Litigation Archives - Page 29 of 107 - The National Law Forum

February 2022 Legal News Roundup: Women in Law, Promotions & More

Happy belated Valentine’s Day from the National Law Review team. Please read on for new legal industry hires, promotions and awards.

Firm Recognition & Awards

Much is included on the 2022 Top Workplaces USA list, which recognizes organizations with a people-centered culture.

“At Much, our culture centers on people: our employees, our clients, and our community partners,” said Managing Partner Mitchell Roth. “We work each day to support a collaborative, kind, and service-oriented environment, so to be recognized for our culture on a national level is a tremendous honor.”

The rankings are based on employee feedback from a survey administered by Energage, an employee engagement technology partner. The survey gauged various aspects of workplace culture, including alignment, execution, connection, and more.

Womble Bond Dickinson is one of the Best Places to Work for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) workplace equality, earning a perfect score of 100 percent on the 2022 Corporate Equality Index (CEI).

The survey is administered by the Human Rights Campaign, and acts as a benchmarking tool to track how businesses are adopting equitable workplace policies, practices and benefits for LGBTQ+ employees. Womble Bond Dickinson earned perfect scores every year since 2015.

“We are honored to be named one of the HRC’s Best Places to Work for LGBTQ+ Employees once again,” said Betty Temple, Chair & CEO of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. “We at Womble Bond Dickinson have worked hard to promote diversity and inclusion. These efforts include earning Mansfield Rule 4.0 Certification. The goal of the Mansfield Rule is to boost the representation of historically underrepresented lawyers—including LGBTQ+ attorneys—in law firm leadership, partner promotions and lateral hires by broadening the pool of candidates considered for these opportunities. We have much more work to do, but we are proud to be recognized for the progress we have made.”

Lawdragon recognized Foley & Lardner partners Daniel Kaplan, John (Jack) Lord, Jr., and Rachel Powitzky Steely on its 2022 edition of 500 Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers, an annual recognition of the nation’s top advisors on workforce issues. Lawdragon selected the honorees based on submissions, editorial vetting and journalistic research.

Lawdragon said that this year’s honorees “specialize in defending corporations in everything from wage and overtime claims to trade secret disputes, while helping companies maintain global workforces throughout a pandemic.”

Law firm Hiring & Additions

Varnum LLP expanded its intellectual property practice with the addition of Timothy D. Kroninger. Joining the firm’s Detroit office as an associate, Mr. Kroninger focuses his practice on copyright law, trade secret law, patent and trademark prosecution and more. He also has experience in drafting design patent applications, as well as participating in United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) trademark opposition proceedings.

Beyond his practice at Varnum, Mr. Kroninger works as a supervising attorney in the Trademark and Entrepreneur Clinic at University of Detroit Mercy College of Law. There, he instructs law students on copyright registration, drafting corporate documents, and protection of trademarks.

Beveridge & Diamond PC elected four new principals: Eric Christensen, located in Seattle; Allyn Stern, located in Seattle; Michael Vitris, located in Austin; and Gus Winkes, located in Seattle. Mr. Christensen practices in energy law, assisting companies and consumers in navigating the legal and regulatory landscape. Ms. Stern, former U.S. EPA regional counsel, helps clients develop environmental compliance strategies. Mr. Winkles practices in a variety of fields, providing solutions-oriented legal representation in the areas of enforcement defense, regulatory compliance, and contaminated site cleanup. Mr. Vitris, former litigation attorney with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, defends companies in class actions and environmental mass torts.

“Each of these Principals’ talents, skills, and expertise deepen and enhance B&D’s dynamic regulatory compliance and litigation practice as environmental and energy law continue to evolve,” said firmwide managing principal Kathy Szmuszkovicz. “They’ve proven their ability to deliver top-notch service to clients and to serve as thought-leaders at a particularly exciting time in our practice. We look forward to their continued success and contributions in their new roles.”

Barnes & Thornburg LLP added five new attorneys and legal professionals across various offices. Associate William Choi joined the firm’s Los Angeles office, and associate Albert D. Farr joined the New York office. Mr. Choi focuses his practice on product liability and complex civil litigation, and he is well-versed in all aspects of pretrial case management. Likewise, Mr. Farr practices in transactional tax law, counseling multinational strategic and private equity clients on transaction tax structuring, tax diligence and more.

Furthermore, legal professionals Amit Datta, Al Maloof, and Soyoung Yang joined Barnes & Thornburg’s Chicago, Indianapolis, and Washington D.C. offices, respectively. Dr. Datta, a business transaction advisor, provides targeted legal advice and strategic insight for European clients conducting business in the U.S. Mr. Maloof, a client relationship specialist, provides strategic consultation among the firm’s government services, compliance and regulatory attorneys. Ms. Yang, a legal fellow, aids attorneys and clients on matters related to international trade, customs and the supply chain.

William L. Nimick joined the Construction Litigation and Counsel practice group at Goldberg Segalla LLP. An experienced litigator, Mr. Nimick is located in the firm’s Raleigh office, where he counsels insurers, contractors, subcontractors and corporate entities in liability claims including but not limited to property damage, personal injury and construction defects.

Previously, Mr. Nimick worked as a civil litigator across North Carolina, representing clients in areas such as wrongful death, workers’ compensation, and subrogation. Specifically he handled subrogation claims such as motor vehicle accidents, product liability lawsuits and large fire losses.

Women in the Legal Industry

Angela Bowlin of Frilot LLC law firm has accepted a position serving on the International Association of Defense Council (IADC), an organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance matters. Ms. Bowlin focuses her practice on mass torts and class actions, with experience in asbestos and other toxic tort cases.

“I am honored to have been selected as a member of IADC and look forward to working on the many important committees related to the law and its many facets,” said Ms. Bowlin.

Nicole Archibald joined Foley Hoag LLP as their Director of Legal Recruiting. Ms. Archibald will work alongside the Foley Hoag team to attract and promote a diverse group of attorneys to help the firm achieve its diversity and inclusion goals.

“We’re very pleased to welcome Nicole to Foley Hoag, and are confident that she will be a great asset to the firm and its culture. Her considerable prior experience as a director of recruiting, legal search consultant and practicing litigator will prove a valuable asset as we look to 2022 and beyond. Our executive committee, practice leaders, hiring committee and I are excited to begin working with Nicole to attract new talent and strengthen our market-leading practices,” said Foley Hoag Co-Managing Partner Kenneth Leonetti.

“I look forward to collaborating with Foley Hoag’s management, department chairs and practice leaders, and hiring committee to develop, implement and execute proactive recruiting initiatives to further the firm’s hiring goals and strategic growth plan,” said Ms. Archibald.

Norton Rose Fulbright appointed New York partner Robin Adelstein as the Co-Head of Commercial Litigation, joining Houston partner Andrew Price. Ms. Adelstein brings extensive experience in litigating complex commercial disputes and advises companies with respect to antitrust issues regarding mergers, joint ventures and more.

“Robin has long been respected as a leader within the firm as our Global and US Head of Antitrust and Competition, and she is a highly-recognized practitioner in her field. I look forward to seeing the great work that our commercial litigation group will do under Robin’s and Andrew’s leadership,” said Jeff Cody, Norton Rose Fulbright’s US Managing Partner.

“Our firm has a longstanding reputation for advising clients on their most complex and significant matters. It is an honor to head Norton Rose Fulbright’s commercial litigation group along with Andrew; I am proud to be leading such a talented group of lawyers,” said Ms. Adelstein.

Article By Rachel Popa, Hanna Taylor, and Chandler Ford of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more on the business of law and legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Fitness App Agrees to Pay $56 Million to Settle Class Action Alleging Dark Pattern Practices

On February 14, 2022, Noom Inc., a popular weight loss and fitness app, agreed to pay $56 million, and provide an additional $6 million in subscription credits to settle a putative class action in New York federal court. The class is seeking conditional certification and has urged the court to preliminarily approve the settlement.

The suit was filed in May 2020 when a group of Noom users alleged that Noom “actively misrepresents and/or fails to accurately disclose the true characteristics of its trial period, its automatic enrollment policy, and the actual steps customer need to follow in attempting to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic enrollment.” More specifically, users alleged that Noom engaged in an unlawful auto-renewal subscription business model by luring customers in with the opportunity to “try” its programs, then imposing significant barriers to the cancellation process (e.g., only allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions through their virtual coach), resulting in the customers paying a nonrefundable advance lump-sum payment for up to eight (8) months at a time. According to the proposed settlement, Noom will have to substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, as well as require customers to take a separate action (e.g., check box or digital signature) to accept auto-renewal, and provide customers a button on the customer’s account page for easier cancellation.

Regulators at the federal and state level have recently made clear their focus on enforcement actions against “dark patterns.” We previously summarized the FTC’s enforcement policy statement from October 2021 warning companies against using dark patterns that trick consumers into subscription services. More recently, several state attorneys general (e.g., in Indiana, Texas, the District of Columbia, and Washington State) made announcements regarding their commitment to ramp up enforcement work on “dark patterns” that are used to ascertain consumers’ location data.

Article By: Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Agriculture Groups Sue FDA on Chlorpyrifos Ban

As previously reported, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on August 30, 2021 that revoked all tolerances for the pesticide chemical chlorpyrifos on raw agricultural commodities; the rulemaking was driven by toxicity concerns, primarily concerning exposure in children. The tolerances are set to expire on February 28, 2022, effectively banning the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops. In light of the expiration, FDA published a guidance document to assist food producers and processors that handle foods which may contain chlorpyrifos restudies.
In October of 2021, agriculture stakeholders submitted formal written objections and a request to stay the tolerance revocations to EPA. More than 80 stakeholders signed the document, arguing that significant harms would result from banning chlorpyrifos and urging the agency to stay implementation of the rule until objections were formally addressed by EPA.
Agriculture stakeholder groups are now seeking a court injunction against EPA’s ban on chlorpyrifos. On February 10, 2022, agricultural trade groups representing thousands of members filed a lawsuit against EPA before the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the agency ignored its own scientific findings regarding 11 high-benefit and low-risk crop uses for chlorpyrifos and that the revocation will cause irreparable damage. It remains to be seen how EPA will respond to the lawsuit.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Texas AG Sues Meta Over Collection and Use of Biometric Data

On February 14, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over the company’s collection and use of biometric data. The suit alleges that Meta collected and used Texans’ facial geometry data in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (“CUBI”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). The lawsuit is significant because it represents the first time the Texas Attorney General’s Office has brought suit under CUBI.

The suit focuses on Meta’s “tag suggestions” feature, which the company has since retired. The feature scanned faces in users’ photos and videos to suggest “tagging” (i.e., identify by name) users who appeared in the photos and videos. In the complaint, Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Meta, collected and analyzed individuals’ facial geometry data (which constitutes biometric data under CUBI) without their consent, shared the data with third parties, and failed to destroy the data in a timely matter, all in violation of CUBI and the DTPA. CUBI regulates the collection and use of biometric data for commercial purposes, and the DTPA prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Among other forms of relief, the complaint seeks an injunction enjoining Meta from violating these laws, a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation of CUBI, and a $10,000 civil penalty for each violation of the DTPA. The suit follows Facebook’s $650 million class-action settlement over alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Privacy Act and the company’s discontinuance of the tag suggestions feature last year.

Article By Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Texas AG Sues Meta Over Collection and Use of Biometric Data

This article was written by the team at Hunton Andrews Kurth. For more articles about biometric information protection, please see here.

To Search or To Sink: The Importance of Clearing Your Brand

So many times in my three decades of practice I’ve shaken my head at the perils a trademark owner can so easily avoid by searching and clearing a mark. The litigations! The unnecessary attorneys’ fees! The time and resources lost! All because my client (or adversary) didn’t conduct a proper trademark search.

Adopting a Trademark

So what’s all the fuss about? Well, before adopting a trademark (that is, a brand name for goods or services) you should have an attorney commission a proper clearance search, review it, and provide you with a well-reasoned opinion as to the availability of the brand for “use” and “registration.” (Yes, they are different things, as explained below.) I’m not talking about an Internet search or an online search of U.S. Trademark Office records, though both can be useful to make sure there aren’t any easily found barriers to use or registration of a mark before a full search is commissioned.

I’m talking about a full clearance search done by a reputable vendor the attorney commissions to uncover all uses (registered and not) of the same or similar marks for the same or similar goods/services as you want to use your brand for. The resulting vendor’s report sent to the attorney is typically anywhere from 300 pages up to 1000 pages. Then the (experienced trademark) attorney reviews it and lets you know in a detailed opinion if the mark is free for you to use and register without entangling you in the risk of a dispute/lawsuit. If it’s not available, you pick another brand, and search again.

Using a Brand and Registering It

So what’s the difference between freedom to use a brand and freedom to register it? In the U.S., “common law” trademark rights can exist based solely upon use (that is use of a trademark without registration). That’s because consumers can associate a brand with a single source (the trademark owner/producer of goods/services) even if it’s not registered. (It’s different in other countries, and searches should be done in every country for which you want to use your brand.)

So it’s possible that there’s a barrier to use but not to registration, because a common law (unregistered) trademark is too similar to the brand you want to use, and is being used in connection with identical or related goods/services as your proposed brand. That’s why you want clearance to both use and register a mark. (Registration is important because it provides you with nationwide rights in your brand; common law trademarks cover only the geographic territory where sales under the brand occur.)

So please clear your mark. It’s pennies on the dollar compared to what you will spend in a dispute or (heaven forbid) litigation. Here’s to happy searching!

Article By Jeanne Hamburg of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Cannabis and District Courts: Are Those Courthouse Doors Closed Too?

We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.

Factual Background

The facts of Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye are relatively straightforward. Plaintiff Indian Hills Holdings (“IHH”), Construction & Design Professional Corp. (“CDP”) and its principal Christopher Frye (“Frye” and, together with CDP, the “Defendants”) entered into a contract whereby IHH paid Defendants to purchase Cultivation “Adult” Extreme Cubes (the “Cubes”). Defendants in turn contracted with ICT Centurion Investments, LLC (“ICT”) to purchase the Cubes. The Cubes were marketed as a “fully integrated growing container system” used in indoor cannabis cultivation. When ICT sold the Cubes to another party, Defendants were unable to deliver the Cubes to IHH. Defendants refused to return the money, and IHH sued, asserting breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud claims.

A default judgment was entered against CDP for failing to respond to IHH’s complaint. Frye, however, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that IHH did not have standing to bring its claims. Noting that Frye only “cursorily” raised the standing issue and that the “issue is a complex one”, the court reframed Frye’s argument as follows:

The contract is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq.(the “CSA”);
Federal district courts will not enforce contracts that violate federal law;
Because federal district courts will not enforce contracts that violate federal law, IHH lacks an “actionable injury”; and
Because IHH lacks an actionable injury, the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Legal Analysis

The court began its analysis by considering whether the parties’ contract violated the CSA. Section 863(a) of the CSA makes it unlawful to sell or offer for sale “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined to include “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing … a controlled substance.” Because the Cubes are used to grow cannabis, and because cannabis is a controlled substance, the sale of the Cubes would seemingly violate section 863(a) of the CSA. However, the CSA contains an exemption, whereby section 863 does not apply to any person authorized by state law to manufacture, possess or distribute drug paraphernalia. California allows the manufacturing of drug paraphernalia, which would include the Cubes. As a result, the court wrote that the contract “may fall within the CSA exemption.” Additionally, the court noted that the U.S. Department of Justice has declined to enforce the CSA’s prohibition on the sale of marijuana when the marijuana is bought or sold in accordance with state law. For these reasons, the court concluded that enforcing the parties’ contract would likely neither violate the CSA nor public policy.

While the contract may be legal, the court still had to consider whether assuming jurisdiction over the dispute would result in a violation of federal law. After all, federal courts will not assume jurisdiction over a dispute where the court will be required to order a legal violation. The question therefore became whether a plausible remedy existed for IHH that would not require the court to order such a legal violation. The court held that it could fashion a remedy without violating the law by simply awarding IHH monetary damages. A judgment for money damages, unlike an award of specific performance, would not result in IHH obtaining the Cubes and growing cannabis. Instead, the result would be a return of the monies paid by IHH to Defendants for the Cubes. The court’s ruling was consistent with prior cases involving state-legalized cannabis business, where the courts found ways to provide relief without violating the CSA. E.g., Polk v. Gontmakher, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53569 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2021) (noting that “recent case law involving cannabis-related business contracts does not espouse an absolute bar to the enforcement of such contracts”); Mann v. Gullickson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152125 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016) (court may consider breach of contract claim arising from sale of cannabis business when “it is possible for the court to enforce [the] contract in a way that does not require illegal conduct”).

Takeaways

As the legalized cannabis industry continues to grow and develop, market participants will undoubtedly need access to courts. The bankruptcy courts remain off-limit, thus requiring distressed cannabis businesses and their creditors to turn to state-law insolvency proceedings (e.g., assignments for the benefit of creditors; receiverships). To those in the industry, it may be a welcome relief to know that at least some federal district courts have made themselves available to these parties and that these courts thus far have shown a willingness to adjudicate disputes arising from the cannabis industry. However, any party seeking their day in federal court needs to ensure that they are not asking the court to grant relief that would violate federal law, including the CSA. This means that while money damages should be available, specific performance of the contract is likely off the table.

Article By Mark A. Salzberg of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

District Court Declines to Dismiss 401(k) Fee Litigation Case in First Decision Post-Hughes

In the first decision since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., No. 19-1401, 595 U.S. ___ (U.S. Jan. 24, 2022) (discussed further here), a Georgia federal district court held in favor of plaintiffs and declined to dismiss allegations that defendant’s 401(k) plan included costly and underperforming funds and charged excessive recordkeeping fees. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached ERISA’s fiduciary duty of prudence by: (1) offering retail share class mutual funds despite the availability of identical lower-cost institutional share classes of these same funds; (2) including actively managed mutual funds which were more expensive than available passively managed funds; (3) selecting and maintaining underperforming funds; and (4) overpaying for recordkeeping services.

In declining to dismiss plaintiffs’ investment management fee claims, the district court relied heavily on Hughes. The court expressed its view that Hughes “suggested” that a defined contribution plan participant may state a prudence claim by merely alleging that the plan offered higher priced retail class mutual funds instead of available identical lower-cost institutional class funds. The district court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed in part because the plan offered a variety of investment options that participants could select, including lower-cost passive investment options. The district court explained that Hughes rejected this exact argument in holding that a fiduciary’s decisions are not insulated merely by giving participants choice over their investments and that fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments.

The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ recordkeeping claims because plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the plan paid nearly double the fees charged by similarly sized plans and that defendant failed to monitor those costs. In regards to plaintiffs’ underperformance claims, the court held that the existence and extent of the alleged underperformance was better left for summary judgment given the parties’ differing views on the issue.

Proskauer’s Perspective

While plaintiffs seemingly scored a victory in the first decision since Hughes, the decision does not indicate that this will (or should be) the trend. First, the district court issued its decision one day after Hughes was decided without the benefit of additional briefing, which would have likely included briefing on the Supreme Court’s direction that district courts give “due regard” to the reasons why a fiduciary made the challenged decisions. Second, the district court appears to have, at a minimum, over-emphasized the Supreme Court’s holding as to the plausibility of mutual fund retail share class claims; the Supreme Court did not hold directly or in dicta that a plaintiff may survive dismissal merely by alleging the availability of identical lower-cost mutual fund share classes.

The case is Goodman v. Columbus Reg’l Healthcare Sys., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13489 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2022).

Article By Kyle C. Hansen and Tulio D. Chirinos with Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more articles about 401(k) plans, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

New Tools in the Fight Against Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals

The explosive growth of internet pharmacies and direct-to-consumer shipment of pharmaceuticals has provided increased access to, and reduced the cost of, important medications. Unfortunately, these same forces have increased the risks that counterfeit medicines will make their way to consumers, endangering patient safety and affecting manufacturers’ reputation in the public eye.

While the Food and Drug Administration attempts to police such misconduct through enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), the resources devoted to enforcement are simply no match for the size and scope of the counterfeiting threat. Fortunately, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not without recourse, as several well-established tools may be used in the right circumstances to stop counterfeiters from profiting from the sale of knock-offs.

Experienced litigators can use the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to stop unscrupulous individuals and organizations from deceiving customers with counterfeit versions of trademarked drugs. Until recently, these legal weapons – including search warrants, seizures, forfeitures, and significant penalties – were typically wielded only by the government and only in criminal prosecutions.

As one recent case demonstrates, however, many of the tools that law enforcement has used for years to combat counterfeiters are also available to pharmaceutical manufacturers. In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, et al., the manufacturer of several trademarked HIV medications filed a civil complaint, under seal, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and RICO against scores of individuals and companies that were allegedly selling counterfeit versions of these drugs to patients across the country.

By deploying private investigators and techniques typically used by law enforcement, Gilead was able to gather a substantial amount of evidence before even filing the case. The company then used this evidence to secure ex parte seizure warrants and asset freezes, allowing it to locate and seize thousands of counterfeit pills and packaging before they could be shipped to unsuspecting consumers. Through the seizure of the financial proceeds of the alleged counterfeiting, Gilead prevented the dissipation of assets. If the company can successfully prove its RICO case, it stands to recover treble damages and attorneys’ fees as well.

Manufacturers of trademarked pharmaceuticals may consider using these and other tools to tackle the threat posed by counterfeiters. By drawing upon the experience and skills of trained litigators – particularly counsel who previously deployed these tools on behalf of the government while serving as federal prosecutors – companies can proactively protect their intellectual property and the consumers who depend on their products.

Article By Eric J. Beste, Anthony J. Burba and Heather F. Delgado of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

OSHA’s Next Steps with the Vaccine or Test Rule

On Tuesday, January 25, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the withdrawal of the “Emergency Temporary Standard” (ETS) that would have required large private employers of 100 or more employees to implement a vaccine or test policy. This announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the ETS on January 13, 2022 pending a decision from the Sixth Circuit on the underlying proceedings challenging the ETS. The withdrawal of the ETS is effective as of January 26, 2022.

The announcement from OSHA made it clear that the withdrawal is not complete, stating:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under section 6(c)(3) of the Act, and this action does not affect the ETS’s status as a proposal under section 6(b) of the Act or otherwise affect the status of the notice-and-comment rulemaking commenced by the Vaccination and Testing ETS.” OSHA’s complete withdrawal can be found here.

OSHA intends to keep the ETS as a proposed rule under OSHA’s rulemaking authority. This means that OSHA may choose to modify the previously published ETS and may rely on the Supreme Court’s opinion in doing so. OSHA may choose to implement ideas from the Supreme Court justices such as an industry or workplace-specific analysis. Additionally, OSHA is also likely to review the comments submitted during the notice and comment period for direction with respect to a potential final ETS.

While Tuesday’s announcement does not necessitate action by employers, it does leave the door open for future directives.

Article by Maureen Rouse-Ayoub, Stephanie R. Setterington, Williams J. Whalen with Varnum LLP.

For more on OSHA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Category: Litigation

Agriculture Groups Sue FDA on Chlorpyrifos Ban

Like this:

Texas AG Sues Meta Over Collection and Use of Biometric Data

Like this: