Category: Administrative & Regulatory

You Are Sponsoring a Foreign National Employee for Permanent Residency, Can You Clawback Some of the Fees?

Companies usually hire a foreign national who requires visa sponsorship because they cannot find a U.S. worker with those skill sets, which is frequently in the STEM fields. However, visa sponsorship comes with significant costs to the employer. Employers may be able to recover a portion of the immigration sponsorship fees by implementing what are called “clawback” provisions into their employment agreements. Clawback provisions are terms in the employment agreements that, in the event of a resignation by the employee before a certain date, require the employee to reimburse the employer for a portion of the costs or fees associated with his or her visa sponsorship.

Not All Visa Fees Can Be Clawed Back

But first, it’s important to understand which sponsorship fees and costs are potentially recoverable and which are prohibited from being “clawed back.”

  • H-1B Petition: Because these visas have a prevailing wage set by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) a H-1B employer may not clawback any attorney fees or government filing fees used to obtain the H-1B petition approval by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS).
  • Other Visas: The same restriction applies to the Australian E-3 visa and the Singapore/Chile H-1B1 visas as well as the H-2A, H-2B, and J-1 visas.
  • PERM Labor Certification Sponsorship for Permanent Residency: PERM Is the most common method for an employer to sponsor a foreign national employee for permanent residency (green card). It is done by conducting recruitment and proving to DOL that no qualified U.S. worker applied for the position. An employer is required to pay for all of the fees and costs associated with the PERM process.
  • I-140 Immigrant Petition: After DOL certifies the PERM application and agrees that no qualified U.S. worker is available, the employer must file an I-140 immigrant petition with USCIS. The attorney fees and costs for the I-140 may be clawed back. The purpose of the I-140 immigrant petition is for the employer to prove to USCIS that the foreign national has the required education, experience and special skills outlined in the PERM filing with DOL. In addition, the I-140 includes financial documents showing that the employer has the ability to pay the offered wage.
  • I-485 Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident filing: The employer may clawback the fees and costs associated with the I-485 adjustment of status application (green card).

Practice Pointers

  • Still At Will: The clawback provisions should be in writing. It should also indicate that the employment is still at will, if applicable.
  • Final Paycheck: The majority of states, including California, do not allow an employer to deduct anything from a final paycheck without the express consent of the employee. This includes fees and costs pursuant to the clawback provision.
  • Deterrence: Given that an employer cannot clawback from the final paycheck and suing a former employee to collect the amount in controversy is not always practical, a clawback provision can be used as a deterrence for early departure.

Listen to this post 

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Major Changes Coming for Medicare Drug Program: Negotiated Prices, Cap on Out of Pocket and Creditable Coverage

Some major changes are on the way for Medicare beneficiaries regarding drug costs. Due to the Inflation Reduction Act, the federal government now will have the ability to negotiate the prices of drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. After an initial set of negotiations, new lower prices have been announced for 10 expensive drugs. The discounts for some blood thinners and drugs for arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and heart failure result in costs as much as 79% lower. The new drug prices will go into effect starting in 2026. Just these 10 drugs make up about 20% of the program’s drug spending, so the impact is huge for the medicinal market. The federal government will turn to negotiating another batch of drugs in 2025, with 15-20 drugs targeted annually.

Another major change under the Inflation Reduction Act will be the out-of-pocket maximum under all Medicare Part D plans of $2,000 per year beginning January 2025. Beneficiaries will be able to prorate the cost monthly or pay it as the costs are incurred. This will be a game changer for many Medicare beneficiaries with high drug costs. In addition, certain drugs covered by Part B (typically those administered in a doctor’s office or hospital) might incur a co-pay of less than the standard 20% if the prices have increased faster than inflation. The drugs subject to reduced copays will be published quarterly.

These changes may have an unintended consequence for Medicare-eligible individuals who are still working and therefore enrolled in employer plans, or other individuals enrolled in retiree or other private plans. Those who are Medicare eligible but are enrolled in non-Medicare plans must show that they have “creditable” coverage under Medicare standards. A plan is “creditable” if coverage is at least as good as or better than the Medicare drug benefit. Creditable coverage is based on a test that measures whether the expected amount of paid claims is at least as much as the standard Part D benefit. Non-Medicare plans must advise enrollees if their coverage is considered “creditable.” It is crucial for coverage to be considered “creditable;” otherwise, the Medicare beneficiary can be subject to a Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP) for each month they are not enrolled in a plan providing creditable coverage.

It is unclear whether the $2,000 cap coming to Part D plans or other changes in drug coverage will mean that non-Medicare plans that do not match the changes will continue to be considered creditable in the future. Beneficiaries need to be aware of this important issue when considering their coverage options.

©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more on the Medicare Drug Program, visit the NLR Health Law Managed Care section

(Employee) Therapy Anyone?

The recent WSJ article about employer-provided in-office therapy sessions raises some good points about destigmatizing mental health in the workplace and promoting overall wellness generally. But the article also reminds us about the risks of blurring lines between an employee’s personal and professional life and the potential dangers inherent in the spillover of confidential (personal, medical, and other information) in the workplace. I have written previously about the beneficial role performance evaluations may have as “talk therapy” in an employee’s career based upon the learning that comes with balanced feedback. But it seems to me that true talk therapy – undertaken by a licensed and trained professional in an appropriate diagnostic setting – does not belong in the workplace.

The article features an employer who provides an annual benefit of a dozen free on-site therapy sessions to its employees. While it is commendable to care about the whole employee, providing on-site therapy touches upon a few somewhat sensitive employment topics. The first concerns confidentiality of health information, which includes an employee’s decision to seek (or even not seek) medical treatment. The employer in the article was reported to have taken steps to provide a separate location for the therapy sessions so employees did not encounter each other during on-site therapy visits, as well as other privacy preservation measures. But the simple fact is that confidentiality is hard to guarantee for on-site employment activities. And even though GenX employees (and the generation of workers who follow them) do think differently about mental health and wellness than the generations preceding them, there is a real risk that an employee’s use of this benefit will become the topic of what used to be known as water cooler – now Slack – talk.

The other employment risk on-site therapy poses is the potential use of information that is disclosed during a therapy session. Ethical, licensing and medical rules govern what a therapist must and must not do with information learned about a patient, but what about information the therapist learns about an employer? This is particularly a concern if the information source and content is confirmed by several different employees and might be information that merits action (such as information suggesting that a manager is engaging in harassing or other actionable or illegal conduct). There is a reason employers follow guidelines when reports or complaints are made concerning such conduct. It is unclear how those guidelines should be followed if the contents of a therapy session are supposed to remain confidential, for good legal, therapeutic and ethical reasons.

It seems to me a far better approach for employers wishing to explore this benefit is to provide employees with a set amount of money (perhaps as part of a tax-advantaged benefit plan ) that the employee is encouraged to use at the employee’s discretion as part of well-being program designed to support all aspects of health (mental, physical and even financial fitness). That way therapy can be encouraged and supported, but kept separate in all other respects from the workplace. Therapy for all may be an excellent idea, but conducting it outside the confines of the workplace seems like a better one.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Employer Provided Therapy, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Boeing Whistleblower Continues to Raise Concerns

At the National Whistleblower Day celebration held on Capitol Hill on July 30, a Boeing whistleblower announced new documents which he claims further demonstrate shortcomings by Boeing around the manufacturing of the 737 Max which crashed in Ethiopia on March 10, 2019.

During his speech, Ed Pierson, the Executive Director of The Foundation for Aviation Safety, an aviation industry watchdog group, stated “since it’s Whistleblower Day, I thought I’d do some whistleblowing.”

Pierson went on to detail three sets of documents which he said Boeing employees had recently shared with him. The documents include the production records for the Ethiopian Airlines 737-8 MAX airplane, which according to the Foundation for Aviation Safety “paint a clear picture of the confusing and chaotic production operations going on at the 737 factory when this airplane was being manufactured.”

The documents also include information about a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigation into whistleblower complaints about alleged loss of quality control at Boeing’s Electrical Systems Responsibility Center (ESRC) in Everett, Washington. According to Pierson, this investigation occurred the same week that the Ethiopian Airlines 737-8 MAX airplane was being manufactured in nearby Renton, Washington.

Lastly, the documents include communication between Boeing and Ethiopian Airlines about an uncommanded roll that plane had allegedly taken within three weeks of being delivered to Ethiopia.

In recent months, a number of Boeing whistleblowers have come forward alleging both safety concerns as well as a culture of retaliation at the company.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.
by: Geoff Schweller of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto
For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law Business Crimes section

Handling an EPA Inspection: What to Do Before, During, and After the Process

Regardless of a company’s environmental compliance record, facing a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspection can present significant risks. When conducting inspections, EPA inspectors and technical personnel examine all aspects of companies’ operations, and it is up to companies to demonstrate that enforcement action is unwarranted. When faced with uncertainty, EPA personnel will err on the side of non-compliance with EPA regulations, and this means that companies that are unable to affirmatively demonstrate compliance can find themselves facing unnecessary consequences under federal environmental laws.

With this in mind, all companies need to take an informed, strategic, and systematic approach to defending against EPA inspections. While EPA inspections can present significant risks, companies can—and should—manage these risks effectively. Effectively managing the risks of an EPA inspection starts with understanding what companies need to do before, during, and after the process.

To be clear, while there are several steps that companies can—and generally should—take to prepare for their EPA inspections, there is no single “right” way to approach the inspection process. A custom-tailored approach is critical, as companies facing scrutiny from the EPA must be prepared to address any and all compliance-related concerns arising out of their specific operations.

What to Do Before an EPA Inspection

With this in mind, what can companies do to maximize their chances of avoiding unnecessary consequences during an EPA inspection? Here are five steps that companies should generally take upon learning of an impending visit from EPA personnel:

1. Make Sure You Know What Type of EPA Inspection Your Company is Facing 

One of the first steps to take is to ensure that you know what type of EPA inspection your company is facing. The EPA conducts multiple types of inspections, each of which involves its own protocols and procedures and presents its own risks and opportunities. As the EPA explains:

“Inspections are usually conducted on single-media programs such as the Clean Water Act, but can be conducted for more than one media program. Inspections also can be conducted to address a specific environmental problem (e.g., water quality in a river), a facility or industry sector (e.g., chemical plants), or a geographic (e.g., a region or locality) or ecosystem-based approach (e.g., air or watershed).”

Under the EPA’s current approach to environmental compliance enforcement, most inspections fall into one of five categories:

  • On-Site Inspections – The EPA routinely conducts on-site inspections. During these inspections, EPA personnel may observe the company’s operations, collect samples, take photos and videos, interview company personnel, and review pertinent environmental compliance documentation.
  • Evaluations – The EPA conducts evaluations to assess facility-level compliance under the various federal environmental statutes. These evaluations may be either “full” or “partial,” with full compliance evaluations (FCEs) examining all pertinent areas of compliance and partial compliance evaluations (PCEs) “focusing on a subset of regulated pollutants, regulatory requirements, or emission units at a given facility.”
  • Record Reviews – Record reviews typically take place at an EPA field office or other government location, and they “may or may not be combined with field work.” With that said, in many cases, on-site inspections and record reviews go hand-in-hand.
  • Information Requests – An information request is, “an enforceable, written request for information to a regulated entity, a potentially regulated entity, or a potentially responsible party about a site, facility, or activity.” The EPA uses information requests to “substantiate the compliance status of [a] facility or . . . site,” and the EPA may issue an information request either in connection with or after conducting an on-site inspection.
  • Civil Investigations – The EPA describes civil investigations as, “an extraordinary, detailed assessment of a regulated entity’s compliance status, which requires significantly more time to complete than a typical compliance inspection.” In most cases, a civil investigation will follow an inspection that uncovers significant or systemic compliance failures.

2. Make Sure You Understand the Scope of the EPA’s Inspection 

After discerning the nature of the EPA’s inquiry, the next step is to ensure that you understand its scope. Is the EPA focusing on a specific environmental statute (i.e., the Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act (CAA) or Clean Water Act (CWA)); or, is it conducting a comprehensive assessment of environmental compliance? If the EPA is focusing on a specific environmental statute, is it focusing on all areas of compliance monitoring under the statute, or is it focusing on a particular enforcement priority like resource conservation? Answering these types of questions will be critical for efficiently implementing an informed defense strategy.

3. Locate All Relevant Compliance Documentation 

Once you know what the EPA will be looking for, the next step is determining what it is going to find when they request information. This begins with locating all of the company’s relevant compliance documentation. This will facilitate conducting an internal EPA compliance assessment (more on this below), and it will also allow the company to efficiently respond to document requests and other inquiries during the inspection process.

4. Conduct an Internal EPA Compliance Assessment (if There is Time)

If there is time, it will be important to conduct an internal EPA compliance assessment, like a mock audit, before the EPA’s inspection begins—unless the company has recently completed a systematic environmental compliance audit in compliance with the relevant EPA Audit Protocols. There is incentive for self-policing which incentivizes you to voluntarily discover and fix violations. If there is not time to conduct an internal assessment before the inspection begins, then this should be undertaken in parallel with the company’s inspection defense, with a focus on accurately assessing the risks associated with the inspection as quickly as possible.

5. Put Together Your EPA Inspection Defense Strategy and Team 

Effectively responding to an EPA inspection requires an informed defense strategy and a capable team. A company’s EPA inspection defense team should include appropriate company leaders and internal subject matter experts as well as the company’s outside EPA compliance counsel.

What to Do During an EPA Inspection

Here are some important steps to take once an EPA inspection is underway:

1. Proactively Engage with the EPA’s Inspectors and Technical Personnel 

Companies facing EPA inspections should not take a back seat during the process. Instead, they should seek to proactively engage with the EPA’s inspectors and technical personnel (through their EPA compliance counsel) so that they remain fully up to speed and can address any potential issues or concerns as quickly as possible.

2. Use the Company’s EPA Compliance Documentation to Guide the Process 

For companies that have a strong compliance record and clear documentation of compliance, using this documentation to guide the inspection process can help steer it toward an efficient and favorable resolution.

3. Carefully Assess Any Concerns About Non-Compliance 

If any concerns about non-compliance arise during the EPA inspection process, company leaders should work with the company’s EPA compliance counsel to assess these concerns and determine how best to respond.

4. Work with the EPA’s Inspectors and Technical Personnel to Resolve Compliance Concerns as Warranted 

If any of the EPA’s concerns about non-compliance are substantiated, companies should work with the EPA’s inspectors and technical personnel (through their EPA compliance counsel) to resolve these concerns as efficiently as possible—and ideally during the inspection process so that no follow-up interactions with the EPA are necessary.

5. Focus on Achieving a Final Resolution that Avoids Further Inquiry

Overall, the primary focus of a company’s EPA inspection defense should be on achieving a final resolution that avoids further inquiry. Not only can post-inspection civil investigations present substantial risks, but unresolved compliance concerns can leave companies (and their owners and executives) exposed to the possibility of criminal prosecution in some cases as well.

What to Do After an EPA Inspection 

Finally, here are some key considerations for what to do after an EPA inspection:

1. Complete Any Necessary Follow-Up as Efficiently as Possible 

If any follow-up corrective or remedial action is necessary following an EPA inspection, the company should prioritize completing this follow-up as efficiently as possible. Not only will this help to mitigate any penalty exposure, but it will also help mitigate the risk of raising additional concerns with the EPA.

2. Implement Any Lessons Learned 

If the EPA’s inspection resulted in any lessons learned, the company should also prioritize implementing these lessons learned in order to prevent the recurrence of any issues uncovered during the inspection process. This is true whether implementation involves making minor tweaks to the company’s documentation procedures or completing a substantial overhaul of the company’s environmental compliance program.

3. Use Systematic EPA Compliance Audits to Evaluate and Maintain Compliance 

Systematic auditing is one of the most efficient and most effective ways that companies can evaluate and maintain EPA compliance. For companies that are not using the EPA’s Audit Protocols already, working with experienced outside counsel to implement these protocols will be a key next step as well.

4. Challenge Any Unwarranted Conclusions as Warranted 

If the company’s EPA inspection resulted in unwarranted determinations of non-compliance, seeking to reverse the agency’s conclusions may involve working with its lawyers post-inspection. Depending on the circumstances, it may also involve going to court. Whatever it takes, ensuring that the company does not face unjustified penalties will be essential for both short-term and long-term environmental compliance risk management.

5. Prepare for Further Enforcement Action as Necessary 

If an EPA inspection results in substantial findings of non-compliance, it may be necessary to prepare for further enforcement action. Depending on the circumstances, this could involve facing a civil investigation, a criminal investigation conducted jointly by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), or litigation in federal court. Here, too, an informed and strategic defense is essential, and it will be critical to continue working with experienced EPA compliance counsel throughout this process.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2024
For more news on EPA Site Inspections, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy, & Resources section.

A Look at the Evolving Scope of Transatlantic AI Regulations

There have been significant changes to the regulations surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) on a global scale. New measures from governments worldwide are coming online, including the United States (U.S.) government’s executive order on AI, California’s upcoming regulations, the European Union’s AI Act, and emerging developments in the United Kingdom that contribute to this evolving environment.

The European Union (EU) AI Act and the U.S. Executive Order on AI aim to develop and utilize AI safely, securely, and with respect for fundamental rights, yet their approaches are markedly different. The EU AI Act establishes a binding legal framework across EU member states, directly applies to businesses involved in the AI value chain, classifies AI systems by risk, and imposes significant fines for violations. In contrast, the U.S. Executive Order is more of a guideline as federal agencies develop AI standards and policies. It prioritizes AI safety and trustworthiness but lacks specific penalties, instead relying on voluntary compliance and agency collaboration.

The EU approach includes detailed oversight and enforcement, while the U.S. method encourages the adoption of new standards and international cooperation that aligns with global standards but is less prescriptive. Despite their shared objectives, differences in regulatory approach, scope, enforcement, and penalties could lead to contradictions in AI governance standards between the two regions.

There has also been some collaboration on an international scale. Recently, there has been an effort between antitrust officials at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the European Commission, and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority to monitor AI and its risks to competition. The agencies have issued a joint statement, with all four antitrust enforcers pledging to “to remain vigilant for potential competition issues” and to use the powers of their agencies to provide safeguards against the utilization of AI to undermine competition or lead to unfair or deceptive practices.

The regulatory landscape for AI across the globe is evolving in real time as the technology develops at a record pace. As regulations strive to keep up with the technology, there are real challenges and risks that exist for companies involved in the development or utilization of AI. Therefore, it is critical that business leaders understand regulatory changes on an international scale, adapt, and stay compliant to avoid what could be significant penalties and reputational damage.

The U.S. Federal Executive Order on AI

In October 2023, the Biden Administration issued an executive order to foster responsible AI innovation. This order outlines several key initiatives, including promoting ethical, trustworthy, and lawful AI technologies. It also calls for collaboration between federal agencies, private companies, academia, and international partners to advance AI capabilities and realize its myriad benefits. The order emphasizes the need for robust frameworks to address potential AI risks such as bias, privacy concerns, and security vulnerabilities. In addition, the order directs that various sweeping actions be taken, including the establishment of new standards for AI safety and security, the passing of bipartisan data privacy legislation to protect Americans’ privacy from the risks posed by AI, the promotion of the safe, responsible, and rights-affirming development and deployment of AI abroad to solve global challenges, and the implementation of actions to ensure responsible government deployment of AI and modernization of the federal AI infrastructure through the rapid hiring of AI professionals.

At the state level, Colorado and California are leading the way. Colorado enacted the first comprehensive regulation of AI at the state level with The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (Senate Bill (SB) 24-205), signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on May 17, 2024. As our team previously outlined, The Colorado AI Act is comprehensive, establishing requirements for developers and deployers of “high-risk artificial intelligence systems,” to adhere to a host of obligations, including disclosures, risk management practices, and consumer protections. The Colorado law goes into effect on February 1, 2026, giving companies over a year to thoroughly adapt.

In California, a host of proposed AI regulations focusing on transparency, accountability, and consumer protection would require the disclosure of information such as AI systems’ functions, data sources, and decision-making processes. For example, AB2013 was introduced on January 31, 2024, and would require that developers of an AI system or service made available to Californians to post on the developer’s website documentation of the datasets used to train the AI system or service.

SB970 is another bill that was introduced in January 2024 and would require any person or entity that sells or provides access to any AI technology that is designed to create synthetic images, video, or voice to give a consumer warning that misuse of the technology may result in civil or criminal liability for the user.

Finally, on July 2, 2024 the California State Assembly Judiciary Committee passed SB-1047 (Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act), which regulates AI models based on complexity.

The European Union’s AI Act

The EU is leading the way in AI regulation through its AI Act, which establishes a framework and represents Europe’s first comprehensive attempt to regulate AI. The AI Act was adopted to promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy AI while ensuring high level protections of health, safety, and fundamental rights against the harmful effects of AI systems in the EU and supporting innovation.

The AI Act sets forth harmonized rules for the release and use of AI systems in the EU; prohibitions of certain AI practices; specific requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for operators of such systems; harmonized transparency rules for certain AI systems; harmonized rules for the release of general-purpose AI models; rules on market monitoring, market surveillance, governance, and enforcement; and measures to support innovation, with a particular focus on SMEs, including startups.

The AI Act classifies AI systems into four risk levels: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. Applications that pose an unacceptable risk, such as government social scoring systems, are outright banned. High-risk applications, including CV-scanning tools, face stringent regulations to ensure safety and accountability. Limited risk applications lack full transparency as to AI usage, and the AI Act imposes transparency obligations. For example, humans should be informed when they are using AI systems (such as chatbots) that they are interacting with a machine and not a human so as to enable the user to make an informed decision whether or not to continue. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI, including applications such as AI-enabled video games or spam filters. The vast majority of AI systems currently used in the EU fall into this category.

The adoption of the AI Act has not come without criticism from major European companies. In an open letter signed by 150 executives, they raised concerns over the heavy regulation of generative AI and foundation models. The fear is that the increased compliance costs and hindered productivity would drive companies away from the EU. Despite these concerns, the AI Act is here to stay, and it would be wise for companies to prepare for compliance by assessing their systems.

Recommendations for Global Businesses

As governments and regulatory bodies worldwide implement diverse AI regulations, companies have the power to adopt strategies that both ensure compliance and mitigate risks proactively. Global businesses should consider the following recommendations:

  1. Risk Assessments: Conducting thorough risk assessments of AI systems is important for companies to align with the EU’s classification scheme and the U.S.’s focus on safety and security. There must also be an assessment of the safety and security of your AI systems, particularly those categorized as high-risk under the EU’s AI Act. This proactive approach will not only help you meet regulatory requirements but also protect your business from potential sanctions as the legal landscape evolves.
  2. Compliance Strategy: Develop a compliance strategy that specifically addresses the most stringent aspects of the EU and U.S. regulations.
  3. Legal Monitoring: Stay on top of evolving best practices and guidelines. Monitor regulatory developments in regions in which your company operates to adapt to new requirements and avoid penalties and engage with policymakers and industry groups to stay ahead of compliance requirements. Participation in public consultations and industry forums can provide valuable insights and influence regulatory outcomes.
  4. Transparency and Accountability: To meet ethical and regulatory expectations, transparency and accountability should be prioritized in AI development. This means ensuring AI systems are transparent, with clear documentation of data sources, decision-making processes, and system functionalities. There should also be accountability measures in place, such as regular audits and impact assessments.
  5. Data Governance: Implement robust data governance measures to meet the EU’s requirements and align with the U.S.’s emphasis on trustworthy AI. Establish governance structures that ensure compliance with federal, state, and international AI regulations, including appointing compliance officers and developing internal policies.
  6. Invest in Ethical AI Practices: Develop and deploy AI systems that adhere to ethical guidelines, focusing on fairness, privacy, and user rights. Ethical AI practices ensure compliance, build public trust, and enhance brand reputation.
© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more news on AI Regulations, visit the NLR Consumer Protection section.

The Administration Creates New Pathways for DACA Recipients to Obtain Legal Status

Among the multiple executive actions the White House announced on June 18, 2024, was one stating it was taking steps to facilitate the process for certain Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients to obtain work visas/status. DACA was created in 2012 by President Barack Obama as a means for immigrant youth who met certain eligibility requirements to qualify for work authorizations and obtain “deferred action.”

While DACA protection has enabled hundreds of thousands of individuals to legally work and live in the U.S., the program has faced considerable uncertainty since 2017, when the Trump administration initially sought to terminate the program, but was prevented from doing so in the federal courts.

The program continues to face legal challenges, and additional litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. Fundamentally, DACA is not a legal status – the reliance on “deferred action” simply reflects the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision not to bring immigration removal proceedings against a specific individual. While many DACA recipients and their employers have since sought to transition to a work visa or other legal status that Congress specifically established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the process for doing so is uncertain, expensive and cumbersome.

Since DACA recipients either entered without authorization or were out of status when they received DACA protection, they are typically ineligible for a transition to a lawful status within the U.S.

Instead, they are required under immigration law to “consular process” outside the U.S. and obtain a work visa at a U.S. consulate. The individual’s departure from the U.S. could trigger removal bars (similar to those described above), requiring the individual to obtain a temporary waiver of inadmissibility from the government. These waivers, known as “d3 waivers” based on the section of the INA to which they relate, can take months to obtain and the outcome of such a waiver is not certain. These cumulative issues have chilled the interest of many employers and DACA recipients in pursuing these waivers.

On July 15, 2024, the U.S. Department of State made changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), which is controlling guidance for consular officers at U.S. Consulates on factors to consider when adjudicating waiver requests. The three primary changes that the DOS made to 9 FAM 305.4-3 are:

  1. Expanding the factors that would have a positive effect on U.S. public interests in granting a waiver to include circumstances “where the applicant has graduated with a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States, or has earned credentials to engage in skilled labor in the United States, and is seeking to travel to the United States to commence or continue employment with a U.S. employer in a field related to the education that the applicant attained in the United States….” These changes noted in bold are clearly designed to benefit many DACA recipients.
  2. The second change creates a mechanism for a waiver applicant whose request is denied by a consular officer to request State Department review in circumstances involving “significant public interest,” which in turn cross-references the factors above that are of particular benefit to DACA recipients.
  3. The FAM was also updated to reflect the ability of DACA recipients who have graduated from an educational program in the United States or are seeking to reenter the U.S. with a visa as beneficiaries of an offer of employment to request an expedite of the waiver request. This change is particularly critical as one of the greatest challenges that DACA recipients face when seeking a waiver is the uncertain adjudication period, which often stretches for months.

Collectively, these updates are significant and will benefit several DACA recipients who are beneficiaries of employer sponsorship. These pathways also create a mechanism for U.S. employers to transition DACA recipients from DACA, with its increasing uncertainty, to a more stable work visa. DACA recipients should, of course, plan prudently if considering a departure from the U.S. to apply for such a waiver and should also apply for advance parole before departing the U.S. so as to provide a mechanism for reentering the U.S. if the waiver request is denied.

© 2024 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
by: Tejas Shah, M. Mercedes Badia-Tavas of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
For more news on the DACA Executive Order, visit the NLR Immigration section.

US District Court Sets Aside the FTC’s Noncompete Ban on a Nationwide Basis

On August 20, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule banning noncompetes is unlawful and “set aside” the rule. “The Rule shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on its effective date of September 4, 2024, or thereafter.”

The district court’s decision has a nationwide effect. The FTC is very likely to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Meanwhile, employers need not concern themselves for now with the rule’s notice obligations, and the FTC’s purported nationwide bar on noncompetes is ineffective. Employers do, however, need to remain mindful of the broader trend of increasing hostility to employee noncompetes.

The Court’s Decision

On April 23, the FTC voted 3-2 to publish a final rule with sweeping effects, purporting to bar prospectively and invalidate retroactively most employee noncompete agreements. The court’s decision addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the propriety of the FTC’s rule. The court denied the FTC’s motion and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for two reasons.

First, the court held that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition under Section 6(g) of the FTC Act. In reaching its holding, the court considered the statute’s plain language, Section 6(g)’s structure and location within the FTC Act, the absence of any penalty provisions for violations of rules promulgated under Section 6(g), and the history of the FTC Act and subsequent amendments. Because the FTC lacked substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition, and hence authority to issue the final noncompete rule, the court did not consider additional arguments regarding the scope of the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority. Notably, the court did not consider whether the final rule could overcome the major questions doctrine.

Second, the court held that the FTC’s final noncompete rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was “unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation” and failed to establish “‘a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” The court heavily discounted studies that the FTC had relied upon that purported to measure the impact of statewide noncompete bans because no state had ever enacted a ban as broad as the FTC’s ban: “[t]he FTC’s evidence compares different states’ approaches to enforcing non-competes based on specific factual situations — completely inapposite to the Rule’s imposition of a categorical ban.” “In sum, the Rule is based on inconsistent and flawed empirical evidence, fails to consider the positive benefits of non-compete agreements, and disregards the substantial body of evidence supporting these agreements.” The court further held that the FTC failed to sufficiently address alternatives to issuing the rule.

In terms of a remedy, the court “set aside” the FTC’s final noncompete rule. The “set aside” language is drawn verbatim from the APA. The court noted that the FTC’s argument that any relief should be limited to the named plaintiffs in the case was unsupported by the APA. Instead, the court noted that its decision has a nationwide effect, is not limited to the parties in the case, and affects all persons in all judicial districts equally.

Further Litigation

In addition to a likely FTC appeal to the Fifth Circuit, two other cases are pending that likewise challenge the FTC’s final noncompete rule. First, in ATS Tree Services v. FTC, pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the district court previously denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC, pending in the Middle District of Florida, the court enjoined the FTC from enforcing the rule against the named plaintiffs. A final judgment in one of these cases that differs from the result in the Northern District of Texas could eventually reach the courts of appeals and potentially lead to a circuit split to be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

Takeaways for Employers

For now, the FTC’s noncompete rule has been set aside on a nationwide basis, and employers need not comply with the rule’s notice obligations. Noncompetes remain enforceable to the same extent they were before the FTC promulgated its final rule. Depending on how further litigation evolves, the rule could be revived, a temporary split in authority could arise leading to confusion where the rule is enforceable in certain jurisdictions but not in others, or the rule will remain set aside.

An important part of the court’s decision is its rejection of the FTC’s factual findings, which were made in support of the rule, as poorly reasoned and poorly supported. As we discussed in our prior client alerts, we anticipate that employees may cite the FTC’s findings to support challenges to enforceability under state law. The court’s analysis of the FTC’s factual findings may substantially undermine the persuasive authority of the FTC’s findings.

Employers should anticipate that noncompete enforcements in the coming years will remain uncertain as courts, legislatures, and government agencies continue to erode the legal and policy justifications for employee noncompetes. This counsels in favor of a “belt and suspenders” approach for employers to protect their legitimate business interests rather than relying solely on noncompetes.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more on the FTC Noncompete Ban, visit the NLR Labor Employment section

United States | DHS Keeping Families Together Reduces Barriers for Noncitizen Spouses

The Department of Homeland Security today announced implementation of the Keeping Families Together process, which grants parole in place on a case-by-case basis to certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens.

Key Points:

Additional Information: In its announcement, the agency stated, “Too often, noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens — many of them mothers and fathers — live with uncertainty due to undue barriers in our immigration system. This process to keep U.S. families together will remove these undue barriers for those who would otherwise qualify to live and work lawfully in the U.S., while also creating greater efficiencies in the immigration system, conducting effective screening and vetting, and focusing on noncitizens who contribute to and have longstanding connections within American communities across the country.”

More information about the process can be found here.

©2024 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.
For more on DHS, visit the NLR Immigration section

Down to the Wire for Employers and FTC Noncompete Ban

Compliance Deadline Approaches

Employers are running out of time to comply with the FTC’s purported regulatory ban on non-competition agreements. The ban – announced on April 23, 2024 – is scheduled to take effect on September 4. 2024.

By that date, the regulation requires that employers notify all employees subject to noncompetes that the agreements will no longer be enforced. The only exceptions are existing agreements with “senior executives” who made at least $151,164 in the preceding year; these agreements are grandfathered. See our earlier alerts from April 23, May 14, and July 8 for further discussion on developments relating to the ban.

So Far, No Nationwide Injunction Against FTC’s Ban

As previously reported, a federal court in Dallas issued a preliminary injunction against the regulation on July 3, 2024. The injunction, however, only affects the parties to the lawsuit and the district in which the lawsuit was brought. When she issued that preliminary injunction, Judge Ada Brown committed to rendering a final decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction by August 30,2024.

However, she specifically declined to give her preliminary injunction nationwide effect. In its motion in support of a permanent injunction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other parties are arguing that the court is required to vacate the rule, with nationwide effect, because it was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. We cannot predict whether she will do so.

Meanwhile, since the July ruling in Texas, two other federal courts have issued rulings on requests to enjoin the ban, one in Philadelphia in favor of the FTC by denying an injunction, and the other in central Florida in favor of the employer by granting one. As with the Texas case, the Florida injunction is not nationwide. Moreover, that judge has not yet issued an opinion, so we do not yet know his rationale for the injunction.

Now What?

Where does this leave employers? In the absence of a ruling invalidating the FTC ban nationwide, there is nothing to prevent the FTC from enforcing its ban beginning September 4 anywhere outside of Dallas and mid-Florida. As far as we know, only the Northern District of Texas is able to order such a ban when it issues its final decision on or before August 30.

Even though, based on her initial ruling, it is quite likely Judge Brown will enjoin the regulation permanently, it is unclear whether she will take the additional step of giving her injunction nationwide effect.

To comply with the regulation, employers should prepare to act by September 4. We recommend creating a list of all current and former “workers” (defined as any service providers regardless of classification) subject to noncompete agreements and a written communication that meets the regulation’s notice requirements.

Unless a new order appears enjoining enforcement of the ban nationwide before September 4, employers will need to send out that communication in order to be in compliance. The requirements for sending the notice include identifying the “person who entered into the noncompete clause with the worker by name” (we don’t know if this means the individual or the entity) and hand delivering or mailing the notice to the worker’s last known mailing address, or to the last known email address or mobile phone number (by text). The full text of the rule, including a model communication from the FTC, can be found at pages 3850-06 of the May 7, 2024, Federal Register.

©2024 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on the Noncompete Ban, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section.