Human Rights Archives - The National Law Forum

Environmental Justice Update: EPA Announces $100 Million in EJ Grants to Local Groups and Issues Guidance Outlining Potential Federal ‘Cumulative Impact’ Claims

“Environmental justice” (EJ) continues as the primary leitmotif of Biden Administration environmental policy in the first weeks of 2023.

Below, we unpack two recently announced EJ efforts: a grant program for groups in environmentally overburdened communities and guidance on legal resources to address “cumulative impacts” issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Legal Counsel and outline what these mean for the regulated community taken together in the context of other recent EJ developments.

EPA Announces $100 Million in Grants to Community Groups

This week, EPA announced the availability of approximately $100 million in grants for projects that “advance EJ in underserved and overburdened communities.” The grant programs are part of funding allocated by the Inflation Reduction Act programs discussed here.

Summaries of the two programs:

The Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Program (EJCPS) Cooperative Agreement Program. The EJCPS program provides $30 million in funding directly to community-based non-profit organizations for projects focused on addressing local environmental or public health issues in their communities. Five million of the funding is reserved for small community-based nonprofit organizations with five or fewer full-time employees. EPA anticipates funding approximately 50 awards of $500,000 and 30 awards of $150,000.
Environmental Justice Government-to-Government (EJG2G) Program. EJG2G will provide an estimated $70 million in funding for state, tribal, and local projects completed in conjunction with community-based organizations. In total the agency anticipates funding approximately 70 projects of up to $1 million each for a 3-year project.

Interested applicants must submit proposal packages on or before April 10, 2023, for projects to begin on October 1, 2023.

EPA’s efforts to fund local groups are part of its broader strategic goal of enhancing equitable apportionment of resources and the benefits of environmental policies. EPA’s Equity Action Plan, discussed here, prioritizes building capacity in environmentally underserved communities to lead projects. Projects like these would lead to increased community engagement, which in turn could lead to more equitable outcomes in the environmental space. The strategy of building up local capacity to engage on environmental issues, mirrors private-sector efforts like Bloomberg Philanthropies $85 million “Beyond Petrochemicals” campaign, discussed here.

Federal Cumulative Impact Guidance

EPA’s Office of General Counsel released its Cumulative Impacts Addendum this week. This addendum builds on EPA’s Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, which was released in May 2022. Taken together, these encyclopedia-like documents were created with the purpose of “identifying and making appropriate use of every authority and tool available to EPA under the law to incorporate environmental and climate justice considerations in our work,” in the words of EPA Administrator Michael Regan. The addendum itself indicates that it “is not intended to prescribe when and how [EPA] should undertake specific actions, nor does it provide methodologies for how to conduct a cumulative impacts assessment.” (Note: EPA’s Office of Research and Development has advanced a definition of “cumulative impacts,” summarized here, and is researching methodologies to deploy the concept.)

Structurally, the addendum breaks EPA’s authorities to address cumulative impacts into six subject-matter focused chapters:

Clean Air Act Programs
Water Programs
Waste Management and Emergency Response Programs (i.e. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Oil Pollution Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
Pesticides and Toxics Programs (i.e. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act); and
Environmental Review Programs (i.e. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews).

EPA’s intent with the addendum was to outline legal resources for federal, state, and local regulators to consult situationally outlining potential tools that could be used to address cumulative impacts. These legal tools, used in conjunction with EJ-focused screening tools like EJSCREEN (discussed here) and newly developed and (increasingly available) data (see our discussions here and here), are part of EPA’s high prioritization of EJ issues.

Takeaways for the Regulated Community

We offer two takeaways from these developments:

First, EPA’s commitment to a “whole of government” approach to address EJ issues continues unabated. Over time, the Biden Administration has exhibited a willingness to allocate money to address EJ issues; reorient EPA and DOJ to better address them; develop new tools; and indeed, build capacity to engage local communities in an effort to benefit more Americans regardless of their race, language or socioeconomic status.

Second, taken collectively, these efforts will necessitate changes in process for regulated entities because governmental and community engagement in the EJ space is altering the policymaking process at a rapid rate. Relevant here, we expect that a secondary effect of EPA and private parties “building capacity” in local communities will be an increase in community involvement — and potentially opposition — to businesses operating in their communities. These groups are likely to deploy all available resources — including those outlined in the addendum — to address their concerns.

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

Legal News Reach Episode 7: Creating A Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment

National Law Review Web Content Specialist Shelby Garrett closes out Legal News Reach Season 2 with an impactful minisode featuring Stacey Sublett Halliday, Principal and DEI Committee Chair with Beveridge & Diamond. Diversity, equity, and inclusion look different for every law firm, and smaller firms like B&D have to be even more resourceful in their approach to fostering dynamic work environments. How can firms use organizational partnerships to augment their internal DEI strategies?

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Shelby Garrett

Thank you for turning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Shelby Garrett, Web Publication Specialist with the National Law Review, and this episode I’m super excited because I will be speaking to Stacey Halliday, an environmental justice attorney with leadership roles with the American Bar Association and the Environmental Law Institute. Hi, Stacey.

Stacey Halliday

Hi, Shelby, thank you so much. And thank you National Law Review for having me today.

Shelby Garrett

Of course! To kick things off, would you mind telling us a little bit about your background in legal and what led you to pursue a career in law?

Stacey Halliday

Sure. I’m a shareholder at Beverage & Diamond, and we’re an environmental law firm. I’m based out of Washington DC. As you mentioned, a large part of my practice involves counseling clients on environmental justice, identifying risks, opportunities, and helping them incorporate EJ in their work. And I also have a broader practice on ESG issues and product stewardship, so things like sustainability disclosures, ratings and rankings, green marketing compliance and circular economy, that sort of thing. I started the firm a million years ago, longer than I’d like to admit, and had the privilege of also spending two years in the middle of that as an Obama appointee at the US Environmental Protection Agency in the Office of General Counsel so…bounced around a little bit. It’s been a long journey, I sort of wandered into environmental law by happenstance, but it’s been an incredible journey so far.

Shelby Garrett

That’s awesome. We’re super excited to have you today, because we also worked previously on an article about the EPA. So this is perfect to actually get to see each other face to face and talk to each other. Today, we’re going to be talking about DEI initiatives. To start off with that, could you give us a basic definition for people who maybe aren’t familiar with it and tie us into how that relates to law firm operations?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, absolutely. And I should mention, one of the other hats that I wear at the firm, besides a shareholder is also Chair of our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion committee. So that’s sort of my D E and I hat, I have been on the committee for the 10 years on and off that I’ve been at the firm. So for D E and I, in terms of definitions, it’s–I hate to give you the lawyer answer, but it’s an “it depends” kind of thing, right? So DEI efforts are defined in such a broad variety of ways and are very unique to each organization. So some folks call it DEI, some say DEIA to include accessibility, there’s variations on the theme. But at B&D, DEI is really focused on building and fostering an inclusive culture that allows everyone to be their authentic selves at work, removing obstacles that inhibit equal opportunities for all and promoting and supporting those from historically underrepresented groups outside of the traditional DEI bucket. So defined by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, identity, disability, or otherwise. So that’s sort of how we think about it at our firm. And I’d say the way that plays out is I as chair, and my deputies, and our committee work with the Management Committee of the firm, the Chief Talent Officer, the firmwide managing principal who oversees the management of the whole firm, and members of committee, we’re the largest committee at the firm, its attorneys and staff. And we work with developing internal and external policies and practices across the firm. We have a Working Parents Group, an Employee Engagement Committee focused on staff and a Women’s Initiative to develop more targeted programming, but that’s kind of how it’s structured across the operations of the firm.

Shelby Garrett

That’s awesome, and that’s great to hear some examples because like you said, it kind of is tailored to each firm and what the community of employees needs. So it sounds like it would be a really large undertaking, because it has to be pretty authentic and genuine with straightforward conversations that might be a little bit harder, with some self-reflection. What is a good place for companies to start out? What is step one?

Stacey Halliday

Step one, really, in my perspective is, tone from the top is a really big I think, ground floor for a lot of this. I came from an HBCU, I went to Howard University School of Law, very proud graduate. And after my clerkship, I met Ben Wilson, who was the Managing Partner of Beverage & Diamond. And Ben is legendary. He’s just a staunch and uncompromising advocate for diversity and for supporting attorneys of color. And he’s the reason I went to Beverage & Diamond because I saw so significant leadership of the firm, he is an individual, but across the firm from his leadership had embraced and embedded diversity as a priority in addition to doing excellent work for our clients. So that I think has continued. He retired, I think it was within the last year, which is very hard as somebody who worked very closely with him. But we’ve really seen the firm continue to demonstrate that absolute commitment, and you see it in the numbers. In our firm about 36% of our shareholders are women, 50% of our Managment Committee are women or minorities, we continue to get very positive accolades for our DEI work even after so I think we see that commitment from the top and that helps all of us understand, incorporate remember that DEI is something important every day.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely, that’s a really great point, and very nice to hear how you got involved with the firm. When a firm is looking to measure their success, are there any indicators– I imagine it probably depends on what exactly they’re tasked with or what their initiative is. But is there anything that overall could help measure that success?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, it’s it’s funny, coming into this with a DEI hat but also doing ESG work, I think a lot about metrics and how do you set targets and measure your progress and hold yourself accountable. And because we’re so small, we’re fewer than 150 lawyers or so, we partner a lot. And that’s we use third party groups that are really specialize in this work and specialize in best practices for law firms to measure our progress and hold ourselves accountable. And a leading example of that is our participation in the Mansfield program. So the Mansfield certification program–I see you nodding Shelby, so that’s something you’ve heard of before. It’s based on the Rooney rule for the uninitiated, so the–I know nothing about football, but I have heard it’s based on the football Rooney rule, and that requires consideration of candidates from historically underrepresented groups for certain leadership roles. So we’re Mansfield 5.0 Certified, Mansfield Plus, and that means that not only do we consider certain underrepresented groups for at least 30% of all significant leadership roles, lateral recruiting and business development opportunities, for the Plus certification, we exceeded that requirement by actually achieving 30% or more representation. So that’s been a program we’ve been involved in at least the last four or five years, and the requirements continue to elevate every year. So it’s really an incredible way to not only track our progress, but also keep ourselves challenged because the goalposts continue to move to keep us challenged and leaning forward into this kind of work.

Shelby Garrett

That is really awesome. Yeah, when I was preparing for this, I was looking at the Mansfield website, I think it’s run by Diversity Lab maybe? So I was looking through all of their documentation on their website so that’s awesome. While we’re talking about Beverage & Diamond specifically, I know you mentioned the tone from the beginning was very inclusive. Is there any additional training or education that is provided to employees, whatever you’re comfortable talking about, specific to the firm?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, of course. I think we have a number of different programs, we have the committee and we have an annual survey across the firm that helps us understand where there might be need or interest in getting additional training and support in this space. So from an internal perspective, that’s something that’s more dynamic and focused on our particular firm and its community. So that could be anything from implicit bias training, to learning about more accessibility issues, or neurodiversity or something like that. So that’s something that we develop, and work as committee to build over the course of the year. But I think again, partnerships are a really big part of how we support our community in getting the best practices and cutting edge work in the space and support for each of our individual community members. So we partner with groups like LCLD, the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, which is just unbelievable. The program is amazing. So we have Fellows, Pathfinders, and we have Summer 1Ls that are part of this LCLD partnership, and the Fellows and Pathfinder program supports individuals in either mid-career or senior level or entry level attorneys with things like professional development programs, leadership training, relationship building opportunities, and that’s for attorneys from historically underrepresented groups. So it’s really amazing, I haven’t actually I haven’t done it, but a lot of my close colleagues and friends have done it and they talk about the relationships they’ve built, the support they’ve gotten, in addition to what they get internally at the firm being just invaluable and a great resource. So that’s something that’s a good example of the kind of things that we do plus our internal training to really support those in our community.

Shelby Garrett

Sorry, I think I missed it. Was that a third-party group?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, it’s unbelievable. It’s like there’s a couple of different programs like this and MCCA, Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and there’s–the acronyms, its an alphabet soup–CCWC Corporate Counsel Women of Color. There’s a couple of different programs like this that focus on different historically underrepresented attorney groups and communities. But LCLD is something where we’ve had a really in-depth relationship and pipeline coordination. So the 1L program through LCLD, we have a 1L Summer Associate. So usually they’re 2Ls, you’re a second-year law student when you come to summer at a law firm and then hopefully you get an offer afterwards for a job. But we have a 1L come in through the LCLD program from a historically underrepresented group. And it’s a great way to build a pipeline for talent in our community organization, especially in the environmental law space where diversity is a challenge.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely. That is amazing. One of the things I think you mentioned towards the beginning was a program for working moms. Do you mind explaining a little bit more about that, is that like a third-party?

Stacey Halliday

It’s actually internal. We created a Working Parents Group, we had a Women’s Committee initially, and the Women’s Committee was dealing with a lot of coming together to talk about all of the challenges that women inherently face. But we were also finding that we had a lot of men who are parents, as well, who were kind of, you know, still tackling a lot of these challenging issues, especially coming into the pandemic, when we’re all working remotely. And I have two young kids under three… it’s a challenge, it’s a journey. And actually having that community to talk about what kind of resources we might need, how we might support one another, how we can share best practices and lessons learned, and just support each other in the work environment, which is inherently stressful in a law firm. But if we’re all being understanding and know more about what we’re facing, we can all kind of tackle it together. So the working parents group was an outgrowth, I think of the pandemic and of having a community of young parents, and of more veteran parents who could all sort of share these lessons learned and worked together on solutions.

Shelby Garrett

That is awesome to hear both the internal kind of programs and then also the third-party kind of programs. How does the firm’s DEI work align with its overall business strategy and its goals? I know we just talked about the 1Ls and having them have that exposure and the opportunity to network and really get involved early, but looking more broadly at overall business strategy and goals.

Stacey Halliday

I think it’s such an interesting time in this space, because where there might have been more skepticism, especially at a law firm where your time is billed in six minute increments, to dedicating time and resources to DEI, now we’re seeing some pressure from clients, some external pressure, that really sends home the business case for the importance of diversity and for supporting DEI from a retention perspective. And I think Beverage & Diamond is unique in that we’ve always embraced DEI as one of our core principles that are important to the firm. But were there any naysayers, it’s now you know, we’re really seeing that clients are bringing down the hammer. They’re asking for more transparency. We have dense, pages long surveys asking us to disclose information about our diversity performance, and how many people from historically underrepresented groups are on our pitch teams, how many folks are actually billing time, are they getting considered for promotion, like they, they want to know that level of detail. And if they don’t see it, there’s either a penalty in terms of fees or you don’t get the work. And I think that is something that has shifted, in concrete ways, the industry. You’re seeing a huge proliferation of Chief Diversity Officers, So C-suite level leadership and management in law firms that actually looks at this topic the way it is, a sophisticated practice, that’s on top of legal practice. So I think the business case is now kind of firmly being established across the industry more so than it has in the past. Just a really interesting trend.

Shelby Garrett

That is really interesting. When I was like reading different articles to prepare for this, I hadn’t heard of that. So that’s really great to hear that there’s some external pressure and investment in this bigger priority. You were talking kind of a little bit about, you know, billing hours. So building these DEI initiatives require some resources and support. What kind of resources and support can a firm offer to employees who might be affected by these issues? I know kind of just like, taking the time for the Working Parent Group. But what resources really go into that?

Stacey Halliday

I think for us, again, we’re fairly small. So you know, where you have these huge multinational global firms that have hundreds of 1000s of people who would be part of an affinity group or any type of program that’s associated with different subpopulations of a diverse community, we’ve got like five. So it’s not necessarily the same sort of thing in terms of the scale of the programs, which is why we end up doing more partnerships so that, you know, the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance might have a program or something like that, or we’ll say, “Hey, if you’re interested in doing this training, or engaging this community more aggressively, we absolutely support you, as an individual, doing that kind of work, because we don’t have the infrastructure necessarily to do it.” But some larger firms and companies do things like backup childcare, something like that, like, I think Bright Horizons or something like that, you know, you can go and, if your school’s closed, or if your kids sick, you can find some way to get some coverage so that you can still go to work. There’s all kinds of flexible leave policies and that sort of thing that really does help in terms of giving people the space that they need, still thinking from the parent context. Affinity groups are something that we have decided to date not to really form more broadly, just because again, the numbers aren’t there. But for us our partnerships are the way that we do it. But a lot of other large organizations do things like affinity groups that have more of a build-out in terms of permanent programs throughout the year. So in terms of brass tacks for us, we have the committee, with its mix of associates and staff members, and we have a budget every year to support those external engagements and partnerships and certification programs and that sort of thing. But it really does run the gamut, I think, especially at larger shops, where they have more numbers to really build out more infrastructure and training programs and curricula and support benefits, like childcare.

I worked at a law firm before I went to law school, and it was a much larger law firm. And I think historically, there’s been a really strong divide between attorneys and staff at a lot of law firms, which I think can be problematic and unnecessary. It inhibits, I think, community and diversity in a lot of different ways. But B&D has been fantastic. Our DEI committee is fully integrated with staff and attorneys. And we have some pretty significant empowerment and promotion of non-lawyers at the firm in this space to try and get a better perspective on our community. We’re basically half non-lawyers. So it’s really important to make sure that we’re not only capturing the voices of those members of our community through the committee, but also investing in the non-lawyers. And so we have a couple of professional development programs and we encourage external training in the same way that we support our attorneys. So it’s, I think, something that gets lost a lot in the conversation for law firms, because they’re so focused on the folks who are billing, but it’s a much bigger biosphere, for the law firm to be successful. It’s a lot more to it than just the legal work. So I think it’s really been important to make sure those voices are captured, the broader diversity of the firm is captured through thinking about your staff, and not just your attorneys.

Shelby Garrett

That is an amazing point I had not even considered, there’s an additional kind of hierarchy of opinions being taken into account. That’s really interesting. As we start to come to a close, are there any final thoughts you wanted to share?

Stacey Halliday

I’m so grateful to the National Law Review, specifically to you, Shelby, for bringing this conversation to bear. And I think it’s really important for our community to really think about effective practices here so that we generate and support more diverse communities so that we have more diversity of thought, as well as other types of diversity in the way that we solve problems and do our work. And I’m happy that we had a chance to have this chat and celebrate the work that’s being done in the space.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, that’s really great. I am very grateful that you joined us today, I appreciate you taking the time to really walk through all of this because it is pretty unfamiliar to me. So it’s really great to get the basic understanding of where firms can start if they haven’t started yet, and some inspiration of where they can go. So I really do appreciate that. And thank you so much for joining us today. For listeners who are interested in finding you and maybe some of your thought leadership in the environmental justice area, where can they look for you?

Stacey Halliday

Thank you for the plug, I will absolutely take it! bdlaw.com. So please check out B&D’s site, the Environmental Justice Practice Group has its own site. And we also have a podcast, another shameless plug for our joint podcast with the Environmental Law Institute called Ground Truth. That will be kicking back up in 2023, but we bring on folks and have some deep thoughts on EJ and what’s ahead and what’s coming down the pike. So hopefully check us out there as well.

Shelby Garrett

Fantastic. Thank you so much. Again, we really appreciate your time, and we will be back in a couple of weeks for a new episode of Legal News Reach.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

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

Division I Universities Must Be Ready for Changes to the NCAA Infractions Process

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has adopted key changes to the way in which NCAA infractions matters will be investigated and processed in the future. The changes, which take effect on January 1, 2023, are intended to modernize and enhance the process, while focusing resources on the most serious violations. Another objective is to reduce the time needed to process and resolve violation proceedings.

President of the University of Georgia and Chair of the Division I Board of Directors Jere Morehead said in August that NCAA members are “committed to resolving cases fairly and in a timely fashion, thus holding those responsible for violations accountable and avoiding penalizing those who were not involved in rule-breaking.”

Among the key changes are the following:

Enhanced duty to cooperate: Institutions, staff, and student-athletes, upon learning of potential violations, will be required to preserve information, to provide immediate access to all electronic devices, and to encourage family members, spouses, boosters, and others to cooperate in the investigation. The number of aggravating and mitigating factors in the Bylaws has been expanded to reward prompt and full cooperation and deter efforts to hinder or impede investigations.

New head coach responsibility standard: Head coaches will be held responsible for serious violations committed by those who report to them directly or indirectly. Only in determining the appropriate penalty will the Committee on Infractions (COI) consider whether the head coach promoted compliance and monitored the program. The previous infractions approach, which included a rebuttable presumption of responsibility on the part of a head coach, has been abandoned.

Additional method for resolution: A new alternative for resolving infractions cases has been added, with the aim of providing the COI greater flexibility and reserving full hearings for only the most serious cases. The new method, known as a “Written Record Hearing,” will be employed in cases in which the facts are largely undisputed and the alleged violations not numerous or significant.

Clarification of appeal standard and limitation of appeals: Findings and penalties by the COI will be affirmed by the Infractions Appeals Committee (IAC) if there is information in the record that supports the decision. Findings and penalties will not be set aside unless no reasonable person could have made the ruling given the factual record. Appeals to the IAC as to the penalties imposed will be limited to those sanctions that fall outside legislated penalty guidelines, or “core penalties.” The majority of appeals will be decided based on the written record without the need for oral argument. Finally, and as is also the case with the revised COI process, extensions of time will be granted only in extreme and clearly defined circumstances.

Aggravating and mitigating factors: The new guidelines clarify which factors apply to institutions and which apply to involved individuals. Previously, this was unclear and often debated. New aggravating factors have been added, including hindering an investigation or inhibiting the COI’s processing of a case. New mitigating factors also have been added, including a demonstration of exemplary cooperation by, for example, securing meaningful cooperation from an outside party.

Name, image and likeness (NIL): In this rapidly evolving area, the bylaws provide that if available information indicates that behaviors surrounding an NIL offer or agreement is contrary to NCAA legislation, it shall be presumed that a violation occurred. The charged institution or involved individual will then be required to rebut this presumption with credible and sufficient information that a violation did not occur.

In addition to the above changes, the new infractions construct eliminates the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), which had been created at the recommendation of the Commission on College Basketball chaired by Condoleezza Rice. While acknowledging the panel’s thoroughness in deciding the several cases referred to the IARP, it was concluded that this new process prolonged case timelines and required substantial additional resources to bring cases to resolution.

Finally, the Board of Directors announced that it will consider additional future changes that may help to deliver timely and fair outcomes in infractions matters. Among the subjects under further consideration are (i) requiring increased documentation of recruiting efforts, (ii) adjusting the size and composition of the COI, (iii) modification of penalty ranges (including alternatives to post-season bans), and (iv) enhancing confidentiality rules for involved parties during investigation by the NCAA enforcement staff.

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

The Evolving New York City Workplace: Two Important Updates Effective November 1st

Two important measures impacting New York City employers will be effective on November 1, 2022. The first measure is Mayor Adams’ lifting of the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for private employers, which was implemented by his predecessor Mayor de Blasio shortly before he left office. The second measure is New York City’s new “pay transparency” law, which continues the city’s aggressive efforts to eradicate pay disparity and requires employers to immediately review and update their hiring practices.

Vaccine Mandate Lifted

The New York City COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which became effective on December 27, 2021, mandated all New York City private employers to require that all in-person employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, subject only to approved religious and medical exemptions. Effective November 1, 2022, this vaccine mandate will be lifted.

Going forward, New York City employers retain the right to implement their own vaccination policies. New York City employers may lift the requirement and allow employees who are not vaccinated to return to work on site. Alternately, employers may continue to require the COVID-19 vaccine for in-person staff, in which case such employer mandatory vaccination policies must still provide for medical or religious exemptions consistent with applicable laws.

Pay Transparency

Following a recent national trend, New York City continues to aggressively regulate pay equity by amending the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) to implement “pay transparency” requirements. The law also contains an anti-retaliation provision. The New York City pay transparency law applies to employers with four or more employees (or one or more domestic workers) and employment agencies of any size. The new law does not apply to temporary help firms seeking applicants to join their pool of available workers.

Going forward, covered entities must include the minimum and maximum annual base salary or hourly range of compensation that the employer believes in good faith to be accurate at the time in any advertisement for a job, promotion or transfer opportunity that can or will be performed, in whole or part, in New York City. While the statutory language is sparse, and regulations have not yet been issued, according to a Fact Sheet published by the New York City Commission on Human Rights (“Commission”) (https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/622/87383/Salary-Transparency-Factsheet.pdf?cbcachex=897118), an “advertisement” is defined broadly as a written description of an available job, promotion or transfer opportunity that is publicized to a pool of potential applicants, regardless of the medium, and includes postings on internal bulletin boards, internet advertisements, printed flyers at job fairs and newspaper advertisements. The requirement applies when advertising for full-time or part-time employees, interns, domestic workers or independent contractors. The law does not prohibit employers from hiring without using an advertisement or require employers to create an advertisement in order to hire.

According to the Fact Sheet, employers must include both a minimum and maximum salary, and the salary range cannot be open-ended. However, note that “salary” does not include other forms of compensation or benefits offered, including overtime, commissions, tips, bonuses or stock. For example, “$15 per hour and up” or “maximum $50,000 per year” would not be consistent with the new New York City requirements. Further, an advertisement that solely provides that a salary will be commensurate “with experience” also would appear to be inconsistent with the new law.

The Commission investigates complaints of discrimination, as well as the new salary transparency protections. Employers and employment agencies who are found to have violated the NYCHRL may have to pay monetary damages to affected employees, amend advertisements and postings, create or update policies, conduct training, provide notices of rights to employees or applicants and engage in other forms of affirmative relief. According to the Fact Sheet, the Commission will not assess a civil penalty for the first complaint alleging violation of the salary transparency provision, provided that the employer shows that it has fixed the violation within 30 days.

Notably, New York State lawmakers have also passed a similar pay transparency bill, which is currently pending Governor Hochul’s signature and would go into effect 270 days after it is signed into law. The New York State bill, if it is enacted in its current form, will be potentially broader in its application, such as requiring provision of a job description for the position, if one exists.

It is also important to note that prior recent measures adopted by New York State and/or New York City to ensure non-discriminatory hiring practices and equal employment opportunities include regulations prohibiting employers from asking candidates about their prior salary history, pay equity provisions requiring equal pay for the same or substantially similar work, and stringent limitations on criminal history inquiries.

Takeaways

New York City continues to be at the forefront of enacting employment legislation to protect the rights of employees and applicants. It is critical for New York City employers to be vigilant to ensure compliance with the ever-changing legal requirements, including those relating to COVID-19, and to implement appropriate policies and practices.

With regard to the new pay transparency law, it is important for employers to promptly assess their pay practices, ensure that pay ranges are appropriate and equitable, consider documenting the applicable factors that were considered in reaching the salary decision, review job descriptions and ensure that advertising complies with the new requirements (including online recruitment sites).

For more Labor and Employment Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Presidential Pardon for Simple Marijuana Possession Leaves Out Many

Severe immigration consequences for certain non-U.S. citizens remain despite President Joe Biden’s pardon of all prior federal offenses for simple marijuana possession.

On October 6, 2022, President Biden took a major step toward the decriminalization of marijuana, pardoning all prior federal offenses for simple marijuana possession. Although this pardon will affect only approximately 6,500 individuals who were convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law before October 6, 2022, it does not affect the much larger number of individuals who have been convicted of a marijuana possession offense under state law. To the disappointment of immigration advocates, the pardon does not benefit non-U.S. citizens who were not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their conviction, even if their conviction was under federal law.

Moreover, because marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act:

Non-U.S. citizens can still be denied entry to the country for use of marijuana or for working or actively investing in the marijuana industry;
Immigration authorities may deny a non-U.S. citizen’s application for lawful permanent residence (green card) or naturalization on the ground that they have a conviction for a marijuana-related offense, an admission by the non-U.S. citizen that they have used marijuana in the past, or that they have worked or is actively investing in the marijuana industry; and
The Department of Homeland Security can still place individuals, including green card holders, into removal proceedings (deportation) as a result of marijuana-related offenses, unless the conviction was for simple possession of less than 30 grams.

In his order, President Biden urged governors to consider similar state law pardons for simple marijuana possession charges, which might affect many more individuals. President Biden has also asked the Department of Health and Human Services to consider changing the current Schedule I classification for marijuana. If one of these changes occurred, non-U.S. citizens would substantially benefit, as their state convictions for marijuana-related offenses might be pardoned, thus lowering the negative consequences for immigration purposes.

For now, however, non-U.S. citizens should still be wary of marijuana use, or working or investing in the marijuana industry, even in places in the United States or abroad where those activities are legal. While there may not be federal prosecutions for the use and possession of marijuana, there may be severe immigration consequences for non-U.S. citizens, because the use and possession of marijuana remains illegal in certain states.

Article By Carolina Guiral Cuervo of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Hackers Caused a Traffic Jam in Moscow

Hackers caused a massive traffic jam in Moscow by exploiting the ride-sharing app Yandex Taxi and using it to summon dozens of taxis to a single location. While Yandex has not confirmed the attacker’s identity, the hacktivist group Anonymous claimed responsibility on Twitter. The group has been actively taking aim at Russian targets in response to the Russian Federation’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Yandex claims that it has implemented new algorithms to detect this type of attack in the future and will compensate the affected drivers.

This traffic jam is a new application of an old hacktivist tactic: flood the system to make it unusable. Other techniques in this vein include blackouts (which target fax machines) and distributed denial of service (which targets websites and networks). No word yet on whether this new rideshare jam exploit will merit a snappy title.

Blair Robinson contributed to this article.

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

Nonbinary Pronoun Usage in the Workplace: What Employers Are Doing to Promote Inclusivity

Using the correct pronouns and honorifics in the workplace has become an increasingly important part of maintaining an inclusive workplace. At the same time, the sensitive nature of this trend and the many variations of pronouns and honorifics in use may leave employers confused as to how to accomplish that goal. Moreover, employers may be concerned with how to comply with employees’ requests in an ever-evolving space and with the increasing use of nonbinary pronouns.

Nonbinary Pronouns and Honorifics

Individuals have traditionally identified with binary sets of pronouns based on male and female gender expressions (i.e. he/him/his and she/her/hers). Increasingly, many individuals are expressing that they do not identify as either a “man” or “woman.” An estimated 11 percent of individuals who identity as LGBTQ in the United States (i.e., approximately 1.2 million people), identity as nonbinary, according to a recent study. The vast majority (76 percent) are between the ages of 18 and 29, the study found.

It is increasingly common for these individuals to go by gender-neutral, nonbinary pronouns, including they/them/theirs. Many others go by other nonbinary pronouns, such as ze (or zie)/zir/zirs; ne/nir/nirs; xe/xem/xir; and ve/ver/vis, or a growing set of nonbinary pronouns that are resurfacing or newly appearing within the U.S. vernacular. Similarly, honorifics, such as Mr., Miss, Mrs., Ms., Sir, and Madame reflect a binary gender view leading some individuals to go by “Mx.,” “Fren,” or another gender-neutral honorific.

The issue has particular significance for employers since the June 2020 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which found that discrimination against gay and transgender individuals is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The high court reasoned that an adverse action against an individual because the individual is gay or transgender is a form of discrimination based on sex “because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” However, the Court left open several questions on how the ruling applies to sex-segregated restrooms, dress codes, grooming standards, and pronouns.

Following the decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance on June 15, 2021, taking the position that “intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment” in violation of Title VII. This suggests there could be potential liability for employers who refuse to use a nonbinary employee’s correct pronouns. Further, while Title VII does not cover every employee in the United States, many state and local laws, such as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council’s regulations and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), provide similar or greater protection from gender identity discrimination.

Best Practices

It is increasingly becoming a commonplace practice for companies to permit employees to include their pronouns in their email signatures or on their social media profiles. This trend might just be the start. In light of the evolving movements in these areas, some employers may be struggling with how to support nonbinary individuals in their workplaces.

Safe Spaces

Some employers will take the stance that it is important to provide safe spaces for employees to identify their pronouns without pressure or the worry of retaliation in order to maintain an inclusive environment. Employers may further want to consider additional training for supervisors and other employees on how to handle everyday interactions regarding pronoun use. For example, employers may want to encourage employees to be comfortable with apologizing and correcting themselves if the wrong pronoun is used. This may be an especially important subject if an employee had started at the company using one set of pronouns and later realizes a different gender identity during the course of employment. A diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) committee or diversity liaisons can guide employers in facilitating these conversations.

Privacy Concerns

At the same time, employers are faced with the tension of ensuring respect for each individual’s privacy. In this regard, employers may want to be conscious that individuals generally will not want to be into a situation in which they must choose between using a nonbinary pronoun or facing inappropriate questions about their choice from management or co-workers. It may be necessary to keep pronoun sharing optional and to encourage employees to default to gender-neutral language where possible.

Gender-Neutral Corporate Communications and Record-Keeping

The Biden Administration, in March 2022, announced a series of federal government policy changes to allow U.S. citizens to identify as nonbinary, including allowing U.S. citizens to select an “X” gender marker on their U.S. passport applications. In accordance, the EEOC also announced that it would provide the option to use a nonbinary gender marker in the filing of a charge of discrimination. Several states have further allowed the use of a gender-neutral marker on state identity documents, including drivers’ licenses. Given these developments, employers may also want to consider using gender-neutral language in communications and updating their human resources demographic record-keeping procedures to allow for employees to be identified as nonbinary or with a gender-neutral marker.

Key Takeaways

The Bostock decisions and the proliferation of state and local anti-discrimination laws may require that employers make efforts to allow employees to share and be addressed by nonbinary pronouns. This could be critical in employer recruiting and retention with younger generations entering the workplace that are increasingly comfortable with expressing their nonbinary gender. Also, it is clear that accurate or appropriate pronouns and honorifics will continue to change. Employers may want to remain ready to adjust in this rapidly evolving space in order to provide inclusive environments and keep workplaces free of harassment and discrimination.

Companies seeking to create more inclusive workplaces for nonbinary individuals can find further information and guidance from a number of organizations that provide educational resources and technical assistance.

Article By Kelly S. Hughes, Alan J. Brozovich, and Zachary V. Zagger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

USCIS and Its Massive Case Backlog: What Comes Next?

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has an ambitious goal this year. Its primary objective is to reduce the backlog of cases and its impact on Immigration Services. This past year, USCIS has felt the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic turned what were already significant processing delays into unprecedented backlogs across the entire system. In fact, as of 2022, numbers are very high, with a backlog nearing 5.2 million cases and approximately 8.5 million pending cases.

This is a stark contrast from July 2019, when the backlog was only around 2.7 million. With the increase of millions of cases in only a few years and the inevitable delays it has caused in immigration processing, this new development could bring long-anticipated good news to many applicants who have been waiting for prolonged periods.

Phyllis A. Coven, the seventh Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (in that role, she identifies issues in the immigration system and makes recommendations to USCIS on how to address these problems), said the worst backlog of all is USCIS’s affirmative asylum backlog, which stands at over 430,000 cases.

Asylum: Defensive vs Affirmative

An asylum is a form of protection that allows an individual to remain in the United States instead of being removed to a country of feared persecution. There are two paths to asylum in the U.S.: the affirmative asylum process for individuals who are not in removal proceedings, and the defensive asylum process for individuals who are in removal proceedings. 8 USC 1158.

What is Affirmative Asylum?

A person who is not in removal proceedings may proactively apply for asylum with the USCIS. An applicant may file an affirmative application for asylum if he or she currently holds a valid immigration status (such as a visitor or student visa or Temporary Protected Status), his or her status has lapsed or expired (except for Visa Waiver Program entrants), or even if he or she holds no immigration status (for example, if he or she entered the country without inspection).

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process, the applicant must be physically present in the United States and apply for asylum within one year of their last arrival in the United States.

USCIS Affirmative Asylum’s Current Backlog

As mentioned, USCIS’ existing asylum system cannot significantly reduce its backlog, let alone keep pace with incoming applications. This delay is having a devastating impact on asylum seekers and their family members. They are losing valuable time in their immigration journey, their jobs, livelihoods, etc.

Therefore, the agency is considering approaches to improve the quality and efficiency of asylum adjudications, leading to a more effective and efficient system.

USCIS proposes the following solutions:

Hire more than 4,000 employees by the end of this calendar year and set new, more aggressive “cycle time” goals for fiscal 2023.
Identify and group cases to increase efficiencies in interviews and adjudications, prioritize asylum applicants needing immediate protection, and deprioritize non-priority applicants, such as those with other forms of relief available.
Consider specialization, interview waivers, and simplifying final decisions to increase case completions while supporting the welfare of officers and applicants.

While hopefully these recommendations will expedite immigration processes and lighten the backlog, asylum is still incredibly challenging.

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

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

Abortion-Related Travel Benefits Post-Dobbs

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson returning the power to regulate abortion to the states, a number of large employers announced that they would offer out-of-state travel benefits for employees living in states where abortion-related medical care is unavailable. Employers considering offering abortion-related travel benefits have several key considerations to keep in mind. The law currently allows health plans to provide reimbursement for travel primarily for and essential to medical care. Although this area of the law is evolving, employers with self-funded medical plans may amend their existing medical plans to provide abortion-related travel benefits while those with fully insured medical plans may face more obstacles in providing such benefits.

In Dobbs v. Jackson, an abortion clinic challenged a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. In establishing the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court restricted states in their ability to limit or ban abortions before viability of the fetus, or 24 weeks from the time of conception. In upholding the Mississippi law, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and held that the protection or regulation of abortion is a decision for each state.

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have already banned or made abortion illegal pursuant to trigger laws which went into effect as of the Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022. Also, a number of additional states are expected to soon have similar legislation in effect, either by virtue of expected legislative action or trigger laws with slightly delayed effective dates. In response, a number of employers have announced that they will reimburse all or a portion of abortion-related travel expenses for employees in states where abortions are banned or otherwise not available.

Under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “medical care” includes transportation that is both “primarily for and essential to” the medical care sought by an individual. These types of travel benefits have historically been utilized in connection with certain specialized medical treatments, such as organ transplants. However, Section 213(d) is not limited to particular types of procedures, and thus forms the framework for providing abortion-related travel benefits through existing medical plans.

Although Code Section 213(d) applies to both self-insured and insured medical plans, the substantive coverage provisions of insured medical plans will generally be governed by the state insurance code of the state in which the insurance policy is issued. Coverage for abortion services or any related travel benefits may not be permitted under the insurance code of the state in which the policy is issued, or an insurer may not offer a travel benefit for such services even if permitted to do so. Self-insured plans, by contrast, provide employers more flexibility in plan design, including control, consistent with existing federal requirements, over the types and levels of benefits covered under the plan. As noted above, existing plans may already cover travel-related benefits for certain types of medical procedures.

Employers with high-deductible health plans tied to health savings accounts (HSAs) will need to consider the impact of adding abortion-related travel benefits to such plans. Travel-related benefits of any type would not appear to be eligible for first dollar coverage, and thus may be of minimal benefit to participants enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Employers with fully insured medical plans that do not cover abortion-related travel benefits may be able to offer a medical travel reimbursement program through an integrated health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). An integrated HRA is an employer-funded group health plan from which employees enrolled in the employer’s traditional group medical insurance plan are reimbursed for qualifying expenses not paid by the traditional plan.

Another potential option for employers with fully insured medical plans may be to offer a stipend entirely outside of any established group health plan. Such reimbursement programs may result in taxable compensation for employees who receive such reimbursements. Also, employers would need to be sensitive to privacy and confidentiality considerations of such a policy, which should generally be minimized if offered in accordance with the existing protections of HIPAA through a medical plan and under which claims are processed by an insurer or third-party administrator rather than by the employer itself.

Additionally, some state laws may attempt to criminalize or otherwise sanction so-called aiding and abetting actions related to the procurement of abortion services in another state. This is an untested area of the law, and it is unclear whether any actions brought under such statutes would be legally viable. In this regard, Justice Kavanaugh stated as follows in his concurring opinion in Dobbs: “For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” (Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion, page 10.) This is an area that will require continual monitoring by employers who offer abortion-related travel benefits.

Article By Thomas G. Hancuch, Philip L. Mowery, and Amal Rafiq of Vedder Price

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

Why ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bills are Antithetical to an Equitable and Inclusive Education

According to a 2019 GLSEN national survey of LGBTQ+ students, nearly 60% of surveyed students reported they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 43% because of their gender expression. Within the same survey, nearly all (98.8%) LGBTQ+ students reported hearing “gay” used in a negative way at school, 95% heard other homophobic remarks, and 87% heard transphobic remarks.

When I was an educator, it was essential to my practice that all my students felt safe. If I were to hear any negative remarks about a student or become aware one of my students felt unsafe due to their identity, it would be my ethical, and moral, obligation to do something to create a safer and more inclusive learning environment; a core part of my role as an educator was to teach empathy and compassion in my students. This could be as simple as having a classroom discussion about the choices of language and how using words such as “gay” with a negative connotation can be hurtful to their classmates. This could also mean sharing my own identity as a queer man so my LGBTQ+ students knew they had someone they could turn to for support, and to normalize queer identities for all my students and their families. Either of these actions would require I discuss the importance of accepting all sexual orientations and gender identities.

In other words, I would have to say “gay.” But in six states — as of now — I would not have been able to do this.

The state of Florida attracted national attention earlier this year with the adoption of H.B. 1557, the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, more commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The bill, which has since been signed into law, dictates classroom instruction by “school staff” on “sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Five other states, according to the Movement Advancement Project, have similar laws enacted and several more have bills pending in their state legislatures. Some proponents of these bills argue the legislation is necessary to ensure parents have greater say when, if, and how LGBTQ+ issues are discussed with their children.

Yet these laws are designed to ensure only some parents have greater say, as the parents of LGBTQ+ children are certainly not reflected in these efforts.

At a time when youth mental health is reaching a crisis, state legislatures are advancing bills that would perpetuate, and arguably exacerbate, harmful school-based experiences for LGBTQ+ youth and worsen their well-being. A 2022 survey by the Trevor Project found 45% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and over half of transgender and nonbinary youth considered suicide. The 2019 GLSEN survey also found LGBTQ+ students who experienced forms of victimization based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., being bullied, hearing homophobic or transphobic remarks, etc.) had lower levels of self-esteem, higher levels of depression, and were less likely to say they belonged in school.

Some may argue “Don’t Say Gay” bills would not preclude educators from addressing instances of homophobia or transphobia in their classrooms and try to suggest that prohibitions on such actions are not the intent of the bills. However, regardless of intent, these bills often have the insidious impact to “chill” educators’ actions out of fear they may run afoul of the law and open themselves to reprimands, including being terminated.

All students deserve to have a safe, supportive, and affirming learning environment. All educators should be empowered to protect their students, and not feel afraid to step in when they notice a student being bullied because of their identity. And every parent should have the resources to be a partner in their child’s education. Unfortunately, state laws such as the “Don’t Say Gay” bills will only stand in way of these notions from becoming realities.

It is impossible to support all students when LGBTQ+ children continue to be targeted merely because of their identities.

Article By Sean A. Worley of Nelson Mullins

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

Category: Human Rights

Division I Universities Must Be Ready for Changes to the NCAA Infractions Process

Like this: