Category: Labor & Employment

DHS and DOJ Announce Joint Guidance on Electronic Form I-9 Processing

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a fact sheet to guide employers on electronically completing, modifying, or retaining Form I-9. The joint guidance applies to employers using private sector commercial or proprietary I-9 software programs to complete Form I-9 or participate in E-Verify.

Requirements for Employers Using Electronic Form I-9 Software Programs

DHS permits completing Form I-9 electronically provided that the I-9 software complies with I-9 and E-Verify requirements. The DHS/DOJ fact sheet confirms that employers, rather than the software vendor, are responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. It provides the following key requirements and states that an I-9 software must:

  • Provide employees with access to the current acceptable version of Form I-9, I-9 instructions, and list of acceptable documents.
  • Allow employees to leave optional fields blank and accommodate employees with only one name.
  • Meet integrity, accuracy, security, and reliability requirements designed to prevent and detect unauthorized or accidental creation, alteration, or deletion of stored I-9s.
  • Comply with standards for electronic I-9 signatures.
  • Comply with general requirements applicable to I-9 documentation, retention, and audit trail requirements.
  • Ensure the electronic generation or storage of Form I-9 is inspected and monitored periodically.
  • Ensure the I-9 forms and all information fields on electronically retained I-9s are fully and readily accessible in the event of a government audit.

Specifically related to modifying and retaining Forms I-9 electronically, the fact sheet states that I-9 software must provide employees, employers, and preparers/ translators the option to make and record corrections to a previously completed I-9 form. Further, the software must uniquely identify each person who accesses, corrects, or changes an I-9 form. Modifications to stored I-9 forms must be properly annotated to include the date of access, the identity of the person making the change, and the nature of the change. Commercial or proprietary I-9 software may lack the functionality to comply with these guidelines regarding providing an audit trail and permitting corrections to completed I-9 records, so these are specific considerations employers should be aware of when assessing potential I-9 software for compliance.

Requirements for Employers Using Electronic Form I-9 Software Programs to Create E-Verify Cases

The DHS/DOJ fact sheet notes that employers who participate in E-Verify and access E-Verify through a software must:

  • Confirm that the software’s functionality allows employers to follow the requirements detailed in the E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding and DHS’s E-Verify guidance.
  • Refrain from creating new E-Verify cases due to corrections made to the previously completed I-9 if the employee received a prior “employment authorized” result. Depending on functionality, commercial or proprietary I-9 software may require completing a new I-9 instead of allowing a correction to the previously completed form.
  • Be able to delay creating E-Verify cases as instructed by E-Verify rules. For example, E-Verify instructs employers to postpone creating E-Verify cases for employees who have not yet received their Social Security numbers and for employees who show certain acceptable receipts for the Form I-9. The software’s functionality should permit employers to delay creating the E-Verify case in these scenarios.

Training for Employer Personnel Administering I-9 Software on Behalf of the Employer

The DHS/DOJ fact sheet also reminds employers to properly train personnel completing electronic Forms I-9 on the employer’s behalf. Key points include the following:

  • Employer personnel should be familiar with the employer’s procedures to complete Form I-9 or create an E-Verify case outside of the Form I-9 software program if, for example, the person completing the I-9 cannot use the I-9 software program or there is a software outage.
  • Employers should not pre-populate fields on electronic I-9 forms with employee information. An I-9 software may be part of the employer’s other HR-related systems and the system may initiate the I-9 verification process through impermissibility pre-populating the employee’s information on the electronic I-9.
  • The employer must not use auto-correct, use predictive text, or post-date an I-9 when completing an I-9 with an I-9 software.
  • The employer should not complete the I-9 on an employee’s behalf and must not change or update the employee’s citizenship or immigration status attestation. For corrections to Section 1, the process is the same as when completing a paper I-9 and changes or corrections to Section 1 must be made by the employee. The I-9 software must have the functionality to allow the employee to make corrections to a previously completed I-9 form.
  • The employer must not remove or add fields to Form I-9. An I-9 software that adds additional questions seeking information that is not requested by the I-9 form may violate this guidance.
  • Employers must permit preparers or translators to assist an employee in completing an electronic I-9.
  • Employers must permit employees to present any valid and acceptable documentation to establish identity and employment authorization, including acceptable receipts, and should not suggest specific documents for this purpose. Thus, an I-9 software should not notify the employer to, for example, request documentation to reverify an employee’s identity document or reverify a permanent resident card.
  • The fact sheet reminds employers to not impose unnecessary obstacles that make it more challenging for employees to start work or get paid, such as by requiring a Social Security number to onboard or by not paying an employee who can complete the Form I-9 but is still waiting for a Social Security number.

Given the significant penalties for non-compliance, employers should exercise thorough due diligence when evaluating I-9 software, considering compliance with DHS regulations alongside factors like cost, functionality, and interoperability with its other systems. Although government guidance has been minimal, the fact sheet provides some insight into the government’s stance on regulatory requirements for electronic I-9s and may be helpful to employers when selecting an I-9 software.

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more news on Electronic Form I-9 Processing, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

It’s Protected: NLRB Finds “Black Lives Matter” Insignia on Employee Uniform Constitutes Protected Activity Under Circumstances

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), in a 3-1 decision, held that an employee’s display on their work uniform of “BLM,” an acronym for Black Lives Matter, constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). Accordingly, the NLRB reversed an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) decision, and found that the employer (Home Depot) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by directing the employee to remove the BLM insignia because it violated the company’s uniform policy. The employee resigned instead of removing the insignia from their uniform.

Procedural History

In June 2022, an ALJ found that the employer did not violate the Act by requiring the employee to remove the BLM messaging, because the insignia lacked “an objective, and sufficiently direct, relationship to terms and conditions of employment.” The ALJ concluded that the BLM messaging was “primarily used, and generally understood, to address the unjustified killings of Black individuals by law enforcement and vigilantes … [and] while a matter of profound societal importance, is not directly relevant to the terms, conditions, or lot of Home Depot’s employees as employees.” (emphasis in original).

Further, the ALJ determined that the employee’s motivation for displaying the BLM message (i.e., their dissatisfaction with their treatment as employees) was not relevant. The petitioner sought review before the NLRB.

NLRB Finds Wearing BLM Insignia at Work Constitutes Protected Activity

On review, the NLRB concluded that the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act because the activity was for “mutual aid or protection,” as it was a “logical outgrowth” of the employee’s and other employees’ complaints about race discrimination in the workplace that allegedly occurred over the preceding months.

According to the NLRB, an individual employee’s actions are a “logical outgrowth” of the concerns expressed by the group where “the record shows the existence of a group complaint,” even though “the employees acted individually and without coordination.” In this case, the fact that the group complaints post-dated the employee’s initial display of the BLM insignia was not dispositive. Instead, and contrary to the ALJ’s conclusion, the NLRB focused on whether the employee’s subsequent refusal to remove the BLM insignia was a “logical outgrowth” of the prior protected concerted activity.

Additionally, the NLRB found that no special circumstances existed, such that there was a sufficient justification for the company to preclude their employees from wearing such insignia. For instance, this was not a situation where display of the insignia might jeopardize employee safety, exacerbate employee dissention, or unreasonably interfere with the company’s public image. In this regard, the NLRB concluded that the company’s public image was not at issue because it encourages employees to customize their uniforms. Likewise, the NLRB held that the company failed to put forth evidence of any non-speculative imminent risks to employee safety from the public and/or any violent or disruptive acts or threats thereof by other employees connected to the BLM insignia.

The NLRB ordered the employer to, among other things, (1) cease and desist from prohibiting employees from taking part in “protected concerted activities,” such as displaying “Black Lives Matter” insignia on their uniform aprons; (2) reinstate the employee without prejudice and compensate him for lost back pay and any adverse tax consequences; and (3) post notice of the decision for 60 days at the store where the dispute arose. The company may still appeal the Board’s decision to a federal appeals court.

Significantly, the NLRB declined to adopt a broader objective advanced by the NLRB General Counsel that protesting civil rights issues on the job is “inherently concerted” activity that is protected by Section 7 of the Act. The fact-intensive reasoning behind the NLRB’s decision here reflects that the underlying circumstances in each situation will play a significant role in the legal outcome as to whether the conduct at issue is protected, and it is not advisable to adopt a broad, one-size fits all rule from this decision.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

USCIS Releases H-1B Lottery Information: Registration Process Begins March 6

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released guidance on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 H-1B lottery process. The registration system will be open from noon Eastern, March 6, 2024 until noon Eastern, March 22, 2024. The application fee will remain $10 for each case entered into the system.

This year, USCIS will implement a new “Beneficiary Centric Selection” process that will help to ensure all beneficiaries have an equal chance of selection, regardless of the number of times each beneficiary is registered. Please see “Winning Futures? The H-1B ‘Lottery’ Will Open Soon. USCIS Predicts Success” for more details.

Why is H-1B filing season important?

This is the only time of year (with minor exceptions indicated below) USCIS accepts H-1B specialty worker petitions for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2024. For a petition to qualify in the H-1B category, the job offered must be a specialty occupation in which a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) is normally the minimum requirement, and the foreign national employee must hold a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) in the specialty defined by the position. In some cases, a bachelor’s-level threshold may be met through a combination of the employee’s education and work experience.

There is an overwhelming demand for the annual allotment of 85,000 new H-1Bs. The number of H-1B approvals requested by employers has reached the annual H-1B cap every year for more than 10 years. Last year, USCIS received 780,884 registrations within the electronic lottery system for 85,000 H-1B slots. If you have an employee that needs a “new” H-1B visa, it is imperative that you take action during the H-1B filing season or you will have to wait a full year for another opportunity.

Electronic registration process in 2024

USCIS will use same the electronic registration system from years past to implement the new beneficiary centric selection process. Employers seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions must complete an electronic registration for every case the employer wishes to enter into the H-1B lottery. This year, the employer must enter a valid passport or travel number for each registrant. If selected, the passport or travel number used in the H-1B petition filing must be the same number used at the time of registration. This new approach, focusing on the individual registrant, should increase selection odds.

After the registration period closes, USCIS will conduct a random selection lottery from the registrations. The date of the lottery selection has not been announced but will likely occur on or about April 1, 2024. Employers whose cases are selected will then have at least 90 days to complete and file H-1B petitions with USCIS.

Dinsmore attorneys are available to assist employers in navigating the new application process, including completion of the electronic registration and subsequent preparation and filing of selected petitions. USCIS continues to develop its electronic registration system and is expected to release additional details as the registration period approaches.

Are there certain employees we should consider registering?

Yes, four situations come to mind:

  1. Students who hold F-1 visa status and who are working for your organization under a grant of Curricular Practical Training, Optional Practical Training or STEM Optional Practical Training work permission;
  2. Certain L-1 Intracompany Transferees or TN (USMCA/NAFTA) workers who work for your organization;
  3. Candidates who are not yet working for your organization but whom you have an interest in employing in the near future; and
  4. Dependent spouses who hold H-4 status and who have been authorized to work with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

Why F-1 students?

Some F-1 students may qualify for an Optional Practical Training (OPT) work permission that is limited to one year following completion of their degree. Other F-1 students may be eligible for an additional 24 months of STEM OPT work permission. Either way, OPT is time-limited. Furthermore, some additional students may hold Curricular Practical Training (CPT). CPT authorizes employment off campus while the student is still taking classes. These students may be pursuing their first degree in the U.S., or they may have returned to school for an additional degree following exhaustion of their first round of OPT if they were not selected in the H-1B cap lottery. Bottom line: If you have a student working for you on OPT or CPT, it is worth evaluating if they need an H-1B cap registration.

Why L-1 intracompany transferees?

The L-1 intracompany transferee visa category applies to foreign nationals who have been employed abroad in executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacities for at least one year with a commonly owned foreign company, and who are in the United States working for the same or a related U.S. employer.

L-1 executives or managers (L-1A) may remain in the United States for a maximum of seven years. Specialized knowledge (L-1B) employees may remain for a maximum of five years. There is no possibility of an extension once the seven-or five-year limit has been reached and the time table to complete the permanent residence process continues to climb, especially for Indian foreign nationals.

Why H-4 spouses with employment authorization documents?

H-4 spouses are eligible to apply for an H-4 Employment Authorization Document (EAD) if their spouses in H-1B status have an approved I-140 petition. The H-4 EAD allows the spouse to obtain work authorization and engage in employment in the United States. H-4 spouses working with EADs may wish to have their H-4 statuses changed to H-1B for greater long-term employment security.

Why TN employees?

While TN workers under the U.S. Mexico-Canada Agreement (formerly known as NAFTA) are not limited in employment duration like their L-1 counterparts, pursuing permanent residence while holding TN status can be problematic. Employers may want to change their TN employees to the H-1B category to facilitate permanent residence (green card) sponsorship.

Are there any exemptions from the annual H-1B cap?

Persons already counted under the H-1B cap and who need an extension of stay are not subject to the annual limitation. Similarly, persons who already hold H-1B status and are transferring to a new employer are exempt from the cap. The annual limitation applies only to persons not yet counted against the annual cap. Also, certain types of educational or nonprofit organizations that file H-1B petitions are exempt from the H-1B numerical limitation.

© 2024 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
by: Katie P. Jacob , Jazmin E. Harris of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
For more news on H-1B Lottery Information, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Managing Workplace Conflict: 3 Lessons to Learn from the Super Bowl Game Kelce-Reid Incident

During the recent Super Bowl game, millions of viewers witnessed a tense moment that quickly became a talking point far beyond the realm of sports. Kansas City Chiefs’ star tight end, Travis Kelce, was seen apparently pushing and yelling at Head Coach Andy Reid. The incident seemed to stem from the player’s frustration over being sidelined during a crucial part of the game, leading to an outburst that suggested he was demanding more playing time.

This high-profile episode serves as a powerful example for managers and supervisors across all industries, illustrating the challenges of dealing with insubordinate (and possibly disruptive) behavior in the workplace. If not for Coach Reid’s calm and collected response, this incident could have escalated into a far more unpleasant exchange.

Drawing lessons from the incident, here are three key actions that leaders can take when faced with threatening or insubordinate employees:

1. Exercise Professional Restraint and Demonstrate Leadership

The first lesson is the importance of maintaining composure and professionalism. In any situation where tensions may rise, it’s crucial for managers to exercise restraint and avoid escalating the situation further. This approach not only helps in diffusing immediate tension, but also sets a positive example for the rest of the team. It’s essential that managers not misuse their position of power; rather, as Coach Reid exemplified, demonstrating calm and decisive leadership can often de-escalate a potentially volatile situation.

2. Refer to Company Policies and Engage HR

When dealing with insubordination or an outburst by an employee, it’s important to follow established corporate protocols. Managers should consult the company’s employee handbook for procedures to handle complaints and investigations. Filing a formal complaint with Human Resources can initiate a process that is both fair and impartial. Ideally, the HR department should be properly trained to address a tense situation. This step ensures that all parties are heard, and that the incident is addressed thoroughly, respecting the rights and dignity of everyone involved, and setting an example for the rest of the company.

3. Support the Investigative Process

Once a complaint is filed, cooperating fully with the ensuing investigation is paramount. An effective investigation can uncover the root causes of the conflict, offering insights into not just what happened, but why. By supporting this process, managers can help ensure that resolutions are just, and that similar incidents can be prevented in the future. It’s also an opportunity for organizations to reinforce their commitment to a respectful and safe working environment for all employees.

Conclusion

The incident at the Super Bowl game, while unfortunate, provides valuable lessons for leaders in any field. Managing workplace conflict requires a balanced approach that prioritizes restraint, adherence to company policies, and support for the investigative process. By applying these principles, managers and supervisors can navigate complex interpersonal challenges, fostering a workplace culture that is both respectful and productive.

Recognizing principles of good leadership remains constant and essential, whether on the football field or in the office.

 
©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more on Workplace Conflict, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Road to Victory Just Got a Little Easier for Whistleblowers

In 2017, a federal jury found whistleblower Trevor Murray was wrongfully terminated after he refused “to change his research on commercial mortgage-backed securities.” He won over $900,000. On appeal in 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned Murray’s award, finding whistleblowers who bring a retaliation claim against their employer under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, issuing a unanimous decision in Trevor Murray v. UBS Securities LLC, et al. The justices found that the Second Circuit was wrong. That is, “when it comes to a plaintiff’s burden of proof on intent under SOX, they only need to show that their protected activity contributed to an unfavorable personnel action, such as a firing.” Once the plaintiff does this, the Supreme Court found the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that “it would have taken the same adverse action regardless of the employee’s protected activity.” The justices found the law is intended ”to be plaintiff-friendly.”

In light of this development, employers should continue to be diligent in documenting the reasons that lead to an employee’s termination. This is especially true if that employee may be found to have engaged in a protected activity, cloaking them with certain whistleblower protections.

In siding with whistleblower Trevor Murray, the justices rejected UBS’ position that a separate finding of retaliatory intent is required for whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX, which governs corporate financial reporting and recordkeeping.
© 2024 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Minimizing National Labor Relations Act Liability for Employers with Non-Unionized Workforces

This post continues our consideration of comments submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).

Under current law, if a plan provides any mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits in any classification of benefits, benefits for that condition or use disorder must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical (M/S) benefits are provided. Classifications for this purpose include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. The proposed regulations modify this standard by providing that a plan does not provide benefits for MH/SUD benefits in every classification in which M/S benefits are provided unless the plan provides meaningful benefits for treatment for the condition or disorder in each such classification “as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for medical/surgical conditions in the classification.”

The term “meaningful benefits” is nowhere defined. The regulators nevertheless “recognize that the proposal to require meaningful benefits [ ] is related to scope of services.” “Scope of services” for this purpose generally refers to the types of treatments and treatment settings that are covered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer. The preamble to the proposed regulation invites comments on how the meaningful benefits requirement “would interact with the approach related to scope of services adopted under the 2013 final regulations.” The preamble of the 2013 final regulations addressed an issue characterized as ‘‘scope of services’’ or ‘‘continuum of care’’ but otherwise failed to provide any substance. Two examples from the proposed regulations do, however, give us a sense of what the regulators have in mind.

  • A plan that generally covers treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a mental health condition, and covers outpatient, out-of-network developmental evaluations for ASD but excludes all other benefits for outpatient treatment for ASD, including applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy, when provided on an out-of-network basis. (ABA therapy is one of the primary treatments for ASD in children.) The plan generally covers the full range of outpatient treatments and treatment settings for M/S conditions and procedures when provided on an out-of-network basis. The plan in this example violates the applicable parity standards.
  • In another example, a plan generally covers diagnosis and treatment for eating disorders, a mental health condition, but specifically excludes coverage for nutrition counseling to treat eating disorders, including in the outpatient, in-network classification. Nutrition counseling is one of the primary treatments for eating disorders. The plan generally provides benefits for the primary treatments for medical conditions and surgical procedures in the outpatient, in-network classification. The exclusion of coverage for nutrition counseling for eating disorders results in the plan failing to provide meaningful benefits for the treatment of eating disorders in the outpatient, in-network classification, as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for M/S conditions in the classification. Therefore, the plan violates the proposed rules.

Notably, the newly proposed meaningful benefits requirement is separate from, and in addition to, the newly prescribed nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) testing standards. These latter standards include a “no more restrictive” requirement, a “design and application” requirement and an “outcomes data and network composition” requirement. A handful of comments nevertheless urge the regulators to add scope of services to its non-exhaustive list of NQTLs. As a result, a plan’s scope of services would be subject to comprehensive NQTL testing. Or, put another way, they would be fed back into the NQTL testing loop. Using the first of the examples above, this would require that ABA therapy to be first compared to the treatment limitations imposed on some M/S benefits in each classification. But what benefits, exactly? The problem is that a plan’s scope of services – what types of treatments a plan will pay for and in what settings – is a high-level plan design feature and not an NQTL.

While reasonable minds can and do differ on much of the substance of the proposed regulations, we doubt that anyone would claim that they streamline or simplify compliance. Compliance with these rules is already complicated and expensive; if the final rule looks anything like the proposed regulations, compliance will only get more complicated and more expensive. The proposed meaningful benefits requirement is intended to prevent plans, as a matter of plan design, from satisfying the parity rules by offering nominal or insubstantial MH/SUD benefits when compared to similar M/S benefits in each classification. Treating a plan’s scope of services as itself a separate NQTL does not advance this goal.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
by: Alden J. Bianchi of McDermott Will & Emery 

For more news on Health Care Law, visit the NLR Health Law and Managed Care section.

Form I-9 Software: Avoiding Unlawful Discrimination When Selecting and Using I-9 and E-Verify Software Systems

A recent employer fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides guidance for avoiding unlawful discrimination and other violations when using private software products to complete Forms I-9 and E-Verify cases.

Quick Hits

  • Employers are responsible for selecting and using software products that avoid unlawful discrimination and comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.
  • Employers must not use software products that violate Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements or involve system limitations that unlawfully discriminate among workers.
  • DOJ and DHS advise employers to train staff on Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, and to provide access to published government guidance on Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.

Employer Compliance With Form I-9 Software Products

The fact sheet reminds employers to use the current Form I-9 and properly complete the Form I-9 for each new hire after November 6, 1986, with any acceptable employee documents. Form I-9 systems must comply with requirements for electronic signatures and document storage including the ability to provide Form I-9 summary files containing all information fields on electronically stored Forms I-9. The fact sheet confirms required software capabilities and employer practices to properly complete the Form I-9 and avoid unlawful discrimination.

Employers must ensure that any software:

  • allows employees to leave form fields blank, if they’re not required fields (such as Social Security numbers, if not required on E-Verify cases);
  • allows workers with only one name to record “Unknown” in the first name field and to enter their names in the last name field on the Form I-9;
  • uniquely identifies “each person accessing, correcting, or changing a Form I-9”;
  • permits Form I-9 corrections in Section 1 and does not complete Section 1 corrections for workers, unless completing preparer/translator certifications in Supplement A;
  • retains all employee information and documents presented for form completion; and
  • permits Form I-9 corrections in Section 2 and allows completion of Supplement B reverifications with any acceptable employee documents.

Employer Compliance With E-Verify Software Products

The fact sheet reminds employers to comply with E-Verify program requirements when using software interfaces for E-Verify case completion. The fact sheet confirms required software capabilities and employer practices for completing E-Verify cases. Employers must still:

  • provide employees with current versions of Further Action Notices and Referral Date Confirmation letters in resolving Tentative Nonconfirmations (mismatches) in the E-Verify system;
  • provide English and non-English Further Action Notices and Referral Date Confirmation letters to employees with limited English proficiency;
  • display E-Verify notices confirming employer use of E-Verify;
  • “promptly notify employees in private” of E-Verify mismatches and provide Further Action Notices. If an employee who has been notified of a mismatch takes action to resolve the mismatch, provide the Referral Date Confirmation letter with case-specific information;
  • delay E-Verify case creation, when required. For example, when workers are awaiting Social Security numbers or have presented acceptable receipts for Form I-9 completion, employers must be able to delay E-Verify case creation; and
  • allow employees to resolve E-Verify mismatches prior to taking any adverse action, including suspensions or withholding pay.

Prohibited Employer Activity When Using Form I-9 Software

The fact sheet notes that an employer that uses private software products for Form I-9 or E-Verify compliance is prohibited from:

  • completing the Form I-9 on an employee’s behalf unless the employer is helping an employee complete Section 1 as a preparer or translator;
  • prepopulating employee information from other sources, providing auto-correct on employee inputs, or using predictive language for form completion;
  • requiring more or less information from employees for Form I-9 completion or preventing workers from using preparers/translators for form completion;
  • improperly correcting the Form I-9, improperly creating E-Verify cases, or failing to report corrections in the Form I-9 audit trail;
  • requesting more or different documentation than needed for Form I-9 completion, or failing to complete reverification in Supplement B of the Form I-9; and
  • imposing “unnecessary obstacles” in starting work or receiving pay, “such as by requiring a Social Security number to onboard or by not paying an employee who can complete the Form I-9 and is waiting for a Social Security number.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Staff Training and Technical Support

The fact sheet warns employers against using software products that do not provide technical support to workers, and it notes that employers are required to provide training to staff on Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance. Resources for staff members using software products for Form I-9 and E-Verify case completion include I-9 Central, the Handbook for Employers M-274, the M-775, E-Verify User Manual, and DOJ publications.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more on Form I-9, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Year in Review: Criminal Enforcement by the DOJ Antitrust Division in 2023

Introduction

When it comes to antitrust criminal enforcement, 2023 will be remembered as the year when the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division redefined and tested the outer boundaries of its authority. Here is a look back at the key events that defined the DOJ’s year in criminal antitrust enforcement.

Losses in Labor Markets

The DOJ continued its focus on labor markets in 2023 by pursuing per se no-poach and wage-fixing prosecutions despite resounding resistance by fact finders. In these cases, the DOJ alleged that companies and executives restrained trade in labor markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act through agreements that restricted movement and suppressed the wages of workers.

Courts have allowed these per se no-poach and wage-fixing cases to survive the motion to dismiss stage of litigation, but the DOJ’s success has routinely ended there. In 2022, the DOJ tried its first criminal no-poach case in US v. DaVita, which was successfully defended by McDermott and resulted in a complete acquittal of both corporate and individual defendants. In 2023, the DOJ fared no better:

  • In US v. Manahe (D. Maine), the DOJ charged four business managers in an alleged conspiracy to fix the wages and restrict the hiring of personal support specialist workers for two months during the pandemic. The government presented evidence such as text messages discussing hourly wages and recordings of meetings between the defendants, while the defendants countered by showing that the discussed prices were not implemented, and a draft agreement went unsigned. The jury acquitted all four defendants following a two-week trial in March 2023.
  • As we previously reported, the DOJ suffered a blow in US v. Patel (D. Connecticut) in April 2023. During a four-week trial, the government alleged that defendants conspired to restrict the hiring and recruiting of skilled workers and engineers in the aerospace industry. The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an extreme lever that judges rarely pull to end a trial before it reaches the jury. Judge Victor A. Bolden granted the motion and acquitted all the defendants. He found that the engineers’ freedom to switch companies and the number of exceptions to the agreements could not support finding market allocation as a matter of law.
  • In November 2023, the DOJ stunningly moved to dismiss its own case alleging a conspiracy by outpatient medical care competitors not to solicit senior-level employees. The case was three years into litigation; in its motion, the DOJ simply stated that dismissal would conserve court time and resources. This was the DOJ’s last pending no-poach case against a corporation.

If the DOJ’s labor markets cases have a theme, it is this: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Despite four straight losses and a voluntary dismissal, the DOJ remains undeterred in bringing additional criminal wage-fixing and no-poach suits. The Biden administration’s “whole of government” approach to enforcement means that shared resources and collaboration among agencies, including the DOJ and the National Labor Relations Board, will continue into 2024. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter left no doubt that the DOJ is doubling down on its executive authority despite a losing track record in court: “Let me confirm: We are just as committed as ever to, when appropriate, using our congressionally given authority to prosecute criminal violations of the Sherman Act in labor markets.” Addressing the Women’s White Collar Defense Association in December 2023, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki echoed, “We look forward to charging more no-poach and wage-fixing cases.”

Per Se Problems

The DOJ stumbled in a different per se setting in December 2023, when a three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed fraud charges but reversed the per se bid-rigging conviction of a steel and aluminum manufacturing sales manager turned executive. In US v. Brewbaker, the appellate panel found that “caselaw and economics show that the indictment failed to state a per se antitrust offense as it purported to do.”

In its 2020 indictment, the DOJ alleged that Brent Brewbaker of Contech Engineered Solutions conspired with a North Carolina distributor and exclusive dealer, Pomona Pipe Products, to share total bid pricing information on North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aluminum projects and use that information to purposefully submit losing bids. This allegedly appeased Pomona and maintained Contech’s status on NCDOT’s “emergency bid list.” Contech pled guilty, but Brewbaker continued to trial. A jury found him guilty of bid rigging and other fraud charges; he appealed.

The Fourth Circuit held that the DOJ’s indictment implicated Contech and Pomona as horizontal competitors in NCDOT aluminum projects and as vertical competitors through their manufacturer-dealer relationship, resulting in a “hybrid” restraint. The DOJ sought to isolate Contech’s role as a manufacturer and competing bidder for NCDOT aluminum projects, focusing solely on the horizontal nature of the restraint and subsequently arguing for per se treatment.

The panel did not accept the DOJ’s argument that the conspiracy itself involved only horizontal conduct and instead considered the parties’ competitive relationship, which involved both horizontal and vertical aspects. The panel found that “agreements that look otherwise identical in form produce different economic effects based on how the parties relate to one another,” and stated that the DOJ’s theory would “force . . . arbitrary and likely impossible line-drawing” to determine which “part” of the entity to consider. The court continued, “The Sherman Act doesn’t ignore reality; it treats the entire business entity as the single party it is. . . . Antitrust law does not turn on such artificial mental gymnastics.”

Under this premise, the court moved through an analysis of case law and economic rationale to determine appropriate scrutiny. Although there is no direct guidance on hybrid restraints in the bid rigging context, the panel contrasted the present case with Leegin Creative Leather Products, 551 U.S. 877 (2007), where the Supreme Court of the United States applied per se scrutiny to a price fixing case despite both horizontal and vertical elements. In Brewbaker, the court found instead that the restraint in the indictment should not have been subject to the per se standard based on precedent, nor would it invariably lead to anticompetitive effects upon economic analysis—all making per se scrutiny inappropriate. As a result, and in a blow to the DOJ, the court reversed Brewbaker’s Sherman Act conviction.

In Full (Strike) Force

The DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) succeeded in securing several guilty pleas and stiff penalties in 2023. The PCSF is tasked with training government personnel and enforcing antitrust and fraud laws related to government contract bidding, grants and program funding.

PCSF Director Daniel Glad spoke to the National Association of State Procurement Officials in November 2023, highlighting the state and agency partnerships that comprise the PCSF. He pushed for even greater collaboration with state officials in 2024 and coming years, noting the recent influx of funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which authorized billions of dollars in transportation and infrastructure programs. Later that month, the PCSF held its first summit to discuss strategies, priorities and resources. As reported by the DOJ, attendees included 11 “law enforcement partners” from across the country and 22 US Attorneys’ Offices.

These partnerships have surely strengthened the PCSF, and it has an extensive track record of successful convictions and guilty pleas. Among them are the following:

  • In January 2023, military contractor Aaron Stephens pleaded guilty to rigging bids related to the maintenance and repair of military tactical vehicles, following his alleged co-conspirator Mark Leveritt’s guilty plea July 2022. In August 2023, Stephens received an 18-month prison sentence and a $50,000 criminal fine. Leveritt received a six-month sentence and a $300,000 fine.
  • Also in January 2023, a construction company owner received a 27-month sentence and was ordered to pay a $1.75 million fine for fraudulently securing government contracts meant for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
  • A Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) employee out of New York pleaded guilty to engaging in wire fraud related to MTA excess vehicle auctions. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter described the conduct as “stealing from the public” and promised that the DOJ would continue to “detect and punish” those who abuse the public trust. Two additional guilty pleas by fellow MTA employees followed.
  • An insulation contractor out of Connecticut was the seventh person sentenced in a bid rigging and contract fraud investigation, resulting in a 15-month prison sentence and a restitution fine of more than $1 million. The alleged scheme related to insulation contracting at both public and private institutions, including universities and hospitals.
  • In March 2023, a Georgia jury found three military contractors guilty of conspiring to defraud the United States and two counts of major fraud related to two years of conduct.
  • A construction company owner faced a 78-month prison sentence and an almost $1 million restitution fine for bid rigging and bribery involving the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Defendant Bill Miller previously pled guilty to recruiting others to submit sham bids and to paying almost $1 million in cash bribes to a Caltrans contract manager. The manager himself received a 49-month prison sentence and a similar restitution fine, and a co-conspirator who submitted false bids received 45 months in jail and a $797,940 restitution fine.
  • A Texas judge ordered corporate defendant J&J Korea to pay almost $9 million for wire fraud and conspiracy to restrain trade related to subcontract work for US military hospitals in South Korea. A grand jury indicted two corporate officers for the same conduct in 2022.
  • Three military contractors received their sentences in December 2023 following a jury trial related to their alleged procurement fraud scheme. The defendants’ sentences included prison, supervised release and fines ranging from $50,000 to $250,000.

In December 2023, the PCSF also secured a seven-count indictment using wiretap evidence to charge two forest firefighting services executives with bid rigging, allocating markets and fraud. Wiretap evidence is rarely used in cartel investigations and marks a meaningful step in PCSF’s investigative approach. PCSF likely has already begun obtaining wiretap evidence in other cases and, based on its success in 2023, will continue pursuing aggressive investigative and litigation strategies moving forward.

Partnerships and Collaboration

Taking the PCSF to the global stage, the DOJ announced a joint initiative with Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau to collaborate on “outreach to the public and business community about anti-competitive conduct, as well as on investigations, using intelligence sharing and existing international cooperation tools” in the run-up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup to be hosted across the three countries.

In addition to its international partnerships for the World Cup, the DOJ is tackling technology with global efforts. In November 2023, DOJ leaders met with G7 competition authorities in Tokyo to discuss competition in digital markets and enforcement priorities. This was one in a series of meetings among authorities that have taken place since 2019 with a goal of setting and issuing guidance on shared priorities for regulating competition in tech. Following the summit, the group published a “communique” grounded in concern around emerging technologies, including risks in the criminal realm. The leaders noted, “As firms increasingly rely on AI to set prices to consumers, there is risk that such tools could facilitate collusion or unfairly raise prices.”

This sentiment is consistent with statements made earlier in the year by DOJ leadership. For example, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki highlighted the role of technology in information exchanges. She described the current “inflection point” of algorithms, data and cloud computing as creating new market realties. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter stated that artificial intelligence’s “boundless potential” comes with “risks [that] transcend borders.” The consistency of rhetoric and global dedication to tackling the risks of emerging technology signals a potentially busy 2024 in this space.

The DOJ also continued its practice of partnering with fellow domestic law enforcement agencies. For example, the DOJ secured three guilty pleas in August 2023 for bid rigging asphalt paving services contracts in Michigan from 2013 to 2021. The DOJ worked with the Offices of Inspector General for the US Department of Transportation and the US Postal Service, and highlighted the partnership in public statements on the pleas. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Manish Kumar said, “Along with our law enforcement partners, the division will continue to seek justice when corporations and their leaders deprive customers of fair and open competition.” Cross-agency collaboration is a hallmark of the DOJ’s criminal enforcement and there is no reason to believe this practice will change in 2024.

Anything but Generic Remedies

In August 2023, the DOJ announced that it had entered into two unprecedented deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) to resolve price fixing charges in the generic drug industry against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Teva and Glenmark agreed to pay $250 million and $30 million, respectively, in criminal penalties and compliance monitoring, with Teva also obligated to donate $50 million worth of drugs to aid organizations. These agreements included divestitures of the companies’ product lines for the cholesterol drug pravastatin, alleged as central to the alleged price fixing conspiracy underlying the agreements. These arrangements are unusual for two reasons.

DPAs

First, DPAs are typically unfavored by the government and used as incentives for cooperation early in investigations. It is striking that the DOJ entered into these agreements in such an advanced stage of litigation, where five other corporations and three individuals had already admitted to the implicated conspiracy. DPAs are agreements between the government and defendants in which the defendants accept certain penalties in exchange for prosecutors stopping their pursuit of the underlying charges. Prosecutions are “deferred” indefinitely while defendants fulfill their end of the bargain. Although both DPAs and plea agreements involve admitting wrongdoing, DPAs allow defendants resolution without admission of legal guilt. In the event defendants fail to meet the terms of the agreement, the government resumes its prosecution and seeks convictions.

“Extraordinary” Remedial Measures

Second, both DPAs involved unheard of divestitures of product interests in the cholesterol drug pravastatin, with Teva’s DPA requiring an additional measure of $50 million in donated clotrimazole and tobramycin to humanitarian organizations. All three generic drugs were impacted by the charged conspiracy. This remedy is first of its kind—criminal antitrust enforcers historically have sought monetary and prison sentences only. However, DOJ criminal enforcers driving outside of their historic lane is not necessarily inconsistent or surprising. The current administration has repeatedly committed to “using the whole legislative toolbox” in litigation.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Manish Kumar stated in October 2023 that these divestitures were appropriate in the “heavily regulated” context of generic pharmaceuticals, where a corporate conviction could have precluded Teva and Glenmark’s participation in federal drug programs to such an extent that the companies would have gone out of business. Of course, these are not the first defendants to face corporate convictions in heavily regulated industries, and they are not even the first to do so in this specific alleged conspiracy.

Whether this specific tool will build or break down competition, whether criminal enforcers are equipped to evaluate the impact of divestiture, and whether it is appropriate to test this novel approach in an industry with an alleged prolific conspiracy among major players and thus among potential buyers remains to be seen. For better or worse there will be more data points to answer these and other uncertainties: Kumar noted that the DOJ hopes to implement divestitures as criminal remedies “in other contexts” moving forward.

Investigation Nearing Its End

On November 16, 2023, in a surprising turn of events shortly after the DOJ announced the resolutions with Teva and Glenmark, the DOJ moved to dismiss a February 2020 indictment against Ara Aprahamian, a former senior executive of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries charged with fixing prices, rigging bids and allocating markets for generic drugs. The district court granted the motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. Prior to filing the motion, the DOJ had been preparing for a February 2024 criminal trial against Aprahamian. As a result of these recent actions, the DOJ has no remaining public proceedings in connection with its investigation of pricing in the generic drug industry. And, in December 2023, a district court overseeing the multidistrict civil litigation against generic drug manufacturers for the same alleged conduct terminated the DOJ’s intervenor status in the case. Thus, the DOJ’s nearly decade-long investigation of the generic drug industry appears to be ending.

Monaco on Mergers and Corporate Compliance 

In a speech at the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics’ Annual Compliance & Ethics Institute, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco emphasized the importance of compliance programs and announced a safe harbor policy for voluntary self-disclosures of antitrust wrongdoing by companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions.

Compliance

Deputy Attorney General Monaco focused her remarks on the increased importance of, and scrutiny on, corporate compliance programs. She noted that under a new initiative, every resolution by the Criminal Division requires companies to add compliance-promoting criteria to compensation systems. She also shared that the Division is enacting “clawback credits” to incentivize tying executive compensation to compliance. Remaining focused on bottom lines, she warned: “Invest in compliance now or your company may pay the price—a significant price—later.” These sharp words are consistent with the DOJ’s increased rhetoric on and policy prioritization of compliance programs throughout 2023.

Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy

Deputy Attorney General Monaco also commented on the recently unveiled DOJ-wide safe harbor allowing companies to report misconduct by the companies they seek to acquire or merge with. The covered conduct must be discovered through the M&A process. Conduct that should have otherwise been disclosed or which could have been publicly known does not count. Conduct already known to the DOJ is not entitled to safe harbor protection either.

Monaco stated, “Going forward, acquiring companies that promptly and voluntarily disclose criminal misconduct within the Safe Harbor period [six months from date of closing], and that cooperate with the ensuing investigation, and engage in requisite, timely and appropriate remediation, restitution, and disgorgement [within one year of closing]—they will receive the presumption of a declination.” In line with remarks by enforcers earlier in the year, Monaco specifically highlighted cybersecurity, tech and national security as areas of heightened risk and thus heightened scrutiny. Corporations in these markets should take heed of the DOJ’s emphasis on corporate compliance in 2024.

Looking Ahead

In 2023, criminal antitrust authorities used novel approaches at every stage of enforcement—from charging decisions to partnerships, to litigation, to remedies— and they show no sign of slowing down in 2024. The emergence of new technologies and a policy promise to forego old guideposts takes the DOJ further from the familiar, and perhaps further from its expertise.

In a high-stakes election year and with an influx of federal funds in infrastructure and defense spaces, the DOJ will likely hit the accelerator sooner than it hits the breaks. Markets that impact maximum voters, including employment, tax-funded government contracts, national security and healthcare, are likely focuses. All considered, it is more important than ever for businesses and individuals to stay up to date on policy priorities, revamp and champion internal compliance programs, and seek agile counsel in the ever-changing landscape of criminal enforcement to avoid costly investigations.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on Antitrust Criminal Enforcement, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

March Visa Bulletin: Priority Date Cutoffs Move Back with Switch to Final Action Dates

The U.S. State Department released the March Visa Bulletin Friday, showing little movement in the employment-based Final Action Dates and Dates for Filing charts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that in March it will use Final Action Dates to determine filing eligibility.

Because Dates for Filing are generally more progressive, the switch to Final Action Dates means that priority date cutoffs will move back next month—and fewer applicants will be eligible to file for employment-based green cards.

When comparing February’s Dates for Filing chart to March’s Final Action Date chart, the movement of cutoffs for being eligible to file for employment-based green cards is as follows:

EB-1

  • China EB-1 will move back 5½ months to July 15, 2022.
  • India EB-1 will move back three months to Oct. 10, 2020.
  • All other countries under EB-1 will remain current.

EB-2

  • China EB-2 will move back five months to Jan. 1, 2020.
  • India EB-2 will move back 2½ months to March 1, 2012.
  • All other countries under EB-2 will move back nearly three months to Nov. 22, 2022.

EB-3

  • China EB-3 will move back 10 months to Sept. 1, 2020.
  • India EB-3 will move back one month to July 1, 2012.
  • Philippines EB-3 will move back almost four months to Sept. 8, 2022.
  • All other countries under EB-3 will move back almost five months to Sept. 8, 2022.

Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Cases:

Preference All Other Countries China India Mexico Philippines
EB-1 Current July 15, 2022 Oct. 1, 2020 Current Current
EB-2 Nov. 22, 2022 Jan. 1, 2020 March 1, 2012 Nov. 22, 2022 Nov. 22, 2022
EB-3 Sept. 8, 2022 Sept. 1, 2020 July 1, 2012 Sept. 8, 2022 Sept. 8, 2022

Additional Information: The March Visa Bulletin and the switch to Final Action Dates come after employment-based priority date cutoffs advanced key categories in January and saw no movement in February. This is the first time this fiscal year that USCIS has used the Final Action Dates to determine filing eligibility for employment-based applicants. USCIS will continue using the Dates for Filing chart to determine family-based filing eligibility next month.

©2024 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on the March Visa Bulletin, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Supreme Court Upholds Corporate Whistleblower Protections in Landmark Ruling

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling holding that whistleblowers do not need to prove that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The decision in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, has immense implications for a number of whistleblower protection laws.

“This is a major win for whistleblowers and thus a huge win for corporate accountability,” said leading whistleblower attorney David Colapinto, a founding partner of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto.

“A ruling in favor of UBS would have overturned more than 20 years of precedent in SOX whistleblower cases and made it exceedingly more difficult for whistleblowers who claim retaliation under many similarly worded federal whistleblower statutes,” Colapinto continued.

“Thankfully, the Court was not swayed by UBS’ attempt to ignore the plain meaning of the statute and instead upheld the burden of proof that Congress enacted to protect whistleblowers who face retaliation,” added Colapinto.

In an amicus curiae brief filed in the case on behalf of the National Whistleblower Center, the founding partners of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto outlined the Congressional intent behind the burden of proof standard in SOX.

“In crafting the unique ‘contributing factor’ test for whistleblowers, Congress left an incredibly straight-forward legislative history documenting the value of whistleblowers’ contributions, the risks and retaliation whistleblowers faced, the barriers the previous burden of proof presented for whistleblowers, and Congress’ explicit intention to lower that burden of proof for whistleblowers,” the brief states.

In the Court’s opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor likewise pointed to the Congressional intent of SOX’s contributing-factor burden of proof standard:

“To be sure, the contributing-factor framework that Congress chose here is not as protective of employers as a motivating-factor framework. That is by design. Congress has employed the contributing-factor framework in contexts where the health, safety, or well-being of the public may well depend on whistleblowers feeling empowered to come forward. This Court cannot override that policy choice by giving employers more protection than the statute itself provides.”

This article was authored by Geoff Schweller.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Supreme Court Whistleblower Rulings, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.