Tag: White House

White House Publishes Revisions to Federal Agency Race and Ethnicity Reporting Categories

On March 28, 2024, the White House unveiled revisions to the federal statistical standards for race and ethnicity data collection for federal agencies, adding a new category and requiring a combined race and ethnicity question that allows respondents to select multiple categories with which they identify.

Quick Hits

  • The White House published an updated SPD 15 with revisions to the race and ethnicity data collection standards for federal agencies.
  • The revisions change the race and ethnicity inquiry by making it one question and encouraging respondents to identify under multiple categories.
  • Federal agencies have eighteen months to submit an agency action plan for compliance and must bring all of their data collections and programs into compliance within five years.
  • The race and ethnicity categories are widely used across federal agencies and serve as a model for employers for their own data collection and required diversity reporting.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published updates to its Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (SPD 15) with major revisions, the first since 1997. The revisions took immediate effect and were formally published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2024.

OMB stated that the revisions—which come after a two-year review process that included input from more than 20,000 comments, ninety-four listening sessions, three virtual town halls, and a Tribal consultation—are “intended to result in more accurate and useful race and ethnicity data across the federal government.”

Background

In 2022, OMB convened the Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standard (Working Group) to review the race and ethnicity standards in the 1997 SPD 15 with the goal of “improving the quality and usefulness of Federal race and ethnicity data.” The race and ethnicity standards are used by federal contractors and subcontractors for affirmative action programs (AAPs) and by employers for federal EEO-1 reporting and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) surveys. Many employers further use the race and ethnicity categories for their own recordkeeping purposes, and federal agencies use the categories for various surveys and federal forms.

In January 2023, OMB published the Working Group’s proposals, observing that the 1997 SPD 15 standards might no longer accurately reflect the growing diversity across the United States and evolving understandings of racial and ethnic identities. During the pendency of the review process, several justices of the Supreme Court of the United States criticized the imprecision of the 1997 race and ethnicity categories throughout the Court’s 237-page opinion in the June 2023 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College (SFFA decision) case, in which the Court struck down certain race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.

Revisions to SPD 15

The updated standards closely follow the Working Group’s final recommendations and revise SPD 15 to require that data collection:

  • combine the race and ethnicity inquiry into one question that allows respondents to select multiple categories with which they identify,
  • add “Middle Eastern or North African” (MENA) as a “minimum reporting category” that is “separate and distinct from the White’ category,” and
  • “require the collection of more detailed data as a default.”

Under the 1997 standards, respondents were required to first select an ethnicity (i.e., “Hispanic or Latino” or “Not Hispanic or Latino”), and second, select a race category (i.e., “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” or “White”).

The revised race and ethnicity categories for minimum reporting are:

  • “American Indian or Alaska Native”
  • “Asian”
  • “Black or African American”
  • “Hispanic or Latino”
  • “Middle Eastern or North African”
  • “Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander”
  • “White”

The updated SPD 15 further revises some terminology and definitions used and provides agencies with guidance on the collection and presentation of race and ethnicity data pursuant to SPD 15. Additionally, the update instructs federal agencies to begin updating their surveys and forms immediately and to complete and submit an AAP, which will be made publicly available, to comply with the updated SPD 15 within eighteen months. Federal agencies will have five years to bring all data collections and programs into compliance.

OMB noted that “the revised SPD 15 maintains the long-standing position that the race and/or ethnicity categories are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.”

Looking Ahead

The new race and ethnicity categories have implications for employers as they use these categories for federal reporting compliance and their own recordkeeping purposes, including potentially influencing their own diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Covered federal contractors and subcontractors must also use the categories in meeting their affirmative action obligations.

Still, the updated SPD 15 adds only one new minimum category. OMB recognized the tension with attempting to “facilitate individual identity to the greatest extent possible while still enabling the creation of consistent and comparable data.” One of the issues OMB identified as needing further research is “[h]ow to encourage respondents to select multiple race and/or ethnicity categories when appropriate by enhancing question design and inclusive language.” The agency is also establishing an Interagency Committee on Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards that will conduct further research and regular reviews of the categories every ten years, though OMB may decide to review SPD 15 again at any time.

Employers may want to take note of the revisions to SPD 15 as these changes will directly impact many employers’ compliance and recordkeeping obligations. They may also want to be on the lookout for additional guidance from federal agencies, such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the EEOC, on when and how to implement the standards. Relevant agencies will have to take action before employers will be required to implement the new standards. In the meantime, employers may want to consider whether to use the government’s new or existing categories when shaping their DEI initiatives, as racial and ethnic identities and terminology continue to evolve.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more on Race and Ethnicity Reporting, visit the NLR Civil Rights section.

Despite Record Year, SEC Must Improve Whistleblower Program to Align with White House Anti-Corruption Initiative

SEC Chair Gary Gensler announced on October 25th that in the 2023 fiscal year, the Commission received a record number of 18,000 whistleblower tips.

The SEC Whistleblower Program has grown rapidly and effectively since its inception in 2010 – the 2022 Fiscal Year set a record of 12,300 whistleblower tips. This was a near doubling of the 2020 tips, which set a record of 6,911.

The SEC transnational whistleblower program responds to individuals who voluntarily report original information about potential misconduct. If tips lead to a successful enforcement action, the whistleblowers are entitled to 10-30% of the recovered funds. The programs have created clear anti-retaliation protections and strong financial incentives for reporting securities and commodities fraud.

The U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption is a White House initiative from December of 2021 that establishes the fight against corruption as a core tenant of national security interests. It outlines strategic pillars and objectives within each. The recommendations on improving the SEC’s whistleblower provisions as outlined below have the same goal of creating stronger processes to combat corruption.

Since the SEC Whistleblower Program was created in 2010, whistleblowers have played a crucial role in the SEC’s enforcement efforts. Overall, since the whistleblower program was established in 2010, “[e]enforcement actions brought using information from meritorious whistleblowers have resulted in orders for more than $6.3 billion in total monetary sanctions, including more than $4.0 billion in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and interest, of which more than $1.5 billion has been, or is scheduled to be, returned to harmed investors,” according to the 2022 annual report.

This $6.3 billion recovered via sanctions is money that is put back into the pockets of investors and everyday Americans.

The SEC does not credit related enforcement actions to award notifications and sanctions in order to maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of whistleblowers, award notifications don’t tie to underlying enforcement action. The $6.3 billion does not include DOJ enforcement actions, which combined would show a much larger number.

Non-U.S. citizens who blow the whistle on potential securities frauds committed by publicly traded companies outside the United States are eligible to receive awards, as well as those whistleblowers who report violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This anti-corruption legislation prohibits the payment of anything of value to foreign government officials in order to obtain a business advantage.

Whistleblowers from over 130 countries have used the SEC Whistleblower Program to report fraud in their workplace.

Despite the massive growth of tips received, many whistleblowers’ cases are dismissed by the SEC due to insubstantial filing errors and strict time parameters on forms, or reported to the news media, other U.S. government agencies, or international government workers in roles that are public abroad but private in the U.S.

Considering these narrow qualifications and to ensure that the process for qualifying as a whistleblower aligns with U.S. anti-corruption priorities, the National Whistleblower Center recommends that the program be improved by expanding the definition of voluntary, further the provisions of identity protection and rewards. These recommendations align with the White House drafted United States Strategy on Countering Corruption.

Whistleblowers identified in case investigations should be automatically eligible for rewards, rather than mandated to meet technical form requirements.

The SEC should maintain their “Three Conditions” qualifications standards and expand the definition of “voluntary.” The current language disqualifies whistleblowers who report fraud to the media, other government agencies, foreign law enforcement, or a U.S. embassy before the SEC, considering them “involuntary.” These restrictions dissuade potential whistleblowers from engaging with the program and thus interfere with federal anti-corruption objectives. The agency must ensure that whistleblowers who file complaints internally before coming to the SEC maintain award eligibility.

The SEC should not incentivize or require whistleblowers to report internally before filing claims with the agency, as this exposes them to retaliation. If a whistleblower was removed from their position, they could no longer provide the Commission with the most updated information, which would harm the investigation.

By establishing a consistent inter-agency protocol concerning whistleblowers who have participated in the crime they report, the SEC can further protect the confidentiality and anonymity of whistleblowers in all ongoing federal investigations surrounding their disclosures.

Whistleblowers must receive the full force of related action provisions and rewards if the company or agency they report is simultaneously being investigated by another branch of government.

SEC regulations should contain strict deadlines for paying awards. These regulations should be premised on the fact that the SEC and Justice Department investigators and prosecutors will know the identity and contributions of all whistleblowers who would qualify for a reward in a particular case.

In the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) Whistleblower Program, procedures require that their investigators file whether or not there was a whistleblower involved in the case at the time the case file is closed. Agents thus know who the whistleblowers are, and the agency can process a claim quickly. The integration of affidavits and statements from front-line investigators into the decision-making process accelerates the reward payout.

Wait times for awards received are another disincentivizing factor for blowing the whistle. The SEC should establish and abide by a strict deadline for paying awards to ensure that whistleblowers are compensated fully and promptly. Rewards should not have a cap limit.

Such changes reinforce the White House Strategy’s objective to “bolster the ability of civil society, media, and private sector actors to safely detect and expose corruption,” “curb illicit finance,” and “enhance enforcement efforts” in the name of “modernizing, coordinating, and resourcing U.S. Government efforts to fight corruption.”

Enhancing the program ensures that whistleblowers whose information successfully leads to enforcement action on money laundering crimes are rewarded, no matter how they provide the information.

Such provisions will demonstrate to international whistleblowers that the risk of blowing the whistle on fraud is worth taking and the United States will support them through the process.

This article was authored by Sophie Luskin.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2023. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on the SEC Whistleblower Program, visit the NLR Securities & SEC section.

Biden Administration Revitalizes and Advances the Federal Government’s Commitment to Environmental Justice

On April 21, 2023, the eve of Earth Day, President Biden continued his Administration’s spotlight on environmental justice issues by signing Executive Order 14096, entitled “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.”

This Executive Order prioritizes and expands environmental justice concepts first introduced in President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12898. The 1994 Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of federal programs on minority and low-income populations.

One of President Biden’s early actions [covered here], Executive Order 14008, introduced the whole-of-government approach for all executive branch agencies to address climate change, environmental justice, and civil rights. It created the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council, comprising of 15 federal agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Department of Justice. Biden’s new Executive Order expands the whole-of-government approach by: (1) adding more agencies to the Environmental Justice Interagency Council and (2) establishing a new White House Office of Environmental Justice within the White House Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”). The new Office of Environmental Justice will be led by a Federal Chief Environmental Justice Officer and will coordinate the implementation of environmental justice policies across the federal government.

This new Executive Order emphasizes action over aspiration by directing federal agencies to “address and prevent disproportionate and adverse environmental health and impacts on communities.” It charges federal agencies with assessing their environmental justice efforts and developing, implementing, and periodically updating an environmental justice strategic plan. These new Environmental Justice Strategic Plans and Assessments are to be submitted to the CEQ and made public regularly, including through an Environmental Justice Scorecard, a new government-wide assessment of each federal agency’s efforts to advance environmental justice.

Specifically, defining “environmental justice” is one strategy to make concrete what federal agency efforts will address. Under the Executive Order, “environmental justice” means “the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people: (i) are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (ii) have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.” This definition adds “Tribal affiliation” and “disability” to the protected categories and expands the scope of effects, risks, and hazards to be protected against. The Fact Sheet accompanying the Executive Order explains that the definition’s use of the phrase “disproportionate and adverse” is a simpler, modernized equivalent of the phrase “disproportionately high and adverse” originally used in Executive Order 12898. Whether this change in language from “disproportionately high” to “disproportionate” will affect agency decision-making is something to watch for in the future.

As part of the government-wide mission to achieve environmental justice, the Executive Order explicitly directs each agency to address and prevent the cumulative impacts of pollution and other burdens like climate change, including carrying out environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), by:

  • Analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of federal actions on communities with environmental justice concerns;
  • Considering the best available science and information on any disparate health effects (including risks) arising from exposure to pollution and other environmental hazards, such as information related to the race, national origin, socioeconomic status, age, disability, and sex of the individuals exposed; and,
  • Providing opportunities for early and meaningful involvement in the environmental review process by communities with environmental justice concerns potentially affected by a proposed action, including when establishing or revising agency procedures under NEPA.
    The Executive Order also emphasizes transparency by directing agencies to ensure that the public, including members of communities with environmental justice concerns, has adequate access to information on federal activities. These activities include planning, regulatory actions, implementation, permitting, compliance, and enforcement related to human health or the environment when required under the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and any other environmental statutes with public information provisions.

CEQ is expected to issue interim guidance by the end of the year and more long-term guidance by the end of 2024 as to implementing the Executive Order’s directives. It is too early to know whether any directives will go through rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. But with a presidential election looming and ongoing budget negotiations between the White House and Congress that propose modest cuts to NEPA as part of permitting reform, CEQ’s efforts may be limited to guidance for now.

© 2023 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

For more environmental legal, news, visit the National Law Review here.

Biden Administration Initiates Ocean Justice Strategy

On June 8, 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), on behalf of the Ocean Policy Committee (OPC), announced the development of a new “Ocean Justice Strategy.” This federal government-wide initiative marks the latest in a long series of Biden administration efforts to promote environmental justice (EJ). The first step is a request for public input through July 24, 2023.

Overview

    • Per CEQ, the Ocean Justice Strategy aims to identify barriers and opportunities to incorporate environmental justice principles into the federal government’s ocean-related activities. It will encompass all recent Biden administration Executive Orders and policies relating to environmental justice, including the Ocean Climate Action Plan. The Strategy will serve as a guide to the federal government’s objectives for guiding “ocean justice” activities. It will propose “equitable and just practices to advance safety, health, and prosperity for communities residing near the ocean, the coasts, and the Great Lakes.”
    • The OPC, a Congressionally-created office dedicated to developing federal ocean policy, will draft the Ocean Justice Strategy with input from stakeholders, including Tribes, state and local governments, the private sector, and the public.
    • The Biden Administration previewed its support for ocean justice last year when it announced a commitment to extending environmental justice efforts to coastal and marine contexts. NOAA Fisheries followed suit by releasing its first-ever Equity and Environmental Justice Strategy, which puts equity and environmental justice at the forefront of their effort to steward the nation’s ocean resources and habitats.
    • The Strategy and its underlying EJ-based principles could lead to future policy changes, including for industries such as offshore energy, real estate, shipping, ports, and fisheries. This new effort is somewhat unique among EJ initiatives in that it targets activities that inherently occur along the nation’s coasts or far away from communities. The Strategy could emerge in a variety of directions, from identifying favored or disfavored ocean-based activities to layering additional processes for certain types of proposed projects.

Request for Public Input

OPC seeks public input on the following topics to develop the Ocean Justice Policy:

    • Definitions (namely, what is “ocean justice”)
    • Barriers to ocean justice
    • Opportunities for ocean justice
    • Research and knowledge gaps
    • Tools and practices (e.g., how to use existing tools such as CEJST, EJScreen, and EnviroAtla, in addition to developing new tools)
    • Partnerships and collaboration with external stakeholders
    • Any additional considerations

In addition to these comments, OPC will consider comments submitted in response to its previous request for information on the Ocean Climate Action Plan to inform the development of the Ocean Justice Strategy.

© 2023 Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more Environmental Legal News, visit the National Law Review.

As White House Loses House Majority, what is Next for H-1B Visa Program?

The H-1B is a popular and highly-sought-after visa category for skilled foreign workers seeking to work in the United States. It has been the subject of much debate and controversy over the years, and recent changes in the political landscape have added new uncertainties and challenges to the H-1B visa process. This blog post explores the impact of the Biden administration on changes to the H-1B visa, as well as the role of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives in shaping the future of the H-1B visa program.

What is the H-1B Visa?

The H-1B is a temporary, nonimmigrant visa category that allows employers to petition on behalf of highly-educated foreign professionals who work in specialty occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. These jobs are generally in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”), enhancing American competitiveness in the global economy. In fact, in an effort to be even more competitive, the Biden administration recently expanded eligible fields of study that qualify under the program, as described in greater detail on this blog.

The H-1B visa allows U.S. employers to fill critically important jobs in the United States with foreign workers.  While many critics of the H-1B argue that it potentially limits job opportunities for U.S. workers, many others suggest that H-1B workers offer critical support to the U.S. economy. In fact, according to the American Immigration Counsel, H-1B recipients provided critical assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many doctors, scientists, and nurses present in the U.S. on the H-1B visa, including individuals who assisted with the development of vaccines.

Biden Administration and its Relationship with Immigration Reform

One of the key priorities of the Biden administration has been to modernize and improve the U.S. immigration system, including the H-1B visa program. To this end, the Biden administration has taken steps to make the H-1B visa process more accessible and efficient for skilled foreign workers, including increasing the number of visas available, increasing transparency and consistency in the lottery process, and streamlining the application process.

According to a recent article by Forbes, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) are expected to return as Senate Judiciary Committee chair and immigration subcommittee chair, respectively. It is expected that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) will no longer be ranking member on the Senate Judiciary; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) likely will hold that position. Just last year, Senator Grassley blocked an exemption from green card limits for certain foreign nationals with PhDs in STEM fields – a move that frustrated employers and universities alike.

Although Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, the House now features a Republican majority, which may complicate immigration reform efforts on Capitol Hill.

Republicans on Capitol Hill Seek to Counter Democratic Efforts on Immigration

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives may pose a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to reform the H-1B visa program. Republicans have traditionally been more critical program and have pushed for reforms that would restrict the number of visas available and make it more difficult for foreign workers to come to the United States.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has been a vocal critic of the H-1B program, stating that it is used to hire cheap foreign labor at the expense of American workers. Similarly, Sen. Grassley has expressed concerns about the impact of the program on American workers, claiming that while the visa was intended to help American businesses recruit the best and brightest talent from around the world, it’s too often been used to import cheaper foreign labor and displace American workers.

Given these differing perspectives, the future of the H-1B visa program will likely continue to be a source of political debate and controversy in the United States. However, it is clear that both sides of the political aisle agree that it needs to be reformed in some way, whether to make it more accessible and efficient for skilled foreign workers, or to better protect the interests of American workers.

Currently, the H-1B process in the United States is in a state of flux, with the Biden administration taking steps to modernize and improve the program, while the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives raises concerns about its impact on American workers. Whether the program will ultimately be reformed to better serve the interests of foreign workers, American workers, or both remains to be seen, but clearly this issue will continue to be a major source of political debate and controversy in the United States for the foreseeable future.

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

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

©2023 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Biden Administration Sets New Course on ESG Investing in Retirement Plans

In late 2022, the Department of Labor finalized a new rule titled “Prudence in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,” largely reversing Trump-era guidance that had strictly limited the ability of plan fiduciaries to consider “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) factors in selecting retirement plan investments and generally discouraged the exercise of proxy voting. In short, the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options, provided that the selection serves the financial interests of the plan and its participants over an appropriate time horizon, and encourages fiduciaries to engage in proxy voting.

The final rule moves away from 2020 Trump-era rulemaking by allowing more leeway for fiduciaries to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. Specifically, the rule states that a “fiduciary’s duty of prudence must be based on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis and that such factors may include the economic effects of climate change and other ESG considerations on the particular investment or investment course of action.” The rule makes clear, however, that there is no requirement to affirmatively consider ESG factors, effectively limiting its scope and effect and putting the onus on fiduciaries to determine whether they want to incorporate ESG factors into their assessments of competing investments.

Overview

  • Similar to the Trump-era guidance, there is no definition of “ESG” or an “ESG”-style fund. Debate continues over what kinds of funds can be considered ESG investments, especially in light of the fact that some companies in industries traditionally thought to be inconsistent with ESG conscious investing are now trying to attract ESG investors (e.g. industrials, energy).
  • Fiduciaries are not required to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. However, the consideration of such factors is not a presumed violation of a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty or prudence. Unlike the prior rule, which suggested that consideration of ESG factors could only be considered if all other pecuniary factors between competing investments were equal (the “tiebreaker” approach), the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider potential financial benefits of ESG investing in all circumstances.
  • Plan fiduciaries may take into account participant preferences in constructing a fund lineup. Therefore, if participants express a desire for ESG investment options, then it may be reasonable for plan fiduciaries to add ESG funds or to consider ESG factors in crafting the fund lineup.
  • ESG-centric funds may be used as qualified default investments (QDIAs) within retirement plans, reversing the prior outright prohibition on use of such funds as QDIAs.
  • In some situations, fiduciaries may be required to exercise shareholder rights when required to protect participant interests. It is unclear whether the exercise of such rights is only limited to situations that have an economic impact on the plan, or applies to additional situations. The clarification suggests that the exercise of proxy voting is not disfavored as an inefficient use of fiduciaries’ time and resources, as the prior iteration of the rule suggested.

Effective Date and Challenges to the Regulation

The new rule became effective in January 2023, except for delayed applicability of proxy voting provisions. However, twenty five state attorneys general have joined a lawsuit in federal court in Texas that seeks to overturn the regulation. The court is in the Fifth Circuit, which historically has been hostile to past Department of Labor regulations (including Obama-era fiduciary rules overturned in 2018, though the ESG rule is less far-reaching than the fiduciary rule and may survive a challenge even in the Fifth Circuit). Congressional Republicans have also introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) review proposal to repeal the regulation that has gained the support of Joe Manchin (D-WV). Although CRA actions are not subject to Senate filibuster rules, they are subject to presidential veto, which President Biden is sure to do if the repeal reaches his desk.

Action Steps

Employers should assume that the ESG rules will remain in effect and engage with plan fiduciaries, advisors, and employees and determine the extent to which ESG considerations should (or should not) enter into fiduciary deliberations when considering plan investment alternatives. Some investment advisors have already begun to include separate ESG scorecards for mutual funds and other investments in their regular plan investment reviews. Fiduciaries should also consider whether and how the approach that is ultimately taken should be reflected in the plan’s investment policy statement. Plans that delegate full control over investments to an independent fiduciary (an ERISA 3(38) advisor) should engage with their advisor to determine whether and the extent to which ESG considerations will be part of that fiduciary’s process, and whether that is consistent with the desires of the plan fiduciaries and participants.

Article By Alex H. Glaser and Timothy Brechtel of Jones Walker LLP

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

© 2023 Jones Walker LLP

Biden Administration Expands Public-Private Cybersecurity Partnership to Chemical Sector

On October 26, 2022, the Biden Administration announced that it is expanding the Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Cybersecurity Initiative to the chemical sector. The White House’s fact sheet states that the majority of chemical companies are privately owned, so a collaborative approach is needed between the private sector and government. According to the fact sheet, “[t]he nation’s leading chemical companies and the government’s lead agency for the chemical sector — the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) — have agreed on a plan to promote a higher standard of cybersecurity across the sector, including capabilities that enable visibility and threat detection for industrial control systems.”

The fact sheet states that the Chemical Action Plan will serve as a roadmap to guide the sector’s assessment of their current cybersecurity practices over the next 100 days, building on the lessons learned and best practices of the previously launched action plans for the electric, pipeline, and water sectors to meet the needs for this sector. The Chemical Action Plan will:

  • Focus on high-risk chemical facilities that present significant chemical release hazards with the ultimate goal of supporting enhanced ICS cybersecurity across the entire chemical sector;
  • Drive information sharing and analytical coordination between the federal government and the chemical sector;
  • Foster collaboration with the sector owners and operators to facilitate and encourage the deployment of appropriate technologies based on each chemical facility’s own risk assessment and cybersecurity posture. The federal government will not select, endorse, or recommend any specific technology or provider; and
  • Support the continuity of chemical production critical to the national and economic security of the United States. The chemical sector produces and manufactures chemicals that are used directly or as building blocks in the everyday lives of Americans, from fertilizers and disinfectants to personal care products and energy sources, among others.

The ICS Cybersecurity Initiative emphasizes that cybersecurity continues to be a top priority for the Administration.

For more Cybersecurity Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Actual Malice in the Age of #fakenews

Public figures are fighting back against fake news.

In the most recent headline from the world of celebrity defamation cases, E. Jean Carroll is suing former President Trump for statements he made after she accused him of sexual assault. In a 2019 book and excerpt in New York magazine, Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, accused Trump of sexual assault in the mid-1990s. Trump responded that Carroll was “totally lying” and not his “type.” Carroll sued Trump for defamation, claiming his statements had harmed her reputation. But Carroll—like all public figure defamation plaintiffs—has an uphill battle before her. To succeed, Carroll will have to prove that Trump’s statements were false, and—because Carroll is a public figure—she will also have to show that Trump acted with “actual malice.” The actual malice standard often proves to be too high a threshold for most public figures to cross, and most cases are lost on that prong—regardless of whether the statement was false. In fact, Johnny Depp was one of the few public figures in recent years to win a defamation suit.

So, what would it mean if the actual malice requirement was rescinded?

The seminal decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan and its progeny are the backbone of defamation law in this country. These cases hold that public officials and public figures claiming defamation must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” In other words, with “actual malice.” On the other hand, a private figure, or one who has not sought out the limelight, need only show the false statement was made negligently. Prior to Sullivan, all plaintiffs fell under the negligence standard.

Public figures who must meet this “actual malice” standard fall into two categories: (1) all-purpose public figures, with “pervasive fame or notoriety,” like Johnny Depp; and (2) limited-purpose public figures, like Carroll, who, in the words of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., achieve their status by “thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” The Court rationalized that both categories of public figures have “invite[d] attention and comment.” Moreover, because “public figures enjoy “greater access to the channels of effective communication” than private individuals, they are better able to “contradict the lie or correct the error.”

In today’s age of social media, do these justifications still hold true? When Sullivan and its progeny came down, there was a clear delineation between public and private figures. Typically, public figures had media access, and private figures did not. Today’s social media landscape muddles that line. We are all just one post, tweet, or TikTok away from becoming public figures.

In 2019, in a case strikingly similar to Carroll’s, the Supreme Court declined to review a defamation case filed by Kathrine McKee against Bill Cosby. In 2014, McKee publicly accused Cosby of forcibly raping her 40 years earlier. In response, Cosby’s attorney authored and subsequently leaked an allegedly defamatory letter. Excerpts of the letter were disseminated via the Internet and published by news outlets around the world. McKee argued that the letter deliberately distorted her personal background to “damage her reputation for truthfulness and honesty, and further to embarrass, harass, humiliate, intimidate, and shame” her. Applying Sullivan and its progeny, the Court concluded because McKee had “‘thrust’ herself to the ‘forefront’” of the public controversy over “sexual assault allegations implicating Cosby,” she was a “limited-purpose public figure” who needed to show actual malice—regardless of whether the statements about her were false.

In a lone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that “in an appropriate case, [the Court] should reconsider the precedents” requiring public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard. Justice Thomas later double-downed on his proffer in his dissents in Berisha v. Lawson, and most recently in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. In Berisha, pointing to the shift in the media landscape since Sullivan, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in calling to review the Sullivan decision, noting our new media world “facilitates the spread of disinformation.”

According to these Justices, in recent years Sullivan has become less of a shield and more of a sword. The “actual malice” standard allows spreaders of conspiracy theories, false accusations, and fake news to be virtually untouchable. In an era where misinformation spreads like wildfire, has the actual malice standard allowed journalists to become sloppy and irresponsible? Under this legal standard a journalist is better off printing a story without fact-checking. In fact, failing to thoroughly investigate, standing alone, does not prove actual malice. If the Court abolished that standard, public figures would be like every other defamation plaintiff and would only need to show that the false statement was made carelessly. In other words, instead of the defendant knowingly printing misinformation, a plaintiff would only need to show that the defendant didn’t bother checking if the information was true or false before making it.

Under this precedent, for years reporters, and individuals alike have been shielded from consequences of publishing falsehoods about public figures. Removing the “actual malice” standard would have sweeping effects on journalists and news platforms, and would make reputable news organizations more vulnerable to attack and open to further scrutiny. But responsible journalists would still remain protected. Truth remains an absolute defense to a defamation claim.

Between 2018 and 2020 the number of defamation suits filed increased by 30%. With “fake news” on the rise, more individuals falling into the “public figure” category, and technology moving at warp speed, the Court may have no choice but to rethink Sullivan. While it is unlikely that that 50 years of settled precedent would be overturned, Sullivan just might, at the very least, be revisited.

Article By Melissa Sarsten Polito of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

BREAKING NEWS: Biden to Pardon Federal Marijuana Possession Convictions

In a historic move, today, President Joe Biden announced a three-step program to bring broad changes to federal cannabis policy. As an initial step towards reform, President Biden will pardon all federal offenders convicted of simple marijuana possession. According to administration officials, the pardons will be issued through an administration process overseen by the Department of Justice. Those eligible for the pardons will receive documentation showing they were officially forgiven for their crime.

“No one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana,” Biden said in a video announcing his executive actions. “It’s legal in many states, and criminal records for marijuana possession have led to needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities. And that’s before you address the racial disparities around who suffers the consequences. While white and Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, Black and brown people are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates.”

“Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs,” the President said.

As a second step in the program, Biden also encouraged Governors to take similar steps to pardon state simple cannabis possession charges.

And as the last step in this program, President Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services and Attorney General Merrick Garland to “expeditiously” review the cannabis’s status as a Schedule I controlled drug pursuant to the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Article By Sarah A. K. Blitz and Whitney Hodges of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.