Category: Labor & Employment

Employers Beware: Take-Home COVID Cases are on the Rise (US)

You’ve just been informed that an employee who apparently contracted COVID-19 from exposure in your workplace brought the virus home, and now his spouse, who is in a high-risk category, has contracted the virus and is in the hospital.  Do you as the employer face potential liability for the spouse’s illness?

More than two dozen so-called “take-home” COVID-19 lawsuits have been filed across the country, including against some of the largest employers in the US. This alarming pattern has prompted trade groups to warn employers of the potential for lawsuits stemming from COVID infections filed not only by workers’ family and friends but by anyone infected by that circle of people, creating a seemingly endless chain of liability for employers. Some states have enacted laws shielding employers from such suits, but where that is not the case, the legal theories and procedural paths under which these suits have proceeded vary – including some being brought in state courts, some in federal courts, and others brought under claims within the worker’s compensation system.

The issue is currently being tested in California, where the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently certified questions to the California Supreme Court seeking guidance on the state’s laws. The case, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., arose after Mr. Kuciemba allegedly was exposed to COVID-19 through his work at one of his employer’s job sites.  According to the Kuciembas, Victory knowingly transferred workers from an infected construction site to the job site where Mr. Kuciemba was assigned without following the safety procedures required by the San Francisco Health Order. He was forced to work in close contact with these employees, and soon developed COVID-19, which he brought back home. His wife is over 65 years old and was at high risk from COVID-19, and the family had been careful to limit their exposure to the virus, with the exception of Mr. Kuciemba going to work. Mrs. Kuciemba subsequently tested positive for the disease and was hospitalized for over a month after developing severe symptoms. The Kuciembas filed suit, alleging that Victory caused Mrs. Kuciemba’s injuries by violating the Health Orders, and negligently allowed COVID-19 to spread from its worksite into their household.

The lower court dismissed the case, which was then appealed to the federal appeals court. After hearing the argument, the court asked the California Supreme Court to answer two questions of state law. First, whether Mrs. Kuciemba’s illness was an “injury” that was “derivative” of Mr. Kuciemba’s work-related injury, and therefore, Mrs. Kuciemba’s claims would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Worker’s Compensation Act (“WCA”); and second, assuming that the WCA is not the exclusive remedy, whether the employer owed a duty to the households of its employees to exercise ordinary care to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Neither question has been squarely answered by the California Supreme Court, although, as noted by the federal appeals court, in a somewhat analogous situation, California courts have allowed suits against employers who negligently allowed their employees to carry asbestos fibers home to their families.

While the Kuciemba case was pending, a California Court of Appeal in another case, See’s Candies v. Superior Court, ruled that the derivative injury doctrine does not bar third-party COVID-related claims. Under a similar fact pattern, the court allowed the negligence case to go forward while noting that the plaintiff would still need to prove that the employer owed a duty of care to non-employees infected with COVID-19 due to an employee contracting the virus at work. Acknowledging that an analysis of this duty “appear[s] worthy of exploration,” the state appellate court said the analysis would include an assessment of “public policy concerns that might support excluding certain kinds of plaintiffs or injuries from relief.” The California Supreme Court declined to review the See’s case, meaning that it’s holding still stands.

The California Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will use its discretion to respond to the Ninth Circuit’s certified questions in the Kuciembas’ case. In the meantime, California employers cannot automatically rely on the exclusive remedial scheme provided under the worker’s compensation system to cover these claims and are not necessarily shielded from COVID-19 lawsuits brought by employees’ family members (and perhaps others). That said, even if employers owe their employees’ families a duty of care, affected employees will still have to prove that it was the employer’s negligence that caused the illness and that the virus was not contracted from another source – a tall order for a highly transmissible virus like COVID-19. In the meantime, however, it behooves all California employers to continue maintaining health and safety measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and react quickly and appropriately in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19 in the workplace.

Article By Karen E. Wentzel and Cristen R. Hintze of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

How Changing Beneficial Ownership Reporting May Impact Activism

The SEC in February proposed amendments to Regulation 13D-G to modernize beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Adoption of the amendments as proposed will accelerate the timing – and expand the scope – of knowledge of certain activist activities. The deadline for comments on the proposed rules was April 11 and final rules are expected to be released later this year.

The current reporting timeline creates an asymmetry of information between beneficial owners on the one hand and other stockholders and issuers on the other. The SEC proposal is seeking to eliminate this asymmetry and address other concerns surrounding current beneficial ownership reporting. The accelerated beneficial ownership reporting deadlines will result in greater transparency in stock ownership, allowing market participants to receive material information in a timely manner and potentially alleviating the market manipulation and abusive tactics used by some investors.

The shortened filing deadlines should benefit a company’s overall shareholder engagement activities. The investor relations team at a company will have a more accurate and up-to-date picture of its institutional investor base throughout the year, which should result in more timely outreach to such shareholders.

INVESTOR ACCUMULATION OF SHARES BEFORE DISCLOSURE

Although issuers will likely view the proposed rules as beneficial, many commentators have predicted a negative impact on shareholder activism. Under the current reporting requirements, certain activist investors may benefit by having both additional time to accumulate shares before disclosing such activities and potentially more flexibility in strategizing with other investors.

Many commentators have argued that the proposed shorter timeline for beneficial ownership reporting will negatively impact an activist shareholder’s ability to accumulate shares of an issuer at a potentially lower price than if market participants had more timely knowledge of such activity and intent. In many cases a company’s stock price is impacted once an investor files a Schedule 13D with clear activist intent. This can even occur in some cases once a Schedule 13G is filed by a known activist investor without current activist intent.

If the shorter reporting deadlines reduce such investors’ profit, it is expected that an investor’s incentive to accumulate stock in order to initiate change at a company will also be reduced. Activists instead may be encouraged to engage more with management. In other words, the shorter reporting period may deter short-term activists and encourage more long-term focused activism.

TIMING OF ISSUER RESPONSE

The shorter reporting deadlines are also expected to result in management having earlier notice of any takeover attempt and to give a company the opportunity to react more quickly to any such attempt. There is potential for this to lead to increased use of low-threshold poison pills. But the SEC stated in the proposed rules release that it believes the risk of abundant reactionary low-threshold poison pills is overstated due to scrutiny of such poison pills from courts and academia, limitations imposed by state law and the unlikelihood that the beneficial ownership would trigger the low-threshold poison pills.

Companies that have low-threshold poison pills – such as one designed to protect a company’s net operating losses – may want to review them to confirm that the proposed rules would not be expected to have any impact. For example, such poison pills may link the definition of beneficial ownership to the SEC rules, including Schedule 13D and 13G filings.

‘GROUP’ REPORTING

Another proposed change expected to affect shareholder activism is the expanded definition of ‘group’ for the purposes of reporting under Schedule 13D. The current rules require an explicit agreement between two or more persons to establish a group for purposes of the beneficial ownership reporting thresholds.

Commentators believe that under the current rules, certain investors seeking change at a company may share the fact that they are accumulating shares of a company with other shareholders or activists, which can then act on this information before the general public is aware; in other words, before public disclosure in and market reaction to the Schedule 13D filing. This activity may result in near-term gains for the select few involved before uninformed shareholders can react.

Under the SEC’s proposed amended Rule 13d-5, persons who share information with another regarding an upcoming Schedule 13D filing are deemed to have formed a group within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) regardless of whether an explicit agreement is in place, and such concerted action will trigger reporting requirements. This proposed change is expected to benefit companies and shareholders overall by preventing certain investors from acting in concert on information not known to a company and its other shareholders.

The full impact of the proposed rule changes on shareholder activism cannot be accurately predicted, but we believe that at a minimum, issuers will find it beneficial to have more regularly updated information on their institutional investor base for, among other things, their shareholder engagement efforts.

Article By Alexandra Clark Layfield and Rachel Solino of  Jones Walker LLP

For more Securities and SEC news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Jones Walker LLP

Monkeypox—Do Employers Need to Worry?

Several cases of monkeypox have now been found in the United States. We do not yet know whether employers will need to worry about monkeypox in the context of their workforces and workplace, but it may be wise to be informed.

Monkeypox is a viral illness that has symptoms including body aches, headaches, fatigue, and, notably, a bumpy skin rash. It is primarily found in Africa, most particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Monkeypox has an incubation period that generally lasts 7-14 days but can be as long as 5-21 days. It has now recently been found in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The first case reported was in Massachusetts in a man who had been to Canada. The second was in New York City by another individual who had a virus similar to monkeypox. And the third was a “presumptive case” involving a Broward County, Florida, man who had traveled internationally, the CDC said.

Unlike what we have been through with COVID-19, wearing a mask will likely not be an issue with monkeypox. It is spread through infected animals, prolonged person-to-person contact, direct contact with lesion materials, or indirect contact through contaminated items, such as contaminated clothing. Avoiding these will help avoid the possibility of infection. Since frequent handwashing continues to be a good hygiene practice, continuing to make this an easy and frequent practice for employees is generally a good health practice, according to health officials.

Monkeypox has also recently been found in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. According to public health officials, the risk of exposure remains low although there are expected to be more cases in the United States. Health officials believe the smallpox vaccination will offer some amount of protection from monkeypox.

Employers that have employees who are soon to travel internationally, either for personal or business reasons, may want to consider educating them on the symptoms, how the virus is transmitted, and the fact that they may wish to consult with their own healthcare practitioners about the smallpox vaccination. There is no indication that travel should be avoided or prohibited.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

USCIS to Implement Premium Processing for Certain Previously Filed Form I-140 Petitions

On May 24, 2022, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it would begin implementing premium processing for certain petitioners who have a pending Form I-140 under the EB-1 and EB-2 classifications.

As explained in our previous alert, USCIS had announced that it will expand its premium processing service to include additional immigration benefit case types, pursuant to a final rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule is intended to implement the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act passed by Congress and is part of USCIS’s efforts to reduce existing backlogs and provide needed relief to Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cardholders.

While the rule will become effective on May 31, 2022, it will be implemented in a phased approach over a three-year period. USCIS has now begun implementing these changes to premium processing, starting with certain Form I-140 classifications: EB-1C (classification as a multinational executive or manager) and EB-2 (classification as a member of professions with advanced degrees or exceptional ability seeking a national interest waiver (NIW)).

This expansion will occur in the following phases:

  • Beginning June 1, 2022, USCIS will accept premium processing requests for EB-1C multinational executive and manager petitions received on or before January 1, 2021.
  • Beginning July 1, 2022, USCIS will accept premium processing requests for EB-2 NIW petitions received on or before June 1, 2021, and EB-1C multinational executive and manager petitions received on or before March 1, 2021.

USCIS will only accept premium processing requests for currently pending cases based on their date of filing, as noted above. USCIS is not accepting new Form I-140 petitions in these categories with a premium processing request at this time. We anticipate that USCIS will expand premium processing requests for more recently filed EB-1 and EB-2 petitions in the future.

Article By Shannon N. Parker of Mintz

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

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

EEOC and the DOJ Issue Guidance for Employers Using AI Tools to Assess Job Applicants and Employees

Employers are more frequently relying on the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools to automate employment decision-making, such as software that can review resumes and “chatbots” that interview and screen job applicants. We have previously blogged about the legal risks attendant to the use of such technologies, including here and here.

On May 12, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued long-awaited guidance on the use of such AI tools (the “Guidance”), examining how employers can seek to prevent AI-related disability discrimination. More specifically, the Guidance identifies a number of ways in which employment-related use of AI can, even unintentionally, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), including if:

  • (i) “[t]he employer does not provide a ‘reasonable accommodation’ that is necessary for a job applicant or employee to be rated fairly and accurately by” the AI;
  • (ii) “[t]he employer relies on an algorithmic decision-making tool that intentionally or unintentionally ‘screens out’ an individual with a disability, even though that individual is able to do the job with a reasonable accommodation”; or
  • (iii) “[t]he employer adopts an [AI] tool for use with its job applicants or employees that violates the ADA’s restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.”

The Guidance further states that “[i]n many cases” employers are liable under the ADA for use of AI even if the tools are designed and administered by a separate vendor, noting that “employers may be held responsible for the actions of their agents . . . if the employer has given them authority to act on [its] behalf.”

The Guidance also identifies various best practices for employers, including:

  • Announcing generally that employees and applicants subject to an AI tool may request reasonable accommodations and providing instructions as to how to ask for accommodations.
  • Providing information about the AI tool, how it works, and what it is used for to the employees and applicants subjected to it. For example, an employer that uses keystroke-monitoring software may choose to disclose this software as part of new employees’ onboarding and explain that it is intended to measure employee productivity.
  • If the software was developed by a third party, asking the vendor whether: (i) the AI software was developed to accommodate people with disabilities, and if so, how; (ii) there are alternative formats available for disabled individuals; and (iii) the AI software asks questions likely to elicit medical or disability-related information.
  • If an employer is developing its own software, engaging experts to analyze the algorithm for potential biases at different steps of the development process, such as a psychologist if the tool is intended to test cognitive traits.
  • Only using AI tools that measure, directly, traits that are actually necessary for performing the job’s duties.
  • Additionally, it is always a best practice to train staff, especially supervisors and managers, how to recognize requests for reasonable accommodations and to respond promptly and effectively to those requests. If the AI tool is used by a third party on the employer’s behalf, that third party’s staff should also be trained to recognize requests for reasonable accommodation and forward them promptly to the employer.

Finally, also on May 12th, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released its own guidance on AI tools’ potential for inadvertent disability discrimination in the employment context. The DOJ guidance is largely in accord with the EEOC Guidance.

Employers utilizing AI tools should carefully audit them to ensure that this technology is not creating discriminatory outcomes.  Likewise, employers must remain closely apprised of any new developments from the EEOC and local, state, and federal legislatures and agencies as the trend toward regulation continues.

Article By Joseph C O’Keefe and Edward C. Young of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

May 2022 Legal Industry News: Law Firm Additions, Industry Awards and Recognition, and Pro Bono Efforts

Happy May! As the weather gets warmer, we hope you are remaining safe, relaxed, and healthy. Please read on to find the latest news in law firm hiring and expansion, legal industry recognition, and pro bono and legal aid efforts.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Sidley Austin LLP has expanded its Emerging Companies practice with the addition of Cynthia Bai and Nicholas Frey, both of whom are located in the firm’s Palo Alto office. Ms. Bai, who also joins Sidley’s Global Finance group, focuses her practice on debt financing transactions across a variety of sectors, including healthcare, life science, and technology. Mr. Frey, who also joins the firm’s Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation group, focuses his practice on capital markets transaction support, equity plan and award design, mergers and acquisitions, and more.

Martin Wellington, leader of Sidley’s Emerging Companies and Venture Capital practice and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, said:

“With over a dozen new partners nationally in the emerging growth practice over the past several years, our strategic investment in this sector is only gaining momentum. Cynthia and Nic bring the Silicon Valley-native expertise that entrepreneurial technology and life sciences companies expect in credit and executive compensation matters, as they are intimately familiar with the bespoke practices and market norms that have grown up in this sector.”

Kennedys Law LLP has promoted 22 new attorneys to partner, a record-high number for the firm. With these additions, the firm’s total worldwide partner count stands at 293. The following attorneys have been selected for promotion:

“I am delighted to recognise and reward a record number of new partners this year and to see that success shared so widely across our global offices,” said senior partner Nick Thomas. “We are incredibly fortunate to have such a dedicated and diverse workforce, which not only enables us to be where our clients need us most but has allowed us to continue growing even during a challenging couple of years.”

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP has added Uri Itkin as a partner in the Investment Funds Litigation practice group. Mr. Itkin, a nationally recognized litigator and trial attorney, represents investment funds in all types of securities and commercial matters, such as real estate transactions, distressed corporate debt, and structured finance.

“Uri’s arrival is another outstanding addition to our litigation practice,” said Akin Gump chairperson Kim Koopersmith. “Uri is at the intersection of funds, litigation and regulatory, all market leading practices at our firm. He is perfectly situated to add tremendous value to our clients.”

“I am looking forward to continuing to grow my practice and building relationships with Akin Gump’s investment fund clients and my new colleagues at the firm,” said Mr. Itkin. “I am particularly excited about the firm’s wide range of knowledge and experience and its collaborative approach. They give clients valuable access to Akin Gump’s established team of knowledgeable attorneys who are experienced in a wide cross-section of investment fund practices.”

Industry Awards and Recognition

Sordum Ndam and Richard W.F. Swor, attorneys at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, have been recognized as Top 30 Under 30 professionals by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Tennessee Chapter. The honor is awarded to individuals who have shown dedication to their local communities and reached noteworthy achievements in their careers.

Ms. Ndam, an associate in the firm’s Economic Development and Environmental Law practice groups, is a member of the 2022 spring cohort of the Arts Board Matching for nonprofit board service experience in Nashville. Mr. Swor, an associate in the firm’s Litigation and Intellectual Property practice groups, serves on the board of the Belmont Wesley Fellowship and on the LGBT Law Executive Council of the Tennessee Bar Association.

“We are proud of Sordum and Richard for their professional and philanthropic efforts and for their recognition by such an important organization,” said Bradley Nashville Office Managing Partner Lauren B. Jacques.

Keith Hebeisen, a partner at Clifford Law Offices PC, is set to receive the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) Leonard M. Ring Lifetime Achievement Award. Each year, an ITLA committee selects one lawyer who has dedicated “a substantial part” of their work to the organization; Hebeisen has been an ITLA member since his induction as a lawyer in 1983. He also served as ITLA President in 2005-06, and has been a member of the ITLA Executive Committee for decades.

Mr. Hebeisen, a longtime medical malpractice attorney in Chicago, has represented clients in a wide array of industries, including but not limited to transportation, product liability and toxic torts. He is a Fellow in the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he additionally serves on the Board of Governors of the American Association of Justice.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP has been nominated for the Cyber Law Firm of the Year 2022 award by Advisen, a leading provider of data, media and technology solutions for the commercial property.

Every year, the award is presented to law firms and legal professionals who are deemed most influential in the cyber risk and cybersecurity industry. The winner will be announced on June 16th, 2022 at Gotham Hall in New York City.

Pro Bono and Legal Aid Efforts

Gilbert LLP, a complex dispute resolution-focused law firm in Washington D.C., has announced a new pro bono project, focused on assisting victims of this winter’s deadly tornadoes in Kentucky. The firm has partnered with Disaster Relief at Work and the town of Mayfield, Kentucky to rebuild the local park, which was heavily damaged by the weather. Gilbert will also make a significant financial contribution to ensure that the park is restored to its former condition.

“Mayfield Mayor Kathy Stewart O’Nan realized that rebuilding the park would help revitalize their town and give residents a spirit of hope going forward,” said Craig Litherland, Gilbert’s Managing Partner and Chief Operating Officer.  “Our attorneys decided that we wanted to be a part of Mayfield’s rebuilding efforts, and we are pleased to have been able to help in multiple ways.”

Partnering with Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is providing pro bono legal aid for Ukrainian citizens seeking Temporary Protected Status in the United States. Participating through L4GG’s TPS Pro Bono Project for Ukraine, the firm will offer free legal assistance from volunteer attorneys, who will assist in applying for TPS and answer any legal questions necessary.

Presently, Katten is also working with ongoing pro bono partner Airlink, providing monetary assistance through donation-matching efforts. Airlink developed a response plan to assist refugees of Ukraine through the delivery of aid and the transportation of emergency response teams into neighboring countries.

The Legal Aid Service of Broward County and the Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida recently honored several legal professionals for their commitment to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members in their communities. The Annual Recognition Awards, held May 2-6, 2022, aim to promote a better understanding of the law and its role in society.

2022 Award Recipients are as follows:

Article By Chandler Ford of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

New Jersey Employers Are Now Required to Provide Written Notice Before Using Tracking Devices in Employee-Operated Vehicles

Earlier this year, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Assembly Bill No. 3950, which requires employers in the State to provide written notice to an employee before using a tracking device on a vehicle used by the employee. The new law, which went into effect on April 18, 2022, recognizes that employers may have a legitimate business interest in being able to track their workforce’s whereabouts—particularly when traveling or working offsite—while also reconciling that with the protection of workers’ privacy rights. At the very least, the days of covertly tracking employee vehicles appear to be a thing of the past.

The law defines “tracking device” as any “electronic or mechanical device which is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person, or device,” with a specific carveout for devices used solely for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement.

Significantly, the written notice requirement applies to the use of tracking devices in any vehicles used by an employee. It does not matter whether it is an employee’s personal vehicle (whether owned or leased) or company-owned or provided. Written notice must be provided regardless.

Failure to comply with the law’s notice requirements can carry substantial penalties. An employer who knowingly makes use of a tracking device in a vehicle used by an employee without providing written notice to the employee shall be subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000.00 for the first violation, and then up to $2,500.00 for each subsequent violation. These fines can add up quickly, especially for service businesses with large vehicle fleets, among others. Additionally, it is possible that failure to comply with the law’s notice requirements may implicate employee privacy rights that could lead to further civil exposure.

Private employers within the State must ensure they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to comply with the new law’s requirements and insulate their businesses from potential liability for violations. While it does not specify what the required “written notice” must look like or how it must be conveyed to employees, at minimum employers should update their employee handbooks as well as provide a stand-alone, written notice to employees, with signed confirmation and acknowledgement of receipt. Additionally, rule and regulations regarding GPS tracking of employee vehicles may vary from state to state, so employers with a multi-state presence or service area need to be aware of the different laws that may apply to them depending on where their employees are working.

Employers who have not yet updated their forms and procedures should immediately contact counsel and take steps to ensure that they are in compliance. Similarly, it may be prudent for employers who drafted their own policies to have experienced employment counsel perform a policy or handbook review and provide advice and guidance regarding employer responsibilities and obligations, including but not limited to ensuring compliance with New Jersey’s new vehicle tracking device law.

COPYRIGHT © 2022, STARK & STARK
Article By Cory Rand with Stark & Stark.
For more articles about New Jersey Legislation, visit the NLR New Jersey law section.

Top Legal Industry News for Spring 2022: Law Firm Hiring, Industry Recognition, Women in Law

We’re back with another edition of our legal industry news roundup. Read more below for the latest updates in law firm hiring and expansion, legal industry awards, and recognition of leading women in the field today.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Keller and Heckman added Counsel Daniel P. McGee to the firm’s Tobacco and E-Vapor practice. Mr. McGee’s experience includes counseling companies on a broad range of complex tobacco industry and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory matters and developing strategies to help companies bring new products to market.

“Daniel’s expertise and industry perspective will be invaluable to Keller and Heckman clients who are carefully navigating the challenges and pitfalls of a highly regulated and rapidly evolving legal landscape,” said Azim Chowdhury, a Partner in the firm’s Tobacco and E-Vapor and Food and Drug practices. “In addition to expanding our tobacco and e-vapor capabilities, we are especially looking forward to utilizing Daniel’s expertise in state law compliance, particularly for clients expanding into the hemp and CBD categories.”

Richard Mann, Chair of Keller and Heckman’s Management Committee, expressed excitement over Mr. McGee’s joining the firm, saying. “The addition of Daniel to our practice demonstrates Keller and Heckman’s commitment to helping our clients understand and comply with continuously evolving regulations in this growing field.”

Mr. McGee said he’s looking forward to collaborating with the Tobacco and E-Vapor team at Keller and Heckman.

“After spending the bulk of my legal career as in-house counsel to the tobacco industry, I made a strategic decision to focus on the industry as a whole and join a law firm that is a leader in tobacco regulatory compliance and public policy initiatives.”

Norris McLaughlin, P.A. welcomed Michael J. Willner as a Member in the firm’s New York office. Mr. Willner joined the firm’s Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use Practice Group.

Mr. Willner works with individuals and entities involved with managing real estate assets, as well as condominiums and co-ops. He specializes in condominium and cooperative law, commercial and residential real estate transactions and related litigation.

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinksy & Josefiak PLLC opened a new office in Phoenix, Arizona. The firm held its ribbon cutting ceremony on April 26 for the office at the Esplenade with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

The office is led by resident Partner Christine Fort and Dallin M. Holt, Of Counsel.

“After over 20 years representing high-profile clients in all aspects of political and regulatory law, we are grateful to now open our fourth office to help support our growing roster of clients in the West,” said Managing Partner Jill Holtzman Vogel, former Chief Counsel for the RNC and a sitting member of the Virginia General Assembly. “We could have chosen anywhere to expand our reach, but Arizona and the Phoenix metro area is dynamic and fast-growing – just like our team. This is absolutely the right place for Holtzman Vogel to put down roots, and we are thrilled to open the doors and get started.”

Goldberg Segalla added Ian G. Zolty to the firm’s Workers’ Compensation group in Princeton, N.J.

Mr. Zolty has experience counseling and defending employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation matters throughout New Jersey, including hospitals, insurance companies and school boards, among others.

Legal Industry Recognition

City & State New York named three shareholders at Greenberg Traurig, LLP to its 2022 Energy & Environment Power 100 list: Steven C. Russo, Doreen U. Saia, and Zackary D. Knaub. The recognition spotlights significant legal professionals in the New York area that are “reshaping the energy industry – and rescuing our environment.”

Mr. Russo is the co-chair of the firm’s Environmental Practice, focusing his practice on environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and more. Ms. Saia is the chair of the Albany Office’s Energy & Natural Resources Practice, where she focuses her efforts on supporting national and international electricity corporations and aiding in related financial transactions. Mr. Knaub is a shareholder in both the Environmental and the Government Law & Policy groups, practicing specifically in energy and environmental legal and government affairs matters, including litigation, dispute resolution, government procurement, and regulatory matters.

Tammie Alexander, chair of the Business Department at Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, is a 2022 Bar Foundation Fellow, appointed by the West Virginia Bar Foundation Board of Directors.  Recognizing lawyers and judges in West Virginia with noteworthy dedication to the practice of law, the Bar Foundation has nominated only 450 out of 6,000 eligible individuals since 1999. Since the program’s inception, 22 Steptoe & Johnson attorneys have been selected as fellows.

Ms. Alexander, located in the firm’s Morgantown office, focuses her practice on an array of topics, including banking, real estate, commercial transactions, title insurance, and construction matters. She primarily assists with large scale projects that involve multiple property owners, governmental agencies, and financial investors.

The South Carolina School of Law provided the Platinum Compleat Lawyer Award, the school’s highest alumni honor, to Erna Womble, retired litigation partner at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. Established in 1992, the Compleat Lawyer Awards are meant to recognize alumni for notable professional, civil, and legal accomplishments. Recipients are members of the field who exemplify professional competence, ethics, and integrity.

Erna Womble, who graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1986, joined Womble Bond Dickinson in 1987. Today, she serves as the Co-President of Clearly Bespoke Strategies, Inc., a strategic advising company. Ms. Womble said of the award: “I am profoundly honored by the award from the law school which began my career as a lawyer-in-training. One of my excellent professors often admonished that when lawyers cease to learn, they cease to be good lawyers. More than three decades later, I’m still a lawyer-in-training. I am forever grateful to my beloved firm which afforded me the singular privilege of raising children whilst working with scions of industry and holders of the public trust in serving some of the firm’s best clients.”

Women in the Legal Industry

The Los Angeles Business Journal announced their “Women of Influence: Attorneys,” list which included Stubbs, Alderton & Markiles’ Heather Antoine. The list highlighted lawyers working for large businesses in legal areas such as data protection and intellectual property law.

Heather Antoine focuses her law firm practice on corporate property and data protection as Chair of the firm’s Trademark & Brand Protection practice, and Co-Chair of the Privacy & Data Security practice group. Some of her credits include features in the Los Angeles Times and CNBC.

Robinson & Cole LLP voted partner Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson to join the firm’s Managing Committee, allowing her to participate in the firm’s policy and practice strategic development. This comes after a series of noteworthy recognitions in the legal field: Cole-Johnson was recently presented with the Distinguished Leader Award by the Connecticut Law Tribune’s Connecticut Legal Awards, and she was additionally selected as an honoree for The 100 Women of Color Gala & Awards.

“[Ms. Cole-Johnson] is well-known for her talents as a legal advisor but also for her deep commitment to community organizations. She joined the firm thirteen years ago after law school and has been a true and constant champion for equitable and inclusive business practices within the firm, with her clients, and within the community. I look forward to her bringing that leadership and perspective to our Managing Committee,” said Robinson & Cole colleague Rhonda J. Tobin.

The accolades followed a recent appointment by Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont for the Connecticut Paid Leave Authority board.

Romer Debbas, LLP formed an all-female, diverse Agency Lending & Affordable Housing Department, focusing on representation in the property market. Partner Carmen I. Pagan, and Associates Catherine M. Azevedo and Pamela U. Norbert lead the new team with years of legal knowledge in real estate financing, commercial property law and lending service providers.

The new department expanded the firm’s practice areas in bankruptcy, corporate and business law, immigration, litigation, taxation and trusts and estate law.

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Article By Rachel Popa, Chandler Ford, and Jessica Scheck of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Your Employee As Your Arbitrator? Maybe!

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has, by its order dated August 24, 2009, in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (“Appellants”) Vs. M/s. Raja Transport (P) Ltd. (“Respondent”)1, once again upheld that the Court must give full effect and meaning to the appointment procedure set by the parties in the arbitration agreement before appointing arbitrator of their choice.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Appellant and Respondent entered into an agreement dated February 28, 2005 (“Agreement”), where under, the Respondent was appointed as the dealer of the Appellant for the retail sale of petroleum products. Clause 692 of the Agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration where the Director, Marketing of the Appellant, or a person appointed by him, was to act as the sole arbitrator.

On August 06, 2005, the Appellant terminated the dealership. The Respondent filed suit in the Civil Court, Dehradun, seeking (1) a declaration that the order of termination of dealership was illegal and void and (2) for a permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from stopping the supply of petroleum products to the retail outlet of the Appellant. In this same suit, the Appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), praying that the suit be rejected and the matter be referred to arbitration in terms of Section 69 of the Agreement. The Ld. Judge allowed the Appellant’s application and directed the parties to refer the matter to arbitration within two months and also directed the Appellant not to stop supplies to the Respondent for a period of two months.

Both parties challenged the said order before the District Court, Dehradun. The Respondent also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking an interim injunction against the Appellant. Both appeals and the Section 9 application were disposed off by a common order dated January 20, 2006, whereby, both appeals were dismissed and the Section 9 application was allowed, retraining the Appellant from interrupting the supply of petroleum products to the Respondent for two months as well as directing the parties to refer the matter to arbitration as per the agreement, within the said period of two months.

While the appeals were pending, the Respondent issued letter dated January 04, 2006, through their counsel, wherein, the Respondent, referring to the Appellant’s insistence that only its Director, Marketing could be appointed as the Arbitrator, inter alia alleged that it (the Respondent) did not expect fair treatment or justice if the Director, Marketing or any other employee of the Appellant was appointed as the Arbitrator and called upon the Respondent to have a joint meeting so as to enable the parties to mutually agree on an independent arbitrator. This request was not accepted by the Appellant.

Thereafter, the Respondent filed an application before the Chief Justice of the Uttaranchal High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator to decide the dispute. This application7 was allowed and a retired High Court Judge was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The Ld. Chief Justice inter alia assigned the following two reasons to appoint a retired Judge as an Arbitrator instead of the persons as named in the arbitration agreement.

  1. The Director (Marketing) of the Appellant, being its employee, should be presumed not to act independently or impartially.
    1. The Respondent had taken steps in accordance with the agreed appointment procedure contained in the arbitration agreement and directions of the civil court by issuing notice dated January 04, 2006, calling upon the Appellant to appoint an arbitrator. After receipt of the said notice, the Appellant had to refer the matter to its Director, Marketing, which it did not do, nor did it take any steps for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The Appellant had, thus, failed to act as required under the agreed procedure.

    Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Court.

    JUDGMENT:

    The facts and circumstances of this case raised three issues for the Court to consider:

    1. Whether the Ld. Chief Justice of the Uttaranchal High Court was justified in assuming that when an employee of one of the parties to the dispute is appointed as an arbitrator, he will not act independently or impartially.

    On this issue, the Court inter alia noted as under:

    • Arbitration is a binding and voluntary dispute resolution process by a private forum so chosen by the parties.
    • Where a party, with open eyes and full knowledge and comprehension of the said provision enters into a contract with a government/statutory corporation/public sector enterprise, where such arbitration agreements providing for settlement of disputes where the arbitrator will be one of its senior officers, were common, such party cannot subsequently turn around and contend otherwise unless performance of that part of the arbitration agreement is impossible, or is void being contrary to the provisions of the Act.
    • It was settled law that arbitration agreements in government contracts providing that an employee of the department (usually a high official unconnected with the work or the contract) will be the arbitrator are neither void, nor unenforceable.
    • Whilst the provisions relating to independence, impartiality and freedom from bias are implicit under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the same are made explicit in the Act.
    • This position may differ where the person named as the arbitrator is an employee of a company/body/individual other than the state and its instrumentalities e.g. a Director of a private company who is party to the arbitration agreement. In such cases, there may be a valid and reasonable apprehension of bias in view of his position and interest. In such cases, the court has the discretion not to appoint such a person.
    1. In what circumstances the Chief Justice or his designate can ignore the appointment procedure or the named arbitrator in the arbitration agreement to appoint an arbitrator of his choice.

    On this issue, the Court inter alia noted as under:

    • The court must first ensure that the terms of the agreement are adhered to or given effect to, as far as possible and those remedies, as provided for, are exhausted.
    • It is not mandatory to appoint the named arbitrator but at the same time, due regard has to be given to the qualifications required by the agreement and other considerations. Referring the disputes to the named arbitrator shall be the rule. Ignoring the named arbitrator and nominating an independent arbitrator shall be the exception to the rule, which is to be resorted to for valid reasons.

    Interestingly, the Court also proceeded to expound on the scope of Section 11 of the Act, which contains the scheme of appointment of arbitrators.

    1. Whether the Respondent had taken the necessary steps for the appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement, and the Appellant had failed to act in terms of the agreed procedure, by not referring the dispute to its Director, Marketing for arbitration.

    On this issue, the Court inter alia noted as under:

    • In view of the order dated January 20, 2006, the Respondent ought to have referred the dispute to the Director (Marketing) of the Appellant within two months from January 2006. The Respondent had not done so and in light thereof, it was the Respondent that had failed to act in terms of the agreed procedure and not the Appellant.
    • As the Arbitrator was already identified, there was no need for the Respondent to ask the Appellant to act in accordance with the agreed procedure.

    The Court proceeded to hold that the Chief Justice had erred in having proceeded on the basis that the Respondent had performed its duty under the agreement and that there was justification for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

    The Court then proceeded to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and appointed the Director (Marketing) of the Appellant as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.

    ANALYSIS:

    By this decision, the Court has once again upheld that when a person enter into a contract with a government/statutory corporation/public sector enterprise having an arbitration agreement providing for settlement of disputes where the arbitrator will be one of its senior officers, such person cannot subsequently turn around and contend otherwise unless performance of that part of the arbitration agreement is impossible, or is void being contrary to the provisions of the Act. However, this position may differ where the person named as the arbitrator is an employee of a company/body/individual other than the state and its instrumentalities e.g. a Director of a private company who is party to the arbitration agreement.

    Referring to its decision taken earlier in the matter of Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi Vs. Patel Engineering Company Ltd. (please refer to our earlier hotline dated August 26, 2008) Court reiterated that it is important to first ensure that the terms of the arbitration agreement are adhered to or given effect to, as far as possible and those remedies, as provided for, are exhausted, before they intervene in any manner.

    However, If circumstances exist, giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the person nominated, or if other circumstances warrant appointment of an independent arbitrator by ignoring the procedure prescribed, the Chief Justice or his designate may, for reasons to be recorded ignore the designated arbitrator and appoint someone else.

    FOOTNOTES

    1 Civil Appeal No. 5760 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26906 of 2008.

    2 “69. Any dispute or a difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director, Marketing of the Corporation or of some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director Marketing. The dealer will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is an officer of the contract related or that in the course of his duties or differences. ………………..It shall also be a term of this contract that no other person other than the Director, Marketing or a person nominated by such Director, marketing of the Corporation as aforesaid shall act as arbitrator hereunder…………………….”

    Nishith Desai Associates 2022. All rights reserved.

Article By Sahil Kanuga and Vyapak Desai with Nishith Desai Associates.

For more articles on international law updates, visit the NLR Global section.

Illinois Department of Labor Publishes Guidance for Employers Seeking Equal Pay Registration Certificate

Effective March 24, 2022, the Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA) was amended to require private businesses with more than 100 employees in Illinois to obtain an Equal Pay Registration Certificate (EPRC) by March 23, 2024, and every two years thereafter.

To apply for the EPRC, businesses must submit the following to the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL): (1) a filing fee; (2) an equal pay compliance statement; (3) a copy of the employer’s most recently filed EEO-1 report; and (4) a list of employees separated by gender and the race and ethnicity categories as reported in the employer’s most recently filed EEO-1 report, and the total wages paid to each employee during the past calendar year.

The IDOL recently updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for the EPRC, addressing, among other things, the application and submission processes, fee requirements, recertification, publicly available data, and penalties for employer noncompliance.  Here are key takeaways:

  • All employees based in Illinois, including those working remotely, should be included in the total employee count for reporting purposes. An employer’s total employee count includes the total number of people employed who worked in or were based out of Illinois on December 31 of the 12-month calendar year immediately prior the year the employer is required to submit an EPRC application.
  • For reporting purposes, “wages” means any compensation paid to an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the two parties, including wages, salaries, earned commissions, earned bonuses, stocks and ownership shares. This does not include retirement health insurance benefits, or other fringe benefits.
  • If an employer’s submitted wage data in its EPRC application shows that the employer is paying unequal wages to male and female employees or to African-American and non-African American employees, the IDOL may initiate its own investigation pursuant to Sections 10(a) and 15(c) of the IEPA and Section 320.200 of the IEPA regulations.
  • Before any fines may be imposed for a violation of the IEPA, the IDOL will provide notice to an employer that violates the IEPA and inadvertently fails to file an initial EPRC application or recertification that they have 30 calendar days to submit the application or recertification. If the employer fails to do so, it shall be fined up to $10,000.
  • An employer that falsifies or misrepresents data on an EPRC application faces suspension or revocation of the EPRC and civil penalties up to $10,000.
  • Current employees subject to the IEPA may request anonymized data from the IDOL regarding their job classification or title and the pay for that classification.

Illinois employers should audit their pay practices to ensure that any differences in wages amongst employees of similar job classifications are justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more articles covering labor law updates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.