Category: Labor & Employment

COVID-19 Layoff or Pretext for Age Discrimination?

The recent, unprecedented changes to our country and its workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic have upended the lives of millions. The economic fallout continues and in many instances, employers simply have no choice but to lay off large swaths of their employees due to the lack of business/revenue. And these employers have legitimate reasons for doing so and view this as a heart-wrenching but necessary step.

At the same time, a small subset of employers may decide that, even though mass layoffs are not necessary, they will still lay off certain, older employees. In this scenario, there is no legitimate business need driving the termination but an opportunity to let go of older employees who often have higher salaries. Or the employer is concerned that older employees may trigger additional costs in terms of insurance or paid time off because of their susceptibility to COVID-19. Similarly, the employer may hold stereotypical views that older employees are less likely to function well in a virtual/remote work setting that requires technological skills.

As such, the employer’s claim that it had to lay off the older employee due to the pandemic could be a pretext for age discrimination. The question is, how do courts make this call? The answer to this question centers on how an employee can prove that the employer’s purported reasons were just a mask for illegal behavior.

Signs That The Layoff May Be Age Discrimination

Each case will be reviewed based on its own facts and merits, so no “one size fits all” approach can apply when analyzing age discrimination and pretext claims. In the context of COVID-19 layoffs, there are some red flags that may suggest that the employer is targeting an employee(s) because of their age rather than a legitimate business need to reduce the workforce. These red flags include:

  • The company institutes a relatively small-scale layoff, which includes a number of more experienced, older, and higher paid employees
  • Younger, less experienced, and less expensive employees are retained and in some cases take over the work of the departed, older workers
  • Comments by decision-makers reference (or had referenced) the experience level, age, higher salaries, nearness to retirement, etc. of the older employees
  • The employer hires new, younger employees within a relatively short period of time after the older employees are let go

Many companies will be required to provide laid off employees with specific, written information about the employees it chose to lay off, including their job titles and ages. This is helpful information to assess whether age discrimination may have motivated the termination decision. But often it will be necessary to dig deeper into the employer’s data about the laid off employees to see if a correlation between the termination decision and their ages emerges.

Legal Standards For Age Discrimination And Pretext Claims

The key federal law that prohibits age discrimination in employment is aptly named the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). It prevents an employer from discharging or otherwise “[discriminating] against any individual… because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a).

To win, a plaintiff “must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged employer decision.” Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177-178 (2009). Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence of discrimination (which is less frequently available to plaintiffs), is analyzed under a three-part test created by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).  Note that the Supreme Court clarified that federal employees have a less onerous legal burden to prove in age discrimination claims as compared to private sector employees. Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 (2020).

The McDonnell Douglas framework for an ADEA claim for layoff due to age discrimination is as follows:

STEP 1/prima facie case (burden on plaintiff)

  • They belong to a protected class (older than 40 years old)
  • They were qualified for the job and performing in accordance with the expectations of their employer
  • Employer terminated their employment
  • The employer replaced plaintiff with an individual who was comparably qualified to the plaintiff, but substantially younger, or that they were laid off under circumstances that give rise to an inference of age discrimination

STEP 2 (burden on defendant)

  • Employer must produce evidence that its actions were the result of legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons

STEP 3 (burden on plaintiff)

  • Employee must prove that the non-discriminatory reason(s) offered by the employer in Step 2 were not true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination based on age.

The Supreme Court held that “it is permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s explanation.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 146-7 (2000). Also, Reeves allows the trier of fact to consider the evidence used to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (first prong of McDonnell Douglas) when they are deciding the final prong of McDonnell Douglas framework. How the employer treats similarly situated (but younger) employees plays a key role in age discrimination cases.

How Can Older Employees Protect Their Rights?

For employees in the private sector, a charge of age discrimination must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the discriminatory act (that is the notice of the layoff). The 180 calendar day filing deadline is extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a state or local law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis.

For age discrimination, however, the filing deadline is only extended to 300 days if there is a state law prohibiting age discrimination in employment and a state agency or authority enforcing that law. The deadline is not extended if only a local law prohibits age discrimination.

Note: federal employees have a different charge filing process. Visit www.eeoc.gov for more information.

 

© 2020 Zuckerman Law

ARTICLE BY Eric Bachman of Zuckerman Law.
For more on discrimination in hiring and firing, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

New York City Ban on Pre-Employment Drug Testing Takes Effect May 10, 2020

Starting May 10, 2020, New York City employers may not require prospective employees to submit to testing for the presence of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols (or THC, the main psychoactive component of marijuana) in an individual’s system as a condition of employment. Currently, neither New York state nor New York City have any general ban on drug testing during employment.

The long-awaited ban, which was passed in April 2019 and is included as an amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law, outlines several exceptions based on the employer’s industry and the prospective position. These include, for example, police or peace officers, positions requiring a commercial driver’s license or those governed by Department of Transportation regulations, positions subject to testing under federal or state regulations or grant conditions, and positions requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients or vulnerable persons. The new law also exempts positions that will be subject to a collective bargaining agreement that already addresses pre-employment drug testing for those prospective employees. The amendment also includes an exception for positions with the potential to impact the health or safety of employees or the public as identified by the New York City Commission.

In March 2020, the New York City Human Rights Commission issued proposed rules, which include proposed categories for safety sensitive roles, including positions that require regularly working on an active construction site, or power or gas utility lines, positions regularly operating heavy machinery, positions in which an employee operates a motor vehicle on an approximately daily basis, or positions in which impairment would pose an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm to the employee or others. The public comment period for the proposed rules has passed, but the expected finalizations of these rules has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The amendment bans only pre-employment testing for marijuana; it does not address testing for any other substance or mid-employment marijuana testing. However, all New York state employers should be mindful of the potential application of the New York medical marijuana law and applicable employment-related protections, including its relation to disability protections and accommodations under antidiscrimination laws.

Failure to adhere to the new ban on pre-employment screening can result in civil penalties up to $250,000 as well as consequential and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Employers in New York City should review their existing drug-testing policies to confirm that they are in compliance with the new law, as well as contact their testing vendors to ensure any pre-employment tests comply with the new law.

 

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Nicole A. Truso of Faegre Drinker, legal clerk Kerry C. Zaroogian contributed.
For more on drug testing, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

Court Rules That Whistleblower Must Face Trial On Former Employer’s Claims

Life is not necessarily all skittles and beer for whistleblowers.  Sometimes, they are sued by the very companies on which they blew the whistle.  Such is the case in the ongoing case of Erhart v. Bofi Holding, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57137.  Judge Cynthia Bashant limns the background facts as follows:

“Charles Erhart was an internal auditor for BofI Federal Bank. After Erhart discovered conduct he believed to be wrongful, he reported it to BofI’s principal regulator. BofI responded by allegedly defaming and terminating him. Erhart then filed this lawsuit for whistleblower retaliation under state and federal law. The next morning, The New York Times published an article summarizing the lawsuit’s allegations—causing BofI’s stock price to plummet. The Bank quickly commenced a countersuit against Erhart claiming he committed fraud, breached his duty of loyalty, and violated state and federal anti-hacking statutes. The Court consolidated BofI’s countersuit with Erhart’s whistleblower-retaliation action.”

In the cited decision, Judge Bashant grants in parts and denies in part Erhart’s and Bofi’s motions for summary adjudication.  The ruling is lengthy and tackles a variety of issues, some of which I hope to address in future posts.  Nonetheless, a key point for whistleblowers is that Judge Bashant is allowing Bofi’s claims against Erhart to proceed to trial, albeit on a limited basis.

When “Whistleblower” First Became Figurative

Recently, I endeavored to identify the first figurative use of the term “whistleblower” in a reported California opinion.  I was surprised that earliest case dates to the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Interestingly, the Court addresses the very tension at the heart of Erhart:

“There is a great public interest in the truthful revelation of wrongdoing, and in protecting the ‘whistleblower’ from retaliation; there is very little public interest in protecting the source of false accusations of wrongdoing.”

Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 268, 283, 690 P.2d 625, 634, 208 Cal. Rptr. 152, 161 (1984).  Many cases dating back to the mid 19th Century mention the blowing of whistles, but the references are to actual, not figurative, whistles.

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

For more on whistleblowers, see the National Law Review Litigation & Trial Practice Section.

OSHA Issues New COVID-19 Alert to Restaurants & Beverage Vendors

On May 1, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a new safety alert for restaurant and food and beverage businesses operating during the pandemic. In the alert, OSHA suggests that restaurants providing curbside and takeout service should reserve parking spaces near the front door for pickup, avoid handing food off directly when possible, and allow workers to wear masks.

OSHA also urged businesses to display signs detailing their services such as pickup instructions and hours; take “sensible social distancing” measures such as moving workstations or installing plexiglass partitions; provide alcohol-based hand rubs and a place to wash hands; train workers in proper hygiene practices and the use of workplace controls; and encourage workers to report safety and health concerns.

This alert is the latest in a series of industry-specific documents OSHA has issued offering recommendations on ways to protect workers and patrons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The agency has made the tips available in a one-page poster employers can display in the workplace.

© 2020 Jones Walker LLP

For more reopening regulations, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

What to Do Now With Your CARES Act PPP Loan

A Warning

Those who have obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans (or have applied or been approved for such loans but not yet received the loan proceeds) have been warned by the U.S. federal government to make sure that they, in fact, qualify for the loans. Secretary Mnuchin exonerated lenders who processed the loans and warned that it is the borrowers themselves who sign the application and make the relevant certifications who face potential criminal action for false certifications. Borrowers have now been given a grace period until May 7, 2020, to repay loans they may have obtained “based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the required certification standard.” This short — now less than one-week — period gives PPP loan borrowers very little time to act and is aggravated by the ambiguity of applicable regulatory and other guidance as discussed below.

Thinking About What to Do

Borrowers are, and should be, asking, “what do we do about our PPP loan?” They are doing so in a unique moment. Indeed, a former member of a Congressional oversight board following the last financial crisis opined in the Wall Street Journal: “[B]orrower beware! Businesses with flexibility should seriously consider to what extent accepting the terms of federal loans or other support may be a Faustian bargain. The ultimate cost may dramatically outweigh the temporary gain.” Understanding the issues that inform the answer to this question, unfortunately, involves some detailed analysis as discussed below.

Broad Loan Availability Initially Heralded and Broad CARES Act Approach

The signing into law of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)on March 27, 2020, was heralded as a critical response to the COVID-19 economic crisis. The PPP loan program was enacted to make $349 billion of loan funds broadly available to qualifying businesses so that those businesses could keep their employees employed. In fact, following enactment, the federal government repeatedly encouraged businesses to apply for (and lenders to quickly process) PPP loans. Even as late as April 15, 2020, Secretary Mnuchin announced that “[w]e want every eligible small business to participate and get the resources they need.” In order to broaden its reach, the CARES Act affirmatively took action to cut back eligibility restrictions in the existing Small Business Administration (SBA) loan program through which PPP loans are administered, including:

  • suspending the requirement that borrowers must not be able to obtain credit elsewhere;
  • repealing the requirement that liquid owners contribute capital alongside an SBA loan;
  • creating a presumption that loan applicants were adversely impacted by COVID-19; and
  • reducing the breadth of the complex affiliation rules.

The SBA itself even published guidance allowing borrowers to restructure their governance arrangements to qualify for a loan.

A Continuing Changing Landscape; Making a Decision to Keep a PPP Loan

Since the passage of the CARES Act, the landscape has continued to evolve — sometimes daily — with ongoing guidance from the SBA and Treasury, whether in the form of Interim Final Rules (immediately effective upon publication in the Federal Register without first soliciting public comment due to the emergency nature of the situation), FAQ guidance from the SBA with new questions and answers added frequently over the past month, or mere public statements by public officials. Through the end of April — just a month into the CARES Act — seven formal Interim Final Rules for the CARES Act have been issued and 12 updates to the SBA’s FAQs on the PPP have been published. It has been difficult to find clear guidance and sure footing, even before the most recent government warnings.

A Sudden Shift in Approach

On April 23, 2020, after significant press reporting and commentary on those participating in the PPP loans, the SBA and Treasury Secretary abruptly shifted course with the publication of a new FAQ (Question 31) stating that the certification each borrower makes in its application that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant” must be made “in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business” (emphasis supplied). As to specific examples where certification might raise questions or get a closer look, an April 23 FAQ highlighted large public companies and an April 24 Interim Final Rule highlighted Private Equity (PE) portfolio companies. On April 28, Secretary Mnuchin made public comments promising audits of all loan amounts over $2 million, and then — also on April 28 — the SBA updated its FAQs twice to highlight this new certification interpretation as also applicable to private companies and to formalize the $2 million audit threshold requirement. In other words, virtually all borrowers must be cognizant of the certification that they made in their loan application.

What Does the Certification Mean?

Unfortunately, there is no real guidance as to what this certification means. However, one thing is certain — this certification and the question of access to “other sources of liquidity” will be judged in retrospect. It is anyone’s guess how long the “look back” risk will exist. Our experience is that these kinds of after-the-fact examinations have a long life. In this respect, a borrower may legitimately ask how it knows if it has access to liquidity — must a public company try to test the capital markets; must a PE fund owner consider drawing down on undrawn commitments or fund level credit agreements to fund a highly distressed portfolio company; will VC-backed companies be judged poorly in this context if their investors have large amounts of so-called “dry powder” to invest; and will private business owners have to evaluate their own wealth, liquidity positions, and borrowing capacity? These are all questions that have no ready answer through current SBA rules or guidance. The fact that the CARES Act “suspended” the normal requirement that a borrower be unable to obtain credit elsewhere and repealed the requirement of liquid owners to contribute capital has simply not been reconciled with the SBA’s new scrutiny on available liquidity, as the Treasury and SBA have leaned hard into the statutory certification requirement that any loan request must be “necessary.” Borrowers and applicants would be excused from asking what it means for the SBA to require liquidity that is not “significantly detrimental to the business.” Does that mean “significantly detrimental” to the current business owners (whether public company stockholders, PE or VC fund investors, or the owners of private businesses themselves) in terms of dilution or the like, or does this important phrase instead mean just what it says — such alternative available liquidity is not “significantly detrimental to the business” itself (e.g., financing that the business cannot make “work“ for any real period of time and which damages the business as a going concern)? Again, the SBA and Treasury have provided no clear answers.

The Other Key Certification Issue:

As borrowers evaluate their options to return loans before the expiration of the safe harbor on May 7, 2020, they must also focus on compliance with the SBA “affiliation” rules. The affiliation rules are complex and directly impact the question of who may apply for a PPP loan. This is because the way in which the CARES Act defines eligible borrowers largely turns on the number of employees involved, and an applicant must generally (under applicable regulatory guidance and rules, but subject to certain waivers set forth in the CARES Act itself) apply the SBA’s affiliation rules to aggregate its own number of employees with that of all of its affiliates. Thus, the application of the SBA’s affiliation rules is critically important to an applicant’s ability to make another certification in each PPP loan application: that “the Applicant is eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time this application is submitted that have been issued by the Small Business Administration (SBA) implementing the Paycheck Protection Program ….” So, in addition to the question of necessity for the PPP loan and alternate sources of liquidity, borrowers must ensure that they have considered the application of the affiliation rules (unless otherwise waived) in deciding whether to keep SBA loans.

Who Is an Affiliate Under the CARES Act?

According to the SBA, affiliate status for purposes of determining the number of employees of a business concern for PPP loans works as follows:

  • “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both”;
  • “It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists. Affiliation under any of the circumstances described [in 13 C.F.R. § 121.301(f)] is sufficient to establish affiliation” for applicants for the PPP; and
  • There are four general bases of affiliation that the SBA will consider when determining the size of an applicant: (1) affiliation based on ownership; (2) affiliation arising under stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge; (3) affiliation based on management; and (4) affiliation based on identity of interest.

As noted, these affiliation rules are both subtle and complex. Interestingly, even Congress did not seem to get the affiliation rules quite right in the CARES Act. In this regard, there are two SBA-related affiliation rules — rules set forth in 13 C.F.R. § 121.103 (Section 103) and rules set forth in 13 C.F.R. § 121.301 (Section 301). When Congress exempted certain business concerns from the affiliation rules for the PPP, it did so under the Section 103 rules. Yet, according to the SBA April 3 Interim Final Rule, it is, in fact, the Section 301 rules that govern affiliation for the PPP loan program (though the SBA explained that it would, consistent with the Congressional Section 103 waiver, also make that waiver applicable for Section 301).

Uncertainty in Application

As questions have arisen under these affiliation tests, borrowers who relied on them in submitting their application would be well advised to “double check” their analysis with appropriate counsel given the heightened scrutiny that will most certainly be applied in retrospective audits of PPP loan recipients. And, it is not just the application of the four bases of control that have given rise to questions of how the affiliation rules work, but the actual language of the CARES Act itself. In this regard, while the CARES Act clearly waives affiliation rules for “any business concern with not more than 500 employees that, as of the date on which the loan is disbursed, is assigned a North American Industry Classification System [(NAICS)] code beginning with 72,” the CARES Act itself has a separate and more expansive provision for NAICS code 72 companies allowing for more than 500 aggregate employees and which provides: “During the covered period, any business concern that employs not more than 500 employees per physical location of the business concern and that is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72 at the time of disbursal shall be eligible to receive a covered loan.” This seems to be clear and self-executing language. Indeed, both applicable House and Senate publicly available explanations of the CARES Act suggest as much, explaining that a qualifying borrower is “Any business concern that employs not more than 500 employees per physical location of the business concern and that is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72, for which the affiliation rules are waived” (emphasis supplied). But, nowhere has the SBA specifically addressed the question of how these two specific NAICS code 72 provisions of the CARES Act are to be applied in conjunction with one another. Even the SBA FAQs seem to intentionally avoid addressing this issue head-on, leaving borrowers at risk for after-the-fact second-guessing.

The Criminal Issue

Secretary Mnuchin referenced criminal liability for a reason. During the past two decades, for every major crisis this country has witnessed, from the Financial Crisis to Hurricane Katrina, high levels of fraud were identified and addressed post-crisis. From the experience gained in prior disasters, the Department of Justice and other enforcers are well aware that fraud may occur under the CARES Act as well. They almost certainly realize that a strong way to prevent such fraud is to take an early, aggressive stance against misconduct. We would predict that U.S. law enforcement will seek to make extreme examples of the individuals who exploited COVID-19-related government assistance improperly and precluded the assistance from helping those actually in need.

The underlying criminal issues relating to PPP loans are relatively straightforward. The loan application itself makes clear that applicants are required to state they qualify, and advises that there are criminal penalties for knowingly making false certifications. Each applicant, by signing the loan application, makes the following statements:
I further certify that the information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

This certification is essentially the same certification generally applicable to forms and information required by a bank or the government that involve applications for loans, grants or other financial assistance. The certification provides that if you knowingly mislead or lie on the application, you have committed a felony. However, the one completing such an application should endeavor in good faith to provide correct information. This means not simply guessing or blindly answering to expedite processing of the loan application or superficially making the certifications in question. In short, if you mislead in order to receive a PPP loan or lie to receive forgiveness, there is a material risk that the government will believe a felony has been committed.

As stated above, because of the intense pressure to protect the integrity of the PPP loan program and to deter widespread fraud, government enforcers may well use additional criminal statutes to prevent fraud on the United States and the banks. PPP-related prosecutions may involve the usual bank fraud, wire fraud and other common financial fraud statutes. These specific laws all have the common requisite element of deceit. Further, the government will clearly feel free to use whatever remedies possible to recover ill-gotten PPP money and assess related fines to make the U.S. taxpayers whole through various civil enforcement remedies. To avoid such criminal consequences, borrowers need to exercise their best efforts to provide the government with accurate information. There is no criminal liability for mistakes or inadvertent omissions, but when actions are judged retrospectively, trying to prove a lack of intent is not a situation any borrower would want to face. Of course, possible criminal prosecution is not the only redress or negative consequence that wrongful borrowers may face. There are, for example, civil penalties and actions that can be pursued by regulatory or government authorities, qui tam actions, and possible stockholder or equity holders claims against boards or managers, not to mention the potential negative press.

In Sum – This Much is Clear – Double Check, Document and Be Careful Either Way

It would not be surprising or unreasonable for business owners to ask how they are supposed to act with any comfort as to PPP loans given all the uncertainty noted above, with the Treasury Secretary highlighting criminal penalties in relation to improper applications, and with a new “safe harbor” loan “give back” period running only until May 7. It also would not be surprising to see those borrowers who can find a way to make it without the PPP loan decide to return PPP loan proceeds (or not accept funds that have been approved but not yet been received) — even when they have been truly harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, even when they have always intended to use the loan to keep employees paid exactly as intended by the CARES Act, and even when they believe they qualify for the PPP loan. What is clear from all of the above is that not much is truly clear with respect to the eligibility criteria and certification requirements for PPP loans. What also seems clear — including from the most recent SBA rules issued April 30 stating that the maximum loan amount for a related corporate group will be limited to $20 million — is that loans (even big loans) for qualifying firms are legitimate.

Some Practical Points

Finally, those borrowers who ultimately elect to keep their loans should strongly consider working with counsel to create a contemporaneous, written record to support their certifications or their current decisions to keep those loans based on the certifications that were made at the time of the loan application. There are two key inquiries. First, the borrower should review compliance with the affiliation rules to support the eligibility certification. Second, the borrower should review support for its “necessity” certification, considering (for example) the following questions:

  • What were the specific facts and circumstances showing that the applicant bore financial hardship and faced material economic uncertainty?
  • Did the applicant consider its ability to access capital, including conducting discussions with those who were in a position to provide capital such as the applicant’s current lender(s) and equity holders?
  • Did the applicant prepare a forecast projecting its liquidity position and effect on the operations of not obtaining a PPP loan and that would demonstrate that the loan was necessary to support the ongoing operations of the borrower? Alternatively, did the borrower conduct any other financial review in connection with such certification?

Best practices would then have the foregoing crisply documented and reviewed and approved by the borrower’s board or other governing body. The written record should demonstrate that a bona fide, good-faith effort was undertaken to support the certifications truthfully. If this exercise cannot produce a defensible written record, then the prudent decision may be to return the loan proceeds, ideally before elapse of the grace period for doing so.

Authored by: Trevor J. Chaplick, Peter H. Lieberman & Nathan J. Muyskens  of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Mary Jane and the Remote Workplace

As shelter in place orders were rolled out in California, many businesses transitioned their workforce to remote work for the first time. Employers had to determine how to track hours worked or what qualified as a business expense. However, other unique questions arise with a remote workforce, such as how to handle employees using marijuana while working from home.

Over a decade ago, when California passed the Compassionate Use Act, an employee questioned an employer’s right to prohibit marijuana use. The California Supreme Court in Ross v. Ragingwire held the employer need not accommodate medicinal marijuana use, irrespective of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Ross reasoned that since the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) does not require employers to accommodate illegal drug use, the employer could lawfully deny employment to individuals using medical marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law.

More recently, in 2016 California legalized marijuana for recreational use, which further complicated employee marijuana use at work. Despite the change in marijuana’s legal status, the law reiterated that an employer could have a policy against the use of drugs while working or at the workplace.

While the law permits employers to prohibit drug use at work, now a large portion of workers are working remotely, Unfortunately, the lines for employees may be blurred since they are in their own homes (and many people seem to need a little extra help getting through this pandemic).

Employers should remind employees that during working hours, the expectation is that employees will comply with all policies of the company, including drug and alcohol policies. If the company does not have a drug and alcohol policy, it may want to include information prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol while performing work in a remote work agreement or work from home policy.

If a manager or supervisor suspects that an employee is using marijuana or other drugs while performing work for the company, the supervisor should be instructed to reiterate the company’s policies.

The more difficult aspect of a remote workplace is handling an employee who is clearly under the influence while working, such as appearing intoxicated at a video conference. In California, an employer can only request an employee undergo a drug test under limited circumstances, including if there is reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence. While there may be sufficient evidence to request a drug test, due to concerns surrounding COVID-19 including overwhelmed medical providers, an employer will need to more carefully consider whether to insist an employee submit to a drug test at this time. Similarly, as some employers are actually hiring new employees during COVID-19, they too may wish to consider whether to postpone typical post-offer, pre-hire drug tests until the current health crisis has calmed down. Of course, drug tests are still necessary for employees in safety-sensitive positions, but they typically are not working remotely.

If an employee voluntarily requests leave for drug rehabilitation, assuming the employer’s workforce is over 25 employees, the employer should grant the leave pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1025, unless the leave would result in an undue hardship. Other leaves may also apply, so employers should consult with their Jackson Lewis attorney. However, of note, all the new COVID-19 California Paid Sick Leaves are limited to either actual COVID-19 diagnosis or exposure, caring for family, or childcare issues only. As such there will be no need to grant paid sick leave to an employee who claims pandemic stress-induced drug use.

Employers should also be cautious that they are not overstepping into trying to control an employee’s lawful off-duty activities. This may include, for instance, seeing social media posts from employees using marijuana at home. Unless it’s clear from the post that the marijuana usage occurred during working hours, employers should refrain from taking any action.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020

For more on remote working considerations, see the National Law Review Employment Law section.

Did Economic Uncertainty Make My PPP Loan Necessary?

The United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) continue to issue information and guidance with respect to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the loans made available under it by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). One of the most recent items of note is the SBA’s updated PPP Loan FAQs, which in particular added FAQ 31 and FAQ 37. The answers to these two questions purport to provide guidance, retroactively, on one of the particular certifications that applicants were required to make in the PPP loan application process. This guidance, not coincidentally, came on the heels of negative press regarding the fact that larger companies (notwithstanding the CARES Act’s waiver of affiliation rules and employee sizes that made them otherwise eligible) were some of the recipients of funds appropriated to the PPP loan program.

So, what are the borrowers in the PPP to make of this? Below is an outline that may be helpful to a borrower that is evaluating next steps in light of this new “guidance” and how it plays into the certification initially made at loan application time.

Good Faith Certification

The PPP loan documents required the applicant to certify in good faith to several items. One of those certifications (Loan Necessity Certification) provided that: “Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant?” Without having the commentary now available in the PPP Loan FAQs, early borrowers understood that the CARES Act did not require that the business had no other means of obtaining credit. That certainty and clarity was provided by the CARES Act itself, which provided that the requirement that an applicant be unable to obtain credit elsewhere was not applicable to the PPP loans. However, no other guidance or definitions were provided with respect to the Loan Necessity Certification.

Guidance

The SBA’s updated version of its PPP Loan FAQs includes, in pertinent part, the following new items:

31. Question: Do businesses owned by large companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?

Answer: In addition to reviewing applicable affiliation rules to determine eligibility, all borrowers must assess their economic need for a PPP loan under the standard established by the CARES Act and the PPP regulations at the time of the loan application. Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere (as defined in section 3(h) of the Small Business Act), borrowers still must certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith, and such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification.

37. Question: Do businesses owned by private companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?

Answer: See response to FAQ #31.

These new FAQs, in effect, modify the Loan Necessity Certification such that additional factors are now part of that certification. Whether these new factors are applicable to all borrowers, or just the “businesses owned by large companies”, is unclear. However, the answers seem to indicate that all borrowers should assess their economic need for the loans with these other factors in mind: (a) their current business activity, and (b) their ability to access other sources of liquidity to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business.

Suggested Steps and Response

So, what should a borrower do in light of these new factors, and apparent change or at least qualifier thrown in midstream?

Unless or until additional information or guidance is provided, we suggest that a borrower revisit the certification that it initially made, and do so with additional attention to the facts and circumstances existing as of the date of the Loan Necessity Certification. If those facts and circumstances have changed since that date to the positive for the borrower and its economic position, then it might be prudent to evaluate the Loan Necessity Certification at two additional points in time: (a) the time it received the loan proceeds, and (b) the date of the newest guidance.

If a borrower revisits its Loan Necessity Certification, and does not feel good about the initial certification, the government is allowing a borrower to return the PPP loan proceeds on or before May 7, 2020, and that borrower will be deemed to have made the Loan Necessity Certification in good faith. This means that the borrower will avoid the possibility of civil or criminal enforcement with respect to that certification.  Although we believe testing of the good faith certification should as of the date it was made, the recent developments and problematic guidance make it unclear whether other points in time might have bearing on the evaluation of a borrower’s Loan Necessity Certification. That is the reason for the mention of testing at additional points of time.

To assist in revisiting the initial Loan Necessity Certification, a borrower should consider working backwards to the point of time in question, and borrower should reduce to writing the consideration and analysis of the economic uncertainty and its needs for the PPP loan. Issues or factors that might be useful in the analysis include:

  • The current and projected impact of COVID-19 to the business, and the uncertainties surrounding those projections, including any communications from customers or clients regarding their level of business with the borrower and their respective economic conditions;
  • Recent history of the business and its performance in the wake of other economic downturns;
  • Existing levels of cash reserves or cash equivalents, and the borrower’s ability to access other sources of capital and what the terms and conditions of such sources of capital might be;
  • Current or projected plans for retention or reduction of workforce or payroll costs of such workforce, and the ability of borrower to reinstate such workforce to pre-COVID-19 levels;
  • Reaction and measures taken by competitors to COVID-19;
  • Actions or measures that borrower is considering, or has already taken, to address the economic uncertainty outside of workforce or payroll reduction.

For the borrower that revisits the Loan Necessity Certification and determines that it did make the certification in good faith, the written work product should be saved in case that part of a borrower’s PPP loan is questioned in the future. In that regard, the Treasury has advised that borrowers receiving $2 million or more of PPP loan proceeds will be audited. The audit will likely focus on the Loan Necessity Certification, as well as other aspects of the loan and loan process, including (i) number of employees, (ii) the determination of the size of the loan, and (iii) use of the loan proceeds.

If the consideration and analysis of the Loan Necessity Certification makes a borrower uncomfortable, then it should consult its advisors and maybe also consider returning the amount of any loan proceeds by May 7th.

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

For more on PPP loan administration, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Avoid Losing Money: Achieve Full Remote Access with Speed, Security & Scalability

Are your employees fully capable of accomplishing the same work that they could have done while in the office? Ideally, their in-office PC experience can be duplicated (securely) at home without any latency issues. If that’s not the case, your organization could be losing money with lost billable hours, or underutilization of existing solutions, etc. It’s paramount for the bottom line that your remote access capabilities are allowing your employees to achieve maximum efficiency to conduct business in a remote capacity.

There are three key areas of focus that need attention when planning a cost-effective and capable remote access strategy: speed, security, and scalability. “Putting effective security measures in place today along with mitigating remote access performance issues and ensuring the ability to adjust user access and scale will undoubtedly put you at a competitive advantage and positively affect your organization’s bottom line,” says Donnie W. Downs, President & CEO of Plan B Technologies, Inc.

First and foremost, the reliance on your employee’s end user device (or lack thereof) has a significant impact on what must be considered. There are two paths an organization can take to provide remote access to end users. The first is to allow end user devices to join the network as though they were plugged into a network jack in the office. The most common way to achieve this type of direct access is through a Virtual Private Network or VPN. The second approach is to present desktops and applications in a virtual session. This allows applications to be run on server horsepower in the organization’s datacenter and be used remotely from an end user device. Several products provide this capability, usually referred to as VDI or Terminal Services.

These options result in significantly different architectures. The primary difference is the level of dependency on the end user’s device. The VPN style solution relies heavily on the device’s capability and configuration. It’s required to provide all of the applications and computing power required by each end user. The VDI/Terminal services style solution requires much less from the end users devices. It is simply an interface to the remote session. The tradeoff is that a much more robust infrastructure is required in the organization’s data center or cloud.

Regardless of which way your organization is providing remote access today (VPN or virtual session), the speed, security and scalability (or lack thereof) will directly impact your cost.

SPEED

“To remain productive while working remotely, users need the same capabilities and performance they have when in the office,” says Downs. This translates to several things. They should be able to access all of the software and data they need. They should be able to access these resources using familiar workflows that don’t require separate remote access training. However, the most commonly missed requirement is that the remote access platform needs to provide adequate performance, so the remote access experience feels just like being in the office. Any latency will no doubt cause frustration and could ultimately affect your billable hours.

For direct access platforms this is a simple, yet potentially expensive formula. The remote access system needs to provide enough bandwidth so that the client device can access application servers, file servers, and other resources without slowing down. On the datacenter side, this means designing sufficient connectivity to the on-prem or cloud environments. Connectivity on the client-side, however, will always be more unpredictable. Slow residential connections, unreliable WIFI, and inconsistent cellular coverage are all challenges that will need to be addressed on this type of solution.

Performance within VDI/Terminal Services platforms is much more complex. Similar to direct access, we need to provide adequate bandwidth from the client to the remote access systems. However, this type of system typically has less demanding network requirements than a direct access system.  Advanced VDI/Terminal Services platforms also offer a wide variety of protocol optimizations that can accommodate high latency or low bandwidth connections. That’s only half of the puzzle though. Because the user is accessing a virtual session running in the datacenter, that session needs to provide adequate performance. At a basic level, this means that the CPU and memory must be sized correctly to accommodate the number of users. But the platform also needs to match in-office capabilities such as multiple monitors, 3D acceleration, printing, and video capability. Full-featured VDI/Terminal Services platforms provide these capabilities, but they must be properly designed and deployed to realize their full potential.

SECURITY

“Remote access can expose your business to many risks – but it doesn’t have to be this way,” says Downs. “Whether your organization is supporting 10 remote users or 1,000, you need to provide the necessary access while guarding your organization against outside threats.” For successful and secure remote access, it’s necessary to manage the risks and eliminate your blind spots to prevent data loss, phishing, or ransomware attacks.

On the surface, securing remote access environments requires many of the same basic considerations as any other public-facing infrastructure. These include mandatory multifactor authentication, application-aware firewalls, and properly configured encryption to guard your organization against security risks and protect corporate data. Remote access security is unique due to the risk introduced by the devices used by your employees. These devices can include IT managed devices that are allowed to leave the office or employee-owned unmanaged devices. If your remote access end users are logging in with their own devices, over the internet, there is room for a security breach without conducting these three protocols:

1/ Conduct Endpoint Posture Assessments

For direct access remote connectivity, security is especially relevant since the end user device is being provided a conduit into the organization network. Ideally, devices connecting to a direct access solution should be IT managed devices. This ensures that IT has the capability to control the endpoint configuration and security. However, there are many environments where direct access is required by employee-owned devices. In either case, the remote access solution should have the capability to do endpoint posture assessment. This allows an end user device to be scanned for compliance with security policies. These policies should include up to date operating system updates, valid and updated endpoint protection/antivirus, and enabled device encryption. The results of the scan (or assessment) can then be used to ensure only properly secured devices are able to connect to the network.

2/ Protect Against Key Logging and Other Malware

VDI/Terminal Services remote access systems rely on the end user device only as an interface to the virtual session. As a result, these solutions provide the ability to insulate the organization’s network from the end user device more than a direct access connection. Administrators can and should limit the ability for end user devices to pass file, print, and clipboard data, effectively preventing a compromise of the end user device from affecting the infrastructure. However, there is a gap in this insulation that is almost always overlooked. Malware on the end user device with key logging, screen recording, or remote-control capability can still allow the VDI/Terminal Services session to be compromised. Advanced VDI/Terminal Services platforms have protection for these types of attacks built in. This should be a mandatory requirement when selecting and implementing a VDI/Terminal Services solution.

3/ Deploy Robust Endpoint Protection

Regardless of the overall remote access strategy, both IT managed and employee-owned end user devices should have robust endpoint protection. Traditional definition-based antivirus products no longer provide sufficient protection. These should be combined with, or replaced by, solutions that perform both behavior analytics and advanced persistent thread (APT) protection.

SCALABILITY

Capacity planning for remote access can be very challenging. It is often one of the most varied or “bursty” workloads in an organization. Under normal operations it is used for dedicated remote workers or employees traveling. But when circumstances require large numbers of employees to be remote, as they do today, demand for these capabilities will spike. Proper planning can allow remote access systems to deal with this and keep the entire organization productive, regardless of where they are working.

There are three key elements that affect the scalability of direct access and VDI/Terminal Services solutions: software licensing, network bandwidth, and hardware capacity. It’s important to remember that these three pieces are interconnected. Upgrading any one of them will likely also require an upgrade to the others.

1/ Software Licensing

Licensing for remote access solutions is generally straight forward. There are variables in choosing the correct license type such as feature set and concurrent vs named users. But, in terms of sizing, direct access, and VDI/Terminal Services solutions are usually licensed based on the number of users they can service. Proper scalability relies on having a license pool large enough to support the entire user base. Purchasing licensing for an entire user base can be prohibitively expensive, so some vendors offer more flexible licensing. Two common flexible license models are subscription and burst licenses. Subscription licensing can often be increased or decreased as needed. Burst licensing allows for the purchase of a break-glass pool of licensing that allows for an increased user count for a short period of time. Both of these models allow remote access systems to rapidly expand to accommodate emergency remote workers. This type of flexibility should be considered when selecting a remote access platform to help save your organization from unnecessary costs.

2/ Network Bandwidth

Bandwidth and hardware flexibility are much more difficult to plan for. Indirect access and VDI/Terminal Services scenarios, each additional user requires more WAN bandwidth and more hardware resources. WAN circuits for on-prem datacenters can require significant lead time to provision and resize. There are solutions such as SD-WAN or burstable circuits that can allow flexibility and agility in these circuits. But this must be carefully preplanned and not left as a to-do item when the expanded capacity is actually needed.

3/ Hardware Capacity

Hardware scaling has similar limitations. Adding remote access capacity can require hardware resources ranging from larger firewalls to additional servers depending on the specific remote access platform. Expanding physical firewall and server platforms requires the procurement of additional hardware. During widespread emergencies, unpredictable availability of hardware can lead to significant delays in getting this done. Fortunately, most remote access platforms allow the integration of on-prem and public cloud-based deployments. A common strategy is to deploy systems into the public cloud as an extension of the normal production environment. These systems can then be spun up when needed to provide the additional capacity. This is a complex architecture that requires diligent design and planning, but it can provide a vast amount of scalability at reasonable cost.

Positioning your organization with a remote access strategy that can scale will save you time and money in the future. It’s unknown how long the effects of the coronavirus pandemic will impact the landscape of remote work for organizations. Planning and preparing to continue to conduct business with a secure and robust remote access strategy in place will put you ahead of your competition.

© 2020 Plan B Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

For more on remote working see the Labor & Employment section of the National Law Review.

Chicago City Council Introduces COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance, Reflecting Growing Trend

On April 22, 2020, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, with the backing of several Aldermen, introduced the COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which, if enacted, would prohibit Chicago employers from retaliating against employees for obeying a public health order requiring an employee to remain at home as a consequence of COVID-19.  This reflects a growing trend among states and local governments in enacting protections against retaliation amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ordinance would prohibit employers from demoting or terminating a “Covered Employee”[1] for obeying an order issued by the Mayor, the Governor of Illinois or the Chicago Department of Public Health requiring the Covered Employee to:

(1) Stay at home to minimize the transmission of COVID-19;

(2) Remain at home while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or sick with COVID-19;

(3) Obey a quarantine order issued to the Covered Employee;

(4) Obey an isolation order issued to the Covered Employee; or

(5) Obey an order issued by the Commissioner of Health regarding the duties of hospitals and other congregate facilities.

An employer would also be prohibited from retaliating against a Covered Employee for obeying an order issued by the employees’ treating healthcare provider relating to subsections (2), (3) and (4) above.

Finally, the anti-retaliation protections would extend to Covered Employees who are caring for an individual who is subject to subsections (1)-(3) above, and would apply even if workers have exhausted any earned sick-leave time available pursuant to Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.

Affirmative Defense

The Ordinance would allow an employer to assert an affirmative defense if it relied upon a reasonable interpretation of the public health order at-issue and, upon learning of the violation of the Ordinance, cured the violation within 30 days.

Penalties/Damages

The Ordinance has teeth:  violations can lead to fines of up to $1,000 per offense per day, and Covered Employees who have been retaliated against may pursue the following recovery in a civil action: (i) reinstatement; (ii) damages equal to three times the full amount of wages that would have been owed had the retaliatory action not taken place; (iii) actual damages caused directly by the retaliatory action; and (iv) costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Next Steps

The Ordinance has been referred to the Chicago Committee on Workforce Development for further deliberation.

A Growing Trend

The protections the Ordinance would afford to employees are consistent with a growing trend among state and local governments in response to the COVID-19 crisis.  Similar protections have been established through emergency orders or rules in New Jersey, Michigan and Washington which prohibit employers from disciplining or terminating employees for requesting or taking time off after contracting or, in some circumstances, being exposed to COVID-19.  Other states, such as New York and California, have issued guidance applying existing federal, state, and local anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws to prohibit employers from discriminating against or refusing to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who contract or are otherwise impacted by the virus. As state legislative and executive responses continue to rapidly evolve, employers should ensure that they are familiar with the latest guidance in each state where their employees are located.

[1] “Covered Employee” generally means any employee who, in any particular two-week period, performs at least two hours of work for an employer while physically present within the geographic boundaries of the City of Chicago.  Chicago, Ill., Mun. Code § 1-24-010.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on COVID-19 related employment ordinances, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

What Should You Do About D&I Efforts During a Pandemic? Exactly What You Were Doing Before

The tremendous economic uncertainty emerging in the wake of COVID-19 is forcing law firm leaders to contend with challenges they’ve never faced before. People are scared, and for good reason. Given the enormous financial pressure firms feel, it’s understandable that leaders may opt to push diversity and inclusion efforts to the back burner for a while — or is it?

Let’s review what we know about the business case for creating more diverse firms.

In other words, improving law firm diversity is an imperative for any firm hoping to compete in the marketplace. That was true before the pandemic, and it’s still true today, despite how much more difficult it may be to achieve this goal.

Here’s the good news: expensive, outward-facing diversity and inclusion initiatives that are more about marketing than substance probably are not the best use of constrained law firm resources. Instead, firm leaders should consider simple, effective interventions that will protect the progress they have made in elevating more women and minority attorneys to power, and make it possible for that work to continue:

Help women and minority partners build their profiles remotely. Now that all in-person avenues to developing business are closed, firms are thinking strategically about how their attorneys should move those efforts online. But top-down orders to “leverage LinkedIn” or “keep up with your contacts virtually” are not useful to attorneys who didn’t have robust “old boy” networks to begin with. Online networking is a skill, just like other business development techniques. If your firm was providing coaching support to high-potential attorneys to help them with business development in the real world, that same support is needed now for new kinds of marketing efforts. Attorneys are going to need tutorials that walk them through best practices and provide support by phone or email. Marketing departments can create these resources or contract outside support to do this training work. Then they must oversee the execution to ensure attorneys stay part of the online conversation in their target industries. Is it possible to assign marketing department staff to this task, particular those who typically staff events and may have extra capacity?

Keep the content coming. Social media profiles are only as strong as the content attorneys have to share there. We know that implicit bias can make it more difficult for women and minority attorneys to demonstrate their subject-matter expertise and be considered for the same opportunities as less experienced white men. This makes thought leadership articles and opportunities to be featured as an “expert source” in key media outlets all the more important for building these attorneys’ reputation with prospects. When putting your firm’s experts forward on webinars, thought leadership articles and media pitches, consider who’s being included — and who’s not. If the faces of your firm’s most important expertise are all white men, you’re sending the message that your other attorneys are somehow less qualified to lead in a crisis.

Bear equity in mind when handling award nominations. The earliest and most chaotic weeks of the COVID crisis happened to coincide with an already busy time on many legal marketers’ calendars: award season. Nominations for “rising star” and other programs are typically due in spring, and gathering client testimonials, case examples and other supporting materials can be time consuming and logistically challenging under normal circumstances. And we know that the required effort (which of course comes on top of keeping up with billable work), combined with the often-gendered tendency to be more reticent about self-promotion, means that award nominees can be less than representative of a firm’s diversity anyway. This year, women bearing the brunt of new childcare and homeschooling responsibilities, along with those who care for extended family members, had even less bandwidth and energy to put themselves forward for industry honors. What can your team do to ensure that your award nominees reflect the true diversity of your emerging lawyers, rather than an oversampling of those privileged enough to have more spare time on their hands?

Make evaluations more transparent and consider what “fairness” means right now. In addition to thinking about the intersection of inclusion and business development, firm leaders will need to consider how to evaluate the work attorneys do under these extraordinary circumstances. Obviously it would not be fair to hold attorneys to the standards for billable hours that they would during a normal year, but what should revised standards look like? As noted, women are taking on a greater share of the childcare, homeschooling and household duties under lockdown, which makes it more difficult for them to bill the same number of hours or develop as much new business as men. How can you make sure they won’t be penalized for this when it comes time to make decisions about compensation and promotion? Questions about how to fairly and holistically evaluate attorneys’ work long predate the current crisis, and they are going to become more urgent in the months to come. The current system continues to reward white men above other demographic groups. It’s time for reform.

No question this is a frightening time for firm leaders, and they will want to focus their limited attention on what matters most for the survival of the firm. That shortlist should include a continued commitment to diversity and inclusion. The business case is clear, and hard-won gains for women and minorities are hanging in the balance.

© 2020 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Debra Pickett of Page 2 Communications.
For more on continuing normal business operations amid COVID-19, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.