Tag: employers

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Roe and Casey: What This Decision Means for Employers

As many expected based on the draft opinion that was leaked months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to obtain an abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 (June 24, 2022).

Dobbs overturns nearly 50 years of precedent from the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania v. Casey on the issue.

The impact of Dobbs will vary, as states are now at liberty to enforce and create abortion legislation without restrictions arising out of constitutional protections.

What does this mean for employers?

As pressure mounts on this issue, some employers may be considering what, if anything, they can or should do. Many states have enacted legislation that restricts individual abortion rights and potentially third parties who assist individuals who seek abortions. To the extent any state laws were not enforced because of the Court’s holding in Roe or Casey, states can move forward now to implement and enforce those laws.

Laws often referred to as “trigger laws,” those that are in place but unenforceable due to overriding federal restrictions, become enforceable once those federal restrictions are lifted. As a result of Dobbs, abortion-related “trigger laws” previously unenforceable can take effect, creating new standards for individuals and others that will redefine the national abortion law landscape.

Some existing state laws and trigger laws may affect employers and put employers at risk of violating state law if they implement policies to assist employees seeking an abortion or even continue to cover abortions under group health plans. For example, a state law may create liability for anyone who “aids or abets” a person who obtains an abortion. Employers also must be cognizant of how they apply their leave policies, who may seek accommodations based on a sincerely held religious belief, and whether certain provisions of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act apply to women who are seeking or who have had an abortion.

In addition, the Court’s ruling may affect employee benefit plans. Many employers are considering additional benefits for their employees, and their covered dependents, such as travel reimbursement for seeking an abortion outside of the local jurisdiction due to state law restrictions. There are many legal issues to consider in connection with the coverage of abortion-related services under employee benefit plans. (For additional guidance on the issue, see our article, Group Health Plan Considerations in the Face of (Potentially) Changing Abortion Laws.) Depending on how the state laws are enacted, there also may be issues with relying on ERISA preemption provisions to avoid these obligations.

Corporate management and directors should plan for changes and be aware of policies and fiduciary responsibilities. This can include preparing for public and employee reactions (for and against), legislative and law enforcement threats, social media posts, and other employee demonstrations. Pressure from a variety of groups to take a corporate public opinion also may occur.

Whether changes to leave policies, employee benefits, travel reimbursement, or handling accommodation requests, employers considering policies or benefit offerings in response to Dobbs must carefully review and consider federal and state laws, including state abortion-related legislation to evaluate the risk of potential liability.

Article By Patricia Anderson Pryor, Joy Napier-Joyce, Melissa Ostrower, and Tasos C. Paindiris of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Monkeypox—Do Employers Need to Worry?

Several cases of monkeypox have now been found in the United States. We do not yet know whether employers will need to worry about monkeypox in the context of their workforces and workplace, but it may be wise to be informed.

Monkeypox is a viral illness that has symptoms including body aches, headaches, fatigue, and, notably, a bumpy skin rash. It is primarily found in Africa, most particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Monkeypox has an incubation period that generally lasts 7-14 days but can be as long as 5-21 days. It has now recently been found in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The first case reported was in Massachusetts in a man who had been to Canada. The second was in New York City by another individual who had a virus similar to monkeypox. And the third was a “presumptive case” involving a Broward County, Florida, man who had traveled internationally, the CDC said.

Unlike what we have been through with COVID-19, wearing a mask will likely not be an issue with monkeypox. It is spread through infected animals, prolonged person-to-person contact, direct contact with lesion materials, or indirect contact through contaminated items, such as contaminated clothing. Avoiding these will help avoid the possibility of infection. Since frequent handwashing continues to be a good hygiene practice, continuing to make this an easy and frequent practice for employees is generally a good health practice, according to health officials.

Monkeypox has also recently been found in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. According to public health officials, the risk of exposure remains low although there are expected to be more cases in the United States. Health officials believe the smallpox vaccination will offer some amount of protection from monkeypox.

Employers that have employees who are soon to travel internationally, either for personal or business reasons, may want to consider educating them on the symptoms, how the virus is transmitted, and the fact that they may wish to consult with their own healthcare practitioners about the smallpox vaccination. There is no indication that travel should be avoided or prohibited.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

USCIS Policies Lead to High Denial Rates for L-1B Petitions

The L-1B nonimmigrant visa program is regularly utilized by companies to transfer employees with specialized knowledge from foreign countries to the United States. According to a recent analysis, the program continues to experience significant denial rates, raising questions about the underlying causes of the phenomenon.

L1-B Visa Program

The L1-B Visa Program allows employers to transfer certain nonimmigrant employees from foreign offices to offices within the United States. Specifically, the employment-based nonimmigrant visa program allows the transfer of professional employees with specialized knowledge relating to the organization’s interests from foreign offices to the United States, sometimes even to establish a U.S. office. To qualify under the program, the employee must possess “specialized knowledge,” which, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), requires knowledge of the petitioning employer’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. USCIS evaluates L-1B petitions on a case-by-case basis.

In practice, L-1B petitions are filed by employers on behalf of their employees seeking intracompany transfer. While an employer may file an L-1B petition for an individual employee, larger companies may have the option to file a “blanket petition” so long as the company meets certain criteria. When petitioning for individual employees, the petition must be approved and then taken to a U.S. consulate for approval. For blanket petitions that have been approved, the employer need only submit a Form 129S, Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition, which then may be taken to a consulate for approval.

High Denial Rates of L-1B Petitions

A recent article by Forbes analyzed government data concerning L-1B petitions and detailed their trends over the last decade. During that period, the average denial rate for L1-B petitions was 28.2%, a significant number, especially considering the denial rate for H-1B petitions averages under 5%. While the denial rate declined to 21.3% in the third quarter of the fiscal year 2021 and 20.7% in the fourth quarter, the denial rates were 32.7% and 33.3% respectively for the first two fiscal quarters of 2021.

Given that L-1B petitions appear to receive greater scrutiny than other business nonimmigrant visas, one must wonder what causes the denial rate, and what steps can be taken to ensure approval of such a petition.

Explanations for High L-1B Denial Rates

The unusually high denial rate for L-1B petitions could be explained in part by the high bar set by USCIS in adjudicating the petitions. However, at least one attorney noted the case-by-case nature of the petitions do not easily lend itself to a simple adjudication process, noting that “USCIS applies [the standard] in a way that favors documentary evidence while discounting the company’s own assessments of the worker’s importance and knowledge […]” While the USCIS Policy Manual provides immigration officers with some guidance, more comprehensive guidance could certainly be helpful.

In response to the investigation conducted by Forbes, USCIS commented,

“USCIS officers review each L-1B petition on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet all standards required under applicable laws, regulations, and policies. […] The agency will continue to solicit feedback from stakeholders to identify procedural efficiencies and promote policies that break down barriers in the lawful immigration system.”

Additionally, the denial rate can be attributed at least in part to the political implications of the executive branch. For the fiscal year 2021, the improvement that can be detected in the L-1B denial rate followed President Biden’s assumption of office. This shift may be attributed not to a more liberal implementation of policy, but rather to the reinstatement of the USCIS policy of giving deference to previous decisions. This deference does not extend to petitions or applications made by Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) or Department of State (“DOS”) officials.

The high denial rate for L-1B petitions serves to frustrate employers, and even discourages foreign investment in the United States. While the petitions continue to receive increased scrutiny, it is advisable to take the utmost care in the preparation of applications and ensure that all are supported with sufficient evidence and documentation.

Article By Raymond G. Lahoud of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

The Legal Challenges to the OSHA ETS and CMS Vaccine Mandate Move to the Supreme Court

On December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued orders granting review of legal challenges to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“OSHA ETS”) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule (“CMS Vaccine Mandate”). In a rare move, the Supreme Court set an accelerated timeline for the cases, scheduling oral arguments in both cases on January 7, 2022.

Following a ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on December 17, 2021, OSHA announced that it would not issue citations for non-compliance with any requirements of the OSHA ETS before January 10, 2022 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements before February 9, 2022, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the OSHA ETS. While it is unknown whether the Supreme Court will be able to issue a ruling by OSHA’s January 10, 2022 compliance date, the Supreme Court’s expedited schedule seems to indicate that it is attempting to give employers some finality concerning their obligations under the federal mandates.

Article By Lilian Doan Davis of Polsinelli PC

For more COVID-19 legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Be Watching in 2022

The California Supreme Court has been busy in 2021 deciding cases that affect employers from how to pay meal and rest period penalties to when the statute of limitations for a failure to promote runs.

While the state’s high court answered some big questions in this last year, they still have several cases pertaining to employment law awaiting their attention.

Here are the cases employers should be watching in the new year and why.

People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s Inc.

In this case, a complainant filed a timely retaliation complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) claiming immediate termination after complaining about non-payment of wages. Her complaint did not allege any disclosure to a governmental agency, but the retaliatory act of termination upon her direct complaint to her employer. The DLSE undertook an investigation and determined that respondents had violated several Labor Code sections, notably 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”), California’s whistleblower statute. The DLSE notified the parties involved of its determination on December 22, 2015. Respondents were ordered to do several things, including paying the complainant lost wages and civil penalties of $20,000 each for violations of sections 1102.5 and 98.6. Respondents never complied.

On October 17, 2017, the Labor Commissioner filed an enforcement action against Respondents under the authority of section 98.7, subdivision (c)(1)5, alleging violations of these statutory provisions. Eventually, through a lack of response by the employer-defendant, the Labor Commissioner sought to take a default judgment.

The trial court, however, determined that the Labor Commissioner had not stated a claim under section 1102.5, because the complainant had not approached a governmental agency until after her termination. The trial court found that retaliation under the statute required the complainant to have been terminated as a result of disclosure to a governmental agency, which was not alleged. The trial court also found insufficient evidence for the claimant’s unpaid wages, and that the penalties under Section 98.6 were not appropriate.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning, but nevertheless affirmed the denial of Section 1102.5 claim as it found the after-termination complaint to be defective. It also reversed as to the penalties awarded under Section 98.6 and remanded that portion of the judgment.

The question before the California Supreme Court is limited to whether Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), which protects an employee from retaliation for disclosing unlawful activity, applies when the information is already known to that person or agency.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

Depending on the direction the California Supreme Court takes, its holding will affect the burden on employers defending against whistleblower claims – especially those arising out of allegations that an employee told an employer or agency information that the employer or agency was already aware of.

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

FlexCare, LLC (“FlexCare”), a temporary staffing agency, assigned Plaintiff to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (“Eisenhower”). Plaintiff alleged that during her employment at Eisenhower, FlexCare and Eisenhower failed to ensure she received the required meal and rest periods, wages for certain periods she worked, and overtime wages. She then filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. Plaintiff’s claims were based solely on her work on assignment to Eisenhower. FlexCare settled with the class and plaintiff executed a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement.

A year later, Plaintiff brought a second class action suit against Eisenhower, who had not been named in the previous lawsuit, alleging the same labor law violations. FlexCare intervened in the action asserting Plaintiff could not bring the separate lawsuit against Eisenhower because she had settled her claims in the prior class action.

The trial court held a limited trial on the issue of the propriety of the lawsuit and ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement. Accordingly, Eisenhower could not avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata because the hospital was neither a party to the prior litigation nor in privity with FlexCare. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case could affect staffing agency employers who may want to utilize broad releases if their “clients” are not also named to avoid duplicative litigation – for which they may have to pay twice – through indemnity clauses.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

This case will explore whether the evidentiary standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 (“Section 1102.6”) replaces the McDonnell Douglas test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5.

In this case, Defendant was a manufacturer of paint, stains, caulks, and other products. Plaintiff Lawson (“Lawson”) was a territory manager whose duties included merchandising and claims that he was directed by his supervisor to handle a product in a way that fraudulently removed a slow-selling product from its inventory. Lawson told his supervisor he would not do this, then reported the directive to the company’s ethics hotline on two separate occasions. The second report to the ethics hotline resulted in an investigation. During this time, Lawson received poor ratings for his work, was placed on a performance improvement plan, and eventually, Defendant terminated his employment.

Lawson then filed a complaint against the company in the United States District Court, alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower.

The trial court applied the McDonnell Douglas test, which employs burden-shifting between the plaintiff and the employer. This test originated in the context of Title VII, the federal statute governing workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The trial court concluded that Lawson failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact regarding pretext and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Lawson argued to the 9th Circuit that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6. Section 1102.6 states that once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliation against the employee, the employer’s burden of proof is to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons.

In its question to the California Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit noted that application of the McDonnell Douglas test to whistleblower claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 “seems to ignore [a] critical intervening statutory amendment” by which the California legislature established the evidentiary burdens of the parties participating in a civil action or administrative hearing involving a violation of the statute. Though this statement by the Circuit seems like a decision, the 9th Circuit pointed out three published California appellate court decisions that expressly applied McDonnell Douglas after the amendment.

This contradiction between California’s statute and the court rulings is the root of the 9th Circuit’s question.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

If the California Supreme Court rules that the evidentiary requirement under Section 1102.6 applies, disposing of whistleblower retaliation claims prior to trial will become extremely difficult due to the high clear and convincing evidentiary standard imposed on the employer.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

This case involves a class of security guards who alleged meal break violations and sought premium wages, waiting time penalties, inaccurate pay stub penalties, and attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeal held that unpaid premium wages for meal period violations did not entitle employees to pay stub penalties or waiting time penalties.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case will resolve a long-standing debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest period violations. If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts, it will increase potential penalties for California meal and rest period violations, as violations could be compounded by alleged pay stub penalties and waiting time penalties.

Article By Leonora M. Schloss and Karen Luh of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more litigation and legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Stay of OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard Lifted By Sixth Circuit – “All Systems Go,” For Now…

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay on the Occupational Safety and Health Association’s Emergency Temporary Standard (“OSHA ETS”) late Friday night (December 17, 2021). The Sixth Circuit had previously been selected at random to hear the consolidated OSHA ETS litigation.

As a result of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, OSHA announced that it would exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the OSHA ETS.  To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance:

  • OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the OSHA ETS before January 10, 2022; and

  • OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements before February 9, 2022.

These “extensions” are conditioned on an employer exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the OSHA ETS.

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit found that the petitioners (Republican-led states, businesses, religious groups, and individuals) were unable to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit considered and analyzed a myriad of statutory and constitutional arguments. Two out of the three judges on the panel determined that the petitioners would be unlikely to be successful on their constitutional arguments that OSHA violated the commerce clause or the non-delegation doctrine.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA is required to show that health effects may constitute a “grave danger” in order to warrant an emergency temporary standard. The Sixth Circuit held that the determination as to what constitutes “grave danger” should be left, in the first instance, to the agency. The Sixth Circuit expressly disagreed with, and in effect overruled, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by holding that OSHA was not required to make findings of exposure in all covered workplaces. The Sixth Circuit held that to require so would mean that no hazard could ever rise to the level of “grave danger.” Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit found that OSHA had shown that COVID-19 is a danger and relied on proper science in issuing the ETS. The Sixth Circuit further held that simply because OSHA did not issue the ETS at the beginning of the pandemic did not mean the agency did not consider COVID-19 an emergency worth addressing.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision was appealed this morning to the Supreme Court; however, this appeal does not alter the decision unless and until the Supreme Court rules.  In the meantime, employers should resume (or continue) preparations to comply with the ETS requirements. For a summary of the OSHA ETS and its requirements, visit here.

Article By Lilian Doan Davis and Isaac T. Caverly of Polsinelli PC

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Work from Anywhere? Telecommuting and Tax Obligations for Employers: Practical Considerations and Tips for Human Resources and Management

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sudden, widespread shift towards remote work arrangements. This shift has provided many benefits, including an increase in the employee talent pool and the ability to recruit without borders, cost savings, and a more flexible employee workday. In response, a number of employees have moved away, or plan to move away, from city centers or to a different state to find a better location in terms of cost of living and personal preference. However, this shift creates concerns for employers regarding labor and employment law compliance, tax compliance, and other business considerations when employees choose to permanently work remotely in a new location. Employers may not be aware of these considerations or even the fact that the employee has moved. It is important to understand these concerns and how they may affect the “workplace” as more businesses prepare for long-term policies on working remotely.

Labor & Employment Considerations

Wage and Hour Laws

 Different jurisdictions impose different wage and hour requirements, such as minimum wage, paid sick leave, overtime, exemptions, pay frequency, and pay statements. Multi-jurisdictional employers must understand these variations to make sure that they are complying with the various wage and hour laws in the states and localities where employees are working. For example, non-exempt employees working from home are still required to be paid based on actual hours worked, and are entitled to overtime. If an employer employs an employee who moves to a state where overtime must be paid for any work over eight hours per day instead of being paid for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, the employer would need to update its payroll system to ensure compliance.

Tracking Hours Worked

With remote work, employees’ actual hours worked can be difficult to track because of variable schedules necessitated by the competing demands of working from home. On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recognized this issue and published a field assistance bulletin that reminds employers of their obligation to track all hours worked by employees who are working remotely, including addressing authorized versus non-authorized hours of work, hours that the employer knows are being worked, and reminds employers that their processes and policies cannot prevent or discourage the reporting of hours worked.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Most employers are generally required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance in the states in which they employ workers. An injury that arises out of or in the course of employment will generally be covered by workers’ compensation insurance. This includes injuries that occur suddenly or over time as well as injuries that may occur when working remotely. For example, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees are conducting business from home-office setups where they may sustain various injuries. Depending on the applicable state law, this may be deemed a work-related injury eligible for coverage under workers’ compensation insurance. An employer that does not abide by a state’s laws requiring workers’ compensation insurance may be liable for noncompliance, resulting in potential fines and penalties.

Unemployment Insurance

Similarly, employers are generally required to pay premiums for state unemployment insurance when at least one of their employees conducts business in the state. Employers must generally register for an account with the state unemployment agency within the states in which they have employees working. A failure to pay these premiums may create liability for the employer, including penalties for noncompliance.

Discrimination Laws

 As a general tenet, the federal and state employment discrimination laws in a particular state apply to employees working in that state and they apply to “workplace,” which includes remote work arrangement, online forums, etc. Employers must be prepared to comply with various local and state employment laws, keeping in mind that localities and states might include different protected characteristics in their laws. Employers also will need to be in compliance with state and federal disability discrimination laws, as employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations even when working remotely. Employers may wish to review and, if appropriate, update employee handbooks to ensure that their procedures for internal reporting are accessible and are reasonable as they relate to remote employees.

Posting Requirements

Employers may be required to display in the workplace posters that discuss employees’ employment rights, such as those granted under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as under other local, state, and federal laws. If employees are working remotely, employers may be required to send out the postings by mail or email or display the postings on an employee information website, depending on the applicable law. Employers may want to consider providing a manner for employees to acknowledge receipt of the posted information to ensure they are fulfilling their obligations.

State Tax & Registration Implications

The unplanned and exponential increase in the number of remote workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised state tax and registration questions for employers with employees now working in one or more states separate from the states(s) in which the employer normally conducts business. Generally speaking, the presence of an employee in a state may trigger a requirement that the employer register as an entity transacting business, establish nexus for income/franchise taxes and sales and use taxes, and require registration as an employer for purposes of state and local income tax withholding.

This analysis is further complicated by the lack of uniformity in guidance issued by state authorities. A number of state tax authorities have been noticeably silent, suggesting that pre-pandemic rules continue to apply to out-of-state employers. Even with regard to the states that have issued COVID-19 related guidance, that guidance varies, as some states provide relief (generally temporarily waiving registration and reporting issues relating to remote workers created as a result of the pandemic) while others have simply confirmed that their laws are not impacted by the pandemic. The state guidance may also draw a distinction between previously assigned remote workers and those forced to work from home due to the pandemic.

Business Registration

Employers may wish to consider whether the presence of these new remote workers creates a duty to obtain a certificate of authority in order to transact business in states in which employers previously did not have any employees or operations. Failure to comply with these rules can result in significant penalties.

Business Taxes

If an employee performs services in his/her state of residency, this may create substantial nexus between the employer and this state. As a result, employers may be obligated to pay state and local franchise, income, or other applicable business tax in such states solely as a result of their remote workers. For retailers, it would trigger a duty to collect, remit, and report state and local sales and use taxes.

Income Tax Withholding

In the majority of jurisdictions, employers attribute an employee’s wages for income tax withholding purposes to the state in which the employee performs services. These rules would require employers to register with state and local tax agencies and withhold the income taxes according to the laws of those jurisdictions. With regard to other states that utilize a “convenience of the employer” sourcing rule, employers are faced with unique and complex challenges in the current pandemic environment. Generally, in such states, wages are considered earned by a nonresident employee and are allocated to the office location the employee is assigned to, unless the employee performs work that, out of necessity and not convenience, requires the employee to perform work from another location other than their assigned office. Historically, what is considered to be at the “convenience of the employer” has been defined broadly with narrow exceptions, and it remains unclear whether alternative remote working arrangements due to the pandemic would constitute work conducted offsite for the “convenience of the employer.” This situation is further complicated by additional states (most notably Massachusetts) temporarily adopting “convenience of the employer” rules under the guise of limiting disruption to employers.

In many cases, employers are left without clear direction and have no choice other than to review state specific guidance as it applies to their remote workers, including those who may have relocated temporarily or have relocated without any advance notice to their employer. While enforcement activity may be limited at the current time, employers should consider whether states will look to enforcement of these tax rules against nonresident employers in order to balance state budgets deeply impacted by the pandemic.

Localized Compensation

Many employees who plan to work remotely on a permanent basis are moving to more affordable cities to reduce costs or for other personal reasons. Some employers have responded by adjusting pay for employees based on localized factors, including income tax rates and the cost of labor in the employee’s new location. Some of these employers have made pay adjustments based on a case-by-case basis, while others have implemented a set pay cut when an employee moves away from large city centers, such as New York or San Francisco. While companies have pointed out that it is standard practice for an employee’s location to be a factor considered in determining pay, there has been some push back by remote workers related to this decision.

Conclusion

Due to the legal risks associated with employees relocating while working remotely, employers may wish to consult with legal counsel for guidance on navigating applicable law.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on remote working, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

New NLRB Rule Defining Joint-Employer Status to Take Effect

The National Labor Relations Board has announced the issuance of its final rule governing joint-employer status. The new rule, which was first proposed in September 2018 and has been the subject of extensive public comment, will become effective April 27, 2020.

The critical elements for finding a joint-employer relationship under the new rule is the possession and the exercise of substantial direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment of those employed by another employer.  The essence of the new rule is described in the Board’s February 25, 2020 press release:

To be a joint employer under the final rule, a business must possess and exercise substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employees. The final rule defines key terms, including what are considered “essential terms and conditions of employment,” and what does, and what does not, constitute “direct and immediate control” as to each of these essential employment terms. The final rule also defines what constitutes “substantial” direct and immediate control and makes clear that control exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis is not “substantial.”

Evidence of indirect and/or contractually reserved control over essential employment terms may be a consideration for finding joint-employer status under the final rule, but it cannot give rise to such status without substantial direct and immediate control. Importantly, the final rule also makes clear that the routine elements of an arm’s-length contract cannot turn a contractor into a joint employer.

The new rule marks a return to a standard similar to that which the Board followed from 1984 until 2015.  In 2015, in Browning-Ferris Industries, the Board adopted a much more liberal test under which a finding that the putative joint employer possessed indirect influence and the ability (including through a reserved contractual right) to influence terms and conditions, regardless of whether the putative joint employer actually exercised such influence or control, could result in it being held to be a joint-employer of a second employer’s employee.

As a practical matter, the standard under the Board’s new rule should make it much more difficult to establish that a company is a joint-employer of a supplier, contractor, franchisee, or other company’s employees. The new rule will mean that a party claiming joint-employer status to exist will need to demonstrate with evidence that the putative joint-employer doesn’t just have a theoretical right to influence the other employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but that it has actually exercised that right in a substantial, direct and immediate manner.

This new rule is likely to make it much more difficult for unions to successfully claim that franchisors are joint-employers with their franchisees, and that companies are joint-employers of personnel employed by their contractors and contract suppliers of labor, such as leasing and temporary agencies.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

For more on the Joint-Employer Rule see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

Social Security Administration ‘No Match’ Letters to Employers Make Another Comeback

Social Security Administration (SSA) has begun notifying employers that the information reported on an individual employee’s W-2 form does not match the SSA’s records with “Request for Employer Information” letters, known as “No-Match” letters.

SSA started sending these controversial informational requests in 1993, but the practice has waxed and waned in part due to litigation. In 2011, SSA resumed the practice of notifying employers of social security number mismatches. But in 2012, the Obama Administration decided to simply stop the practice.

Now, the letters are back! In July 2018, probably in response to President Donald Trump’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, SSA re-started the practice by sending “informational notifications” to employers and third party providers telling them of mismatches on their 2017 Forms W-2 and explaining where to find helpful resources. The plan was to send 225,000 of these notices every two weeks. Starting in Spring 2019, notices will be sent regarding 2018 Forms W-2s, but these letters, unlike the “informational” letters, will tell employers that corrections are necessary.

A mismatch does not necessarily mean that there is any wrongdoing. It can be caused by an administrative error: numbers can be reversed, names might be misspelled or changed, for instance, due to marriage. But once a letter is received, in determining how to respond, employers find themselves caught between agencies. SSA wants to maintain accurate records of earnings. ICE wants to ensure compliance with employment verification laws. And the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Department of Justice (IER) wants to ensure that employers are not discriminating on the basis of citizenship, nationality or by pursuing unfair documentary practices in violation of the INA.

What is an employer to do?

  1. Don’t take any adverse action against an employee based on a No-Match letter alone.

  2. Compare the SSA information with the individual’s employment records.

  3. If the employer’s records match, ask the employee to check the name and number on his or her Social Security card.

  4. If there is a mistake on the card or the card needs to be changed or corrected, ask the employee to reach out to SSA to resolve the issue.

There are no “safe harbors.” Each case is different and must be analyzed individually to avoid missteps and penalties from either SSA, ICE, or IER.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Sean G. Hanagan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Recent Developments In Case Law And Policy Applicable To Immigrants And Their Employees

In these turbulent times for immigrants, we would like to signal a few recent developments in case law and policy that apply to immigrants and/or their employers.

1. Deportation and Removal

In the case of Pereira v. Sessions decided on June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals with prior deportation orders may now apply to reconsider/ reopen their cases if they were served with a written notice to appear in removal proceedings that did not specify the “time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held”. It is worth noting that most notices to appear served before June 2018 DID NOT SPECIFY the required time and place for the removal proceedings, hence many individuals would be eligible to reopen their removal orders under the Pereira case. The Pereira case would benefit in particular those who have been continuously present in the U.S. for 10 years or longer and have a spouse, child(ren) or parent(s) who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. To take advantage of the path to legalization that this case offers, it is imperative that you contact our office no later than September 21, 2018, which is the deadline for filing motions to reconsider/ reopen under the Pereira case.

2. Employment-Based Immigration

USCIS announced that it is extending the temporary suspension of premium processing for April 2018 cap-based H-1B petitions and, beginning September 11, 2018, will be expanding this suspension to include ALL H-1B petitions filed at Vermont and California Service Centers (and CT falls under the jurisdiction of the Vermont Service Center) except H-1B petitions for extension of status to continue on with the same employer and certain cap-exempt filings. The suspension is expected to last until February 19, 2019. The practical effects on employers will be felt in the areas of April 2018 cap-subject petitions and H-1B transfers which will now take several months to adjudicate. H-1B employees may be impacted in their ability to travel abroad while the H-1B is still pending and we highly recommend consulting us before any international travel. We advise employers looking to petition for H-1B transfers to use premium processing, if desired, no later than September 10, 2018.

In other employment-based immigration categories we are seeing increased processing times for work permits (EADs) from 3 to 6 months, a much higher incidence of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) on most work visa and green card categories, a higher incidence of fraud investigations on a wide range of cases, and as a consequence a spike in the need for highly skilled immigration counsel to ensure strict compliance with applicable laws and policies.

3. Family-Based and Naturalization

Processing times have increased – in some cases dramatically – for most family-based categories and naturalization cases. For example, in CT the I-751 removal of the condition application now takes 18 months instead of 11-13 months and naturalization cases are currently projected at 8.5 to 19 months instead of the 4-6 months previously.

4. DACA Applications and Advance Parole

Ongoing federal litigation in DACA continues to create confusion with regards to DACA applications, and pending litigation means there will likely be changes to the process in upcoming months. At present, USCIS is not considering first-time filings based on DACA, or requests for Advance Parole based on an approved DACA application. It is, however, processing renewals for those who currently have DACA status, as well as accepting initial DACA applications for those who had DACA status in the past. DACA renewal applications should be filed six months before the expiration of current DACA status so as to minimize the likelihood of having a gap in employment authorization.

In conclusion, we invite you to contact us to discuss and carefully plan the impact that these ever-changing immigration policies may have on your status, international travel, or your ability to hire and retain foreign labor. Please note the above-mentioned deadlines by which to act on your applications/petitions.

© Copyright 2018 Murtha Cullina
This post was written by Dana R. Bucin of Murtha Cullina.