Category: Labor & Employment

Ramping Up For H1B Cap Season

USCISEach year, USCIS issues 65,000 H-1B visas and 20,000 “master’s cap” visas. April 1, 2016 is he first date on which an H-1B petition may be filed for FY 2017, in anticipation of an October 1, 2016 start date. Last year, USCIS accepted 233,000 petitions in the first week. A lottery was conducted and over 60% of all petitions were rejected.

What does this mean?

Employers need to be prepared to file H-1B petitions on April 1. Now is the time to review your employees’ immigration status and start talking to your managers and HR teams to identify employees who may need H1B sponsorship in 2017.  Many possible candidates may be working pursuant to an Optional Practical Training (OPT) work authorization card that may not expire until sometime in 2017. We nevertheless strongly suggest filing petitions for these employees for this fiscal year as well to maximize their chance for selection in the H-1B lottery.

Article By Jessica Feinstein of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Is Inconsistent Application Of Social Media Policy Evidence Of Discrimination?

A District Court in Louisiana concluded recently that a television station’s inconsistent application of its social media policy entitled a terminated employee to defeat summary judgment regarding his discrimination claim.

The television station in question, KTBS, had implemented a social media policy that included a prohibition on employees responding to viewer complaints. The station also held a mandatory meeting at which the policy was discussed. Shortly thereafter, Chris Redford, a male on-air reporter, wrote a negative post on his Facebook page about a viewer who had commented on one of his stories. Upon being notified of Redford’s post, KTBS fired Redford for violation the station’s social media policy.

Redford sued KTBS, alleging, among other things, gender discrimination because the station had not terminated a female on-air personality (Sarah Machi), who also had written a negative post on her Facebook page in response to a viewer’s comment.

KTBS moved for summary judgment, including as to Redford’s gender discrimination claim. In support of its motion, the station admitted that it did not consider an employee’s negative comments on his or her “private Facebook page” regarding a viewer to violate its social media policy. Although both Redford and Machi had posted negative comments on their personal Facebook pages, the station argued that Machi’s situation was different because her Facebook page was protected by privacy settings that only permitted it to be viewed by people she had “friended” whereas Redford’s Facebook page was public and he used it to promoted his work at KTBS. The court was not persuaded by the station’s attempted distinction. Rather, the court determined that the station’s inconsistent application of its social media policy to Redford’s and Machi’s same conduct—i.e., Redford was fired whereas Machi was not disciplined at all—created a triable issue of fact. Therefore, it denied the station’s motion as to Redford’s gender discrimination claim.

The important takeaway for employers, as we previously have discussed in various posts, is the critical importance of consistently applying its social media policies. It is not sufficient merely to have a social media policy. It is just as important to apply it in a consistent manner to avoid potential discrimination claims.

Article By Alexander Nestor of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
© 2010-2016 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

USCIS Issues New Rule for Highly Skilled Workers: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued its long-awaited final rule regarding highly skilled workers from Australia, Chile, Singapore, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”), along with amendments favoring employment-based immigration. In summary, this rule:

  • facilitates more favorable processing of H-1B1 and E-3 treaty-based extension of status petitions;

  • adds E-3 Australian, H-1B1 Chilean/Singaporean, and CW-1 CNMI nationals to the list of those work-authorized nonimmigrants who can secure up to 240 days of continued employment authorization beyond their current expiration date simply by filing their timely extensions with USCIS before their current status expires;

  • clarifies that principal E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants are authorized to work incident to their status and thus do not have to obtain independent employment authorization (applied in practice but not officially adopted as a formal regulation); and

  • expands the type of evidence that foreign nationals being sponsored under EB-1 outstanding professor and researcher permanent residency petitions can submit to include “comparable evidence” of their outstanding professor or research work.

This rule is expected to take effect on February 16, 2016.

Article By Robert S. Groban, Jr., Pierre Georges Bonnefil, Patrick G. Brady & Jang Hyuk Im of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
©2015 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Executive Action: Obama’s Legacy and 2016 Predictions (Part 2 of 2)

As promised in our previous post, today we conclude our predictions on President Obama’s 2016 executive activity.  While we believe the President’s final executive orders will target immigration and perhaps even corporate political expenditures, we predict executive agency action will cover a broad range of pressing labor and employment issues.  With federal legislative gridlock expected to continue through 2016, employers should prepare themselves for a barrage of agency activity, especially from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), and Department of Labor (“DOL”).  Our summary is below.

Expected Agency Activity of 2016

Based on the 2015 Supreme Court decisions in Young v. UPS and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and the EEOC’s interest in systematic discrimination in the workplace, we predict the EEOC will focus heavily on companies’ policies regarding pregnancy and religious discrimination and accommodation in 2016.  As a refresher, in Young the Court held a genuine factual dispute existed as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation “cannot reasonably be distinguished” from Ms. Young’s —e.g., workers unable to lift up to 70 pounds due to reasons other than pregnancy limitations such as a workplace injury or a recognized disability.  In Abercrombie (blogged about here) the Court concluded an employer violates Title VII by rejecting an applicant in order to avoid making a religious accommodation, even if the employer only has an “unsubstantiated suspicion” that the applicant may eventually request an accommodation.

Along with discrimination/accommodation policies, we predict the EEOC and NLRB will focus on company-wide social media policies in 2016. While the NLRB has been hounding employers on social media policies since 2010, the EEOC did not really begin gathering information on the issue until 2014.   We believe 2016 will be the year the EEOC begins targeting employers’ social media policies to evidence discrimination.  We also predict the EEOC’s focus on gender identity discrimination and the NLRB’s focus on FLSA class action settlements will continue with full force into 2016.

With the DOL’s Final Rule on overtime exemption updates expected to roll out this year, we predict the agency will focus on wage-hour reform and that employers will be expected to get into compliance sooner rather than later. Although Solicitor of Labor Patricia Smith stated in November 2015 that final guidelines will not likely be issued until “late 2016,” we believe the DOL will push them out before November’s presidential election.  Employers should expect the Final Rule to increase the minimum salary exemption requirement from $455/week to $970/week.  We would not be surprised if the DOL also finalizes revisions to the duties test, which is a factor along with salary level used to determine whether an employee qualifies under a white collar exemption to minimum wage and overtime rules.

Although the 2016 federal legislation horizon looks bleak, President Obama and his executive agencies are poised for a busy final year. Stay tuned for further developments.

Article By Kristine M. Woliver of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Executive Action: Obama’s Legacy and 2016 Predictions (Part 1 of 2)

Federal legislation in 2015 was plagued by the same congressional gridlock that President Obama has faced throughout most of his presidency. The President has therefore turned to executive action to achieve many of his goals over the past seven years and we expect this trend to continue with gusto in 2016.  Below is a summary of our predictions for 2016’s executive orders and agency action.

Expected Action: Executive Orders in 2016

On January 5, President Obama announced several executive orders seeking to expand background checks and place new licensing requirements on gun show and online gun dealers. During the State of the Union address on January 12, the President expressed his frustrations with stalled immigration reform and corporate influence in politics.  Throughout the remainder of his term, the President might take action on a variety of issues affecting employers nationwide, including:

  • Implementing 2014 Immigration Orders extending work permits to certain undocumented workers. The Fifth Circuit held [pdf] in November 2015 that a federal district court properly blocked the Department of Homeland Security from implementing Obama’s immigration plan, opening the door for Supreme Court review. If the High Court grants the Obama Administration’s certiorari petition and reverses the injunction order, the President will be able to substantively implement a sizable chunk of his long-stalled immigration reform.

  • Improving job portability for beneficiaries of employment-based visa petitions. President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security announced proposed changes to its regulations on this immigration issue, among others, on December 31, 2015. The comment period for the Proposed Rule extends through February 29.

  • Restricting Citizens United and its progeny by requiring contractors to disclose certain political contributions. President Obama has a longstanding and vocal opposition to this case and its effect on corporate political expenditures. The President stated on January 12 during the State of the Union address that he has had a difficult time working with republicans “making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations.”

It is likely the President’s policies will extend beyond his own executive orders to the federal agencies under his administration, our predictions to be summarized tomorrow in Part 2.

Article By Kristine M. Woliver of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Union Agency Fees for Public Employees?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in argument on Jan. 11, from all accounts appears poised to strike down its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and conclude that mandatory agency fees paid by public employees to unions that represent them are unconstitutional.Classroom Supreme Court teachers decision

​In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the petitioners contend that mandatory fair share dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and other representational activities violate the free-speech rights of nonunion workers.  Chief Justice John Roberts summarized the issue similarly: “The problem that’s before us is whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with.”

The case, which poses a significant threat to the funding of public employee unions in the 20 states that allow so-called fair share fees, has generated substantial interest and coverage. The SCOTUS Blog is an excellent stepping off point to review coverage of the case.

Court watchers are suggesting that Friedrichs will overturn Abood not only because of the tone of the questioning during argument but in large part because of the Court’s 2014 decision in Harris v. Quinn in which the Court’s 5-4 majority wrote of Abood and its “questionable foundations.”

Article By Gerald F. Lutkus of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Covered Contractors Take Note of Changes in 2016

Pay transparency final rule is in effect

Executive Order 13665 (EO 13665), the Final Rule promoting pay transparency protection, took effect on January 11, 2016. The executive order covers employees and job applicants of companies with over $10,000 in federal contracts/subcontracts entered into or modified on or after January 11, 2016.

If covered by the law, employers must:

  • Disseminate the Pay Transparency Statement, as prescribed and made available by the OFCCP on its website, by either electronic posting OR by posting a copy of the provision in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment; and

  • Incorporate the Pay Transparency Statement into existing employee manuals or handbooks; and

  • Update your equal employment opportunity clause in covered federal contracts/subcontracts and purchase orders to include a prohibition from discharging, or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the compensation of the employee or applicant or another employee or applicant. If you are currently only incorporating the nondiscrimination obligation by reference to 41 CFR 60-1.4, you may continue to do so.

It is important to note that the pay transparency nondiscrimination provision is required to be posted in addition to the required “EEO is the Law” posting. Once the “EEO is the Law” poster is updated to reflect the new pay transparency nondiscrimination provision, it will be made available on the OFCCP’s and EEOC’s website. In the meantime, however, you can place the supplement to the “EEO is the Law” poster alongside the “EEO is the Law” poster. You can find the supplement on the OFCCP’s website.

Minimum wage increases for covered contractors

Effective as of January 1, 2016, the minimum wage for certain employees of covered federal contractors will increase by five cents to $10.15 per hour, and the minimum cash wage for tipped employees working on or in connection with covered federal contracts will increase to $5.85 per hour.

Covered contracts include those contracts resulting from solicitation issues on or after January 1, 2015, and contracts awarded outside of the solicitation process on or after January 1, 2015. Significantly, not all federal contractors are subject to this new requirement. As a practical matter, most “supply” contractors, or those providing goods (and not services) to the federal government should not be covered by this new Executive Order.

Article By Margaret R. Kurlinski & Deborah  Rehorst of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Copyright © 2015 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Over 4.5 Million Are Waiting for Green Cards—Over 100,000 of them are Employment-Based

The Department of State (DOS) recently published its annual report of immigrant visa applicants (2015 Annual Immigrant Visa Report), which tallies up the number of total applicants—including spouses and children—who are waiting for their respective priority date to become current, allowing for them to obtain their green card. The annual report, which totals the number of applicants up to Nov. 1, 2015, does not take into account those applicants who have adjustment of status applications pending with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as of Nov. 1.

Overall, 2015 saw a three precent increase of total applicants compared against last year, increasing from a total of 4,422,660 for 2014 to 4,556,021 for 2015. This total includes both family-based green cards and employment-based green cards. Employment-based green card applicants only accounted for roughly 100,000 of the 4.5 million. When compared against 2014, the percentage of employment-based applicants waiting to apply for their green cards increased from 90,910 to 100,747—an increase of 10.8 percent.

While a 10.8 percent increase seems like a marginal increase, examining specific categories individually reveals that certain categories—namely Employment First, Second, and Fifth—have grown in popularity with employers and investors. Employment First encompasses green card applications for aliens of extraordinary ability, outstanding researchers, and multi-national managers or executives. From 2014 to 2015, the Employment First category saw an increase of 27.1 percent on the waiting list, from 2,733 to 3,474. Employment Second is reserved for Aliens of Exceptional Ability, which is measured by positions that require a U.S. Master’s degree (or higher), or a Bachelor’s degree and five years of progressive experience.  In 2015, there was an increase of 36.5 percent for Employment Second, with 11,440 on the waiting list as opposed to 8,380 in 2014. Finally, Employment Fifth is reserved for investors and entrepreneurs who invest substantial capital into the U.S. economy, among other requirements. Employment Fifth saw the greatest increase from 2014 to 2015—175.2 percent. The specific wait list numbers, broken down by category, are below:

Employment-based Preferences for Visas​

Number of Applicants on Waiting List in Employment-based Preference Categories​

At first glance, the 140,000 of expected employment-based green card approvals this year seems like it would clear the existing backlog of green card applications of 100,747 left from 2015, but this is not the case because there is a seven percent per-country limit, which visa issuances to any single country, including China and India, cannot exceed. What this looks like for applicants from countries such as China and India is that the wait for green cards will only increase, absent legislative or executive action.

Reviewing the 2015 Annual Immigrant Visa Report by country reveals that India and China remain the world’s largest applicants across each Employment Category, a trend that will likely continue into 2016. For Employment First, China represents more than 25 percent of all applicants, with India coming in a distant second at 9.6 percent.

Employment First Preference Category by Country​

For Employment Second, India accounts for a two-thirds of all applicants at 66.8 percent; China, on the other hand, accounts for only 7.8 percent, falling just behind South Korea at 8.4 percent.

Employment Second Preference Category by Country​

For Employment Fifth, China leads the applicant-pool with 89.6 percent of all applications.  The next two countries—Hong Kong S.A.R., and Vietnam, only account for 1.4 percent each.

Employment Fifth Preference Category by Country​

For 2016, approximately 140,000 employment-based green cards are projected to be approved, meaning that the wait will continue for most of the 100,747 who are already waiting for their priority date to become current so that they can obtain their green cards. As the U.S. economy continues to rebound, it is safe to assume that only more applicants, especially from India and China, will continue to apply for employment-based green cards in the higher preference categories—Employment First, Second, and Fifth—where the wait is shorter as compared to Employment Third and Fourth, reserved for skilled workers, and special immigrants, respectively.

Article By Cole F. Heyer of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Exercise Care When Terminating Employee Who Holds H-1B Status

If an employer doesn’t follow certain requirements when it terminates an employee holding an H-1B visa, then the employer could be surprised to learn that employee wasn’t properly terminated, and the obligation to pay that employee wages and benefits continues despite the attempted termination. As background, Department of Labor (DOL) regulations at 20 CFR §655.731 provide guidance regarding wage obligations relating to H-1B (“specialty occupation”) employees.  Employers are required to pay to H-1B visa holders the higher of the prevailing wage for the occupation, or the actual wage for the position, as confirmed in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the employer must file during the H-1B petition process.

This wage obligation even applies to H-1B nonimmigrants who have been “benched” or are no longer actively working for the employer.  When an employer terminates an H-1B employee prior to the expiration date of the employee’s H-1B status, DOL considers this action to be a form of benching the employee UNLESS/UNTIL the employer has taken the following steps to effectuate a “bona fide” termination:

STEP 1 – The employer must notify the USCIS that the relationship has been terminated (USCIS will then cancel the petition); and

STEP 2 – The employer must provide the employee with offer of payment for return transportation abroad [for these purposes, the term “abroad” is defined in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E) as the foreign national’s last place of foreign residence].

Although not required by regulation, it is also advisable for the employer to withdraw the underlying Labor Condition Application (LCA), as long as the terminated employee is the only employee who has been covered by that particular LCA.

Failure to take Steps 1 and 2 above may result in DOL’s requiring the employer to pay back wages commencing on the date of attempted dismissal and continuing until the date upon which DOL determines that the termination has been perfected.

Note that these regulations do not apply to an H-1B employee who has voluntarily terminated his/her employment prior to the H-1B expiration date. Termination by the employer launches these stringent requirements.  In reality, many terminated H-1B employees are able fairly quickly to secure new employment and to transfer their H-1B sponsorship to the new employer; however, these two simple steps should shield the original H-1B sponsor from potential back-pay obligations.Article By

ARTICLE by Nancy M. Lawrence of Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.
© 2015 Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.

2016 H-1B Filing Season Is Here

Now is the time for employers to assess their FY2017 H-1B needs and to start preparing their petitions for submission on April 1.

On April 1, 2016, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting cap-subject H-1B petitions for fiscal year 2017 with an employment start date of October 1, 2016. We recommend that employers send all H-1B petitions subject to the FY2017 cap to USCIS on March 31 so that USCIS receives them on April 1. USCIS will reject any cap-subject H-1B petition that it receives before April 1.

USCIS has a quota of 65,000 cap-subject H-1B visas each fiscal year. A separate allotment of 20,000 H-1B visas is available to foreign nationals who hold a master’s degree or other advanced degree from a US institution of higher education. As indicated in the table below, demand for H-1B visas has fluctuated in past years. A few years ago, it took months to reach the cap; recently, in 2014 and 2015, the cap was reached within the first few days of filing. Although it is not possible to predict with complete accuracy what the demand for H-1B visas will be this year, an improving economy and an increasing demand for qualified workers, especially in the information technology industry, strongly suggest that demand will be high and that the cap will be reached again very early this year, possibly within a week of April 1. Employers should therefore submit their cap-subject H-1B petitions as early as possible.

Year    

Date H-1B Cap Reached

2009 (FY2010)

December 21, 2009

2010 (FY2011)

January 26, 2011

2011 (FY2012)

November 22, 2011

2012 (FY2013)

June 11, 2012

2013 (FY2014)

April 5, 2013

2014 (FY2015)

April 7, 2014

2015 (FY2016)

April 7, 2015

By law, 6,800 of the 65,000 H-1B visas are allocated as H-1B1 visas to nationals of Chile and Singapore.

Only petitions filed on behalf of foreign nationals who have not previously been counted against the H-1B cap in the last six years are subject to this year’s H-1B cap. Accordingly, most H-1B change of employer petitions are not subject to the cap. H-1B petitions for foreign nationals employed by institutions of higher education, nonprofit research organizations, or for employment at governmental research organizations are not subject to the cap.

How This Affects You

Employers should review the immigration status of their current and potential foreign national employees and identify any individuals for whom H-1B status would be beneficial. These individuals include the following:

  • Recent graduates employed in F-1 status and candidates abroad who are subject to the annual H-1B cap

  • Candidates in some other nonimmigrant status (e.g., L-1B) who are approaching the maximum limits of their status and would benefit from a change of status to H-1B

  • Candidates in another nonimmigrant status who work for a different employer and would require an H-1B visa to change jobs

  • Candidates in TN, E, or H-1B1 status for whom an employer is considering pursuing permanent residence

Note that if the limit on H-1B visa numbers is reached on any one of the first five business days of the cap season, all petitions that USCIS receives between Friday, April 1 and close of business on Thursday, April 7 will still be accepted, but their selection for adjudication will be subject to USCIS conducting a lottery among them. USCIS has held a lottery for the last three years, and it is likely that it will do so again this year.

Article By Eleanor Pelta, Eric S. Bord, A. James Vázquez-Azpiri, Roland C. Lechner, Lisa Stephanian Burton & Tracy Evlogidis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Copyright © 2015 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.