are requiring individuals who travel to certain states with troublesome COVID-19 metrics to quarantine for 14 days upon their reentry.  If an employee is planning travel to a “hot spot” on vacation to avoid returning to work, the employer should consider warning the employee that if they are unable to telework upon their return, they may be required to take additional paid time off or even unpaid leave.  Alternatively, employers facing operational difficulties if employers are away for multiple weeks may wish to revisit paid time off approval processes or condition approval of company-provided vacation time on an employee’s ability to return to work promptly after traveling.  In short, employers may have several options to address employees’ abuse of isolation rules that do not necessarily have to involve the implementation of diagnostic testing.

Final Considerations.

If an employer does decide to implement a testing strategy, it should ensure that its COVID-19 testing and screening protocols and policies adhere to relevant state and local guidelines, which vary greatly by jurisdiction.  Employers should further ensure they are tracking other practical aspects of testing.  For example, employers must safeguard employee medical records in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements and the privacy requirements of various states and localities, which we discussed here.  When choosing a diagnostic test, employers must also ensure that the test is reliable and accurate – for instance, some rapid testing kits now entering the market may not meet the EEOC’s reliability and accuracy standards.  Similarly, any testing strategies must be uniformly applied so as not to cause disparate treatment amongst employees.  Employers should refer to the EEOC’s ADA guidance, which we discussed here, to ensure non-discriminatory application of testing policies.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

For more on COVID-19 Testing see the National Law Review Coronavirs News section.

National Security Meets Teenage Dance Battles: Trump Issues Executive Orders Impacting TikTok and WeChat Business in the U.S.

On August 6, 2020, Trump issued two separate executive orders that will severely restrict TikTok and WeChat’s business in the United States.  For weeks, the media has reported on Trump’s desire to “ban” TikTok with speculation about the legal authority to do so.  We break down the impact of the Orders below.

The White House has been threatening for weeks to ban both apps in the interest of protecting “the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”  According to the Orders issued Thursday, the data collection practices of both entities purportedly “threaten[] to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

This is not a new threat.  A variety of government actions in recent years have been aimed at mitigating the national security risks associated with foreign adversaries stealing sensitive data of U.S. persons.  For example, in 2018, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) was implemented to expand the authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review and address national security concerns arising from foreign investment in U.S. companies, particularly where foreign parties can access the personal data of U.S. citizens.  And CFIUS has not been hesitant about exercising this authority.  Last year, CFIUS required the divestment of a Chinese investor’s stake in Grindr, the popular gay dating app, because of concerns that the Chinese investor would have access to U.S. citizens’ sensitive information which could be used for blackmail or other nefarious purposes.  That action was in the face of Grindr’s impending IPO.

In May 2019, Trump took one step further, issuing Executive Order 13873 to address a “national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain.”  That Order stated that foreign adversaries were taking advantage of vulnerabilities in American IT and communications services supply chain and described broad measures to address that threat.  According to these new Orders, further action is necessary to address these threats.  EO 13873 and the TikTok and WeChat Orders were all issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act  (IEEPA), which provides the President broad authority to regulate transactions which threaten national security during a national emergency.

Order Highlights

Both Executive Orders provide the Secretary of Commerce broad authority to prohibit transactions involving the parent companies of TikTok and WeChat, with limitations on which transactions yet to be defined.

  • The TikTok EO prohibits “any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” with ByteDance Ltd., TikTok’s parent company, “or its subsidiaries, in which any such company has any interest, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce”
  • The WeChat EO prohibits “any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent Holdings Ltd., WeChat’s parent company “or any subsidiary of that entity, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce.”
  • Both Executive Orders will take effect 45 days after issuance of the order (September 20, 2020), by which time the Secretary of Commerce will have identified the transactions subject to the Orders.

Implications

Until the Secretary of Commerce identifies the scope of transactions prohibited by the Executive Orders, the ultimate ramifications of these Orders remain unclear.  However, given what we do know, we have some initial thoughts on how these new prohibitions may play out.  The following are some preliminary answers to the burning questions at the forefront of every American teenager’s (and business person’s) mind.

Q:  Do these Orders ban the use of TikTok or WeChat in the United States?

A:  While the Orders do not necessarily ban the use of TikTok or WeChat itself, the app (or any future software updates) may no longer be available for download in the Google or Apple app stores in the U.S., and U.S. companies may not be able to purchase advertising on the social media platform – effectively (if not explicitly) banning the apps from the United States.

Q:  Will all transactions with ByteDance Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. (TikTok and WeChat’s parent companies, respectively) be prohibited?

A:  Given the broad language in the Orders, it does appear that U.S. app stores, carriers, or internet service providers (ISPs) will likely not be able to continue carrying the services while TikTok and WeChat are owned by these Chinese entities.  However, it is unlikely that the goal is to prohibit all transactions with these companies as a deterrent or punishment tool – which would essentially amount to designating them as Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) – the  Orders clearly contemplate some limitations to be imposed on the types of transactions subject to the Order by the Secretary of Commerce.  Furthermore, the national security policy rationale for such restrictions will not be present in all transactions (i.e. if the concern is the ability of Chinese entities to access personal data of U.S. citizens in a manner that could be used against the interests of the United States, then presumably transactions in which ByteDance Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. do not have access to such data should be permissible.).  So while we do not know exactly what the scope of prohibited transactions will be, it would appear that the goal is to restrict these entities’ access to U.S. data and any transactions that would facilitate or allow such access.

Q:  What does “any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” mean?

A:  Normally, the idea behind such language is to limit the prohibited transactions to those with a clear nexus to the United States: any U.S. person or person within the United States, or involving property within the United States.  It is unlikely that transactions conducted wholly outside the United States by non-U.S. entities would be impacted.  From a policy perspective, it would make sense that the prohibitions be limited to transactions that would facilitate these Chinese entities getting access to U.S.-person data through the use of TikTok and WeChat.

Q:  What about the reported sale of TikTok?

A: There is a chance the restrictions outlined in the TikTok EO will become moot.  Reportedly, Microsoft is in talks with ByteDance to acquire TikTok’s business in the United States and a few other jurisdictions.  If the scope of prohibited transactions are tailored to those involving access to U.S. person data and if a U.S. company can assure that U.S. user-data will be protected, then the national security concerns of continued use of the app would be mitigated.  Unless and until such acquisition takes place, U.S. companies investing in TikTok or utilizing it for advertising such be prepared for the restrictions to take effect.  At this time, there do not appear to be any U.S. buyers in the mix for WeChat.

Q:  The WeChat EO prohibits any transaction that is “related to” WeChat…what does that mean?

A:  The WeChat prohibition is more ambiguous and could have significantly wider impact on U.S. business interests. WeChat is widely used in the United States, particularly by people of Chinese descent, to carry out business transactions, including communicating with, and making mobile payments to, various service providers.  The WeChat EO prohibits “any transaction that is related to WeChat”  with Tencent Holdings Ltd., or any of its subsidiaries.  Unlike TikTok, WeChat’s services extend beyond social media.  While the language of the ban is vague and the prohibited transactions are yet to be determined, it appears likely that using WeChat for these communications and transactions may no longer be legal. It is also unclear if the WeChat prohibition will extend to other businesses tied to Tencent, WeChat’s parent company, including major gaming companies Epic Games (publisher of the popular “Fortnite”), Riot Games (“League of Legends”), and Activision Blizzard, all in which Tencent has substantial ownership interests.  There has been some reporting that a White House official confirmed Tencent’s gaming interest are excluded from the Order as being unrelated to WeChat, but until the Secretary of Commerce specifies the prohibited transactions, the scope of the Order remains uncertain

Bottom Line

Until the Secretary of Commerce issues its list of transactions prohibited under these Executive Orders, the scope and effect of these Orders is conjectural.  This Administration’s all-in posture towards China would suggest that the prohibitions could be broad and severe.  U.S. companies utilizing WeChat or TikTok for business purposes or conducting business with the apps’ owners, should think carefully about ongoing and future transactions.  Of course, there is an election right around the corner and a new Administration may bring significant change to related foreign, trade and technology policy.  Thoughtful planning for a variety of scenarios will enable companies’ to respond appropriately as the restrictions on TikTok and WeChat are crystallized.

Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Domestic Violence: What is a Dating Relationship?

Several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the daily lives of most people have changed in many ways. With many people still desiring to find companionship, dating websites and mobile applications have provided somewhat of a substitute for traditional in-person dates, which are no longer feasible during the pandemic.

What happens if the relationship you’ve developed in these virtual settings goes awry, and the continued virtual contact becomes unwanted, threatening, malicious, and/or harassing? Can you obtain a restraining order to prevent further contact?

The answer largely depends on whether your online relationship with this person is considered to be within the definition of a “dating relationship” under the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.

The New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence only provides protection for certain classes of relationships, defined as a spouse, former spouse, household member (whether presently or at any prior time), parties with a child in common, or parties with whom the victim has had a dating relationship.

Fortunately, recent case law has shown an evolution of the term “dating relationship” under the statute to account for the evolution of dating itself.

The case of C.C. v. J.A.H., decided by the New Jersey Appellate Division on June 11, 2020, took into consideration two individuals who had never experienced a traditional, in-person “date.” They never visited each other’s homes, or met each other’s friends or family members. They never engaged in sexual relations, kissed, or even held hands. What they did do, however, was exchange nearly 1,300 highly personal and intimate text messages over the course of several months. Eventually, when one of the parties tried to cease the contact and spurn any further relationship, the other party’s communications became threatening and malicious.

In this first case of its kind, the court held that these two individuals, who shared no other meaningful contact aside from these text messages, were in enough of a “dating relationship” to provide protection to the victim.

This case may have broadened the protections available to victims of domestic violence tremendously. If you are being threatened, harassed or otherwise are subjected to domestic violence, you may be able to obtain a Final Restraining Order to protect yourself.

COPYRIGHT © 2020, STARK & STARK

Apple, Inc. Probed by European Commission for Possible Antitrust Violations

In late June, the European Commission (EC) opened several formal cases investigating Apple’s mobile payment technology (Apple Pay) and various third-party and user agreements to determine whether the tech giant’s practices and policies infringe on competition rights and abuse market power. Specifically, the Commission will investigate the company’s terms and conditions integrating the payment feature into merchant applications and websites, and the imposition of its proprietary in-app purchase system and accompanying restrictions. The latter prevents third-party developers from informing their users of cheaper alternative purchases available outside the app. The investigations follow complaints made by Spotify, a music streaming service competitor, and an e-book/audiobook distributor competitor, according to the EC’s press release.

In a statement, EC Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager said that the Commission needs to allay fears that Apple’s “gatekeeper role” in the distribution of apps and content to users does not distort market competition. The impetus, she said, was to ensure that “Apple’s measures do not deny consumers the benefits of new payment technologies, including better choice, quality, innovation and competitive prices.”

Apple is one of the latest tech targets to experience regulatory scrutiny. Facebook, Amazon, and Google are facing antitrust inquiries by EU member states, the European Commission, and the United States’ Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

© MoginRubin LLP

ARTICLE BY the Competition Policy and Advocacy practice at MoginRubin.
For more on mobile payment portals, see the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law section.

The Naked Truth About Trademark Cancellation: Only Harm, No Proprietary Interest Required

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a contracting party that contractually abandoned any proprietary interest in a mark may still bring a cancellation action if it can “demonstrate a real interest in the proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage.” Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, Case No. 19-1567 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2020) (Reyna, J.) (Wallach, J., dissenting).

Australian sold condoms with the marks NAKED and NAKED CONDOMS, first in Australia in early 2000, then in the United States in 2003. Two years later, Australian learned that Naked TM’s predecessor had registered a trademark NAKED for condoms in September 2003. Australian and Naked TM communicated by email regarding use of the mark for a few years. Naked TM contended that the parties reached an agreement; Australian disagreed and said no final terms were agreed upon. Australian filed a petition to cancel the NAKED trademark registration. Ultimately, and after trial, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) concluded that Australian lacked standing because it had reached an informal agreement that Naked TM reasonably believed was an abandonment of any right to contest Naked TM’s registration of NAKED. Thus, the TTAB found that Australian lacked a real interest in the proceeding because it lacked a proprietary interest in the challenged mark. Australian appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. First, the Court clarified that the proper inquiry was a matter of proving an element of the cause of action under 15 USC § 1064 rather than standing. The Court explained that, contrary to the TTAB’s conclusion, “[n]either § 1064 nor [its] precedent requires that a petitioner have a proprietary right in its own mark in order to demonstrate a cause of action before the Board.” Assuming without deciding that the TTAB correctly determined that Australian had contracted away its rights, the Court found that fact irrelevant. Ultimately, even though an agreement might be a bar to showing actual damages, a petitioner need only show a belief that it has been harmed to bring a petition under § 1064.

The Federal Circuit found that Australian had a reasonable belief in its own damage and a real interest in the proceedings based on a history of two prior applications to register the mark, both of which the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected on the basis that they would have created confusion with Naked TM’s mark. The Court rejected Naked TM’s argument that Australian’s abandonment of those applications demonstrated there was no harm, instead concluding that Australian’s abandonment of its applications did not create an abandonment of its rights in the unregistered mark. Moreover, as a prophylactic rationale, the Court explained that Australian’s sales of products that might be found to have infringed the challenged registration also create a real interest and reasonable belief in harm.

Judge Wallach dissented. Although he agreed that the TTAB erred by imposing a proprietary-interest requirement to bring suit under § 1064, he disagreed that Australian properly demonstrated an alternative, legitimate interest—i.e., a belief of damage with a reasonable basis in fact. Judge Wallach would have given dispositive weight to the agreement between Australian and Naked TM in which Australian supposedly gave up any right to contest Naked TM’s rights in the mark NAKED.

Practice Note: Ultimately, although the majority and dissent disagreed about how to apply the law to the facts, Australian Therapeutic Supplies stands as a firm reminder that something less than a proprietary interest is required in order to challenge a trademark registration. How much less is a fact-specific inquiry.

© 2020 McDermott Will & Emery

For more on trademark cancellation, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law section.