Category: Labor & Employment

Big Box Retailers and Major Fast Food Chains Targeted by Unions and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Michael Best Logo

The NLRB Rules Against Target

There are more than 1,750 Target stores nationwide, and none have been organized by a union. This fact was not lost on the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) when, on April 26, 2013, it affirmed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge that Target Corporation (Target)’s no-solicitation/no-distribution policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and ordered Target to amend its policies nationwide. The consolidated cases, known as Target Corporation and United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1500, 359 NLRB No. 103 (2013), originated when the UFCW filed charges with the Board following an unsuccessful organizing campaign at a Target store in Valley Stream, New York.

The key issue addressed by the Board was whether Target maintained a no-solicitation/no-distribution policy that violated employees’ Section 7 rights under the Act. Target’s policy prohibited solicitation on the store’s premises at all times if it was for “personal profit,” “commercial purposes,” or “a charitable organization that isn’t part of the Target Community Relations program and isn’t designed to enhance the company’s goodwill and business.” The Board focused on the ban on solicitation “for commercial purposes,” finding that Target failed to define the phrase or provide illustrative examples to clarify what it meant. Because the phrase was undefined, the Board found that Target employees could have interpreted the phrase to ban solicitation and distribution on behalf of unions, which would violate the Act.[1]  

Ultimately, the Board ordered Target to rescind nationwide its no-solicitation/no-distribution rule and to:

[f]urnish all current employees nationwide with inserts for their current employee handbooks that (1) advise that the unlawful rules listed above have been rescinded, or (2) provide lawfully-worded rules on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful rules; or publish and distribute to all current employees nationwide revised employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful rules, or (2) provide lawfully-worded rules.

The Board also set aside the union’s unsuccessful election attempt and ordered a new election to take place under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director.

Is Walmart The Next Target?

Walmart has more than 4,500 retail locations in the United States, and like Target, none are unionized. In recent months, the UFCW-backed group OUR Walmart has been advocating for strikes in several locations. On May 28, 2013, several media outlets reported a new round of strikes coordinated by OUR Walmart in advance of Walmart’s June 7, 2013 annual shareholder meeting.

In addition to the strike efforts, the UFCW, OUR Walmart, and Walmart have filed dozens of NLRB charges against each other in 2013. In May, the labor-backed group filed a new round of charges with the NLRB. Meanwhile, Walmart has filed lawsuits against the UFCW and OUR Walmart in Florida and California state courts in recent months alleging trespass and unlawful organizing activity on Walmart property.

Though the Board is currently under scrutiny based on recent court decisions invalidating the President’s recess appointments, the charges against Walmart provide it with another opportunity to make a nationwide statement against a non-union employer. Given the Board’s recent penchant for union activism, do not be surprised if it takes a close look at Walmart’s policies and practices in the coming months.

The Fast Food Industry

On May 15, 2013 hundreds of Milwaukee fast food workers walked off their jobs and launched a one-day strike demanding a raise to $15 per hour and the right to unionize without intimidation or retaliation. This was the fifth such strike in six weeks, following strikes in St. Louis and Detroit the week before, and in New York and Chicago in April. In each of those strikes, local groups organized fast food workers with support from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the nation’s largest unions. All of these strikes were preceded or followed by the filing of a slew of NLRB charges against the employers, alleging myriad unfair labor practices.

These strikes share several common characteristics. Each was a one-day strike by fast food workers, backed by ad hoc coalitions of unions and community groups. In the case of the Milwaukee strike, the organizing group was called “Wisconsin Citizen Action,” and the campaign was called “Raise Up, MKE.” The St. Louis campaign was called “STL Can’t Survive on $7.35,” and Detroit’s was called “D15.” These strikes have all been part of “minority unionism” campaigns, where the focus is on staging actions by a minority of the workforce designed to inspire their co-workers, rather than waiting until they have gained support from a majority of the workers. The short duration of the strike is calculated to minimize the risk that striking workers will be replaced by their employers after walking off.

The spread of these fast food strikes, as well as strikes by non-union workers in retailers like Walmart, comes amid a long-term decline in strikes in the U.S. Both the fast food and retail industries are overwhelmingly not unionized. The strategy pursued by the groups organizing these strikes is thus one of spectacle or demonstration, calling attention to the wages and working conditions of the employees in these industries.

[1] Oddly, the Board overruled a second finding by the Administrative Law Judge that a policy instructing employees to report unknown persons seen loitering the parking lot also violated Section 7 of the Act. The Board noted it would not conclude that a reasonable employee would read a rule to violate Section 7 simply because the rule could be interpreted that way.

Article By:

Fourth Circuit Reverses District Court and Trend, Finding Death from Driving While Intoxicated to be An “Accident”

Womble Carlyle

In Johnson v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10528 (4th Cir. May 24, 2013), the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s holding, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32718 (M.D.N.C. 2012), a decision we reported in March of last year.  In the District Court, Magistrate Judge Patrick Auld concluded that a death resulting from driving while intoxicated, under the circumstances of the case, was not an “accident” for purposes of an Accidental Death & Disability (AD&D) benefit under an ERISA-qualified employee benefit plan.  The Fourth Circuit Court’s reversal illustrates again the struggle to define the word “accident” in a situation when a driver intentionally becomes highly intoxicated and intentionally drives, knowing the inherent dangers, yet probably not intending to crash, sustain injury or die.

In Johnson, a participant of an employee benefit plan insured by AUL died after his truck left the road at high speed, hit a sign, and overturned several times. The post-mortem toxicology report showed a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .289, more than three times the legal limit.

As did Judge Auld in the District Court below, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explored a spectrum of interpretations of the word “accident.”  AUL argued for the definition adopted in Eckleberry v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. 469 F. 3d 340 (4th Circ. 2006), in which the Court interpreted the policy’s definition of “accident” to exclude losses from death or injury that were “reasonably foreseeable.”  Under the Eckleberry test, AUL argued, Mr. Johnson’s death was not the result of an accident because injury or death from driving while intoxicated was reasonably foreseeable.  The Fourth Circuit rejected AUL’s argument, distinguishing Eckleberry in two pivotal ways.  First, unlike the policy in the Eckleberry case, AUL’s policy did not empower it with discretionary authority sufficient to trigger the “abuse of discretion” standard of review.  Secondly, the plan in Eckleberry defined “accident” to suggest a “reasonable foreseeability” test, while, by contrast the term “accident” was not defined in AUL’s policy.  (This is not uncommon. As the Court recognized in the seminal case, Wickman v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 908 F. 2d 1077, 1087 (1st Cir. 1990),  the word “accident” eludes articulation.)

Reviewing AUL’s denial de novo, the Johnson Court characterized the term “accident” as ambiguous because it was undefined, and applied the contra proferentum doctrine, (cf.  Carden v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 559 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. S.C. 2009) in which the Court held that the doctrine did not to apply in a review for abuse of discretion.).

Moving on from Eckleberry, the Court considered two other interpretations that were  skewed “against the drafter” more than the “reasonable foreseeability test.  The first was the test espoused by Wickman, supra:  When there was no evidence of the deceased’s actual (subjective) intentions and expectations (as is often the case), the Court asks the question of whether a reasonable person would have viewed the injury as “highly likely to occur” as a result of the deceased’s intentional conduct.  If so, then the loss was not the result of an accident.

Secondly, the Court considered the definition of “accident” under N.C.G.S. § 58-3-30(b), the test adopted by Judge Auld in the District Court.  Under this statute, which uses an “accidental result” test, a loss resulting from an intentional, voluntary act is still accidental if the injury (or result) is unanticipated and unexpected, unless the result was “substantially certain” to occur from the actions.

When Judge Auld applied this test, he found that “a crash by a speeding driver in Mr. Johnson’s [intoxicated] condition [is] as much an anticipated and expected result as a bullet hitting the head of someone who chooses to play Russian Roulette,” (giving a nod to the Wickman Court’s illustration of an unreasonable expectation of survival, even if death were not actually intended.)  However, the Court of Appeals came to the opposite conclusion: While Eckleberry’s “reasonable foreseeable” test would most likely exclude coverage here, evidence of driving while intoxicated, even at a BAC level of .289, by itself, did not establish that the insured’s death was “substantially certain,” under the statute’s definition, or even “highly likely,” under the Wickman test.  The Court’s conclusion was based upon statistics published by the CDC that an intoxicated driver’s chances of a fatal crash are 1 in 9,128.  (The other 9,127 apparently survive.)

Query:  How many drunk drivers with a BAC of .289 make it home safely?

Don’t Overlook The Gems In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Files

Barnes & Thornburg

A recent decision out of a Louisiana federal court demonstrates that all employers who are sued in cases where the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) handled an administrative charge should promptly send out a FOIA request to obtain the EEOC’s file.

In Williams v. Cardinal Health Systems 200, LLC, a female employee reported to her employer that her husband had gotten into a fistfight with one of her co-workers, allegedly because the co-worker was sending her inappropriate text messages. The employee was fired shortly thereafter on Sept. 26, 2011.

Nine months later in June of 2012, a lawyer wrote to the employer on behalf of the former employee, suggesting that his client had suffered sexual harassment. The lawyer also suggested that the employer had retaliated against the employee for complaining of the sexual harassment when it fired her. A few weeks later, the lawyer helped the employee fill out and submit an EEOC intake questionnaire form.

After receiving the questionnaire, the EEOC advised the former employee that her questionnaire was incomplete, and that, among other things, she needed to sign and verify her allegations. Her lawyer eventually provided the necessary information, and the EEOC sent out a notice of charge of discrimination to the employer in October 2012, followed by a notice of right to sue. The employee then filed a lawsuit against the company in December 2012.

The employer filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the employee had waited too long to bring her claim. The court noted that the employee had 300 days from the date of the alleged retaliation—or until July 22, 2012, to raise her claims with the EEOC. She had contacted the EEOC before then, but her questionnaire was incomplete. The charging party and her lawyer did not complete it before July 22. Thus, her claims were time-barred and her case dismissed.

The case provides a good example of an important litigation tool. The dismissal hinged on the EEOC’s file, which proved when the employee submitted her questionnaire, what the questionnaire contained, how the EEOC responded, and when and how her lawyer supplied the additional information. Employers typically are not privy to these communications and would not even know about them unless they obtain a copy of the agency’s file. And there is the lesson: all employers who are sued should make sure to request the EEOC or charging agency file as soon as possible. You never know what gems might be hiding in there just waiting for you to find them.

Article By:

 of

What Are the EB-5 Permanent Residence Requirements?

GT Law

For investors seeking lawful permanent residence through the EB-5 program, the first step in the process is to file Form I-526, Immigration Petition for Alien Entrepreneur, together with accompanying evidence in support of the program’s requirements with USCIS.  USCIS evaluates and adjudicates I‑526 petitions by reviewing these criteria:

1. A New Commercial Enterprise Has Been Established.  An EB-5 investor must evidence that their investment was into an “enterprise” that is “new.”  So what is a “new commercial enterprise?”  It is any for-profit activity established after November 29, 1990 formed for the ongoing conduct of lawful business including, but not limited to, a sole proprietorship, partnership (whether limited or general), holding company, joint venture, corporation, business trust, or other entity which may be publicly or privately owned.  This definition includes a commercial enterprise consisting of a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provided that each such subsidiary is engaged in a for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of a lawful business, but it does not include a noncommercial activity such as owning and operating a personal residence.

In the regional center context, the new commercial enterprise is the fund where the alien invests.  Usually the fund takes the form of a Limited Partnership or Limited Liability Company.  In the direct, non-regional center context, the new commercial enterprise is the business where the alien invests and the business that creates the jobs for U.S. workers.

2. Investment of the Requisite Amount of Capital.  An EB-5 petition must be supported by evidence that the petitioner has invested the minimum required capital.  In the regional center context, if the project creating the jobs is located in a “targeted employment area” then the minimum amount of investment is $500,000.  In the direct investment context, if the new commercial enterprise is located in a “targeted employment area” then the minimum amount of investment is $500,000.  A “targeted employment area” is either: (1) an area of high unemployment that has at least 150% of the national unemployment rate; or (2) a rural area outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population of less than 20,000.  If the new commercial enterprise (in the direct context) or project (in the regional center context) is located outside of a targeted employment area, then the minimum amount of investment is $1,000,000.

USCIS expects the investor’s funds to be irrevocably committed to the enterprise.  The funds must be “at risk” and used by the new commercial enterprise to create employment.

3. Lawful Source of Capital.  Funds used for the EB-5 investment must be earned lawfully.  The investor must show the full source of the $500,000 or $1,000,000 investment and then trace those funds from the investor abroad into the new commercial enterprise.  Common sources of funds are salary earnings, distributions from businesses or investments, sale of property, mortgage of personal assets owned by the investor, or gifts from third parties.  If the investor receives a gift as the source of funds, the giftor must fully trace his or her funds that ultimately became the investment.  Funds earned or obtained in the United States while the investor was out of status are not deemed to be lawfully acquired.

4. Active Involvement in the New Commercial Enterprise.  The investor is expected to participate in the management of the new commercial enterprise either through day-to-day management or by assisting in the formulation of the enterprise’s business policy.  The investor cannot have a purely passive role in regard to the investment.

In the regional center context, investors in an EB-5 enterprise organized as a limited partnership usually have the rights and duties accorded to limited partners under the state’s Limited Partnership Act.  The same is true for a limited liability company.  This level of involvement is sufficient for EB-5 purposes.  In the direct investment context, the investor can manage the enterprise or formulate policy for the business by acting as a member of the Board of Directors or exercising voting control over the business.

5. Employment Creation.  The new commercial enterprise must create not fewer than ten (10) full-time positions for qualifying employees for each EB-5 investor.  In the direct investment context with no regional center affiliation, the 10 jobs created must be full time (35+ hours per week), permanent, and for W-2 employees of the new commercial enterprise.  Independent contractors do not count.  Additionally, the positions must be filled by qualifying employees, meaning a United States citizen, a lawfully admitted permanent resident, or other immigrant lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States including, but not limited to, a conditional resident, a temporary resident, an asylee, a refugee, or an alien remaining in the United States under suspension of deportation. This definition does not include the alien entrepreneur, the alien entrepreneur’s spouse, sons, or daughters, or any nonimmigrant alien.  At the time of the I-526 petition, if the positions are not yet created, the comprehensive business plan must contain a full description of the hiring plan to show the positions that will be created and when those positions will be filled.

In the regional center context, to show that the new commercial enterprise meets the statutory employment creation requirement, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the investment will create full-time positions for not fewer than 10 persons either directly or indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting from the Pilot Program.  According to USCIS, indirect jobs are those jobs shown to have been created collaterally by the project as a result of capital invested in a commercial enterprise affiliated with a regional center. The number of indirect jobs created through an EB-5 investor’s capital investment is based upon a business plan and a detailed economic analysis.  The EB-5 petition must contain evidence, in the form of an economic report, to show that 10 indirect jobs will be created for each investor in the project.

If these requirements are met, the I-526 petition should be approved.  If the investor and his family are abroad, they will apply for immigrant visas at a U.S. Consulate abroad.  When they enter the U.S. on the visas, they will become conditional permanent residents of the United States.  If the investor and his family are in the U.S., they may be eligible to adjust their status to conditional permanent residents.  Conditional permanent residence is granted for two years, and at the end of two years, the investor and his family must file Form I-829 to remove those conditions.  At that time, the investor must show the new commercial enterprise was sustained during the period of conditional permanent residence, their investment was sustained during the period of conditional permanent residence, and the 10 jobs were created.

Article By:

 of

Canadians, the American Dream, and the EB-5 Investor Visa

Altro Levy Logo

It’s that time of year when Canadians wintering south of the border begin to realize that fairly soon they will be packing their things and making the long trip north again. Some of them will do so willingly, eager to get back to friends and family, others will consider extending their stay by another couple of weeks or months, and still others will wonder if there is not some way to make a permanent move south.

The cliché of the Canadian “Snow Bird” exists, because it is a reality. Every winter thousands of Canadians travel south to places like Florida, Arizona, California and Hawaii. The majority retired, they may effectively spend half of their retirement Stateside.

Agreements between the US and Canada make this yearly passage possible. Under US immigration laws, Canadians are generally allowed entry as a visitor in the US for up to 6 months (180 days) at a time when they cross the US border by land, air or sea.

When it comes to taxes, the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has its own set of rules completely distinct from US immigration law. The US IRS allows Canadians to spend up to 182 days in the US under its “substantial presence” test over the course of 3 years before requiring Canadians to file a non-resident US tax return. Even then, the Canada-US tax treaty provides protections to facilitate this reporting and to keep Canadians on side with both the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) and the IRS (see IRS Form 8833 Treaty Based Return Position Disclosure).

It is important for every Canadian spending time south of the border to make note of these separate, and sometimes conflicting, rules.

For those Canadians wishing to extend their stay in the US, they should look at both of these aforementioned rules to determine if this possibility exists for them. With the US and Canada announcing new initiatives to share information on the entry and exit of people across their shared border, it is possible that overstaying your 6 month entry to the US by even a few days could cause issues with US immigration next time you try to reenter the US. Additionally, for those who wish to avoid the hassle of US income tax filings, special care and attention should be given to the IRS’ “substantial presence” test.

What about those Canadians whose American Dream is not just passing October to April in the US, but rather relocating permanently?

While the US has various visa options available for those looking to work or start a business in the US, it does not have any retiree visa options, unless, perhaps, the applicant is closely related to a US citizen.

Those without a US citizen as a close relative who wish to immigrate to the US without the responsibility of working or starting a company may wish to consider the EB-5 Investor Visa.

The EB-5 Investor Visa was created by the Immigration Act of 1990, and it is a direct pathway to US permanent residency (also known as a US green card). Permanent residency allows you to live and work, or not work, in the US for as long as you would like. It also gives access to potential eligibility for programs such as US Social Security Insurance and Medicare.

To qualify for an EB-5 Investor Visa, the applicant is generally required to invest $1 Million USD in a business entity that creates or preserves at least 10 full-time jobs for US workers within 2 years. In exchange, the investor receives conditional permanent residency for the first two years, and full permanent residency at 2 years once he or she proves fulfillment of the visa requirements. It also allows the spouse and unmarried children under age 21 of the applicant to receive permanent residency.

For those who do not want or are not able to make a $1 Million USD investment, the US government will issue an EB-5 Investor Visa for investments of $500,000 USD in an approved “regional center” project, or if the passive investment is made in either a targeted low employment or rural area. Additionally, those who invest in regional centers receive the added benefit of being able to look to “indirect job creation” to fulfill the 10 full-time US jobs requirement.

Entrepreneurs starting an enterprise in the US may use the EB-5 visa, but it is equally accessible to passive investors looking for a way to make a permanent move to the US, especially when dealing with an approved regional center.

Article By:

 of

EEOC Files Two Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Lawsuits in Two Weeks

barnes

The EEOC recently filed its first-ever lawsuit alleging a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) – and subsequently filed its second GINA lawsuit one week later.

The first lawsuit settled, with a fabrics distributor paying $50,000 and agreeing to take other specified actions (i.e. posting an anti-discrimination notice, among other things) after the EEOC alleged a violation of GINA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, with respect to GINA, the EEOC charged that the distributor violated the Act when it asked the woman for her family medical history in a post-offer medical examination, including questions relating to the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis, and “mental disorders” in her family.

The second lawsuit remains pending and was filed against a nursing and rehabilitation center. The EEOC similarly charged that the center violated GINA when it requested family medical history in a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination. The second lawsuit also alleges violations of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

dna (1)

According to the EEOC, GINA “makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history; and also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information.”

As noted in both press releases, one of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the agency to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, which includes genetic discrimination. As this recent EEOC action signals a focus on GINA issues, employers are encouraged to ensure their policies related to employee medical information and examination comply with the Act.

What’s New Out There? A Trade and Business Regulatory Update

Sheppard Mullin 2012Proposed DoD Rule: Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts (DFARS Case 2012-D-005)

On May 16, 2013, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a proposed rule that would amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) relating to the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts, in partial implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81) and the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). 78 Fed. Reg. 28780 (May 16, 2013). The proposed rule would impose new obligations for detecting and protecting against the inclusion of counterfeit parts in their products. Public comments in response to the proposed amendment are due by July 15, 2013.

The proposed rule, titled Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts (DFARS Case 2012-D-005), partially implements Section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 requiring the issuance of regulations addressing the responsibility of contractors (a) to detect and avoid the use or inclusion of counterfeit – or suspect counterfeit – electronic parts, (b) to use trusted suppliers, and (c) to report counterfeit and suspect counterfeit electronic parts. Pub. L. 112-81,§ 818(c). Section 818(c) also requires DoD to revise the DFARS to make unallowable the costs of re-work or other actions necessary to deal with the use or suspected use of counterfeit electronic parts. Id. The new rule also proposes the following in order to implement the requirements defined in Section 818.

  • Definitions: Adds definitions to DFARS 202.101 for the terms “counterfeit part,” “electronic part,” “legally authorized source,” and “suspect counterfeit part.”
  • Cost Principles and Procedures: Adds DFARS section 231.205-71, which would apply to contractors covered by the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) who supply electronic parts, and would make unallowable the costs of counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts and the costs of rework or corrective action that may be required to remedy the use or inclusion of such parts. This section provides a narrow exception where (1) the contractor has an operational system to detect and avoid counterfeit parts that has been reviewed and approved by DoD pursuant to DFARS 244.303; (2) the counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts are government furnished property defined in FAR 45.101; and (3) the covered contractor provides timely notice to the Government.
  • Avoidance and Detection System: Requires contractors to establish and maintain an acceptable counterfeit avoidance detection system that addresses, at a minimum, the following areas: training personnel; inspection and testing; processes to abolish counterfeit parts proliferation; traceability of parts to suppliers; use and qualification of trusted suppliers; reporting and quarantining counterfeit and suspect counterfeit parts; systems to detect and avoid counterfeit electronic parts; and the flow down of avoidance and detection requirements to subcontractors.

Potential Impacts on Contractors and Subcontractors

Although the rule is designed constructively to combat the problem of counterfeit parts in the military supply chain, it imposes additional obligations and related liabilities on contractors and subcontractors alike.

  • The proposed rule shifts the burden of protecting against counterfeit electronic parts to contractors, thus increasing contractor costs and potential contractor liability in this area.
  • Under the proposed rule, contractors would need to take steps to establish avoidance and detection systems in order to monitor for and protect against potential counterfeit electronic parts, also increasing the financial and temporal impact on contractors.
  • Avoidance and detection system requirements will need to be flowed down to subcontractors, increasing subcontractors’ responsibility – and thus liability – for counterfeit parts.
  • The proposed rule would also make unallowable the costs incurred to remove and replace counterfeit parts, which could have a significant financial impact on contractors – even under cost type contracts.
  • As it currently stands, the narrow exception regarding the allowability of such costs applies only where the contractor meets all three requirements of the exception, which likely would be a rare occurrence.

Interim SBA Rule: Expansion of WOSB Program, RIN 3245-AG55

On May 7, 2013, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued an interim final rule implementing Section 1697 of the NDAA for FY 2013, removing the statutory dollar amount for contracts set aside for Women-Owned Small Business (“WOSB”) under the Women-Owned Small Business Program. 78 Fed. Reg. 26504 (May 7, 2013). Comments are due by June 6, 2013.

The new rule would amend SBA 127.503 to permit Contracting Officers (“COs”) to set aside contracts for WOSBs and Economically Disadvantaged WOSBs (“EDWOSBs”) at any dollar amount if there is a reasonable expectation of competition among WOSBs as follows: (1) in industries where WOSBs are underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement where two or more EDWOSBs will submit offers for the contract and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price; or (2) in industries where WOSBs are substantially underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement if two or more WOSBs will submit offers for the contract, and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price.

The new rule would amend SBA 127.503 to permit Contracting Officers (“COs”) to set aside contracts for WOSBs and Economically Disadvantaged WOSBs (“EDWOSBs”) at any dollar amount if there is a reasonable expectation of competition among WOSBs as follows: (1) in industries where WOSBs are underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement where two or more EDWOSBs will submit offers for the contract and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price; or (2) in industries where WOSBs are substantially underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement if two or more WOSBs will submit offers for the contract, and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price.

Article By:

 of

Federal Contractors: The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify Clause Revisited – Critical Steps a Contractor Can Take To Foster E-Verify Compliance

Sheppard Mullin 2012

“Yes, we use E-Verify.” “Of course, our company is in compliance, we did an I-9 audit a few years ago – isn’t that the same as E-Verify?” “I know this is not an issue, because I remember being told we addressed all I-9 and E-Verify issues.” “No, the General Counsel’s office doesn’t handle immigration issues.”

You get the picture. Many companies simply do not take immigration compliance seriously. This failing usually does not come from a disinterest in compliance, but rather from a threshold failure to understand the intricacies involved in immigration issues or the potential exposure that could result from noncompliance. Only when faced with government investigations, public scrutiny, or other negative impacts on the business do the right people in the right places start to pay attention. When they learn that federal contractors can be suspended or debarred for failing to adhere to immigration and E-Verify related issues that attention is heightened.

It has been almost three years since the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause (FAR 52.222-54) for federal contractors went into effect in September of 2009. E-Verify is a free, internet-based system that electronically verifies the work eligibility of new employees by comparing the Form I-9 related information employees submit with the records of theSocial Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Close to 450,000 employers are now enrolled in E-Verify. While the Government does not charge contractors to use the program, companies should be cognizant of the operational costs associated with E-Verify, including costs connected to training, monitoring, and verifying compliance with the System. In the case of federal contractors, E-Verify must be used to verify all new employees as well as existing employees assigned to a contract. However, there is also an option available to verify an entire existing workforce upon receipt of a qualifying federal contract.

Not every federal contract, however, will be subject to the FAR E-Verify requirements. FAR 52.222-54 exempts federal contracts that include only commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items (or minor modifications to a COTS item) and related services; contracts of less than the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000); contracts that have a duration of less than 120 days; and contracts where all work is performed outside the United States. As defined in FAR 2.101, a COTS item is: (i) a commercial item, (ii) that is sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace, and (iii) that is offered to the Government without modification as the product is available in the commercial marketplace. There are other employee-related exemptions that federal contractors should be familiar with, including employees hired before November 7, 1986, employees with specific security clearances, and employees that have previously been processed through E-Verify by the federal contractor.

Compliance is Non-Negotiable

To date, the Government has been fairly lackadaisical in its review of compliance in the E-Verify arena. Accordingly, it is not surprising that E-Verify compliance may not fall very high on a federal contractor’s list of legal concerns. However, with a comprehensive immigration reform package, that includes a mandatory E-Verify provision and new laws percolating in the States, contractors should reconsider their priorities. Increased enforcement is likely and a proactive review of current E-Verify related processes, including sub-contractor flow down, and other policies is recommended.

In fact, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that runs the E-Verify program, has beefed up its Monitoring & Compliance Branch’s activity to review to detect, deter, and reduce misuse, abuse, and fraud. And who can blame it? The agency clearly wants to be in a position to provide detailed E-Verify data and good-looking numbers to Congress as the immigration debate heats up in Washington, DC. Fortunately for USCIS, ample funding has been designated for the program. As a result, participants have benefited not only from an extraordinary increase in E-Verify resources and training aides, but also from immensely improved technology used in the system.

It is no surprise that along with the increased funding comes increased monitoring of usage. In fact, USCIS site visits and desk reviews appear to have escalated. A number of companies recently have received calls informing them they are not in compliance with E-Verify procedures. The calls are friendly and are sometimes coupled with an “offer of assistance” in the form of a USCIS visit. By the way, it is an offer you cannot refuse without being viewed as uncooperative – not a good thing for a Government contractor.

Such visits and calls from the USCIS’ Monitoring & Compliance Branch are to be taken very seriously. Accordingly, federal contractors not only should review and revise, but truly understand, the processes they have in place for E-Verify as well as the entire Form I-9 process. Such processes also should be tested periodically for accuracy and efficacy. Federal contractors should want to know whether their E-Verify policies actually are working in the field the way they are written on the paper. Nothing a company is doing should be a surprise to the general counsel’s office, and nothing in the E-Verify reports should read like a foreign language to the individuals charged with overseeing the system.

History is Cyclical

The pace of E-Verify implementation picked up incredibly in June of 2010 when the GSA announced a mass modification of all Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts that mandated the incorporation of E-Verify. Federal contractors continued to do their best to comply promptly, but oversights and omissions were inevitable.

Almost three years later, things are quieter on the E-Verify front, but the obligations and risks remain. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) certainly reviews E-Verify matters, we have seen few if any reviews of federal contractor programs. But this soon will change. DHS likely will refocus and retool its worksite with a particular focus on E-Verify and other types of immigration compliance if the system is made mandatory for all U.S. employers. After all, USCIS no longer will have to sell its system. Everyone will buy it; there is no one else to buy it from, and there will be no choice but to buy it. It will be just a matter of when one buys. Government contractors, as the first purchasers of E-Verify, should expect to be among the first non-compliance “examples” when the time comes.

The Realities of E-Verify for Federal Contractors

There is no doubt that E-Verify is a best practice. However, it is not a replacement for background checks and other post-employment screenings and safeguards monitoring the system. In fact, the E-Verify system is still very much prone to identity theft, and must internally be monitored for misuse and overall compliance. While the Government agrees that E-Verify usage creates a “rebuttable presumption” that a company has not knowingly hired an unauthorized alien, there still can be problems. In fact, employers may face civil and criminal liability if, based upon the totality of the circumstances, it can be established that they knowingly hired or continued to employ unauthorized workers. Remember, a federal contractor’s participation in E-Verify does not provide a safe harbor from worksite enforcement. The Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel (OSC) also takes E-Verify violations very seriously and continues to open investigations involving abuse of the system. Unlike its sister agencies OSC has taken a keen interest in reviewing E-Verify related matters. Most notably, many of the OSC’s investigations do not involve malice in intent but rather accidental misuse of the system.

Best Practices for Federal Contractor’s

While not an all-inclusive list, federal contractors would be well served by considering the following proactive steps:

  1. Provide bi-annual training to anyone who is a user in the system. As E-Verify ramps up its site visits and desk reviews, compliance is more important than ever. Ensure your I-9 compliance is also in shape, as the I-9 data feeds into the E-Verify system.
  2. Verify your company has a viable policy established to flow down the E-Verify requirement to your sub-contractors, vendors. E-Verify usage is a “flow down” requirement; prime contractors are required to take steps to ensure that subcontractors for services or construction of more than $3,000 also implement the rules. Regardless of the size of your company, verify this process and take the extra step of seeing how it works in practice.
  3. Create a sub-contractor verification system. While the scope of a prime contractor’s “flow down” responsibilities to subcontractors and identifying which subcontracts are subject to E-Verify were not clearly defined in the FAR regulation, many believe merely having a copy of the “E-Verify Enrollment Page” of the subcontractor will not be enough when things go wrong.
  4. Carefully review the E-Verify exemptions. Limited exemptions for COTS contracts, contracts where work is performed outside of the United States, and for employees with specific active security clearances exist but are often harder to segregate and rely on then general usage of E-Verify. Consistency is key in deciding when to use E-Verify.
  5. Review overall immigration and visa compliance. In today’s world, it is simply not acceptable for employers, particularly large ones, to rely on an “off-the-shelf” compliance approach. Policies, electronic I-9 and E-Verify systems all must be vetted and monitored. Audits that review overall immigration compliance programs should address E-Verify compliance risk factors. Moreover, an independently audited immigration compliance program, preserves attorney client privilege and could protect employers from debarment or involuntary suspension from the E-Verify program. Specifically such a review should include the company’s Form I-9s, visa processes and E-Verify reports.
  6. Review E-Verify Usage. Do not assume everything is working the way it is supposed to. Someone needs to roll up their sleeves, and get dirty; ensure all users are closing case correctly and ensure all users know how to process Tentative Non-Confirmation notices. Reviewing E-Verify reports should be an ongoing, frequently completed task for someone in the organization. If you use an electronic I-9 system, it is even more important that you review the status of cases as well as historical data as often as possible. E-Verify only works well if a company first understands the importance of Form I-9 compliance.
  7. Review your Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USCIS. The E-Verify program requires companies to agree to certain conditions upon enrolling in the system via the MOU. Do not take these responsibilities lightly. Ensure the specifics of the E-Verify agreement are accurate and up to date. For example, does the company still have two hiring sites? Is the company no longer performing E-Verify from the centralized location noted in the MOU? Almost three years after the FAR E-Verify clause went into effect, we still run across government contractors that are not enrolled in the E-Verify program or not correctly enrolled. We also routinely run across large prime contractors that have not adequately implemented their E-Verify program and flow-down procedures.
  8. Consider the impact of E-Verify as it pertains to any Union presence the company may have. A careful review of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claim that use of E-Verify should be bargained is something to be carefully reviewed by federal contractors and their affiliates.
  9. Ensure you track employees assigned to contracts if your entire workforce was not E-verified at the onset. It is critical to have someone charged with knowledge of which employees are assigned to a contract within the meaning of the regulations and a system in place to E-Verify any legacy employees that have not previously undergone verification.
  10. Review E-Verify in the context of your current corporate structure or in terms of a merger, acquisition or other restructuring. A careful assessment of a federal contractor E-Verify related responsibilities and the associated timelines involved during any restructuring must be carefully considered. It is also important to analyze which affiliated entities are considered under government contract for purposes of the E-Verify clause. An affiliate or subsidiary with a different EIN may not necessarily be subject to the E-Verify provisions.

Debarments and Other Penalties

Federal contractors will continue to be responsible for E-Verify compliance for the foreseeable future. The consequences of a failure to use the E-Verify program leading to the loss of current and future federal contracts should not be downplayed. Federal contractor compliance with the E-Verify MOU is a performance requirement under the terms of the federal contact. As such, termination of the contract for failure to perform is one potential consequence of noncompliance with the MOU. Suspension or debarment, of course, also may be a potential consequence where the violation suggests the contractor is not responsible. Indeed, the E-Verify program’s suspension and debarment enforcement activities are being ramped up. DHS already ranks high on the agency list for debarment numbers, leading with a significant number of non-procurement FAR debarments. In FY12, ICE alone debarred 142 businesses and 234 individuals. Federal contractors need to take this enforcement activity seriously as it likely will increase in the face of mandatory E-Verify.

In short, now is the time for companies proactively to review internal polices, perform the necessary risk assessments, conduct the Form I-9 exposure as well as anti-discrimination audits, and then take ownership of any changes or improvements that need to be made.

Top 10 Affordable Care Act Compliance Tasks for Employers in 2013

Dickinson Wright LogoWith apologies to David Letterman, here are the top 10 Affordable Care Act compliance tasks for employers in 2013:

  1. Continue tracking for purposes of reporting the value of health plan coverage provided during 2013 on Form W-2 issued in January 2014 (for employers who issue more than 250 Forms W-2).
  2. The maximum reimbursement from a health flexible spending account for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2013 is $2,500.  Make sure employees are aware of any reduction from prior years.
  3. An additional Medicare tax of 0.9% must be withheld from the wages of employees making more than $200,000 beginning in 2013.
  4. The summary of benefits and coverage (“SBC”) must be distributed to eligible employees during the open enrollment period.  Any changes to the SBC must generally be distributed at least 60 days before the effective date.
  5. The first payment of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee (the “PCORI” fee or the “comparative effectiveness” fee) is due July 31, 2013, regardless of the plan year of the health plan.  This fee is $1.00 per covered member (including employees and dependents) for the first year and is reported to the IRS on Form 720.  Health insurers will file the form and pay the fee for insured plans; a plan sponsor of a self-insured plan is responsible for filing and payment with respect to any self-insured plan.
  6.  A notice of availability of the Health Insurance Marketplace (formerly called the Exchange) must be given to current employees on or before October 1, 2013 and to all employees hired on or after October 1, 2013.  Model notices are available on the DOL website.
  7. The DOL has also published new COBRA model notices. It is unclear when the updated notices must be issued, but it appears to be no earlier than October 1, 2013, as the new COBRA notices refer to the availability of the Health Insurance Marketplace as an alternative to COBRA coverage.
  8. Establish the measurement period, administrative period, and stability period for purposes of determining whether employees are “full-time” for purposes of eligibility for the health plan and for purposes of the “pay or play” penalty.  For current employees, these periods will start in 2013 for purposes of 2014 eligibility determinations.  Determine how and when you will communicate the rules – in the SPD?  During open enrollment? As part of the employee handbook?
  9. If you are not sure whether your business is a large employer, count the number of full-time employees and full-time equivalents for at least a 6-month period in 2013 to determine if the business has more than 50 full-time/full-time equivalent employees as of January 1, 2014.
  10. If you are a large employer and you wish to avoid “pay or play” penalties in 2014, evaluate plan design and employee contributions to determine if the lowest cost option provides minimum value and is affordable.  Make sure waiting periods are not longer than 90 days.

Last word of advice: stay on top of continuing developments and be prepared for questions from employees.  It is a time of great change and uncertainty for employees as well as employers.

Article By:

 of

China Enacts New Employment Law Affecting Employers Who Do Not Directly Employ Their Workers

Sheppard Mullin 2012

China has a new employment law. This new law significantly impacts an employer who does not directly employ its own workers, but instead uses agencies such as FESCO or third party staffing companies, also known as labor dispatching agencies. At the end of 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the Decision on the Revision of the Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Amendment”). The Amendment will take effect July 1st of this year. The intent of the Amendment is to offer better protection to workers employed by labor dispatching agencies.

Labor dispatching is a common method of employment where a worker enters into an employment contract with a labor dispatch agency and is then dispatched to work in another company – commonly referred to as the “host company”. This type of employment arrangement has proved problematic because many of the dispatched workers are not paid wages commensurate with their work as compared to their direct hire, permanent employee counterparts. Additionally, the dispatched workers’ health and safety rights are not well protected. The Amendment tackles this problem by requiring employers to hire the majority of their workforce directly and by strictly controlling the number of dispatched laborers. Moreover, the Amendment clearly states that all employers shall stick to the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.

The four main revisions introduced by the Amendment can be found by clicking here:

MAIN SECTION:

Heightened Standards

First, the standards for establishing a Labor Dispatch Agency are heightened. Specifically, a labor dispatch agency is now required to:

a. have a minimum registered capital of no less than RMB 2,000,000 (previously only RMB 500,000);

b. operate from a permanent business premise with facilities that are suitable to conduct its business;

c. have internal dispatch rules that are compliant with the relevant laws and administrative regulations;

d. satisfy other conditions as prescribed by laws and administrative regulations; and

e. apply for an administrative license and obtain approval from the relevant labor authorities.

All labor dispatch agencies established after July 1, 2013, will need to meet these new local labor law requirements before they can start the company registration process. Existing agencies that are already licensed have until July 1, 2014, to meet all local labor law requirements before renewing their business registration.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Second, one of the most problematic areas of the former dispatch model was the inequitable pay between dispatch workers and their similarly situated, direct hire counterparts. The Amendment adds the principle of “equal pay for equal work” such that dispatch agencies must provide the same remuneration standards for dispatched employees as is provided to the direct hire employees who hold similar positions.

Clarification of Acceptable Outsourcing

Third, the Amendment clarifies that labor dispatch arrangements should only be implemented for temporary, ancillary or substitute positions. The Amendment clearly defines these categories as follows:

  • Temporary position: A position that will last no more than six months
  • Auxiliary position: A position that is not a part of the main or core business of the company
  • Substitute position: A position that must be temporarily filled because a permanent employee is away from work on leave or for other reasons

The Amendment further narrows the use of outsourcing by limiting the percentage of outsourced workers a company may have. The actual percentage shall be prescribed by the Labor Administration Department of the State Council. This percentage of dispatched workers does not apply to representative offices established by foreign companies in China. This is because representative offices are not allowed to hire Chinese employees directly, and instead must hire them through a labor dispatching agency.

Tougher Penalties

Fourth, the Amendment imposes tougher penalties. Specifically, for entities providing labor dispatch services without a license, the labor authorities may confiscate all illegal gains and impose a fine of no less than one time, but not more than five times, the illegal gains on such entities. Where there are no illegal gains, a fine of no more than RMB 50,000 may be imposed.

Employers and dispatching agencies violating the law, and failing to correct the violations within a certain time period, may be fined between RMB 5,000 and RMB 10,000 per dispatched worker. Additionally, labor dispatching agencies may get their business licenses revoked.

Conclusion

How aggressively the new law will be enforced remains to be seen, but companies should be prepared none the less. Companies that use labor dispatch agencies should ensure that their service provider has the proper license. Furthermore, any company with a high percentage of dispatched workers should evaluate their employment model and prepare for potentially transitioning their employment strategies in order to comply with the new Labor Contract Law. This may include direct hiring for some of the currently outsourced positions. Lastly, companies should evaluate their internal policies to ensure that they are sufficient for any changes – especially those involving headcount – that may be made.

Article By:

 of