Category: Administrative & Regulatory

USCIS Announces H-1B Cap Registration Period for March 2022

On Friday, January 28, 2022, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the online registration period for H-1B quota selection for the upcoming fiscal year will begin on March 1 at 12:00 pm (noon) Eastern Standard Time and run through 12:00 pm (noon) Eastern Standard Time on March 18. The FY2023 H-1B quota is for H-1B registrations and petitions filed to USCIS in the spring of 2022, with a start date of October 1, 2022 or later.

The registration system for this year is similar to last year’s H-1B registration. Registrations will be submitted electronically and will require a non-refundable $10 registration fee. Assuming that USCIS receives more registrations than the allotted number of 85,000 available H-1B petitions, USCIS will conduct a computer-generated lottery among all registrations. Employers with selected cases will then be eligible to file an H-1B petition within a designated 90-day period following registration selection. As mentioned above, approved H-1B petitions will be effective on October 1, 2022 or later — the start of the government’s 2023 fiscal year.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
Article By Angel Feng and William L. Coffman with Mintz.
For more about USCIS updates, visit the NLR Immigration section.

OSHA’s Next Steps with the Vaccine or Test Rule

On Tuesday, January 25, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the withdrawal of the “Emergency Temporary Standard” (ETS) that would have required large private employers of 100 or more employees to implement a vaccine or test policy. This announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the ETS on January 13, 2022 pending a decision from the Sixth Circuit on the underlying proceedings challenging the ETS. The withdrawal of the ETS is effective as of January 26, 2022.

The announcement from OSHA made it clear that the withdrawal is not complete, stating:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under section 6(c)(3) of the Act, and this action does not affect the ETS’s status as a proposal under section 6(b) of the Act or otherwise affect the status of the notice-and-comment rulemaking commenced by the Vaccination and Testing ETS.” OSHA’s complete withdrawal can be found here.

OSHA intends to keep the ETS as a proposed rule under OSHA’s rulemaking authority. This means that OSHA may choose to modify the previously published ETS and may rely on the Supreme Court’s opinion in doing so. OSHA may choose to implement ideas from the Supreme Court justices such as an industry or workplace-specific analysis.  Additionally, OSHA is also likely to review the comments submitted during the notice and comment period for direction with respect to a potential final ETS.

While Tuesday’s announcement does not necessitate action by employers, it does leave the door open for future directives.

© 2022 Varnum LLP
For more on OSHA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Labor Shortage: Will Additional Seasonal Visas Help?

The United States is in the midst of a significant labor shortage. In response to the growing demand for labor, the U.S. government recently announced it will expand the number of H-2B visas available for seasonal workers this winter. Although the announcement is hailed by some as necessary, critics suggest the response may be insufficient to meet growing demand.

The Modern Labor Shortage

Following the economic turmoil spawned by the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. economy faces an unusual set of circumstances: instead of a lack of jobs, there is a lack of workers to fill available positions. Experts attribute the labor shortage to a number of potential causes, but some suggest a lack of immigrant labor is at least partially to blame. Due to lengthy processing times for immigration applications, foreign born workers hoping to enter the United States face unprecedented challenges obtaining the necessary paperwork to work here legally.

Biden Administration Expands Seasonal Visas

In response to the growing challenges of the labor shortage, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently announced they will issue a joint temporary final rule to make available an additional 20,000 H-2B temporary nonagricultural worker visas. These visas will be set aside for U.S. employers seeking to employ additional workers on or before March 31, 2022.

The visas are in addition to 33,000 visas already set aside for seasonal employers, marking a substantial 60% increase from the previous limit.

What is the H-2B Program?

The H-2B visa program allows U.S. employers who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs. The industries most reliant on the H-2B program vary, but include landscapers, hotels, and ski resorts. By providing foreign workers to meet labor shortages in the United States, the program is meant to support the fluctuating needs of the U.S. economy.

The program has restrictions, however. The employment must be for a limited period, including seasonal or intermittent needs. To hire H-2B workers, employers must, among other things, certify to a lack of U.S. workers available to fill the position. Additionally, employers must certify that using the program will not adversely affect wages for similarly-employed U.S. workers.

Will Additional Seasonal Visas Be Enough?

Expansion of the H-2B program is being praised as necessary relief by some. However, others suggest it may not be sufficient to answer the growing labor demand in the country.

Business owners from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, hailed the news, citing the strained vacation industry that relies so heavily on seasonal workers to meet the high demand. Additional workers will provide necessary relief on many strained industries.

Steve Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell, recently noted that if employers get past these hurdles, the visas could help the labor shortage, but only a little bit. After all, the labor shortage in the United States exceeds the additional 20,000 seasonal visas being offered. Recent estimates suggest 10.4 million jobs are available here. Moreover, applications under the H-2B program can be costly, forcing employers to weigh the financial implications of sponsoring workers under the program.

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

CFPB to Examine College Lending Practices

On January 20, the CFPB announced that it would begin examining the operations of post-secondary schools that offer private loans directly to students and update its exam procedures to include a new section on institutional student loans.  The CFPB highlights its concern about the student borrower experience in light of alleged past abuses at schools that were previously sued by the CFPB for unfair and abusive practices in connection with their in-house private loan programs.

When examining institutions offering private education loans, in addition to looking at general lending issues, CFPB examiners will be looking at the following areas:

  • Placing enrollment or attendance restrictions on students with loan delinquencies;
  • Withholding transcripts;
  • Accelerating payments;
  • Failing to issue refunds; and
  • Maintaining improper lending relationships

This announcement was accompanied by a brief remark from CFPB Director Chopra:  “Schools that offer students loans to attend their classes have a lot of power over their students’ education and financial future.  It’s time to open up the books on institutional student lending to ensure all students with private student loans are not harmed by illegal practices.”

Putting it Into Practice:  The CFPB’s concern with the experience of student borrowers is in line with a number of enforcement actions pursued by the Bureau against post-secondary schools.  The education loan exam procedures manual is intended for use by Bureau examiners, and is available as a resource to those subject to its exams. These procedures will be incorporated into the Bureau’s general supervision and examination manual.

Article By Moorari Shah, A.J. S. Dhaliwal, and Pouneh Almasi of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

USCIS Issues New Policy Guidance for O-1B Visas

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) recently issued policy guidance to clarify how to determine the appropriate visa classification for persons of extraordinary ability in the arts. Given the massive changes in the entertainment industry in the past year, including the increasing popularity of internet and streaming services, this guidance provides essential insight for those seeking to understand the nuances of O-1B nonimmigrant visas and determine which visa applies to their unique circumstances.

O-1 Visa Program for Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement

The O-1 nonimmigrant visa program provides nonimmigrant visas for individuals who possess extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who have demonstrated extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements.

The O-1 nonimmigrant visa program is broken down into the following classifications:

  • O-1A: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics (not including the arts, motion pictures or television industry);
  • O-1B (Arts): Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the arts;
  • O-1B (MPTV): Individuals with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry.

Generally, to qualify for an O-1 visa, a beneficiary must demonstrate “sustained national or international acclaim” in their respective field. To prove this, applicants must provide evidence of their credentials, including national or international awards or prizes, membership in professional organizations in their respective field, published articles in notable trade publications, high salary for their services, as well as other relevant evidence of exceptional expertise.

Under the O-1B category, as noted above, individuals in the entertainment industry can demonstrate either extraordinary ability in the arts or extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry. With the recent shifts in the entertainment industry, including the prevalence of household names from YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc., it has become increasingly common for applicants to possess qualities that fall under both the O-1B (Arts) and the O-1B (MPTV) categories.

Determining the Relevant Standard for Artists with Some Connection to MPTV

The USCIS Policy Manual acknowledges the difficulties associated with petitions that have elements of both O-1B (Arts) and O-1B (MPTV) classifications. According to the newly issued guidance, inclusion in the motion picture or television industry is not limited to whether artistic content will air on television or movie screens, noting that “USCIS considers streaming movies, web series, commercials, and other programs with formats that correspond to more traditional motion picture and television productions to generally fall within the MPTV industry’s purview.” Indeed, USCIS gives weight to whether an individual”s work aligns with industry organizations such as the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

However, under USCIS guidance, not all television stars are considered equal for the purpose of visa qualification. For instance, reality television poses an interesting problem because many of the “stars” are non-actors involved in a competition of some sort that takes place on television. According to USCIS, contestants on reality television programs fall outside of the MPTV industry, but judges, hosts, and those employed by the production company generally fall within industry parameters.

Video blogging, a staple of the increasingly popular YouTube and TikTok platforms, poses similar questions. However, USCIS makes clear that static web content, like video blogs, generally falls outside the O-1B (MPTV) classification and is more appropriate for O-1B (Arts) petitions. USCIS notes that if an artist’s work or appearance on an MPTV production is incidental to their non-MPTV work as an artist, the MPTV classification may not be appropriate.

Guidance for O-1B Visas

The newly-issued guidance provides some clarification of the nuances that distinguish O-1B (Arts) beneficiaries from O-1B (MPTV) beneficiaries. Potential beneficiaries and practitioners can continue to consult the USCIS Policy Manual for up-to-date guidance in this quickly changing industry.

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

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

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

At-Home COVID-19 Testing Options and Alternatives

In fulfillment of President Biden’s promise to make at-home COVID tests more available for all of us, two significant action steps have now occurred:

  1. Every U.S. household has access to free at-home COVID-19 tests. As of January 18, 2022, any individual with a residence in the United States may request up to four (4) at-home COVID test kits.  There is no cost to register or for the kits themselves.
  1. At-home COVID-19 testing is available at no cost without a prescription under an employer’s group health plan. On January 10, 2022, the Department of Labor (DOL) released updated guidance and an FAQ that, as of January 15, 2022, now extends an employer’s obligation to cover all types of COVID-19 tests, between those performed or prescribed by a physician or other health care provider,  and for in-home COVID-19 tests provided without a doctor’s order.

Key Points:

All group health plans and insurance carriers must now cover the cost of at-home COVID-19 test kits, passing none of that cost to employees or individuals covered under the plan, and without requiring a medical diagnosis or prescription from a health care provider.

  • The plan or insurer need not provide this coverage to employees not covered under the employer’s plan.
  • For these purposes, the coverage can be provided through an employer’s medical plan, pharmacy benefit plan/PBM, or both. Employers should discuss the options and costs for administering this arrangement under their particular plan with their brokers and consultants or insurance carriers.
  • The guidance allows a plan or insurer to meet this coverage obligation in one of two ways:
    • The plan can work with its insurance carrier or third-party claims administrator (TPA) to create “direct contract” arrangements with retailers (e.g., Walmart, RiteAid, Walgreens, etc.) and other insurance network providers to provide COVID tests to covered individuals at no cost to the individual at the counter; costs are negotiated and paid between the plan/insurer/TPA with the retail service provider directly.
    • Individuals can also purchase COVID tests through any other resource and submit the receipt for reimbursement through the plan or insurer’s established process, either through the insurance carrier, TPA or PBM. The maximum amount to be paid in reimbursement is the lesser of: (a) the actual cost of the COVID test; or (b) $12 per test (note: if the COVID kit comes with two tests, the cost to be reimbursed would be per test or a maximum of $24).  The plan or insurer does not have to reimburse for COVID tests purchased before January 15, 2022.
    • Suppose a plan or issuer is unwilling or unable to satisfy the above criteria in providing the opportunity to receive COVID testing coverage under either of the above criteria. In that case, the plan or issuer must still provide reimbursement of at-home COVID tests without the above cost limitations.
  • The plan or insurer can limit the total number of COVID tests to 8 per person per month (or 4 kits if the kit includes two tests). A separate limit applies for each covered family member (e.g., a family of 4 could receive up to 32 tests per month (or 16 kits, if it includes two tests each).  There is no annual maximum limit.
  • An individual need not provide proof of medical need, but the plan can require the individual to attest that they are purchasing only for personal use (not for resale).
  • Employers are encouraged to communicate to all covered individuals about the alternatives available and processes for seeking reimbursement of purchased tests.
  • The obligations for coverage of at-home COVID tests remain in effect for at least the remainder of the Public Health Emergency period, which has now been extended to at least April 15, 2022.
  • COVID testing and other related costs provided at a health care provider or other health care facility as part of a medical assessment must still be covered 100 percent by the plan or issuer without being subject to the test or cost limits that apply for over-the-counter COVID tests, under previous guidance under the CARES Act, and the First Families Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).

Employer sponsors of group health plans are likely to have received at least some information from their TPA, insurance carrier, or other brokers and consultants about the steps to be taken related to the guidance provided under the most recent DOL FAQ.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Article By Brian M. Johnston of  Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more articles on at home COVID-19 testing, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

A Very Simple Proposal to Tweak the FLSA to Benefit Both Employees and Employers

A number of years ago, I received a kind note around the holidays from my opposing counsel in a wage-hour class action, thanking me and my firm for being their “partners” in addressing employment issues.

Maybe the word he used wasn’t “partners,” but it was something close to it.

At first, I must admit that I thought he was joking.

Then I realized that this attorney, for whom I have great respect, got it.

He got that employers are not looking to violate employment laws, and that the attorneys who represent them are not trying to help their clients violate the laws.

He got that the opposite is true – employers are trying to comply with the laws, and their attorneys are trying to help them do so.  No employer is hoping to get sued.  Not one.  And lawyers advising employers on how to violate the laws will soon be looking for new clients.  Or a malpractice attorney.

The general public may not understand this notion, and, unfortunately, many employees and plaintiffs’ lawyers may not, either.

The desire of employers and their counsel to comply with the law plays out thousands of times every day, to the great benefit not just of employers, but of employees.

All management-side employment lawyers worth their salt have stories about how they worked with their clients to prevent a manager from terminating an employee’s employment, or cutting an employee’s pay, or implementing a problematic policy, by explaining the law and the potential repercussions.  Some lawyers have hundreds of these stories.

“You should give the employee another chance,” is an expression that may as well be on a tape recording, it’s used that often.  “Document the problem, sit down with the employee to explain how they need to do things differently, and give the employee another chance.”  “If you make that change, you’re walking right into a class action that you will have difficulty defending.”

Often – usually – employers will understand and follow their counsel’s advice once distanced from the heat of the moment.

They’re looking to do the right thing, to treat their employees fairly.  And, yes, to comply with the law.

It’s an approach that works in virtually every context except perhaps one – the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The FLSA actually works to dissuade employers from working with employees to correct many wage issues.

Why is that?

Because, unlike other employment laws, the FLSA generally doesn’t permit employers and employees to resolve wage disputes, short of the very litigation or agency complaint that neither employers nor employees really want.

The FLSA generally forbids the very amicable resolutions that would benefit both employers and employees.

And perhaps it’s time to change that.

In a perfect workplace, if employees have issues, whatever they might be, they would speak with their managers or with human resources and resolve their disputes amicably.

And, for the most part, the law not only permits them to do so, but encourages them to do so.

If employees believe they have been harassed, they can take their concerns to their employer and let their employer investigate and take corrective action, if appropriate.

If employees believe they have been discriminated against, they can share their concerns with their employer and resolve their disputes.

And if part of the resolution is a payment of some sum that the employer and employee agree to be fair, they can enter into a settlement agreement whereby those claims are resolved.  That is, the employee can accept some agreed-upon sum of money and sign a release.  And the employee can review the settlement agreement with his or her attorney beforehand in deciding whether the terms are fair.  If not, the employee won’t sign it.

But these very same employees who are able to amicably resolve virtually any dispute with their employers generally are not allowed to do so with FLSA claims.

If employees believe they were not paid for all time they worked, they cannot simply speak with their managers or human resources personnel to resolve the issue, get the problem fixed, and move on.  No, generally speaking, the only way they can resolve the issue is to file a lawsuit or a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL).

If employees believe their overtime pay was miscalculated, the only way they and their employers can resolve the claim is by suing or going to the DOL.

If employees believe that they have been misclassified as exempt, they can’t resolve the issue with their manager or human resources personnel.  No, they have to sue or file a DOL complaint.

And if employers identify an issue – an error on someone’s paycheck, or a concern that an employee might have been misclassified – the best they can do is to correct the issue and pay the employee, then sit back and hope that the employee doesn’t turn around and sue about the very issue the employer wanted to resolve, but couldn’t.

It’s a system that is built to increase litigation, often unnecessarily, at the expense of amicable resolutions of issues that may arise.

There is no good reason that employees can be trusted to resolve other employment disputes without litigation or an agency complaint, but can’t be trusted to do so with regard to wage claims.

None.

There is no good reason why employees can be allowed to amicably resolve a race or sex discrimination concern, for instance, but the same employees can’t be allowed to resolve a wage claim – not even as part of the resolution of the race or sex discrimination concern.

None.

The argument that an employee wouldn’t understand the nuances of the FLSA flies about as far as a turkey.  The FLSA is no more nuanced than Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act, and employees are allowed to resolve those claims outside of litigation or an agency complaint.

And don’t forget that employees could always have an attorney review a proposed FLSA settlement before they ever enter into it.  If it wasn’t fair, the attorney would surely tell the employee that and try to negotiate better terms, right?

Ultimately, it’s the employees’ decision.  If they don’t like the terms of a proposed resolution of FLSA claims, they can always file suit or a DOL claim then.

If you assume that employers and employees would like to have the opportunity to try to resolve their FLSA disputes prior to litigation or a DOL claim, then it is time to amend the FLSA to give them to right to do so.

And the blueprint for what legislation could look like is easy to find – it’s right in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  Or, more specifically, it’s right in the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA) amendments to the ADEA.

For reasons that remain somewhat mystifying, releases of age discrimination claims under the ADEA require specific terms that releases of other types of federal discrimination claims do not.  Among other things, such releases must specifically reference the ADEA, they must advise employees that they have the right to consult with an attorney, they must provide the employee with 21 days to consider the release (or 45 days under some circumstances), and they must provide the employees with 7 days to revoke an agreement after signing.

There is no reason that the FLSA couldn’t be amended to permit private settlements along the same lines – with a requirement that the release specifically reference the FLSA, that it advise employees that they have the right to consult with an attorney (or the DOL), that they have 21 days to consider the release, and that they may revoke the release within 7 days.

Don’t like the settlement proposed by your employer?  Don’t sign it.

Don’t understand it?  Talk with a lawyer or the DOL.

Need time to think about it?  You’ve got plenty of time.

Have second thoughts after signing the agreement?  Revoke it.

If such bells and whistles are sufficient to protect older workers who wish to settle age discrimination claims, they should be sufficient to protect all employees who wish to resolve FLSA claims.

Employees would benefit from a system that would encourage employers to address wage issues – and, not incidentally, by which they might not have to share 30-40% of their settlement with lawyers.

Employers would benefit from a system that would help them address those issues while avoiding litigation – saving on paying attorney’s fees to attorneys like me.

The courts and the DOL wouldn’t be clogged with claims that cry out for resolution.

The only people who wouldn’t benefit from this proposed amendment would be the lawyers.

And if you’re worried about us lawyers, you should call a doctor.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more articles on employment laws, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

SDNY Allows Skechers to Walk Away from Trademark Claims

After Skechers began selling open-back women’s shoes under the name “Commute Time” in August 2018, Easy Spirit, owner of the mark TRAVELTIME for similar shoes, sued Skechers in April 2019 for trademark and trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and New York law.  In January 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment on the trade dress claims for Skechers, and the remaining trademark infringement claims—trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a), false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law trademark infringement under New York state law, proceeded to trial.  Following a twelve-day bench trial, the district court dismissed the trademark infringement claims, finding no likelihood of confusion existed between the marks.

As the opinion recounted, to succeed on a claim for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a), Easy Spirit needed to prove the validity of its mark (which Skechers did not contest) and a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  Analyzing likelihood of confusion, the court assessed the eight factors used by the Second Circuit:  (1) strength of the prior owner’s mark; (2) similarity between the marks; (3) competitive proximity of the products; (4) likelihood that the prior user will bridge the gap; (5) actual confusion; (6) defendant’s good faith; (7) quality of the defendant’s product; and (8) buyer sophistication.

First, in analyzing the strength of Easy Spirit’s TRAVELTIME mark, the court examined its inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace.  Regarding inherent distinctiveness, the court found that TRAVELTIME was “modestly” inherently distinctive because it was plainly suggestive.  In other words, the mark required some imagination for a purchaser to “go from ‘travel time’ to the idea of movement, then to what one might need when moving, and finally to the product, an open-back comfort shoe.”

As to acquired distinctiveness, which the court explained referred to the recognition that the mark earned in the marketplace as a designator of Easy Spirit’s goods, the opinion analyzed six factors used by the Second Circuit:  (1) advertising expenditures; (2) consumer studies linking the mark to a source; (3) unsolicited media coverage of the product; (4) sales success; (5) attempts to plagiarize the mark; and (6) length and exclusivity of the mark’s use.

Here, the court noted that Easy Spirit did not provide advertising expenditures or other evidence showing how many consumers its TRAVELTIME-specific advertising reached, as opposed to Easy Spirit advertising generally.  Regarding unsolicited media coverage, the court stated that Easy Spirit presented only one piece of evidence from before 2018, so it was unclear if the mark acquired secondary meaning before Skechers started selling its Commute Time shoe that year.

The sales success factor favored Easy Spirit however, as the court cited evidence that the TRAVELTIME shoe became the number-one-selling shoe in U.S. department stores in 2016 and amassed $26.3 million in sales between July 2017 and March 2019.  The court also determined that length and exclusivity moderately weighed in Easy Spirit’s favor because whole Easy Spirit had sold TRAVELTIME shoes continuously since 2004, other shoe companies routinely used marks containing the words “time” or “travel”—including Easy Spirit for its other products.

Thus, the court concluded that Easy Spirit had not provided strong evidence that TRAVELTIME acquired secondary meaning before Skechers began using the Commute Time mark, and accordingly the strength of the mark factor weighed “only moderately” in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Second, the court held that the marks were not similar based on their overall impression on consumers.  It found several differences in their appearance, including that:  (1) TRAVELTIME is one word while Commute Time is two; (2) TRAVELTIME generally appears in all capital letters but Commute Time does not; and (3) TRAVELTIME is written on one line yet Commute Time generally appears on separate lines.  The court also found that TRAVELTIME appeared on a minimalist beige box with simple orange lettering alone, while Commute Time appeared on a jewel-toned patterned box with various shapes, accents, and other Skechers marks.  And the opinion noted that “travel” and “commute” neither sounded the same nor were synonymous.

Third, the court found no evidence of actual confusion.  It pointed out that Easy Spirit did not submit any consumer survey showing confusion, and while Easy Spirit did not need to, the absence of a survey was evidence actual confusion could not be shown.  The opinion also emphasized Skechers’ survey showing 0% confusion, which Easy Spirit failed to adequately rebut or discredit.  Specifically, the court rejected Easy Spirit’s concern as to the universe of participants, that the survey showed participants the parties’ websites and not those of third-party retailers, and incentives given to participants.  It held that the survey properly targeted consumers beyond women 55-years-and-older because prospective customers should be counted, any marketplace could be replicated given the parties sold their shows on multiple platforms, and incentives are commonly accepted for surveys.

Fourth, the court examined whether Skechers acted in bad faith or with an intent to deceive consumers about the source of its product.  It determined that evidence showing Skechers based some measurements of its shoe on TRAVELTIME but included several aesthetic and functional differences demonstrated an intent to compete rather to deceive.  The court noted that companies in the shoe industry commonly incorporate features of other products in order to compete.

Fifth, the court determined that the customer sophistication factor also weighed in Skechers’ favor.  As neither party presented direct evidence of consumer sophistication, the court stated it could rely solely on indirect indications of sophistication, such as nature of the products or their price.  The court rejected Easy Spirit’s argument that because its customers were older women they were not sophisticated consumers of women’s shoes, finding it borderline “offensive” and contrary to common sense.  It also found the price points of the shoes sufficiently high to indicate thoughtful purchases.

Finally, while Skechers did not contest that the proximity of the goods factor weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion, the court independently found this factor weighed in Easy Spirit’s favor because the Commute Time shoe was sold to the same class of purchasers, thorough the same marketing channels, and for approximately the same price as the TRAVELTIME shoe.  It did not assess the remaining two factors—bridging the gap and disparity of goods—because the parties agreed they did not apply.

In closing, the court held that no likelihood of confusion existed given the absence of any direct evidence that customers were actually confused or survey evidence of actual confusion.  Accordingly, it dismissed the federal trademark infringement claim.  And because the federal false designation of origin and common law trademark infringement claims also required a likelihood of confusion, the court dismissed those remaining claims too.

The case is Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 19-cv-3299 (JSR), _ F. Supp. 3d _, 2021 WL 5312647 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2021).

© 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
For more articles about trademarks, visit the NLR Intellectual Property Law section.

Friendly Reminder: New Limitations on Non-Competes in Oregon Are Now in Effect

Employers, take note: certain amendments strengthening Oregon’s existing statutory restrictions on non-compete agreements, went into effect on January 1, 2022 – as previewed in our previous blog post.  Coupled with existing limitations in ORS 653.295, the newly-effective amendments mean that a non-compete entered into with an Oregon employee after January 1, 2022 will be “void” ab initio if:

  • The non-compete period extends longer than 12 months;

  • It applies to employees earning less than $100,533.00 in 2021 dollars adjusted for inflation;

  • It was not provided in writing to a new employee at least two weeks before the employee’s first day;

  • The employer did not provide the employee with a copy of the signed non-compete agreement within 30 days following the employee’s termination;

  • The employee is not engaged in administrative, executive, or professional work, performing predominantly intellectual, managerial, or creative tasks; further, the employee must exercise discretion and independent judgment; and be paid on a salary basis;

  • The employee does not have access to either trade secrets or sensitive confidential business or professional information; or

  • The employee is employed as an on-air talent in broadcasting.

Employers of Oregon employees should take steps to ensure they do not run afoul of the above conditions.  If unsure on these points, or about the reasonableness of non-competition restrictions more generally, employers should seek legal assistance.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more about employer requirements, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

7 Tips to Avoid Employer Mandate Assessments and Penalties under the Affordable Care Act

As we discussed in a prior article, it is now more important than ever for employers to ensure they fully and accurately complete IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C — forms required to be filed and/or furnished to employees under the Affordable Care Act. A failure to do so can lead to eye-popping proposed employer shared responsibility payment (ESRP) assessments, as well as information reporting penalties.

To avoid such costly mistakes, employers should keep the following seven tips in mind when completing or reviewing Forms 1094-C and 1095-C:

Form 1094-C

  1. Be very sure that the “Yes” box is checked on Line 23, column (a) to state that minimum essential coverage was offered for all 12 months.

This is far and away the single most important data entry on both forms. The box should always be checked for an employer who provides minimum essential health coverage to all full-time employees in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Failing to check this box may result in an automatic ESRP assessment of up to $2,700 per full-time employee for 2021. The amount is adjusted annually.

  1. Know when to check the box on Line 22 for “Qualifying Offer Method.”

If an employer is eligible to use the Qualifying Offer Method, it should check this box only if it is reporting offers of coverage on Forms 1095-C using code 1A.

Form 1095-C

  1. Conduct a coding audit and know where to prioritize.

Each of the below tips and other points of review for Forms 1095-C should be addressed prior to the furnishing and filing of the forms. Only by reviewing and understanding the codes can an employer have confidence that it will avoid an ESRP assessment or accuracy-related information return penalties. Of course, depending on the number of employees, reviewing the coding for all employees may be impracticable. Thus, employers should prioritize the following situations for review:

  • Forms for employees who were hired, terminated, or who experienced a change in status during the year;
  • Forms where code 1H is reported; and
  • Forms for employees who are more likely to be eligible for the premium tax credit (e.g., employees earning less than $51,040 in 2021).
  1. Review for “red flag” coding combinations on lines 14 and 16.

The following code combinations are triggers for an ESRP assessment and should never be used by an employer who provides minimum essential health coverage to all full-time employees: 1H/__, 1H/2C, 1H/2F, 1H/2G, and 1H/2H. All of these code combinations report that no offer of coverage was provided but fail to state a valid reason for why an ESRP should not apply. Where no offer of coverage is made, only one of the following code combinations should be used: 1H/2A, 1H/2B or 1H/2D.

  1. Review for incomplete coding on lines 14 and 16.

For employers who are not using the Qualifying Offer Method, both code series (series 1 and series 2) on lines 14 and 16 should always be completed for all months on the Forms 1095-C of all full-time employees. However, if an employer is using the Qualifying Offer Method, then it will be acceptable in many instances to use only code 1A and to leave the series 2 code blank.

  1. Make sure the safe harbor code reported on line 16 actually applies.

In more recent years, the IRS has begun scrutinizing the series 2 safe harbor codes reported by employers on line 16. For example, the IRS will automatically reject an employer’s use of code 2G, the federal poverty line safe harbor, if the monthly employee required contribution reported on the Form 1095-C exceeds $104.53 for a month in 2021.

  1. Ensure the waiting period is coded correctly on lines 14 and 16.

If an employee is in a waiting period on any day of a month, the month should be coded as 1H/2D to signify that the employee is in a limited non-assessment period. This code can only be used for up to four consecutive months for each period of employment. If an employee was terminated and rehired in the same year, the employer should determine whether the waiting period and code 1H/2D can be applied again under the rules for determining periods of employment.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP