Category: Labor & Employment

Three Employee-Friendly Bills That May Be Affected By Upcoming Elections

employee-friendly billsIn the past few years, Democratic members of Congress have introduced several decidedly pro-employee bills, none of which have yet passed, but which may be impacted by the elections in November. Such bills were first introduced in the 113th Congress when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and Democrats controlled the Senate. Versions of these bills were reintroduced in the 114th Congress, although Republicans control both the House and the Senate. The November election not only will decide the next President, but also may change the balance of power in both houses of Congress.

Healthy Families Act

  • Would allow employees of an employer with 15 or more employees to earn 7 days of sick time per year after 60 days of employment.

  • 113th Congress: Introduced to the House and Senate on March 20, 2013. Co-sponsored by 134 Democrats in the House and 23 Democrats in the Senate.

  • 114th Congress: Introduced to the House and Senate on February 12, 2015. Co-sponsored by 145 Democrats in the House and 31 Democrats and 2 Independents in the Senate.

Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act

  •  Would create a trust fund within Social Security to collect fees and provide compensation to employees on FMLA.

  • 113th Congress: Introduced to the House and Senate on December 12, 2013. Co-Sponsored by 101 Democrats in the House and 6 Democrats in the Senate.

  • 114th Congress: Introduced to the House and Senate on March 18, 2015 with 134 Democrats co-sponsoring in the House and 20 Democrats and 1 Independent co-sponsoring in the Senate.

Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act

  • Most recent version of this Act would extend FMLA coverage to employees at worksites with 15-49 employees, including part-time workers. The Act would also protect (1) parental involvement leave to participate in school activities or programs for children or grandchildren and (2) parental involvement leave to care for routine medical needs including: (a) medical and dental appointments of an employee’s spouse, child, or grandchild, and (b) needs related to elderly individuals, such as nursing and group home visits.

  • A version of this bill has been introduced to Congress each session since 1997.

  • The most recent version was introduced to the House on June 16, 2016 with 7 Democrats co-sponsoring.

Following the elections later this year, employers should be on the lookout for versions of these bills being reintroduced, potentially in a political climate where they have a stronger chance of passing.

ARTICLE BY LaToya Alexander of Polsinelli PC
© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

OSHA Issues Special Zika Guidance to Employers

Zika VirusThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued “interim guidance” to provide employers and workers information and advice on preventing occupational exposure to the mosquito-borne Zika virus.

The guidance’s recommended actions (Control & Prevention) for employers and general outdoor workers include the following:

  • Employers should inform workers about their risks of exposure.
  • Employers should provide workers insect repellants and encourage their use. Workers should use the repellants.
  • Employers should provide workers with clothing that covers their hands, arms, legs, and other exposed skin and encourage them to wear the clothing. They also should consider providing workers with hats with mosquito netting that covers the neck and face. Workers should wear the provided clothing, as well as socks that cover the ankles and lower legs.
  • In warm weather, employers should encourage workers to wear lightweight, loose-fitting clothing, which provides a barrier to mosquitos. Workers should wear this type of clothing.
  • Employers and workers should eliminate sources of standing water (e.g., tires, buckets, cans, bottles, and barrels), which are considered mosquito breeding areas. Employers should train workers to recognize the importance of getting rid of these breeding areas at worksites.
  • If requested, employers should consider reassigning to indoor tasks any female worker who indicates she is pregnant or may become pregnant, as well as any male worker who has a sexual partner who is pregnant or may become pregnant. Workers in these circumstances should talk to their supervisors about outdoor work assignments.
  • Workers should seek medical attention “promptly” if symptoms from infection develop.

Employers and workers in healthcare and laboratory settings are advised to follow good infection control and biosafety practices (including universal precautions) as appropriate and specific biosafety guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for working with the Zika virus in the laboratory.

OSHA also noted that mosquito control workers may require additional precautions — more protective clothing and enhanced skin protection — beyond those recommended for general outdoor workers. Workers who mix, load, apply, or perform other tasks involving wide-area (or area) insecticides may need additional protection to prevent or reduce exposure to hazardous chemicals. When applying insecticides, these workers may require respirators, worn in accordance with OSHA’s respirator standard.

For employers of workers with suspected or confirmed Zika virus, OSHA recommends “general guidance.” This includes making certain supervisors and potentially exposed workers know about Zika symptoms, training workers to receive immediate medical attention after suspected exposure, and considering options for providing sick leave during the infectious period.

Employers with workers who travel to or through Zika-affected areas, such as travel industry employees, airline crews, and cruise line workers, the agency recommends following certain “precautions” outlined by the CDC, including flexible travel and leave policies and delaying travel to Zika-affected areas.

ARTICLE BY Tressi L. Cordaro of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Banning Salary History Questions, Subway Restaurant Partners with DOL, Non-Competes: Employment Law This Week – August 15, 2016 [VIDEO]

Massachusetts Bans Salary History Question

Subway, DOL, Pay EquityOur top story: Beginning in 2018, pay history will be off limits for Massachusetts job applications and interviews. In a unique attempt to close the gender wage gap, the state has passed a pay equity law that will bar employers from asking applicants about their previous salaries. Employers will also be prohibited from seeking that information from an applicant’s prior employers. While this provision is the first of its kind in the country, the new law also contains more common equal pay protections, broadens the definition of “equal work,” and prevents employers from banning the discussion of salary among employees. Mickey Neuhauser, from Epstein Becker Green, has more.

“The hope is that by taking the salary history question off the table, employers will rely only on relevant factors and won’t even unconsciously rely upon an irrelevant factor, such as the employee’s prior salary. . . . The law does not prohibit applicants from disclosing their current salaries or salary history, and it doesn’t prevent applicants and employers from negotiating over salary. However, the law does not protect employers from paying a salary lower than what would otherwise be permitted under the act simply because an individual has agreed to accept that salary. In other words, an employee cannot agree to be illegally underpaid.”

Subway Partners with the DOL

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and Subway teamed up to break new ground. The world’s largest fast-food franchisor has reached a voluntary agreement with the DOL to provide wage and hour compliance training to franchisees. The agency conducted more 800 investigations into underpayment of workers at Subway franchises in recent years. This partnership will focus on helping the franchises comply with federal wage and hour laws moving forward. While the DOL hopes to enter into more agreements like this one, franchisors are hesitant, noting that the deal could make them joint employers under the National Labor Relations Board’s standard.

New York Attorney General Cracks Down on Non-Competes

New York’s crackdown on non-compete agreements continues. An investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman revealed that Examination Management Services Inc. required all of its workers, even those who had no access to trade secrets or sensitive information, to sign non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements in the state are usually permissible only for employees with a high level of access to trade secrets or sensitive information. Under the agreement, the company will stop using the non-competes for most employees in New York.

Citigroup Unit Pays Misclassified Workers After DOL Probe

A Citigroup affiliate shells out a hefty sum for misclassifying workers. A subsidiary of Citigroup in Florida recently paid almost $2 million to workers whom it had misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. An investigation by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division found that the company mistakenly applied the Fair Labor Standards Act’s exemption to a group of 882 employees. This case serves as a reminder that salaried workers are not necessarily exempt from overtime.

Tip of the Week

Lisa Glass, Chief Human Resources Officer for The Child Center of NY, is here with advice on how to create an effective onboarding program.

“An important way organizations can help combat employee turnover and help employees adjust to the new organization is through an effective onboarding program. An onboarding program allows employees to understand the expectations of their role in terms of performance as well as social expectations. . . . Effective onboarding is key in creating employee expectations and sharing organization values. The goals must align with the goals of the organization, and the program initiative must be driven by senior management, and not solely driven by human resources.”

ARTICLE BY George Carroll Whipple, III of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

What Does Subway’s “Voluntary Agreement” with the US Department of Labor Mean for Joint Employer Status?

Subway, DOL, Joint EmployerThis past week, Doctor’s Associates Inc.,  which is the owner and franchisor for the Subway sandwich restaurant chain entered into aVoluntary Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the US Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division “as part of [Subway’s] broader efforts to make its franchised restaurants and overall business operationssocially responsible,” and as part of Subway’s “effort to promote and achieve compliance with labor standards to protect and enhance the welfare” of Subway’s own workforce and that of its franchisees.

While the Agreement appears intended to help reduce the number of wage and hour law claims arising at both Subway’s company owned stores and those operated by its franchisee across the country, the Agreement appears to add further support to efforts by unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other federal and state agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), DOL’s own Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the EEOC to treat franchisors as joint employers with their franchisees.

What Is in the Agreement?

While on its face this may sound like a good idea and one that should not be controversial, in reality by entering into this Agreement, which among other things commits Subway to working with both the DOL and Subway’s franchisees, to develop and disseminate wage and hour compliance assistance materials and to work directly with the DOL to “explore ways to use technology to support franchisee compliance, such as building alerts into a payroll and scheduling platform that SUBWAY offers as a service to its franchisees,” and although the Agreement is notable for its silence on the question of whether the DOL considers Subway to be a joint employer with its franchisees, the Agreement is likely to be cited, by unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other government agencies such as the NLRB as evidence of the fact that Subway as franchisor possesses the ability, whether exercised or not, to directly or indirectly affect the terms and conditions of employment of its franchisees’ employees, and as such should be found to be a joint employer with them.

Notably, while the Agreement does not specifically address the exercise of any such authority on a day to day basis, it does suggest an ongoing monitoring, investigation and compliance role in franchisee operations and employment practices by Subway and a commitment by Subway as franchisor to take action and provide data to the DOL concerning Fair Labor Standards Act compliance.  In the past, courts have in reliance on similar factors held that a franchisor could be liable with its franchisees for overtime, minimum wage and similar wage and hour violations.

Of particular interest to many will be the final section of the Agreement, titled “Emphasizing consequences for FLSA noncompliance.”  This section not only notes that “SUBWAY requires franchisees to comply with all applicable laws, including the FLSA, as part of its franchise agreement,” but also what action it may take where it finds a franchisee has a “history of FLSA violations”:

SUBWAY may exercise its business judgment to terminate an existing franchise, deny a franchisee the opportunity to purchase additional franchises, or otherwise discipline a franchisee based on a franchisee’s history of FLSA violations.

Will Subway’s “Voluntary Agreement” with the DOL Have Any Impact Beyond Wage and Hour Matters?

As we approach the one year anniversary of the NLRB’s decision in Browning Ferris Industries, it is abundantly clear that not only the Board itself but unions and others seeking to represent and act on behalf of employees are continuing to push the boundaries and expand the application of Browning Ferris.  In fact the Board has been asked to find that policies and standards such as those evidencing a business’s commitment to “socially responsible” employment practices, the very phrase used in the Subway-DOL Agreement, should be evidence of indirect control sufficient to support a finding of a joint employer relationship between a business and its suppliers.

Moreover, the NLRB and unions such as UNITE HERE and the Service Employees International Union continue to aggressively pursue their argument that the terms of a franchise agreement and a franchisor’s efforts to ensure that its franchisees, who conduct business under its brand, can also be sufficient to support a finding of joint employer status.  No doubt they will also point to the Subway Agreement with the DOL as also being evidence of such direct or indirect control affecting franchisees’ employees’ terms and conditions.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Employers are well advised to review the full range of their operations and personnel decisions, including their use of contingent and temporaries and personnel supplied by temporary and other staffing agencies to assess their vulnerability to such action and to determine what steps they make take to better position themselves for the challenges that are surely coming.

Equally critical employers should carefully evaluate their relationships with suppliers, licensees, and others they do business with to ensure that their relationships, and the agreements, both written and verbal, governing those relationships do not create additional and avoidable risks.

ARTICLE BY Steven M. Swirsky of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Chicago Joins Growing Trend in Requiring Paid Sick Leave

paid sick leaveThe City of Chicago joined an emerging national trend when it unanimously passed an ordinance that requires employers to provide workers with paid sick days.

The change will go into effect on July 1, 2017, and expands benefits already provided under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA grants covered employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off to attend to the serious health condition of the employee or a covered family member. In contrast, the Chicago ordinance requires businesses to provide eligible employees one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked, up to 40 hours of total paid sick leave in each 12-month period.

The ordinance, which is technically an amendment to Chicago’s minimum wage law, covers all employees who perform at least two hours of work within the City in any two-week period and who work at least 80 hours during any 120-day period. The ordinance applies to all employers, regardless of the number of employees, that maintain a business facility within the geographic boundaries of the City or who are subject to one of the City’s licensing requirements. The law permits employees to carry up to 2.5 paid sick days over to the following year, but does not require employers to pay employees for unused sick days.

New employees will be eligible to use paid sick days after an initial six-month probationary period. Employers who already offer paid time off that satisfies the requirements of
the ordinance will not be required to provide additional benefits.

Under the ordinance, employees will be able to use paid sick leave for their own illnesses, injuries, medical care or preventative care, or for the illnesses, injuries, medical care or preventative care of covered family members. Pursuant to the law, “family members” is construed broadly to include a child, legal guardian, spouse, domestic partner, parent, the parent of a spouse or domestic partner, sibling, grandparent, grandchild or any other individual related by blood whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. Employees also can use paid sick leave if they or their family members are victims of domestic violence or if their place of business or child care facility has been closed due to a public health emergency.

In passing the amendment, Chicago has added another potential landmine in the already tough- to-navigate employer/employee relationship. The ordinance allows employers to require that employees who use paid sick leave for more than three consecutive days provide certification that the leave was for a qualifying purpose. However, the ordinance prohibits employers from inquiring as to the specific nature of the medical issue. As such, employers should tread carefully when addressing employees’ health issues and corresponding requests for time off.

Currently, four states have laws requiring employers to issue paid sick leave benefits. Connecticut passed the first such law in 2011, followed by Massachusetts and California in 2014 and Oregon in 2015. Likewise, roughly 20 cities across the country have enacted similar regulations, including San Francisco, Washington D.C., Seattle and Philadelphia.

ARTICLE BY David M. Holmes, Alexander L. Reich & Angela M. Sekerka of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
© 2016 Wilson Elser

Two Timing Employee Caught in the Act – Uber Unfortunate!

uber employee moonlightingAn employee of West Australian Newspapers Limited (WAN) who moonlighted for Uber was caught in the act when, one Saturday night, he picked up a WAN manager.

Despite being well and truly busted, the employee (who worked night shifts as WAN’s newspaper machinist) denied having any affiliation with Uber, saying that his wife had the Uber business and he just occasionally drove her car to the petrol station or car wash. He also initially denied picking up the WAN manager, but in a classic case of #absolutelysprung, quickly reneged from this position when shown the receipt identifying him by name and picture as the Uber driver.

It was clear from the employee’s employment contract that he was required to seek WAN’s permission before working a second job.  It was also clear from WAN’s codes and procedures, as well as discussion at toolbox meetings (which the employee attended), that WAN had a duty of care to manage the safety risk of fatigue arising from night shift work.

When WAN investigated the matter, the employee refused to answer its questions or produce documents and conducted himself in an obstructive manner causing the employment relationship to become untenable. The employee was subsequently dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal on the basis he was confused as to the meaning of having a ‘second job’ (#goodtry)

Amid the cobweb of lies (including that his wife must have completed his Uber registration without his knowledge), it was revealed that the employee had driven as an Uber driver on at least 15 occasions. The Fair Work Commission upheld the dismissal stating that the employee deliberately provided misleading information to WAN and ultimately, was the “architect of his own demise” (#nowafulltimeUberdriver)

ARTICLE BY Emily J. Tan of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Rights of HIV-Positive Job Applicants and Employees

Job ApplicantsHIV infection is a disability under the Americans with Disabilites Act. What rights and responsibilities does an employer have in relation to HIV-positive applicants and employees? The EEOC recently clarified its position concerning HIV-positive individuals in the workplace in a press release, as well as documents addressing the rights of HIV-positive workers, including the right to be free from discrimination and harassment, and guidance to physicians in facilitating accommodations for those individuals.more

An HIV-positive applicant/employee can generally keep his or her condition private, unless he or she is requesting a reasonable accommodation, or if there is objective evidence (not based on “myths or stereotypes”) that he or she may be unable to do the job or poses a safety risk. Employers do not have to retain employees who are unable to perform, or who pose a “direct threat” to safety, defined by the EEOC as a significant risk of substantial harm even with a reasonable accommodation.

Of course, the applicant or employee is free to choose to reveal his or her status in response to an employer affirmative action program, and the employer may ask medical questions after a job offer has been made, but before employment begins, if everyone entering the same job category is asked the same questions. An employee may also have to discuss his or her HIV status with an employer in order to establish eligibility under other laws, such as the FMLA.

Physicians are reminded that nothing in the ADA alters legal and ethical privacy obligations to patients, and that they should disclose medical information to an employer only if and as authorized by the patient in a signed release. For example, a patient may request that his or her healthcare provider not disclose a specific diagnosis, in which case the physician may state, generally, that the patient has an “immune disorder,” rather than stating that he or she is HIV-positive. Providers may need to discuss an alternative accommodation with the employer, if an initially proposed accommodation would be too difficult or costly.

During FY2014, the EEOC resolved almost 200 charges of discrimination based on applicant/employee HIV status, obtaining more than $825,000.00 for those individuals.

ARTICLE BY Jami K. Suver of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Five Lessons from FOX News and Trump on Sexual Harassment

Donald Trump Fox NewsThe recent accusations of sexual harassment against Roger Ailes at Fox News, and the response of a high-profile candidate for public office about how women should respond to sexual harassment have crystallized into an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others.

Since the mid-1980s, we’ve all read about sexual harassment and been trained on it. For the last 25 years, I’ve studied it, investigated it, seen it, taught about it, warned about it, developed policies to guard against it, and defended companies accused of it. Here are a few lessons from these recent events:

A Quick Review

If you’ve avoided (whether by choice or by luck) these last few news cycles, former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson accused former Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes of sexual harassment. After an outside investigation and multiple women providing more examples of his alleged slimy behavior, Ailes is now gone. It happened quickly.

Then, in responding to questions about sexual harassment, a high-profile office-seeker went on record saying he hopes his daughter would quit if she were sexually harassed—and seek another career—which is, by all accounts, an impossibly unrealistic option for most women. Another family member, jumping on the grenade, made it worse when he tried to explain that what his dad actually meant was that a “strong” woman would not allow such sexual harassment to continue – implying (whether intentionally or not) either that strong women could control it, or would have the power to find other work.

Enough already. Sexual harassment is personal; it’s sensitive, and it’s complicated.

Five Quick Lessons

  • Lesson 1: Sexual harassment comes in many forms.

In 1986, 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Today, the law recognizes harassment that includes female-on-male, male-on-male, female-on-female, but most often we see the male-on-female harassment. Still.

  • Lesson 2: Most women don’t want to complain about it. Period.

Since the 90s, the research has repeatedly shown that complaining is the leastlikely response from women who were harassed. The more likely responses include (1) avoiding the harasser; (2) downplaying the gravity of it; (3) ignoring it; and (4) taking it head-on.

The EEOC’s recently released Select Task Force Report on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace explains in more detail that most women who are victims of harassment don’t ever complain about it. They just want to fly under the radar. There are a lot of reasons, but that’s for a much longer article in a different format. In sum, usually, it takes courage to complain.

  • Lesson 3: Know when to bring in outsiders.

Fox News did the right thing by bringing in an outside investigator—reportedly an outside law firm—to investigate the Carlson allegations. When the accused is in a position of power (like Ailes), such that other employees might be afraid to tell what they’ve actually experienced or seen, an internal investigator is usually not enough. An outside neutral has no attachment to the accused or accuser, and the results—whatever they are—in most cases, are more likely to be more thorough, more revealing, and more trusted.

Importantly, with an outside law firm as an investigator, you also have more opportunities to protect communications, advice, and other developments under the attorney-client privilege. That process must be carefully handled.

  • Lesson 4: Confidentiality is critical.

When employees report harassment, the law compels employers to investigate. We know investigations can be messy and trigger unexpected consequences. Practically, it makes sense to protect those who complain and those about whom complaints are made. Some sexual harassment (like the allegations against Ailes) is severe, while other accusations are more tame. In some cases, there really is no evidence of a hostile work environment and no evidence of harassment. Everyone needs to be protected.

For those of you chiding me for the NLRB’s sweeping decisions against blanket confidentiality rules, I know, I know. But, after being on the front lines of these investigations, confidentiality is critical to protecting everyone in an investigation, and to prevent retaliation.

Notably, even the EEOC’s Select Task Force acknowledges the need for the EEOC and NLRB to “jointly clarify and harmonize the interplay of the National Labor Relations Act and federal EEO statutes with regard to the permissible confidentiality of workplace investigations, and the permissible scope of policies regulating workplace social media usage.”

  • Lesson 5: Update your policies.

Good employers have good policies that encourage people to come forward. The EEOC’s Select Task Force Report emphasized that a modern, updated policy will include the following elements:

    • Clear explanation of prohibited conduct, including examples
    • Promises to protect against retaliation
    • Complaint process that provides multiple, accessible avenues of complaint
    • Promises to protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible
    • Processes for a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation
    • Promises to take immediate, proportionate corrective action when harassment has occurred

Promises to respond appropriately to behavior that might not be legally actionable “harassment,” but that which—left unchecked—might lead to harassment

The Select Task Force Report also lists a host of other recommendations, including updating training. Practically, even the best of policies may not have prevented the conduct that Ailes is accused of committing, but let’s take this opportunity to try.

ARTICLE BY Jeanine M. Gozdecki of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Profits Interest as Equity-Based Incentive: Keeping Your Team Motivated

LLC, Business Team, Equity based incentiveSay you own one-half of an LLC that is taxed as a partnership. You and your partner invested the initial capital that was necessary to get the business up and running, and you both built the business with the help of a few key employees. With the business still in the growth phase, you want to make sure that you motivate and retain these key employees who are helping you grow your company. What should you do? You and your partner might want to consider causing the LLC to issue the key employees a profits interest in the LLC.

What is a Profits Interest?

From a tax-standpoint, an LLC can issue two basic types of membership interests: capital interests and profits interests. A capital interest is an interest in a partnership or LLC taxed as a partnership that entitles the recipient to share immediately in the proceeds of liquidation. A capital interest normally results from a capital investment and provides recipients with participation in current and future equity value, a share of income, and distributions. When someone receives a capital interest in an LLC in exchange for a corresponding capital contribution, this is typically a tax-free event. When someone receives a capital interest in exchange for services, this is taxable compensation to the service provider.

Profits interests are distinct from capital interests, providing no current right to share in the proceeds of liquidation as of the date of grant. Instead, they typically only provide a holder with the right to share in those profits of the business that arise after the recipient acquires the interest. The primary goal of issuing profits interests is typically to give a service provider the ability to participate in the growth of the enterprise without incurring tax on the receipt of the interest, and to enjoy at least some long-term capital gain treatment (instead of ordinary income treatment) on proceeds they receive on a sale of the LLC or similar liquidity event.

Structuring a Profits Interests

Usually, as long as the profits interest is structured properly and capital accounts are booked up on entrance of the profits interest member, the IRS should not treat the grant of a vested or unvested profits interest as a taxable event. Most practitioners design profits interests so that they meet IRS safe harbor standards for ensuring profits interest treatment. These standards include:

  1. The profits interest must not relate to a substantially certain and predictable stream of income from the entity’s assets, such as income from high quality debt securities or a net lease,

  2. The recipient of the profits interest must not dispose of it within two years of receipt, and

  3. The profits interest may not be a limited partnership interest in a publically traded partnership.

The issuing entity’s partnership or operating agreement should be closely examined upon the issuance of a profits interest. Things to consider with respect to newly issued profits interests include whether such recipients should have voting rights similar to that of members who contributed capital to the enterprise. Additionally, the agreement should be updated to clearly define how the profits interests will be valued relative to capital interests under current buy-out or redemption provisions. Oftentimes, practitioners ensure that a profits interest has no right to share in liquidation proceeds on the grant date by valuing the company as of that date, and providing that a profits interest holder will not share in distributions except to the extent a threshold established based on the value is exceeded. Also, booking up capital accounts is generally critical to ensuring that the profits interest does not entitle the recipient to any proceeds of liquidation if the entity was liquidated on the grant date.

To the extent the profits interest issued is unvested at the time of issuance, most practitioners opt to make an 83(b) election to ensure tax-free treatment upon receipt. When a profits interest is issued, it has no value. If the profits interest is vested, there is no question that it is taxed at the time of receipt, at $0. Unvested property is taxed at the time of vesting, on the property’s value at the time of vesting. Hence, if the profits interest has appreciated in value since the time of grant, then there would be ordinary income at the time of vesting. To avoid this treatment, recipients of profits interests can make an 83(b) election, which is an election to treat the profits interest as vested for tax purposes at the time of grant and to be taxed on the value of the profits interest at the time of grant. There is some IRS guidance that states that an 83(b) election is not necessary. However, that issue is beyond the scope of this article and a so-called “protective 83(b) election” is usually still made to assist in easing the minds of profits interest holders who want to ensure that the interest is not taxable when it vests.

Tax Consequences of a Profits Interest

The recipient of a properly structured profits interest is not taxed on receipt because the IRS views the profits interest’s value as $0. Because the profits interest is treated as having no value, there is no deduction that corresponds to the issuance of the profits interest for the entity. The profits interest will be treated as having a $0 basis, and no capital account. Going forward, the recipient should be treated as an equity owner under the terms of the governing partnership or operating agreement for the entity starting on the date on which the profits interest was granted. The recipient should receive a K-1 and pay taxes on income that is passed through from the entity. Capital accounts should be adjusted accordingly, just as is the case for any other member.

The Future of Profits Interests

The history of how profits interests are taxed is riddled with controversy. In addition, politicians continue to discuss the desirability of profits interests (also sometimes called “carried interests”), in the context of private equity and hedge funds. However, the foregoing analysis reflects the IRS’ stated position on profits interests based on several Revenue Procedures that were issued to address the topic pending additional guidance. Until the IRS or Department of Treasury issues additional guidance, the current rules will generally remain applicable to small businesses and startups who are issuing profits interests.

Overall, profits interests are a unique and creative way to give people who are rendering services to the LLC or partnership a stake in the enterprise. They can generally be viewed as similar to options, except that they also provide the holder with a stake in the losses of the entity. With the increasing use of LLCs for startup operations, the use of profits interests as an incentive compensation mechanism has grown in the past years.

ARTICLE BY Katie K. Wilbur of Varnum LLP

© 2016 Varnum LLP

Is H-1B Reform On Its Way?

h-1b reformTwo bipartisan bills to reform professional-level visa classifications were introduced into Congress this past July. Given the charged nature of the national discourse on immigration issues this election year, it seems unlikely either bill will be enacted before the presidential election. The bipartisan nature of both bills, however, suggests Congress may be able to coalesce, in the near future, around new H-1B legislation. If these or similar reforms are enacted under a new administration, the information technology (IT) sector, specifically, and all employers who rely on outsourced labor or who contract with H-1B dependent employers may face significant changes to their operations.

Overview of the H-1B program

Through the H-1B program, U.S. employers can sponsor up to 85,000 new foreign workers each fiscal year for employment in “specialty occupations.”1 Generally speaking, a “specialty occupation” is a professional-level position that requires a bachelor’s level education (or higher) in a specific field of study. Common specialty occupations include white-collar professions such as accountants, teachers, doctors, engineers and numerous IT positions including software developers, computer programmers and systems analysts. With the exception of H-1B workers whose employers are sponsoring them for legal permanent residence (green cards), H-1B workers are allowed to remain in the U.S. for up to six years of employment.

The H-1B program has been heavily oversubscribed the last few years. In fact, in each of the last two years, employers filed approximately 230,000 petitions against the 85,000 H-1B visas available. Because extension petitions for employees who have already been granted H-1B status are not counted against the numerical cap, the total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any given time is estimated to be around 600,000.2

IT workers constitute the bulk of H-1B employees in the U.S. For fiscal years 2013 and 2014, for example, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that close to two-thirds of workers in each fiscal year were employed in computer-related occupations.3 The significance of the H-1B program to the IT sector and entrepreneurship is such that over the years many leading entrepreneurs and IT innovators, including Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates have vocally called for increases in the number of annual H-1Bs available, among other reforms.4

The H-1B program is regulated by both the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Labor (DOL). The program requires, among other elements, that the employer make a binding promise to pay the sponsored H-1B worker the higher of the actual wage the employer pays to similarly-situated workers or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment.

In addition, an employer who relies significantly on H-1B workers, called an “H-1B dependent” employer,5 must attest to having tried to recruit a U.S. worker for the position and must promise that the intended H-1B employment will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after the employer files the H-1B petition in support of the H-1B worker.6 An H-1B dependent employer, however, can exempt itself from the U.S. recruitment and non-displacement limitations for petitions in which the company pays the H-1B worker at least $60,000 or for petitions in which the employer files on behalf of an H-1B worker with at least a master’s degree in the specialty occupation.

The potential displacement of U.S. workers by H-1Bs has been a periodic concern since the beginning of the modern H-1B program. Displacement has recently been brought back into the spotlight by allegations some U.S. employers replaced several hundred U.S. IT workers with foreign nationals.7 The U.S. workers are also alleged to have been forced to train their foreign-worker replacements as a precondition to receiving a severance package.8 A subsequent investigation by the DOL into allegations of H-1B program violations related to at least one of those U.S. employers, Southern California Edison, appears to have been resolved in favor of the company and its IT consulting vendor.9 

H.R. 5801: Limiting U.S. worker displacement by H-1B dependent employers

On July 14, 2016, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced H.R. 5801, the “Protect and Grow American Jobs Act,” which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill proposes to reduce H-1B dependent employers’ ability to avoid U.S. worker recruitment and non-displacement provisions. Under this bill, H-1B dependent employers would be bound by the provisions unless they promised H-1B workers a salary of at least $100,000 (increased from the current $60,000). The bill would also eliminate the Master’s degree exemption. The bill has bipartisan support and is co-sponsored by Rep. Peters (D-CA), Rep. Polis (D-CO), Rep. Vargas (D-CA), Rep. Farenthold (R-TX), Rep. Smith (R-TX), Rep. Hunter (R-CA) and Rep. Davis (D-CA).

H.R. 5657: Limiting U.S. worker displacement by any H-1B employer

On July 7, 2016, Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) introduced H.R. 5657, the “H-1B & L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2016,” which has been referred to both the House Judiciary and House Education and the Workforce committees. This bill proposes largescale changes to the H-1B program, including eliminating H-1B dependent employers as a separate classification. This change would subject all H-1B employers to the U.S. worker recruitment and non-displacement provisions that currently apply only to H-1B dependent employers.10 The bill would also double the non-displacement window from the 90 days before and after filing the petition to 180 days on each side of the filing.

In addition, under this proposal an H-1B worker would be authorized to perform services only at his or her employer’s work location unless the employer first obtained a waiver from the DOL.11 This provision would directly, and adversely, impact the business model of modern consulting companies and their clients; moreover, the new waiver requirement would seemingly prevent most staffing companies from accessing the H-1B program.12 

The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA).

What would these proposals mean?

For IT consulting companies and their corporate clients, these proposed changes could force significant changes. At a minimum, the cost to hire an H-1B worker would increase. And, if consultant-vendors are limited in placing H-1B workers at a client site, the end-client may need to scramble to fill positions that can no longer be filed by their consultant-vendor.

ARTICLE BY Monica Santa Maria of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
Copyright © 2016 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

1 Universities and certain nonprofit research facilities are exempt from the 85,000 numerical limitation.
2 See, e.g., Immigration Reforms to Protect Skilled American Workers: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 114th Cong. (2015) (testimony of Professor Ron Hira).
3 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers: Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report to Congress 12, Table 8A (2015).
4 Matthew DeLuca, Tech Demands More H1-B Visas as Critics Cry Foul (Apr. 10, 2014).
5 For an employer with at least 51 workers, if 15% or more are H-1B workers, the employer is classified as H-1B dependent.  8 U.S.C. §1182(n)(3)(A)(iii).  There are separate calculations for smaller employers.  Id. §§1182(n)(3)(A)(i) and (ii).
6 8 USC §§1182(n)(1)(E) and (G).
7 See Matthew Thibodeau, Southern California Edison IT Workers ‘Beyond Furious’ Over H1-B Replacements, Computerworld (Feb. 4, 2015); Sara Ashley O’Brien, Disney Sued for Replacing American Workers with Foreigners, CNN Money (Jan. 26, 2016).
8 Id.
9 Press Release, Infosys, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Concludes Investigation, No Violations by Infosys Found.
10 H.R. 5657, sec. 101(d)(1).
11 Id. sec. 101(e).
12 See, id. sec. 113(a) (making the waiver dependent, in part, on a DOL finding that the “placement of the H-1B [worker] is not essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the [third-party] employer with which the H-1B [worker] will be placed.”)