Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131
Uncategorized Archives - Page 75 of 179 - The National Law Forum

Category: Uncategorized

Ericsson Offers FRAND – District Court Endorses Comparable Licenses, Rejects SSPPU Royalty Rate

On May 23, 2019, the court issued a declaratory judgment in the case of HTC v. Ericsson, No. 18-cv-00243, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Gilstrap). That judgment confirmed that Ericsson’s 4G standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) convey significant value to mobile handsets and held that Ericsson made an offer to HTC that complied with Ericsson’s obligations to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. The decision, published on the heels of Judge Koh’s recent opinion in FTC v. Qualcomm, provides much-needed clarity to SEP owners by definitively rejecting the smallest-saleable patent practicing unit (“SSPPU”) royalty theory in favor of a real-world, market-based approach.

The Dispute

Ericsson owns a large portfolio of cellular patents essential to the 2G, 3G, and 4G standards that it licenses to handset makers worldwide. As a member of the ETSI standard setting organization, Ericsson agreed to license these patents on FRAND terms. Ericsson offered a license to HTC at a rate of $2.50 per 4G device, or 1% of the net device price with a $1 floor and $4 cap. HTC countered with a rate of $0.10 per 4G device. HTC sued Ericsson, claiming that Ericsson’s offered royalty rate was too high, and that Ericsson breached its FRAND commitment.

A jury trial was held in February 2019. HTC argued that a royalty base must be calculated based on the profit margin of the baseband processor (which HTC argued was the SSPPU) rather than the price of the device as a whole. Ericsson argued that HTC’s SSPPU approach dramatically undervalued 4G cellular technology and that Ericsson’s patents in particular were worth far more. After a five-day trial, the jury found that Ericsson’s offers did not breach Ericsson’s commitment to license on FRAND terms and conditions.

The Decision

Following the verdict, the district court also issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with ruling on Ericsson’s request for a declaratory judgment that it had complied with FRAND. This declaration reaffirmed the jury’s findings, while also addressing more fully some key questions.

First, the court stated unequivocally that the ETSI FRAND commitment does not require a company to license its SEPs based on the profit or cost of the baseband processor or SSPPU.The district court’s decision is consistent with Federal Circuit precedent, such as Ericsson v. D-Link, which holds that “courts must consider the facts of record when instructing the jury and should avoid rote reference to any particular damages formula.”

Second, the order went further to conclude that Ericsson’s 4G portfolio is worth significantly more than a royalty rate based on the profit margin or cost of the baseband processor in HTC’s phones (HTC’s “SSPPU”). Looking to industry-wide evidence, the court held that the value of cellular technology far exceeded a valuation based on the price or profit of a baseband processor. The court found that “Ericsson established, and HTC’s own experts conceded, that there are no examples in the industry of licenses that have been negotiated based on the profit margin, or even the cost, of a baseband processor” and that credible evidence supported a finding that “the profit margin, or even the cost, of the baseband processor is not reflective of the value conferred by Ericsson cellular essential patents.”

Third, the court determined that both of Ericsson’s offers to HTC—(1) $2.50 per 4G device or (2) 1% with a $1 floor and $4 cap—were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The court found that Ericsson’s “comparable licenses provide the best market-based evidence of the value of Ericsson’s SEPs and that Ericsson’s reliance on comparable licenses is a reliable method of establishing fair and reasonable royalty rates that is consistent with its FRAND commitment.” At trial, evidence was presented regarding Ericsson’s licenses with Apple, BLU, Coolpad, Doro, Fujitsu, Huawei, Kyocera, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and ZTE. The court noted that several of Ericsson’s licenses contained express terms that were “similar or substantially similar” to Ericsson’s offers to HTC and rejected the argument that Ericsson’s offers to HTC were discriminatory.

Why It Matters

Judge Gilstrap’s declaration represents an important development in FRAND case law that looks to industry practice and market evidence rather than untested licensing theories. It affirms that basing a rate on comparable licenses is an acceptable FRAND methodology.

The decision also rejects the SSPPU royalty theory. Some have read the recent FTC v. Qualcommopinion to suggest that a FRAND royalty must be structured as a percentage rate on a baseband processor. Judge Gilstrap’s declaration demonstrates why such a reading is incorrect.  First, the declaration explains that the ETSI FRAND commitment simply does not require a SSPPU royalty base. Second, even if one were to indulge the SSPPU approach, the SSPPU for many standard-essential patents is not limited to a baseband processor. Third, a wealth of market evidence shows that Ericsson’s patents (and standard-essential patents generally) are far more valuable than a baseband processor-based royalty would reflect.

© McKool Smith
This article was written by Nicholas Mathews from McKool Smith.

Medicaid Billing Upcharges Prompts Oklahoma Nurse to Blow the Whistle on Hospital

Oklahoma Heart Hospital (OHH) has agreed to pay $2.8 Million to settle U.S. and Oklahoma government claims that the hospital committed Medicaid Fraud. Jennifferr Baird, a retired registered nurse, filed the complaint, which reported that her former employer, OHH was consistently billing  Oklahoma’s Medicaid insurance program inpatient rates for outpatient procedures – regardless of whether a doctor ordered inpatient care or not.

Ms. Baird’s 2015 complaint, filed under the False Claims Act (FCA) and a similar Oklahoma law because Oklahoma administers its Medicaid program with federal funds. The practice of billing inpatient rates for outpatient service is more commonly known as “upcoding” and is a form of fraud. Specifically, in question was the hospital’s tendency to bill stent procedures at higher inpatient rates, which, according to Ms. Baird, are typically performed on an outpatient basis. According to the prosecutors who investigated the claim, the fraud lasted at least seven years.

Private citizens, like Ms. Baird, play a crucial role in holding healthcare providers accountable for their fraud by acting as whistleblowers on behalf of the government.  These whistleblowers do not go without reward for their assistance. Successful whistleblowers receive up to 25 percent of the settlement amount of the case. “Under the False Claims Act, private citizens, also known as relators, can bring a suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. … [These] relators are awarded 15 to 25 percent of the settlement amount depending on the extent to which the relator substantially contributed to the recovery.”

“Jennifferr did her best to resist the administrators who pushed this fraudulent billing scheme,” said R. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group. “And she urged everyone she managed to do the same. But when she realized she was fighting a losing battle—and that the true victims were U.S. taxpayers—she appealed to a higher power: The U.S. legal system, which welcomes whistleblowers like her. I am pleased that it delivered.”

While OHH did not admit to fault outright in the matter of overbilling, the hospital operator did agree to settle the case, paying $2.8 million to both U.S. and Oklahoma government coffers.  Additionally, the hospital operator has vowed to follow a new “Corporate Integrity Agreement” that will be enforced by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“I’m hopeful that the culture at Oklahoma Heart Hospital now will change,” said Ms. Baird. “The frontline medical team has always been great, but I think some hospital officials cared more about dollar signs than vital signs.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Baird’s “dollar signs and vital signs” sentiment is laced with fact as, historically, there have been many instances where whistleblowers have exposed healthcare providers that were taking financial advantage of the Medicaid system.

 

© 2019 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more on Medicaid-related cases see the National Law Review Health Law & Managed Care page.

Steering Wheels Become Increasingly Optional

Florida is the latest state to allow vehicles to operate on the road without a steering wheel.  In doing so, Florida became the third state after Michigan and Texas to allow vehicles on its roads without a human even having the ability to drive them.  The legislation signed into law includes:

The bill authorizes operation of a fully autonomous vehicle on Florida roads regardless of whether a human operator is physically present in the vehicle. Under the bill, a licensed human operator is not required to operate a fully autonomous vehicle. The bill authorizes an autonomous vehicle or a fully autonomous vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system to operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle when the teleoperation system is engaged. A remote human operator must be physically present in the United States and be licensed to operate a motor vehicle by a United States jurisdiction.

Florida is sure to become a hotbed of autonomous vehicle testing with this new law.  Starsky Robotics is one of the companies expected to take advantage by putting driverless vehicles on the road in 2020.  These would not be just any vehicles, but big rig trucks.  These trucks have already hit 55 mph, without a driver or crew.  Most predict that this is just the beginning with as many as eight million autonomous vehicles expected on the road by 2025 and 30 million by 2030. Of course, the devil is in some of the details. There are six levels of autonomous vehicles, with level 5, Full Automation, being the highest.

Not everyone agrees that this is all happening so quickly.  As the New York Times noted, “A growing consensus holds that driver-free transport will begin with a trickle, not a flood.” Of course, this makes sense.  Outside of people with a vested interest (we are looking at you Mr. Musk), few seem to truly believe that millions of level 5, completely driverless vehicles will be on the road.

But this does not mean that they will not make an impact. While vehicles may not be navigating complex systems in dense areas next year, they are likely to find plenty of uses.  Gated communities with known road structures and limited traffic might be a good location for the first generation of fully autonomous vehicles. And think of the myriad of shuttles at various locations that run the same route, over and over, day after day. That seems like a good use of a fully autonomous vehicle run by something other than gasoline. How about college campuses, with autonomous vehicles running all day and all night providing safe routes and passage for vulnerable students at all hours. Suffice to say, the day when people can wake up, get into a fully autonomous vehicle, and go to sleep while it takes them to work is perhaps not something the current work force will enjoy (except apparently for the occasional Tesla rider taped sleeping behind the wheel).

But whatever generation comes after Generation Z is unlikely to know a driving experience like what exists today, if there is any driving at all. Will they even drive at all, or will they fly in their autonomous flying cars? Project Vahana aims to offer just that. In their own words: “Project Vahana intends to open up urban airways by developing the first certified electric, self-piloted vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) passenger aircraft.” Getting to work will never be easier.  Unless of course, all this transportation runs into the fact that everyone works remotely.

 

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on Vehicle Legislation see the National Law Review page on Utilities & Transport.

FDA Issues Warning Letters to Companies Illegally Selling Unapproved, Misbranded Kratom Products

On June 25, FDA issued warning letters to two marketers and distributors of kratom products – Cali Botanicals and Kratom NC. FDA determined that the companies were illegally selling unapproved, misbranded kratom-containing drug products with unproven claims about their ability to treat or cure opioid addiction and withdrawal symptoms. Additionally, FDA found that the companies also made claims about treating pain, as well as other medical conditions like depression, anxiety, and cancer.

In FDA’s press release, Acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless noted that there are no FDA-approved uses for kratom and the agency has been active in warning consumers about the serious risks associated with kratom. For example, as our readers may know, FDA has warned about both the high levels of heavy metals found in kratom products and the contamination of certain kratom products with salmonella. Indeed, FDA issued its first ever mandatory recall order for the salmonella-containing kratom products.

The June 25 warning letters allege that the companies used their websites and social media to illegally market kratom products and made unproven claims about the ability of the products to cure, treat, or prevent disease. Examples of the claims include:

  • “Kratom acts as a μ-opioid receptor-like morphine.”
  • “In fact many people use kratom to overcome opiate addiction.”
  • “Of course, people who are using kratom to overcome a preexisting opiate addiction may need to use kratom daily to avoid opiate withdrawal.”
  • “Usage: It is for the management of chronic pain, as well as recreationally.”

FDA reiterates that “[t]hese products have not been demonstrated to be safe or effective for any use and may keep some patients from seeking appropriate, FDA-approved therapies. Selling these unapproved products with claims that they can treat opioid addiction and withdrawal and other serious medical conditions is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” FDA has requested responses from both companies within 15 working days.

© 2019 Keller and Heckman LLP
For more on FDA regulation see the National Law Review Biotech, Food and Drug page.

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks Are Now Allowed According to Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Decision

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, addressing whether, in light of its previous holding in Matal v. Tam, the Lanham (Trademark) Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks represents a violation of the First Amendment.  Six justices joined the majority opinion, which held that both the immoral and the scandalous provisions of the Lanham Act do not square with the First Amendment and, thus, must be invalidated.

Respondent Erik Brunetti founded a clothing line that uses the trademark and brand name ‘FUCT’.  When Brunetti attempted to register his trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the registration was denied on the grounds that the mark was “a total vulgar” and therefore could not be registered.  Brunetti appealed, arguing that, particularly in light of Tam (which held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act represented a First Amendment Violation), the Lanham Act’s exclusion of immoral and scandalous marks as eligible for federal registration by the USPTO also represented unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The government argued that the ban on such marks was viewpoint-neutral, and, in any case, could be constructed in a limiting way such that the only prohibition would be to marks that are offensive or shocking due to their mode of expression, regardless of the views presented by the marks.  Doing this, according to the government, would result in only vulgar—lewd, sexually explicit, and profane—marks being refused registration, which would make the prohibition constitutional.

The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that “the statute says something markedly different”.  The Lanham Act, as written “does not draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks…[or] refer only to marks whose “mode of expression,” independent of viewpoint, is particularly offensive.”  Moreover, the Supreme Court explained, while the Lanham Act clearly has a legitimate purpose, it is still not permitted to engage in viewpoint-based discrimination.  As an illustration, the Supreme Court pointed to several contradictions by the USPTO when it came to attempts to register a trademark (‘KO KANE’ rejected as a trademark for beverages while ‘SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE’ registered; ‘BONG HITS 4 JESUS’ refused registration due to the belief that “Christians would be morally outraged” but ‘JESUS DIED FOR YOU’ allowed registration on clothing).

Between Tam and Brunetti, the Lanham Act has now lost its ability to exclude a wide swath of potential trademarks.  Previously, Examining Attorneys with the USPTO were permitted to refuse registration of a trademark, even if it was not phonetically equivalent to a curse word (as in the present case), if the Examining Attorney felt that the trademark was, or could potentially be, offensive or outside the “accepted” viewpoint.  This is why ‘BONG HITS 4 JESUS’ was refused registration but ‘JESUS DIED FOR YOU’ was allowed; as the Supreme Court opinion notes, one mark suggests irreverence while the other suggests religious faith and, while some may find the first mark offensive, it is not the place of the USPTO to police what is and is not objectionable.  Marks that are disparaging, explicit, immoral, and/or scandalous are now eligible for registration with the USPTO.  Brunetti should now be granted federal registration for his clothing brand and enjoy the additional protections that come from having the USPTO backing a trademark.

 

© 2019 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights Reserved
This article was written by Erin E. Kaprelian of Davis Kuelthau.
Learn more about SCOTUS IP decisions on the National Law Review Intellectual Property page.

New York State Legislature Enacts Sweeping Changes to Combat Sexual Harassment

On June 19th, the New York State Senate and Assembly voted to pass omnibus legislation greatly strengthening protections against sexual harassment. While the bill, SB 6577, is still waiting for the Governor’s signature, Governor Cuomo supported the legislation and plans to sign the bill when it is sent to his desk. The legislation is the product of two legislative hearings that took place early this year, inspired by a group of former legislative staffers who have said they were victims of harassment while working in Albany, NY. The bill includes several provisions directly affecting private employers. These provisions include:

  1. The New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) will expand the definition of an “employer” to include all employers in the State, including the State and its political subdivisions, regardless of size. Additionally, the definition of “private employer” will be amended to include any person, company, corporation, or labor organization except the State or any subdivision or agency thereof.
  2. Protections for certain groups in the workplace will also be expanded. While non-employees, such as independent contractors, vendors, and consultants, were previously protected from sexual harassment in an employer’s workplace, they will now be protected from all forms of unlawful discrimination where the employer knew or should have known the non-employee was subjected to unlawful discrimination in the workplace and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Similarly, harassment of domestic workers will now be prohibited with respect to all protected classes and will be governed under the harassment standard outlined in (3), below.
  3. The burden of proof for harassment claims will be greatly lowered. Any harassment based on a protected class, or for participating in protected activity, will be unlawful “regardless of whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent applied to harassment claims.” Unlawful harassment will include any activity that “subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s membership in one or more of these protected categories.” Also, employees will no longer need to provide comparator evidence to prove a harassment, and, presumably, discrimination claim.
  4. The law will also alter the affirmative defenses available to employers accused of harassment. The Faragher/Ellerth defense, which allowed employers to avoid liability where the employee did not make a workplace complaint, will no longer be available for harassment claims under NYSHRL. However, an affirmative defense will be available where the harassment complained of “does not rise above the level of what a reasonable victim of discrimination with the same protected characteristic would consider petty slights or trivial inconveniences.”
  5. The statute of limitations to file a sexual harassment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (the “Division”) will be lengthened from one year to three years.
  6. The amendments specify that they are to be construed liberally for remedial purposes, regardless of how federal laws have been construed.
  7. Courts and the Division will be required to award attorneys’ fees to all prevailing claimants or plaintiffs for employment discrimination claims and may award punitive damages in employment discrimination cases against private employers. Attorneys’ fees will only be available to a prevailing respondent or defendant if the claims brought against them were frivolous.
  8. Mandatory arbitration clauses will be prohibited for all discrimination claims.
  9. The use of non-disclosure agreements will be severely restricted. Non-disclosure agreements will be prohibited in any settlement for a claim of discrimination, unless: (1) it’s the complainant’s preference; (2) the agreement is provided in plain English and, if applicable, in the complainant’s primary language; (3) the complainant is given 21 days to consider the agreement; (4) if after 21 days, the complainant still prefers to enter into the agreement, such preference must be memorialized in an agreement signed by all parties; and (5) the complainant must be given seven days after execution of such agreement to revoke the agreement. The same rules apply to non-disclosure agreements within any judgment, stipulation, decree, or agreement of discontinuance. Any term or condition in a non-disclosure agreement is void if it prohibits the complainant from initiating or participating in an agency investigation or disclosing facts necessary to receive public benefits. Non-disclosure clauses in employment agreements are void as to future discrimination claims unless the clause notifies the employee that they are not prohibited from disclosure to law enforcement, the EEOC, the Division, any local commission on human rights, or their attorney. All terms and conditions in a non-disclosure agreement must be provided in writing to all parties, in plain English and, if applicable, the primary language of the complainant.
  10. Employers will be required to provide employees with their sexual harassment policies and sexual harassment training materials, in English and in each employee’s primary language, both at the time of hire and during each annual sexual harassment prevention training. Additionally, the Department of Labor and the Division will evaluate the impact of their model sexual harassment prevention policy and training materials every four years starting in 2022 and will update the model materials as needed.

The majority of these changes will take effect 60 days after the legislation is enacted, with the exception of the “employer” definition expansion, which will take effect after 180 days, and the extended statute of limitations, which will take effect after 1 year. In light of these changes, New York employers should alter their practices and policies to conform with these new requirements. We are monitoring this legislation and will provide updates as new information becomes available.

 

Copyright © 2019, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Written by Sean J. Kirby and Danielle Thompson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.
*Myles Moran, a Sumer Associate in the New York office, assisted with the drafting of this blog.
For more on employment law, see the National Law Review page on Labor & Employment.

 

 

Historic Vote in Congress Aims to Protect State Cannabis Programs

By a vote of 267 to 165, the United States House of Representatives (the “House”) passed a bipartisan amendment protecting state cannabis programs and its users from federal prosecution.

Named after its co-founder, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the Blumenauer amendment explicitly prohibits the United States Department of Justice (the “USDOJ”) from utilizing federal tax monies to enforce the federal prohibition of marijuana in states that have legalized cannabis.

The Blumenauer amendment constitutes a significant diversion from prior Congressional action on state cannabis programs.  Since 2014, Congress has enacted similar appropriations riders which only protected state medical cannabis programs.  The Blumenauer amendment, however, protects all state cannabis programs.  Thus, for the first time, the House has passed an amendment protecting the recreational consumption of cannabis.

Regarding funding, the USDOJ is simply no different than any other federal agency.  Without proper funding, an agency cannot enforce or otherwise impose its mandate on behalf of the federal government.  Thus, for all intents and purposes, the Blumenauer amendment validates state cannabis programs and protects those operating under them.

While the Blumenauer amendment still requires passage through the Senate and President Trump’s signature, the House’s actions are a historic step forward for the federal legalization of cannabis in the United States.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Ryan D. Ewing and Joshua L. Jarrell of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC.
For more on marijuana laws see the National Law Review page on Biotech, Food & Drugs.

Esports Star Tfue Sues To Void His Contract With FaZe Clan

Fortnite player Turner Tenney, professionally known as “Tfue,” has sued to void his contract with Esports team, FaZe Clan, Inc. Tfue’s action, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that the terms of the contract he signed to play for FaZe Clan’s Fortnite team are grossly oppressive, onerous, and one-sided and in violation of California law. His action could have a significant impact on the Esports industry and the players who participate in Esports as professional gamers.

Recognized as one of the world’s best Fortnite players, Tfue entered in an agreement with FaZe in April 2018.

The Complaint alleges that Tfue did not understand the terms of the agreement he signed and that he was exploited by FaZe. It further alleges that FaZe breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to share profits with him as mandated by the terms of his agreement and by rejecting a sponsorship deal and acting against his best interests. In addition,

Tfue alleges multiple violations of California law, including Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and California’s Talent Agency Act.

The contract refers to Tfue as an independent contractor. It mandates that he play in tournaments and training sessions, perform three days a month of publicity and promotional services, and participate in the company’s social media campaigns. In addition, Tfue is required to wear clothing bearing FaZe logos and identification, as well as items associated with specific FaZe Clan sponsors.

In exchange for an initial monthly base pay of $2,000 for the first six months of the contract, FaZe had an option to extend its deal with Tfue for an additional three-year period (which the company exercised) and unilaterally increase or decrease his monthly by 25%. The agreement also entitles Tfue to 80% of cash prizes earned from playing in Fortnite tournaments and an equal split with FaZe Clan of income earned from in-game merchandise, appearances, and touring and sign-up bonuses. The agreement also provides finder’s fees for brand deals that feature Tfue that can result in as much as 80% of the deal being retained by FaZe. The contract also limit Tfue’s ability to sign with another esports company at the end of his contract in 2021.

Tfue also seeks repayment of his sponsorship, fees, and commissions, as well as additional compensatory damages and punitive damages. In addition, he seeks to enjoin FaZe Clan’s ongoing alleged violations of California law.

It is probable that the court venue will be challenged. The agreement between FaZe and Tfue contains a choice-of-law provision, which provides that the agreement “shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York” and the parties “submit exclusively to the state or federal courts in New York, NY for any claim” arising from the contract.

This suit will be watched closely by the industry. The lack of industry regulation and unified structure, employment law issues appear ripe for litigation. Esports team owners should ensure their contracts with players comply with federal and state employment laws and the contract language clearly defines sponsorships and endorsements, compensation, arbitration clauses, hours of service, health insurance, non-competition, and anticipated event participation.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
More in video gaming legal concerns on the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports page.

The VA Mission Act: Expanding Access to the VA Telemedicine System

On June 6, 2018, President Trump signed the “John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Networks Act” a.k.a. the VA MISSION Act of 2018 (“VAMA”) into law, a $52 billion reform bill aimed at improving access to, and the quality of, medical services provided to veterans by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”).  We explored the pros and cons associated with VAMA in a June 12, 2019 blog article that we have linked here.

Contrary to VAMA’s primary goal of increasing access, and the quality of, medical services provided to veterans by the VA, as currently drafted, VAMA only allows VA covered practitioners (which only includes physicians) to provide telehealth services via the VA’s telemedicine system. It does not allow trainees, including interns, residents, fellows and graduate students from providing care via the VA’s the telemedicine system.  This seems contrary to one of the main goals of VAMA, which is to increase access to telemedicine services by veterans.

On June 12, 2019, Congressman Early L. Carter introduced legislation to increase veterans’ access to telemedicine by expanding the types of health care providers that would be eligible to provide telemedicine services under VAMA.  The proposed bill would allow trainees who participate in professional training programs (i.e., residents, interns and fellows) to use the telemedicine system available under VAMA so long as they are supervised by a credentialed VA staff member.  Congressman Carter has indicated that his goal is to improve telehealth training at VA health centers and to increase access to care by increasing the eligible providers.

While there is general bi-partisan support for this new legislation, there are still concerns relating to the costs associated with VAMA. It is, therefore, likely that the approval process of this new legislation will be slow as any additions to VAMA undergoes a high level of scrutiny.

Copyright © 2019, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Is Next-Day Pay the Next Big Thing?

Among the hardest-to-find workers in America today are restaurant and retail workers. The current labor market is the tightest in 49 years, and for the past year, there have been roughly a million more open positions in the United States than people looking for work. The hospitality sector always has faced recruitment challenges, but the recently shrinking applicant pool has forced employers to look for creative ways to lure workers to jobs in the food service and retail industries.

“Expedited pay”—also known as “same day pay,” “next day pay,” or “daily pay”—provides employees with all or some portion of their wages without having to wait for the weekly or semi-monthly payroll cycle to conclude. While direct deposit, pay cards, and electronic fund transfers all have shortened the time that employees have to wait to access their funds, PayPal, Apple Pay, Venmo, and the like, in conjunction with Millennials’ and Generation Z’s expectation of seamless and immediate financial transactions, have upped the ante for immediate distribution of wages.

In an effort to address the challenges, several food-service groups are currently test marketing the next-day pay model. For example, Church’s Chicken and Bloomin’ Brands are offering forms of expedited pay in an effort to recruit and retain talent. The expedited process provides workers with almost immediate access to funds to bridge the gap between paydays for expenditures.

There are a variety of vendors and distribution methods for employers to consider. For example, Instant Financial provides immediate access to pay after a worker finishes his or her shift. PayActiv and FlexWage are app platforms through which employers may offer customized pay options to their employees.

Some vendors charge employers for their services while others deduct fees from employees’ pay. These fees vary, and employers will want to understand what they are being charged before either contracting with an app provider or making an app available through a payroll processing service. Similarly, employers may want to ensure that employees understand these fees as well. Additionally, employers may want to review state and local laws regarding whether passing along such fees to employees passes legal muster.

In determining whether to implement expedited pay, employers can ensure that all federal, state, and local minimum wage, overtime, and payday requirements will be met when deciding on a vendor or app for their workforce. Employers may also want to analyze the effectiveness of these expedited pay methods in assisting in recruitment efforts, employee engagement, and reducing turnover.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more in employment news please see the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.