Category: Labor & Employment

January 2022 Legal News Roundup: Law Firm Moves, Hiring & Recognition

Happy 2022 to all of our readers! We hope you all had a safe and healthy New Year. Read on for more legal industry updates.

Recent Law Firm Moves and Hiring

Van Ness Feldman law firm elected three new partners in their Seattle office:

“Clara, Steven, and Chris have distinguished themselves not only through their professional accomplishments, but by their relationships with clients and colleagues. They reinforce the firm’s collaborative culture,” said Van Ness Feldman Seattle Managing Partner Tadas Kisielius.

Stubbs, Alderton & Markiles (SA&M)  have expanded their firm with the additions of Apparel and Fashion lawyer Mark Brutzkus and litigator Nick Rozansky to their office in Southern California.

Mr. Brutzkus represents consumer product companies in various e-commerce and sourcing issues, and has advised apparel, textile and consumer product clients during various stages of the corporate process.

“SA&M is an excellent platform for me to expand my consumer product practice, particularly because the Firm has unparalleled experience working with venture-backed emerging growth, middle-market public, large technology, and entertainment and digital media companies, as well as investors, venture capital funds, investment bankers, and underwriters. More and more of my clients are asking for ancillary practice areas and specialized attorneys who can help with long term, holistic goals,” said Mr. Brutzkus.

Mr. Rozansky advises corporate clients on various issues including litigation matters, risk avoidance, IP protection, and more. When necessary, Mr. Rozansky handles more high-stakes cases such as infringement issues, contract cases and shareholder disputes.

“This move provides my clients with much needed corporate and M&A expertise, and greatly expands my litigation capacity by joining three renowned litigation partners and several extremely capable litigation associates,” said Mr. Rozansky.

“Mark and Nick share the values that make up our unique and coveted culture at Stubbs Alderton, and we look forward to Mark and Nick making immediate and lasting contributions to our Firm,” said Scott Alderton, SA&M’s Managing Partner.

Gilbert LLP elected Heather Frazier to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2022. Ms. Frazier focuses on insurance recovery in mass-tort proceedings, complex alternative dispute resolution, and other matters. Ms. Frazier has been with Gilbert since 2015.

“I am thrilled to join the partnership at Gilbert alongside the most innovative and dynamic lawyers I have had the fortune to know. I look forward to continuing to contribute to the firm’s growth and unique culture in this new role and assisting our clients in resolving the unresolvable,” said Ms. Frazier.

“In her time with us, Heather has established herself not only as an excellent lawyer, but also as an outstanding Gilbert citizen. She has been a true asset to all of us, serving our clients and our community with talent, dedication and tenacity.  We look forward to a long, exciting and mutually satisfying relationship with our newest partner,” said firm founder Scott Gilbert.

Bernstein Shur law firm announced the election of four attorneys to shareholder:

“This is an outstanding group of lawyers. They’ve each shown impressive dedication not only to their clients but also to our local communities and the legal profession. I’m confident they will continue to use their deep knowledge and skills to deliver high-quality legal counsel to help our clients meet their business goals,” said Bernstein Shur CEO Joan Fortin.

Legal Industry Recognition and Awards

Polsinelli’s intellectual property department recently ranked in three of Patexia Inc.’s reports: ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report, IPR Intelligence Report and CAFC Intelligence Report.

The firm received multiple awards, including ranking among the Best Performing and Most Active Law Firms in several categories in Patexia Inc.’s 2021 ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report. Polsinelli also ranked among the Best Performing and Most Active Law Firms, which evaluated 243 law firms and 1,471 attorneys on activity and performance within the Hatch-Waxman/ANDA space.

“Our team continues to work hard and provide excellent client service, which is on display as we continue to rank highly in Patexia’s various reports,” said our Intellectual Property Department Chair Pat Woolley. “As one of the nation’s largest IP practices, our commitment to focusing on our clients’ businesses and service needs has again enabled us to earn recognition as one of the best performing firms.”

Dinsmore earned a diversity award from Crain’s Cleveland Business in its issue recognizing seven “notable businesses championing diversity and inclusion.” Dinsmore recently earned Mansfield Rule 4.0 Certification Plus for the 2021 iteration of the diverse leadership hiring initiative.

The firm also launched a  Pre-Law Minority Program to help students of color at four Kentucky universities, as well as creating a fellowship with Procter & Gamble and the Ohio Innocence Project at Cincinnati Law for a recent diverse law school graduate to gain experience in civil rights litigation and policy.

Everyone has a customer in the business world, and the customer population is becoming more diverse,” partner Richik Sarkar told Crain’s. “Look around your company. If everyone seems the same, especially in leadership, you’ll have a problem serving your customer, and if you don’t take steps to understand your customers, you’ll face failure sooner rather than later.”

Six Wiggin and Dana attorneys are included on the Best Lawyers in America® 2022 Family Law Edition.

They include the following partners:

And one associate is included on the Best Lawyers 2022 “Ones to Watch” list:

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and the Supreme Court of New Jersey appointed Stark & Stark Shareholder Bhaveen Jani to the Supreme Court of New Jersey to the Supreme Court Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

“I am honored to have just been appointed to an important Supreme Court Committee where I will be able to protect the people in New Jersey and the legal profession from the unauthorized practice of law,” said Bhaveen. “Great responsibility comes with being an attorney, especially for our clients and the community, and this committee will work to protect those we serve.”

Mr. Jani’s three year term began January 1, 2022, and will end on December 31, 2024. Mr. Jani is part of a number of professional organizations in New Jersey, which qualified him for the position. These organizations include the New Jersey State Bar Association, the South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, the New Jersey Association for Justice, the American Association for Justice, the Hunterdon County Bar Association and the Mercer County Bar Association.

The committee performs three major functions, including supplying advisory opinions, inquiry into complaints and investigation of the unauthorized practice of law.

Shumaker attorney Melanie Griffin was appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). Ms. Griffin has advised businesses in a variety of commercial law issues and also has substantial employment law and trust and estate experience as well. Ms. Griffin has been recognized by many organizations over the years for her outstanding leadership efforts.

“I’m so pleased for Melanie to have this opportunity to service the citizens of the state of Florida,” said Ron Christaldi, Shumaker’s Tampa Managing Partner and President of Shumaker Advisors Florida. “With her depth of experience and her understanding of the business community, she will be an excellent leader of this important state agency.”

Shelli Erffmeyer and Renee Stallions, employees at Varnum LLP, were recently named Unsung Legal Heroes by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. The publication’s award recognizes non-attorney legal professionals who frequently surpass expectations and go above and beyond in their roles. Ms. Erffmeyer, a legal assistant supporting Varnum’s Litigation practice group, has been noted for her outstanding initiative and dedication, especially through the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Stallions, a senior systems applications analyst in the firm’s Information Technology Department, has been noted for her considerable flexibility and work ethic, ensuring Varnum’s technology continues to operate efficiently across all offices.

“Both Shelli and Renee are very deserving of this recognition. Their exemplary service and commitment to the firm was especially appreciated this past year throughout the challenges of the pandemic,” said Scott Hill, Varnum Executive Partner. “As we congratulate Shelli and Renee, we are once again reminded of the vital role of our support staff. Their contributions are critical to the success of our firm.”

Much Shelist, P.C. has announced its new membership in the Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA). The LFAA, which seeks racial equality and systemic change in the law, helps to coordinate allied law firms in order to enact change that benefits underserved and oppressed communities. Previously, Much has assisted the LFAA in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, which argues that the Court should consider the retroactive application of Ramos v. Louisiana (which holds that non-unanimous jury verdicts are unconstitutional).

“We’re proud to join the nearly 300 Alliance firms working together to address systemic racism in the law,” said Steve Blonder, chair of the firm’s social responsibility initiative, Much Community. “It’s our privilege and our responsibility to continue working for the rights of marginalized people.”

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

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

For more articles on the legal industry, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Preliminary Injunctions on Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) in a 5-4 decision, staying the preliminary injunctions issued for 24 states by the District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana.  Therefore, the CMS vaccine mandate is in full effect for all states except Texas, which was not part of the cases before the Court.  The Rule requires nearly all workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities—whether medical personnel, volunteers, janitorial staff, or even contractors who service the facilities—to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

The Court based its holding on two main points.  First, the Court held that Congress clearly authorized CMS to put conditions on funding it provides to the Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.  The Court opined that perhaps CMS’s “most basic” function is to ensure that regulated facilities protect the health and safety of their patients, noting that Medicare and Medicaid patients are often some of the most vulnerable to infection and death from COVID-19.  Because CMS determined that a vaccine mandate is necessary to protect patient health and safety, the Court held the mandate “fits neatly within the language of the [authorizing] statute.”  The Court acknowledged that CMS has never required vaccinations in the past, but attributed this in part to the fact that states typically already require necessary vaccinations like hepatitis B, influenza, and measles for healthcare workers.

Second, the Court held that the mandate is not arbitrary and capricious, and cautioned the district courts that their role is merely to make sure an agency acts within the “zone of reasonableness.”  The Court found the administrative record sufficient to explain CMS’s rationale for the mandate and also accepted that getting the vaccine mandate in place ahead of winter and flu season satisfied the “good cause” standard for skipping the notice and comment period.

Healthcare employers subject to the Rule should immediately start implementing vaccine requirements if they have not already.  It is anticipated that in all states but Texas, CMS will likely begin enforcement of the vaccine mandate in approximately 30 days.  On December 28, 2021, CMS released guidance to state surveyors with enforcement standards to use starting 30 days from the memo, though at the time the memo only applied to the 25 states that were not enjoined.  Healthcare employers should also keep in mind that this is not the end of the road: the Court’s holding only means that the CMS vaccine mandate is in force while the 5th and 8th Circuits complete their review of the underlying state challenges to the mandate.  While the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that lower courts should uphold the mandate, there is no guarantee they will do so.

The legal landscape continues to evolve quickly and there is a lack of clear-cut authority or bright line rules on implementation.  This article is not intended to be an unequivocal, one-size-fits-all guidance, but instead represents our interpretation of where applicable law currently and generally stands.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, without limitation, potential liability should an employee become ill, requirements regarding family leave, sick pay and other issues.

Article By Keeley A. McCarty and Ashley T. Hirano of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

7 Tips to Avoid Employer Mandate Assessments and Penalties under the Affordable Care Act

As we discussed in a prior article, it is now more important than ever for employers to ensure they fully and accurately complete IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C — forms required to be filed and/or furnished to employees under the Affordable Care Act. A failure to do so can lead to eye-popping proposed employer shared responsibility payment (ESRP) assessments, as well as information reporting penalties.

To avoid such costly mistakes, employers should keep the following seven tips in mind when completing or reviewing Forms 1094-C and 1095-C:

Form 1094-C

  1. Be very sure that the “Yes” box is checked on Line 23, column (a) to state that minimum essential coverage was offered for all 12 months.

This is far and away the single most important data entry on both forms. The box should always be checked for an employer who provides minimum essential health coverage to all full-time employees in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Failing to check this box may result in an automatic ESRP assessment of up to $2,700 per full-time employee for 2021. The amount is adjusted annually.

  1. Know when to check the box on Line 22 for “Qualifying Offer Method.”

If an employer is eligible to use the Qualifying Offer Method, it should check this box only if it is reporting offers of coverage on Forms 1095-C using code 1A.

Form 1095-C

  1. Conduct a coding audit and know where to prioritize.

Each of the below tips and other points of review for Forms 1095-C should be addressed prior to the furnishing and filing of the forms. Only by reviewing and understanding the codes can an employer have confidence that it will avoid an ESRP assessment or accuracy-related information return penalties. Of course, depending on the number of employees, reviewing the coding for all employees may be impracticable. Thus, employers should prioritize the following situations for review:

  • Forms for employees who were hired, terminated, or who experienced a change in status during the year;
  • Forms where code 1H is reported; and
  • Forms for employees who are more likely to be eligible for the premium tax credit (e.g., employees earning less than $51,040 in 2021).
  1. Review for “red flag” coding combinations on lines 14 and 16.

The following code combinations are triggers for an ESRP assessment and should never be used by an employer who provides minimum essential health coverage to all full-time employees: 1H/__, 1H/2C, 1H/2F, 1H/2G, and 1H/2H. All of these code combinations report that no offer of coverage was provided but fail to state a valid reason for why an ESRP should not apply. Where no offer of coverage is made, only one of the following code combinations should be used: 1H/2A, 1H/2B or 1H/2D.

  1. Review for incomplete coding on lines 14 and 16.

For employers who are not using the Qualifying Offer Method, both code series (series 1 and series 2) on lines 14 and 16 should always be completed for all months on the Forms 1095-C of all full-time employees. However, if an employer is using the Qualifying Offer Method, then it will be acceptable in many instances to use only code 1A and to leave the series 2 code blank.

  1. Make sure the safe harbor code reported on line 16 actually applies.

In more recent years, the IRS has begun scrutinizing the series 2 safe harbor codes reported by employers on line 16. For example, the IRS will automatically reject an employer’s use of code 2G, the federal poverty line safe harbor, if the monthly employee required contribution reported on the Form 1095-C exceeds $104.53 for a month in 2021.

  1. Ensure the waiting period is coded correctly on lines 14 and 16.

If an employee is in a waiting period on any day of a month, the month should be coded as 1H/2D to signify that the employee is in a limited non-assessment period. This code can only be used for up to four consecutive months for each period of employment. If an employee was terminated and rehired in the same year, the employer should determine whether the waiting period and code 1H/2D can be applied again under the rules for determining periods of employment.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

SCOTUS Cert Recap: Civil Procedure, Bankruptcy, And Worker’s Comp

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted three of the cert. petitions it considered at its first conference of the new year.

The Court agreed to hear issues involving: 1) the grounds for relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), 2) the limits on Congress’ authority to apply different bankruptcy rules to different parts of the country, and 3) the scope of states’ authority to apply their workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities.

Such issues are not the most high-profile the Court will address this term, as underscored by the absence of cert-stage amicus briefs in all three of the cases (though this is less uncommon than one might think; by our calculations, about 40 percent of the cert. petitions granted for plenary review last term lacked cert-stage amicus briefs). For governmental entities, bankruptcy practitioners, and federal court civil litigators, however, the cases are worth noting and following.

Rule 60(b) Motions for Relief from Final Judgment

In Kemp v. United States, the Court finally agreed to resolve what the cert. petition characterizes as a 50-year circuit split on whether the “mistake” prong of Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s legal error. Rule 60(b) sets out six categories of reasons why a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under 60(b)(1) and “any other reason that justifies relief” under 60(b)(6). The lower courts agree that 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) authorize relief for at least some legal errors, but disagree about which of those provisions does so.

And that seemingly picayune distinction can matter. The Federal Rules require all 60(b) motions to be made “within a reasonable time” but set a hard one-year time limit for relief sought on 60(b)(1) grounds. This means that if Rule 60(b)(1) does not encompass legal errors, motions alleging legal errors would fall under Rule 60(b)(6) and would not need to meet the bright-line one-year rule – though such motions would then be subject to the Supreme Court’s additional requirement that 60(b)(6) motions establish “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief. Accordingly, the question in this case can mean the difference between a timely and untimely 60(b) motion, and civil litigators should be on the lookout for the Court’s answer.

Congress’ Authority to Adopt “Uniform” Bankruptcy Rules

The Court will also take up Siegel v. Fitzgerald, where it will consider the meaning of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause, which authorizes Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The petitioner in this case contends that Congress violated this “uniformity” requirement by dividing the nation’s bankruptcy courts into two slightly different categories. Most operate under the U.S. Trustee program, while six (all in North Carolina and Alabama) operate under the Bankruptcy Administrator program.

In 2017, Congress increased the quarterly fees paid by debtors in large Chapter 11 bankruptcies from $30,000 to $250,000, and while this increase was immediately applicable to all pending and future cases in Trustee districts, it was imposed in Administrator districts nine months later, and then only to future cases. In Siegel the Court will decide whether this difference renders the 2017 statute unconstitutionally “non-uniform” (and, if the Court concludes it is unconstitutional, there will be a further difficult question to tackle concerning how such a defect should be remedied). Notably, even the respondent (who is represented by the U.S. Solicitor General) urged the Court to take this case, observing that though Congress eliminated the difference in 2020, the question presented in this case could affect the status of approximately $324 million in quarterly fees imposed nationwide under the 2017 statute.

In light of such figures, bankruptcy professionals across the country – especially those with cases subject to the 2017 statute – will likely have a strong interest in what the Court will say.

Limits on States’ Application of Workers’ Compensation Laws to Federal Facilities

In United States v. Washington, the Court agreed to hear the federal government’s challenge to a Washington workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to contractors at a federally owned nuclear-waste cleanup site. Under longstanding principles of intergovernmental immunity, state regulation of federal facilities is generally permissible only where such regulation is clearly authorized by Congress. And the federal government contends that the relevant statute here – which allows states to regulate workers’ compensation at federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State” – does not permit states to single out federal facilities for unique treatment. The state of Washington, meanwhile, counters that states routinely apply different rules to different employers, and it argues that the federal statute simply authorizes such context-sensitive regulation at private and federal facilities alike.

The dispute accordingly consists of competing interpretations of a narrow federal statute (40 U.S.C. § 3172(a)), and it is therefore difficult to see how the case could have much broader significance outside the workers’ compensation context. Contractors working at federal facilities, however, may be interested to see whether the Supreme Court opens the door for future challenges to state workers’ compensation laws.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Article By Kian Hudson of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more articles on SCOTUS, visit the NLR Litigation / Trial Practice section.

Will A Starbucks Union Affect Your Morning Cup Of Coffee?

Many among us can’t face the day ahead until they get their morning fix of caffeine, and Starbucks is a popular choice for procuring a morning beverage. While the coffee chain giant has long been known for employee perks and strong employee culture, some baristas in Buffalo, New York, recently formed the first union at a corporate-owned Starbucks store. The employees cited problems associated with understaffing, among other things.

The union’s recent election victory means that Starbucks will have to sit down and negotiate in good faith a collective bargaining agreement to cover the terms and conditions of those workers’ employment. Depending on the terms negotiated, believe it or not, changes to how and what you can order at a unionized café may be on the horizon.

Labor agreements typically cover wages, insurance benefits, grievance and arbitration procedures, workplace policies, and a host of other issues affecting employment. The employer and union go through negotiations to come to an agreement on specific language on each of the terms and then those terms control. For example, if a company agrees in a collective bargaining agreement that it will have a minimum staffing level for a shift, then a union can file a grievance seeking damages if the employer fails to keep staffing levels at the minimum. In a non-union setting, this typically is not a concern due to the absence of a grievance and arbitration procedure.

One item that could be of interest to coffee drinkers if it comes up in negotiations is limits on coffee orders. Baristas in Buffalo cited burnout from extensive mobile orders that allow customers to preorder and then pick up drinks and food at the café. The workers believed the volume was too much to keep up with. Custom orders – such as a latte with non-fat milk, two pumps of vanilla, one pump of mocha, and exactly two ice cubes – have been a point of frustration for baristas as well. The union may propose limits on the number of mobile orders a barista can be required to accept per hour and additional limits on the amount of specialty modifications that can be made to a drink. In other words, you may not be able to place a mobile order at the time you want or get all the customizations you desire if ordering from a location restricted by such an agreement. That doesn’t mean Starbucks needs to (or will) agree to those proposals, but based on the employee complaints we’ve seen, it’s likely to be an issue at the table – so it’s possible such a provision could make its way into a labor agreement.

We’re now seeing more union petitions being filed at Starbucks stores around the country, including in Chicago and Boston. To the extent we see a national wave of Starbucks cafés getting unionized, your morning cup of coffee may look different in 2022 and beyond.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more articles on unions, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

New Year, New Rules: Chicago Employers Navigate Vaccine Mandates

With the new year comes a new set of health orders and employer obligations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a last-minute holiday present to Chicago businesses, the City announced a new public health order mandating that covered businesses require patrons as young as 5 years old to present proof of full vaccination, and require unvaccinated employees to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. A few days after Chicago’s announcement, Cook County followed suit, announcing its own health order with commensurate obligations.

How should employers prepare? Much’s Labor & Employment team outlines the key elements of the City and County orders, including guidance on what employers should do now.

When do the new requirements take effect?

Both the Chicago order and the Cook County order (together, the “Orders”) take effect January 3, 2022.

Are small employers covered, or just larger employers?

Employers of any size are subject to the Orders, provided they operate one or more “Covered Locations.”

What is a “Covered Location”?

In general, the Orders cover restaurants and bars, fitness and exercise venues, as well as entertainment and recreational venues where food and drinks are served. As stated in the Orders, “Covered Locations” are:

  • Establishments where food or beverages are served including, but not limited to, restaurants, bars, fast food establishments, coffee shops, tasting rooms, cafeterias, food courts, dining areas of grocery stores, breweries, wineries, distilleries, banquet halls, and hotel ballrooms.
  • Event spaces, such as hotel ballrooms, commercial event and party venues, and nightclubs.
  • Gyms and fitness venues, such as gyms; recreation facilities; fitness centers; yoga, Pilates, cycling, barre, and dance studios; hotel gyms; boxing and kickboxing gyms; fitness boot camps; and other facilities used for conducting indoor group fitness classes.
  • Entertainment and recreation venues in areas where food or beverages are served including, but not limited to, movie theaters, music and concert venues, live performance venues, adult entertainment venues, commercial event and party venues, sports arenas, performing arts theaters, bowling alleys, arcades, card rooms, family entertainment centers, play areas, pool and billiard halls, and other recreational game centers.

There are exceptions, however. The Orders do not cover houses of worship; K-12 schools; locations in O’Hare and Midway airports; locations in residential or office buildings that are limited to residents, owners, or tenants of the building (such as your office kitchen or condo common area); or food service establishments providing only charitable food services, such as soup kitchens.

If I’m a Covered Location, what are my obligations with respect to patrons?

Covered Locations are required to verify that any patron age 5 or older is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The Orders adopt the most restrictive definition of “fully vaccinated” in use by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the applicable local health department. As of December 30, 2021, that means two weeks after the second dose of a two-dose vaccine series or two weeks after a single-dose vaccine. It does not yet include booster shots.

There are some exceptions, however. For example, Covered Locations do not need to check the vaccination statuses of patrons entering an establishment for less than 10 minutes to order and carry out food or to use the bathroom. In addition, individuals who have received a medical or religious exemption can still enter these locations, provided they show proof of the medical or religious exemption and a COVID-19 test “administered by a medical professional” within 72 hours prior to entering the Covered Location.

And, for those of you reading this article who are a “nonresident performing artist” or “nonresident professional athlete,” first, thanks for reading, and second, you’re not covered and don’t need to show proof of vaccination status before playing in Chicago.

What counts as sufficient proof of vaccination status?

It’s the proof you would expect. Patrons can present a physical CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card or show a paper or electronic copy of one (such a picture on a phone) that shows the patron’s name, brand of vaccine, and dates administered. Also acceptable are official immunization records from the jurisdiction where the vaccine was administered. Patrons who are age 16 or older will also need to provide identification showing their name, such as a driver’s license, passport, or state ID card.

Are businesses required to keep copies of patrons’ vaccination statuses?

No, and nor should they.

OK, so that takes care of how we handle members of the public. But what about our employees? Do the Orders require that they be vaccinated?

No, the Orders are not requiring that businesses mandate employee vaccinations. Rather, it’s a shot-or-test requirement. In other words, employees who work at these covered entities must either present proof of vaccination to their employer or undergo the weekly testing required by the recent Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency rule.

Wait, I thought the OSHA rule was on hold? Or on again? Honestly, it’s a bit confusing.

We hear you. As of the date of this article, it’s back on again, but now legal challenges to the rule are before the U.S. Supreme Court. Stay tuned on that front. However, regardless of what happens with that rule, Chicago and Cook County will be able to enact these testing requirements. So, even if the OSHA rules are never implemented, the local requirements in the Orders will still take effect January 3, 2022.

What vaccination information do I need to collect from employees?

Employers are required to obtain confirmation of employees’ vaccination statuses, and the acceptable proof of vaccination is the same as for patrons. Notably, the Orders’ guidance states that employers are not required or expected to maintain copies of employees’ proof of vaccination, but they are required to document the verification and compliance, and to have those records available for inspection by the city.

But what about testing? That’s what I’m most worried about.

Employees who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be required to receive a COVID-19 test every seven days and provide to their employers verification of a negative result.

Just as with the OSHA rule, only certain tests are considered acceptable. The test cannot be an antibody test, but instead must be a test approved by the Food and Drug Administration (including Emergency Use Authorization), such as a PCR or antigen test. Additionally, over-the-counter boxed tests are acceptable only if they were observed by either the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor. Employees conducting the test on their own at home and then reporting the results – which is how most people use boxed COVID-19 test kits – would not qualify as acceptable testing under the Orders.

What records do I need to keep of negative tests?

The Orders and the City’s guidance state that they do not expect or require employers to keep copies of the negative test results. Rather, they expect that employers will keep a log that documents verification of the test results and compliance with the Orders.

What if an employee tests positive?

The employee must be excluded from the workplace and follow CDC guidelines. If the test result is inconclusive, the employee should be retested in order to provide a positive or negative test result.

Do I have to pay for tests? Or pay employees for the time spent obtaining a test outside of working hours?

These are excellent questions that, unfortunately, still have unclear answers. Much of the current guidance on who pays for a test, or whether the time spent taking a test is compensable, pre-dates current developments and is predicated on the testing being employer-mandated, rather than mandated by government orders. OSHA’s position with respect to its testing rule is that employees generally bear the cost of testing, but even OSHA acknowledges that “employer payment for testing may be required by other laws.” OSHA’s position may not be the position of the Illinois Department of Labor, and the question of who pays for testing in the context of employees with medical or religious grounds for not becoming fully vaccinated is not clear. For now, we await further guidance on how employers are meant to approach this issue.

What else? Any other requirements? I’m guessing there’s another poster to put up.

There are some additional requirements, including a poster. They can be found on the City of Chicago website. Employers subject to the Orders also will need to “develop and keep a written record for describing the protocol for implementing and enforcing the requirements” of the Orders. The City of Chicago has issued guidance for employers’ protocols, but it will not be issuing template policies. The City has also issued a template “COVID-19 ‘Proof of Vaccination’ Compliance Plan,” as an example of how to track employee test results.

Any other takeaways?

As with any new COVID-19 guidance and requirements, the situation remains fluid. Additional clarifications and guidance may be issued before and after the Orders take effect on January 3, 2022. Employers have become adept at adapting to what seems like an ever-changing regulatory landscape, and the Orders are just the latest example.

© 2021 Much Shelist, P.C.

Article By Matthew J. Feery and Laura A. Elkayam of Much Shelist, P.C.

For more articles on COVID-19 rules, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Legal News Roundup December 2021: Firm Inclusion & Diversity Efforts, Hiring & More

Happy new year! Read on for the latest law firm hiring, pro bono and innovation news:

Ropes and Gray announced the opening of their 12th location in Los Angeles in 2022, which will focus initially on the healthcare and equity & asset management industries. Attorneys Howard Glazer, Torrey McClary, Ranee Adipat and Leslie Thornton will assist in opening the new office, as they look to expand their reach in the Southern California market.

Ropes and Gray also added Brandon Howald to their new Los Angeles team. Mr. Howald brings 22 years of private equity experience to the practice.

“Opening an office in Los Angeles is a really exciting move for Ropes & Gray. Southern California is a market where we have been active for many years. We already have a robust and growing roster of clients in a region with a vibrant private equity and asset management business, as well as strong California health care, life sciences, M&A, and technology practices. We have been very strategic in establishing a presence where our clients needed us, from Asia to London to Chicago to the West Coast. That same vision propels us into Los Angeles—and Howard Glazer, Torrey McClary and Brandon Howald have the industry expertise, entrepreneurial drive and Southern California roots to help lead us,” said Ropes & Gray’s chair, Julie Jones.

“We are opening in Los Angeles with a powerful platform: a roster of market leading clients, established partners with deep ties to Los Angeles like Brandon Howald, Howard Glazer, Torrey McClary and our powerful global network—all with the high bar of excellence clients come to expect from Ropes & Gray,” said the firm’s managing partner, David Djaha.

Real estate and general practice attorney Carmen I. Pagan has joined Romer Debbas LLP as Partner and the head of their Agency Lending Practice. Ms. Pagan specializes in commercial lending issues, senior and student housing through Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer and Capital Markets Execution programs, cross-collateralization loans and more.

Recently, Hofstra University School of Law, named alumna Ms. Pagan asan “Outstanding Woman in Law”  which acknowledges women who made inspiring contributions to the legal profession. Ms. Pagan is committed to the advancement of women’s issues in the workplace and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

McDermott Will & Emery announced three new additions to their Intellectual Property practice. The new additions are:

“McDermott continues to make incredible strides toward advancing our remarkable IP practice into an industry powerhouse. Simon and Jason bring significant life sciences patent litigation strength to our bench in New York, and Mac’s experience with Japanese technology and life science companies is unmatched. These three bring a lot of fire with them, and they will be incredible additions to our global IP team,” said William Gaede, Chair of McDermott’s Global IP practice.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton announced the addition of Ms. Lauren Strickroth as a partner in their Orange County office. Ms. Strickroth specializes in fiduciary litigation, business disputes, private wealth disputes and litigation involving estates and trusts matters. Ms. Strickroth also serves as general counsel for private businesses.

“Sheppard Mullin’s private wealth and fiduciary litigation team constitutes one of the premier practices in the U.S. We are confident Lauren will help expand our impressive record of success in the courtroom that has kept us at the top echelon of this niche field of trial attorneys throughout the U.S. and worldwide,” said Private Wealth and Fiduciary Litigation Practice Group Leader Adam Streisand.

“Over the last few years, our Private Wealth and Fiduciary Litigation practice has grown and their ongoing involvement in some of the most high-profile estate disputes is a testament to their outstanding reputation and expertise. We’re thrilled that Lauren is joining us,” said Sheppard Mullin’s vice chairman Jon Newby.

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Who’s Who Legal – Environment named Lynn L. Bergeson  as a leading legal practitioner in North America for the 17th time. Further, she was named a top lawyer in chemicals, manufacturing, nanotechnology, and pharmaceuticals industry groups by Super Lawyers for the 15th time. Ms. Bergeson, an experienced attorney in environmental, chemical, and nanotechnological law, is presently a Managing Partner at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., as well as President of The Acta Group , Bergeson & Campbell’s scientific and regulatory consulting arm.

As noted in the recognition by Who’s Who Legal, “Lynn Bergeson is renowned as ‘an excellent lawyer, particularly in chemical matters’. Her in-depth knowledge of risk assessment and liability management receives further applause.”

Simultaneously, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  received National and Metropolitan Tier 1 rankings for Environmental Law and Environmental Litigation in U.S. News and World Report’s 2022 Best Law Firms. As of this recognition, the firm has held these rankings for a full decade.

Chicago Lawyer Magazine named Antonio M. Romanucci, Founding Partner at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, their 2021 Person of the Year. The award is given to honor a notable newsmaker, trendsetter or legal leader in the preceding year. Mr. Romanucci, a long-time civil rights lawyer, most notably represented the family of George Floyd in the civil lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis and four police officers.

“There is no question that this honor is a capstone for my career as a trial attorney,” said Mr. Romanucci. “It’s so hard to believe how far my life has come since my days as a Cook County Public Defender to now one of the founding partners at a nearly 25-year-old Romanucci & Blandin. It’s a testament to the will and fortitude my law partner, Stephan Blandin, and I have always had to make sure the client comes first.”

“The banner headline for Antonio Romanucci this year is the historic $27 million settlement the George Floyd legal team secured,” said John McNally, Managing Editor at Chicago Lawyer Magazine. “It’s a major dollar figure for a case that struck nerves – many that continued to be frayed to this very day – throughout the United States. But where one could be despondent, Romanucci is hopeful. He has to be, otherwise what’s the point? So in addition to his heavy workload at Romanucci & Blandin, he’s barnstorming the country speaking to lawyers, law students and others who can make a difference in the quest for justice.”

Henry Talavera, a Shareholder at Polsinelli PC, received a Lifetime Achievement Award as part of Texas Lawyer’s 2021 Texas Legal Excellence Awards. A member of the firm’s Dallas office and the vice chair of the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Practice, Mr. Talavera is well-experienced in the fields of employment law and tax law, and has represented clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Brian Bullard, Managing Partner of Polsinelli’s Dallas office, notes the significance of this award: “For the last eight years at Polsinelli and throughout his career, Henry has played a vital role in the legal community, not only providing needed counsel to his wide range of clients but serving as an advocate for diversity in the profession and beyond. This Lifetime Achievement honor recognizes just how vital his contributions have been for the past three decades, and all of us at Polsinelli look forward to witnessing and supporting his continued accomplishments going forward.”

Firm Inclusion & Diversity Efforts

Much joined the Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA), which aims to use the law as a vehicle for change to help oppressed and underserved communities. Much previously represented the LFAA in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court about an issue involving Jim Crow measures used to disenfranchise Black jurors.

“We’re proud to join the nearly 300 Alliance firms working together to address systemic racism in the law. It’s our privilege and our responsibility to continue working for the rights of marginalized people,” said Steve Blonder, who led the recent work with LFAA and also serves as chair of the firm’s social responsibility initiative,  Much Community.

The LFAA works to create systemic change and racial equity in the law.

Kimya S.P. Johnson joined Jackson Lewis as its new chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer (CDEIO) and principal. She will work with firm leadership, key stakeholders, and practice group leaders to expand, manage and oversee firmwide DEI initiatives and lead a team to execute a comprehensive, strategic DEI plan.

Ms. Johnson will also serve as a member of Jackson Lewis’ Corporate Diversity Counseling group, advising companies on diversity assessments and action plans.  She has over 20 years of experience as an employment attorney, and supports employers in their efforts to provide legally-compliant, effective and organizationally-integrative DEI plans. Ms. Johnson previously served as the chair of the Diversity & Inclusion practice group at Ogletree Deakins.

“With Kimya at the helm of our strategic DEI efforts, we will strengthen our inclusive culture that values the contributions of every employee and continues to emphasize the importance of having a workforce that reflects the various communities in which we work,” said Firm Chair Kevin G. Lauri. “In addition, I believe all within Jackson Lewis and beyond will recognize we are intentional and committed to doing what it takes to move our leadership, our firm, and our profession forward in this vital area. We are thrilled to add Kimya to the team.”

“Fostering DEI is a critical component of Jackson Lewis’ culture, and the CDEIO role will collaborate with all departments and functions to advance DEI as a firm value,” said Firm Managing Principal Samantha Hoffman. “Kimya has a track record of creating meaningful enhancements for law firms. She is known as an innovator and has already contributed excellent ideas to build on the success of our DEI strategy. We are so pleased to have her on board.”

Before her career as an attorney, Ms. Johnson worked as a public elementary school teacher in South Bronx, New York and served as campaign manager for a candidate for U.S. Congress.

Dinsmore received Best in Class for diversity in the legal profession by Crain’s Cleveland Business in its issue recognizing seven “notable businesses championing diversity and inclusion.”

“Everyone has a customer in the business world, and the customer population is becoming more diverse,” partner Richik Sarkar told Crain’s. “Look around your company. If everyone seems the same, especially in leadership, you’ll have a problem serving your customer, and if you don’t take steps to understand your customers, you’ll face failure sooner rather than later.”

Dinsmore previously earned the Mansfield Rule 4.0 Certification Plus for the 2021 iteration of the diverse leadership hiring initiative. The firm also partnered with Procter & Gamble and the Ohio Innocence Project at Cincinnati Law to create a fellowship for a diverse recent law school graduate to gain experience in civil rights litigation and policy-making.

The firm’s Pre-Law Minority Program also helps students of color at four Kentucky universities.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

Article By Hanna Taylor, Chandler Ford and Rachel Popa

of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
For more articles on legal marketing, visit the NLRLaw Office Management section.

Study Demonstrates Earlier Physician Retirement Overall and Increased Pay Equity Concerns for Female Doctors During the Pandemic

This month, Doximity issued its Fifth Annual 2021 Physician Compensation Report. With the continued strain of the pandemic spanning 2021, the self-reported physician data reflected widespread burnout and early retirement, especially by female physicians. With respect to physician compensation, Doximity findings demonstrated:

  • While average doctor pay increased 3.8 percent between 2020 and 2021, there was a decline of real income compared to 2020 given the CPI 6.2% rate of inflation in 2021.
  • The top five metro areas with the highest physician pay were Charlotte, NC; St. Louis, MO; Buffalo, NY; Jacksonville, Florida; and, Orlando, Florida.
  • The top five metro areas with the lowest physician pay were Baltimore, MD; Providence, RI; San Antonio, TX; Washington, D.C.; and Boston, MA.
  • A widening gender pay gap of 28.2% this year, with female physicians making $122,000 less than male physicians in 2021.
  • Based on 2014-2019 data, Doximity estimates that over the course of a career, female physicians will earn over $2 million less than male physicians.

Specialties with the largest pay equity gaps between men and women are oral & maxillofacial surgery; allergy and immunology; ENT; pediatric nephrology; and thoracic surgery. Significantly, there is no one medical specialty where women earned the same or more than men in 2021. All specialties had a pay gap over 10%, except Pediatric Rheumatology (which had a gap of 7.9%). To compound matters, a recent Jama Network Open research letter found that physician residents who were mothers – compared to physician residents who were fathers – were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% v. .8%), household tasks (31.4% v. 7.2%), to work primarily from home (40.9% to 22%), and to reduce their work hours (19.4% to 9.4%). The study reflected the significant concern that these “short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact advancement.”

Doximity’s research also revealed that due to the pandemic, over 1% of physicians retired before expected, which is feared to strain an already tight labor market. The report also highlighted studies suggesting about half of doctors are considering an employment change due to the “COVID-related overwork.” The overwork also had a disproportionate impact on women physicians, with 25% of them reporting they are “considering early retirement” due to increased work during the pandemic.

This research reflects the importance of a physician/employer in any setting reflecting on the impact of the pandemic on its healthcare team. Moreover, the research shows continued pay equity deficits between female and male physicians, which may be exacerbated by the pandemic. Internal reflection on current pay practices to identify the factors contributing to it are critical to maintain top talent, improve morale amidst very difficult times and avoid wage and hour litigation.

Article By Dorothy Parson McDermott of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more healthcare and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

The Legal Challenges to the OSHA ETS and CMS Vaccine Mandate Move to the Supreme Court

On December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued orders granting review of legal challenges to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“OSHA ETS”) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule (“CMS Vaccine Mandate”). In a rare move, the Supreme Court set an accelerated timeline for the cases, scheduling oral arguments in both cases on January 7, 2022.

Following a ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on December 17, 2021, OSHA announced that it would not issue citations for non-compliance with any requirements of the OSHA ETS before January 10, 2022 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements before February 9, 2022, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the OSHA ETS. While it is unknown whether the Supreme Court will be able to issue a ruling by OSHA’s January 10, 2022 compliance date, the Supreme Court’s expedited schedule seems to indicate that it is attempting to give employers some finality concerning their obligations under the federal mandates.

Article By Lilian Doan Davis of Polsinelli PC

For more COVID-19 legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Be Watching in 2022

The California Supreme Court has been busy in 2021 deciding cases that affect employers from how to pay meal and rest period penalties to when the statute of limitations for a failure to promote runs.

While the state’s high court answered some big questions in this last year, they still have several cases pertaining to employment law awaiting their attention.

Here are the cases employers should be watching in the new year and why.

People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s Inc.

In this case, a complainant filed a timely retaliation complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) claiming immediate termination after complaining about non-payment of wages. Her complaint did not allege any disclosure to a governmental agency, but the retaliatory act of termination upon her direct complaint to her employer. The DLSE undertook an investigation and determined that respondents had violated several Labor Code sections, notably 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”), California’s whistleblower statute. The DLSE notified the parties involved of its determination on December 22, 2015. Respondents were ordered to do several things, including paying the complainant lost wages and civil penalties of $20,000 each for violations of sections 1102.5 and 98.6. Respondents never complied.

On October 17, 2017, the Labor Commissioner filed an enforcement action against Respondents under the authority of section 98.7, subdivision (c)(1)5, alleging violations of these statutory provisions. Eventually, through a lack of response by the employer-defendant, the Labor Commissioner sought to take a default judgment.

The trial court, however, determined that the Labor Commissioner had not stated a claim under section 1102.5, because the complainant had not approached a governmental agency until after her termination. The trial court found that retaliation under the statute required the complainant to have been terminated as a result of disclosure to a governmental agency, which was not alleged. The trial court also found insufficient evidence for the claimant’s unpaid wages, and that the penalties under Section 98.6 were not appropriate.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning, but nevertheless affirmed the denial of Section 1102.5 claim as it found the after-termination complaint to be defective. It also reversed as to the penalties awarded under Section 98.6 and remanded that portion of the judgment.

The question before the California Supreme Court is limited to whether Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), which protects an employee from retaliation for disclosing unlawful activity, applies when the information is already known to that person or agency.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

Depending on the direction the California Supreme Court takes, its holding will affect the burden on employers defending against whistleblower claims – especially those arising out of allegations that an employee told an employer or agency information that the employer or agency was already aware of.

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

FlexCare, LLC (“FlexCare”), a temporary staffing agency, assigned Plaintiff to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (“Eisenhower”). Plaintiff alleged that during her employment at Eisenhower, FlexCare and Eisenhower failed to ensure she received the required meal and rest periods, wages for certain periods she worked, and overtime wages. She then filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. Plaintiff’s claims were based solely on her work on assignment to Eisenhower. FlexCare settled with the class and plaintiff executed a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement.

A year later, Plaintiff brought a second class action suit against Eisenhower, who had not been named in the previous lawsuit, alleging the same labor law violations. FlexCare intervened in the action asserting Plaintiff could not bring the separate lawsuit against Eisenhower because she had settled her claims in the prior class action.

The trial court held a limited trial on the issue of the propriety of the lawsuit and ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement. Accordingly, Eisenhower could not avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata because the hospital was neither a party to the prior litigation nor in privity with FlexCare. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case could affect staffing agency employers who may want to utilize broad releases if their “clients” are not also named to avoid duplicative litigation – for which they may have to pay twice – through indemnity clauses.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

This case will explore whether the evidentiary standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 (“Section 1102.6”) replaces the McDonnell Douglas test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5.

In this case, Defendant was a manufacturer of paint, stains, caulks, and other products. Plaintiff Lawson (“Lawson”) was a territory manager whose duties included merchandising and claims that he was directed by his supervisor to handle a product in a way that fraudulently removed a slow-selling product from its inventory. Lawson told his supervisor he would not do this, then reported the directive to the company’s ethics hotline on two separate occasions. The second report to the ethics hotline resulted in an investigation. During this time, Lawson received poor ratings for his work, was placed on a performance improvement plan, and eventually, Defendant terminated his employment.

Lawson then filed a complaint against the company in the United States District Court, alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower.

The trial court applied the McDonnell Douglas test, which employs burden-shifting between the plaintiff and the employer. This test originated in the context of Title VII, the federal statute governing workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The trial court concluded that Lawson failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact regarding pretext and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Lawson argued to the 9th Circuit that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6. Section 1102.6 states that once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliation against the employee, the employer’s burden of proof is to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons.

In its question to the California Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit noted that application of the McDonnell Douglas test to whistleblower claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 “seems to ignore [a] critical intervening statutory amendment” by which the California legislature established the evidentiary burdens of the parties participating in a civil action or administrative hearing involving a violation of the statute. Though this statement by the Circuit seems like a decision, the 9th Circuit pointed out three published California appellate court decisions that expressly applied McDonnell Douglas after the amendment.

This contradiction between California’s statute and the court rulings is the root of the 9th Circuit’s question.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

If the California Supreme Court rules that the evidentiary requirement under Section 1102.6 applies, disposing of whistleblower retaliation claims prior to trial will become extremely difficult due to the high clear and convincing evidentiary standard imposed on the employer.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

This case involves a class of security guards who alleged meal break violations and sought premium wages, waiting time penalties, inaccurate pay stub penalties, and attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeal held that unpaid premium wages for meal period violations did not entitle employees to pay stub penalties or waiting time penalties.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case will resolve a long-standing debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest period violations. If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts, it will increase potential penalties for California meal and rest period violations, as violations could be compounded by alleged pay stub penalties and waiting time penalties.

Article By Leonora M. Schloss and Karen Luh of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021