Category: Uncategorized

A Word About Business Interruption Claims From Vandalism, Riot and Civil Commotion

The death of George Floyd is a national tragedy that should never have happened.  The winds of change are in the air and we can only hope that peace, understanding, justice and fairness for all will prevail.  What happened to George Floyd and the cries to end racial injustice, however, have been overshadowed in the eyes of many by the vandalism, looting and rioting that followed.  That brings us to insurance.

There have been many articles discussing whether and how the business losses arising from the vandalism and looting will be covered under insurance policies.  Because these losses took place during the novel coronavirus pandemic, the insurance coverage issues have become more complex.  This is particularly true for business interruption claims.

There are three issues that I thought were worth highlighting.  The first concerns the confluence of the existing COVID-19 stay-home orders and the vandalism and looting.  The second is the necessary nexus between direct physical damage and civil orders under coverage for civil authority.  Finally, the effect of anti-concurrent cause clauses in property policies.

First, some of the business interruption claims now being brought by businesses that had to shut down because of the protests or because of the curfew orders have been complicated by overlapping civil authority stay-home orders because of the novel coronavirus.  Where a business was closed because of COVID-19 stay-home orders or was open only to provide curbside pickup or delivery services, how is its loss of income and extra expense calculated if the business had to close because of the civil unrest?  Analyzing this issue requires much more space than this blog post can provide.  It is a complicated issue that depends on exactly what coverage is provided and how loss of income is calculated under the relevant business interruption coverage grant.

Just as an example, under a common business income and extra expense coverage form, the amount of business income loss is determined based upon the net income of the business “before the direct physical loss or damage occurred,” the likely net income of the business “if no physical loss or damage has occurred . . . ” and “the operating expenses, including payroll expenses, necessary to resume operations with the same quality of service that existed just before the direct physical loss or damage.”  When applied to the recent vandalism and looting business interruption losses, the net income before the vandalism and looting may have been much less than in months or years past because of the COVID-19 stay-home orders.  If no vandalism and looting had occurred, the likely net income would have been the same as under the existing COVID-19 stay-home orders; that is to say, most likely diminished from prior periods.  Yet some are pushing for the COVID-19 effect not to be considered at all in the calculation of net income in the context of business interruption losses due to vandalism and looting.

Second, civil orders that prevented ingress and egress to and from businesses because of the threat of violence from possible protests likely will not be sufficient to trigger coverage under business interruption civil order provisions.  The common form requires a nexus between direct physical damage and the civil order.  For example, the action of civil authority must be “taken in response to dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage or continuation of the Covered Cause of Loss that caused the damage. . . .”  If a local government shuts down a business district in advance of a protest and before there is any physical damage to property, that civil order should not trigger coverage under the business interruption coverage grant.  A civil order that shuts down a business district after vandalism because the area is dangerous likely would result in some coverage under the business interruption coverage grant depending on other policy factors.

Finally, some property policies limit coverage to covered causes of loss and preclude coverage if the loss was caused in part by a non-covered cause of loss.  For example,

We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause of event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.  These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.

If an insurance policy excludes a cause like looting, but covers vandalism, even if the loss was caused in part by looting, the anti-concurrent causation clause would preclude coverage.  So too, if part of the loss claimed was caused by the novel coronavirus and the policy has a virus exclusion, that would preclude the loss even if part of it was caused by vandalism.

As always, it is most important to read the complete policy because not all insurance policies are the same.  Nevertheless, there is no doubt that business interruption losses arising from the recent civil unrest have been complicated by existing governmental orders covering the novel coronavirus.  It will take patience by all parties and careful analysis to work through these claims.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on business interruption claims, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance and Surety law section.

Supreme Court Rules Title VII Bars Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Today, June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers.  The Court held that employers who discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity unlawfully intend to rely on sex in their decision-making. Justice Gorsuch, along with Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberal justices of the Court, wrote, in deciding the question of whether an employer can fire an individual for being homosexual or transgender: “the answer is clear.”  Specifically, “an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”  Ultimately, “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia consisted of three individual employment cases, all of which involved an employer terminating the employment of a long-time employee shortly after the employee revealed the he or she was homosexual or transgender.  Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia for over ten years and was fired shortly after participating in a gay recreational softball league.  The reason given for his termination was an allegation of misspent funds and “conduct unbecoming of a county employee;” however, Bostock argued that was pretense and the real motivation for his termination was his sexual orientation.  Both the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII did not include protection against discrimination towards sexual orientation.

In Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Donald Zara worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express in New York.  Zarda worked for the company for several years and his employment was terminated shortly after mentioning to his employer that he was gay.  While the District Court ruled in favor of the employer, the Second Circuit ruled that Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Lastly, in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Aimee Stephens, a funeral home employee in Garden City, Michigan, who originally presented herself as a male upon hiring, revealed to her employer during her sixth year of employment that she would be transitioning and working and living full-time as a woman.  Shortly thereafter, she was dismissed from her job due to her transition.  Initially, the District Court found for the funeral home on two bases: (1) Title VII did not protect transgender persons nor gender identity, and (2) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permitted the funeral home to make employment decisions based on faith.  The Sixth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that Title VII’s “discrimination by sex” does include transgender persons and also that the funeral home had failed to show how Title VII interfered with its owner’s religious expression.

Given the split among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court took up this trio of cases to render a clear determination as to whether sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories under Title VII.  This case of first impression signifies a key development in the interpretation and meaning of discrimination on the basis of “sex” under Title VII.  The opinion resolved the issue of whether those who drafted Title VII could have intended protection of these classes, with Justice Gorsuch explaining: “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s con­sequences that have become apparent over the years, in­cluding its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination sup­ply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the ex­press terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Employers must ensure that their policies, including their equal employment opportunity, harassment, and discrimination policies, reflect this opinion and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  In addition to these policy matters, employers should take actions to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and communicate the development in the law to employees and key decision makers in the company.

The full opinion can be found here.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

For more on the SCOTUS Title VII decision, see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.

13 Signs It Is Time to Hire an Outside Marketing Professional

Marketing is the backbone of your law firm’s growth. Think of it this way: a bad attorney can still drum up a substantial amount of business with an impressive marketing plan, but an excellent attorney’s skills will not save them from a weak or nonexistent marketing plan. If you are wondering if you have outgrown your current marketing plan, look for these signs that you need an outside professional.

1. Marketing Takes Up More Than 15 Minutes of Your Billable Time

As an attorney, you should spend most of your time doing what you do best. If you spend more than 15 minutes per day writing and scheduling tweets, checking marketing metrics, or optimizing your blog posts, you are wasting time that should be spent researching, meeting with clients, or preparing for court. Outsource these tasks to a professional.

2. Your Returns Have Plateaued

Seeing big returns on your law firm’s marketing efforts is exciting, which is why plateaus are so disappointing. Without in-depth marketing education and experience, you are unlikely to know what it takes to overcome those plateaus. And while there is a wealth of online information on how to do it yourself, it is a better use of your time and skill to involve a professional consultant that can highlight new ways to bring in potential clients.

3. You Want to Take Your Marketing to the Next Level

No matter how brilliant and creative you are when it comes to selling yourself and your practice, you would be amazed at the opportunities and ideas that a professional can bring to the table. Whether it is identifying a potential sub-market that could grow your law firm, or developing new branding ideas that speak to a different demographic than your typical client, an outside marketing consultant can enhance your current strategy and increase your return on investment.

4. A Big Change or Event is Approaching

An important event or big change in your firm is a massive marketing opportunity, but can also be a massive source of stress. With so many small details to consider, as well as pressure for the event to be successful, a holistic marketing company can provide you with wrap-around support for your event. Not only can they show you the best ways to market your event, but may also offer event planning services, subcontractor management, and even discounted purchasing on your behalf.

5. Your In-House Team Has Become Complacent

In-house marketing teams can work as well-oiled machines, properly allocating their efforts across different team members and projects. In some cases, though, they become complacent and stop giving your firm the time and effort necessary to bring in new clients. Instead of trying to motivate a team that has lost passion for seeing your law firm succeed, consider adding an outside marketing eye to your mix. Often legal marketing consultants offer hourly consultation rates that are perfect for when you simply want a fresh perspective and a new direction without a long-term commitment.

6. You Are Striking Out on Your Own

Starting your own law firm is a significant accomplishment. Avoid the trap of saving money by engaging in DIY marketing. Although it may seem like a good way to cut costs at the outset, shoddy marketing and tone-deaf messaging can actually do far more financial damage than the amount you might save. From logo design and business cards to innovative pay-per-click campaigns and social media marketing, it is better to start out on the right foot with a solid marketing team or consultant that can give you a solid foundation for the future.

7. Circumstances Call for Rebranding

No one is perfect, and every law firm has had its fair share of blunders. However, when a huge mistake smears your name and causes any Google search of your firm to reflect poorly on your brand, it is time to call in a professional legal marketer. They can help mitigate reviews, consult on best next steps, and develop a re-branding strategy that can save your business before negative press starts affecting your bottom line.

8. You Do Not Have Time to Pursue Further Credentialing

In the legal world, reputation is key to success. For many lawyers, this means participation in cause marketing, leadership in relevant associations, and pursuing awards and credentialing opportunities. Unfortunately, not every lawyer has the time, means, or energy to research these opportunities and develop them. A good outside marketing consultant will be able to review your experience and professional strengths and use them to find appropriate places for you to speak, guest author, and submit yourself for public recognition for the good that you do.

9. You Want Help Understanding Your Marketing Analytics

Whether you work with an in-house marketing team or do your own law firm marketing, detailed analysis is a vital part of knowing what is working with your marketing strategy. This can become very frustrating, especially if you are receiving or running reports that you do not understand. Instead of trying to give yourself a full marketing education, turn them over to a specialist. An outside legal marketing consultant can review your analytics with you, highlight the areas that are meeting expectations and give suggestions on how to improve those areas that are slow.

10. Blog Upkeep is Getting Away From You

Companies with blogs get, on average, 67% more leads than companies without blogs, according to Demand Metric. It is not enough to create a new post whenever your schedule allows; blogging has to be a scheduled and highly prioritized part of your marketing plan. If your updates are becoming more and more infrequent, a marketing specialist can create a content calendar and even help you hire a ghostwriter to ensure that the posts keep coming.

11. Your Presentation and Publication Schedule Is No Longer Manageable

If you are not on top of your presentation and publication schedule, a marketing specialist can help you organize, prepare for, and promote these important parts of your marketing strategy. Remember, every presentation you make and every publication you produce is a chance to reach new clients. It makes sense to hire someone who knows how to best identify new avenues for this kind of credentialing and can take the time to ensure that everything is in order so that you are set up for success with no stress on your part.

12. Client Prospects Are Drying Up

Every law firm has slower spells and busy times. Still, if you are noticing a downward trend, it is time to analyze whether it is a normal dip in activity or a problem with some element of your marketing plan. If you have already exhausted your current networking and marketing efforts but business is still not picking up, a marketing professional can give some much needed insight.

13. Your Online Properties Are Out-of-Date or Poorly Managed

Your image is everything. Attorney websites with broken links, attorney bios that have not been updated in years, and abandoned blogs can lead clients to think you are no longer practicing. Hire a marketing specialist to consolidate online properties and manage their upkeep.

Choosing the right marketing expert can breathe new life into your client prospects and take your success to the next level. With the right support, your law firm can be flexible and relevant, able to identify new opportunities that will keep your law firm growing into a legacy worth having.

© 2020 Denver Legal Marketing LLC

For more on marketing for law firms, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

BREAKING: US Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects LGBTQ Employees

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The opinion, released on June 15, 2020, was a consolidation of three federal appellate court decisions—Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In each case, the employer terminated the plaintiff after learning that he or she was gay or transgender.

In Bostock, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held Title VII did not protect an employee against discrimination because of his or her sexual orientation, relying on circuit precedent. The 2nd Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Zarda, concluding an employer discriminated on the basis of sex (including gender stereotypes) when it terminated a long-time employee. In R.G. & G.R., the 6th Circuit held Title VII protected against discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status because such discrimination is grounded in an employee’s failure to conform to gender stereotypes.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, analyzed whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status is fundamentally sex discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes—an issue already determined to fall within Title VII’s scope.

In its analysis, the majority used the example of an employer who has a policy of firing any employee who is known to be gay. According to the Court, if a model employee brings a female spouse to an office holiday party and the employee is then fired due to also being female rather than male, the employer discriminated on the basis of sex, even if the intent was to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Similarly, the Court reasoned that an employer cannot discriminate against one of two otherwise identical female employees because she was identified as a male at birth. In doing so “the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth.” Accordingly, such discrimination is indistinguishable from sex discrimination.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored one of two dissenting opinions. Justice Alito’s primary points of disagreement with the majority were: (1) the definition of “sex,” as understood by the legislators who authored Title VII, does not include sexual orientation or transgender status; and (2) Congress has had opportunities to amend Title VII to expressly include such protections but has failed to do so.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent relied on his interpretation of the “ordinary meaning” of Title VII, which he concluded does not include protections for sexual orientation or transgender status. As such, Justice Kavanaugh reasoned it was not the Court’s role to expand the scope of Title VII. Despite his disagreement with the majority, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent concluded with a congratulatory note to those he would deny Title VII’s protections, “Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.”

The upshot of the Court’s Bostock decision is effectively an expansion of Title VII’s antidiscrimination protections to LGBTQ employees. While many employers already have policies prohibiting discrimination because of sexual orientation and/or transgender status, this decision presumably authorizes EEOC charges and Title VII claims for such discrimination.

© 2020 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

For more on discrimination protections see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.

Keeping Eyes Wide Open When New Members Join the Pack: A Cautious Approach to the Addition of New Business Partners

There are many reasons for business owners to consider adding new partners, including to secure additional capital, to add needed expertise to help grow the company, to bring family members or close friends to join in building the business and to put a succession plan in place. Adding new partners can, therefore, provide a boost to the company’s revenues, lighten the load carried by the founder, and put the business on course for long-term success.  But this decision is not without risk because the new business partners may create conflicts, disrupt the business and insist on making changes that put the company’s existence in peril.

If after carefully weighing the pros and cons, business owners decide to move forward in adding new partners, this post reviews important steps they can take to protect themselves and the business from the decisions and actions of these new stakeholders in the company.

Equity Ownership Can Be Conditional or Subject to Cancellation

One protective step business owners can take when adding a new partner is to make the addition of a new partner’s conditional or subject to cancellation. This approach permits the owner to wait to grant the ownership interest in the company to the new partner until he or she has met specified business goals by a certain date or to cancel the grant of equity to the new partner if the specific goals have not been achieved by the agreed date.

The addition of a new business partner is conditional when the partner does not receive equity in the business until the prescribed business goals are met. For example, if a new partner is tasked with generating new investments or growing sales for the business, the partner will not receive any equity in the company unless these business targets are met by the stated date. This conditional arrangement prevents a potential new partner from becoming an owner if he or she has failed to deliver on important goals right from the outset.

Under a cancellation arrangement, the new partner may receive equity in the company initially, but the grant of this ownership stake is subject to being cancelled if the set goals are not met. Using the example above, if the new business partner is tasked with raising funds or with increasing sales for the company and cannot meet these goals by a specific date, the equity grant will be cancelled automatically or it can be made subject to cancellation. In the latter case, the business owner has discretion to extend the time for the new partner to meet the specified goals.

The use of a conditional or “cancelable” approach to adding a new business partner gives the business owner an “out clause.” These are contract rights that authorize the business owner to avoid adding a new partner who has failed to meet clear and defined expectations.

Securing a Buy-Sell Agreement Is Essential

We have written frequently about the importance of a Buy-Sell Agreement, which gives the business owner the right to redeem the ownership interest of a new partner.  This is a key provision to permit the majority owner to exercise rights to remove an investor as an owner of the business who has become disruptive or even adversarial.  Absent a Buy-Sell Agreement, a business owner may be “stuck” with a minority investor who cannot be removed, and who is demanding access to financial records and who may also assert claims against the owner for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

To avoid this situation, business owners should secure a Buy-Sell Agreement with all of their new partners at the time they become owners in the company.  The specific terms and the issues associated with Buy-Sell Agreements have been discussed in previous posts [here] and [here].

Consider Confidentiality Provisions and Restrictive Covenants

New business partners may not be employed by the company, but they will likely receive access to the company’s trade secrets and other business sensitive information. For this reason, all new business partners should be requested to sign confidentiality agreements to protect all of the company’s confidential information. This confidentiality agreement should be in force, of course, while partners have an ownership stake, as well as for at least some period of time after they no longer hold any interest in the business.  A majority owner will not want to be forced to compete with former business partners who are using the company’s confidential information immediately after they sever ties with the company.

For this reason—avoiding competition with former business partners—majority owners may want to require their new business partners to also agree to non-competition and non-solicitation agreements as a condition of becoming new owners of the company. These may not be multi-year agreements, but it is not unreasonable for a majority owner to require former partners not to engage in competition for a period of 12-18 months after departing as owners of the company. A non-compete agreement may not be warranted if the new partner will be holding only a small stake of less than 10% of the company. But for partners who receive a substantial ownership stake in the business, the majority owner will want to consider requesting some type of non-compete and non-solicitation agreement with these partners.

Allow Competition by Owners

As a final note, Texas law permits the duty of care to be eliminated as fiduciary duty by officers, directors and managers and that duty should therefore be removed from the company’s governance documents.  Texas law does not permit company owners, however, to eliminate the fiduciary duty of loyalty owed by governing persons, but the owners can agree that each of them are permitted to engage in competition with the business and they can agree that certain officers or managers are not required to devote full-time efforts to the business. Therefore, if a business owner wants the freedom not to work full-time for the company and/or the owner is engaging in activities that may be seen as competitive by other company owners, the company’s governance documents should expressly provide for the majority owner to have this type of flexibility.

Conclusion

A majority owner’s decision to add new business partners to the company can rejuvenate the business by providing financial capital, critical new vision, and helpful support. But these new business partners may also challenge the owner and create disruptive conflicts that harm the company and its prospects.  Business owners should therefore be cautious when they decide to add new partners, and the addition of these new owners should be structured in ways that will ensure that the business remains successful.  If things do not work out, as a last resort, the Buy-Sell Agreement that the majority owner should obtain from all new partners will enable the owner to exercise redemption rights to remove these new partners from the business when their presence threatens the company’s continued existence.

© 2020 Winstead PC.

For more on business partner considerations, see the National Law Review Corporate and Business Organizations law section.

New York Compounding Pharmacy Settles Fraudulent Billing and Kickback Allegations in Whistleblower Lawsuit

Upstate New York pharmaceutical companies FPR Specialty Pharmacy (now defunct) and Mead Square Pharmacy, along with their owners, agreed to pay $426,000 to settle fraudulent claims and kickback allegations brought forth by a whistleblower. According to the U.S. government, the pharmacies submitted fraudulent claims for reimbursement to federal healthcare programs for compounded prescription drugs in violation of the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The pharmacies allegedly sold prescription drugs to federal healthcare program beneficiaries in states without a license, improperly induced patients to purchase expensive custom compounded medications by waiving all or part of the substantial co-payments required under the federal healthcare programs, and paid sales representatives per-prescription commissions to illegally induce writing more prescriptions.

“The rules governing federal healthcare programs require pharmacies dispensing prescriptions to their members to be licensed with the appropriate state authorities to request reimbursement for the cost of the medications.  The pharmacies violated the False Claims Act by dispensing and requesting reimbursement for hundreds of prescriptions of “Focused Pain Relief” cream dispensed to federal healthcare program beneficiaries located in states where the pharmacies were not licensed to operate by the appropriate state authorities, and by failing to disclose that they were not licensed.  The Pharmacies also violated the False Claims Act by billing federal healthcare programs for prescriptions dispensed in states where they had obtained their state licenses under false pretenses, including by failing to inform state authorities that they had previously dispensed drugs in the states without a license and by failing to disclose” one of the pharmacy owners’ “criminal history on pharmacy license applications.”

Additionally, the pharmacies violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by engaging in two separate illegal practices, according to the government.  First, the pharmacies regularly charged federal healthcare program beneficiaries co-payments substantially below program requirements (which often exceeded $100) to induce them to purchase its pain cream, “Focused Pain Relief,” for which the federal healthcare programs paid hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars each.  Second, the Pharmacies often paid illegal kickbacks to their sales representatives by giving sales commissions for the number of prescriptions written by the physicians the sales reps marketed.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Pharmacies, like other participants in the healthcare industry, must follow the rules.  The defendants here brazenly flouted basic rules on licensing and kickbacks to line their pockets with dollars from federal healthcare programs.  That is a prescription for intervention by my office and our partners.”

Similar to this case, there have been many instances in which whistleblowers exposed company fraud against the Medicare system.

© 2020 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

President Trump Orders Expanded Use of Emergency Powers to Streamline Infrastructure

On Thursday, June 4, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.” Relying on the COVID-19 declared national emergency, the EO directs federal agencies to invoke their existing emergency authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and other laws to expedite economic recovery, including taking “all reasonable measures” to speed infrastructure and public works projects. While consistent with prior administrative directives to expedite project permitting, this latest EO likely will have little practical effect on individual projects and generate increased litigation for projects that rely on it.

The EO aspires to expedite a variety of projects that fall under the jurisdiction of several specific federal agencies:

  • All authorized and appropriated highway and other infrastructure projects within the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation;
  • All authorized and appropriated civil works projects under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
  • All authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on federal lands managed by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture.

The EO’s main action item is periodic reporting by affected federal agencies to the White House. Agency heads must provide a summary report listing all projects expedited under their emergency authorities no later than July 4th (30 days after the EO’s issuance date), and provide status reports every 30 days thereafter. The EO specifies no end date for the national emergency or use of emergency authorities.

The EO principally relies on the government-wide NEPA regulation for emergency situations.  40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. It also invokes the ESA implementing regulation on Section 7 consultations in emergencies (50 C.F.R. § 402.05 2) and the CWA Section 404 regulations and nationwide permits addressing emergency circumstances. Lastly, the EO directs agencies to review “other authorities” potentially applicable to emergencies, including “all statutes, regulations, and guidance documents that may provide for emergency or expedited treatment (including waivers, exemptions, or other streamlining).”  Overall, the EO intends to allow critical infrastructure and public works projects to move forward more quickly, by abbreviating or waiving legally required environmental reviews, interagency consultation, and public comment.

While the goals of reducing time and paperwork are laudable, the EO will likely be less impactful than other recent efforts (such as One Federal Decision). The emergency exemptions available under NEPA, the ESA, the CWA, and other laws are quite limited pursuant to regulations and case law. They are meant for very narrow or discrete circumstances, not for indefinite national conditions. Moreover, they do not entirely or permanently waive environmental requirements, but rather allow for deferred or alternative procedures that achieve statutory aims. For example, the NEPA emergency regulation provides that when emergency circumstances make it necessary to take actions with significant environmental impacts without observing the typical NEPA process, agencies may consult with the Council on Environmental Quality to make “alternative arrangements” to take such actions. The effort and resources required to develop such “alternative arrangements” may not save time in the overall NEPA review. Nor can an EO legally displace regulations or case law.

Predictably, environmental organizations have already indicated a likely forthcoming challenge to the EO. Though a direct challenge may face jurisdictional obstacles, individual project approvals relying on the EO may be more vulnerable to lawsuits. And given the EO’s focus on timing, preliminary injunction motions at the commencement of lawsuits likely would be a centerpiece of those lawsuits, which likely would offset any advantage that may have been gained from relying on the EO.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC

Beware the COVID-19 Cure: The FTC Issues Warnings to Products Making COVID-19 Treatment Claims

With no approved vaccine, the world waits for the next big breakthrough in 2020’s medical emergency. Some companies already claim to have found it – and subsequently received warning letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for misbranding. The FTC is targeting companies promoting products with supposed COVID-19 cures, treatment or prevention for making illegal, unsubstantiated claims.

One of the FTC’s objectives is eliminating false and misleading information from the marketplace. The FTC Act defines false advertising as misleading in a “material respect,” which includes both affirmative statements and failure to “reveal facts material in the light of [the product’s] representations[.]” See 15 USC 55(a)(1).

The FTC accomplishes its goal by sending warning letters. Under the FTC Act, a product may be misbranded if it is promoted as a prevention, cure or treatment for COVID-19 – when in fact it has not been approved for such use by the Food and Drug Administration. Since March 2020, the FTC has issued more than 200 warning letters to various businesses that advertise wellness products and other services that allegedly address COVID-19.

In some instances, the claims involved a gross exaggeration of the product’s effectiveness. For example, the website “NothingsIncurable.com” advertised products alleged to “literally make you invulnerable.” The FTC concluded those claims constituted misbranding. But even when promotional statements do not include an explicit falsehood, overpromotion still can cross into misbranding. For example, businesses that claimed, “[this product] will target and increase your immunity to help ward off the COVID-19 virus” or that recommended their products as “scientifically proven to support healthy immune function” also were found to be misbranded.

In another example, a company included “Coronavirus” in the website navigation menu that led consumers to therapy kits intended to provide “specific nutrition” to “balance the terrain of the body to make it conducive to” its particular function. Although the product description did not reference COVID-19, the FTC concluded that the website navigation menu was suggestive enough to warrant a warning for misbranding.

Summary

The FTC warning letters advise businesses that “under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.,” they are prohibited from advertising “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.” In addition, products that claim or imply the ability to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19 must be approved drugs under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In each case, the FTC required a response from the business within 48 hours, detailing the actions taken to address the FTC’s concerns.

During this unprecedented health crisis, companies that sell consumer products should exercise caution when mentioning COVID-19 in advertising or promotional statements. Mentioning COVID-19 in relation to a product, even if the product is intended to address more routine health issues, could be misleading.

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

For more on COVID-19, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

NLRB: Federal Court in DC Issues Promised Opinion on Election Regulations

As indicated in our previous blog on this topic, on May 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a two page order invalidating five elements of the NLRB’s 2019 election regulation, based on Count One of the plaintiff’s complaint.  On June 7, the court issued its promised memorandum opinion further explaining that order.

The opinion makes three key points.

First, the Court noted that under the Administrative Procedure Act, the norm is for notice and comment rule making.  An exception in the APA, however, permits agencies to forego notice and comment requirements when promulgating “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”  5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(A). The NLRB had relied on this exception to promulgate the election rule without notice and comment. As the Court stated, “The nub of the instant dispute is the NLRB’s valiant effort to shoehorn five parts of its 2019 Election Rule into this narrow classification.” Slip op. at 28.

Following a thorough discussion of the five parts of the rule it had held invalid in its May 30 order, the Court concluded: “[T]he challenged provisions carry many of the indicia of substantive rules — i.e., they grant rights and impose obligations; they produce ‘significant effects on private interests’; and they ‘foreclose alternative courses of action’ or ‘conclusively bind the . . .      affected private parties.’ . . . Therefore, this Court finds the NLRB’s promulgation of these particular [five] rules without engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking violated the APA.” Slip op. at 42-42 (citation omitted).

Second, the Court found that the five invalidated parts of the election regulation were severable from the remainder of the election rule. The Court rejected AFL-CIO’s argument that the election regulation should be invalidated in its entirety. Slip op. at 43-51. The Court stated that its severability ruling was not prejudical to plaintiffs, however, who are “always free to press an independent basis for setting aside the remainder of the rule and ask the court to do so . . . .” Slip op. at 48 (emphasis in original).

Indeed, the plaintiff’s complaint had three additional counts alleging that the election rule was arbitrary and capricious in whole and in part, and was contrary the National Labor Relations Act.  In a footnote, the Court observed: “[T]he AFL-CIO might well have argued that . . . the Court should . . . proceed to reach the merits of its alternative claims . . . . But for whatever reason, the AFL-CIO maintained that this Court need not reach its other claims, apparently assuming that the Court would agree with its severability analysis.” Slip op. at 48, n. 13.

Third, Court made it clear that the NLRB would have very broad discretion in dealing with the Court’s remand of the remaining rules for consideration in light of the Court’s opinion and order.   “[T]he agency decides what happens next when all or part of a challenged action has been invalidated.”  Slip op. at 46 (emphasis in original).

In a footnote, the Court held: “Thus, no matter how illogical it might seem to this Court for the NLRB to proceed to enforce the remaining portions of the 2019 Election Rule, it is up to the agency to determine which otherwise lawful policy proscriptions it wishes to adopt and enforce, and a simple remand of the matter gives the agency the best opportunity to make that determination in the first instance.”  Slip op. at 47, n. 12.

Following the Court’s May 30 order, the NLRB had swiftly acted to implement the remaining election regulations.  The AFL-CIO also filed a motion for clarification of the May 30 order seeking, among other things, a ruling on the swiftness of the NLRB’s action.  The Court signaled its inclination to deny that motion in its memorandum opinion, stating that “no matter how swiftly the agency undertakes to make that decision  . . . [courts] ‘do not, and cannot, police agency deliberations as a general matter . . . .’ Thus, the AFL-CIO’s recent motion . . . raises an issue that is plainly non-justiciable.”  Slip op. at 48, n. 13.

While the Court’s ruling, and the parties’ respective reactions to it, paint a bit of a muddy picture on what comes next, it is clear that there are still other shoes to drop in this case.  The Board has indicated its intent to appeal the court’s decision invalidating the five elements of the election rule.  The AFL-CIO may re-assert the counts of its complaint not addressed in the Court’s decision, or make additional arguments based on the NLRB’s actions on remand, as further grounds for invalidating the entire election rule.  Or, it may file its own appeal of the Court’s decision seeking appellate review of the Court’s decision not to deal with the other counts in the complaint.

For now, the NLRB will conduct elections in accordance with the undisturbed portions of the election rules, but how they may be impacted by further court litigation is unknown.  It therefore will be very important for employers involved in representation cases to stay up to speed on developments in this dynamic arena.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more NLRB decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Thai Army Whistleblower Faces Up to Seven Years of Jail Time For Fleeing Retaliation

In February of this year, the Thai Army launched a new initiative to combat corruption and abuse within its ranks—a 24-hour hotline that reports directly to the Army Chief General, Apirat Kongsompong. This initiative was created in the wake of a shocking incident in which a soldier killed 29 people after a dispute with his commanding officer. The new hotline, while not anonymous, was set up to provide Army whistleblower confidentiality and work in conjunction with National Anti-Corruption Commission, where complaints would be transferred if outside of the Army’s jurisdiction.

In rolling out this new program, General Nattapol was quoted as saying: “[T]he Army is doing our best…This is not a public stunt.” However, in light of the treatment of one of the first major complaints that was submitted through this channel, this statement could not be further from the truth.

As reported by Human Rights Watch, Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi filed several complaints with the new hotline just two months after it was created, alleging fraud involving staff allowances at the Army Ordnance Materiel Rebuild Center. However, no action was taken on his complaints. Then, despite the promised confidentiality of the hotline, Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi began receiving death threats and was informed that he would be facing a disciplinary inquiry for “undermining unity within the army and damaging his unit’s reputation.” This inquiry was nothing but a sham, intended to intimidate Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi. In fact, a leaked video of the inquiry shows Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi’s superior directly threatening him for reporting, including by stating: “You may be able to get away this time, but there is no next time for you.”

Because after all of this Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi reasonably feared for his personal safety, he fled his post and publicized his experience, including by making a report to the Thai Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice, and Human Rights.

Instead of ceasing retaliation due to the new publicity around Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi’s case, the Army has doubled down: They have requested a military court warrant his arrest him for delinquency in his duties. Under this charge Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi could face up to seven years in prison as well as a dishonorable discharge.

This abhorrent treatment of a whistleblower will make the Army’s new system completely ineffectual and nothing more than symbolic piece of propaganda, discouraging any future whistleblowers from coming forward for fear they will be treated the same way. In order to make right their grievous actions, the Thai Army must abandon all charges against Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi, issue a formal apology for the breach of confidentiality, and discipline those accused of participating in the retaliation.

Sgt. Narongchai Intharakawi is a hero for stepping out and trying to report corruption under a new, untested system and should be treated as such both in Thailand and globally.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2020. All Rights Reserved.