The National Law Forum

Meta Announces the End of Facial Recognition Technology on Facebook

The Facebook company now known as Meta announced this week that it is shutting down the Face Recognition system on Facebook. Meta stated that this is part of a company-wide move to limit the use of facial recognition technology in its products. What does this mean? If you have a Facebook page and you previously opted-in to be automatically recognized in photos and videos on Facebook, this feature will be disabled. Meta also announced that it is deleting more than a billion people’s individual facial recognition templates.

Meta claims in a press statement released this week that it needs to “weigh the positive use cases for facial recognition against growing societal concerns, especially as regulators have yet to provide clear rules.” Although Meta doesn’t elaborate on what the details are of the growing societal concerns, the company states that it seeks to move toward narrower forms of personal authentication.

Article By Deborah George of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more articles on facial recognition, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section

Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration agreement, but also held that a unilateral modification clause (granting the employer the right to make changes to the agreement) does not, in and of itself, render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al., Case No. 20-55819, 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 29263 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2021).

In this case, the chronology of events is important to understanding how this lawsuit arose. In September 2016, Tinder hired the plaintiff as a brand manager. According to the plaintiff, in mid-2017 and January 2018, she complained to human resources about sexual harassment by her coworkers and supervisors. During that same time period, in July 2017, Tinder was acquired by Match Group, Inc. After acquiring Tinder, Match Group sent its employees a mandatory arbitration agreement. The plaintiff signed the agreement and continued to work for Match Group until Match Group discharged her in March 2018. The plaintiff sued in California state court for sexual harassment and retaliation. The case was removed to federal court at which point Match Group successfully moved to compel arbitration. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement (1) is unenforceable, and (2) does not cover her claims, which predated the agreement.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment allegations, even though the plaintiff did not sign the agreement until after her claims arose. In ruling for Match Group, the court highlighted the broad nature of the arbitration agreement’s language that required arbitration for “all claims and controversies arising from or in connection with [the plaintiff’s] application with, employment with, or termination from the Company.” In enforcing the agreement, the court noted that the agreement’s reference to “all claims and controversies” arising out of the plaintiff’s employment necessarily included her claims that predated the arbitration agreement.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit was not swayed by the fact that the arbitration agreement included a provision that allowed Match Group to modify the terms of the agreement unilaterally. While the court recognized that such a provision could be substantively unconscionable, it explicitly discussed how Match Group had not actually modified the agreement but was rather seeking to enforce the agreement as written. But the court went even further in enforcing the agreement. In addition to upholding the agreement, the Ninth Circuit determined that even if it assumed that a provision permitting unilateral modifications by the employer is substantively unconscionable, such a provision alone does not render the entire agreement unenforceable. Therefore, even taking the plaintiff’s argument as true, the agreement, as a whole, was still enforceable.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is encouraging for employers seeking to enforce their arbitration agreements for a few reasons. First, the court made clear that a unilateral modification clause will not, in of itself, render the agreement unenforceable. Second, the court enforced the broad language in the employer’s arbitration agreement and compelled arbitration of claims that pre-date the execution of the agreement.

Co-authored by Spencer Ladd.

Law Firm Culture After COVID-19 with McCarter & English [PODCAST]

How has law firm culture changed in the world post-COVID-19? Rachel and Jessica discuss that and DEI with Bernadette DeCelle with McCarter & English law firm.

Read on for a transcript of our conversation, transcribed by AI:

Rachel
Hello and welcome to legal news reach, the official podcast for the National Law Review. Stay tuned for a discussion on the latest trends in legal marketing, SEO law firm best practices and more.

Rachel

I’m Rachel, Editorial Manager for the National Law Review.

Jess
And I’m Jessica, a web content specialist. And we’re the CO hosts for legal news reach

Rachel
Today Bernadette DeCelle Senior Director of Client Development and Marketing for McCarter and English joins us for a discussion on law firm culture COVID-19, and more. Bernadette, would you like to introduce yourself to our listeners?

Bernadette
Sure. Thank you for having me today. I’m Bernadette DeCelle. I am senior director in charge of client development and I have over 20 years in legal marketing. And before that I started as a graphic designer doing consumer product designs, quite a range of experiences over the past 20 years starting in communications and then learning business development and eventually leading teams at Weil, Gotshal, Herrick Feinstein and now at McCarter.

Rachel
Thank you for joining us today. We’re excited to get your insights. So one of the questions I want to dive in first here was we wanted to learn a little bit more about how what McCarter has done differently in terms of other law firms of its culture compared to other law firms you’ve worked with.

Bernadette
So McCarter is based in Newark, New Jersey. And I think maybe that has something to do with there’s a real lack of pretension among the lawyers, which is refreshing. There are plenty of smart people. We have 27 PhDs on the staff, and we work for very sophisticated fortune 100 clients, but you just don’t get that arrogance that maybe it’s a New York thing, I don’t know. But that sense of down-to-earth quality is really nice to be part of that kind of a collaborative team. There are no lawyers versus staff kind of mentality in our firm. Everybody collaborates together. It’s a real collective team, which is, I think, great for the clients. Because everybody gets together does whatever it takes to solve client problems, I think makes it a lot more rewarding for a lot of the lawyers here working and stuff as well.

Rachel
We want to talk a little bit more about just law firm culture and pro bono in general. So I was curious if you could speak a little bit about McCarter’s DEI initiatives and how that affects law firm culture.

Bernadette
Sure. McCarter has been very involved like most firms in expanding their lawyer ranks, especially on diversity. And they’ve been doing all types of partnerships with different organizations from sponsoring high school programs and debate programs in high schools even adopting a few high schools in each of our cities so that students see what a law career could look like. High school students spent a week in our New York office during the summer, you know, doing intern positions after 2020. And after the murder of George Floyd, it was really great to see our firm, combining the efforts of our pro bono team and our Diversity Committee to create the Social Justice Project. And that has been a great initiative, having McCarter behind ways to really dismantle structural racism. And what we’re going to do is it’s really through we’re looking at it through the lens of criminal expungements Housing and Economic Development. So there are three pillars to the Social Justice Project, which allow both lawyers and staff to do community service and pro bono projects. One of the best things I think about the social justice project has been the educational component so far, because we put on educational webinars that were open to both staff and to clients. And one of the first ones was three of our lawyers giving very powerful stories of what it was like to be a black lawyer in America and in the ratio of things that they’ve faced the hurdles that they’ve overcome, and really poignant stories, some of them had, they said they hadn’t even shared with their own families, but it’s, it was eye-opening, I think, to a lot of us who don’t understand every day what they go through just being a person of color and being treated differently.

Rachel

So how do these pro bono efforts fit into McCarter’s overall Legal Marketing Program?

Bernadette

Our pro bono program is great because it gives us a chance to partner with clients on pro bono projects. Oftentimes corporations and legal departments don’t have the same either time or structure to bring pro bono and to do pro bono internally. So it allows our team our pro bono partner to come up with ways to collaborate with clients on immigration clinics, we do things with veterans, helping them get medical things past appeals, there are things that the VA hospitals have turned down on the business development side always see pro bono as a way to reach out to clients and to do something different with them. And they welcome it helps our without our partners don’t have to do an ask, you know, in terms of getting new business, it’s just a way to work with the clients in a different way. There’s a number of clinics, we’re going to start a housing clinic soon as well. So there’s a bunch of ways we can collaborate with clients. And that’s been huge for business development purposes.

Jess

I just want to comment that I think it’s great, you guys have those initiatives. I know the general public has a really strong distrust for attorney offices in the legal industry, just in general. And the fact that you guys acknowledge and try to host those webinars on minority attorneys can really create a different kind of trust that, oh, this law firm acknowledges that this is something that exists. And I think just saying that you see that and that you want to try to be better with the initiatives you have helps people see that maybe things could change, or, you know, I want to hire this attorney because they’re not ignoring something that I’m worried about. Not me personally, but somebody who’s affected by those things.

Bernadette
I’m impressed that we’re putting our money where our mouth is basically it’s not just saying and putting a statement up on the website, we’ve also hosted two or three webinars where we invited professors from different universities, people from the University of Chicago, who are experts on either criminal reintegration and all of the problems with the prisons or on voting rights. So we’ve had some really interesting speakers from outside, we’ve decided as well to hire a full-time social justice fellow, and part of their role is to help with the educational programming, but to also work with the pro bono committee in terms of doing a lot more pro bono that’s focused on social justice issues. We had a pro bono fellow for the City of Newark, where I’m proud of the fact that we have two full-time lawyers just focused on various social justice issues. It is part of that culture that makes McCarter unique.

Jess
So to dive in on COVID. That’s kind of been a common theme with some of our other interviews with marketing and law firms. On our other episodes of this podcast, how have your guys’ communications and marketing efforts changed since the pandemic started?

Bernadette
Well, it’s been all webinars all the time, it’s really was a complete pivot to what we used to do, or which were so many in-person events, we quickly realized there was such a need for alerts and all the new rules that were coming out. Our lawyers really stepped up and created a lot of content. For the website, two of my team were working almost full time on just webinars last year, it was crazy. It really was amazing that the amount of content they created.

Jess
I’m sure that was a shift by itself. Are there any other surprises that you guys had to deal with also, because of the pandemic?

Bernadette

I was quite surprised by the number of lawyers who actually stepped up and lawyers who didn’t, in the past, write as many alerts became subject matter experts almost overnight, and really read through all those regulations and PPP loans and really became creative in their responses and ways to create short alerts that our clients could digest quickly. I was also surprised at the demand for legal work, everybody thought things would slow down, but it seemed like clients needed our expertise in different areas, Employment Insurance recovery, what they could get back from, you know, their insurance companies. So it really created demands and other areas, which was nice since the litigation, you know, slow down for a while, but then litigation did pick up again, once they figured out how to do courts do everything over zoom.

Jess
And I’m sure anything related to real estate and property and evictions was probably another surprise with COVID especially so it’s good. You guys had that initiative kind of already in place to help those people because that’s going to be a large trend that we see still being talked about, especially when the moratorium was still in place or

Bernadette
Right yeah, once the moratorium lifts me with I think it just lifted right it depends but some states where we are have extended it through the state not through you know, but it is gonna really create a huge crisis, I think. And that’s where our social justice fellow is going to be working with the pro bono fellow in Newark to really work on different things.

Jess
It was definitely a huge worry among people. And, you know, reaching out to attorneys, even just calling I’m sure to ask a question about it. Among those surprises that you guys had, do you still have any challenges that you’re dealing with? In the firm? Now,

Bernadette
I think, you know, keeping our lawyers engaged right now in business development activities a little more challenging, because we don’t see them, we can’t go knock on their office door, you know, they might be working more from home permanently. So it’s as much on our part to reach out to them and communicate and stay top of mind. When they see us. They’re reminded, oh, yeah, I have to write that client alert. I have to, you know, get ready for that presentation. But out of sight, out of mind, I think sometimes and that’s a definite challenge for us.

Rachel
So you spoke a little bit about the surprises brought on by the pandemic, and what you guys have been doing to sort of keep things going, I guess, moving for, like, how do you see things changing the legal industry, in terms of like these topics of like, remote work, like how to keep attorneys engaged? How will we work with people working remotely and be working in the office? I think these are things that are really on top of mind for a lot of firms right now.

Bernadette
I agree. There are so many unknowns out there. And firms are doing it in so many different ways. I’m hoping that a hybrid workforce becomes the norm. Now, I hope law firms get to that point where they realize all of the teams were amazing and productive during the pandemic, at home. So there’s no point in thinking you have to be in the office to be very productive. But I also see real shifts in technology. So my firm went to paperless billing during the pandemic, it was maybe the second month and I applaud my IT and finance department for rolling that out. It was out of necessity, I actually think they never would have gotten it done as quickly had had we been in the office. And I think they agree you know that because it was imperative because nobody wanted to be shipping out bills and having that back and forth. On paper, it really was a success. So I think you’ll see a lot more technology being rolled out a lot easier than in the past because we all know lawyers don’t like change, but technological advances for the better are welcome.

Rachel
And do you think an increasing focus on technology will help law firms be more prepared for future challenges? Like COVID or after COVID? I think one of the things that we’ve talked about in the last episode is really just how to pivot when things like this happen when like these are large disruptions occur?

Bernadette
Absolutely. I think technology’s going to really be a factor in firms that succeed. I think firms that stay nimble, you know, and lose, I think also a lot of the bureaucratic approval processes, there was no time to go through approvals. People just had to get things done. Right. They had to move forward and come up with decisions quickly, whoever was on, you know, committee call made those decisions. They didn’t wait. Slow grinding process of approvals. Staying nimble is really going to be I think, a key to a lot of law firms succeeding in the future.

Rachel
Yeah, so one thing you said earlier about how moving from paperless billing to now using virtual billing. So sort of like it was something that happened because of COVID. And like really sped it along because of COVID. I think that’s something that we’ve heard from other guests, too, that the pandemic really spurred law firms to make these changes that they had been considering for a long time, but just hadn’t had the catalyst to do it. So I think that probably has been a really big lesson as well.

Bernadette
Our IT department had to train everybody over Zoom remotely. And it was tough.

Rachel
Obviously, law firms didn’t really have much of a choice, either switch or you know, stuff doesn’t get done. So sort of like in that same vein of working remotely doing things over zoom. How has McCarter really made hybrid work arrangements work during the pandemic? And how do you think you know, other law firms can really learn from that moving forward?

Bernadette
I think the biggest thing is to trust your team. And so, again, when you have a collaborative culture already that it really helps. Our Managing Partner and our chairman did a great job communicating, especially at the beginning, when everybody was feeling really unsure and not knowing what was going to happen next, they would send almost daily emails, those daily emails and that communication and keeping people in feeling like they’re in touch, we’re really important. Our Chief Human Resources Officer also sent out one to the staff and hers were kind of funny and just kind of motivational to make people feel like they were still part of the team and in touch with each other, you know, should send out Happy Anniversary things. And I think going forward, people just have to maintain that trust in that everybody’s going to rise to the occasion, you know, everybody’s going to do their best job, whether they’re in an office or whether they’re at home, people want to perform and do well, that hasn’t changed. And that’s not going to change.

Rachel
Right. I think that is something really important to move forward with, I think, especially code has shown us that it is possible to have people working remotely. And now that, you know, I think some people have gone back to the office. But if it’s working well now, then I think you can trust that it’s going to work well in the future.

Bernadette
Yeah, we’re back in the office two days. I, you know, I think they want us to get back five days eventually. I hope, maybe four days would be nice. It feels nice to be in the office. But I sure would love to not have that commute.

Rachel
Oh, yeah. I understand that. So we also have a Q&A section here. So if you have any questions you’d like to ask us, we’d be happy to answer them.

Bernadette
Yeah, I was wondering what you guys have seen in terms of any new marketing trends that have emerged since COVID? Or even just in general, not because of the pandemic?

Rachel
Yeah, so we sort of already touched on two of the ones in our conversation so far. But I think one thing that we’ve definitely seen is the sort of switch to virtual events, and also this really big influx of more firms doing webinars and things like that, we specifically have a place on our website where our publishing clients can share their webinars with us. And I think, you know, we’ve had a pretty full schedule of things that people are putting on basically, since last March, when things really started to get really crazy. And I think also, one of the things that I think has been really important Since COVID started is just the focus on social media, lots of people being more active on LinkedIn, people staying connected with their clients and other followers on Twitter. I think that’s a really great way. You know, if you can’t meet in person, you know, you can’t network in person, like just staying connected, when people just can’t physically be in the same room together, I think has been really important.

Bernadette
We’ve been posting a lot more on social media ourselves, it’s a good way to stay in touch. Do you see technology like artificial intelligence? How do you see that in the marketing space changing?

Jess
Well, it’s interesting, because you already mentioned that you guys just switched to electronic billing. And I think that’s been one of the first changes law firms have made with AI, it’s already a difficult task as a firm to keep your clients updated to make sure attorneys are submitting their billables. And if there’s a way to automate that, that just takes maybe one task, but it makes a huge difference. Sometimes when you have such a heavy workload. I know in small ways firms usually have, you know, their chat bots on the websites. So somebody is going on their site has a question, it’ll usually try to divert them to a different way that might be helpful, you know, instead of having a person have to monitor that, or maybe it could bring down some of the call volume. I think some of the concerns that attorneys have when it comes to implementing more technology is, you know, this huge concern with cybersecurity. We see that a lot when it comes to business. A lot of our clients write about that, just because I mean, the more in depth you get with technology, the more you intertwine your business with it, you are opening yourself up to more risks, especially with a law firm, you know, you have very sensitive information, attorney client privilege, you really don’t want someone to hack, even if you’re a smaller firm. So I think some people are really resistant to that part. And I think everybody’s always afraid of technology replacing people. So support staff, if you have AI that can look up case law. There’s a law clerk you didn’t need in your office that can help you with that or your paralegal. So,

Bernadette
Well, one of the heads of our emergent growth practice only says that young lawyers need to be coders because, you know, even just in contract law, there’s a lot of AI starting to do the basic template and contracts. So there goes the junior lawyers work they might need to be coders instead of lawyers.

Jess
I worked at a law firm when COVID first started. And one of the big, I think the first change they made was getting people to be electronic notaries just because everybody was now either in office or not in office. So it’s not technically AI, per se. But just having that, I guess they use something similar to blockchain, to know that someone’s signed it at this specific time on this computer to make sure it’s just as legitimate as in person signature. So that’s kind of been interesting as well, I think can be for the better, though. Now you can reach clients anywhere.

Bernadette
I totally agree, I think there’s gonna be a lot of good changes. But as we all know that lawyers don’t like that they don’t adapt so quickly. So maybe the adaption rate will be quicker. And they’ll say that it’s not so bad after all.

Rachel
Another sort of technology adjacent thing that we’ve been seeing is just lawyers feeling more empowered having more readership analytics available to them, we of course, offer a platform of analytics to our publishing clients. But one of the things that we’ve heard from other people is that, you know, since people are working remotely, especially from like a legal marketing perspective, like just having that information, that data at your fingertips, like sort of informs lawyers on in terms of like how their content is doing, and, you know, trends that they can follow, and things like that. So that’s been another thing that we’ve noticed,

Bernadette
Those kinds of analytics are really helpful, especially for us to say, this is what you should be writing about, you know, with so many great firms out there. And that’s what I try to get my lawyers to understand to differentiate yourself is pretty difficult because there are so many smart, talented lawyers what to you to recommend to, you know, to differentiate themselves on a platform like the National Law Review, how did they go about that?

Rachel
So a few things that we often recommend to people who publish with us is to post regularly. So if you’re going to launch a new blog, don’t just like post one thing on it, and then like, not touch it again, for six months. So that’s, that’s also important. Another thing is to post timely content. So if there’s like a new decision out of I don’t know, the Biden administration, or the EPA or something like that, like right on it ASAP. And basically, as soon as that decision comes out, otherwise, you know, if it’s already been out for a couple weeks, it may not be as successful as article, it was posted pretty quick to win the decision happened. And then also, like, just another thing in terms of like, us being a news website, if at all possible, we try to encourage our clients to publish articles, you know, in the afternoon, like earlier in the day, rather than like, 5pm on a Friday, you know, because often, you know, people just won’t see it. And, um, you know, you put all this effort into something and you know, no one really looks at it. So those are just like a few, just like sort of basic timing, things that we find is useful. And then like moving forward from that, in terms of how the content is format is also important. So we find that like strong use of keywords, bullet points, header status questions, just trying to imagine the piece of content in terms of how your audience will actually find it. So you know, if they’re looking for information on California Employment Law, like trying to imagine the questions they have, and try to work that into your articles, you’ll be more likely to find it that way. And then also, you know, like a wide array of different pieces of content. So a lot of our clients, they don’t just do blog posts, they also do videos and podcasts, things like that, just so they even tie the two together, where have an article that has a video component, or if they post a podcast that also include the transcripts, just sort of making content go farther, and just making it as diverse as possible. And then other thing is just like to make it personal and to sort of tailor it to your audience like trying to imagine who’s going to be reading this, and how can you make it as digestible and relevant as possible. As always, as we discussed earlier, just having a presence on social media, getting your work out there and finding your audience in your platform have all been really important, useful things you find for clients to do.

Jess

One of the most important things to remember is that there are people out there who want the content that you guys would create, like there are people who want that information. They want your expertise. And when law firms maybe specialize in certain areas, that’s a way you can differentiate yourself and produce content that’s really valuable with any website, anything that you’re going to post on any page. If the content is relevant to an audience, and it’s informational and useful. That’s always going to do better with SEO. And just get more eyes on in general because, you know, a lot of legal information on cases and case law is not public knowledge. And the public really wants that they will eat that up at any chance they get, especially if it’s really relevant to what you know this user wants, or this visitor really is looking for specifically.

Bernadette
Do you see a lot more video? And do you see a lot more eyeballs on video on your web, on your platforms, because we’re starting to dip our toe in, but it’s a whole different world for our lawyers.

Rachel

So a lot of our clients do use video really effectively. And they have been successful with video, probably the most prominent example I have is Epstein Becker Green does, like an employment law this week video every week. And I think that’s pretty popular. And they also do a podcast, they do articles, and they’re all sort of under that same umbrella. So it’s just a way for them to sort of integrate video into the written content, and also have a podcast on it. And they have, you know, the same attorney does it every week. So it’s a way for that attorney to really be front and center.

Jess
And I think when it comes to video, you know, the biggest hurdle is when people are hesitant about it, or they’re not comfortable with video, just to remember that putting your face on someone’s screen – clients already like to talk to the attorney directly, whether it’s over the phone or in person. So having a video kind of also tones that need down or takes care of it a little bit better, I think. And if they’re a little hesitant, even just what is the question, our clients are asking a lot, and then just doing a really short video on that just to get started doesn’t have to be a whole event, or it doesn’t have to be a long video with guests. It can just be I’ve seen attorneys just sit down on a video for Facebook, like their Facebook page and just do a real quick video on a very specific topic. And I think people are so used to being visual online now that that tends to garner more interest just because they get to just sit and watch it. That or listening to something.

Bernadette
I think you’re right that people are watching a lot more video on every platform. So even for law firm websites, because people are used to it like maybe eight years ago, and they didn’t want to watch a talking head on a law firm website. But now everybody watches videos pretty much all the time.

Rachel
I think one of the other important facets of it is just like doing what the attorneys are comfortable with. So some attorneys are better talkers than they are writers. So if they’re comfortable being in front of a camera, and sort of speaking about employment law, that’s definitely something they should do. I think, you know, just really thinking of who the attorney is and who their clients are. It’s an important aspect of that.

Bernadette
And that weekly repetition is huge, because that’s one way that you really create an audience. So what are ways that you guys are hearing trends in recruiting? And how are people attracting talent, I know a tight labor market out there.

Rachel
Right. So I think one of the things that we’re definitely hearing the most, and like I said, from other guests, we’ve had on this podcast, a lot of people are finding it really hard to find good talent right now. Um, and I think one of the big trends that we’re seeing is just people wanting to keep the remote flexible working options, sort of going back to our conversation earlier, just the trust that people can work from home, and that they can basically have more control over their schedule. And if they have a really big commute, then they don’t really want to have to sit in the car be pm the train for an hour, I think a lot of people have really realized just how much sense remote work really makes. Um, and so I think firms that embrace that they, you know, are nimble and allow their employees to work remotely and have that flexible hybrid option. I think that will make a big difference. Um, I think also just up on the big trends that we’re seeing is just firms like really strong company values, like diversity inclusion initiatives, um, you know, feeling like you have a voice and that your firm does really great work, I think also helps set it apart.

Bernadette
Making sure people are heard in it during the pandemic and actually our head of human resources sent out a survey on our wellness initiatives and how well we’re doing. So I thought that was really nice today to make sure that what we’re actually doing is what people want. And again, that’s part of communication, which is the world the three of us are in so it all comes down to communicating I think.

Rachel
Yeah, and I’ve heard of other firms just staying connected with their employees sort of like what you mentioned earlier with sending out you know, e cards on anniversaries and birthdays and things like that. I think just finding ways to stay connected and making people feel appreciated is also important. I think especially now that I think because of the pandemic, like workloads are just really high. And I think people might start to feel a bit burnt out, and trying to cope as best as they can.

Bernadette
There’s been so many challenges. And on top of the increased workload is everything. You know, if you have kids at home, and all of the issues that people have been facing, you know, whether people in their family are sick, or whether it’s just been a lot for so many people, it’s important to step back and remember that we’re all we’re all human. And just to celebrate little things like birthdays and anniversaries are really important, just to be with the fact that you remember and recognize somebody’s birthday is always nice. I think we covered a lot today. Thank you. Again, I really appreciate the opportunity to be on the show and look forward to speaking with you and listening to the podcasts later.

Rachel
Yeah. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come on today. We really appreciate it. So yeah, special thanks to Bernadette DeCelle for joining us today.

Article By Rachel Popa and Jessica Scheck of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more articles on legal marketing, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

Litigation Minute: Obtaining Information After the Close of Discovery

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Imagine this scenario: you just learned that the opposing party is using the same witness or expert from your case in some related litigation. You have good reason to suspect that the testimony in that other case directly relates to the very facts in your case. Because of the prior commercial relationships between the parties, the witness or expert likely made some admissions that would be very helpful to your case. But the discovery cutoff in your case has long past, and you are preparing for trial. What do you do?

Discovery may close, but litigation goes on. Sometimes you become aware of information that is relevant to your case after the close of discovery. This could be information that did not previously exist or information that you only learned about after the discovery deadline had passed. In a minute or less, here are some considerations you should keep in mind for obtaining information after the close of discovery.

Check your local rules

First and foremost, always consult your local rules, as jurisdictions may vary in their standards for late discovery and whether a local duty to supplement is imposed. For example, the Northern District of Illinois temporarily implemented a Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program, which required parties to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before partaking in any other discovery. Witness statements are one of the specific categories of documents that parties must disclose. Thus, some jurisdictions may provide additional mechanisms and authority to rely upon in order to obtain the sought transcripts.

Duty to supplement

If the information you are seeking is responsive to timely-served requests, seek opposing counsel’s compliance under the duty to supplement imposed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Rule 26(e), parties that have made prior disclosures or responded to a discovery request with a disclosure or response are generally under a duty to supplement or correct the provided information. The duty to supplement extends to expert witnesses whose report must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). An expert’s duty to supplement includes information within the report, as well as information provided during the expert’s deposition.

The duty to supplement survives past the discovery cutoff. It is important to know that the duty to supplement may extend far past the deadline to complete discovery. Even if the discovery deadline has come and gone, parties must nonetheless supplement and/or correct prior disclosures or responses in a timely manner upon learning that the prior disclosure was incomplete or incorrect in some material respect and the additional and/or corrective information has not been made known to the other party. Note some courts and/or scheduling orders set a separate supplemental discovery deadline.

Meet and confer

Once you have identified previous discovery requests that would cover this material, you can approach opposing counsel. An effort to obtain the information without the court’s action is a prerequisite to a Motion to Compel under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and most local rules. Under Rule 37(a)(1), parties cannot move for an order compelling discovery until the movant has in good faith conferred, or attempted to confer, with the party resisting discovery and included a certification of those efforts. Additionally, you can move for appropriate sanctions if the resisting party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a).

Good cause requirement for extending discovery

If the information you seek is not responsive to timely-served requests, you may want to move to extend the discovery deadline to serve additional requests. To do so, you must demonstrate “good cause” warranting the extension. Courts generally focus their inquiry on the movant’s diligence and/or excusable neglect. Some courts find excusable neglect by balancing the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the potential impact of the delay on the proceedings, the movant’s reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. So, it will be important to show that the information is critical to your case and explain why it was not requested earlier.

Can you serve requests for admission?

In some jurisdictions, requests for admission are not considered discovery devices that are subject to the fact discovery cutoff. If you are in one of these jurisdictions, consider whether the information you seek can be established by use of this mechanism.

The key takeaways here are: (1) draft your initial discovery requests in a way that is broad enough to capture later developments, like testimony; (2) know your local rules; and (3) act quickly and decisively to make sure your client is not prejudiced.

This article was written by Jeffrey T. Kucera, Carly S. Everhardt and Claudia Velasquez of K&L Gates law firm. For more articles about discovery, please visit here.

Biden Administration to Open New For-Profit Immigrant Detention Center in Pennsylvania

After Pennsylvania’s York County prison dissolved its contract with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) in August, it was announced that a new immigration detention center will be opened in Clearfield County. The Clearfield County Board of Commissioners approved and signed a five-year contract with ICE and the GEO Group.

Clearfield County Immigration Detention Center

The prison, which operates for-profit, will convert the former Clearfield County Prison facility into a detention center to process individuals in violation of federal immigration laws. The prison can house roughly 1,900 immigrant detainees, but due to COVID-19 safety requirements, no more than 800 members will be held. “The beds will hold adults. There will not be any children. Primarily males, with some room for females,” said John Sibel, a Clearfield County Commissioner.

Training for prison employees is due to start soon, and the facility is expected to be in full operation within the next two months. Upgrades to the prison’s fencing and other areas will be underway soon.

GEO Group Detention Center and Clearfield County

GEO Group, a private company that ran the former Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, also owns the facility in Philipsburg. The correctional center, a federal prison, was closed in March this year. The closure impacted 300 employees, causing job loss in an already economically disadvantaged area.

Unlike York County, where the facility housed both immigrant detainees and other incarcerated people, the converted facility will house only immigrant detainees. Sibel said, “[t]he signing of the contract guarantees now that property tax revenues will continue to come to Clearfield County, Decatur Township, and the Philipsburg-Osceola School District.”

Safety Concerns for Local Residents

Residents of Clearfield County raised safety concerns over the new facility. However, Sibel reassured them that the GEO Group, which is responsible for running the facility, is in the process of upgrading the perimeter, and will transport immigrants who are released to the locations where they want to return.

“A lot of the folks that will be there, that will go through the processing center, will be there because they violate federal immigration laws, but they won’t necessarily have committed a criminal act… that would have caused them to be in the old prison,” Sibel said.

ICE’s Priorities Guidelines to Be Enforced

The Action field office director Brian McShane said that individuals held in the facility will fall under ICE’s enforcement priorities guidelines. Those priorities are focused on national security, border security, and public safety. “They will have their due process in immigration court if that’s what the law calls for while we go through the process to attempt to effectuate their removal,” he added.

Article By Raymond G. Lahoud of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

Country-Specific International Travel Restrictions Will Be Rescinded November 8, 2021

Beginning November 8, 2021, international travelers subject to CDC country-specific travel restrictions will be able to resume travel to the U.S. without applying for an exemption. The current travel restrictions apply to certain travelers from China, Iran, the European Schengen area (the EU), the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Brazil, South Africa and India, and prohibit a foreign national who does not qualify for an exemption from traveling to the U.S. if they have been physically present in one of the designated countries 14 days in advance of their arrival to the U.S. These restrictions will be rescinded and replaced by new travel restrictions based on individual vaccination status:

Beginning November 8, 2021, all adult foreign national (i.e. non-immigrant, non-citizen) travelers will be required to prove that they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 3 days of boarding a flight to the United States. There will be very limited exceptions to this policy.
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will still be required to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 3 days of boarding a flight to the United States.
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are not fully vaccinated, or who cannot provide proof of full vaccination, will be required to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 1 day of boarding a flight to the United States.
Airlines will verify a traveler’s negative COVID-19 test result and vaccination status.
Airlines will be required to collect comprehensive contact information for every passenger arriving in the United States, and provide that information to the CDC on request, and will be required to contact travelers who have been exposed to COVID-19.
Children under 18 are exempted from the vaccination requirement.
Children between 2 and 17 must present a negative COVID-19 test result.
- If traveling with vaccinated adult, the 3-day testing requirement applies.
- If traveling alone, or with unvaccinated individuals, a 1-day testing requirement applies.
Proof of vaccination must be a paper or digital record issued by an official source with the traveler’s name and date of birth, and the name and date of the administered vaccine doses.
Land travel at the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders is permitted for all fully vaccinated travelers, regardless of purpose of travel. Unvaccinated travelers must continue to demonstrate that their purpose of travel is essential. The essential travel requirement for unvaccinated travelers remains in effect through January 21, 2022. After January 21, 2022, all foreign national travelers, whether entering for essential or non-essential reasons, must be fully vaccinated.
Limited exceptions will be provided for the following classes of non-citizen, non-immigrant travelers:
- Persons on diplomatic or official foreign government travel
- Children under 18 years of age
- Persons with documented medical contraindications to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine
- Participants in certain COVID-19 vaccine trials
- Persons issued a humanitarian or emergency exception
- Persons with valid visas [excluding B-1 (business) or B-2 (tourism) visas] who are citizens of a foreign country with limited COVID-19 vaccine availability
- Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or their spouses or children (under 18 years of age)
- Sea crew members traveling with to a C-1 and D nonimmigrant visa
- Persons whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Transportation, or Secretary of Homeland Security (or their designees)
Exempted travelers must take a viral test within 3-5 days of arrival and self-quarantine for a full seven days regardless of test result. For those who intend to stay in the U.S. for 60 days or longer, they must become fully vaccinated within 60 days of arrival or as soon as medically appropriate.

This is welcome news for international travelers from the 33 countries affected by the travel restrictions who have not been able to qualify for an exemption. Under the current travel restrictions, set to expire November 8, 2021, U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and their spouses are exempt, as well as parents of U.S. citizen minor children (under age 21). Otherwise, affected travelers must apply for a National Interest Exemption through a U.S. Consulate abroad.

For more information on the new travel policies, please view this information from the Department of State and the CDC.

Article By Julianne Cassin Sharp, Elizabeth Baker, and Christopher M. Dutot of Miller Canfield

For more articles on immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section

NLRB, Labor Laws and the Impact on NCAA Athletes

Can—and should—college athletes be classified as employees? The answer to that question may be in flux. In a recent episode of the In-House Roundhouse Podcast, Womble Bond Dickinson attorney and host Mark Henriques welcomed Womble Bond Dickinson attorney Mike Ingersoll and University of North Carolina School of Law Professor Barbara Osborne to discuss the latest developments. Both guests were scholarship student-athletes themselves during their college days, adding to their perspective on the many issues pertaining to college athletes as employees. This article is derived from that conversation and is the latest installment in Womble Bond Dickinson’s Opportunity Economy series.

Just when you think you have all the answers about college athletes as employees, the National Labor Relations Board changes the questions.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s September 2021 memorandum states that her office will consider some college athletes to be employees moving forward. But a number of significant questions—including whether Abruzzo’s memo has the full support of the NLRB—remain unanswered.

The NLRB Memo: What it Says

Ingersoll explained that Abruzzo’s memo dovetailing off of the NLRB’s 2015 Northwestern University decision—which really was a non-decision. In that case, the NLRB failed to render a decision as to whether or not Northwestern University’s scholarship football players were university employees under the National Labor Relations Act. That non-decision created a gray area of the law that Abruzzo’s memo seeks to fill.

“Essentially, she has decided her office will prosecute disputes brought by students under the NLR Act as if they are employees,” Ingersoll said. “She said any mischaracterization of players as ‘student-athletes’ – which is a nomenclature that has been used for decades – will itself be consider a violation of the NLRA as far as her office is concerned.”

The NLRB hasn’t adopted this as its official position, though, and the memo appears to be limited only to private colleges and universities, because the NLRA only applies to private schools.

“The memo itself raises more questions than it answers,” Osborne said. “I think it invites student-athletes to file claims that they deserve to be paid as employees, and that opens a whole new can of worms.”

“The memo itself raises more questions than it answers. I think it invites student-athletes to file claims that they deserve to be paid as employees, and that opens a whole new can of worms.”

BARBARA OSBORNE, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW

So should the term “student-athlete” be scrubbed from the college sports lexicon?

Ingersoll believes colleges and universities should avoid using it, at least in the short term, if they believe they are at risk of having to defend employment claims in front of the NLRB.

“I always thought of myself as a student-athlete and was proud of that,” Osborne said. “I don’t necessarily know that using that term misidentifies, but you need to classify those people as employees.”

Unanswered Questions in the NLRB Memo

However, as Osborne notes, this raises the first of many serious unanswered questions. The NLRB memo would require at least some college athletes to be classified as employees. However, this is at odds with NCAA rules, which prohibit athletes from being institutional employees.

“So we have a conundrum,” she said.

Another question: Which athletes are covered by the memo? Ingersoll said that is unclear.

“The memo distinguishes ‘Certain Players’ as a capitalized term – but it doesn’t actually define the term,” he said. The NLRB only has jurisdiction over private colleges and universities, not state-supported schools. The Northwestern University case applied only and explicitly to scholarship football players at Northwestern. It provided no opinion on other players in any other sport or at any other university, Ingersoll noted.

So to which students and sports does the memo apply? Only scholarship players or all varsity athletes? Both men’s and women’s athletics? Only so-called “revenue sports” or any officially sanctioned sport? To date, college officials and athletes don’t have any answers to these questions.

“Wait and see how it gets enforced,” Ingersoll said. “My assumption would be that it is intended to apply as broadly as the GC’s office can make it apply.”

Osborne said, “The ‘Certain Players’ term is very unclear. The only sport she mentions is football, but it’s hard to say if it’s just about football. But if the memo only applies to scholarship football players, you are leaving everybody else vulnerable.”

She explained that the NLRA is all about the ability to unionize and engage in activities related to exploring unionization, with the employer being prohibited from interfering.

“What she’s saying is that if these athletes want to unionize, we’re going to support that and (the colleges) can’t interfere. Again, though, that opens up so many more questions than there are answers,” Osborne said. For example, which athletes may organize? Can only private school athletes organize? And what exactly are “revenue sports?” This may vary from school to school. For example, the University of Georgia’s Gymnastics program is a profitable operation, while many schools actually lose money on football.

Another key question is that if athletes can organize, may they then collectively bargain with the NCAA about its rules and requirements. Ingersoll said all of this is unprecedented territory for college sports.

“From a legal standpoint, there’s been no union activities among college sports that I’m aware of,” he said. “As an athlete, it’s made clear to you early on that when you participate on a team, you are part of a dictatorship, not a democracy. There is no forcing the coaching staff or administration to do something they don’t want to do.”

Osborne said, “I absolutely agree that it’s not something athletes think about doing – they’ve got too much personally at stake…. The flip side is that we do see student-athletes, through the free speech aspect, uniting for causes. I see that as a more hospitable way to open up a dialogue as to what could be done to make things better, but I don’t see that in union terms.”

“From a legal standpoint, there’s been no union activities among college sports that I’m aware of. As an athlete, it’s made clear to you early on that when you participate on a team, you are part of a dictatorship, not a democracy.”

MIKE INGERSOLL

As an example, Ingersoll noted the 2020 college football season, in which a number of teams influenced their conferences to hold the season amid COVID-19 concerns.

What’s Next for Athletes as Employees?

The NLRB memo isn’t the only significant development related to the employment status of college athletes.

An Eastern District of Pennsylvania case brought by college athletes alleges employment status under FLSA demanding wages. The claim survived a motion to dismiss and is now up on appeal. This is quite different from the Seventh Circuit precedent in Berger, which the Appeals Court dismissed because it decided college athletes weren’t employees and, thus, aren’t subject to the FLSA.

“We’ll see what ends up happening at the appellate level in light of these decisions,” Ingersoll said. “At the time of the Berger decision (in 2016), the landscape was significantly different than it is now.”

Also, the NLRB hasn’t adopted the Abruzzo memo as its official position and is limited in scope. But Ingersoll said the memo may “bleed into” state and federal litigation—litigation he expects to increase in volume.

One factor driving increased litigation surrounding college athletes-as-employees is Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence in this year’s NCAA v. Alston decision. The case opened the door for college athletes to use their name, image and likeness for commercial purposes

“At the point where you get favorable state and federal decisions in court, you get some teeth behind this notion of athletes as employees,” he said.

“At the point where you get favorable state and federal decisions in court, you get some teeth behind this notion of athletes as employees.”

MIKE INGERSOLL

Osborne pointed out that there may be many unintended consequences if student-athletes are reclassified as university employees. For example, scholarships would be considered taxable income, and athletes may even be owed wages. Employment status also may impact Pell Grants or need-based financial aid eligibility. For student-athletes who are dependents on families, how would family taxes be impacted? “There are all sorts of tax implications,” Osborne said.

Such a change in status also could require colleges and universities to provide Worker’s Compensation coverage for student-athletes who are hurt on the job.

And then there is the NLRB memo itself. Is it effective without board adoption? And what would happen if the board does (or does not) adopt it?

“The memo essentially means that Abruzzo and her office will investigate and prosecute claims with the assumption that the athlete is a university employee,” Ingersoll said. However, he said the full board ultimately will have to make a decision on the memo and stake out a position.

“If the board were to reject Abruzzo’s position, that essentially kills it—Abruzzo is bound by the board. The board is going to have to stake out an official position. If the board adopts it, that will be the NLRB’s position and as long as the athlete meets the criteria, then the case will have to proceed under the assumption the athlete is an employee under the NLRA.”

“If the board were to reject Abruzzo’s position, that essentially kills it—Abruzzo is bound by the board. The board is going to have to stake out an official position.”

MIKE INGERSOLL

But the NLRB’s position certainly could change later under a different administration. “The real teeth are in state and federal litigation decisions. That’s when you will see a bit of a sea change,” he said.

“The thing that stops that wave of litigation would be if we have federal legislation—which we’ve had a lot of lobbying for,” Osborne said. Proposals on the table run the gamut from supporting everything the NCAA has done in the past to the proposed College Athlete Bill of Rights, which would provide compensation and revenue sharing for student-athletes. Osborne wonders if the uncertainty created by the memo might force some form of Congressional action.

In addition, she notes that 37 court cases decided that state student-athletes are not employees and do not have rights associated with employment. “We have to reconcile those precedents,” she said.

So the path forward remains uncertain, with many questions still left to be decided.

Ingersoll said, “Justice Kavanaugh did provide a road map for these challenges to move forward. But right now, the NLRB memo is limited in its scope and impact. There should be no rush to judgment until we have some binding case law.”

Also, click here to read “Alston Aftermath: NLRB General Counsel Memo Confirms Employment Status for Certain College Football Players Under the National Labor Relations Act and Declares an End to the ‘Student-Athlete’” by Mike Ingersoll.

Article by Mark P. Henriques and Mike Ingersoll with Womble Bond Dickinson LLP.

For more articles on employment law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

It’s Time to Clarify When Cross-Appeals Are Necessary

Much has been said on this blog about when one should cross-appeal, given the Law Court’s jurisprudence on the topic. I most recently addressed the issue here. As I noted then, there is some tension between the text of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “[i]f the appellee seeks any change in the judgment that is on appeal, the appellee must file a cross-appeal to preserve that issue,” M.R. App. P. 2C(a)(1), and the Court’s most recent rulings (in Jones v. Secretary of State and Reed v. Secretary of State) regarding the necessity of cross-appealing to preserve an alternative argument for affirmance. Because of the importance of this issue, my colleague Nolan Reichl and I recently published an article in the Maine Bar Journal (at page 10) addressing the topic.

As we wrote there,

Recent decisions by the Law Court have raised questions concerning whether a litigant must file a notice of cross-appeal merely to argue a judgment should be affirmed based on grounds alternative to those adopted by the trial court. Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 2C, Law Court precedent, and analogous federal practice all confirm that an appellee urging affirmance of a judgment on alternative grounds need not file a notice of cross-appeal so long as that litigant does not seek a substantive alteration in the terms of the judgment.

We also note that,

as the law now stands, it is less than clear what the cross-appeal rule is. Rule 2C and [the Law Court’s decision in Argereow v. Weisberg] say one thing, while Reed and Jones say another.

Accordingly, we argue that the cross-appeal rule applied in Reed and Jones “should be overruled expressly” and that the “Law Court should take the next available opportunity to clarify its cross-appeal jurisprudence and reaffirm the plain terms of Rule 2C.”

Agree or disagree, we hope that the article furthers the discussion on this important topic.

Article By Joshua D. Dunlap with Pierce Atwood LLP.

For more articles like this, visit the NLR Litigation section.

Immigration and Compliance Briefing: Fall Travel & COVID-19 Policy Update

On October 25, 2021, the Biden Administration issued a Presidential Proclamation to lift the travel bans which currently restrict entry into the U.S. directly from specific geographic areas (for a full list of restricted countries, see our prior client alert here), to be effective November 8, 2021. Instead of banning entry from specific locations abroad, the U.S. will utilize vaccine status-based restrictions for incoming travelers entering the country as noncitizen nonimmigrants (i.e., temporary visa holders or visa-free travelers). Once the new rules go into effect, most travelers will be required to provide proof of being fully vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to boarding an airplane, regardless of recent travel history (“fully vaccinated” refers to individuals who received the final dose of the COVID-19 vaccine more than 14 days prior).

Currently, the list of acceptable vaccines approved/authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO), are as follows:

Pfizer-BioNTech
Moderna
Johnson & Johnson
Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield
Sinopharm
Sinovac
Mixed doses comprising of any two authorized/approved vaccines

As additional vaccines receive authorization/approval by either the FDA or WHO, it is anticipated that they will be added to the list of acceptable vaccines. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control will implement contact-tracing protocols. Mask mandates for airlines and airports, as well as the pre-travel negative COVID-19 test requirements, will remain in place until at least mid-January.

Exceptions include, but are not limited to, the following types of noncitizen nonimmigrants:

Certain noncitizen nonimmigrants traveling in an official capacity (i.e., foreign government officials and their family, individuals entering pursuant to a NATO visa classification, or individuals traveling pursuant to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement)
Children under the age of eighteen (18) years
Individuals participating in COVID-19 clinical trials*
Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to a medical contraindication, as determined by the CDC
Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to unavailability in their country of residence who are seeking to enter the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa except B-1/B-2
Members of the U.S. Armed Forces
Sea crew members
Individuals whose entry is in the national interest
Individuals granted exceptions for humanitarian or emergency reasons

*The CDC will determine the qualifying criteria for individuals seeking to enter under this exception.

In addition to the restrictions above, all unvaccinated travelers traveling to the U.S. must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within one day of travel. This requirement includes unvaccinated U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders).

Vaccinated U.S. citizens and Green Card holders must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.

Finally, additional measures may be required for certain types of travelers, including self-quarantine and vaccination within sixty (60) days of entry.

This policy will remain in place for an initial period of sixty (60) days and may be renewed on a monthly basis after that.

U.S. Land Border Updates

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will lift travel restrictions for land and ferry border crossings from Canada and Mexico in two phases, beginning November 8, 2021. Instead of keeping the land borders closed to nonessential travel, the Biden administration will implement the same policy as for air travel. Beginning November 8, nonessential travel will be permitted for fully vaccinated individuals, as described above. Nonessential travel will continue to be permitted regardless of vaccination status. However, beginning in early January 2022, all individuals entering the U.S. via the land border or ferry will be required to be fully vaccinated. This decision will permit nonessential travel via the land border between Canada and Mexico for the first time since March 21, 2020.

Vaccine Requirement for Individuals Seeking Permanent Immigrant Status

Effective October 1, 2021, applicants for immigrant status (i.e., a “green card”) in the U.S. who are subject to submitting Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record must be fully vaccinated as described above against COVID-19, before a civil surgeon designated by the Immigration Service can complete and sign the Form I-693 medical exam.

Waivers may be granted in certain circumstances, including where the COVID-19 vaccine is:

Not age appropriate;
Contraindicated due to a medical condition;
Not routinely available where the civil surgeon practices; or
Limited in supply and would cause significant delay for the applicant to receive the vaccination.

© 1998-2021 Wiggin and Dana LLP

Article By Najia S. Khalid and Ashley Moore with Wiggin and Dana LLP.

For more articles on COVID-19 Immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Halloween Safety Tips

Innocent Halloween fun can be full of hidden dangers. While keeping an eye out for ghosts and ghouls this year, pay attention to these other factors that might put your family at risk.

Halloween Costume Safety

Children are ecstatic to select a Halloween costume each year and dress up as their favorite characters, but there are several things to keep in mind as you plan out your Halloween wear:

Select costumes that are made of fire-resistant material.
Avoid masks that restrict vision.
Make sure outfits fit well, and do not have any dragging pieces that may inhibit walking or running, or cause tripping.
Use non-toxic makeup and be sure to remove it completely before going to bed to prevent skin irritation.
Wash hands completely before using or removing colored contact lenses.

Halloween Pedestrian Safety

On Halloween, kids are twice as likely to be hit by a car than on any other day of the year. Exercise caution while walking with your children and make sure older children who venture on their own are aware of risks.

Cross at intersections with crosswalks and traffic lights.
Wear or hold a flashlight, glow sticks, or reflective tape after dark.
Stay on the sidewalks, along paths, and check driveways before crossing.
Plan a direct route with the fewest possible street crossings.

Halloween Teen Safety

Halloween is a fun holiday for all ages. Teenagers often look forward to a night out with their friends, an abundance of sweets, and enjoying some independence. If your teenager is going trick-or-treating with their friends, plan to speak with them about safety concerns in advance.

Agree on a curfew and check-in times to call or text.
Teach your child to never go into a car or a house with a stranger and how to call for help if approached.
Plan a route with your teen and walk it ahead of time.
If your teen is attending a party, speak to the host parents to make sure it is chaperoned.
Speak with your teen about alcohol and drugs and what to do if they are offered anything.
Be available to pick up your teen if needed.

Halloween Safety While Driving

With an influx of pedestrian traffic it is important for drivers to be vigilant of their surroundings on Halloween, especially as evening approaches and more people begin trick-or-treating.

Stay alert, and stay off electronic devices.
Slow down, especially in neighborhoods.
Enter and exit driveways, side streets, and parking lots with an abundance of caution.
Keep in mind that popular trick-or-treat hours are between 5-9pm.

Halloween Safety and COVID-19

While in the midst of a pandemic, many parents still have concerns about holiday gatherings. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in an interview on September 26, that while parents should exercise caution, it is generally safe to be trick-or-treating.

Plan to stay in small groups and avoid large gatherings.
Open-air venues remain the best option.
Trunk-or-treating* is an alternative to trick-or-treating and is typically done in more of a controlled, outdoor environment.

Use these tips to enjoy a safe and fun Halloween with your family.

Article By Clifford Law

For more articles on safety tips, visit the NLR Personal Injury section.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Check your local rules

Duty to supplement

Meet and confer

Good cause requirement for extending discovery

Can you serve requests for admission?

Share this:

Like this:

Clearfield County Immigration Detention Center

GEO Group Detention Center and Clearfield County

Safety Concerns for Local Residents

ICE’s Priorities Guidelines to Be Enforced

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The NLRB Memo: What it Says

Unanswered Questions in the NLRB Memo

What’s Next for Athletes as Employees?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

U.S. Land Border Updates

Vaccine Requirement for Individuals Seeking Permanent Immigrant Status

Share this:

Like this:

Halloween Costume Safety

Halloween Pedestrian Safety

Halloween Teen Safety

Halloween Safety While Driving

Halloween Safety and COVID-19

Share this:

Like this: