Category: Labor & Employment

Declining a Shot in the Arm: What Employers Should Do When Employees Refuse Vaccines

Even before the pandemic, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and courts nationwide recognized that employees – even nurses and CNAs – had a right to refuse to take a vaccine because of a sincerely held religious belief or a medical reason. Those exceptions apply to refusals to take the COVID-19 vaccine, too. Firing or otherwise disciplining employees who have a legitimate religious exemption violates federal civil rights laws; firing or otherwise disciplining employees who have a legitimate medical exemption violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Remember that we are still under the vaccines’ Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) period. The EEOC has indicated that employers can require that employees get vaccinated, but the EUA statute contains some language saying that people have a right to refuse any vaccine during the EUA period. Courts have not yet decided the issue. So, there’s some legal risk for employers that choose to mandate that employees get vaccinated.

Most health care employers have decided to strongly encourage – but not require – employees to get vaccinated, partly out of concern that mandating the vaccine might lead to staffing shortages if enough employees refuse to get vaccinated and quit or are fired.

Religious Exemptions

A sincerely held religious belief has to be based upon a recognized religion’s tenets – generally, it can’t be based on a religion headed up by your brother-in-law who signed up to become a clergyman online. Employers may ask employees asserting a religious exemption what religion they belong to and other general questions. If the employee’s religion isn’t one that the employer has heard of, and doesn’t have a known opposition to vaccines, then it’s probably time to call an employment lawyer to figure out what to do next.

If it turns out that the religious exemption claim is legitimate, then the employer should talk to the employee about their ability to do everything the job requires despite not being vaccinated. For example, if the employee has been able to keep working by wearing masks and other PPE during the pandemic, then the employee can probably keep doing the job both during the remainder of the pandemic and even after the pandemic is over by continuing to wear masks and other PPE.

Medical Exemptions

A medical exemption from getting vaccinated works in the same way as a request for accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. When an employee refuses to get vaccinated because of a medical reason, an employer can require the employee to have a doctor provide a letter explaining the basis for the medical exemption. Assuming the medical reason is legitimate, then the employer needs to have a talk with the employee about how it can reasonably accommodate the medical exemption from getting vaccinated in a way that allows the employee to do everything the job requires. Again, this will probably require continuing to use masks and other PPE both for the duration of the pandemic and even after the pandemic is over.

Potential Risks of Requiring Vaccines for Employees

If employers choose to require employees to get vaccinated, but employees refuse to get vaccinated for reasons other than a sincerely held religious belief or a medical reason, then employers have some choices to make.

First, there’s the legal risk if we’re still within the EUA period as noted above.

Second, there’s a practical risk. Regardless of whether we’re still in the EUA period, is a doctor actually willing to fire an employee for refusing to get vaccinated? Will enough employees refuse to get vaccinated, resulting in a staffing shortage? Health care employers should think through these issues before implementing a vaccine policy.

Lastly, be aware that some people may have legitimate fears about getting vaccinated due to completely understandable historical reasons. Health care employers are in an ideal position to explain that the vaccine is safe, but sensitivity to employees’ fears is surely called for.

Health care employers have been calling their employees “heroes” for a year now. Remember to treat them as heroes by listening to their concerns, and figuring out legal and practical solutions.

© 2020 Much Shelist, P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Delays at USCIS Affecting F-1 Students with Work Authorization

With delays at USCIS lockbox and service centers due to COVID-19 and an unprecedented number of applications, those seeking to apply or renew their Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) have experienced issues in commencing or continuing employment.   One class of impacted nonimmigrants is F-1 students, who may apply for work authorization after graduation, called Optional Practical Training (OPT), and if the student has graduated with a STEM degree, may apply for an additional 24 months of STEM OPT.  Below are outlined issues, USCIS responses, and other considerations for both OPT and STEM OPT EAD applications.

Initial OPT period (12 months)

Issue

For students applying for their initial 12 months of OPT, they must complete the 12 months within 14 months of the end of their program.  Due to delays from USCIS because of backlogs, the EAD applications can take several months to receipt, let alone adjudicate.  A student applying for an EAD may apply up to 90 days before, and 60 days after, their program end date, but it now takes more than 90 days to confirm receipt, and then even more time to receive an EAD, which is necessary to begin employment.

USCIS response

USCIS issued an announcement that allows for flexibilities within the 14 month OPT period.  Because of delays, USCIS will now allow the 14 months’ clock to start ticking when the EAD application (Form I-765) has been approved, and not start the clock from the program end date.  If a student receives an EAD that “shorts” them this time, they may request USCIS to issue a new EAD.  In addition, because USCIS allows 60 days after a program end date to apply for an EAD, the announcement also covers rejections of EAD applications, and the ability to refile the application if it was filed after October 1, 2020, and before May 1, 2021.  In addition, the refiles need not contain a new Form I-20.

Other Considerations

What is not addressed are current backlogs at USCIS that is delaying not only the issuance of receipt notices, but also the adjudication of EAD applications.  Even though USCIS is giving the full 12 months of OPT from the time the EAD application is filed, the delays will still affect graduates and their start dates if they cannot start without an EAD in hand.

STEM OPT Extensions

Issue

Students who graduate with a STEM degree may apply for an additional 24 months of STEM OPT.  The application can be filed up to 90 days prior to the expiration of the initial EAD period, and up to the expiration of the card.  EAD applications filed on time (prior to the expiration of the card) will be granted an automatic 180 day work authorization period.  Traditionally, if the card has expired and the 180 day automatic extension has commenced, the student and employer have confirmation the EAD application was filed timely due to the receipt notice issued by USCIS, even if the application is not yet adjudicated.  Due to delays, a student may not receive the receipt notice even after 90 days of sending in the application.

USCIS response

USCIS reminds its stakeholders that a receipt notice is not indicative of an F-1 student’s ability to remain employed.  In fact, the I-9 rules do not use the receipt notice as proof of work authorization, but dictate that the endorsed I-20 issued by the school, as well as the expired EAD, are the necessary documents to confirm work authorization.  In addition, as with the initial OPT EAD filings, USCIS will allow for refiles if the application is rejected with no penalty, if the STEM EAD extension was filed between October 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021, without requiring a new Form I-20.

Additional considerations

There is more flexibility when the application is a STEM OPT extension because of the 180 day automatic extension.  However, due to the issues of receipt issuance and adjudication, the EAD may not be issued within the additional 180 days, and there is currently no solution to that situation.

USCIS continues to show that it will modify its policies to address the ongoing COVID-19 situation and delays with the lockbox.

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Kristen W. Ng of Greenberg Traurig, LLP
For more, visit the NLR Immigration section.

“Uber drivers are workers” says UK Supreme Court

This morning, 19 February 2021, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment on the case of Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5.

In a unanimous, landmark decision, the Supreme Court agreed that Uber drivers were “workers”, not self-employed contractors, for the purposes of UK employment law. Worker status entitles drivers to (amongst other things) 5.6 weeks of paid annual leave per year and sick pay and, crucially, to be paid at least the statutory minimum wage (which can be backdated).

The Supreme Court further clarified that Uber drivers are entitled to be paid minimum wage for the entirety of the period that they are logged into the app and are ready and willing to accept trips, and not just during the periods that they are driving passengers to their destinations.

The Court emphasised that what is important is the reality of the relationship between the parties, and noted the following:

  • Uber sets the fare for its drivers’ journeys, thereby dictating how much drivers are paid for their work;
  • Uber imposes its own contractual terms on drivers who wish to work through the app;
  • drivers’ choices about whether to accept ride requests are constrained by Uber;
  • Uber exercises significant control over the way in which drivers deliver their services; and
  • Uber restricts communications between its passengers and drivers.

The impact of this decision, to Uber, its drivers and the gig economy at large, cannot be understated. Going forward, and barring legislative intervention, Uber and other businesses operating in the platform or gig economy will need to fundamentally reassess both their labour relationships and the viability of their business models in light of this morning’s judgment. How Parliament and businesses choose to respond is sure to have significant and far-reaching consequences for the shape and future of the UK economy.

© 2020 Vedder Price
For more, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Vaccine Volunteers: Is “Thank You” Sufficient Compensation?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay nonexempt employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 hours in a workweek and time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 hours in the same workweek. An exception to this rule exists for volunteers, who are not categorized as “employees” under the statute. Typically, volunteers are individuals who donate their time to non-profit, civic, religious, and other charitable organizations.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgency to administer vaccines as quickly as possible, hospitals and healthcare facilities are relying on volunteers to assist in organizing vaccine distribution. Employers may want to review their program to ensure volunteers are donating their time in a way that does not run afoul of the FLSA.

Unfortunately, no bright-line rule exists to determine whether an individual is volunteering his or her time or performing compensable work under the FLSA. Instead, this determination hinges, in large part, on the type of work performed by the individual.

If an individual is performing service that relates to commercial activities, he or she will likely be considered an employee under the FLSA, and therefore entitled to wages. For example, an individual who “volunteers” his or her time working at the hospital gift shop may be entitled to compensation under the FLSA. Further, if a volunteer performs tasks on a full-time schedule, is retained for an indefinite period, or displaces a regular employee, it is likely the FLSA would categorize this individual as an employee who should be paid wages for all hours worked.

Recently, some hospitals have been faced with situations in which employees offered to volunteer their time after their shifts to perform the same types of services they are otherwise employed to provide. For example, a nurse employed at a hospital to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to patients during her regular working hours may volunteer to continue vaccinating patients after her assigned shift. Because this is likely impermissible “volunteer” work under the FLSA, the nurse may be entitled to compensation for any hours worked after her shift.

Another similar situation would be when a retired nurse wants to assist with clinical aspects or vaccine administration on a volunteer basis. For the same reasons noted above, this may also be problematic. Employers may want to review each situation on a case-by-case basis and proceed with caution. At a minimum, the employer may want to consider the below recommendations before classifying the returning nurse as a volunteer—who will likely be working alongside paid employees performing the same tasks.

So how can hospitals and similar facilities potentially use volunteers? Some ideas that may be permissible under the FLSA include: organizing the hospital’s vaccine distribution process, including ensuring patients waiting for their vaccine are wearing masks and staying six-feet apart in a line (among other safety recommendations); helping with check-in and other administrative work; and answering questions from patients.

If permitting volunteer work, healthcare employers may want to consider asking volunteers to sign authorization or other written forms that acknowledge the volunteers are knowingly and willingly donating their time to specific tasks and that the duration of the work is temporary. This type of acknowledgment may help to verify that the volunteer and employer are aligned in terms of the work performed, their relative expectations, and the (lack of) compensation provided.

With hospitals and other healthcare distribution facilities maintaining a commitment to administer the vaccine as effectively and efficiently as possible, volunteers are a key part of this mission. Many roles may exist for volunteers that comply with the FLSA and applicable state laws. While employers may want to carefully consider each situation and take precautions, the additional assistance provided by volunteers may be worthwhile to service communities and provide a quick and seamless process to administer vaccinations. At the very least, employers may want to ensure that volunteers are receiving proper recognition and resources for their time, even if it is a simple “thank you.”

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved
ARTICLE BY John B. Brown and Jamie E. Brod of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Bias in Healthcare Algorithms

The application of artificial intelligence technologies to health care delivery, coding and population management may profoundly alter the manner in which clinicians and others interact with patients, and seek reimbursement. While on one hand, AI may promote better treatment decisions and streamline onerous coding and claims submission, there are risks associated with unintended bias that may be lurking in the algorithms. AI is trained on data. To the extent that data encodes historical bias, that bias may cause unintended errors when applied to new patients. This can result in errors in utilization management, coding, billing and healthcare delivery.

The following hypothetical illustrates the problem.

A physician practice management service organization (MSO) adopts a third-party software tool to assist its personnel in make treatment decisions for both the fee-for-service population and a Medicare Advantage population for which the MSO is at financial risk. The tool is used for both pre-authorizations and ICD diagnostic coding for Medicare Advantage patients, without the need of human coders. 

 The MSO’s compliance officer observes two issues:

  1. It appears Native American patients seeking substance abuse treatment are being approved by the MSO’s team far more frequently than other cohorts who are seeking the same care, and
  2. Since the deployment of the software, the MSO is realizing increased risk adjustment revenue attributable to a significant increase in rheumatic condition codes being identified by the AI tool.

Though the compliance officer doesn’t have any independent studies to support it, she is comfortable that the program is making appropriate substance abuse treatment and utilization management recommendations because she believes that there may be a genetic reason why Native Americans are at greater risk than others. With regard to the diagnostic coding, she:

  1. is also comfortable with the vendor’s assurances that their software is more accurate than eyes-on coding;
  2. understands that prevalence data suggests that the elderly population in the United States likely has undiagnosed rheumatic conditions; and,
  3. finds through her own investigation that anecdotally it appears that the software, while perhaps over-inclusive, is catching some diagnoses that could have been missed by the clinician alone. 

 Is the compliance officer’s comfort warranted?

The short answer is, of course, no.

There are two fundamental issues that the compliance officer needs to identify and investigate – both related to possible bias. First, is the tool authorizing unnecessary substance use disorder treatments for Native Americans, (overutilization) and at the same time not approving medically necessary treatments for other ethnicities (underutilization)? Overutilization drives health spend and can result in payment errors, and underutilization can result in improper denials, patient harm and legal exposure. The second issue relates to the AI tool potentially “finding” diagnostic codes that, while statistically supportable based on population data the vendor used in the training set, might not be supported in the MSO’s population. This error can result in submission of unsupported codes that can drive risk adjustment payment, which can carry significant legal and financial exposure.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Bradley Merrill Thompson and
Jason E. Christ of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section

Arizona Civil Rights Act Amended to Protect Pregnant Workers

On February 4, 2021, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill (H.B.) 2045, which expands protections for pregnant workers under Arizona law. The measure amends the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) to mirror existing protections under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Arizona legislators passed H.B. 2045 because the ACRA did not previously contain express protections for pregnancy and related conditions. To address the gap between state and federal law, Arizona legislators amended the ACRA to allow the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to investigate and enforce these protections under state law. With the governor’s signature, Arizona joins at least 27 states that have enacted laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against pregnant employees.

Expanded ACRA Protections

H.B. 2045 amends Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 41-1461 to specify that prohibited discrimination “‘because of sex’ and ‘on the basis of sex’ includes because of or on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth or related medical conditions.” Additionally, A.R.S. § 41-1463 now expressly states that “women who are affected by pregnancy or childbirth or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work ….” This language aligns the ACRA with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s existing protections.

Pregnancy Discrimination Claims After SCOTUS Decision

Considering that case law regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is persuasive in interpreting the ACRA, it is likely that the analysis of claims arising under Arizona’s new protections will follow the analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States in a 2015 case in which an employee sued her employer claiming that her employer did not accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction but accommodated other workers with similar restrictions. Although the Court declined to require employers to provide accommodations to pregnant workers if any nonpregnant workers received accommodations for similar limitations—which would have created a ‘“most-favored-nation’ status” for pregnant workers—the Court did create a new “significant burden” standard to analyze pregnancy discrimination claims.

Key Takeaways

The law is expected to take effect on or about July 19, 2021. For Arizona employers with policies and practices that are already in compliance with the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, H.B. 2045 may be of little impact. Arizona employers may nevertheless wish to review their policies and practices to ensure compliance with H.B. 2045, considering, for instance, potential amendments to their equal employment opportunity and/or nondiscrimination policies that include pregnancy and related medical conditions. In addition, Arizona employers may want to familiarize themselves with federal case law and Title VII guidance along with guidance related to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (which includes pregnancy-related conditions within the definition of sex discrimination under Title VII).

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Nonnie L. Shivers of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Free Speech and Expression in the 2021 Workplace

While the presidential election may be in the past, conversations on political and social issues are not. As the new Presidential Administration takes the helm, the pandemic continues, and significant political division persists, conversations on political and social issues are commonplace in many workplaces across the country. Manufacturers are still grappling with the issue of whether and to what extent they can restrict employee speech and expression in the  workplace. Can employees discuss political or social issues at work?  What happens if it causes tension and distraction at work?  Does it matter if it occurs on working time?

Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces since the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to private sector employers. However, such rights may be granted under state laws which vary greatly. Some state laws protect speech and expression, prohibit employees from participating in politics or becoming political candidates, prohibit employers from influencing employees’ votes, prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation of employees, among other laws. For example, under Connecticut law, both public and private employees have free speech protections and employers are prohibited from disciplining or discharging employees for exercising their free speech rights with certain limitations. Specifically, free speech is permissible assuming that it does not interfere with the employee’s job performance or relationship with the employer and addresses a matter of public concern such as terms and conditions of employment, social justice, among other reasons. Therefore, even under Connecticut law, conversations or expressions that disrupt working time and operations, may not be protected.

Certain employee speech is also protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA, which applies to both unionized and union-free workplaces, protects employees’ right to engage in “protected activities” for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. Under the NLRA, employees have the right to engage in speech and expression related to working conditions which could include discussing compensation and benefits, supporting social or political causes such as fair wages, among other issues. Some state laws also protect such speech. Employers are generally not permitted to maintain rules prohibiting such speech except in specific circumstances. Speech related to the workplace and working conditions may also be protected under whistleblower statutes designed specifically to encourage employees to raise such issues.

There are further considerations that employers may want to evaluate before they take adverse action against an employee for speech or expression in the workplace. Actions taken consistently and uniformly across the company are less likely to run afoul of state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Further, employers that may face issues related to speech in the workplace, might explore implementing a policy addressing workplace standards as well as training managers/supervisors with regard to appropriate practices regarding employee communication in the workplace.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Abby M. Warren of Robinson & Cole LLP
For more, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

COVID-à manger: COVID-19 Takes a Bite out of French Lunch Traditions

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed dining habits across the world, as governments have shut down and restricted indoor and outdoor dining.  Even where restrictions have eased, many avoid sit-down dining out of concern for COVID-19 exposure and rely on take-away for their restaurant meals.  Clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic has limited dining options.

France, however, has decided to provide workers with a new, previously forbidden, dining option, although it remains to be seen how palatable it will be to French employees.  The Labor Ministry has decreed that to contain the spread of COVID-19, French workers now may eat lunch at their desks, which prior to the pandemic, Article R.4428-19 of the French Labor Code prohibited.

Gathering around a table for lunch with friends and colleagues has been long-standing French tradition, reflecting the country’s customs, habits and tastes.  The decree is intended to allow workers to return to the workplace and still limit the spread of COVID-19, by permitting them to lunch alone at their own workspace.  Until now, employers that allowed employees to eat lunch at their desks were subject to a fine, if caught, and employees who ate at their desks faced unspecified disciplinary action.

The French government has long been active in imposing regulations to prevent employers from exploiting their workers and in protecting workers’ rights, such as by imposing a 35-hour workweek, implementing the “right to disconnect” and mandating lunch hours.  Workers have become accustomed to dining out for lunch, and traditionally consider this time away from their work stations as an opportunity to refresh their bodies and minds prior to returning to work for the afternoon.  This simply is part of the French concept of maintaining a proper work-life balance.

While the French government continues to encourage remote work wherever possible, the new measure reflects the government’s effort to encourage businesses to reopen, where they can, with measures in place that will protect employees’ workplace health and safety.  Allowing workers to eat lunch at their desks offers workers and their employers a safer dining option, though arguably at the expense of traditional French cultural norms.  It is yet another example of how the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged, and changed, customary workplace standards.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Erika C. Collins and Ryan H. Hutzler of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Global law section.

Legal Industry News: Law Firm Awards, Lawyer Moves Across the Industry and Legal Marketing Updates and Opportunities

Law Firm Awards and Recognition

Womble Bond Dickinson was named a Best Place to Work for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer workplace equality, earning a perfect score of 100 percent on the 2021 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) for the seventh year in a row. The CEI is a benchmarking survey administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that measures LGBTQ workplace equality policies and practices.

“Diverse, inclusive workplaces are better equipped to serve 21st Century clients and compete in the global marketplace. It’s no coincidence that many of our clients also were named to the Corporate Equality Index,” said Merrick Benn, Co-Chair of the firm’s Diversity Committee. “Striving for equality and inclusivity is good business—and it’s also just the right thing to do.”

Perkins Coie also received a top rating of 100 percent from the CEI survey, earning them a spot on the Best Places to Work for LGBTQ Equality for the 13th year in a row. Additionally, the firm also achieved Mansfield 3.0 Certification Plus from Diversity Lab in 2020 for its commitment to recruit women, attorneys of color, LGBTQ+ attorneys, and attorneys with disabilities.

“We’re truly honored to be recognized by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation for our enduring LGBTQ+ initiatives and practices which are critical to the success of our inclusive workplace and culture for all our attorneys and staff,” said Genhi Givings Bailey, Perkins Coie’s chief diversity and inclusion officer. “While we know we have more work to do, we remain fiercely committed to building on our record of diversity and inclusion progress.”

Labor and employment law firm Fisher Phillips also achieved a top rating of 100 percent from the CEI survey and were included on the Best Places to Work for LGBTQ Equality list. Fisher Philips said that it ensures both domestic partner benefits and transgender-inclusive health care benefits, in addition to supporting national LGBTQ+ events such as Lavender Law.

“It is an honor to be recognized for our commitment to LGBTQ equality and inclusion,” said Roger Quillen, Chairman and Managing Partner of Fisher Phillips. “We continue to recruit, hire, develop, retain, and promote the best attorneys regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, backgrounds, and viewpoints. As an employment firm, we operate under the belief that diversity and inclusion strengthens our ability to serve clients with an assortment of viewpoints and critical insights about the legal issues they are facing in the workplace.”

Ward and Smith launched its new staff internship program in January aimed at increasing diversity in staff positions, including positions such as paralegals, office service assistants and legal administrative assistants.

To launch the internship program, Ward and Smith partnered with Durham Tech, Pitt Community College, Hillside High School in Durham, South Central High School in Greenville and West Craven High School in New Bern.

“An essential part of maximizing our firm’s effectiveness is creating an environment that allows people of different backgrounds, views, and ideas to work together,” said Michael Christman, the firm’s Director of Human Resources. “We decided to be more strategic about our staff recruiting process by creating opportunities, like the staff internship program, to attract a broader range of talent.”

The Deals named Jenifer Smith, a partner and co-chair of the Emerging Growth and Venture Capital practice at DLA Piper, to its 2020 Top Women in Dealmaking list. Smith is one of 48 women on the list, which recognizes women attorneys that are shattering the glass ceiling in M&A sphere and making a difference in the corporate world.

In her practice, Smith focuses on strategic and corporate governance issues, compliance with securities laws and SEC disclosure requirements and serves as an outside corporate counsel to public and private companies.

Law Firm Moves

Gabriel Silva has joined Vinson & Elkins as a partner in New York. His practice focuses on M&A and private equity in the U.S., Latin America, Europe and Asia with a focus on the digital infrastructure sector. Silva is the fourth attorney with a specialization in Latin America to join the firm in New York over the past two years. Previously, Silva was a partner at Linklaters in New York and São Paulo.

“Gabriel is one of the leading young M&A partners in New York, with a strong blend of digital infrastructure, Latin America and general private equity experience,” said Keith Fullenweider, co-head of the firm’s Corporate Department. “His practice fits beautifully with our platform, including our leading infrastructure practice. We have also invested recently in adding experienced lawyers with strong connections and deal experience in Latin America, which Gabriel will certainly enhance.”

Silva earned his Brazilian law degree from Pontifcia Universidade Catlica de São Paulo, and a specialization degree in Brazilian Corporate Law from Fundao Getlio Vargas de São Paulo. He also has an LL.M. degree from Columbia Law School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.

Arent Fox selected Partner Anthony V. Lupo as the fourth Chair in the firm’s 79-year history, succeeding Mark M. Katz as part of a planned transition. Lupo began his career at Arent Fox in 1995, serving on the Executive Committee since 2002, as co-leader of the Intellectual Property department, and as leader of the Fashion & Retail and Media & Entertainment industry groups.

“I have worked with Tony for more than 20 years, and his incredible enthusiasm for the work, the firm, and our clients is second to none,” said Cristina A. Carvalho, firmwide Managing Partner. “As our new Chair, he will bring his excellent business sense to clients in every industry we serve.”

Lathrop GPM named Kate Tompkins as the leader of the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice Group, marking the first time a business professional was selected for a top leadership role of a practice group at Lathrop GPM. Tompkins joined the group in 2015, helping grow the firm’s Boston office. She has over 25 years of professional services experience. Previously, she served as a Director of Practice Management.

“Kate’s expansive knowledge of our firm’s IP clients, partners, and processes makes her ideally situated to lead our Intellectual Property Practice Group,” said managing partner Cameron Garrison.

Katherine M. Katchen joined the Managed Care + Employee Benefits Litigation Group at the Philadelphia office of Robinson+Cole, bringing more than 20 years of litigation experience in the areas of managed care and insurance law.

Specifically, Katchen’s practice focuses on health insurers, managed care companies, and insurers and third-party administrators in state and federal actions around the country.

“We are pleased to welcome Kate, an experienced litigator, to our growing Philadelphia office,” said Stephen E. Goldman, Managing Partner, Robinson+Cole. “Her broad ranging litigation experience provides depth to our litigation capabilities in the Mid-Atlantic region, and her experience in managed care and employee benefits litigation will be a great complement to our existing vibrant practice. The addition of Kate is another step in the execution of our Strategic Plan of building on our strengths and expanding our capabilities in our major metropolitan geographies.”

Legal Marketing News and Opportunities

F2 Marketing released Legal Marketing Trends 2021, annual analysis of what Legal Marketers might expect over the next 12 months.  While 2020 was a rollercoaster and predictions for 2021 are a fraught proposition, F2 Marketing provided insights from leaders and legal marketers across the industry, on topics such as Crisis Communications, Google’s Core Web Vitals updates, the rise of digital accessibility and the increasing importance and emphasis on meaningful diversity and inclusion.    While 2020 was challenging in multiple ways for the legal industry, in many ways the pandemic accelerated the adoption of technologies in the legal industry, creating opportunities.  For example, Jennifer Whittier, President ofContactEase points out that the transition to targeted, purposeful client communication necessary in 2020 creates an opportunity to “build a business case for CRM, reintroduce the need for targeted and strategic outreach, and increase engagement among lawyers and clients.”

Learn more here about the F2 Marketing Legal Marketing Trends 2021.

Good2BSocial recently announced the launch of its Good2BSocial Academy, designed to provide legal marketing and business development training for marketing, business development and communication professionals at law firms on demand.  With the goal of enhancing the understanding of digital technologies in a law firm/legal marketing context, this course features multiple courses with webinars, podcasts and certifications.  A unique learning dashboard provides access to the materials created by Good2BSocial over the years on topics ranging from online advertising to marketing automation to account-based marketing, and many more critical areas.  Courses are helmed by industry experts, with real world lessons and built-in takeaways, all neatly organized on an easy to navigate site.

Guy Alvarez cites the positive feedback on their live Digital Marketing Certification course as an impetus to creating the Academy.  He says, “It was a natural next step to create a robust, organized offering that is flexible and accessible to anyone who’s interested in taking their practice and career to the next level.”

Learn more about the Good2BSocial Academy at https://academy.good2bsocial.com

What’s New with the National Law Review

The National Law Review started off 2021 with a bang–after taking a minute to look over the details from 2020, we saw that our main website had over 25 million views over 2020, a 258% YOY increase from 2019 and 54 million impressions overall on all owned properties.  Eilene Spear of the National Law Review, spoke with Guy Alvarez of Good2BSocial on the LegalMarketing 2.0 podcast about this uptick in traffic, you can listen to the interview for more details.  Additionally, Eilene Spear and Guy Alvarez are teaming up to present a webinar on SEO Lessons Learned from The COVID-19 Pandemic, to extrapolate on some of the SEO takeaways from 2020. The webinar is complimentary, and will be held on February 16.

Building on this success, NLR staff members presented a three-part webinar series with McDougall Interactive, drawing out how to create an SEO strategy in 2021. Jennifer Schaller, Billy Thieme and Rachel Popa all contributed their expertise to the webinar series.  In Part 1 Schaller focused on Content Marketing strategies for 2021.  In part 2, Billy Thieme explained SEO principles and illuminated some of the most cirtical SEO strategies.  Rachel Popa discussed best practices in Podcasting, and how to get the most out of a video series or a podcast.

That’s the news for now, but there is much more on the horizon.

Copyright ©2020 National Law Forum, LLC

ARTICLE BY Rachel Popa and Eilene Spear of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
For more, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

Ransomware Incident Compromises Unemployment Claim Information of 1.6M in WA

It is being reported that the Office of the Washington State Auditor (SAO) is investigating a security incident, allegedly caused by a third-party vendor, that may have compromised the personal information of up to 1.6 million residents of the state of Washington who filed unemployment claims in 2020.

The SAO is investigating fraudulent unemployment claims filed in Washington in 2020 that reportedly cost the state up to $600 million. In completing the audit, the state utilized a third-party vendor, Accellion, to transmit computer files for the investigation.

According to the SAO, “during the week of January 25, 2021, Accellion confirmed that an unauthorized person gained access to SAO files by exploiting a vulnerability in Accellion’s file transfer service.” The SAO posted on its website that the unauthorized person “was able to exploit a software vulnerability in Accellion’s file transfer service and gain access to files that were being transferred using Accellion’s service,” which occurred in December 2020.

Data that may have been affected includes 1.6 million individuals’ claims made between January 1, 2020 and December 10, 2020, including claims made by state employees. The compromised information includes individuals’ names, Social Security numbers and/or drivers’ license or state ID numbers, bank information and place of employment. In addition, the personal information of some individuals whose information was held by the Department of Children, Youth and Families was also compromised.

What a terrible consequence for those who legitimately lost their job and filed for unemployment benefits. For those whose personal information was used to file a fraudulent unemployment claim, this news throws a massive amount of salt in the wound of being the victim of identity theft.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
ARTICLE BY Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.