Labor & Employment Archives - Page 4 of 155

Illinois Enacts Requirements for AI Use in Employment Decisions

On Aug. 9, 2024, Illinois Gov. Pritzker signed into law HB3733, which amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to cover employer use of artificial intelligence (AI). Effective Jan. 1, 2026, the amendments will add to existing requirements for employers that use AI to analyze video interviews of applicants for positions in Illinois.

Illinois is the latest jurisdiction to pass legislation aimed at preventing discrimination caused by AI tools that aid in making employment decisions. The state joins jurisdictions such as Colorado and New York City in regulating the use of AI in this context.

Restrictions on the Use of AI in Employment Decisions

The amendments expressly prohibit the use of AI in a manner that results in illegal discrimination in employment decisions and employee recruitment. Specifically, covered employers are barred from using AI in a way that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of any class protected by the IHRA, including if zip codes are used as a proxy for such protected classes.

These new requirements will apply to any employer with one or more employees in Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks within the calendar year of, or preceding, the alleged violation. They also apply to any employer with one or more employees when unlawful discrimination based on physical or mental disability unrelated to ability, pregnancy, or sexual harassment is alleged.

The amendments define AI as a “machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.” AI also includes “generative artificial intelligence.”

The amendments further define generative AI as “an automated computing system that, when prompted with human prompts, descriptions, or queries, can produce outputs that simulate human-produced content, including, but not limited to”:

Textual outputs, such as short answers, essays, poetry, or longer compositions or answers;
Image outputs, such as fine art, photographs, conceptual art, diagrams, and other images;
Multimedia outputs, such as audio or video in the form of compositions, songs, or short-form or long-form audio or video; and
Other content that would be otherwise produced by human means.

Employer Notice Requirements

The amendments require a covered employer to provide notice to employees if the organization uses AI for the following employment-related purposes:

Recruitment
Hiring
Promotion
Renewal of employment
Selection for training or apprenticeship
Discharge
Discipline
Tenure
The terms, privileges, or conditions of employment

While the amendments do not provide specific direction regarding the notice, such as when and how the notice should be provided, they direct the Illinois Department of Labor to adopt rules necessary to implement the notice requirement. Thus, additional guidance should be forthcoming.

Although not required, Illinois employers and AI technology developers may wish to consider conducting audits or taking other measures to help avoid biased outcomes and to further protect against liability.

Enforcement

The IHRA establishes a two-part enforcement procedure. The Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) is the administrative agency that investigates charges of discrimination, while the Illinois Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is an administrative court that adjudicates complaints of unlawful discrimination. Complainants have the option to proceed before the IHRC or file a civil action directly in circuit court after exhausting their administrative remedies before the IDHR.

Practical Considerations

Before the effective date, covered employers should consider:

Assessing which platforms and tools in use (or under consideration) incorporate AI, including generative AI, components.
Drafting employee notices and developing a plan for notifying employees.
Training AI users and quality control reviewers/auditors on anti-discrimination/anti-bias laws and policies that will impact their interaction with the tool(s).
Partnering with legal counsel and experienced vendors to identify or create privileged processes to evaluate, mitigate, and monitor potential discriminatory or biased impacts of AI use.
Reviewing any rules published by the Illinois Department of Labor, including on the circumstances and conditions that require notice and the timeframe and means for providing notice.
Multi-state employers should continue to monitor for additional requirements. For instance, California’s legislature is considering a range of AI-related bills, including some aimed at workplace discrimination.

President Biden Signs Executive Order Directing Agencies to Prioritize Pro-Union and Union Neutrality Policies

On September 6, 2024, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Investing in America and Investing in American Workers (the “Order”), that, among other things, aims to provide “incentives for federally assisted projects with high labor standards – including collective bargaining agreements, project labor agreements, and certain community benefits agreements.” Specifically, the Order directs federal agencies to prioritize projects that provide “high labor standards” for “Federal financial assistance,” which is defined as “funds obtained from or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to grants (whether formula or discretionary), loans, or rebates, or projects undertaken pursuant to any Federal program involving such grants, loans, or rebates.”

The Order expressly instructs agencies to prioritize projects that “provide a clear plan for efficient project delivery by promoting positive labor-management relations.” This includes project labor agreements, collective bargaining agreements, community benefits agreements, and other “agreements designed to facilitate first collective bargaining agreements, voluntary union recognition, and neutrality by the employer with respect to union organizing.”

In addition, the Order directs agencies to prioritize projects that: (i) “enhance worker productivity by promoting family-sustaining wages”; (ii) supply particular benefits, including paid leave (e.g., paid sick, family, and medical leave), healthcare benefits, retirement benefits, and child, dependent, and elder care; (iii) enact policies designed to combat discrimination that impacts workers from underserved communities; (iv) expand worker access to high-quality training and credentials that will “lead to good jobs” and strengthen workforce development; and (v) promote and protect worker health and safety. Per the Order, projects that use, among other things, union pattern wage scales, joint labor-management partnerships to invest in “union-affiliated training programs, registered apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship programs,” or policies that encourage worker and union participation in the design and implementation of workplace safety and health management systems, will assist in satisfying the goal of achieving “high labor standards” and should be prioritized.

To effectuate the Order’s priorities, agencies are instructed to consider including application evaluation criteria or selection factors that will prioritize those applicants for federal assistance that adopt or provide a specific plan to adopt the priorities set forth in the Order. Agencies also must consider, among other things, publishing relevant guidance, such as best practice guides, engaging more deeply with applicants prior to any award of federal assistance “to ensure that applicants understand the benefits of [the Order’s] priorities for key programs and projects,” and collecting relevant data to evaluate and monitor the progress of funding recipients in satisfying the Order’s goals.

The “implementing agencies,” or the agencies subject to the Order, are the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Finally, the Order creates a task force, referred to as the Investing in Good Jobs Task Force, that will be co-chaired by the Secretary of Labor and the Director of the National Economic Council, or their designees, and will oversee implementation of the Order’s labor standards in funding decisions by the implementing agencies.

The White House also issued a Fact Sheet (available here) discussing the Order and President Biden’s motivation for its enactment. It remains to be seen what impact the Order will have on the implementing agencies or how those agencies may alter their funding programs to comply with the Order. We will continue to monitor these developments and will keep you informed as to any new updates.

Consumer Privacy Update: What Organizations Need to Know About Impending State Privacy Laws Going into Effect in 2024 and 2025

Over the past several years, the number of states with comprehensive consumer data privacy laws has increased exponentially from just a handful—California, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, and Utah—to up to twenty by some counts.

Many of these state laws will go into effect starting Q4 of 2024 through 2025. We have previously written in more detail on New Jersey’s comprehensive data privacy law, which goes into effect January 15, 2025, and Tennessee’s comprehensive data privacy law, which goes into effect July 1, 2025. Some laws have already gone into effect, like Texas’s Data Privacy and Security Act, and Oregon’s Consumer Privacy Act, both of which became effective July of 2024. Now is a good time to take stock of the current landscape as the next batch of state privacy laws go into effect.

Over the next year, the following laws will become effective:

Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (effective Oct. 1, 2024)
Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (effective Jan. 1, 2025)
Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act (effective Jan. 1, 2025)
Nebraska Data Privacy Act (effective Jan. 1, 2025)
New Hampshire Privacy Act (effective Jan. 1, 2025)
New Jersey Data Privacy Act (effective Jan. 15, 2025)
Tennessee Information Protection Act (effective July 1, 2025)
Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (effective July 31, 2025)
Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (effective Oct. 1, 2025)

These nine state privacy laws contain many similarities, broadly conforming to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act we discussed here. All nine laws listed above contain the following familiar requirements:

(1) disclosing data handling practices to consumers,

(2) including certain contractual terms in data processing agreements,

(3) performing risk assessments (with the exception of Iowa); and

(4) affording resident consumers with certain rights, such as the right to access or know the personal data processed by a business, the right to correct any inaccurate personal data, the right to request deletion of personal data, the right to opt out of targeted advertising or the sale of personal data, and the right to opt out of the processing sensitive information.

The laws contain more than a few noteworthy differences. Each of the laws differs in terms of the scope of their application. The applicability thresholds vary based on: (1) the number of state residents whose personal data the company (or “controller”) controls or processes, or (2) the proportion of revenue a controller derives from the sale of personal data. Maryland, Delaware, and New Hampshire each have a 35,000 consumer processing threshold. Nebraska, similar to the recently passed data privacy law in Texas, applies to controllers that that do not qualify as small business and process personal data or engage in personal data sales. It is also important to note that Iowa adopted a comparatively narrower definition of what constitutes as sale of personal data to only transactions involving monetary consideration. All states require that the company conduct business in the state.

With respect to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Iowa’s, Montana’s, Nebraska’s, New Hampshire’s, and Tennessee’s laws exempt HIPAA-regulated entities altogether; while Delaware’s, Maryland’s, Minnesota’s, and New Jersey’s laws exempt only protected health information (“PHI”) under HIPAA. As a result, HIPAA-regulated entities will have the added burden of assessing whether data is covered by HIPAA or an applicable state privacy law.

With respect to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), eight of these nine comprehensive privacy laws contain an entity-level exemption for GBLA-covered financial institutions. By contrast, Minnesota’s law exempts only data regulated by GLBA. Minnesota joins California and Oregon as the three state consumer privacy laws with information-level GLBA exemptions.

Not least of all, Maryland’s law stands apart from the other data privacy laws due to a number of unique obligations, including:

A prohibition on the collection, processing, and sharing of a consumer’s sensitive data except when doing so is “strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer.”
A broad prohibition on the sale of sensitive data for monetary or other valuable consideration unless such sale is necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by a consumer.
Special provisions applicable to “Consumer Health Data” processed by entities not regulated by HIPAA. Note that “Consumer Health Data” laws also exist in Nevada, Washington, and Connecticut as we previously discussed here.
A prohibition on selling or processing minors’ data for targeted advertising if the controller knows or should have known that the consumer is under 18 years of age.

While states continue to enact comprehensive data privacy laws, there remains the possibility of a federal privacy law to bring in a national standard. The American Privacy Rights Act (“APRA”) recently went through several iterations in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce this year, and it reflects many of the elements of these state laws, including transparency requirements and consumer rights. A key sticking point, however, continues to be the broad private right of action included in the proposed APRA but absent from all state privacy laws. Only California’s law, which we discussed here, has a private right of action, although it is narrowly circumscribed to data breaches. Considering the November 2024 election cycle, it is likely that federal efforts to create a comprehensive privacy law will stall until the election cycle is over and the composition of the White House and Congress is known.

October 2024 Visa Bulletin – New Fiscal Year, Mostly the Same Old Story

The State Department has published the much-anticipated October Visa Bulletin, the first issue of Fiscal Year 2025. Although the new year brings a brand new allotment of visa numbers in all categories, not much has changed since last month, with one exception in the All Countries category.

Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you’re new to these blog posts. If you’re an old hand at the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.

The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the US Department of State (in collaboration with US Citizenship and Immigration Services). If your priority date (that is, the date you got a place on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date listed in the Bulletin for your nationality and category, that means a visa number is available for you that month. That, in turn, means you can submit your DS-260 immigrant visa application (if you’re applying at a US embassy abroad) or your I-485 adjustment of status application (if you’re applying with USCIS). If you already submitted that final step and your category then retrogressed, it means the embassy or USCIS can now approve your application because a visa number is again available.

Now for the October VB –

There are few changes from September for China:

EB-1 progresses 1 week to November 8, 2022m and EB-2 3 weeks to March 22, 2020
EB-3 Professionals retrogresses 5 months to April 1, 2020
EB-3 Other Workers stays stalled at January 1, 2017

Likewise, limited movement for India:

EB-1 remains stuck at February 1, 2022, and EB-2 at July 15, 2012
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers both advance 10 days to November 1, 2012

For All Other Countries, no changes except one dramatic one for EB-3:

EB-1 remains current
EB-2 remains stalled at March 15, 2023
EB-3 Professionals leaps almost 2 years, to November 15, 2022, making up last month’s retrogression of 1 year and gaining almost another year
EB-3 Other Workers stays stuck at January 1, 2020

NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in October based on the Department of State’s more favorable Dates for Filing chart, which allows from 2 months to 1 year of additional filing time depending on nationality and category:

Chinese nationals gain almost 2 months to file in EB‑1; a little over 6 months in EB-2; 7.5 months in EB‑3 Professionals; and 1 year in EB-3 Other Workers.
Indian nationals gain 2.5 months in EB-1; 5.5 months in EB-2; a little over 7 months in EB-3 Professionals; and 7 months in EB-3 Other Workers.
Nationals of all other countries may file their I-485s in advance of their priority dates being current by 4.5 months in EB-2; 3.5 months in EB-3 Professionals; and 5.75 months in EB-3 Other Workers.

NOTE 2: The Dates for Filing chart applies only to I-485 applications with USCIS. Immigrant visa applications with US embassies are always based on the Final Action Dates chart.

*Carol Schlenker also contributed to this article

California Legislature Sends Governor Bill Prohibiting Employer ‘Captive Audience’ Meetings

On August 31, 2024, the California Legislature passed the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, Senate Bill (SB) No. 399. The bill heads to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until September 30, 2024, to sign it. If he does so, the act will add new Labor Code Section 1137.

Quick Hits

California’s SB 399 would limit an employer’s ability to communicate with employees regarding political or religious matters during mandatory meetings.
The bill’s definition of “political matters” includes matters relating to union organizing.
The act provides employees with a private right of action that includes punitive damages.

If signed by the governor, SB 399 would limit an employer’s ability to communicate with employees regarding political or religious matters during mandatory meetings during working hours. Importantly, the legislation’s definition of “political matters” includes union organizing.

Prohibition against certain “captive audience meetings.” The California Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement defined “captive audience meetings” as “mandatory meetings during work hours, organized by an employer where employees are paid for their time attending the meeting and are required to attend or face discipline.”

The legislation would prohibit employers from “subject[ing], or threaten[ing] to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to any communications with the employer or its agents or representatives, the purpose of which is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters.” The act requires that employers pay any employee who works during the meeting but declines to attend it.

“Political matters” includes union-related issues. SB 399’s legislative history and text make clear that the legislature intended to prohibit employers from forcing employees to listen to employer communications during union organizing campaigns. The bill defines “political matters” to include “the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization.” (Emphasis added.)

Exemptions. SB 399 identifies entities and/or activities to which it would not apply. The legislation specifically excludes religious institutions or groups that are exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or California prohibitions against employment discrimination. It also would not apply to educational institutions that require students or instructors to attend lectures that include religious and/or political matters as part of coursework.

Additionally, employees would not be permitted to use SB 399 to escape from harassment or inclusiveness training. SB 399 expressly does not apply to “[a]n employer requiring employees to undergo training to comply with the employer’s legal obligations, including obligations under civil rights laws and occupational safety and health laws.” (Emphasis added.)

Agency enforcement. If enacted, SB 399 would authorize the California Labor Commissioner to enforce the law through its already-established citation process.

Penalty. An employer that violates the act would be subject to a $500 penalty per employee per violation.

Civil enforcement. Affected employees would be permitted to bring a civil action in lieu of administrative enforcement. The act would expressly authorize punitive damages.

If the governor signs SB 399, California would join a growing list of states attempting to ban “captive audience” meetings about religious and/or political matters. Other states with similar laws include Connecticut, Illinois (effective January 1, 2025), Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Even if Governor Newsom signs the bill into law, employer groups likely will seek to enjoin the act on the basis that it infringes on employers’ First Amendment right to express their viewpoints about unionization.

As the Season Changes, Don’t Fall Behind: 4 Key Employment Law Trends

As the seasons change, so do manufacturers’ priorities. Fall is typically one of the busiest hiring periods of the calendar year, so many manufacturers are likely bracing themselves for this challenge. That said, there were several significant labor and employment updates this spring and summer of which manufacturers should be aware; below are four key trends that may require action to ensure compliance.

1. Worker Classification – Independent Contractor Versus Employees

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule regarding employee and independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new rule, which took effect March 11, 2024, adheres to a “totality of the circumstances” approach and involves consideration of six factors. Manufacturers who rely on independent contractors to perform work and provide services should consider reviewing those relationships to ensure they are adequately characterized as independent contractors rather than employees.

2. Salary Threshold for Exempt Employees Increasing

This past spring, the U.S. DOL issued a final rule that included raising in the federal minimum salary threshold for exempt employees. Previously, the salary threshold for executive, administrative, and professional employees was $684 per week (or $35,568 per year). Effective July 1, 2024, however, the salary threshold became $844 per week ($43,888 per year), and on January 1, 2025, it will once again rise to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year). The final rule also states that the threshold will increase on July 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter. Manufacturers should review these thresholds, as well as any state or local thresholds that may exist to ensure compliance and prepare for the January 1, 2025, increase.

3. Pay Transparency Laws

Pay transparency laws, including those requiring employers to provide the pay range to applicants, candidates, and employees or to include it in job postings, continue to be passed in states nationwide. On July 31, 2024, Massachusetts passed a law requiring employers to include a “pay range” in all job postings, including those posted by third parties, such as recruiters. Massachusetts joins several other states, including Washington, DC, which passed a similar law that recently took effect on June 30, 2024; Maryland, which passed a law taking effect on October 1, 2024; laws in Minnesota and Illinois that both take effect on January 1, 2025; and a Vermont law will take effect on July 1, 2025. Notably, the Massachusetts law also contains pay data reporting requirements for employers that are subjected to annual federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) report requirements, which includes many manufacturers. Specifically, covered manufacturers must submit an annual report of pay data categorized by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, with the first report due no later than February 1, 2025. Manufacturers might consider reviewing the pay transparency and pay data reporting laws in the states in where they employ employees or engage in recruiting.

4. Paid Sick Leave Laws

While paid sick leave has been trending for a number of years, there have been significant developments in recent months. In Connecticut, the sick leave law was recently expanded significantly, and now nearly all private employees are entitled to such leave. New York has also recently become the first state in the nation to enact paid prenatal leave benefits for pregnant workers. Specifically, effective January 1, 2025, pregnant workers will be entitled to up to 20 hours of paid leave in a 52-week period to attend prenatal medical appointments and procedures. This leave is not accrued; rather, it must be immediately available to employees, and it is in addition to the paid sick and safe leave to which employees are already entitled. Manufacturers who are multi-state employers should consider engaging in a comprehensive review of their PTO and sick leave policies to ensure compliance with these recent advancements.

DOJ, FTC, DOL, and NLRB Join Forces and Announce Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Issues in Merger Investigations

On August 28, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, which enforces the US antitrust laws including the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act and other laws and regulations prohibiting unfair methods of competition (together, Antitrust Agencies), along with the US Department of Labor (DOL) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (together, Labor Agencies), announced that they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Issues in Merger Investigations (MOU).

The MOU took effect on August 28 and expires in five years, unless it is extended or terminated upon written agreement of each of the agencies.

Purpose of the MOU

The MOU outlines a collaborative initiative between the signatory agencies to assist the Antitrust Agencies with labor issues that may arise during the course of antitrust merger and acquisition (M&A) investigations, commenced under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR). The HSR requires that parties to certain large M&As provide information to the Antitrust Agencies prior to the transaction’s consummation, which allows these agencies to analyze the anticipated transaction(s) and provide greater certainty to the parties regarding potential antitrust concerns.

From a labor perspective, these investigations may aim to evaluate whether the effect of a merger or acquisition could substantially lessen competition for labor. The stated goal of this MOU is to protect employees and promote fair competition in labor markets. Specifically, the MOU outlines methods by which the Labor Agencies may aid or advise the Antitrust Agencies on potential labor issues identified during the course of these evaluations. These methods include the following.

1. Labor Information Sharing

The MOU outlines various ways in which the Antitrust Agencies may work with the Labor Agencies to gather information used to evaluate potential impacts of M&As on labor markets. These include:

Soliciting information from relevant worker stakeholders and organizations.
Seeking the production of information and data with respect to labor markets.
Searching publicly available sources of information made available by the Labor Agencies.
Seeking production of non-public information and data related to labor markets from the Labor Agencies.

2. Providing Training and Technical Assistance

Labor Agencies agree to provide technical assistance and training to personnel from the Antitrust Agencies related to subject matter under their jurisdictions. For example, the NLRB will train personnel from Antitrust Agencies on labor-related issues such as the duty to bargain in good faith, successor bargaining obligations, and unfair labor practices. Additionally, the Antitrust Agencies may seek technical assistance on labor and employment law matters in merger reviews, including in the resolution of labor market merger investigations.

3. Collaborative Meetings

The Labor Agencies and Antitrust Agencies will seek to meeting biannually to discuss the implementation and coordination of activities outlined in the MOU.

This MOU expands upon collaborative efforts amongst the agencies and builds upon several MOUs executed in 2022 and 2023. MOUs between the DOJ and DOL, DOJ and NLRB, DOL and FTC, and FTC and NLRB all indicate that the purpose and scope of the agreements are to “strengthen the Agencies’ partnership through greater coordination in information sharing, coordinated investigations and enforcement activity, training, education, and outreach.”

Takeaways

This multi-agency agreement further emphasizes the current administration’s focus on protecting employees from alleged unfair methods of competition. This MOU is further evidence that antitrust regulators are looking at antitrust enforcement from a new perspective. Traditionally, Antitrust Agencies evaluated proposed M&As to identify potential risks of harm to consumers through the reduction of options or increased prices. Now, Antitrust Agencies appear to have turned their focus towards anticompetitive behaviors that may harm employees.

Employers interested or involved in an M&A deal should conduct thorough internal reviews to ensure compliance with both labor-related and fair competition laws. In the event of a review by the DOJ or FTC, employers should partner with experienced labor and employment lawyers to navigate through these investigations.

You Are Sponsoring a Foreign National Employee for Permanent Residency, Can You Clawback Some of the Fees?

Companies usually hire a foreign national who requires visa sponsorship because they cannot find a U.S. worker with those skill sets, which is frequently in the STEM fields. However, visa sponsorship comes with significant costs to the employer. Employers may be able to recover a portion of the immigration sponsorship fees by implementing what are called “clawback” provisions into their employment agreements. Clawback provisions are terms in the employment agreements that, in the event of a resignation by the employee before a certain date, require the employee to reimburse the employer for a portion of the costs or fees associated with his or her visa sponsorship.

Not All Visa Fees Can Be Clawed Back

But first, it’s important to understand which sponsorship fees and costs are potentially recoverable and which are prohibited from being “clawed back.”

H-1B Petition: Because these visas have a prevailing wage set by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) a H-1B employer may not clawback any attorney fees or government filing fees used to obtain the H-1B petition approval by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS).
Other Visas: The same restriction applies to the Australian E-3 visa and the Singapore/Chile H-1B1 visas as well as the H-2A, H-2B, and J-1 visas.
PERM Labor Certification Sponsorship for Permanent Residency: PERM Is the most common method for an employer to sponsor a foreign national employee for permanent residency (green card). It is done by conducting recruitment and proving to DOL that no qualified U.S. worker applied for the position. An employer is required to pay for all of the fees and costs associated with the PERM process.
I-140 Immigrant Petition: After DOL certifies the PERM application and agrees that no qualified U.S. worker is available, the employer must file an I-140 immigrant petition with USCIS. The attorney fees and costs for the I-140 may be clawed back. The purpose of the I-140 immigrant petition is for the employer to prove to USCIS that the foreign national has the required education, experience and special skills outlined in the PERM filing with DOL. In addition, the I-140 includes financial documents showing that the employer has the ability to pay the offered wage.
I-485 Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident filing: The employer may clawback the fees and costs associated with the I-485 adjustment of status application (green card).

Practice Pointers

Still At Will: The clawback provisions should be in writing. It should also indicate that the employment is still at will, if applicable.
Final Paycheck: The majority of states, including California, do not allow an employer to deduct anything from a final paycheck without the express consent of the employee. This includes fees and costs pursuant to the clawback provision.
Deterrence: Given that an employer cannot clawback from the final paycheck and suing a former employee to collect the amount in controversy is not always practical, a clawback provision can be used as a deterrence for early departure.

Listen to this post

(Employee) Therapy Anyone?

The recent WSJ article about employer-provided in-office therapy sessions raises some good points about destigmatizing mental health in the workplace and promoting overall wellness generally. But the article also reminds us about the risks of blurring lines between an employee’s personal and professional life and the potential dangers inherent in the spillover of confidential (personal, medical, and other information) in the workplace. I have written previously about the beneficial role performance evaluations may have as “talk therapy” in an employee’s career based upon the learning that comes with balanced feedback. But it seems to me that true talk therapy – undertaken by a licensed and trained professional in an appropriate diagnostic setting – does not belong in the workplace.

The article features an employer who provides an annual benefit of a dozen free on-site therapy sessions to its employees. While it is commendable to care about the whole employee, providing on-site therapy touches upon a few somewhat sensitive employment topics. The first concerns confidentiality of health information, which includes an employee’s decision to seek (or even not seek) medical treatment. The employer in the article was reported to have taken steps to provide a separate location for the therapy sessions so employees did not encounter each other during on-site therapy visits, as well as other privacy preservation measures. But the simple fact is that confidentiality is hard to guarantee for on-site employment activities. And even though GenX employees (and the generation of workers who follow them) do think differently about mental health and wellness than the generations preceding them, there is a real risk that an employee’s use of this benefit will become the topic of what used to be known as water cooler – now Slack – talk.

The other employment risk on-site therapy poses is the potential use of information that is disclosed during a therapy session. Ethical, licensing and medical rules govern what a therapist must and must not do with information learned about a patient, but what about information the therapist learns about an employer? This is particularly a concern if the information source and content is confirmed by several different employees and might be information that merits action (such as information suggesting that a manager is engaging in harassing or other actionable or illegal conduct). There is a reason employers follow guidelines when reports or complaints are made concerning such conduct. It is unclear how those guidelines should be followed if the contents of a therapy session are supposed to remain confidential, for good legal, therapeutic and ethical reasons.

It seems to me a far better approach for employers wishing to explore this benefit is to provide employees with a set amount of money (perhaps as part of a tax-advantaged benefit plan ) that the employee is encouraged to use at the employee’s discretion as part of well-being program designed to support all aspects of health (mental, physical and even financial fitness). That way therapy can be encouraged and supported, but kept separate in all other respects from the workplace. Therapy for all may be an excellent idea, but conducting it outside the confines of the workplace seems like a better one.

For more news on Employer Provided Therapy, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Dependent Work Permits – Is the U.S. Catching Up with Other Immigration Destinations?

There are many ways in which the U.S. immigration system is lagging behind those of other countries. We still put physical visas in passports – something Australia stopped doing nearly 10 years ago when they converted to a purely electronic visa system. Our immigration system is predominantly paper-based, with limited options for electronic filings, an area where other countries have fully embraced modern solutions. We also lag behind in other areas including processing times, expedite options, digital nomad immigration pathways, and having an immigration system responsive to changing economic needs for workers in specific occupations and sectors.

For a long time, the U.S. also lagged behind other countries when it came to supporting the immigration of dual-career couples, but that has changed over the last 10 years. This evolution was recently reinforced by the decision in Save Jobs USA v. DHS.

Since 2015, H-4 dependent spouses have been eligible for employment authorization documents (EADs) if they meet certain criteria, including being eligible for a green card but for a long wait due to annual and per-country limitations on green card approvals; criteria most H-4 spouses do not meet until they have been in the US for several years. The plaintiff in Save Jobs USA challenged this extension of work authorization as an unlawful use of the executive power of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On August 2, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that this was a lawful use of DHS’s power. Absent an appeal to the Supreme Court, this ends the uncertainty over H-4 EADs. This ruling, combined with a USCIS announcement in April 2024 that extended H-4 EADs for up to 540 days for those waiting for their EADs to be renewed, means that nearly 100,000 H-4 spouses can now pursue careers without fearing unexpected gaps in work authorization.

In addition, since 2021, the US has not required EADs for certain E and L spouses. Although this is not widely known (our team often gets asked about it), starting in November 2021, U.S. immigration agencies began issuing documents that allowed these spouses to work based only on their I-94 entry document, without requiring a separate EAD application. This eliminated lengthy delays and gaps in work authorization that inhibited the ability of dual-career couples to continue their dual pursuits following a relocation to the U.S. With these developments, the US is slowly aligning with other similar economies around the world that allow dependent spouses to work automatically.

There is still more progress that can be made. Currently, the Permits Foundation, an advocacy group focused on “enabling dual careers in the global workplace” characterizes 35 countries as allowing spouses or partners to work freely. The U.S. is included on that list, but the foundation notes that spouses are only allowed to work in certain categories and that work authorizations are often subject to long delays. In the U.S., access to work authorization is not available to all types of dependents. H-4 spouses are excluded until their H-1B spouse reaches a certain point in the green card process (something that takes about 4 years for many, amounting to a major career gap for a trailing spouse). Spouses of J-1 visa holders still need to apply separately for an EAD. Spouses of F-1 student visa holders are not allowed to work, even during the one to three years of post-graduation work authorization granted to international graduates of U.S. universities. We also do not grant any immigration status to unmarried partners. Although many other countries including Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, and Australia, provide an immigration path for non-married partners, there is no option for that when an unmarried couple wants to relocate together to the US (resulting in some interesting conversations and sometimes resulting in the complete cancellation of a proposed relocation). Overall, expanding work authorization to married (and even unmarried) partners of the workers already employed in the US in various non-immigrant categories could be a boon to the labor market. Our team is often asked how they can find new sources of skilled an unskilled workers to fill open positions. Expanding this avenue of work authorization would enable this latent talent pool, many of whom are already here in the US, to enter the US workforce.

Bottom line, if you are an accompanying spouse in one of the limited categories of dependents who do not need separate employment authorization (E or L), rejoice. You are probably be able to work in the US without needing anything more than the entry document issued when you arrive. If you are not one of those lucky ones, review your options with immigration counsel, and hope the U.S. continues to catch up with other immigration destinations.

Category: Labor & Employment

Illinois Enacts Requirements for AI Use in Employment Decisions

Like this:

President Biden Signs Executive Order Directing Agencies to Prioritize Pro-Union and Union Neutrality Policies

Like this:

Consumer Privacy Update: What Organizations Need to Know About Impending State Privacy Laws Going into Effect in 2024 and 2025

Like this:

October 2024 Visa Bulletin – New Fiscal Year, Mostly the Same Old Story

Like this: