Category: Labor & Employment

Winter Weather: OSHA Updates on Cold Weather Hazards

Jackson Lewis Law firm

Stepping outside this week is a biting reminder that winter has arrived. OSHA has updated its website with information about winter hazards and the steps that can be taken to protect employees.  Although there is no specific standard covering winter weather, employees are protected by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970) General Duty Clause or Section 5(a)(1), which requires employers to provide employees a workplace free from recognized hazards.  This is a good time for employers to review their cold weather work practices.

In order to plan accordingly, it is essential that employers understand the potential dangers posed by the weather and familiarize themselves with the terminology used by meteorologists and the medical community.  Icy conditions or heavy snow can lead to slick or blocked roads and downed power lines.  Although people may be advised to stay off the roads in these conditions, such advice is impracticable for workers such as EMTs, snow plough operators, and power company employees.   According to OSHA, environmental cold exposes workers to the risk of cold stress. Any worker exposed to cold temperatures is susceptible to cold stress but extra attention should be paid to workers whose work necessitates them being outside, employees with health conditions such as heart disease or high blood pressure, new employees who may not be accustomed to the conditions, and workers who are returning to work after an absence.

In addition to OSHA’s webpage on “Winter Weather” there are other tools available to help an employer assess the situation and take the necessary precautions to protect their workers.  The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has published a chart entitled “Work/Warm-up Schedule for a 4-Hour Shift” which provides a clear model for employers to determine the length of time someone can work under decreasing weather conditions.  https://www.osha.gov/dts/weather/winter_weather/windchill_table.pdf

According to OSHA, employers can help alleviate the risks of cold stress by adapting work schedules to the weather conditions: implementing safe practices such as limiting the amount of time workers are outside, scheduling frequent breaks, providing hot, sweet drinks (e.g. tea but NOT alcohol); providing engineering controls, including providing radiant heat and protecting workers from drafts.  Additionally, employers should monitor workers for signs of cold stress, especially those employees previously mentioned.

Environmental cold can lead to cold stress which occurs when lower skin temperature gives way to a lower core temperature.  A person’s body temperature will cool down faster when there is a wind chill.  The most common types of cold stress include: frostbite (freezing, usually of the extremities, e.g. fingers and toes, which can lead to amputation of the affected area); hypothermia (characterized by a core body temperature falling below 95° F, can be fatal); chilblains (ulcers caused by repeated exposure of skin to cold temperatures); and trench foot (result of extended periods of cold, wet feet).  See NIOSH’s Fast Facts sheet –http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-115/pdfs/2010-115.pdf

According to OSHA employers should train employees about these hazards. Well-educated employees can contribute to a safer working environment.  Training should at a minimum cover the following areas:

  • What are the dangers?

  • How to recognize the symptoms associated with Cold Stress related conditions

  • Monitoring oneself and co-workers for signs of cold stress

  • How to dress appropriately for the weather (i.e. layers of loose clothing)

  • First Aid in the case of emergency.

OSHA’s Quick Card “Protecting Workers from Cold Stress” is a concise, easy to read reference sheet identifying the most common cold stress health hazards, how to recognize them, and the emergency measures to be taken if you suspect someone is suffering from cold stress.  See https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3156.pdf

Employers whose employees use company vehicles or who work around vehicles, it is also essential for vehicles to be properly maintained and equipped for severe driving conditions.  Depending on the work environment, additional training of employees may be advisable.  Suggested topics of training might include:

  • Work zone traffic safety

  • What to do if you are stranded in a vehicle

  • How to safely shovel snow

  • The use of equipment such as snow blowers

  • Working at heights

  • Walking safely to prevent slips, trips, and falls

  • Repairing downed or damaged power lines or being in the vicinity of downed or damaged power lines

See https://www.osha.gov/dts/weather/winter_weather/hazards_precautions.html.

OSHA has published comprehensive materials about winter weather.  These may be viewed at https://www.osha.gov/dts/weather/winter_weather/index.html

ARTICLE BY

Tressi L. Cordaro
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Department of State Releases February 2015 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

Cutoff dates in the EB-2 India category advance by six and a half months, cutoff dates in EB-3 for the Rest of the World advance by five months, cutoff dates for China advance by six months, and EB-3 China is still ahead of EB-2 China.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its February 2015 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the February 2015 Visa Bulletin Say?

The February 2015 Visa Bulletin shows an advance of six and a half months for the EB-2 India category. EB-3 cutoff dates for the worldwide category will advance by five months, and the EB-3 cutoff dates for China will advance by six months.

The cutoff date for F2A applicants from all countries will advance slightly in February.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will advance to September 1, 2005. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance toMarch 15, 2010. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remaincurrent.

EB-3: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will advance by seven days to December 22, 2003. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will advance by six months to September 1, 2011, which remains ahead of the cutoff date for EB-2 China. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines, Mexico, and the worldwide category will advance by seven months to January 1, 2014.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: September 1, 2011 (forward movement of 184 days)
India: December 22, 2003 (forward movement of 7 days)
Mexico: January 1, 2014 (forward movement of 214 days)
Philippines: January 1, 2014 (forward movement of 214 days)
Rest of the World: January 1, 2014 (forward movement of 214 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for applicants chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The February Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this trend. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through February 2015.

China

The January Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of February 1, 2010 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The February Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of March 15, 2010, reflecting forward movement of 45 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to March 15, 2010 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

India

The cutoff date for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India advances by six and a half months to September 1, 2005. This means that only applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to September 1, 2005 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The January Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 1, 2011. The February Visa Bulletin shows a cutoff date of September 1, 2011, an advancement of six months. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to September 1, 2011 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

India

The January Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 15, 2003. The February Visa Bulletin will advance slightly, with a cutoff date ofDecember 22, 2003. This means that EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to December 22, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

Rest of the World

The January Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of June 1, 2013 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the worldwide category. The February Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2014, reflecting forward movement of 214 days. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the worldwide category with a priority date prior to January 1, 2014 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The January Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of February 22, 2013 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The February Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of April 22, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 59 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to April 22, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

The January Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 15, 2013 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The February Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of May 8, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 23 days. This means that F2A applicants from all other countries with a priority date prior to May 8, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2015.

Developments in the Coming Months

As noted in last month’s alert, the DOS Visa Office predicts the following movement in the next three months:

F2A Family-Sponsored Category

  • The cutoff date in the F2A category will likely advance by three to four weeks per month.

Employment-Based Second Preference Category

  • The worldwide category will likely remain current.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 China category will likely advance by three to six weeks per month.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 India category will likely advance by four to six months.

Employment-Based Third Preference Category

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 worldwide category will continue to advance rapidly for the next several months. Demand is expected to increase significantly, at which point, the cutoff dates will be adjusted accordingly.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 China category is expected to advance rapidly in the next few months. Demand is expected to increase and may result in adjustments to the cutoff date within the next six months.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 India category will advance up to two weeks.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Mexico category will remain at the worldwide date.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Philippines category will remain at the worldwide date. Increased demand in this category may result in adjustments to the cutoff date later in the fiscal year.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the February 2015 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

Eric S. Bord
Lisa Stephanian Burton
Tracy Evlogidis
Eleanor Pelta
A. James Vázquez-Azpiri
Roland C. Lechner
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

It’s H-1B Season! Employers Urged to Begin Preparation of New H-1B Visa Petitions for April 1st Filing

Michael Best Logo

On April 1st each year, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) begins accepting petitions from employers seeking to employ newH-1B workers during the next fiscal year. The number of available new H-1Bs is capped at 65,000 per fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 slots available to foreign nationals holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. This fixed number of H-1Bs available per fiscal year is known as the “H-1B cap.”

If, during the first five business days of April, USCIS receives more H-1B petitions than it is allowed to adjudicate, USCIS will randomly select H-1B petitions for adjudication among all of the petitions received during the five-day filing window. In 2014, USCIS received more than 172,000 petitions within the brief filing window; we anticipate that the number of petitions filed during this year’s five-day window will again exceed the H-1B cap. To ensure that H-1B petitions are included within the random selection process, we recommend that employers make hiring decisions for foreign national workers and job applicants as soon as possible and prepare to file petitions for new H-1B employment so that the petitions are received by USCIS on or about April 1, 2015.

In most cases, individuals who currently have H-1B status, whether with you or another employer, need not worry about the annual H-1B cap. However, other individuals, including those who are currently in F-1 (student) or J-1 (exchange visitor) status may need new H-1B petitions filed on their behalf in order to transition to H-1B employment and avoid gaps in employment authorization. Please note that the H-1B cap does not apply to employees of (i) colleges and universities; (ii) nonprofit organizations related to or affiliated with a nonprofit college or university; or (iii) nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

ARTICLE BY

Kelly M. Fortier
José A. Olivieri
Kelly R. Rourke
OF
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Three Lessons for Mitigating Network Security Risks in 2015: Bring Your Own Device

Risk-Management-Monitor-Com

Not too long ago, organizations fell into one of two camps when it came to personal mobile devices in the workplace – these devices were either connected to their networks or they weren’t.

But times have changed. Mobile devices have become so ubiquitous that every business has to acknowledge that employees will connect their personal devices to the corporate network, whether there’s a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy in place or not. So really, those two camps we mentioned earlier have evolved – the devices are a given, and now, it’s just a question of whether or not you choose to regulate them.

This decision has significant implications for network security. If you aren’t regulating the use of these devices, you could be putting the integrity of your entire network at risk. As data protection specialist Vinod Banerjee told CNBC, “You have employees doing more on a mobile device and doing it ad hoc here and there and perhaps therefore not thinking about some of the risks that are apparent.” What’s worse, this has the potential to happen on a wide scale – Gartner predicted that, by 2018, more than half of all mobile users will turn first to their phone or tablet to complete online tasks. The potential for substantial remote access vulnerabilities is high.

So what can risk practitioners within IT departments do to regain control over company-related information stored on employees’ personal devices? Here are three steps to improve network security:

1. Focus on the Increasing Number of Endpoints, Not New Types

Employees are expected to have returned from holiday time off with all sorts of new gadgets they received as gifts, from fitness trackers to smart cameras and other connected devices.

Although these personal connected devices do pose some network security risk if they’re used in the workplace, securing different network-enabled mobile endpoints is really nothing special for an IT security professional. It doesn’t matter if it’s a smartphone, a tablet or a smart toilet that connects to the network – in the end, all of these devices are computers and enterprises will treat them as such.

The real problem for IT departments involves the number of new network-enabled endpoints. With each additional endpoint comes more network traffic and, subsequently, more risk. Together, a high number of endpoints has the potential to create more severe remote access vulnerabilities within corporate networks.

To mitigate the risk that accompanies these endpoints, IT departments will rely on centralized authentication and authorization functions to ensure user access control and network policy adherence. Appropriate filtering of all the traffic, data and information that is sent into the network by users is also very important. Just as drivers create environmental waste every time they get behind the wheel, network users constantly send waste – in this case, private web and data traffic, as well as malicious software – into the network through their personal devices. Enterprises need to prepare their networks for this onslaught.

2. Raise the Base Level of Security

Another way that new endpoints could chip away at a network security infrastructure is if risk practitioners fall into a trap where they focus so much on securing new endpoints, such as phones and tablets, that they lose focus on securing devices like laptops and desktops that have been in use for much longer.

It’s not difficult to see how this could happen – information security professionals know that attackers constantly change their modus operandi as they look for security vulnerabilities, often through new, potentially unprotected devices. So, in response, IT departments pour more resources into protecting these devices. In a worst-case scenario, enterprises could find themselves lacking the resources to both pivot and mitigate new vulnerabilities, while still adequately protecting remote endpoints that have been attached to the corporate network for years.

To offset this concern, IT departments need to maintain a heightened level of security across the entire network. It’s not enough to address devices ad hoc. It’s about raising the floor of network security, to protect all devices – regardless of their shape or operating system.

3. Link IT and HR When Deprovisioning Users

Another area of concern around mobile devices involves ex-employees. Employee termination procedures now need to account for BYOD and remote access, in order to prevent former employees from accessing the corporate network after their last day on the job. This is particularly important because IT staff have minimal visibility over ex-employees who could be abusing their remote access capabilities.

As IT departments know, generally the best approach to network security is to adopt policies that are centrally managed and strictly enforced. In this case, by connecting the human resources database with the user deprovisioning process, a company ensures all access to corporate systems is denied from devices, across-the-board, as soon as the employee is marked “terminated” in the HR database. This eliminates any likelihood of remote access vulnerabilities.

Similarly, there also needs to be a process for removing all company data from an ex-employee’s personal mobile device. By implementing a mobile device management or container solution, which creates a distinct work environment on the device, you’ll have an easy-to-administer method of deleting all traces of corporate data whenever an employee leaves the company. This approach is doubly effective, as it also neatly handles situations when a device is lost or stolen.

New Risks, New Resolutions

As the network security landscape continues to shift, the BYOD and remote access policies and processes of yesterday will no longer be sufficient for IT departments to manage the personal devices of employees. The New Year brings with it new challenges, and risk practitioners need new approaches to keep their networks safe and secure.

ARTICLE BY

Risk Management Magazine
OF
Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS)

Will The EEOC Get its Wings Clipped? Mach Mining's Challenge to the EEOC Before the Supreme Court

On Jan. 13, during oral argument, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia echoed businesses’ skepticism about the EEOC’s pre-suit settlement strategy, saying  “there is considerable incentive on the EEOC to fail in conciliation so that it can bring a big­deal lawsuit and get a lot of press and put a lot of pressure on this employer and on other employers. There are real incentives to have conciliation fail.”

Justice Scalia made his comments in the case of Mach Mining L.L.C. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the Mach Mining case, the EEOC sued the company for sex discrimination on behalf of a class of women who were denied jobs. The EEOC’s pursuit of high-profile litigation (accelerated during the Obama Administration and intended to “send a message to employers”)  is supposed to come after the EEOC has attempted to conciliate discrimination charges. But that conciliation process, and–in particular, court review of that process—is now before the Supreme Court.

By law, the EEOC is to “conciliate” cases after having found “reasonable cause” that a violation of the law has occurred, andbefore filing a lawsuit against the employer. Importantly, the language of Title VII specifically requires the EEOC to “endeavor to eliminate” alleged discrimination by “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.”

But, after the EEOC filed suit against Mach Mining, the company accused the EEOC of failing to conciliate in good faith. The battle over the “good faith” conciliation has derailed the underlying case and for nearly two years, the case has been mired in a mini-battle about whether the EEOC has discretion on conciliation, or its conduct should be reviewed by a court. The EEOC’s position is that it has the discretion and should not be second-guessed; Mach Mining insists that “conference, conciliation, and persuasion” must be done in good faith, and subject to court review.

During the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts said, “I am very troubled by the idea that the government can do something and we can’t even look at whether they’ve complied with the law.” Justice Kennedy noted that he couldn’t find another situation in which a court “has essentially declined to review a statutory precondition” to filing a lawsuit.

Yet, some justices were sympathetic to the EEOC’s position that companies are turning conciliation tactics into a legal strategy– to fight the EEOC about “good faith” conciliation to avoid and prolong the underlying discrimination case.

In the end, there seemed to be some agreement that judicial review of the conciliation process is appropriate, but, as Justice Breyer queried, “the issue is how much.” The lawyers and justices hinted at several options, even including directing the EEOC to issue regulations. Mach Mining and its supporters hope that the prospect of court review will cause the EEOC to be reasonable in its demands to employers before rushing to the Courthouse.

For more detailed legal analysis, visit the Supreme Court blog.

ARTICLE BY

Jeanine M. Gozdecki
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

A Primer on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan logo

The conduct of your employees can implicate statutes other than the familiar federal and state fair employment laws, and an unwary employer can find itself subject to stiff fines and unwelcomed publicity by ignoring its compliance obligations under those statutes. For example, does your company conduct business abroad, and, if so, are you familiar with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)? If you are an entity traded on an American exchange, incorporated under the laws of the United States, or acting while in the territory of the United States, or you are an individual who is an officer, director, employee, agent, or shareholder of such a company, are a citizen of the United States, or are a person acting in the United States, you are subject to liability under the FCPA. The FCPA prohibits giving or attempting to give anything of value to a foreign official in order to influence any act or decision of the foreign official in his or her official capacity or to secure any other improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business. The phrase “anything of value” has a very broad definition and includes even charitable contributions or gifts to family members of foreign officials, and bribes come in all shapes and sizes, often making them difficult to detect.

In recent years, the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have increased their focus on FCPA compliance, including securing a record $772 million fine against one company last year. Those agencies have also been increasingly targeting (or, at least, stated their intentions to increasingly target) individual actors, in addition to the increased enforcement against companies. This means that you and your employees are at risk under the FCPA in the event of a suspected or actual violation.

A robust FCPA compliance program can be a strong defense or prevention against FCPA issues. Compliance programs should be individually and narrowly developed and tailored to a company’s needs and risks. While there is no guaranteed checklist for an effective compliance program given the unique nature of companies, some hallmarks of an effective FCPA compliance program are:

  • A commitment from senior management and a clearly articulated policy against corruption;

  • Well-established and -disseminated codes of conduct and compliance policies and procedures;

  • Sufficient oversight, autonomy, authority, and resources for the program;

  • Risk assessment, resource allocation, and due diligence proportional to the type of activity or business opportunity, the particular country and industry sector, potential business partners, level and amount of government involvement, governing regulation and oversight of the activity, and exposure to customs and immigration in conducting the business;

  • Training and continuing advice throughout the company that clearly communicates, in the local language where appropriate, the policies and procedures, case studies, and practical advice for real-life scenarios individuals will encounter in their specific roles;

  • Disciplinary measures that are well publicized and clearly applicable to all levels of the organization;

  • Effective due diligence, review, and monitoring of transactions and dealings with third parties and vendors, as they are among the most common means through which violations take place;

  • Mechanisms that facilitate and encourage confidential reporting, such as hotlines or ombudspersons, and that properly document and evaluate actual and possible FCPA issues; and

  • Periodic testing, review, audit, and analysis of the effectiveness of the program to ensure it is the best program in place for your organization.

However, as employers with strong anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies know, even the best written and most well-intentioned policies cannot guarantee insulation from liability or from investigation by the government of suspected/potential violations. In the event a company discovers a violation by its employees, the DOJ and SEC encourage self-reporting and cooperation by entities and individuals, and cooperation can facilitate and expedite any potential investigation by government authorities and possibly result in non-prosecution agreements and reduced penalties.

Conversely, failing to disclose known violations can result in harsher penalties, thus providing incentive to identify and self-report violations. For its part, the government has created incentives to increase the chances that if a company will not report violations, its employees will. The Dodd-Frank Act established a whistleblower program that rewards whistleblowers between 10-30% of total recovery when the recovery exceeds $1 million, giving financial incentive for individual employees to come forward with reports of FCPA violations. Another important consideration when developing FCPA compliance measures and programs is to ensure that the compliance program is independent of and given due weight in relation to business decisions. All too often, FCPA issues are not timely discovered when compliance programs are not properly implemented because of a perceived business cost, and companies and employees face crippling fines and punishment as a result.

In any event, companies that are navigating these waters would be wise to consult with experienced legal counsel familiar with the FCPA and the government agencies charged with its enforcement, both when developing any compliance program and when dealing with a suspected violation.

ARTICLE BY

Radha Kulkarni
OF
Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP

Senator McCain Renews Focus on Ending Cost-Plus Contracts

Covington_NL

A longtime and well-known proponent of defense acquisition reform, Senator John McCain assumed the chairmanship of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (“SASC”) on January 6.  Sen. McCain has been particularly outspoken concerning cost overruns on major systems procurement projects.  He has characterized the “cost-plus” contract structure as among the key causes of these overruns, and has described implementing a ban on “cost-plus” contracts as among his top three priorities for the 114th Congress (along with countering cyber-threats and addressing sequestration).

Sen. McCain’s antipathy toward cost-plus contracts is nothing new:  during the 2008 presidential campaign, he made waves in the contracting community by declaring during a debate with then-Senator Barack Obama that “particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations – we have to do away with cost-plus contracts.  We now have defense systems [in which] the costs are completely out of control. So we need to have fixed-cost contracts.”

Sen. McCain renewed his criticism of cost-plus contracts in a recent public appearance:  “I’m continuing to try to ban them [a]ll. . . If you don’t ban them, here’s what happens:   [contractors] come in with a lowball contract, so they can get the contract, and then . . . the costs mount.”  By way of analogy, the veteran lawmaker highlighted the faulty incentives he believes are created by such an arrangement:  “If you had a roof that leaked would you ask a guy to come and fix it with a cost-plus contract?!”

At the time of Sen. McCain’s 2008 high-profile criticism of cost-plus contracts, many experts in the contracting community expressed skepticism that an outright ban was desirable or even possible.  They posited, for example, that cost-plus contracts can be the best tool for the job in certain circumstances, such as high-risk research and development projects where the requirements (and thus the expected costs) are ill-defined.  A prominent contracting official even contended, as summed up by one think tank’s analysis of the issue, that “contractors would simply not bid on high-risk endeavors . . . if they were operated under fixed-priced contract structures.”

While the merits of cost-plus contracts remain a subject of vigorous debate, the Arizona senator’s SASC chairmanship and his party’s control of the Senate better position him to pursue this issue in 2015.  In addition, other key stakeholders appear favorably disposed toward defense acquisition reform.  Representative William “Mac” Thornberry, the new chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, has been studying the issue and collaborating with industry on recommendations.  Additionally, Ashton Carter, President Obama’s pending nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense, is a former chief acquisitions official at the Pentagon and a proponent of reform.

Acquisition reform figures to play a prominent role in Carter’s upcoming confirmation hearing, although the most likely forum for a specific proposal on cost-plus contracts is the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”).  One factor to watch as the NDAA process gets underway is whether Sen. McCain is able to build bipartisan support in Congress – and identify key allies across the aisle, and across the Hill – for the reform or elimination of cost-plus contracts.  Outgoing SASC Chairman Carl Levin, who co-authored a symposium-style report on defense acquisition reform with Sen. McCain in October 2014, has retired from Congress.  Also recently departed from the Hill is Representative Henry Waxman, whose proposal to require agencies to minimize cost-plus contracts passed the House in 2008.

It thus remains uncertain how Sen. McCain plans to realize his vision of ending cost-plus defense contracting.  However, given the emphasis that the new SASC chairman has consistently placed on the issue, cost-plus contracts will likely remain a prominent topic within the broader and seemingly dynamic context of acquisition reform in the 114th Congress.

ARTICLE BY

Scott L. Glabe
Jennifer L. Plitsch
Kathy Brown
OF
Covington & Burling LLP

Recent Trends in ESOP Litigation — Employee Stock Ownership Plan

There has been a lot of attention in the world of employee ownership plans to the 2014 Supreme Court Decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. In that case, the Court ruled that “the law does not create a special presumption favoring ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) fiduciaries. Rather, the same standard of prudence applies to all ERISA fiduciaries, including ESOP fiduciaries, except that an ESOP fiduciary is under no duty to diversify the ESOP’s holdings.” This ruling overturns the so-called Moench rule that has been applied to plan fiduciaries for certain 401(k) plans investing in company stock and ESOPs. Moench gave a presumption of prudence to plan fiduciaries unless they knew or should have known the company was in dire financial circumstances.

As important as this ruling is, it actually has very little if any impact on the vast majority of ESOPs, over 95% of which are in closely held companies. The ruling is far more important for public companies with 401(k) plans or ESOPs that offer company stock as an investment choice.

First, it is important to distinguish between a statutory ESOP and what courts came, by a rather tortured logic, to call ESOPs—namely any defined contribution plan that had company stock in it. ESOPs were created as part of ERISA in 1974 and given not just the right but the requirement to invest primarily in employer securities. ESOPs were specifically created to encourage employers to share ownership with employees, and over the years Congress has given these plans a number of special tax benefits. Because fiduciaries are required to invest primarily in employer stock, standard fiduciary obligations concerning diversification in retirement plans would be impractical. The Moench presumption was created in a case involving a statutory ESOP.

The large majority of “stock drop” cases, however, have not involved statutory ESOPs, but 401(k) plans that either allowed employees to invest in company stock and/or matched in company stock. Some of these plans required fiduciaries to offer company stock; others made it optional. Defense attorneys argued that these plans were actually “ESOPs” too and were subject to the Moench presumption. Most district and circuit courts bought that argument, although some applied it only when company stock was required. That, I think, was unfortunate and inappropriate. 401(k) plans were never meant to be vehicles for sharing corporate ownership. They are intended to be safe, cost-effective retirement plans. ESOPs are a specific statutory creation with a specific set of rules and purposes.

When reading the Supreme Court decision, as well as the arguments made before the Court, it is also clear that the justices were thinking entirely of public companies. There is virtually no discussion of ESOPs in closely held companies, and the key tests that the Court now requires plaintiffs to meet in stock drop cases largely do not apply to privately held companies. Since the original Moench decision in 1995, we at the National Center for Employee Ownership have only found two cases in closely held companies that were decided even in part based on that presumption.

The Court’s decision in the Fifth Third case laid out three key hurdles for plaintiffs to overcome to prevail. The first states that it is insufficient to argue that fiduciaries should be able to outguess the market based on publicly available information. The second issue is whether decisions to sell company stock in light of inside information could be prudently taken in light of their potential impact on the prices of company stock. Fiduciaries are also not obligated to violate securities laws. Finally, the Court said plaintiffs must allege a reasonable alternative course of action.

In ESOPs in closely held companies, fiduciaries have few options that could form the basis for plaintiffs arguing a plausible course of action. First, the law requires that ESOPs be primarily invested in company stock. Second, the only liquidity options are a company buy-back of shares, which is probably impractical if the company is already in financial distress, or a sale of the company. But a fire sale like that would mean an even lower price for plan participants. As noted in more detail below, none of the presumption of prudence cases has concerned closely held companies, probably because of these issues. Also note that Dudenhoeffer distinguished between relying on inside information to sell company stock (which it classified as illegal insider trading and thus not required by the duty of prudence) and refraining from buying more company stock (which might be a fiduciary violation). The purchase of shares by an ESOP is already subject to substantial statutory and case law requirements, and this decision is unlikely to change the way these cases are contested.

As a result of all this, the prudence presumption has so far not been an issue for closely held ESOP companies in court, and it is likely to continue not to be as plaintiffs would have a hard time indicating what fiduciaries should have done. Instead, cases will continue to focus, as they have been before where there are alleged problems, on the initial sale price of the shares of the ESOP, which is determined by the trustee and relies on an outside appraiser. It is possible that the Dudenhoeffer decision may embolden the plaintiffs’ bar to initiate more lawsuits, but we would expect that to continue to be primarily in public companies.

Beyond Fifth Third—ESOPs Law for the 97%

Valuations

The 97% of ESOP companies that are closely held will not be much affected by the Supreme Court decision, but the last 25 years of litigation on ESOPs reveals some important trends that should be considered.

In an analysis by the NCEO of the 224 decisions courts have made on ESOPs in closely held companies between 1990 and 2014, we found that many of the suits involved plan management issues, such as failing to make distributions. The most significant issues, however, concerned valuation, indemnification, and fiduciary duties.

The valuation decisions are mixed. Courts have focused more on process than outcome. Some processes are clearly unacceptable, such as not hiring an independent appraiser or influencing an appraiser’s report. Several key best practices have emerged. A recent settlement between the Department of Labor and GreatBanc Trust in a valuation case (Perez v. GreatBanc Trust Co., 5:12-cv-01648-R-DTB (C.D. Cal., proposed settlement agreement filed June 2, 2014) set out terms for GreatBanc to follow in future engagements that does a good job of summarizing the trends in the courts.

Key points in the settlement included:

  • Trustees must be able to show that they vetted the independence and qualifications of appraisers carefully.
  • Trustees must show that they have assessed the reasonableness of financial projections given to the appraiser. Some valuation advisors include disclaimers in their engagement agreements that the DOL reads as too broad, in that read literally the valuation advisor can rely on any information it receives from the plan sponsor company without inquiring as to its reasonableness, no matter how unreasonable the information. The use of these disclaimers will not absolve the trustee of responsibility and the trustee should document how the appraisal firm has analyzed just how reliable projections are.
  • The trustee should consider how plan provisions, such as those relating to puts, diversification, and distribution policies, might affect the plan sponsor’s repurchase obligation.
  • The trustee should consider the company’s ability to service the debt if projections are not met.
  • Documentation should be detailed. While documentation of the valuation analysis may appear to be burdensome, making the effort to document the valuation review process at the time of the transaction can only benefit the valuation advisor and the trustee in later years.

Indemnification

The other significant legal development for closely held company ESOPs in recent years concerns indemnification, ironically also in the case involving Sierra Aluminum and GrratBanc. In Harris v. GreatBanc Trust Co., Sierra Aluminum Co., & Sierra Aluminum ESOP, No. 5:12-cv-01648-R (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013), a district court ruled that GreatBanc could be indemnified for its role as the ESOP fiduciary. The decision is significant in that it occurred in the one circuit (the Ninth) that has taken the position that indemnification should not be allowed, especially in a 100% ESOP.  In Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009), the court ruled that ESOP plan assets were not distinguishable from company assets. If plaintiffs prevailed but the company’s indemnification had paid out millions in legal fees to defendants (as was the case here), the plaintiffs would have a very hollow victory. In that same circuit, in Fernandez et al. v. K-M Industries Holding Co., No. C 06-7339 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2009), a court that an indemnification agreement did not apply in the case of a 42% ESOP because if alleged ERISA violations concerning an improper valuation were sustained, the indemnification would harm the value of participant stock.

These decisions seemed to make indemnification largely moot, but in the GreatBanc case the court ruled that regulations (29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-101(h)(3)) of ERISA Section 410 state that in the case of an ESOP, the plan’s assets and the company assets are treated as separate.  In Couturier, the Harris court said, the company had already been liquidated and was thus no longer an operating company. The court also distinguished this case from Couturier in that in Couturier, plaintiffs had already shown likelihood to prevail on fiduciary charges, something that could not be said of this case. Finally, the Couturier case involved no exceptions for breaches of fiduciary duty, as was the case here, but only for “gross negligence” and “willful misconduct.”

Other courts in other circuits have not weighed in on this issue. Certainly a good argument can be made that if indemnification means that plaintiffs will lose a substantial amount of a settlement agreement because there is no money to pay, it seems compelling indemnification should not apply. That would not be the case if the company had other available assets. In any event, ESOP advisors now caution clients that indemnification may have limited value and that they should rely primarily on adequate fiduciary insurance.

Conclusion

In recent years, the Department of Labor has been more aggressive in pursuing what it perceives as valuation abuses in ESOP companies. While there have been a few more court cases and settlements per year than normal, a typical year finds only a handful of these out of the 6,500 or so ESOPs in closely held companies. A comprehensive study by the NCEO found that the default rate on leveraged ESOPs (those that borrow money to buy stock, which most do) is just .2% per year, way below other LBOs. If valuations really were routinely excessive, this number would be higher as the debt burden would be unrealistic.

Other ESOP litigation has been relatively mundane, focusing either on administrative errors or the occasional fraudulent behavior. Indemnification could become a more important issue, but companies can (and should) resolve that with proper fiduciary insurance.

The future for company stock in public company retirement plans, mostly 401(k) plan, is far less certain. There has been a steady decline in how many companies offer this and how much those that do rely on it.  Even for advocates of employee ownership, however, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Good ESOP companies have secondary diversified retirement plans—in fact, ESOP companies are more likely to have a diversified retirement plan than other companies are to have any plan. That is a best practice we strongly encourage.

ARTICLE BY

Corey Rosen
OF
The National Center for Employee Ownership

California Labor Laws for the New Year

Drinker Biddle Law Firm

If only the Beatles’ call to “Let it Be” was heard by the California Legislature. Instead, employer regulation is on the rise again. In 2014, 574 bills introduced mentioned “employer,” compared to 186 in 2013. Most of those 500-plus bills did not pass, and several that did pass were not signed into law by the governor. One veto blocked a bill that would have penalized employers for limiting job prospects of, or discriminating against, job applicants who aren’t currently employed.

A sampling of significant new laws affecting private employers, effective Jan. 1, 2015, unless otherwise mentioned, follows.

Shared Liability for Employers Who Use Labor Contractors

AB 1897 mandates that companies provided with workers from a labor contractor to perform labor within its “usual course of business” at its premises or worksite will “share with the labor contractor all civil legal responsibility and civil liability” for the labor contractor’s failure to pay wages required by law or secure valid workers compensation insurance, for the workers supplied.

The law applies regardless of whether the company knew about the violations and whether the company hiring the labor contractor (recast by the new law as a “client employer”) and labor contractor are deemed joint employers. This liability sharing is in addition to any other theories of liability or requirements established by statutes or common law.

The client employer will not, however, share liability under this new law if it has a workforce of less than 25 employees (including those obtained through the labor contractor), or is supplied by the labor contractor with five or fewer workers at any given time.

A labor contractor is defined as an individual or entity that supplies, either with or without a contract, a client employer with workers to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business, unless the specific labor falls under the exclusion clause in AB 1897. Excluded are bona fide nonprofits, bona fide labor organizations, apprenticeship programs, hiring halls operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, motion picture payroll services companies and certain employee leasing arrangements that contractually obligate the client employer to assume all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for securing workers’ compensation insurance.

This bill is a significant expansion of existing law—which is limited to prohibiting employers from entering into a contract for labor or services with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, security guard or warehouse contractor—if the employer knows or should know that the agreement does not include sufficient funds.

In light of the new law, labor services contractor engagements should be evaluated with an eye toward limiting the risk of retaining non-compliant contractors, including indemnity, insurance, termination provisions and compliance verification protocols.

Wage and Hour Changes

California’s $9 hourly minimum wage is due to increase to $10 Jan. 1, 2016. Defeated by the California Legislature, however, was a bill to raise the hourly minimum wage to $11 in 2015, $12 in 2016, $13 in 2017 and then adjust annually for inflation starting in 2018.

Undeterred, several municipalities have increased their respective minimum wage for companies who employ workers in their jurisdiction. For example, employees who work in San Francisco more than two hours per week, including part-time and temporary workers, are entitled to the San Francisco hourly minimum wage, which increased Jan. 1 from $10.74 to $11.05 and will increase to $12.25 by May 1. Hourly minimum wages also increased Jan. 1 in San Jose ($10.30).

The minimum wage will increase in Oakland March 2 ($12.25) and in Berkeley Oct. 1 ($11). Many other cities have either enacted, or have pending, minimum wage laws.

Federal minimum wage continues to lag behind California, but no longer for federal contractors. President Obama issued Executive Order 13658 in 2014 which established that workers under federal contracts must be paid at least $10.10 per hour. This applies to new contracts and replacements for expiring federal contracts that resulted from solicitations issued on or after Jan. 1, 2015, or to contracts that were awarded outside the solicitation process on or after Jan. 1, 2015. There are prevailing wage requirements for many state and local government and agency contractors as well.

Employers should monitor each of the requirements, including those in the jurisdiction in which they do business, to assure compliance.

Paid Sick Days Now Required

Effective July 1, AB 1522 is the first statewide law that requires employers to provide paid sick days to employees. The new law grants employees, who worked at least 30 days since the commencement of their employment, the right to accrue one hour of paid sick time off for each 30 hours worked—up to 24 hours (three days) in a year of employment. Exempt employees are presumed to work a 40-hour normal workweek; but, if their normal workweek is less, the lower amount could be used for accrual purposes.

An employer may cap accrual at 48 hours (six days) and also may limit the use of paid sick days in a year to 24 hours. Unused paid sick days normally carry-over from year to year, though no carry-over is required if 24 hours of paid sick days is accrued to the employee at the beginning of a year. No payout is required at termination of employment.

The paid sick days may be used for the employee’s own health condition or preventative care; a family member’s health condition or preventative care; if the employee is a victim of domestic assault or sexual violence; and stalking. “Family member” means a child, regardless of age or dependency (including adopted, foster, step or legal ward), parent (biological, adoptive, foster, step, in-law or registered domestic partner’s parent), spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild or siblings.

The law applies to all employers, regardless of size, except for a few categories of employees that are not covered—such as those governed by a collective bargaining agreement that contains certain provisions, in-home supportive services providers and certain air carrier personnel.

Employers must keep records for at least three years, a new workplace poster is required and employers are barred from retaliating against employees who assert rights under this new law.

Failure of an employer to comply with AB 1522 can result in significant monetary fines and penalties in addition to pay for the sick days withheld, reinstatement and back pay if employment was ended, and attorneys fees and costs.

Employers should beware to integrate city specific paid sick leave laws with the new state law. For example, the pre-existing San Francisco paid sick day law has some provisions that are similar and some that are different from AB 1522. As a general rule, where multiple laws afford employee rights on a common topic, the employee is entitled to the law benefits that favors the employee most.

Discrimination Law and Training Requirements Expanded

AB 1443 amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to make its anti-discrimination, anti-harassment and religious accommodation provisions apply to unpaid interns. It also amends FEHA’s anti-harassment, and religious belief or observance accommodation provisions, to apply to volunteers. This new law appears to respond to, and trump, courts that have not classified these workers as employees and, in turn, found them not eligible for legal protections afforded to employees.

Prior law requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles to commence issuing special drivers licenses in January to applicants who meet other requirements to obtain a license, but cannot submit satisfactory proof of lawful presence in the United States. AB 1660 amends FEHA to prohibit discrimination against holders of these special drivers licenses; adverse action by an employer because an employee or applicant holds a special license can be a form of national origin discrimination. Employer compliance with any requirement or prohibition of federal immigration law is not a violation of FEHA.

Since 2006, employers of 50 or more employees have been required to provide supervisors with two hours of classroom or other effective interactive anti-sexual harassment training, every two years. New supervisors are to receive the training within six months after they start a supervisory position. This is commonly known as “AB 1825” training.

In apparent response to societal concerns about the impacts of bullying in general, AB 2053 requires that AB 1825 training include a component on abusive conduct prevention. Under the new law, abusive conduct means “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.

Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse—such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious.”

The new law does not make abusive conduct unlawful in and of itself, but it’s common for plaintiffs’ counsel to try, in attempts to win cases, to tether abusive behavior by a supervisor to conduct that is alleged to be unlawful.

SB 1087 requires farm labor contractors to provide sexual harassment prevention and complaint process training annually to supervisory employees and at the time of hire and each two years thereafter to non-supervisory employees. The new law also blocks state licensing of farm labor contractors who have been found by a court or administrative agency to have engaged in sexual harassment in the past three years, or who knew— or should have known—that a supervisor had been found by a court or administrative agency to have engaged in sexual harassment in the past three years.

Child Labor Laws Enhanced

AB 2288, the Child Labor Protection Act of 2014, accomplishes three things.

1. It confirms existing law that “tolls” or suspends the running of statutes of limitation on a minor’s claims for unlawful employment practices until the minor reaches the age of 18.

2. Treble damages are now available—in addition to other remedies—to an individual who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated or discriminated against, or subjected to adverse action in the terms or conditions employment because the individual filed a claim or civil action alleging a violation of the Labor Code that arose while the individual was a minor.

3. For Class “A” child labor law violations involving minors at or under the age of 12, the required range of civil penalties increases to $25,000 to $50,000. Class A violations include employing certain minors in dangerous or prohibited occupations under the Labor Code, acting unlawfully or under conditions that present an imminent danger to the minor employee, and three or more violations of child work permit or hours requirements.

Immigration and Retaliation

Several new California laws involving immigration issues surfaced last year. All were premised on existing law that all workers are entitled to the rights and protections of state employment law regardless of immigration status, and that employers must not leverage immigration status against applicants, employees or their families.

This year, AB 2751 adds to and clarifies these existing laws.

For example, actionable “unfair immigration- related practices” now include threatening or filing a false report to any government agency. The bill also clarifies that a court has authority to order the suspension of business licenses of an offending employer to block otherwise lawful operations at worksites where the offenses occurred.

What’s Next?

Employers should consider how these new laws impact their workplaces, and then review and update their personnel practices and policies with the advice of experienced attorneys or human resource professionals.

*Originally published by CalCPA in the January/February 2015 issue of California CPA.

ARTICLE BY

Mark E. Terman
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Minimum Wage Surges in 2015 and Beyond

Multi-state employers take note: changes in the minimum wage will take effect this year.  At the state level, advocates pushing for an increase in the minimum wage saw significant victories in 2014 and many increases will take effect in the coming weeks.

Minimum Wage Surges

A comprehensive list of past, current and future wage increases is available here.  Employers should also ensure they comply with applicable notice requirements and update their postings, which are generally available on the respective agency websites.

Employers should note the following state and local minimum wage increases in 2015, with additional increases occurring in 2016 and beyond.  Furthermore, several states, including New York and New Jersey, will see annual cost-of-living increases to their minimum wage.

    • Alaska:  Effective February 24, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.75/hour and $9.75/hour on January 1, 2016.

    • Arkansas:  Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $7.50/hour.  Subsequent increases will bring the minimum wage to $8.00 in 2016 and $8.50 in 2017.

    • California:  In July 2014, California employees saw an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00/hour.  Effective January 1, 2016, this rate will rise to $10.00/hour.

  • Oakland, California:  Effective March 2, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $12.25/hour and will increase in subsequent years based on cost-of-living increases.

  • San Francisco, California:  Over the next four years, San Francisco employees will see a gradual rise in the minimum wage to $15.00/hour.  In addition, effective January 1, 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay employees who work at least two hours a week (with limited exceptions) at least $11.05/hour.  OnMay 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $12.25/hour.  The next bump, to $13.00/hour, will take place on July 1, 2016.  On July 1, 2017, the minimum wage will increase to $14.00/hour, and, finally, on July 1, 2018, the minimum wage will increase to $15.00/hour.

  • Delaware:  Effective June 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.25/hour.

  • Illinois: Chicago employees will see a gradual increase in the minimum wage over the next five years.  Chicago’s employees will receive their first increase on July 1, 2015, when the rate goes to $10.00/hour.  The rate will increase to $10.50/hour in 2016, to $11.00/hour in 2017, to $12.00/hour in 2018, and to $13.00/hour in 2019.

  • Maryland:  Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.00/hour and to $8.25/hour onJuly 1, 2015.  Subsequent increases will bring the minimum wage to $8.75 in 2016, $8.25 in 2017, and $10.10 in 2018.

  • Minnesota:  Large employers (annual gross revenue of $500,000 or more) will see an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00/hour on August 1, 2015 and $9.50/hour on August 1, 2016.  Small employers (annual gross revenue of $500,000 or less) will see an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25/hour on August 1, 2015 and $7.75/hour on August 1, 2016.  Minnesota employers should take note that if the combined amount of its gross revenue is more than $500,000, starting August 1, 2014, it must pay the “large” Minnesota employer minimum wage rate.  In addition, for those employees who are under the age of 20, Minnesota will increase the 90 day training wage to $7.75/hour on August 1, 2015 and $7.75/hour on August 1, 2016.

  • Nebraska:  Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.00/hour and to $9.00/hour on January 1, 2016.

  • New York:  Effective December 31, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $9.00/hour.

  • South Dakota:  Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.50/hour.

  • Washington, D.C.:  Effective July 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $10.50/hour and to $11.50/hour on July 1, 2016.

  • West Virginia:  Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.00/hour and to $8.75/hour on January 1, 2016.

Locally, Milwaukee County voters strongly supported a ballot referendum in November endorsing a statewide increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour; however, it is unlikely that the Wisconsin Legislature will vote to increase the minimum wage during the next term.

At the national level, President Obama will face an uphill battle in passing a higher federal minimum wage under the next Congressional term.  Given the outcome in the 2014 elections, any additional increases in the minimum wage over the next two years will likely be dependent upon further changes to state and local laws.

ARTICLE BY

Rebeca M. Lopez
Deborah Rehorst
OF
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.