Category: Labor & Employment

DOL Publishes Final Rule Implementing President Biden’s $15 Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Executive Order 14026

The Department of Labor (DOL) has published its Final Rule implementing President Biden’s April 27, 2021, Executive Order 14026 raising the minimum wage from $10.95 an hour to $15 an hour (with increases to be published annually). The new wage rate will take effect January 30, 2022, though as discussed below, the rate increases will not be applied to contracts automatically on that date.

The Final Rule is substantially similar to the DOL’s proposed Notice of Rulemaking issued in July 2021 and is more expansive in coverage than the current federal contractor minimum wage requirements in effect under former President Obama’s Executive Order 13658.

$15 Wage Rate Does Not Apply to All Federal Contractors, All Federal Contracts, or All Workers

Covered Contracts

The $15 wage rate will apply to workers on four specific types of federal contracts that are performed in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and certain U.S. territories):

  • Procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA), but not the Davis-Bacon Related Acts
  • Service Contract Act (SCA) covered contracts
  • Concessions contracts – meaning a contract under which the federal government grants a right to use federal property, including land or facilities, for furnishing services. The term “concessions contract” includes, but is not limited to, a contract the principal purpose of which is to furnish food, lodging, automobile fuel, souvenirs, newspaper stands, or recreational equipment, regardless of whether the services are of direct benefit to the government, its personnel, or the general public
  • Contracts related to federal property and the offering of services to the general public, federal employees, and their dependents

The Executive Order does not apply to contracts or other funding instruments, including:

  • Contracts for the manufacturing or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment to the federal government
  • Grants
  • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
  • Contracts excluded from coverage under the SCA or DBA and specifically excluded in the implementing regulations and
  • Other contracts specifically excluded (See NPRM Section 23.40)

Effective Date; Definition of “New” Contracts Expanded

The Final Rule specifies that the wage requirement will apply to new contracts and contract solicitations as of January 30, 2022. Despite the “new contract” limitation, the regulations, consistent with the language of the Biden Executive Order, strongly encourage federal agencies to require the $15 wage for all existing contracts and solicitations issued between the date of the Executive Order and the effective date of January 30, 2022.

Similarly, agencies are “strongly encouraged” to require the new wage where they have issued a solicitation before the effective date and entered into a new contract resulting from the solicitation within 60 days of such effective date.

Pursuant to the Final Rule, the new minimum wage will apply to new contracts; new contract-like instruments; new solicitations; extensions or renewals of existing contracts or contract-like instruments; and exercises of options on existing contracts or contract-like instruments on or after January 30, 2022.

Geographic Limitations Expanded

The Final Rule applies coverage to workers outside the 50 states and expands the definition of “United States” to include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston Island.

Workers Performing Work “On or In Connection With” a Covered Contract

Only workers who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and performing work on or in connection with a covered contract must be paid $15 per hour. The wage requirement applies only to hours worked on or in connection with a covered contract.

A worker performs “on” a contract if the worker directly performs the specific services called for by the contract. A worker performs “in connection with” a contract if the worker’s work activities are necessary to the performance of a contract but are not the specific services called for by the contract.

The Final Rule includes a “less-than-20% exception” for those workers who only perform work “in connection with” a covered contract, but do not perform any direct work on the contract. For workers who spend less than 20% of their hours in a workweek working indirectly in connection with a covered contract, the contractor need not pay the $15 wage for any hours for that workweek.

Tipped Employees

Under the Final Rule, DOL is phasing out lower wages and tip credits for tipped employees on covered contracts. Employers must pay tipped employees $10.50 per hour in 2022 and increase those wages incrementally, under a proposed formula in the NPRM. Beginning in 2024, tipped employees must receive the full federal contractor wage rate.

$15 Wage Contract Clause Requirements, Enforcement Obligations

The Final Rule provides that a Minimum Wage contract clause will appear in covered prime contracts, except that procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will include an applicable FAR Clause (to be issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council) providing notice of the wage requirement.

In addition, covered prime contractors and subcontractors must include the Contract Clause in covered subcontracts and, as will be in the applicable FAR Clause, procurement prime contractors and subcontractors will be required to include the FAR clause in covered subcontracts.

In addition, the Final Rule provides that contractors and subcontractors:

“… shall require, as a condition of payment, that the subcontractor include the minimum wage contract clause in any lower-tier subcontracts … [and] shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor with the Executive Order minimum wage requirements, whether or not the contract clause was included in the subcontract.”

The DOL will investigate complaints and enforce the requirements but under the Final Rule, contracting agencies may also enforce the minimum wage requirements and take actions including contract termination, suspension and debarment for violations.

Preparation for the $15 wage

To prepare, contractors and subcontractors of covered contracts should consider taking the following steps:

  • Review existing multi-year contracts with options or extensions that may be exercised on or after January 30, 2022, to plan for wage increases at the exercise of the option or extension, but also review any contract modifications to see if an agency is including the requirement early than required, as is allowed under the Final Rule
  • Identify job titles that typically perform work directly on covered contracts and those that perform indirect work above 20% in a workweek
  • Plan for wage increases for covered workers who are not already making $15 per hour
  • Determine impact on existing collective bargaining agreements particularly on SCA-covered contracts
  • Prepare for submission of price/equitable adjustments based on wage increases if allowed under the contract terms

Article By Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

USCIS Announces Policy Changes for H-4, L-2, and E-1/E-2/E-3 Dependent EAD Workers

Since the publication of our November 12, 2021 alert, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued policy guidance following the November 10, 2021 settlement agreement and updated the I-9 Handbook providing for automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cards for H-4, L-2, and E-1 Dependent, E-2 Dependent, or E-3 Dependent visa holders. The USCIS policy guidance can be found here.

As described in our previous alert, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entered into a settlement agreement following a lawsuit brought by H-4 and L-2 spouses suffering from long-delayed adjudication for the processing of applications for Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cards. Effective November 12, 2021, USCIS allows for automatic extensions of employment authorization, in certain circumstances, while an EAD renewal application has been filed and is pending with USCIS for H-4, L-2, and now E-1/E-2/E-3 dependent (“E dependent”) spouses. In addition, USCIS has now changed its statutory interpretation and will soon afford employment authorization incident to status for L-2 spouses, E-1 Treaty Trader dependent spouses, E-2 Investor dependent spouses, and E-3 specialty occupation professionals from Australia dependent spouses. Once this policy takes effect, L-2 and E dependent spouses will no longer need to apply for an EAD card in order to be authorized to work.

Automatic Extension of EADs for H-4, L-2, and E Dependent Spouses

USCIS has officially issued guidance and updated the I-9 Handbook to provide for automatic extensions of EADs for H-4 and L-2 spouses. In this new policy alert, USCIS is granting these benefits to spouses of E-1 Treaty Traders, E-2 Treaty Investors, and E-3 specialty occupation professionals from Australia in the respective E dependent classification as well.

H-4, L-2, and E dependent spouses will qualify for automatic extension of their valid EAD for 180 days beyond the date of the EAD expiration if the nonimmigrant spouse:

  • Properly files a Form I-765 EAD renewal application to USCIS before the current EAD expires; and
  • Continues to maintain H-4, L-2, or E dependent status beyond the expiration of the existing EAD as evidenced on Form I-94.

The validity of the expired EAD will be extended until the earliest of:

  • 180 days following the EAD expiration;
  • The expiration of the H-4 / L-2 / E dependent nonimmigrant’s I-94 record; or
  • When a final decision is made on the EAD extension application by USCIS.

For I-9 purposes, an H-4, L-2, or E dependent employee may present: a facially expired EAD indicating Category C26, A18, or A17; Form I-797, Notice of Action for Form I-765 with Class requested indicating (c)(26), (a)(18), or (a)(17) and showing that the I-765 EAD renewal application was filed before the EAD expired; and an unexpired I-94, showing valid H-4, L-2, or E dependent nonimmigrant status.

L-2 and E-1/E-2/E-3 Dependent Spouses Will Be Granted Work Authorization Pursuant to Status

USCIS’ new policy guidance provides that both L-2 and E dependent spouses will be employment authorized incident to status, meaning that a separate Form I-765 EAD application will not need to be filed to obtain work authorization, and that the L-2 or E dependent spouse is authorized to work upon being admitted to the United States. USCIS, in cooperation with CBP, will change Form I-94 to indicate the individual is an L-2 spouse so that the I-94 can be used for I-9 purposes. DHS will, within 120 days, take steps to modify Form I-94. However, please note that until USCIS can implement changes to the I-94 to distinguish L-2 and E dependent spouses currently in the U.S. from L-2 and E dependent children, E and L spouses will still need to rely upon an EAD as evidence of employment authorization to present to employers for completion of Form I-9.

Obtaining an Extended I-94

As it is required for H-4, L-2, and E-3 spouses to have a valid I-94 for the automatic extension of the EAD, we are outlining two possible ways that a person applying for an H-4 or L-2 EAD extension can obtain an extended I-94:

  1. File the H-1B or L-1 extension using premium processing and wait for the H-1B or L-1 approval. The H-4 or L-2 spouse then departs the U.S. and obtains a new visa and returns with an extended I-94. Once the spouse returns, he or she will file the EAD extension upon return to the U.S.
  2. File the H-4 or L-2 and EAD extensions with the principal’s H-1B or L-1 extension. After the H-1B or L-1 is approved, the spouse departs the U.S. and obtains a new visa and returns with an extended I-94. The Form I-539, request for extension of status, will be abandoned, but Form I-765 will not and will continue to be processed by USCIS.

Regarding E dependent spouses, anyone entering the U.S. with an E visa is admitted for two years, so he or she may already have an extended I-94 card. If an E dependent spouse has an expiring I-94, he or she can follow one of the above steps to extend their I-94.

Article By Angel Feng, Shannon N. Parker, and John F. Quill of Mintz.

For more immigration law news, read more at the National Law Review.

©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Tennessee Enacts Law Restricting Enforcement of Vaccine Mandates

On November 10, 2021, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced that he would sign legislation that addresses various COVID-19–related issues, including vaccine mandates and mask mandates. The law is effective immediately. There are several major issues for employers regarding COVID-19 prevention measures addressed in the new law. Below is an overview of the law’s key points.

Vaccine Mandates

The law does not prohibit private employers from adopting vaccine mandates. It seeks, in an indirect manner, to restrict employers from mandating vaccines… The law focuses on prohibiting employers from requiring proof of vaccination status. The express language of the new law is as follows: “A private business, governmental entity, school, or local education agency shall not compel or otherwise take an adverse action against a person to compel the person to provide proof of vaccination if the person objects to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for any reason.”

It would appear that the law potentially creates a perverse “don’t ask/don’t tell” incentive for both employers and employees. If an employee openly objects to receiving a vaccine, an employer can still ask why—to determine if there is a bona fide Title VII religious or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation issue—but the employer would appear to be able to discharge or discipline the employee for the employee’s objection (absent accommodation issues). What a Tennessee employer cannot to do is ask employees for proof of vaccination status and then take an adverse action if the employees fail or refuse to provide proof of their vaccination status. By contrast, an employee might have an incentive to keep quiet and not answer (or lie) if asked about vaccination status.

Mask Mandates

An earlier version of the legislation sought to prohibit mask mandates entirely. The version that has become law limits the prohibition on mask mandates to government employers: “An employer that is a governmental entity shall not require an employee to wear a face covering as a term or condition of employment, or take an adverse action against an employee for failing to wear a face covering, unless severe conditions exist at the time the requirement is adopted and the requirement is in effect for not more than fourteen (14) days.” (Emphasis added.)

Unemployment Benefits

The law allows employees discharged for refusing to be vaccinated to receive unemployment benefits—and it is retroactive.

Medicare and Medicaid Vaccine Requirements

The law excludes from its coverage healthcare providers that are subject to Medicare or Medicaid vaccine requirements.  On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published their interim final vaccine mandate rules.

Exemptions

The new law allows employers, private businesses, schools, and state and local governmental entities to apply to the state comptroller for exemption from the requirements of the statute if compliance would result in a loss of federal funding. This exemption process would allow employers that are federal contractors to seek exemption.

Federal Emergency Temporary Standard

The law may set up a potential showdown between the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the implementation and enforcement of OSHA’s recently issued COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for large employers (100 or more employees). The Tennessee law’s prohibition on compelling employees to provide proof of vaccination status is in direct conflict with the federal ETS (which requires employers to determine the vaccination status of each employee, including requiring each vaccinated employee to provide “acceptable proof of vaccination status”).

State OSHA plans, such as Tennessee’s, have 30 days to adopt the federal standard. However, the Tennessee law includes a provision that prohibits any state funds from being allocated to implement or enforce any “federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that mandates the administration of a COVID-19 countermeasure” (including vaccines, testing, and masking). TOSHA receives funding from both the state government and the federal government. It is unclear whether TOSHA will be eligible to seek an exemption as described above. While the language of the exemption provision would appear to apply to TOSHA, the statements of proponents of the Tennessee law during the special session of the Tennessee General Assembly during which the legislation was approved made it clear that their efforts were aimed at curbing the impact of the federal ETS in Tennessee.

On Monday, November 8, 2021, TOSHA issued the following statement:  “Tennessee OSHA is currently reviewing the latest OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard regarding vaccines in the workplace.  As the agency did with the prior ETS, staff will review the OSHA standards and then determine how Tennessee will move forward. This process could take multiple weeks to complete.”

Key Takeaways

Business groups were strongly opposed to this new law, and that opposition contributed to the legislative shift away from an outright ban on vaccine mandates and to the narrowing of the anti-mask provision. There are still questions to be answered regarding this new law, including whether it will be challenged in court, what the process for requesting an exemption will look like, and whether Tennessee will adopt the federal COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS.

This article was written by William Rutchow of Ogletree Deakins Law firm. For more information regarding vaccine mandate challenges, please see here.

Mandatory Retirement – Can You Toss the Old Guy Out?

A common trope of a 1930’s film is the callous boss handing a wizened older Wallace Barry looking man a gold watch and showing him the door as a young up-and-comer sits himself down at his desk. Is mandatory retirement legal in 2021?

With a few exceptions, the answer is no. For those employers covered by the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is unlawful to discriminate against employees who are 40 or more years of age. A mandatory retirement age is a form of discrimination since it is tantamount to an involuntary termination. That is the case even where the employer has a retirement policy to which the employee agrees when hired.

The ADEA has two exceptions:

A.   The first exception allows a mandatory retirement age if the employer can show that age is a “bona fide occupational qualification;” (BFOQ). Generally, to establish a BFOQ, the employer must demonstrate an objective safety issue such as police or fire fighter work.

B.    The second exception applies to workers in a “bona fide executive or high policymaking position”. This does not generally apply to every executive or vice president, but only those who have overall authority over the enterprise or a portion such as those occupying “c-suite” positions or who lead divisions of a larger company. Furthermore, the executive or policy maker must have been in such a position for at least two years before retirement and must be entitled to receive a pension or similar retirement benefit of at least $44,000 per year post-retirement.

The issue of mandatory retirement becomes more complex when the older worker is an equity partner and not technically an employee. This often arises in the context of law, accounting, and consulting firms. The ADEA only protects employees and not partners, who are the owners of the enterprise. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court created a six-part test for determining whether a shareholder of a medical practice was an employee or an owner. Some federal courts have extended the protection of the ADEA to partners particularly where the partnership is large and the partner has minimal authority and autonomy. Those courts found little to distinguish the ordinary partner in a large partnership from the ordinary employee.

While an employer may not enforce a mandatory retirement policy or use age as a criteria for termination, subject to the limited exceptions described above, the courts cut some slack regarding asking an older employee about plans for retirement. Whether such an inquiry is lawful will depend on how and why the question is asked. If asked so that the employer can engage in succession planning, the question is likely lawful. However, if it is posed as a not-so-subtle suggestion that the employer wants to employee to leave because he is older, it might be regarded as evidence of age bias.

© 2021 Foley & Lardner LLP

Article By Bennett L. Epstein of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more articles on retirement, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

CMS Requires COVID-19 Vaccine for Health Care Workers at all Facilities Participating in Medicare and Medicaid

On Nov. 4, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) released a new Interim Final Rule (IFR) regarding staff vaccination at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The IFR requires covered employers to ensure that staff receive their first dose no later than Dec. 5, 2021 and achieve full vaccination no later than Jan. 4, 2022.

The vaccine rule that was also released on Nov. 4, 2021 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not apply to employees of health care entities who are covered under the CMS IFR. However, employees of health care providers who are not subject to the CMS IFR may be subject to the OSHA vaccine rule if the facility has more than 100 employees. For more information on the OSHA vaccine rule, please click here.

Justification for the Rule

CMS cited a number of reasons for the IFR, including the risk unvaccinated staff pose to patients, reports of individuals foregoing health care due to concerns of contracting COVID-19 from health facility staff, disrupted health care operations due to infected staff, and low vaccination rates among health care staff.

Scope of Coverage

The requirements of the IFR apply to health care facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid and that are subject to Conditions or Requirements of Participation, including but not limited to:

  • Ambulatory surgical centers;
  • Hospices;
  • Hospitals, such as acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, hospital swing beds, long-term care hospitals, and children’s hospitals;
  • Long-term care facilities;
  • Home health agencies;
  • Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities;
  • Critical access hospitals;
  • Home infusion therapy suppliers; and
  • Rural health clinics/federally qualified health centers.

While the IFR does not directly apply to physician offices, which are not regulated by CMS Conditions or Requirements of Participation, physicians may nevertheless be required to vaccinate as a result of their relationships with other health care entities. For example, the IFR requires hospitals to implement policies and procedures to ensure “individuals who provide care, treatment, or other services under contract or by other arrangement” are fully vaccinated.

Covered Personnel

The IFR requires vaccinations for staff who routinely perform care for patients and clients inside and outside of the facility, such as home health, home infusion therapy, hospice, and therapy staff. CMS’s vaccination requirement also extends to all staff who interact with other staff, patients, residents, or clients, at any location, and not just those who enter facilities. However, staff who provide services 100% remotely—that is, staff who never come into contact with other staff, patients, residents, or clients—are not subject to the IFR vaccination requirements. Additionally, providers and suppliers are not required to ensure IFR vaccination compliance of one-off vendors, volunteers, or professionals, such as (a) those who provide infrequent ad hoc non-health care services (e.g. annual elevator inspectors), (b) those who perform exclusively off-site services (e.g. accounting services), or (c) delivery and repair personnel.

Definition of Full Vaccination

CMS considers “full vaccination” as 14 days after receipt of either a single-dose vaccine (such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine) or 14 days after the second dose of a two-dose primary vaccination series (such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines). At this time, CMS is not requiring the additional (third) dose of mRNA vaccine for moderately/severely immunosuppressed persons or the “booster dose” in order for staff to be considered “fully vaccinated.” Additionally, CMS considers individuals receiving heterologous vaccines—doses of different vaccines—as satisfying the “fully vaccinated” definition so long as they have received any combination of two doses. In order to gauge compliance, CMS is requiring that providers and suppliers track and securely document the vaccination status of each staff member as well as vaccine exemption requests and outcome. The IFR does not specify that weekly testing, masking, and social distancing are an alternative to vaccination, meaning employers must ensure all employees are either (1) fully vaccinated or (2) exempted under a permissible exemption.

Exemptions

The IFR explicitly provides that employers must continue to comply with anti-discrimination laws and civil rights protections which allow employees to request and receive exemption from vaccination due to a disability, medical condition, or sincerely held religious belief or practice. Exemptions should be provided to staff with recognized medical conditions for which a vaccine is contraindicated as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For exemptions for a sincerely held religious belief or practice, CMS encourages health care entities to refer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination. Despite the ability to provide an exemption, CMS states that exemptions may be provided to staff only to the extent required by law, and that requests for exemption should not be provided to those who seek solely to evade vaccination. CMS also notes at length that the Food and Drug Administration considers approved vaccines safe. Accordingly, CMS will likely be unwilling to excuse provider and supplier noncompliance due to employees refusing vaccination based on fears about safety.

Penalties

Although the IFR does not identify specific penalties for non-compliance, CMS is expected to use enforcement tools such as civil money penalties, denial of payment for new admissions, or termination of the Medicare/Medicaid provider agreement. CMS will utilize State Survey Agencies to review compliance with the IFR through standard recertification surveys and complaint surveys. Noncompliance with the IFR will be addressed through established classification channels of “Immediate Jeopardy,” “Condition,” or “Standard” deficiencies.

Preemption

While CMS recognizes that some states and localities have established laws to prevent mandatory compliance with vaccine mandates, CMS ultimately considers the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as preempting inconsistent state and local laws as applied to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.

© 2021 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
For more updates on COVID-19, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration agreement, but also held that a unilateral modification clause (granting the employer the right to make changes to the agreement) does not, in and of itself, render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al., Case No. 20-55819, 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 29263 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2021).

In this case, the chronology of events is important to understanding how this lawsuit arose.  In September 2016, Tinder hired the plaintiff as a brand manager.  According to the plaintiff, in mid-2017 and January 2018, she complained to human resources about sexual harassment by her coworkers and supervisors. During that same time period, in July 2017, Tinder was acquired by Match Group, Inc. After acquiring Tinder, Match Group sent its employees a mandatory arbitration agreement. The plaintiff signed the agreement and continued to work for Match Group until Match Group discharged her in March 2018. The plaintiff sued in California state court for sexual harassment and retaliation.  The case was removed to federal court at which point Match Group successfully moved to compel arbitration. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement (1) is unenforceable, and (2) does not cover her claims, which predated the agreement.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment allegations, even though the plaintiff did not sign the agreement until after her claims arose. In ruling for Match Group, the court highlighted the broad nature of the arbitration agreement’s language that required arbitration for “all claims and controversies arising from or in connection with [the plaintiff’s] application with, employment with, or termination from the Company.” In enforcing the agreement, the court noted that the agreement’s reference to “all claims and controversies” arising out of the plaintiff’s employment necessarily included her claims that predated the arbitration agreement.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit was not swayed by the fact that the arbitration agreement included a provision that allowed Match Group to modify the terms of the agreement unilaterally. While the court recognized that such a provision could be substantively unconscionable, it explicitly discussed how Match Group had not actually modified the agreement but was rather seeking to enforce the agreement as written. But the court went even further in enforcing the agreement. In addition to upholding the agreement, the Ninth Circuit determined that even if it assumed that a provision permitting unilateral modifications by the employer is substantively unconscionable, such a provision alone does not render the entire agreement unenforceable. Therefore, even taking the plaintiff’s argument as true, the agreement, as a whole, was still enforceable.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is encouraging for employers seeking to enforce their arbitration agreements for a few reasons. First, the court made clear that a unilateral modification clause will not, in of itself, render the agreement unenforceable. Second, the court  enforced the broad language in the employer’s arbitration agreement and compelled arbitration of claims that pre-date the execution of the agreement.

Co-authored by Spencer Ladd.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Immigration and Compliance Briefing: Fall Travel & COVID-19 Policy Update

On October 25, 2021, the Biden Administration issued a Presidential Proclamation to lift the travel bans which currently restrict entry into the U.S. directly from specific geographic areas (for a full list of restricted countries, see our prior client alert here), to be effective November 8, 2021. Instead of banning entry from specific locations abroad, the U.S. will utilize vaccine status-based restrictions for incoming travelers entering the country as noncitizen nonimmigrants (i.e., temporary visa holders or visa-free travelers). Once the new rules go into effect, most travelers will be required to provide proof of being fully vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to boarding an airplane, regardless of recent travel history (“fully vaccinated” refers to individuals who received the final dose of the COVID-19 vaccine more than 14 days prior).

Currently, the list of acceptable vaccines approved/authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO), are as follows:

  • Pfizer-BioNTech

  • Moderna

  • Johnson & Johnson

  • Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield

  • Sinopharm

  • Sinovac

  • Mixed doses comprising of any two authorized/approved vaccines

As additional vaccines receive authorization/approval by either the FDA or WHO, it is anticipated that they will be added to the list of acceptable vaccines. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control will implement contact-tracing protocols. Mask mandates for airlines and airports, as well as the pre-travel negative COVID-19 test requirements, will remain in place until at least mid-January.

Exceptions include, but are not limited to, the following types of noncitizen nonimmigrants:

  • Certain noncitizen nonimmigrants traveling in an official capacity (i.e., foreign government officials and their family, individuals entering pursuant to a NATO visa classification, or individuals traveling pursuant to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement)

  • Children under the age of eighteen (18) years

  • Individuals participating in COVID-19 clinical trials*

  • Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to a medical contraindication, as determined by the CDC

  • Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to unavailability in their country of residence who are seeking to enter the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa except B-1/B-2

  • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces

  • Sea crew members

  • Individuals whose entry is in the national interest

  • Individuals granted exceptions for humanitarian or emergency reasons

*The CDC will determine the qualifying criteria for individuals seeking to enter under this exception.

In addition to the restrictions above, all unvaccinated travelers traveling to the U.S. must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within one day of travel. This requirement includes unvaccinated U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders).

Vaccinated U.S. citizens and Green Card holders must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.

Finally, additional measures may be required for certain types of travelers, including self-quarantine and vaccination within sixty (60) days of entry.

This policy will remain in place for an initial period of sixty (60) days and may be renewed on a monthly basis after that.

U.S. Land Border Updates

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will lift travel restrictions for land and ferry border crossings from Canada and Mexico in two phases, beginning November 8, 2021. Instead of keeping the land borders closed to nonessential travel, the Biden administration will implement the same policy as for air travel. Beginning November 8, nonessential travel will be permitted for fully vaccinated individuals, as described above. Nonessential travel will continue to be permitted regardless of vaccination status. However, beginning in early January 2022, all individuals entering the U.S. via the land border or ferry will be required to be fully vaccinated. This decision will permit nonessential travel via the land border between Canada and Mexico for the first time since March 21, 2020.

Vaccine Requirement for Individuals Seeking Permanent Immigrant Status

Effective October 1, 2021, applicants for immigrant status (i.e., a “green card”) in the U.S. who are subject to submitting Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record must be fully vaccinated as described above against COVID-19, before a civil surgeon designated by the Immigration Service can complete and sign the Form I-693 medical exam.

Waivers may be granted in certain circumstances, including where the COVID-19 vaccine is:

  • Not age appropriate;

  • Contraindicated due to a medical condition;

  • Not routinely available where the civil surgeon practices; or

  • Limited in supply and would cause significant delay for the applicant to receive the vaccination.

    © 1998-2021 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more articles on COVID-19 Immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section.

While Democrats Whittle Down Pro-Labor Provisions Of Social Spending Bill, Civil Penalties Remain

As we discussed here, members of the House Education and Labor Committee have been attempting to end-run the procedural hurdles that have prevented the Protect the Right to Organize Act (“PRO Act”) legislation from becoming law, through a process called “budget reconciliation.”  (For a refresher on the PRO Act, see our blog posts on the proposed legislation here and here.)

In September, the Committee released its proposed language for the federal budget incorporating several key provisions from the PRO Act that would have drastically amended federal labor law, such as establishing civil penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), personal liability for officers and directors, and newly-defined unfair labor practices that would effectively prohibit employers from utilizing some of the economic weapons traditionally thought to be lawful under the NLRA.  Through the budget reconciliation process, these provisions have a greater chance of becoming law where the bill only requires majority support in both the House and Senate and is not subject to a filibuster.

However, as the social spending bill faced challenges from both parties, the Administration presented a revised framework on October 28, 2021, entitled the “Build Back Better Act.”  The new bill  among other major edits, significantly pared down the proposed pro-labor provisions.

Even under the revised framework, there still exists for the first time ever civil penalties for those who commit unfair labor practices. If passed into law in its current form, the Build Back Better Act would:

  • Impose civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation of the NLRA;
  • Double civil penalties up to $100,000 for NLRA violations that resulted in discharge or serious economic harm where the employer committed another similar violation within the past 5 years; and
  • Assess civil penalties against directors and officers where the facts indicate that personal liability is warranted.

Fortunately, some of the most significant PRO Act-inspired provisions of the prior reconciliation bill have been dropped from this spending bill; specifically, language that would have made it an unfair labor practice to:

  • Permanently replace strikers;
  • Discriminate against a worker who has unconditionally offered to return to work based on participation in a strike;
  • Lockout, suspend, or otherwise withhold employment from employees prior to a strike;
  • Misrepresent to a worker that they are excluded from the definition of “employee” under the Act, such as misclassifying independent contractor or supervisor;
  • Require or coerce employees to attend so-called “captive audience meetings” or other campaign activities;
  • Enter into, enforce, coerce, or retaliate against employees with respect to class or collective action waivers

The revised spending bill framework is now up for discussion and debate in both the House and the Senate. The bill needs majority support in both chambers in order to become law, and the amendments in the proposed language must withstand potential challenges in the Senate (called the Byrd Rule), which (as we discussed here) is intended to limit amendments that change the substantive policy of federal law, rather than limited to taxes or spending.  The significantly narrowed labor law amendments in the revised bill would seem to have a greater likelihood of withstanding a Byrd Rule challenge than the prior iteration.

As always, we will monitor this situation and report updates as they occur.

© 2021 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Article By Steven J. Porzio, Joshua S. Fox and

Elizabeth A. Dailey of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more articles on labor law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

October 2021: Law Firm Hiring, Legal Innovation & Pro Bono in the Legal Industry

Happy Halloween! We’re back with the second edition of the October 2021 Legal Roundup News Column. Read on for the latest news in law firm hiring, pro bono work, and law firm innovation.

Law Firm Additions, Growth and Recognition

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP announced the addition of Wes Scott as a partner to its Nashville office. Mr. Scott  works with capital markets and the securities industry and specializes in corporate governance and mergers and acquisitions law.

“Wes’s securities experience and knowledge of the banking and financial services industry will make him a great asset to Nelson Mullins,” said Neil Grayson, head of the firm’s financial institutions, corporate and regulatory group.

“I’m excited to be joining such a deep and talented team of attorneys. Nelson Mullins’ financial institutions and securities practices are nationally renowned and are flourishing.  I fully anticipate that the Nelson Mullins’ platform will be extremely beneficial not only for my practice but, more importantly, for my clients’ businesses,” said Mr. Scott.

von Brisen & Roper s.c. expanded their Milwaukee office with the addition of four new attorneys:

Susan Lee joined Goodwin’s Life Sciences practice as a partner in their Washington, DC office.  Ms. Lee advises biologics and technology companies on FDA regulatory and compliance matters, and is ranked by Legal 500 US as a Next Generation Partner for life sciences and healthcare.

“Susan’s broad experience in FDA regulatory strategy, commercialization, and issues related to corporate transactions will be invaluable to our clients at all stages of the product and corporate lifecycle. We are thrilled to welcome Susan to Goodwin,” said Mitch Bloom.

Ice Miller LLP n has opened a new office in Philadelphia,  housing the firm’s Intellectual Property practice, which represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients in all aspects of patent law.

“We are excited to expand not only our office space, but also the capabilities of our Philadelphia Office. The move signifies the growth of our IP practice, as well as the growth of the firm. I cannot wait to welcome more IP practitioners and attorneys in other practice areas to join our office to better serve our clients in the greater Philadelphia region and elsewhere,” said Philadelphia Office Managing Partner Weihong Hsing, Ph.D.

Rosenburg Martin Greenberg LLP announced Caroline L. Hecker is the new managing partner of the firm. She is the third managing partner of the firm, and the first woman and non-founding member to assume the role. Ms. Heckler started at the firm in 2007, and became a partner in 2013. Currently, Ms. Hecker leads the Land Use and Zoning team and the firm’s Associate Marketing Committee, which helps to establish business development awareness in its attorneys.

“Caroline is an extremely talented lawyer who possesses the leadership skills necessary to ensure Rosenberg Martin Greenberg’s continued success moving forward. Caroline is highly regarded by her colleagues, the firm’s clients, and other professionals. It is an honor to pass the baton to someone with the reputation for excellence and fairness that Caroline has earned through her exceptional work on behalf of the firm, our clients and the Greater Baltimore community,” said Barry Greenberg, the firm’s current managing partner.

Bethany Biesenthal, a partner in Jones Day’s Chicago office, is now a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL). Ms. Biesenthal has experience in White Collar Defense and Business & Tort litigation. Fellowship in the College is by invitation only to diverse experienced trial lawyers whose careers exemplify the highest moral conduct, professionalism and civility, and attorneys must have a minimum of 15 years’ trial experience.

“Bethany is a natural talent. She has been a top-notch addition to our ranks since joining us from the United States’ Attorney’s Office and her induction is a wonderful recognition of her overall outstanding skills as an advisor and a trial lawyer,” said Tina Tabacchi, a partner of Jones Day.

Innovation in the Law

Blakes Law firm is the first Canadian law firm to partner with the Mindful Business Charter (MBC) to help alleviate unnecessary stressors in the workplace and to cultivate effective team work by incorporating openness, respect, improved communication, a considerate delegation of tasks and respect for working hours.

“The Charter is simple — be more mindful, more aware, of the impact we have on each other and give each other the permission to talk about it, to be brave, and to ask for what we need to enable us to function at our best and to thrive,” said Richard Martin, on behalf of the MBC Initiative.

“Innovation comes in many shapes. At Blakes, this focus on smart collaboration reinforces our long-standing commitment to fostering the health and productivity of our teams. Enhancing the way we work together will benefit our Firm, our people and our clients,” said Blakes Managing Partner Bryson Stokes.

Lawmatics announced their new Client Portal, which allows users to share documents, signature requests, calendar events and other contact based tasks. Some of the new features available on the portal include automation tagging, e-signature deadline expiration and more.

Legal Industry Serving the Greater Good

Faegre Drinker is the recipient of the Inaugural Law Firm Founders’ Award from the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM). The ILCM is a nonprofit organization that provides pro bono or low cost legal services to those in need of immigration legal assistance, and works to educate organizations about immigration and human rights.

Faegre Drinker’s attorneys are recognized by the ILCM for their pro bono efforts and for their assistance in creating the pro bono program.

Evan J. Lide of Stark and Stark recently accepted a position on the Board of Directors of Lambertville Helping Hands, which provides Hurricane Ida disaster relief. Mr. Lide has experience in the areas of accidents and personal injury law.

“I have seen first-hand the devastation that Hurricane Ida has brought to my town of Lambertville, especially to my neighbors at the Village Apartments. More than half of the residents in town have suffered some amount of flood damage, and the recovery is far from over. Lambertville Helping Hands helped direct the volunteer effort in town, and I am pleased to have been asked to join the Board to help ensure these funds get to the people who need them most,” said Mr. Lide

Frost Brown Todd (FBT) awarded their annual Diversity and Inclusion Scholarships to five students for demonstrating academic excellence and a commitment to diversity and inclusion efforts. The FBT Diversity and Inclusion Scholarships award five $2,000 scholarships to help build a diverse legal pipeline and to give support to underrepresented students.

The five students  selected are:

“We are excited to offer this FBT scholarship to students who are currently law students or intend to attend law school in the future. In the past 11 years, we have handed out this scholarship, we have been inspired by the commitment the recipients have to create a diverse, equitable and inclusive community. We look forward to watching their successes in the future and are proud FBT could provide support in that journey,” said Committee Chair Justin Fowles.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

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

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

How the Labor Shortage is Impacting the Supply Chain: Would Immigration Reform Help?

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to present challenges to the US economy, labor shortages are contributing to the ongoing supply chain disruptions facing many industries. Companies are finding it difficult to find the right candidates for the jobs they’re looking to fill while millions of Americans are quitting their jobs or threatening to strike or walking out for better working conditions.

One industry in particular affected by the labor shortages brought on by COVID-19 is the   shipping and warehousing industry. At the Port of Los Angeles, for example, there aren’t enough workers to unload goods from ships, causing shipping delays across the US. Additionally, a shortage of truck drivers is contributing to the problem. Ninety percent of leaders who spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said labor shortages are impacting economic growth in some areas.

To help remedy the problem, President Joe Biden announced the Port of Los Angeles will be open 24/7, with logistics companies FedEx and UPS making similar pledges. Another potential solution is increasing immigration through offering more worker visas in order to bring in more workers to the country.

Difficulty Hiring During COVID-19: Labor & Visa Shortages

US Chamber of Commerce Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley told CNN Business that immigration is one of the key ways to solve the labor shortage. However, despite immigration’s potential to add additional employees to the workforce, the number of immigrants US employers can hire has remained flat. Additionally, while there are options for workers with a high level of education, there aren’t as many visa options for employers needing seasonal or temporary worker visas or workers in many service industry roles.

The Chamber of Commerce requested Congress and the White House to double the cap on employment-based visas, specifically to double H-1B temporary worker visas and H-2B visas for seasonal workers.

“When we see these workforce gaps in the nonprofessional roles for instance, US companies are not typically able to turn to the US immigration system to help fill that need,”  said Caroline Tang, immigration shareholder in the Austin office of Ogletree Deakins.  “Across the board, there’s just a tighter labor market now in terms of candidate availability, people willing to do certain types of work or wanting to come back to work in environments where they will be more physically closer to other people, which oftentimes are the roles that really heavily impact our supply chain.”

Also contributing to the ongoing supply chain disruptions is the labor shortage that’s impacting  a wide variety of industries. Some of the factors impacting the labor market during the COVID-19 pandemic include the demand for higher wages as the prices for goods and services rises, as well as better benefits and protections for workers. Additionally, some workers aren’t able to come back to work because they’re taking care of family members sick with COVID-19, or are sick with the virus themselves or childcare problems. Many workers are also leaving their jobs in record numbers, and are delaying coming back to work. For example, in August, 4.3 million Americans quit their jobs.

“I think everyone has been impacted by the Great Resignation as people are calling it. And certainly, that has impacted a lot of the industries that impact our supply chain and a lot of areas in the US,” Ms. Tang said.

Specifically, Ms. Tang said the semiconductor industry in particular is impacted by the labor and supply chain shortages. The shortage is expected to last until 2022 and beyond, and impacts a variety of industries from the automotive industry to appliances and toothbrushes.

“I work extensively in the semiconductor industry. They have definitely been impacted by pandemic related supply chain issues, which we can tell from the cost of automotive prices here in the US since all these cars rely on microprocessors,” she said.

Even though many of the supply and labor shortage issues are expected to last for many years to come, companies can take steps to help mitigate some of the problems they’re facing, Ms. Tang said.

US Company Workers Offshore Solve Some of the Visa Quota Issues

“For the companies that have international offices, they have a wider footprint and have some options with staffing their workers in other countries. So, for instance where companies hire some college graduates from the US who are not able to get one of those H1-B visas, they might potentially work in the person’s home country where they don’t need a visa to work. And that way they can keep that person working on the same project and still contributing research and development efforts for that company,” Ms. Tang said.

If a company doesn’t have international offices, handling visa shortages and delays may be a little harder.

“If a company doesn’t have an international footprint, it’s hard. I’ve been talking to employers that say, ‘Hey, we are just sort of living with the fact that we might only have these employees on our payroll for two to three years because of their visa limitations.’ We need to be considering what we’re going to do about succession planning and making sure that we diversify our employee population as much as possible. I think it’s definitely requiring a lot of creativity from employers,” Ms. Tang said.

How US Immigration Policy Affects the Labor Shortage 

One potential method for addressing labor shortages is to alter current U.S. immigration policy. Despite the ongoing need for workers in all industries, visa caps have remained relatively static, limiting the number of foreign nationals allowed to work in the U.S. long-term. Changes to such policies would be a considerable boon for the supply chain especially, allowing companies to quickly fill roles left empty by the pandemic.

The most likely target for change might be the H-1B visa, which allows employers to hire foreign workers for positions that require particular skills or specialized knowledge. “The annual quota on H-1B visa numbers – it would certainly be helpful to increase that quota,” said Ms. Tang. “That 85,000 number has been static for many, many years. It’s not a fluctuating number based on any sort of economic conditions or economic or supply or demand. So, I certainly think it would be beneficial for the government to have some sort of system where that quota number can have a fluctuating number depending on our economic conditions.”

How Does US Immigration Policy Impact the US’ Supply Chain Woes?

Of course, changes to H-1B policy intended for highly skilled employees, are only helpful to a certain point. Some sectors of the U.S. economy are in dire need of employees for non-professional roles, such as the retail and service industries, where highly specialized knowledge is not as critical. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be employed in service occupations; natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations; and production, transportation, and material moving occupations. Companies often utilize the H-2B visa to fill these gaps; again, however, logistical considerations and static caps stand in the way. In May, the BLS released updated statistic revealing that employment fell by 2.7 million among the foreign born from 2019 to 2020, a decline of 9.8 percent.

Ms. Tang points to manufacturing as a key example of an industry for which immigration reform would be a windfall. “For the non-professional roles, I think there is certainly an area where perhaps the government needs to create some sort of a work permit to fill these specific demands that our manufacturers are seeing in that area, with respect to the need to staff their manufacturing facilities,” she said. “A visa that’s available that’s for seasonal or peak load work, but again, there’s a quota on that visa as well.”

Per the BIS, the demographic composition of the foreign-born labor force differs from the native-born US labor force. In 2020, men accounted for 57.3 percent of the foreign-born labor force, compared with 52.1 percent of the native-born labor force. By age, the proportion of the foreign-born labor force made up of 25- to 54-year-olds (71.8 percent) was higher than for the native-born labor force (62.2 percent). Labor force participation is typically highest among persons in the 25-54 age bracket.

“It can be very difficult to get the perspective of timing, and oftentimes, employers who are trying to pursue this H-2B visa, if the pursuit of that visa is unsuccessful and they miss the quota, then they’re out of luck with respect to being able to staff the staff in these areas that really require someone to be doing the frontline work.”

In considering how to alter U.S. immigration practices to address supply chain woes, it is also vital that American workers are not forgotten. Policy changes must take into account a variety of factors to ensure a fair playing field. “There have been some proposals in the past, that number be moved up or down based on for instance, the unemployment rate in the United States, so that you were not disadvantaging US workers,” said Ms. Tang. “But in years when unemployment is extremely low, and clearly we are having labor shortage issues, perhaps we can increase the quota numbers there for the H-1B.”

Aging Workforce and the US Losing its Ability to Attract and Keep Top Talent – Is Immigration Reform a Solution?

The US Census Bureau (USCB) projects that one in every five US residents will be older than age 65, by 2030. Additionally, by 2030 the USCB projects that net international migration will overtake birthrate as the primary driver of population growth in the United States, a first for the US. Accordingly, US will have to rely more on foreign workers as our workforce ages. If the labor shortage continues, the Chamber of Commerce said it’s possible the shortage will pressure lawmakers to act to raise the cap on workers. 

Additionally, bringing in more foreign workers in the US could help boost the economy, as foreign workers tend to be more focused in the service industries and more likely to be of prime workforce age, can fill job shortages and create additional jobs to alleviate the strain on the supply chain. Who wants to live in a country with shortages of basic supplies and poor infrastructure, if they have a choice to live elsewhere?  If lawmakers don’t act, the US risks losing talent and entrepreneurs to other countries that have more flexible immigration policies.

“I think we’re going to see some brain drain from the US to other countries that are perceived as having more favorable immigration systems and policies – for instance, Canada,” Ms. Tang said. Entrepreneurs need workers for their enterprises and have global mobility, and the US’ worker shortage for both service workers and specialized high skilled workers, limits the US’ ability to compete in the world marketplace.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

Article By Rachel Popa, Chandler Ford, Jennifer Schaller of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more articles on immigration and hiring, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.