Category: Labor & Employment

U.S. Union Numbers Continue Their Decline – Reach 100 Year Low

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Law Firm

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has released its annual report on unionization data in the United States, and the numbers continue to be on the decline for unions as a whole. Membership in unions nationally dropped from 11.3 percent in 2013 to 11.1 percent in 2014. Other interesting data points in the report include:

  • Public-sector workers had a union membership rate of 35.7 percent, more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.6 percent).

  • Workers in education, training, and library occupations and in protective service occupations had the highest unionization rate at 35.3 percent for each occupation group.

  • Men had a higher union membership rate (11.7 percent) than women (10.5 percent) in 2014.

  • Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership rate (24.6 percent), and North Carolina again had the lowest rate (1.9 percent).

A link to the full report can be found here.

Additionally, one news outlet is reporting that these numbers show a “100 year low” in U.S. Union Membership, and that article can be found here.

As discussed previously on the BT Labor Relations Blog, however, union election rule changes recently issued by the NLRB will make it significantly easier for unions to organize employers in the coming years, so we could see an upswing in these numbers, at least in the private sector, in future editions of this report.

ARTICLE BY

David J. Pryzbylski
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

The New Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program: Considerations for Employers

On January 4, 2015, the governor of Illinois signed into law the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act (S.B. 2758). This law—first of its kind in the nation—requires certain employers to provide an automatic payroll deduction for savings in a Roth IRA for employees who are over age 18 and who do not opt out. Employers who are subject to this mandate are those who have 25 or more employees in Illinois, have been in business for at least two years, and have not offered their employees tax-favored retirement benefits in the preceding two years. “Small employers” not otherwise subject to the Act may participate in the Program on an elective basis. The Program will not be activated before 2017, and affected employers must establish a payroll deposit arrangement “at most nine months” after the Program opens for enrollment.

Several interest groups promoted this legislation, and several opposed this ambitious law.

Scope of Program

The Secure Choice Savings Program will require affected employers to automatically enroll eligible employees who do not opt out and to facilitate payroll deductions for those employees. The statute provides that employers will not be treated as fiduciaries “over the Program” or liable for Program investments, design, or benefits. No employer contributions are required.

Open enrollment will occur at least once a year. Affected employers will forward the payroll deductions to a system administered by a seven-member state board that will supervise the investment of the assets, engage investment managers, and perform similar supervisory functions. Employers’ activities will also include distributing materials provided by the state board. Penalties for an employer’s violation will be $250 per employee per year, with the amount increasing to $500 for violations with respect to employees who continue to be treated as unenrolled in years after the initial assessment.

Enrollees may contribute up to the IRA maximum, with a default level of 3% of wages for those who do not elect a different percentage or amount. Enrollees will have the investment options provided by the state board.

Employers must consider various federal tax obligations. For example, the Program’s treatment of contributions to a Roth IRA as a payroll deduction implicates federal income and payroll tax obligations with respect to those funds. Contributions to Program accounts, when combined with an employee’s IRA contributions outside of the Program, may not exceed the Tax Code’s annual limit. The extent of an employer’s responsibility, if any, in connection with an employee’s compliance in this context, remains to be developed.

In addition, when disputes arise with respect to an employer’s obligations under the Act—for example, Program penalty assessments—contested matters are ultimately appealed under the Illinois Administrative Review Law (ARL) in a 35-day window (like a statute of limitations, only stricter) for challenges to agency decisions (here, the Department of Revenue). As many practitioners know, the ARL process is one that is laden with procedural landmines for parties who challenge agency decisions in state court.

From a different perspective, the Act attempts to restrict the scope of fiduciary obligations—potentially good news for employers and others involved in the Program. However, drawing lessons from the ERISA experience, contributions to 401(k) plans have sometimes resulted in the delay or failure of contributions from financially distressed employers who must forward money deducted from employee paychecks. For ERISA plans, this can result in United States Department of Labor (USDOL) enforcement in court. However, from practical perspective, the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program raises questions as to how such non-ERISA violations will be treated.

The law specifically requires the state board to request an opinion from the USDOL regarding ERISA’s applicability to the Program. Also, the state board may not implement the Program if the Program’s IRAs fail to qualify for favorable federal tax treatment normally accorded to IRAs, or if it is determined that the Program is an employee benefit plan, or if any “employer liability is established” under ERISA. In addition, the Program may not be implemented unless there is adequate funding for its operation. Delay in satisfying these various conditions could push the start date to a later time.

Although the Act strives to create a “non-ERISA environment” in which no Program activity will constitute an ERISA plan, the fact that 50 different states may create various programs with rules different from the Illinois rules suggests that the USDOL may scrutinize not only the definition of a “plan” but also theAct itself for adequate avoidance of the patchwork of rules from which ERISA was enacted to spare multi-state employers.

The recently inaugurated federal MyRA (my retirement account) program bears some analogy to the Illinois Program; for example, its reliance on Roth IRAs. However, there are several important differences in the two models. Although the USDOL recently gave assurance that MyRAs would not constitute ERISA plans, the specter of numerous state programs could well give federal regulators pause. ERISA preemption does not extend to federal laws, but many non-federal programs promoting retirement benefits could be viewed as requiring close and time-consuming review. Assuming federal authorities conclude that ERISA is not implicated by the Illinois Program, that conclusion may be slow in coming if DOL regulators see a need to deal comprehensively with future programs of other states. On the other hand, Illinois authorities may have already coordinated informally with the USDOL, and the Program’s clearance might be fast-tracked in Washington.

Start-up of the Program will also entail definitional clarifications of certain terms used in the Act, particularly those used to define the scope of the Program.

Much commentary on this law is possible—from regulatory, fiscal, procedural, and other perspectives. But given the two-year wait, the required clearances from federal agencies, the possibility that some changes in the law may occur, and the potential challenges in Illinois for funding the Program’s operations, we will defer detailed commentary to a later date.

What Should Employers in Illinois Do Now?

Given the long period of at least two years before the Act’s implementation, and given that the law directs Illinois regulators to deal with federal agencies and secure adequate funding for Program operations, employers should monitor developments relating to the Program.

Employers who clearly or arguably employ 25 or more employees should determine whether any Illinois employees are not covered by a tax-favored retirement plan. Close questions will have to be reviewed in light of interpretations of the statute. A single eligible employee who does not opt out may require the employer’s compliance.

Effect on Employers Based in Other States

If the new law takes effect in Illinois as presently contemplated—and even if it doesn’t—other states may soon be seen enacting similar laws intended to mandate the enrollment of employees not covered by an employer’s retirement plan. Those jurisdictions should also be monitored for legislative moves like the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act because the Illinois Act could be a harbinger of similar laws in other states.

Business Immigration: 2016 H-1B Cap, You’ve Been Warned, Now Here Are This Year’s Key Dates

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Fiscal Year 2016 H-1B Cap

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will start accepting new H-1B petitionsfor fiscal year 2016 on Wednesday, April 1, 2015. Employers must immediately start identifying current and future employees who will need to be sponsored for new H-1B petitions.

This chart identifies the absolute latest cut-off dates to file Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) and H-1B petitions for this year’s H-1B quota (H-1B cap).

It is extremely likely that this year’s H-1B quota (H-1B cap) will be met within five business days of it opening and USCIS will then stop accepting new petitions until next year’s H-1B cap, which will open on April 1, 2016. If USCIS receives more petitions than are available in the quota, then a lottery will be conducted to select the petitions that will be processed under the H-1B cap.

Please note that only new H-1B petitions are affected by the H-1B cap; H-1B petitions involving someone who has already been counted against the H-1B cap or who has previously held H-1B status are not affected by the H-1B cap.

H1-B Key Dates

By way of background, U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupation positions that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as scientists, engineers or computer programmers. The number of initial H-1B visas available to U.S. employers (the H-1B cap) is 65,000, with an additional 20,000 numbers set aside for individuals who have obtained a U.S. master’s degree or higher.

The usage of the H-1B program is strongly connected to the health of the U.S. economy. The rate at which USCIS has received cap-subject H-1B petitions in the past few years has dramatically increased as the economy has improved. For example, last year USCIS received 172,500 H-1B petitions within the first week of filing, requiring a lottery in order to select the petitions needed to meet the regular cap of 65,000 and master’s cap of 20,000. Business immigration practitioners are predicting that this year’s H-1B demand will be even greater than last year (perhaps 200,000 or more filings during the first week of the filing season, April 1, 2015, through April 7, 2015) and as a result more than half of all H-1B petitions filed by employers may be rejected by USCIS due to the randomized lottery system.

Petitions not selected in the H-1B lottery will be rejected. Should such a rejection occur, an affected foreign national seeking immigration and employment authorization sponsorship with an employer will be unable to obtain an H-1B visa until at least Oct. 1, 2016, (with the filing season beginning April 1, 2016). Affected foreign nationals may also be required to forego employment with employers and possibly leave the United States. In such cases employers will need to look at alternative visa options for employees unable to secure an H-1B visa.

Recommended Action

Based upon the above, Greenberg Traurig’s Business Immigration & Compliance group strongly urges employers to file H-1B cap-subject petitions with USCIS on the earliest possible date in fiscal year 2016: mailing of H-1B cap-subject petitions to USCIS on March 31, 2015, for delivery to USCIS on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, the very first day of filing. This will provide the best possible chance for acceptance of the H-1B petition.

It also is recommended that H-1B cases should be initiated immediately. It can take two to four weeks or more to gather all of the necessary information and documentation, and prepare the requisite forms and supporting documentation for filing of an H-1B petition. Required information from the employer will include: (1) job title; (2) job description; (3) job location; (4) minimum education and experience required for the position; and (5) offered wage/salary. Required information from the employee will include: (1) resume; (2) educational documents (diplomas and transcripts); and (3) any documents related to prior or current U.S. immigration status.

ARTICLE BY

Scott T. Decker
Ian R. Macdonald
OF
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Mergers and Acquisitions and the Affordable Care Act

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

As most employers already know, the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a ObamaCare or the ACA) now imposes health care insurance coverage requirements upon certain employers which have a certain number of full time and full time equivalent employees (“FTEs”).  Therefore, it is imperative that consideration be given to whether parties involved in any merger or other acquisition transaction are currently subject to the requirements of the ACA (and if so, whether they are in compliance with such requirements), or will otherwise be subject to the requirements of the ACA following the consummation of the transaction.

If the buyer or seller company is a “small business,” meaning the company has less than 50 FTEs, it should not be subject to the ACA.   However, a determination has to be made as to whether or not individuals who are treated as independent contractors are, for the purposes of the ACA, truly independent contractors, or rather are deemed to be employees.  While the ACA makes reference to certain federal statutes with respect to this determination, it is clear that the Obama administration has uniquely and aggressively interpreted the ACA to accomplish its objectives.  In those circumstances where the seller or buyer company is below 100 FTEs for the year 2015, the company will be exempt from the requirements of the ACA for the year 2015, but subject to the ACA thereafter.  Even in those circumstances where companies clearly are subject to the ACA, the question then becomes whether or not all of the individuals who provide services to that company are classified appropriately (employees v. independent contractors), and whether the requirements of the ACA have been complied with regarding those individuals.

A new level of complexity has been added in this area by a relatively recent interpretation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a franchise case dealing with the classification issue, in which the NLRB found that the various employees of the franchisees were also employees of the franchisor.  This could automatically create, for any national franchise, a situation where the local franchisee meets the large employer threshold of the ACA, and therefore would be liable to comply with the requirements of the ACA.  Obviously, the position taken by the NLRB will be contested and is a long way off from being established as binding law upon all employers.  Notably, this very issue has already been addressed in various state courts.  For instance, in contrast to the NLRB decision, the California State Supreme Court recently determined in a 4 to 3 decision that the employees of a franchisee are also not employees of the franchisor.

While the ACA references certain federal statutes for determining whether or not an individual is an employee, in the recent case of Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy’s, LLC , the New Jersey Supreme Court has advised the Third Circuit that for the purposes of the wage and hour laws, the interpretation should follow New Jersey case law, which provides a much stricter definition for independent contractors than the federal law.  Only time and litigation will tell what interpretation will be made under the ACA for the purposes of determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor with respect to the determination as to whether the employer is a small business subject to the ACA and whether or not an individual is entitled to health care coverage.

In summary, careful consideration must be made in any merger or acquisition transaction as to whether the seller company in an asset purchase or equity purchase is, or the combined company in any merger, consolidation or similar combination will be, subject to the onerous requirements of the ACA based on the number of FTEs of the company.   In order to make such a determination, further consideration will need to be made into applicable case law as to whether or not individuals who are designated as independent contractors of the company are truly independent contractors, or rather should be deemed to be employees of the company for purposes of the ACA.  However, because the law in this area is not entirely settled and continues to evolve, companies involved in merger or acquisition transactions and companies contemplating merger or acquisition transactions will need to stay informed on these issues.

ARTICLE BY

Ari G. Burd
Patrick S. Convery
OF
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

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