Category: State and Local Law

Red States Move to Penalize Companies That Consider Climate Change When Making Investments

A number of conservative-leaning states, particularly those with a significant fossil fuel industry (e.g., Texas, West Virginia), have begun implementing polices and enacting laws that penalize companies which “pull away from the fossil fuel industry.”  Most of these laws focus on precluding state governmental entities, including pension funds, from doing business with companies that have adopted policies that take climate change into account, whether divesting from fossil fuels or simply considering climate change metrics when evaluating investments.

This trend is a troubling development for the American economy.  Irrespective of the merits of the policy, or fossil fuel investments generally, there are now an array of state governments and associated entities, reflecting a significant portion of the economy, that have adopted policies explicitly designed to remove climate change or other similar concerns from consideration when companies decide upon a course of action.  But there are other states (typically coastal “blue” states) that have enacted diametrically opposed policies, including mandatory divestments from fossil fuel investments (e.g., Maine).  This patchwork of contradictory state regulation has created a labyrinth of different concerns for companies to navigate.  And these same companies are also facing pressure from significant institutional investors, such as BlackRock, to consider ESG concerns when making investments.

Likely the most effective way to resolve these inconsistent regulations and guidance, and to alleviate the impact on the American economy, would be for the federal government to issue a clear set of policy guidelines and regulatory requirements.  (Even if these were subject to legal challenge, it would at least set a benchmark and provide general guidance.)  But the SEC, the most likely source of such regulations, has failed to meet its own deadlines for promulgating such regulations, and it is unclear when such guidance will be issued.

In the absence of a clear federal mandate, the contradictory policies adopted by different state governments will only apply additional burdens to companies doing business across multiple state jurisdictions, and by extension, to the economy of the United States.

“Republicans and right-leaning groups fighting climate-conscious policies that target fossil fuel companies are increasingly taking their battle to state capitals. Texas, West Virginia and Oklahoma are among states moving to bar officials from dealing with businesses that are moving to ditch fossil fuels or considering climate change in their own investments. Those steps come as major financial firms and other corporations adopt policies aligned with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

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

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Mississippi Enacts Medical Marijuana Law

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed legislation legalizing medical cannabis on February 2, 2022. Known as the “Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act”, the law permits the use of medical cannabis to treat certain debilitating medical conditions including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, muscular dystrophy, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, ALS, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, sickle-cell anemia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism,  cachexia or wasting syndrome, chronic pain, severe or intractable nausea, seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms, among others.  The law was effective immediately upon signing by the Governor, although medical cannabis will not become available for months.

Medical cannabis products will include cannabis flower, cannabis extracts, edible cannabis products, beverages, topical products, ointments, oils, tinctures and suppositories.

The medical cannabis law contains many favorable provisions for employers.  Specifically:

  1. Employers are not required to permit or accommodate the medical use of medical cannabis, or to modify any job or working conditions or any employee who engages in the medical use of cannabis, or seeks to engage in the medical use of cannabis;
  2. Employers are not prohibited from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking adverse employment action against an individual with respect to hiring, discharging, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis, regardless of the individual’s impairment or lack of impairment resulting from the medical use of medical cannabis;
  3. Employers are not prohibited from establishing or enforcing a drug testing policy;
  4. Employers may discipline employees who use medical cannabis in the workplace or who work while under the influence of medical cannabis.
  5. The law does not interfere with, impair or impede any federal requirements or regulations such as the U.S. Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing regulations;
  6. The law does not permit, authorize or establish an individual’s right to commence or undertake any legal action against an employer for refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against an individual with respect to hiring, discharging, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges or employment due to the individual’s medical use of medical cannabis;
  7. Employers and their workers’ compensation carriers are not required to pay for or to reimburse an individual for the costs associated with the medical use of cannabis;
  8. The law does not affect, alter or otherwise impact the workers’ compensation premium discount available to employers who establish a drug-free workplace program in accordance with Miss. Code Section 71-3-201 et seq.;
  9. The law does not affect, alter or otherwise impact an employer’s right to deny or establish legal defenses to the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee on the basis of a positive drug test or refusal to submit to or cooperate with a drug test, as provided under Miss. Code Sections 71-3-7 and 71-3-121;
  10. The law does not authorize an individual to act with negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, in breach of any applicable professional or occupational standard of care, or to effect an intentional wrong, as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis;
  11. The law prohibits smoking and vaping medical cannabis in a public place or in a motor vehicle;
  12. The law prohibits operating, navigating, or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, train, motor boat or other conveyance in a manner that would violate state or federal law as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis; and,
  13. The law does not create a private right of action by an employee against an employer.

Mississippi employers should review the law to determine whether any revisions to drug and alcohol testing policies or other workplace policies will be necessary.

Article By Kathryn J. Russo of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

BREAKING: Seventh Circuit Certifies BIPA Accrual Question to Illinois Supreme Court in White Castle

Yesterday the Seventh Circuit issued a much awaited ruling in the Cothron v. White Castle litigation, punting to the Illinois Supreme Court on the pivotal question of when a claim under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) accrues.  No. 20-3202 (7th Cir.).  Read on to learn more and what it may mean for other biometric and data privacy litigations.

First, a brief recap of the facts of the dispute.  After Plaintiff started working at a White Castle in Illinois in 2004, White Castle began using an optional, consent-based finger-scan system for employees to sign documents and access their paystubs and computers.  Plaintiff consented in 2007 to the collection of her biometric data and then 11 years later—in 2018—filed suit against White Castle for purported violation of BIPA.

Plaintiff alleged that White Castle did not obtain consent to collect or disclose her fingerprints at the first instance the collection occurred under BIPA because BIPA did not exist in 2007.  Plaintiff asserted that she was “required” to scan her finger each time she accessed her work computer and weekly paystubs with White Castle and that her prior consent to the collection of biometric data did not satisfy BIPA’s requirements.  According to Plaintiff, White Castle violated BIPA Sections 15(b) and 15(d) by collecting, then “systematically and automatically” disclosing her biometric information without adhering to BIPA’s requirements (she claimed she did not consent under BIPA to the collection of her information until 2018). She sought statutory damages for “each” violation on behalf of herself and a putative class.

White Castle before the district court had moved to dismiss the Complaint and for judgment on the pleadings—both of which motions were denied.  The district court sided with Plaintiff, holding that “[o]n the facts set forth in the pleadings, White Castle violated Section 15(b) when it first scanned [Plaintiff’s] fingerprint and violated Section 15(d) when it first disclosed her biometric information to a third party.”  The district court also held that under Section 20 of BIPA, Plaintiff could recover for “each violation.”  The court rejected White Castle’s argument that this was an absurd interpretation of the statute not in keeping with legislative intent, commenting that “[i]f the Illinois legislature agrees that this reading of BIPA is absurd, it is of course free to modify the statue” but “it is not the role of a court—particularly a federal court—to rewrite a state statute to avoid a construction that may penalize violations severely.”

White Castle filed an appeal of the district court’s ruling with the Seventh Circuit.  As presented by White Castle, the issue before the Seventh Circuit was “[w]hether, when conduct that allegedly violates BIPA is repeated, that conduct gives rise to a single claim under Sections 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA, or multiple claims.”

In ruling yesterday this issue was appropriate for the Illinois Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit held that “[w]hether a claim accrues only once or repeatedly is an important and recurring question of Illinois law implicating state accrual principles as applied to this novel state statute.  It requires authoritative guidance that only the state’s highest court can provide.”  Here, the accrual issue is dispositive for purposes of Plaintiffs’ BIPA claim.  As the Seventh Circuit recognized, “[t]he timeliness of the suit depends on whether a claim under the Act accrued each time [Plaintiff] scanned her fingerprint to access a work computer or just the first time.”

Interestingly, the Seventh Circuit drew a comparison to data privacy litigations outside the context of BIPA, stating that the parties’ “disagreement, framed differently, is whether the Act should be treated like a junk-fax statute for which a claim accrues for each unsolicited fax, [], or instead like certain privacy and reputational torts that accrue only at the initial publication of defamatory material.”

Several BIPA litigations have been stayed pending a ruling from the Seventh Circuit in White Castle and these cases will remain on pause going into 2022 pending a ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court.  While some had hoped for clarity on this area of BIPA jurisprudence by the end of the year, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling means that this litigation will remain a must-watch privacy case going forward.

Article By Kristin L. Bryan of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

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

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Ohio Votes to Legalize Sports Betting

Ohio lawmakers have reached an agreement that will legalize sports betting for those 21 and older. House Bill 29, which was passed by the Ohio House of Representatives and Senate on December 8 and is expected to be signed into law by Governor DeWine in the coming days, will allow licensed gaming operations to begin accepting wagers as soon as April 1, 2022.

Since the Supreme Court of the United States struck down federal law prohibiting state-sponsored sports betting in 2018, 33 states and Washington D.C. have passed legislation establishing regulated markets for wagering on sports. Ohio now becomes the 34th as it hopes to curb the flow of its residents’ entertainment and tourism dollars into neighboring Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia, all of whom have already legalized sports betting.

Oversight. The Ohio Casino Control Commission (“OCCC”) will be responsible for regulating and monitoring all sports gambling activity in the state. Once the bill is signed into law, the OCCC is required to establish a licensing process, consumer protections, advertising guidelines, and financial requirements for licensees. As an enforcement agency, it will also be given the authority to create other administrative rules it deems necessary to carry out its oversight duties.

Licenses. The OCCC will being accepting license applications on January 1, 2022 and can begin issuing a limited number of licenses on April 1, 2022. The law provides guidance as to how the OCCC will evaluate applicants, and establishes three classes of licenses: (1) Type A licenses for casinos, racinos and sportsbooks operating online and via mobile app; (2) Type B licenses for brick-and-mortar sportsbooks, which will be distributed throughout the state based on county population; and (3) Type C licenses for betting terminals to be placed in restaurants, bars and the like that possess D-1, D-2, or D-5 liquor permits.

Taxes.  A 10% tax will be placed on the new industry’s revenues. Combined with the fees and fines collected by the OCCC, most of this money will be earmarked for distribution by the Ohio General Assembly to public and nonpublic K-12 education programs and a state-sponsored Problem Sports Gaming and Addiction Fund. The bill also creates certain tax incentives for licensed operators beginning in 2027.

Be Ready. Businesses affected by legalization, whether pursuing a license, contracting with a license-holder or being indirectly impacted, need to stay vigilant as Ohio’s sports betting regulatory framework develops. From financial reporting to employment practices, failure to understand and implement processes to comply with the forthcoming regulations could result in significant fines or even criminal penalties.

©2021 Roetzel & Andress

Pandemic-Driven Amendments to Liquor Code Truly Novel

On Nov. 5, 2021, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law House Bill 425, which became effective immediately. Inspired by the restaurant industry’s struggle to recover from the pandemic and related shifts in operations, the bill presents new opportunities for licensees by eliminating a major hurdle for licensing premises under a licensee’s control. In addition, it loosens many other limitations in the Liquor Code regarding catering permits and other provisions.

House Bill 425 Amendments to Liquor Code

This bill presents a unique licensing strategy that comes in the form of a temporary pandemic-related law. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (the “Board”) may now temporarily extend the licensed premises of a licensed club, catering club, restaurant, retail dispenser, hotel, limited distillery, distillery, brewery, or limited winery to include any outside serving area that is immediately adjacent to the existing licensed area or within one thousand feet of the main licensed premises (even if the area to be temporarily licensed and the main licensed building are separated by a thoroughfare).

For decades, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has “licensed” only premises contiguous or connected to each other. This rule has confounded new license applicants for decades, and operators that controlled both sides of a private driveway or public alleyway could not utilize their license for both sides of the thoroughfare. Any questions as to how the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board would interpret these new provisions ended with the release of the Nov. 15, 2021 Summary of Act 81 of 2021 (House Bill 425).

In the Summary, the Board confirmed that separate premises across a public thoroughfare and within 1,000 feet of the licensed premises did not have to have their own service facilities, and a server could take food and drinks out of the original licensed premises and across the street to the new proposed licensed premises and serve patrons there. This is a remarkable change in the law; however, these provisions of Act 81 are due to sunset Dec. 31, 2024, which may affect the amounts a licensee may invest in temporary structures on premises that are not immediately connected or contiguous to the licensed premises.

Pandemic-Driven Amendments to Liquor Code

Another change in the law relates to off-premises catering permits. Restaurant licensees, hotel licensees, and eating place retail dispenser licensees that want to sell liquor away from their licensed premises can apply for and obtain an off-premises catering permit to hold a catered function on otherwise unlicensed premises. A catered function is defined as “the furnishing of food prepared on the premises or brought onto the premises already prepared in conjunction with alcoholic beverages for the accommodation of a person or an identifiable group of people, not the general public, who made arrangements for the function at least thirty days in advance.”

The limit for these permits was previously capped at 52 per year. Act 81 now allows the Board to issue an unlimited number of permits for off-premises catered functions to licensees that qualify. Catering permits are also no longer limited to the five-hour time restriction that was previously mandated.

The next amendment to the law pursuant to this bill applies to what happens when a licensee goes out of business. Now, liquor and wine in the possession of a licensee at the time the licensed business closes permanently may be sold to another licensee qualified to sell such products. The licensee selling the products is required to advise the Board in writing of the name of the licensee buying them, identifying any product sold, and describing the liquor, including brand names, sizes, and numbers of containers sold.

More in the House Bill 425

Lastly, Act 81 provides for an additional year of safekeeping for the following class of licensees that was in safekeeping during the proclamation of the 2020 disaster emergency related to the pandemic: club, catering club, restaurant, eating place retail dispenser, hotel, importing distributor, and distributor. A licensee in one of those classes cannot be subject to a renewal, validation, or safekeeping fee that would be due during the additional year. But the licensee must file a renewal or validation that does come due. The additional year of safekeeping commences on the renewal or validation date of a license that occurs after Dec. 31, 2021. This means any extension of the safekeeping period due before Dec. 31, 2021, must be paid, but that license would qualify for the one-year extension from 2022 to 2023.

The novel coronavirus has forced many businesses to change the way they operate, so it is gratifying to see the Pennsylvania Legislature create more flexibility in the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, one of the more confusing and rigid sets of laws in the United States.

Article By Theodore J. Zeller III of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

©2021 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Health Care Settings Subject to New COVID-19 Requirements Issued by New Jersey and OSHA

Health care settings continue to be at the center of testing and treatment for COVID-19 and are the focus of new safety requirements implemented to minimize risks of transmission. Last month, Governor Murphy issued an Executive Order related to vaccination management, COVID-19 testing, and data collection, which mandates “covered health care and high-risk congregate settings” to establish a policy requiring “covered workers” to either submit proof of full vaccination or to submit to weekly COVD-19 testing. This requirement goes into effect on September 7, 2021.

In addition, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has implemented an emergency temporary standard (ETS) applicable to certain health care settings, which includes extensive safety and health measures. The ETS provides for certain exceptions for coverage, and while the precise definitions are complicated and must be consulted, the focus appears to be on those settings where employees are interacting with patients who are suspected or confirmed for COVID-19. Unlike the Executive Order, the OSHA ETS does not include vaccine or testing requirements; however, certain New Jersey health care providers will be covered by both measures.

Which health care and high-risk congregate settings must comply with the Executive Order?

The scope of this Executive Order is quite broad and will impact most health care settings across New Jersey, both in terms of the covered health care settings and the covered workers to which the vaccine or testing requirements will apply.

The Executive Order defines “health care facility” extremely broadly as including:

acute, pediatric, inpatient rehabilitation, and psychiatric hospitals, including specialty hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers; long-term care facilities; intermediate care facilities; residential detox, short-term, and long-term residential substance abuse disorder treatment facilities; clinic-based settings like ambulatory care [which would include all private medical offices], urgent care clinics, dialysis centers, Federally Qualified Health Centers, family planning sites, and Opioid Treatment Programs; community-based healthcare settings including Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, pediatric and adult medical day care programs, and licensed home health agencies and registered health care service firms operating within the State.

High-risk congregate settings under the Executive Order include:

State and county correctional facilities; secure care facilities operated by the Juvenile Justice Commission; licensed community residences for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (“IDD”) and traumatic brain injury (“TBI”); licensed community residences for adults with mental illness; and certified day programs for individuals with IDD and TBI.

“Covered workers” is defined to include full and part time employees and independent contractors, as well as individuals with operational, custodial and administrative support roles.

How to Comply and Penalties for Violations

Covered workers are not required to provide proof of having been fully vaccinated under the Executive Order, but those who do not submit proof of full vaccination must submit to COVID-19 testing one to two times per week. The settings covered by this Executive Order may choose to impose more frequent testing as well. A covered worker will not be considered fully vaccinated until two weeks have elapsed since receipt of the second dose of a two-dose series, or a single dose of a one-dose.

Acceptable proof of full vaccination includes: (1) CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Card; (2) Official record from the New Jersey Immunization Information System or other State immunization registry; (3) Record from a health care provider portal/medical record system on official letterhead signed by a physician, nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, registered nurse or pharmacist; (4) Military immunization or health record from the U.S. Armed Forces; or (5) Docket® mobile phone application record or any state specific application that produces a digital health record. Records of such proofs must be maintained confidentially.

Those employees who do not submit proof of vaccination must submit to weekly testing, which can be either antigen or molecular tests with Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration or operating pursuant to the Laboratory Developed Test requirements by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Covered settings may provide onsite COVID-19 tests, which can be either an antigen or molecular test. Covered settings must have a policy for tracking test results and are required to report results to the local public health department. However, in all other respects, vaccination and testing information must be kept confidential and separate from the employees’ personnel records.

The penalties for violations are stringent. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:49, a violation may be considered a disorderly conduct offense, which can carry a penalty of a fine of up to $1,000 or 6 months imprisonment.

It should be noted that the requirements of the Executive Order with respect to screening and testing of unvaccinated workers do not override any requirement imposed by the covered setting regarding the testing and screening of symptomatic workers or vaccinated workers.

OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for Health Care Settings

Published on June 21, 2021[1] and in further effort to ensure the safety of health care workers, the OSHA ETS for health care and related industries provides that, unless an exception applies, in settings where employees provide health care services or health care support services, employers must develop and implement COVID-19 plans.

The analysis to determine whether an exception applies is complicated, and OSHA offers a flowchart to assist with this analysis. Among these exceptions are:

  • Private medical practices, where (i) the office is in a non-hospital setting, (ii) ALL non-employees are screened prior to entry, and (iii) anyone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 is not permitted to enter the premises.
  • Well-defined hospital ambulatory care settings where all employees are fully vaccinated and all non-employees are screened prior to entry and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not permitted to enter those settings.
  • Home health care settings where all employees are fully vaccinated, all non-employees are screened prior to entry, and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not present.
  • Well-defined areas where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will be present, the requirements in the ETS for personal protective equipment (PPE), physical distancing, and physical barriers do not apply to employees who are fully vaccinated.

For those covered health care settings with more than 10 employees, the COVID-19 plan must be in writing. It is not practicable to list every requirement in this alert without making it quite lengthy, but the following will highlight some of the notable plan requirements:

  • A designated safety coordinator who understands and is able to identify COVID-19 hazards in the workplace, is knowledgeable in infection control and has the authority to ensure compliance with the COVID-19 plan
  • A workplace hazard assessment (including involvement of non-managerial employees)
  • Policies and procedures to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19 to employees, which are extensive and include but are not limited to:
  • Limiting points of entry for patients and screening patients, clients and visitors at entry
  • Social distancing when indoors
  • Physical barriers between fixed work stations in non-patient areas
  • Cleaning and disinfecting surfaces and equipment in patient areas and in high touch areas at least once per day
  • Providing hand sanitizer with a minimum of 60% alcohol or easily accessible handwashing facilities
  • Providing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to employees with close contact exposure (within six feet in same room) to a person with suspected of confirmed COVID-19
  • Ensuring HVAC systems are used per manufacturer instructions and utilize Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value of 13 or higher if the system permits
  • Screening employees each workday/shift
  • Employees required to promptly notify employer of positive COVID-19 test, a suspected COVID-19 case or of COVID-19 symptoms

When an employee who has been physically present in the workplace tests positive, that employee must notify a designated employee within 24 hours

Employees should be trained on COVID-19 transmission and informed of their right not be retaliated against for exercising their rights under this ETS. Finally, health care settings with more than 10 employees must retain records of positive COVID-19 cases and all covered health care settings must report any COVID-19 fatalities and in-patient hospitalizations to OSHA.

ETS Requires Employers Pay Employees Forced to Quarantine or Isolate Under Defined Circumstances

Significantly, the ETS requires covered employers with ten or more employees to provide employees with substantial “medical removal protection benefits” if the employee must be removed from the workplace when the employer knows that the employee:

  1. Is COVID-19 positive, meaning that the employee was confirmed positive for or was diagnosed by a licensed health care provider with COVID-19;
  2. Has been told by a health care provider that they are suspected to have COVID-19;
  3. Is experiencing recent loss of taste and/or smell, with no other explanation; or is experiencing both fever (≥100.4° F) and new unexplained cough associated with shortness of breath; or
  4. Is required to be notified by the employer of close contact in the workplace to a person who is COVID-19 positive, UNLESS the employee has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (i.e., 2 weeks or more following the final dose), or had COVID-19 and recovered within the past 3 months, AND the employee does not experience the symptoms listed in item 3.

When an employee must quarantine or isolate under the aforementioned circumstances, medical removal benefits entitle the employee to regular pay the employee would have received had the employee not been absent from work, up to $1,400 per week until the employee is able to return to work. After three weeks of this leave, employers with 500 or less employees may reduce the benefits paid to two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay (up to $200 per day). If an employee removed from the workplace is too ill to work remotely, OSHA directs the employer to provide the employee with sick leave or other leave in accordance with the employer’s policies and applicable law. The employer’s payment obligation is reduced by the amount of compensation the employee receives from any other source, such as a publicly or employer-funded compensation program. Employers may also be entitled to an American Rescue Plan tax credit if they pay sick and family leave for qualified leave from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. More information on the tax credit is available from the IRS.

Resources for Compliance

OSHA provides a lengthy COVID-19 plan template to assist health care providers, which may be customized for each workplace. There are additional resources available to health care providers including worksite checklists, sample employee screening questionnaires, an employee training presentation on the Health care ETS and a sample COVID-19 log. OSHA also offers an FAQ on the ETS standard.

Enforcement and Penalties

Violations of the OSHA ETS may carry a maximum penalty of $13,653 per serious violation or per day for failure to abate beyond the abatement date. Willful or repeated violations carry a penalty of $136,532 per violation. OSHA will use its discretion to determine whether an entity’s failure to comply with the ETS standard despite its best efforts warrants relaxation of the enforcement penalties. However, the agency expects that most employers should be able to achieve compliance within the stated deadlines. When addressing penalties for violations, the agency will also consider the size of the company and any past violations.

Takeaways

Health care settings continue to be at the frontline as we battle COVID-19. State and Federal guidelines and mandates are evolving, extremely complicated and can be difficult to navigate. As a threshold matter, it is critical to determine which measures apply to the health care setting. Compliance is critical to minimize the risks to patients and employees and to avoid penalties for non-compliance. Clear communication with employees is crucial to ensure that they are familiar with the requirements and expectations, as well as to understand the employer’s efforts to keep them safe.

[1] Covered health care employers must comply with all provisions in the ETS as of July 6, 2021  except those requirements related to ventilation, physical barriers, and training, which had a  compliance deadline of July 21, 2021

© Copyright 2021 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

Article By Jill Turner Lever, Stacy L. Landau, Patricia M. Prezioso, and Charles H. Newman with Sills, Cummis & Gross PC.

For more COVID-19 updates, visit the NLR Healthcare Law section.

New Jersey’s Safe Passing Law Aims to Protect Cyclists and Pedestrians on the Road

The COVID-19 pandemic may have halted or reduced travel for many in New Jersey, but the end of the year also came with a surprising and sobering statistic: the number of fatal accidents involving cars in New Jersey rose in 2020 despite the pandemic.

Last year, 587 fatal accidents were reported across the state, up from 558 in 2019. Fatal accidents involving pedestrians have also risen, and so have fatal accidents involving cyclists. Eighteen cyclists lost their lives on New Jersey roads last year, up from only twelve the year before.

In response to these alarming numbers—and the long-term work of certain local bike safety advocacy groups—the New Jersey state legislature recently passed a bipartisan bill to increase the safety of New Jersey’s bikers and pedestrians. This bill, now known as the New Jersey Safe Passing Law, was signed into law by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy on Thursday, August 5th.

The New Jersey Safe Passing Law

Under the New Jersey Safe Passing Law, drivers who are passing cyclists or pedestrians must move over one lane if it’s safe to do so. If moving over one lane isn’t possible or safe, drivers must allow four feet of space between their vehicle and the pedestrian or cyclist until they’ve safely passed them. In the event that it isn’t possible to safely allow four feet of space, the driver is required to slow their vehicle to 25 miles per hour.

In addition to cyclists and pedestrians, the bill also covers New Jersey residents with mobility issues who are riding electric scooters or in wheelchairs. Drivers who fail to follow the new law may face fines of $100, while drivers who cause bodily injury by failing to comply may face a fine of up to $500 and have two motor vehicle points added to their driving record.

Struck by a car while cycling? Here are a few next steps

While the Safe Passing Law is certainly a significant step toward making the road a safer place for cyclists, negligent drivers can still present a danger on the road.

If you’ve been injured by a vehicle on the road while biking, you may be wondering what recourse you have for paying medical bills and recovering damages.

Once you’ve carefully documented the accident, spoken to any police dispatched to the scene, and gotten any needed medical attention, the following steps can help ensure you receive the proper compensation and help:

  1. Contact an attorney. Having an experienced attorney on your side can be crucial if you need to pursue damages from the party at fault or need help making an insurance claim.
  2. Since New Jersey is a “no fault” insurance state, medical bills should be covered through your own health insurance or through the Personal Injury Protection benefits included in your auto insurance (P.I.P. benefits may be applicable even if you’re injured while riding a bike).
  3. Depending on the specifics of your auto insurance policy, you may also be entitled to pursue additional damages for pain and suffering or non-economic loss. A skilled attorney can guide you through your options for pursuing damages and help to ensure that you receive what you’re entitled to.
COPYRIGHT © 2021, STARK & STARK

Article By Domenic B. Sanginiti, Jr of Stark & Stark

For more articles on state legislation changes, visit the NLR Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation section.

PFAS Rolling into Regulation

Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, abbreviated as PFAS, are a class of widely dispersed chemicals quickly gaining notoriety in the public health and environmental remediation space. In 2019, rapid developments toward regulation to govern the investigation and cleanup of PFAS contamination to protect human health are occurring in a wide variety of arenas, including federal regulation and congressional action as well as at the state level through both regulation and enacted legislation. This article examines the current state of regulatory developments for PFAS and projects where things are heading in the remainder of 2019, with particular focus on how those developments will incentivize and accelerate the pace of site cleanups and cost recovery, and pose significant challenges to existing sites where other contaminants are already being addressed.

What are PFAS?

PFAS are a class of more than 4,000 synthetic chemicals comprised of carbon-fluorine chains of varying lengths. PFAS have been in use since the late 1940s, due to their unique resistant physical and chemical properties. For example, PFAS have been used in non-stick applications such as cookware, paper packaging, and textiles, as well as in certain types of firefighting foam.[1] The two most widely studied PFAS are perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA.

Over the past decade, understanding of PFAS and their potential toxicity to humans and the environment has increased. Of particular concern is their stability in the environment. The properties that made PFAS so desirable for commercial and industrial use keep these compounds from degrading in the environment and allow them to pose a long-term threat if not removed from the environment and/or from drinking water supplies. Common exposure to these compounds can come through their product use as well as drinking from contaminated water supplies impacted by their release. Also notable are the very low levels at which these compounds exhibit their toxicity, and the very stringent levels under consideration by the regulatory agencies for controlling these compounds. For example, EPA has set interim screening levels of 70 nanograms per liter (parts per trillion or ppt), and several states have proposed guidance levels of 15 ppt or less. For context, 15 ppt is equivalent to a few droplets in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Federal Regulatory Developments

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes cleanup at sites where hazardous substances have been released, and enables parties conducting cleanups to seek cost recovery from other potentially responsible parties. The ability to potentially recover costs under CERCLA can be an important driver in encouraging impacted parties to investigate and remediate contaminated sites. However, as an emerging contaminant class, PFAS are not currently regulated as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

In February 2019, EPA issued an Action Plan outlining its steps to address PFAS and protect public health.[2] Among its listed priority actions was to propose a national drinking water regulatory determination for the two most widely studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, by the end of 2019. This proposed determination would begin the process towards establishment of a maximum contaminant level, or MCL, for these compounds. Another priority action was to initiate the process to list PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances; in April of 2019 at a meeting of state regulators, EPA committed to proposing this hazardous substance designation by the end of 2019.[3] Such a designation will have a multitude of impacts, including 1) PFOA and/or PFOS-contaminated sites will be eligible for listing as Superfund sites; 2) Federal and State authorities will have mechanisms through which they can seek damages or cleanup costs from responsible parties; and 3) Superfund monies will be eligible for use in cleaning up sites contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS.

This commitment to regulate PFOA and PFOS under CERCLA was reaffirmed in a keynote speech of EPA’s General Counsel on September 12th at the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. In his speech, the Honorable Matthew Leopold indicated that EPA was actively looking at designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances by year’s end. This would represent one of the few times in which new contaminants such as these were regulated under CERCLA.

Concurrent with these EPA actions, congressional legislators have called for increased and expedited federal action to regulate PFOA and PFOS, and in some cases the entire PFAS class of 4000 plus chemicals. There have been several bills proposed in 2019 which would commit EPA to taking expedited action with regards to PFAS, including listing some or all PFAS as hazardous substances, and establishing federal MCLs.[4] Perhaps most notably are two bills regarding appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. S.1790 (passed by the Senate on June 27, 2019) would require EPA to promulgate drinking water MCLs for PFOA and PFOS within two years of enactment, and H.R.2500 (passed by the House on July 12, 2019) would require EPA to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances within one year of enactment.

State officials have also actively petitioned for more expedited federal action on PFAS. On July 30, 2019, 22 state and territory attorneys general issued a letter to Congress requesting that certain PFAS be designated hazardous substances, in particular, PFOA, PFOS, and a PFOA-replacement chemical known as GenX. In their letter, the attorneys general specifically note that such a designation would promote cleanup efforts, including federal facilities formerly owned or operated by the US Department of Defense.[5]

Based on these developments from multiple agencies and levels of government, it appears likely that in the relatively short term PFOA and PFOS will be designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA. This in turn will open the door for CERCLA regulation of PFAS-contaminated sites. Once designated, the next question will be one of appropriate cleanup levels. Typically, EPA would take the lead with establishment of MCLs that can be used to develop risk-based cleanup levels, and from which states could either adopt or modify. However, the process for proposing and finalizing a federal MCL can take years. Thus, faced with increasing public pressure to respond to PFAS contamination, the states have stepped in to fill this gap.

State Regulatory Developments

In November 2018, New Jersey became the first state to issue an MCL for any individual PFAS, specifically for the chemical perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).[6] For PFOA and PFOS, there are currently no state MCLs that have been finalized. However, many states have established PFOA and PFOS advisory or screening levels, and several states have begun the MCL rule-making process, with some anticipating finalization this year.

In 2019, three states have proposed MCLs of varying concentrations for PFOA and PFOS:

  • In April, New Jersey proposed an MCL of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS; the public comment period has since closed, and the standard is in the process of finalization;[7]
  • In June, New Hampshire proposed an MCL of 12 ppt for PFOA and 15 ppt for PFOS (they also proposed MCLs for two other PFAS chemicals);[8] those MCLs were approved on July 18,[9] and will become effective on October 1; and
  • In July, New York proposed an MCL of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS making them the most protective standards in the nation; the proposal is currently out for public comment, which closes on September 24.[10]

In addition, several other states have provided commitments to establishing MCLs in the near future. These include Massachusetts with an MCL rule proposal anticipated by the end of 2019;[11] Michigan with an MCL rule proposal expected by October with finalization in 2020;[12] and Vermont with a commitment to establishing and adopting MCLs by February 1, 2020.[13] Other states are also moving forward with efforts to regulate PFAS. For example, in August 2019 California established notification levels for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water of 6.5 ppt and 5.1 ppt, respectively, that go into effect January 1, 2020. [14],[15]

Conclusion

With federal and state regulatory action underway, and mounting public pressure to expedite a response, it is clear that regulation of some PFAS under CERCLA is imminent. By the end of the year, it is likely that 1) EPA will have designated, or be close to designating, PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances; and 2) several states will have finalized MCLs to regulate their remedial response. These two developments will open the door for parties to investigate, cleanup, and ultimately recover the costs associated with PFAS-contaminated sites. In addition, these developments will likely complicate existing sites in terms of both their required remedial response as well as their cost recovery strategy. New PFAS regulation at existing sites will unlock a myriad of cost implications not the least of which involve cost allocation among potentially responsible parties. In the face of these complications and uncertainties, what is clear is that PFAS regulation has rolled off the horizon and directly in front of those involved with protecting public health and the environment.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or accounting advice.

[1]  For a more thorough background on the history and usage of PFAS, see the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council fact sheets at https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/

[2] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-acting-administrator-announces-first-ever-comprehensive-nationwide-pfas-action-1

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan

[3] https://www.asdwa.org/2019/04/11/cooperative-federalism-pfas-are-top-issues-at-ecos-spring-meeting/

[4]  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45793.pdf

[5]  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Press_Releases/2019/Multistate-PFAS-Legislative-Letter73019FINAL.pdf

[6]  New Jersey regulated PFNA largely in response to a regional issue relating to specific historic discharges from a chemical manufacturing facility.

[7]  https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices/20190401a.html

[8]  https://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/2019/20190628-pfas-standards.htm

[9]  https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/jlcar/minutes/AM7-18-19.pdf

[10]  https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-availability-350-million-water-system-upgrades-statewide-and-directs

[11]  https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/06/20/pfas-stakeholder-presentation-20190620.pdf

At the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection participated in a panel discussion titled “The State of CERCLA Following EPA Reform: More of the Same or Something Super?” In this discussion, Mr. Suuberg indicated that Massachusetts will finalize its PFAS standards by the end of the year, and in an accompanying paper noted that the comment period on the proposed cleanup standard of 20 ppt (for a sum of six PFAS) had closed in July and was currently under review.

[12]       https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-494077–rss,00.html

[13]       https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/PFAS/Docs/Act21-2019-VT-PFAS-Law-Factsheet.pdf

[14]            https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/PFOA_PFOS.html

[15]      California already had notification levels of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS and will continue to have a response level for those drinking water systems exceeding 70 ppt for the total combined concentration of both compounds, consistent with EPA’s advisory level. 

© Copyright Nathan 2019

ARTICLE BY Brian Henthorn and Christopher Loos of Nathan.
For more PFAS Regulation developments, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

California Redefines “Beer” to Align with Federal Definition

On July 9, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 205, which redefines beer under California’s Alcohol Beverage Control Act.  AB 205 allows for beer to be produced with honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices, and other food materials. Under the prior California law, “beer” was defined as “any alcoholic beverage obtained by the fermentation of any infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops, or any other similar product, or any combination thereof in water.” Prior to AB 205, use of fruit in the fermentation process required a wine license.

Notably, federal law already permits the use of these additional ingredients.  As per 26 U.S.C. § 5052(a), federal law defines beer as “beer, ale, porter, stout, and other similar fermented beverages (including sake or similar products) of any name or description containing one-half of 1 percent or more of alcohol by volume, brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part, or from any substitute therefor.” Federal regulations at 27 CFR 25.15 identify the materials that may be used in the production of beer: “Beer must be brewed from malt or from substitutes for malt. Only rice, grain of any kind, bran, glucose, sugar, and molasses are substitutes for malt. In addition, you may also use the following materials may be used as adjuncts in fermenting beer: honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices, and other food materials.”

Thus, the passage of AB 205 is a seemingly long-overdue update and will likely have little effect on the market as California’s legal system has likely deferred to the federal definition.  Indeed, California Craft Brewers Association Executive Director Tom McCormick described AB 205 as a “clean-up bill” that aligns California with federal law. Nonetheless, Assemblyman Tom Daly (D-Anaheim), who introduced the bill, stated that “[t]his measure modifies the definition of beer in a way that will allow California breweries to expand their market, satisfying the consumer’s desire for more varied and unique styles of beer.”

 

© 2019 Keller and Heckman LLP
Article by Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman LLP.
For more on alcohol regulation, please see the National Law Review page on Biotech, Food & Drug law.

How to Banish the Black Market and Ensure Integrity: What States Legalizing Sports Betting for the First Time Can Learn From Nevada and Legalized Cannabis States

Integrity, integrity, integrity. The integrity of the game is a top concern of regulators and the college and professional sports leagues as legalized sports wagering expands across the United States. But what steps can regulators take to ensure that the “fix” is not in on games being wagered upon?

In theory and in practice, legalization of sports wagering provides a better framework to track and trace aberrations in betting patterns that may indicate game fixing. After all, if sports wagering is illegal, there is no one monitoring the action to ensure that those placing wagers are not being ripped off by game fixing. Once wagers are placed in a legal setting, you can bet that the legal bookmakers will be watching the betting patterns closer than anyone to make sure they are not being taken for a ride. And the veteran Nevada sports book operators who are sure to be running  many of the books in newly legalized states have the experience in tracking the numbers to know when something is off.

Indeed, Nevada sports books have long assisted regulators – and the leagues – in uncovering game-fixing schemes, such as the 1999 Arizona State Sun Devils point-shaving scandal, by tracking and notifying regulators when they have spotted irregular betting patterns.

But what about the black market? In theory, the legalization and regulation of sports wagering should bring the industry into the light, allowing the wagering action to be taxed and the backroom sports books to be shut down. And that certainly is an important policy goal of regulators. But it isn’t necessarily that simple.

States drafting their sports wagering laws and regulations can learn a lot from another black-market activity that has been legalized in a number of states – cannabis – to better understand the impact that legalization has had on the black market for cannabis in those states.

The surprising result: the black market has not magically disappeared in the states where cannabis sales have been legalized. One of the key reasons why is the simple fact that legal cannabis prices are generally higher than black-market cannabis because of the additional costs of state-mandated testing, security systems, etc., and, of course, taxes. Coupled with a lack of adequate resources and funding for local law enforcement to crack down on illegal cannabis sales, this makes for a thriving black market, even in states that have legalized cannabis.

What can the regulators who are drafting sports-wagering laws and regulations take away from this? We would not advocate stepping back from drafting the laws to legalize sports wagering, as a lack of any legal market would only help the black market. Instead, regulators should just keep this issue in mind as they draft regulations and try to find a balance between meaningful regulation and over-taxing and heavy regulatory requirements that will add to the costs of legal sports wagering in a way that will either make it unprofitable for legal sports books to operate or make the costs of such wagers so high that bettors continue to seek backroom options.

 

© Copyright 2018 Dickinson Wright PLLC