Senate Confirms Lee Francis Cissna to lead USCIS

On Oct. 5, the U.S. Senate approved the nomination of Lee Francis Cissna to lead the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency (USCIS) on a bipartisan vote of 54-43. All Republican senators supported the nomination and were joined by Democrat Senators Donnelly (IN), Heitkamp (ND), Manchin (WV) and McCaskill (MO). Senators Cochran (R-MS), Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Heller (R-NV) did not vote.

 

This post was written by Robert Y. Maples of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved, ©2017

For more legal analysis go to The National Law Review

Watchdog: ‘Reason To Believe’ Trump And Super PAC Violated Election Law

Donald Trump Campaign finance election lawA campaign finance watchdog said Wednesday that chief White House strategist Steve Bannon may have illegally benefited from spending by a pro-Trump super PAC while he led Trump’s presidential campaign.

The Campaign Legal Center believes Make America Number 1, a super PAC that backed Trump, may have improperly subsidized Bannon’s salary. In a letter to regulators on Wednesday, the Campaign Legal Center argued that details in Bannon’s recent financial disclosure give “reason to believe” the Trump campaign and the super PAC may have violated federal election rules.

While Trump initially criticized his Republican opponents for their close ties to super PACs and disavowed outside groups that sought to support his bid, his team embraced outside help during his general election race against Hillary Clinton and pushed the boundaries of federal election rules as much as any other 2016 candidate, testing regulations meant to ensure super PACs operate independently from campaigns.

Bannon’s disclosure, filed March 31, confirmed his financial connection to Glittering Steel, a film production company that was involved with Bannon’s “Clinton Cash” documentary about the Clinton family and “Torchbearer,” which starred Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson.

Make America Number 1 paid the film production company nearly $1 million during the 2016 election cycle, with payments starting in July 2015 and continuing after Bannon became the Trump campaign’s CEO. The Trump campaign never paid Bannon, who previously was the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a right-wing news site.

The filing says Bannon resigned from Glittering Steel and stopped receiving monthly consulting payments from the company in August 2016, when he joined the Trump campaign. But the form indicates Bannon kept an ownership interest in Glittering Steel, worth at least $100,000. Bannon’s report says he’s trying to sell his stake in the company.

“As a result, as Bannon worked for the Trump campaign without pay, he continued to benefit, directly or indirectly, from the estimated $267,500 in payments that Make America Number 1 made to Glittering Steel LLC after or around his officially joining the campaign,” wrote the Campaign Legal Center’s general counsel, Larry Noble.

The Campaign Legal Center first filed its complaint with the Federal Election Commission in October. It’s unclear if the agency has decided to investigate, as the FEC doesn’t disclose investigations until they’re completed. Its commissioners have frequently deadlocked on whether to pursue apparent election law violations.

Overall, the FEC has done little to ensure that super PACs remain independent from candidates in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed companies and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

Super PACs and politically active nonprofits spent almost $1.5 billion during the last election cycle, with much of the money coming from ultra-wealthy individuals like billionaire Robert Mercer, the conservative hedge fund executive who financed Make America Number 1. His daughter, Rebekah, led the super PAC, which originally backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the Republican primary race.

The Mercers pressed Trump to hire Bannon to lead his campaign, according to the Washington Post. Over the years, the Mercer family has funded Breitbart News, as well as the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative investigative nonprofit led by Bannon. Bannon and the Mercers founded Glittering Steel together, the Post reported.

The Mercers are also major investors in Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked for both Make America Number 1 and the Trump campaign. Bannon received monthly consulting payments from Cambridge Analytica and served on its board. Though Bannon’s financial disclosure says he resigned from the firm when he started working for Trump, he still has a stake in the company, worth over $1 million, that he’s planning to sell.

The Campaign Legal Center said that there’s reason to question whether Bannon did in fact resign from Glittering Steel and Cambridge Analytica in August.

Bannon’s financial disclosure says he resigned from Breitbart News then, but Breitbart’s CEO Larry Solov recently told the Senate Press Gallery that Bannon resigned from Breitbart in November, days after Trump’s victory.

The relationship between Bannon and Breitbart News, which gave Trump favorable coverage throughout the campaign, has generated controversy in recent weeks. Bannon has reportedly maintained contact with Breitbart editors about the site’s coverage. That news prompted a liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, to request an investigation into whether Bannon has violated his White House ethics pledge.

News reports suggested last week that there’s a growing rivalry between Bannon and Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, and that Bannon could be on his way out the door, after Trump removed Bannon from a position on his National Security Council.

Trump did little to quiet talk of a shake-up on Tuesday when the New York Post asked him if he still has confidence in Bannon. “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” he said. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

*This article was produced by MapLight in partnership with Fast Company.

ARTICLE BY MapLight

© Copyright MapLight

Inauguration Day 2017: President Donald Trump

President Trump Inauguration DayOne year ago, few people outside of candidate Donald Trump and his closest and most loyal supporters imagined that January 20, 2017, would mark his inauguration as the 45th president of the United States. Regardless, today an estimated 800,000–900,000 people were on hand to witness his inauguration on the west front steps of the U.S. Capitol. As is the tradition, the new president was sworn in by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, with Donald Trump repeating the 37-word, constitutionally mandated oath of office administered by Chief Justice John G. Robert Jr. There then followed the traditional rendition of “Ruffles and Flourishes” and the first “Hail to the Chief” for President Trump, as well as the howitzers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry’s 21-round gun salute while the First Lady and other members of the Trump family looked on.

Meanwhile, many continue to refuse to accept the election results—in which Trump won a wide majority of votes cast in the Electoral College (301–237) but lost the popular vote by over three million votes. Their protests were reflected by hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in inauguration marches in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere around the country, including the Women’s March on Washington, which an estimated 200,000 individuals—brought to the nation’s capital by 1,400 buses—attended. In contrast to the calls for unity and peaceful transfer of power, a few of the protests turned violent resulting in property damage and police action, including the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash grenades, and numerous arrests.

Despite the protests, on January 20, Donald John Trump became the new president of the United States, along with Vice President Mike Pence, and the Trump era was launched.

His relatively brief inaugural address—20 minutes—written by his own hand, lacked the rhetorical flourishes of the most memorable lines from several of his predecessors.

For a president whose national popularity rating of 40 percent, according to a recent poll—the lowest rating of any new president on Inauguration Day over the past six most recent presidents—President Trump’s desire for national unity is an important message to deliver, especially in the face of impending change.

In this regard, President Trump used expressions in his inaugural speech such as “always pursue solidarity” and “We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.” Yet essentially, it was a speech that mirrored his campaign speeches calling to “Make America great again.” Perhaps the most memorable line was,

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.

The Trump White House

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence plan to advance a conservative domestic social and fiscal policy agenda from the White House, and to redefine global relationships with our trading partners, foreign governments, and international organizations. President Trump has promised to quickly overturn President Obama’s executive orders and regulations, as well as repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by a strictly partisan congressional vote with no Republicans voting in favor. President Trump also enjoys a Senate Republican majority to confirm his Cabinet nominees, although confirmation of some may face difficulty. However, Senate confirmation of his choice for the Supreme Court of the United States will be more difficult since, unlike lower federal circuit court judges and administration appointments that cannot be filibustered and only require a simple 51-vote majority to confirm, Supreme Court nominees require 60 votes to overcome a threatened Senate filibuster.

The Republican Congress—Critical to Trump’s Agenda

The Trump era will rely on a Republican-controlled Congress to advance its agenda. Republicans enjoy majorities in both Houses of Congress, albeit by slimmer margins than the 114th Congress. In the new 115th Congress (2017-2018), Senate Republicans hold 52 seats versus 46 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, which is 2 fewer Republicans than in the 114th Congress. The slim 52-vote majority makes Senate Republicans susceptible to a 60-vote super-majority vote necessary to invoke cloture to end a legislative filibuster blocking the Trump agenda. In the House the margin is 241 Republicans versus 194 Democrats, which includes 6 fewer Republicans than there were in the 114th Congress but more than sufficient to move the Trump agenda.

What is the Trump Agenda?

President Trump’s Inaugural Address echoed themes he had sounded over the course of his candidacy. Key excerpts from his speech reflect his priorities:

  • “We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. America first.”

  • “What truly matters is not which party controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people.”

  • “January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became rulers of this nation again.”

  • “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.”

  • “A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights and heal our divisions.”

First 100 Days

On the first day, the Senate will confirm two of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees: retired United States Marine Corp general, James “Mad Dog” Mattis as Secretary of Defense and retired Marine General John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Although President Trump will take executive actions on Inauguration Day following his swearing in, he has stated that he considers his “first day” to be Monday, January 23.

President Trump’s first 100 days in office are likely to include a laser-beam focus on:

  • confirming his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet nominees;

  • repealing the Affordable Care Act (or “Obamacare”) and replacing it with a slimmed-down version;

  • overturning most, if not all, of President Obama’s executive orders and instructing the Trump Executive Branch agency heads to undo Obama regulations by reverse rulemaking or by withdrawing their agencies’ legal defenses of such regulations before the federal appellate courts where they have been enjoined permanently (e.g., the persuader rule) or preliminarily (e.g., the government contractor “blacklisting” rule);

  • redesignating the chairs of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and filling vacancies in those two agencies;

  • nominating a new Supreme Court justice and candidates for the lower federal circuit courts of appeals;

  • beginning work on immigration policy, infrastructure, tax reform, and trade policy; and

  • negotiating a spending bill to fund the federal government before the continuing resolution expires in April 2017.

How Might Labor and Employment Policy Change Under President Trump?

Under President Trump, expect a significant reversal of Obama labor and employment policies at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), NLRB, and the EEOC.

Traditional Labor. In terms of labor policy, for example, a recent study concluded that over 4,559 years of judicial precedent was overturned in eight years by the Obama Board in favor of pro-union policies. Expect gradual reversal of many of those decisions by a new Trump Board. Reversals will be slowed, however, by the need for a “live” case (the NLRB is not permitted to issue advisory opinions) and by incumbent pro-union Democratic General Counsel Richard Griffin, whose term expires in November of 2017.

Joint-Employer. Also, expect reversal of the Obama policy on “joint-employer” status, which saddles franchisors with the collective bargaining obligations and labor law violations of their franchisees. The ubiquitous Obama joint-employer standard has been developing government-wide by the NLRB (in its Browning-Ferris Industries decision) as well as by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and by the EEOC. Business groups argue that the joint-employer standard would destroy the franchise model. We can likely expect the Trump administration to move quickly to reverse these joint-employer policies, especially if the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, Andy Puzder is confirmed as Secretary of Labor.

Wage and Hour Issues. On issues such as the “salary basis” for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime exemption for white collar employees (executive, administrative, or professional employees), and the minimum wage, expect the Trump administration to propose significantly lower increases than those proposed by President Obama. Similarly, expect Trump to advance some version of a federal paid family leave law, although without some of the onerous provisions previously advocated.

Executive Orders. On issues like “government contractor blacklisting” (Executive Order 13673, “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” and its implementing regulations and DOL guidance), President Trump has promised to quickly rescind the executive order, perhaps on his first day in office. The same is true with Obama’s other labor and employment executive orders starting with those from the first days of the Obama presidency.

Persuader Rule. As for the “persuader” regulations, expect Trump to instruct his Justice Department and Department of Labor to withdraw their appeals in the Fifth Circuit of the permanent injunction granted by a federal district court in Texas. The same is true of the appeal of a preliminary injunction of the Labor Department’s overtime regulation entered by another federal district court in Texas. By withdrawing from the litigation, the Trump administration would effectively end those regulations without going through a burdensome and time-consuming reverse rule making.

Immigration. In addition to reversing and replacing Obamacare and rescinding other Obama labor and employment executive orders and regulations, immigration reform is a high priority for the Trump administration. Under President Trump, immigration policy will focus on boarder security, restrictions on entry, and deportation of undocumented aliens.

Court Vacancies. Finally, the composition of federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is important to labor and employment policy. Filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court, and the 100 vacancies in the lower federal courts, will be a priority. Currently, for example, only the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits retain majorities appointed by Republican presidents. Now, after the “nuclear option” was rammed through the Senate by then-Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV), it is possible that the Senate confirmation of judicial appointments will not be filibustered and will only require a simple 51-vote majority. We can likely expect President Trump to move quickly to fill those vacancies.

Post- Inauguration Day 2017: The Trump Era Begins

The next four years potentially will bring dramatic changes in domestic and foreign policy. One of the most significant changes likely will be in labor and employment policy. As with all of his predecessors throughout U.S. history, President Trump enters the White House hoping to bring about change. Time will tell.

© 2017, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

The Unknown Future Of The Affordable Care Act

Donald Trump Affordable Care Act

Donald Trump’s victory to become the next president of the United States, and the Republican Party’s continued control of the United States Senate and House, will likely have a significant impact on the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). President-elect Trump (Trump) has vowed to immediately dismantle the ACA. To date, Trump has provided only a broad outline of what exactly he plans to replace the law with, such as the following:

  • Eliminating ACA requirements which generally require (1) individuals to maintain health insurance, and (2) employers with more than 50 full time employees to offer affordable major medical plan coverage or run the risk of paying penalties;

  • Eliminating tax subsidies that eligible individuals can use to purchase coverage and/or offset costs under health insurance exchanges;

  • Expanding the use of health savings accounts to pay deductibles, copayments, etc.;

  • Establishing tax breaks to allow taxpayers to deduct premiums they pay for individual health insurance policies;

  • Allowing health insurance across state lines;

  • Allowing states to manage Medicaid funds;

  • Modifying or eliminating the ACA’s “essential health benefits” requirements;

  • Expanding age rating bands (increasing the range of premiums that will be allowed); and

  • “Modernizing” Medicare.

Despite his general opposition to the ACA, Trump has expressed support for ACA rules which prohibit insurers and employer plans from excluding coverage for expenses related to preexisting conditions. However, those prohibitions force insurance companies and employer plans to bear significant costs. The ACA’s employer and individual coverage mandates were intended to make the pre-existing condition exclusions more palatable to payers by forcing healthy individuals into the applicable insurance pools. Consequently, it is unclear how Trump would preserve the pre-existing condition exclusions yet eliminate the employer and individual mandates.

In addition, the ACA contains hundreds of provisions affecting hospitals, corporations, Medicare, health care quality and integrity, the health care workforce, biosimilars, health care prevention and other issues unrelated to what most people think of as “Obamacare.” To date, Trump appears not to have taken any public position on these provisions.

Copyright © 2016 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Post-Election Outlook for Higher Education

  • Dramatic changes in Department of Education enforcement actions based on departmental guidance;

  • Less government support for public institutions as Republicans seek to constrain both state and federal spending;

  • Less support for the concept of free community college;

  • Substantial changes in the manner in which federal student aid is administered;

  • Added scrutiny of institutions with large endowments;

  • Greater pressure for lower tuition.

In the long term, the federal regulatory environment will stabilize, and institutions can adapt to the new environment in which they will operate.  For now, institutions facing enforcement actions based on departmental guidance should consider the likely impact of the election on enforcement actions based on departmental guidance.  A new set of policy makers will soon be ensconced at the Department of Education, and their priorities can be expected to be quite different.  Those changes in priorities will be quickly reflected in changes in guidance documents, and the revised guidance documents could either be helpful or harmful to institutions currently subject to enforcement actions.

ARTICLE BY James H. Newberry Jr.
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

President-Elect Trump’s Impact on Affordable Care Act

Health, Stethoscope, Affordable Care ActFor years, the Republican-controlled Congress has vowed to repeal or significantly scale back President Obama’s landmark legislation – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he would “immediately repeal and replace” the ACA upon taking office.  Assuming Trump follows through on his promise, the ACA’s days are likely to be numbered, at least in its current form.  The scope of such repeal remains uncertain, however.  Trump has indicated that the ACA cannot simply be repealed – it must be replaced.  To date, he has not provided the details of any alternative to the ACA.

Under the current House proposal, the ACA’s individual and employer mandates would be repealed outright.  Although the controversial excise tax on high-cost health care (i.e., the so-called “Cadillac Tax”) would also be repealed, the proposal would put a cap on the deduction that employers can take for the cost of healthcare provided to employees.  It is also expected that the proposed alternative would give tax credits to individuals without employer-provided health coverage and expand the tax benefits associated with health savings accounts.  Certain popular aspects of the ACA, such as the prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions, dependent coverage through age 26 and Medicaid expansion, would remain in place. Democrats are likely to strongly oppose the House proposal. There probably will be little that Democrats will be able to do, however, to stop the repeal/replacement of the ACA facing Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress.

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Impact of Presidential Election on Key United States Supreme Court Cases

Supreme CourtAmerica’s next President will potentially have the authority to nominate more than one United States Supreme Court Justice before the end of his or her presidency. Notably, during the final debate, this subject of Supreme Court appointments by the President Elect was one of the six topics for discussion and was identified as one of the top issues among voters. Employers should take note because the Supreme Court may hear several cases in the upcoming term that could have significant implications for employers across the country with respect to (1) the enforceability of class action waivers, (2) pre-suit obligations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in discrimination complaints, and (3) the issue of transgender rights.

(1) The Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

Following the Court’s ruling in 2011 in ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion1, where the Court in a 5-4 decision held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California from refusing to enforce class action waivers in consumer contracts, many employers have utilized waivers in arbitration agreements as a method of avoiding, or reducing, the risks of class or collective actions by employees alleging employment-related claims such as wage-and-hour violations and unlawful discrimination.

However, the safe haven apparently created under Concepcion has been under attack and led to inconsistent federal circuit court rulings applying its holding. Now, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to reconcile a split in the federal circuits regarding the enforceability of class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Because former Justice Scalia authored the Concepcion opinion, his replacement could impact its holding.

(2) EEOC Obligations with Respect to Discrimination Complaints

Recent discrimination cases have challenged aspects of the EEOC’s pre-suit obligations to investigate and attempt to conciliate discrimination charges before filing a lawsuit. Many judicial opinions have cited MachMining LLC v. EEOC2, a case in which the Supreme Court held that the EEOC’s statutory obligation to attempt conciliation with an employer as a prerequisite to a Title VII suit is subject to judicial review—although the scope of that review is narrow—and also established that form letters announcing the initiation and conclusion of the conciliation process alone do not satisfy the statutory obligation to attempt to facilitate conciliation with the employer.

In October 2016, the Supreme Court denied certification in EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.3, a matter of first impression in which the Second Circuit cited MachMining LLC v. EEOC in a decision permitting the EEOC to pursue a nationwide sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of female retail store employees. Sterling Jewelers Inc.4 established that while a court may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation into a formal charge of discrimination as a prerequisite for bringing an enforcement action under Title VII, it may not review the sufficiency of the agency’s investigation.

The case to watch is The Geo Grp. v. EEOC5, which is being docketed for review by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit cited MachMining6 in a decision that allows the EEOC to litigate 19 sex discrimination claims despite the fact that the agency did not identify the alleged victims until after filing the lawsuit on the basis that MachMining7 permits the identification of a class of people as an alternative to identifying the individual alleged victims.

While many believe that the 2015 MachMining opinion could have potentially reversed the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Geo Grp., the Court (with a newly appointed Justice) could possibly walk back the limited judicial review permitted by the previous Court or establish a broader scope of judicial discretion in determining whether or not an attempt of conciliation with an employer took place in order to satisfy the EEOC’s statutory requirement under Title VII.

(3) Transgender Rights

In August, the Supreme Court stayed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v G.G.8, keeping Grimm, an individual who was born a female, but identifies as a male, from using the boys’ restroom at school, while it decided whether it would take the case. On Friday, October 28, the Supreme Court announced it would in fact take up the issue. The Court’s holding on whether the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of the word “sex” is appropriate, as it relates to Title IX discrimination cases, could have wide ranging impact on litigation involving H.B. 2 from North Carolina and employers as they address transgender issues in the workplace.


1. ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).

2. MachMining LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645, 126 FEP Cases 1521 (2015).

3. Sterling Jewelers Inc. v. E.E.O.C., No. 15-1329; EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 801 F.3d 96 (2nd Cir. 2016).

4. Id.

5. The Geo Grp. v. EEOC, No. 16-302; Arizona ex rel. Horne v. Geo Group, Inc., 816 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2016).

6. MachMining LLC v. EEOC, supra.

7. Id. at 1648.

8. 136 S. Ct. 2442 (2016) (per curiam).

New Presidency Will Compel Action in Key Areas of Health Care in 2017

health careAs we enter the final stretch of the U.S. presidential election, health care remains one of the most contested issues with great potential for change, particularly to existing insurance and patient care systems. Compounding matters is the opening of enrollment season for exchange plans, which places the already hotly debated Affordable Care Act (ACA) at the forefront of the national health care discussion.

Former U.S. Congressman Dennis Cardoza, co-chair of Foley’s Federal Public Affairs Practice, and Public Affairs Director Jennifer Walsh opined recently about how our next president could symbolically break the congressional logjam on several health care-related fronts and why the industry is poised for more market-driven disruption.

What follows are a few highlights of their conversation.

1. What health policy issues will be most impacted by the next administration?

Cardoza: Since the passage of the ACA, there has been very little legislative activity when it comes to health care, as everything has been done at the administrative level and spread across various departments. During the honeymoon period that follows every newly elected president, we’ll likely see an immediate and significant push around the ACA marketplaces, especially in light of some high-profile defections, decreasing competition and increasing premiums. It doesn’t matter who is in the White House; there are things happening in the market that can’t be ignored.

Walsh: I agree that legislation concerning the exchanges will be the first out of the gate. There is a strong impetus to fix the system, but it may happen initially as part of the reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that is set to expire in 2017. CHIP is a bi-partisan issue and no one wants to see it lapse. This must be passed in the first or second-quarter and could grease the skids for other ACA measures that are either attached as amendments or follow in subsequent bills.

On a separate, simultaneous track, drug pricing will continue to be scrutinized. Lawmakers will pick up where they left off leading up to the August recess. It’s now part of the national dialogue and lawmakers will continue to discuss how to address the issue.

2. Will merger activity continue on its current, accelerated pace?

Cardoza: The ACA has forced market consolidation due to everyone’s ability, or rather inability to compete over costs. We may see other large insurance plans leave the exchanges if the Department of Justice doesn’t approve their respective mergers.

Walsh: Mergers have been an interesting consequence of the ACA, and we’ll see more alignment in this regard. They don’t always generate big news headlines, but smaller acquisitions of technology assets and payments systems are happening all over, so health care organizations can build their portfolios.

3. What are some other noteworthy developments you’re watching closely?

Cardoza: Concluding a long, iterative process, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will soon be rolling out its new health care payment and service delivery models as part of the transition from fee-for-service. Next year will be a key period as we work toward full-blown implementation of new reimbursement practices that reflect better value and promote quality care for patients.

Walsh: The 21st Century Cures Act, which is Representative Fred Upton’s legacy issue, has received broad bipartisan support and already passed the House. It will allocate more funding to the National Institutes of Health to explore new cures and treatments, and incent to innovative approaches to disease management. It should get a fair shake in 2017, if not during the upcoming lame duck session.

4. What should health care executives be thinking about heading into 2017?

Cardoza: Complacency has set in with the Washington gridlock, and many executives with bearish outlooks have accepted the broken system and are merely just controlling costs. However, they need to change their mindset and be more cognizant of what could soon affect their business, as we’re about to enter a transformative year where there will be a lot of moving parts. If they’re not informed and engaged, they’re going to get left behind.

Walsh: The uncertainty surrounding the ACA has certainly caused a lot of angst, and makes planning for businesses extremely difficult. Companies need to channel that energy into advocacy for their organization. Although every system is different, the industry-wide movement toward modernization, value, and quality will affect all parties. While it will be incremental, the change that will be prompted by the election is inevitable.

© 2016 Foley & Lardner LLP

U.S. Election Forecast on Congressional Leadership Changes

2016 presidential electionWith the election less than a week away, we conducted in-depth analysis of possible House and Senate committee leadership changes, including committees that effect energy technology policies. Leadership of a number of House and Senate committees is bound to change due to term-limits, retirements, and perhaps election results, including the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources House committees, and the Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works Senate committees. We have outlined those potential changes in either a Republican- or a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. To read more about these potential Congressional leadership changes, read on!

Among Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee, Rep. John Shimkus (IL) and Rep. Greg Walden (OR) are expected to run for Chair/Ranking Member because Rep. Fred Upton (MI) is term-limited. Rep. Shimkus has more seniority on the committee than Rep. Walden, but Walden is completing his second term leading the Republican National Congressional Committee. Both are well-liked within the Republican Caucus and are adept fundraisers. Rep. Joe Barton (TX) has the most seniority on the committee and could also choose to run for Chairman or Ranking Member. Sources are indicating that should the Democrats gain control of the House, Rep. Barton would be less interested in running for Ranking Member. Additionally, Rep. Barton is already term-limited as the top Republican on the committee and would have to seek a waiver to serve as the next Chair or Ranking Member. On the Democrats’ side, Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ) would likely remain the Ranking Member if the Republicans control the House and would likely become Chairman if the Democrats control the House.

On the House Natural Resources committee, Republican Rob Bishop (UT) would likely remain the Chairman if the Republicans control the House and would likely become the Ranking Member if the Democrats took control. For the Democrats, Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ) could remain the Ranking Member if the Republicans retain the House and could become Chairman if the Democrats win control. However, Rep. Grijalva could choose to run for Chair/Ranking Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee if Rep. Bobby Scott (VA) is appointed to the Senate to replace Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine. It is unclear who would run for or become Chair/Ranking Member of Natural Resources in that scenario.

In the Senate, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK) would likely remain Chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee if the Republicans win the Senate. However, if the Democrats control the Senate, Sen. John Barrasso (WY) could become the Ranking Member because Sen. Murkowski is term-limited as Ranking Member of Energy and Natural Resources. Sen. Barrasso could also choose to become the Ranking Member of Environment and Public Works, in which case, Sen. Jim Risch (ID) could become the Ranking Member of Energy and Natural Resources. However, sources are indicating that Sen. Barrasso, who represents a Western coal state, would likely choose to become the Ranking Member of Energy and Natural Resources, in part because it would allow Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (WV), a rising female star in the GOP who hails from an Eastern coal state, to become the Ranking Member of Environment and Public Works. For the Democrats, Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA) would likely remain the Ranking Member if Republicans remain in control or become the Chairwoman for Energy and Natural Resources if the Democrats win the Senate. Though highly unlikely, there is a scenario in which, Sen. Jack Reed (RI) becomes the Chair/Ranking Member of Appropriations and Sen. Bill Nelson (FL) then takes over as Chair/Ranking Member of Armed Services. In that unlikely case, Sen. Cantwell could choose to become the Chair/Ranking Member of Commerce, opening up the top Democratic slot on Energy and Natural Resources to Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT). (Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) would be next in line after Sen. Cantwell on Energy and Natural Resources, but Sen. Wyden will remain the Chair/Ranking Member of Finance.)

Among Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Sen. Barrasso could become the Chairman because Sen. James Inhofe (OK) is term-limited as Chairman and Sen. David Vitter (LA) is retiring. If the Democrats control the Senate, Sen. Barrasso could become the Ranking Member because Sen. Inhofe is again term-limited and Sen. Vitter is retiring. However, as discussed above, Sen. Barrasso would likely choose to become the Ranking Member of Energy and Natural Resources, in which case Sen. Capito could become the Ranking Member of Environment and Public Works. For the Democrats, if the Republicans or Democrats control the Senate, Sen. Tom Carper (DE) could become Chair/Ranking Member of Environment and Public Works because Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) is retiring. According to sources, Sen. Carper is indeed preparing to take over as the top Democrat on this committee. However, Sen. Carper could choose to remain the Chair/Ranking Member of Homeland Security, in which case Sen. Ben Cardin (MD) could become the Chair/Ranking Member of Environment and Public Works. Sen. Cardin could also choose to remain the Chair/Ranking Member of Foreign Relations unless Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ) is cleared of ethics violations and is reinstated, which is unlikely in the near future. If Sen. Cardin remains the Chair/Ranking Member of Foreign Relations, which is nearly certain as long as Sen. Menendez is under indictment, Sen. Sanders could become the Chair/Ranking Member of Environment and Public Works.

 

©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

US Voting Leave Laws: What Employers Need to Know

US Voting Leave LawsWith the general election days away, employers should familiarize themselves with their state’s voting leave laws.

Voting leave laws vary across the country. A number of states, however, do not have specific laws permitting time off to vote. These states include: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Generally, states with voting leave laws grant an employee two hours off work, in order to vote, without experiencing loss of pay. An employee who has sufficient hours to vote outside his or her working hours is generally not eligible to take time off work to vote without experiencing loss of pay. Some states may fine employers who violate an employee’s statutory right to take time off work to vote.

Below is a summary of states’ voting leave laws:

Alabama: An employee may take up to one hour off work to vote, upon reasonable notice to his or her employer, unless the employee’s hours of employment begin at least two hours after the polls have opened or end at least one hour before the polls close. The employer may specify the hours when an employee may take off work to go vote. (Code of Ala. § 17-1-5)

Alaska: An employee may take off as much working time as necessary to vote, without loss of pay. If, however, an employee’s working hours begin either two hours after the polls have opened or two hours before the polls close, the employee is considered to have sufficient time outside working hours within which to vote and may not take time off to vote without incurring loss of pay. (Alaska Stat. § 15.15.100)

Arizona: An employee may take time off work to vote, upon notice to the employer prior to election day, if there are less than three consecutive hours between the opening of the polls and the beginning of the employee’s work shift or between the end of the employee’s work shift when the difference between work shift hours and opening or closing of the polls provides a total of three consecutive hours. The employee shall not experience loss of pay for work time taken to vote and the employer may specify the hours when an employee may take off to vote. Employers refusing an employee’s right under this statute or subjecting an employee to a penalty or reduction of wages is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. (A.R.S. § 16-402).

Arkansas: Employers must schedule employees’ work hours in such a way that each employee has an opportunity to go vote. An employer’s failure or refusal to comply with this statute may result in a fine of no less than $25 and no more than $250. (A.C.A. § 7-1-102).

California:  An employee without sufficient time outside working hours may take off as much time as necessary at the beginning or the end of a work shift in order to vote. An employee may not lose pay for less than two hours taken off to vote. (Cal. Elec. Code § 14000).

Colorado: With notification to the employer prior to Election Day, an employee may be absent from work for up to two hours in order to vote without incurring loss of pay. The employer may specify the hours when the employee may be absent, but the employee may request that the hours be at the beginning or end of the work shift. An employee with three or more off-duty hours between the time of opening and closing of the polls may not take time off work to vote without incurring loss of pay. (C.R.S. 1-7-102).

Georgia: Upon reasonable notice to the employer, an employee may take off up to working hours to vote unless the employee’s working hours beginning at least two hours after the opening of polls or end at least two hours before polls close. The employer may specify during which hours an employee may take off work to vote. (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-404).

Hawaii: An employee may take off work up to two hours to vote without incurring loss of pay. If an employee fails to vote after taking time off for that purpose, the employer, upon verifying that fact, may deduct appropriate wages or salary from the employee for the period during which the employee was absent from employment for purposes of voting. An employer who refuses an employee’s privileges conferred by this statute may be subject to a fine of not less than $50 and not greater than $300. (HRS § 11-95).

Illinois: Upon notice to an employer prior to Election Day, an employee may take off up to two hours from work to vote without loss of pay if the employee’s working hours begin less than 2 hours after polls open and less than 2 hours before polls close. The employer may specify the hours when the employee may take off work to vote. (10 ILCS 5/17-15).

Iowa: With a written request made prior to Election Day, an employee, without three consecutive off duty hours between the time of the opening and closing of polls, may take such time off work as necessary to grant the employee a total of three consecutive hours to vote, without loss of pay. (Iowa Code § 49.109).

Kansas: An employee may be absent from work for no more than two consecutive hours between the time of opening and closing of polls. If polls are open before the employee is scheduled to begin work or after ending work, but the period of time the polls are open is less than two consecutive hours, then the employee can only take off as much time to grant the employee two consecutive hours to vote. (K.S.A. § 25-418).

Kentucky: An employee, having applied for leave prior to Election Day, may take up to four hours off work, between the time of opening and closing the polls, to vote without loss of pay. The employer may specify the hours during which an employee may take off work to vote. (KRS § 118.035).

Maryland: An employee may take up to two hours off work to vote if the employee does not have two continuous off-duty hours during the time that polls are open. The employer shall pay the employee for up to two hours taken off work to vote. (Md. Election Law Code Ann § 10-315).

Massachusetts: An employee in a manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment may take time off work during the two hours after the opening of polls, upon application for leave of absence during such period. (ALM GL ch. 149 § 178).

Minnesota: An employee may be absent from work for the time necessary to cast a ballot and return to work on that same day without loss of pay. An employer hindering an employee’s right under this statute is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Minn. Stat. § 204C.04).

Missouri: Upon request made prior to Election Day, an employee may take off three hours from work between the time of opening and the time of closing the polls for purposes of voting. The employer may specify the hours when the employee may take off work to vote. (§ 115.639 R.S. Mo.).

Nebraska: An employee who does not have two consecutive off-duty hours in the period between the time of the opening and closing of the polls may take off work two consecutive hours to cast a ballot and without loss of pay. The employer may specify the hours during which the employee may take off work to vote. (R.R.S. Neb. § 32-922).

Nevada: If it is impracticable for an employee to vote before or after his or her hours of employment, an employee may be absent from his or her place of employment at a time designated by the employer to provide for enough time to vote. An employee shall not experience loss of pay for time taken off to vote. (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.463).

New Mexico: An employee may take off work up to two hours for the purpose of voting without loss of pay unless the employee’s work shift begins two hours after polls open or ends three hours before polls close. An employer refusing an employee’s right granted by this statute is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine not less than $50 and not more than $100. (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-12-42).

New York: An employee without four consecutive off-duty hours either between the opening of the polls and the beginning of his or her working shift, or between the end of his working shift and the closing of the polls, may take as much time off from work to vote. An employee may take off up to two hours of work without loss of pay. An employee seeking to take time off work to vote must notify the employer between two to ten days before the election requiring time off work. No less than ten working dates before an election, employers must post in the workplace a conspicuous notice notifying employees of their rights under the statute. Such notice shall be posted until the close of polls on Election Day. (NY CLS Elec § 3-110).

North Dakota: Employers are encouraged, but not required, to establish a program to grant employees time off work to vote when the employee’s regular work schedule conflicts with the polls opening and closing time. (N.D. Cent. Code, § 16.1.01-02.1).

Ohio: Employers cannot discharge or threaten to discharge an employee for taking a reasonable amount of time off work to vote on Election Day. An employer who violates this section may be fined not less than $50 and no more than $500. (ORC Ann. 3559.06).

Oklahoma: Upon oral or written notice by the employee prior to Election Day, an employer must grant an employee two hours off from work, during the period when polls are open, to allow the employee to vote. The employer may select and notify the employee of the work hours that may be taken off to vote. Employees taking time off work to vote shall not experience loss of pay or other penalty, for such absence. An employer failing to comply with this statute may be guilty of a misdemeanor and may subject to a fine between $50 and $100. (26 Okl. St. § 7-101).

South Dakota: An employee without two consecutive off duty hours during the time polls are open may take off two hours from work in order to vote without loss of pay. The employer may specify the hours during which the employee may take off work to vote. An employer refusing an employee’s right under this section is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Tennessee: An employee, upon notice to the employer before noon of the day before Election Day, may take off three hours from work during the time the polls are open, without loss of pay, in order to vote, unless the employee’s work shift begins three hours after polls open or ends three hours before polls close. The employer may specify the hours during which the employee may be absent. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-1-106).

Texas: An employer may not bar an employee from taking time off from work on Election Day for the purpose of voting. An employer in violation of this statute may be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. (Tex. Elec. Code § 276.004).

Utah: Upon application prior to Election Day, an employer must allow an employee to take off from work up to two hours, between the time the polls open and close, in order to vote upon. An employee who has three or more consecutive off duty hours between the times polls open and close is not eligible to take time off work under this statute. An employer violating an employee’s rights under this statute is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. (Utah Code Ann. § 20A-3-103).

West Virginia: Upon written request made to the employer at least three days prior to Election Day, an employee may take off up to three hours from work in order to vote. An employee shall not experience loss of pay for time taken off work to vote. An employee with three or more off duty hours between the hours of the opening and the close of polls on Election Day may not take time off work to vote without loss of pay. (W. Va. Code § 3-1-42).

Wisconsin: Upon notification to the employer prior to Election Day, an employee may take off up to three hours from work to vote. The employer may specify the hours when the employee may take off work to vote and the employee shall not experience loss of pay. (Wis. Stat. § 6.76).

Wyoming: An employee may take off one hour from work in order to vote without loss of pay. (Wyo. Stat. § 22-2-11).