While Democrats Whittle Down Pro-Labor Provisions Of Social Spending Bill, Civil Penalties Remain

As we discussed here, members of the House Education and Labor Committee have been attempting to end-run the procedural hurdles that have prevented the Protect the Right to Organize Act (“PRO Act”) legislation from becoming law, through a process called “budget reconciliation.”  (For a refresher on the PRO Act, see our blog posts on the proposed legislation here and here.)

In September, the Committee released its proposed language for the federal budget incorporating several key provisions from the PRO Act that would have drastically amended federal labor law, such as establishing civil penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), personal liability for officers and directors, and newly-defined unfair labor practices that would effectively prohibit employers from utilizing some of the economic weapons traditionally thought to be lawful under the NLRA.  Through the budget reconciliation process, these provisions have a greater chance of becoming law where the bill only requires majority support in both the House and Senate and is not subject to a filibuster.

However, as the social spending bill faced challenges from both parties, the Administration presented a revised framework on October 28, 2021, entitled the “Build Back Better Act.”  The new bill  among other major edits, significantly pared down the proposed pro-labor provisions.

Even under the revised framework, there still exists for the first time ever civil penalties for those who commit unfair labor practices. If passed into law in its current form, the Build Back Better Act would:

  • Impose civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation of the NLRA;
  • Double civil penalties up to $100,000 for NLRA violations that resulted in discharge or serious economic harm where the employer committed another similar violation within the past 5 years; and
  • Assess civil penalties against directors and officers where the facts indicate that personal liability is warranted.

Fortunately, some of the most significant PRO Act-inspired provisions of the prior reconciliation bill have been dropped from this spending bill; specifically, language that would have made it an unfair labor practice to:

  • Permanently replace strikers;
  • Discriminate against a worker who has unconditionally offered to return to work based on participation in a strike;
  • Lockout, suspend, or otherwise withhold employment from employees prior to a strike;
  • Misrepresent to a worker that they are excluded from the definition of “employee” under the Act, such as misclassifying independent contractor or supervisor;
  • Require or coerce employees to attend so-called “captive audience meetings” or other campaign activities;
  • Enter into, enforce, coerce, or retaliate against employees with respect to class or collective action waivers

The revised spending bill framework is now up for discussion and debate in both the House and the Senate. The bill needs majority support in both chambers in order to become law, and the amendments in the proposed language must withstand potential challenges in the Senate (called the Byrd Rule), which (as we discussed here) is intended to limit amendments that change the substantive policy of federal law, rather than limited to taxes or spending.  The significantly narrowed labor law amendments in the revised bill would seem to have a greater likelihood of withstanding a Byrd Rule challenge than the prior iteration.

As always, we will monitor this situation and report updates as they occur.

© 2021 Proskauer Rose LLP.

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

October 2021: Law Firm Hiring, Legal Innovation & Pro Bono in the Legal Industry

Happy Halloween! We’re back with the second edition of the October 2021 Legal Roundup News Column. Read on for the latest news in law firm hiring, pro bono work, and law firm innovation.

Law Firm Additions, Growth and Recognition

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP announced the addition of Wes Scott as a partner to its Nashville office. Mr. Scott  works with capital markets and the securities industry and specializes in corporate governance and mergers and acquisitions law.

“Wes’s securities experience and knowledge of the banking and financial services industry will make him a great asset to Nelson Mullins,” said Neil Grayson, head of the firm’s financial institutions, corporate and regulatory group.

“I’m excited to be joining such a deep and talented team of attorneys. Nelson Mullins’ financial institutions and securities practices are nationally renowned and are flourishing.  I fully anticipate that the Nelson Mullins’ platform will be extremely beneficial not only for my practice but, more importantly, for my clients’ businesses,” said Mr. Scott.

von Brisen & Roper s.c. expanded their Milwaukee office with the addition of four new attorneys:

Susan Lee joined Goodwin’s Life Sciences practice as a partner in their Washington, DC office.  Ms. Lee advises biologics and technology companies on FDA regulatory and compliance matters, and is ranked by Legal 500 US as a Next Generation Partner for life sciences and healthcare.

“Susan’s broad experience in FDA regulatory strategy, commercialization, and issues related to corporate transactions will be invaluable to our clients at all stages of the product and corporate lifecycle. We are thrilled to welcome Susan to Goodwin,” said Mitch Bloom.

Ice Miller LLP n has opened a new office in Philadelphia,  housing the firm’s Intellectual Property practice, which represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients in all aspects of patent law.

“We are excited to expand not only our office space, but also the capabilities of our Philadelphia Office. The move signifies the growth of our IP practice, as well as the growth of the firm. I cannot wait to welcome more IP practitioners and attorneys in other practice areas to join our office to better serve our clients in the greater Philadelphia region and elsewhere,” said Philadelphia Office Managing Partner Weihong Hsing, Ph.D.

Rosenburg Martin Greenberg LLP announced Caroline L. Hecker is the new managing partner of the firm. She is the third managing partner of the firm, and the first woman and non-founding member to assume the role. Ms. Heckler started at the firm in 2007, and became a partner in 2013. Currently, Ms. Hecker leads the Land Use and Zoning team and the firm’s Associate Marketing Committee, which helps to establish business development awareness in its attorneys.

“Caroline is an extremely talented lawyer who possesses the leadership skills necessary to ensure Rosenberg Martin Greenberg’s continued success moving forward. Caroline is highly regarded by her colleagues, the firm’s clients, and other professionals. It is an honor to pass the baton to someone with the reputation for excellence and fairness that Caroline has earned through her exceptional work on behalf of the firm, our clients and the Greater Baltimore community,” said Barry Greenberg, the firm’s current managing partner.

Bethany Biesenthal, a partner in Jones Day’s Chicago office, is now a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL). Ms. Biesenthal has experience in White Collar Defense and Business & Tort litigation. Fellowship in the College is by invitation only to diverse experienced trial lawyers whose careers exemplify the highest moral conduct, professionalism and civility, and attorneys must have a minimum of 15 years’ trial experience.

“Bethany is a natural talent. She has been a top-notch addition to our ranks since joining us from the United States’ Attorney’s Office and her induction is a wonderful recognition of her overall outstanding skills as an advisor and a trial lawyer,” said Tina Tabacchi, a partner of Jones Day.

Innovation in the Law

Blakes Law firm is the first Canadian law firm to partner with the Mindful Business Charter (MBC) to help alleviate unnecessary stressors in the workplace and to cultivate effective team work by incorporating openness, respect, improved communication, a considerate delegation of tasks and respect for working hours.

“The Charter is simple — be more mindful, more aware, of the impact we have on each other and give each other the permission to talk about it, to be brave, and to ask for what we need to enable us to function at our best and to thrive,” said Richard Martin, on behalf of the MBC Initiative.

“Innovation comes in many shapes. At Blakes, this focus on smart collaboration reinforces our long-standing commitment to fostering the health and productivity of our teams. Enhancing the way we work together will benefit our Firm, our people and our clients,” said Blakes Managing Partner Bryson Stokes.

Lawmatics announced their new Client Portal, which allows users to share documents, signature requests, calendar events and other contact based tasks. Some of the new features available on the portal include automation tagging, e-signature deadline expiration and more.

Legal Industry Serving the Greater Good

Faegre Drinker is the recipient of the Inaugural Law Firm Founders’ Award from the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM). The ILCM is a nonprofit organization that provides pro bono or low cost legal services to those in need of immigration legal assistance, and works to educate organizations about immigration and human rights.

Faegre Drinker’s attorneys are recognized by the ILCM for their pro bono efforts and for their assistance in creating the pro bono program.

Evan J. Lide of Stark and Stark recently accepted a position on the Board of Directors of Lambertville Helping Hands, which provides Hurricane Ida disaster relief. Mr. Lide has experience in the areas of accidents and personal injury law.

“I have seen first-hand the devastation that Hurricane Ida has brought to my town of Lambertville, especially to my neighbors at the Village Apartments. More than half of the residents in town have suffered some amount of flood damage, and the recovery is far from over. Lambertville Helping Hands helped direct the volunteer effort in town, and I am pleased to have been asked to join the Board to help ensure these funds get to the people who need them most,” said Mr. Lide

Frost Brown Todd (FBT) awarded their annual Diversity and Inclusion Scholarships to five students for demonstrating academic excellence and a commitment to diversity and inclusion efforts. The FBT Diversity and Inclusion Scholarships award five $2,000 scholarships to help build a diverse legal pipeline and to give support to underrepresented students.

The five students  selected are:

“We are excited to offer this FBT scholarship to students who are currently law students or intend to attend law school in the future. In the past 11 years, we have handed out this scholarship, we have been inspired by the commitment the recipients have to create a diverse, equitable and inclusive community. We look forward to watching their successes in the future and are proud FBT could provide support in that journey,” said Committee Chair Justin Fowles.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

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

How the Labor Shortage is Impacting the Supply Chain: Would Immigration Reform Help?

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to present challenges to the US economy, labor shortages are contributing to the ongoing supply chain disruptions facing many industries. Companies are finding it difficult to find the right candidates for the jobs they’re looking to fill while millions of Americans are quitting their jobs or threatening to strike or walking out for better working conditions.

One industry in particular affected by the labor shortages brought on by COVID-19 is the   shipping and warehousing industry. At the Port of Los Angeles, for example, there aren’t enough workers to unload goods from ships, causing shipping delays across the US. Additionally, a shortage of truck drivers is contributing to the problem. Ninety percent of leaders who spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said labor shortages are impacting economic growth in some areas.

To help remedy the problem, President Joe Biden announced the Port of Los Angeles will be open 24/7, with logistics companies FedEx and UPS making similar pledges. Another potential solution is increasing immigration through offering more worker visas in order to bring in more workers to the country.

Difficulty Hiring During COVID-19: Labor & Visa Shortages

US Chamber of Commerce Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley told CNN Business that immigration is one of the key ways to solve the labor shortage. However, despite immigration’s potential to add additional employees to the workforce, the number of immigrants US employers can hire has remained flat. Additionally, while there are options for workers with a high level of education, there aren’t as many visa options for employers needing seasonal or temporary worker visas or workers in many service industry roles.

The Chamber of Commerce requested Congress and the White House to double the cap on employment-based visas, specifically to double H-1B temporary worker visas and H-2B visas for seasonal workers.

“When we see these workforce gaps in the nonprofessional roles for instance, US companies are not typically able to turn to the US immigration system to help fill that need,”  said Caroline Tang, immigration shareholder in the Austin office of Ogletree Deakins.  “Across the board, there’s just a tighter labor market now in terms of candidate availability, people willing to do certain types of work or wanting to come back to work in environments where they will be more physically closer to other people, which oftentimes are the roles that really heavily impact our supply chain.”

Also contributing to the ongoing supply chain disruptions is the labor shortage that’s impacting  a wide variety of industries. Some of the factors impacting the labor market during the COVID-19 pandemic include the demand for higher wages as the prices for goods and services rises, as well as better benefits and protections for workers. Additionally, some workers aren’t able to come back to work because they’re taking care of family members sick with COVID-19, or are sick with the virus themselves or childcare problems. Many workers are also leaving their jobs in record numbers, and are delaying coming back to work. For example, in August, 4.3 million Americans quit their jobs.

“I think everyone has been impacted by the Great Resignation as people are calling it. And certainly, that has impacted a lot of the industries that impact our supply chain and a lot of areas in the US,” Ms. Tang said.

Specifically, Ms. Tang said the semiconductor industry in particular is impacted by the labor and supply chain shortages. The shortage is expected to last until 2022 and beyond, and impacts a variety of industries from the automotive industry to appliances and toothbrushes.

“I work extensively in the semiconductor industry. They have definitely been impacted by pandemic related supply chain issues, which we can tell from the cost of automotive prices here in the US since all these cars rely on microprocessors,” she said.

Even though many of the supply and labor shortage issues are expected to last for many years to come, companies can take steps to help mitigate some of the problems they’re facing, Ms. Tang said.

US Company Workers Offshore Solve Some of the Visa Quota Issues

“For the companies that have international offices, they have a wider footprint and have some options with staffing their workers in other countries. So, for instance where companies hire some college graduates from the US who are not able to get one of those H1-B visas, they might potentially work in the person’s home country where they don’t need a visa to work. And that way they can keep that person working on the same project and still contributing research and development efforts for that company,” Ms. Tang said.

If a company doesn’t have international offices, handling visa shortages and delays may be a little harder.

“If a company doesn’t have an international footprint, it’s hard. I’ve been talking to employers that say, ‘Hey, we are just sort of living with the fact that we might only have these employees on our payroll for two to three years because of their visa limitations.’ We need to be considering what we’re going to do about succession planning and making sure that we diversify our employee population as much as possible. I think it’s definitely requiring a lot of creativity from employers,” Ms. Tang said.

How US Immigration Policy Affects the Labor Shortage 

One potential method for addressing labor shortages is to alter current U.S. immigration policy. Despite the ongoing need for workers in all industries, visa caps have remained relatively static, limiting the number of foreign nationals allowed to work in the U.S. long-term. Changes to such policies would be a considerable boon for the supply chain especially, allowing companies to quickly fill roles left empty by the pandemic.

The most likely target for change might be the H-1B visa, which allows employers to hire foreign workers for positions that require particular skills or specialized knowledge. “The annual quota on H-1B visa numbers – it would certainly be helpful to increase that quota,” said Ms. Tang. “That 85,000 number has been static for many, many years. It’s not a fluctuating number based on any sort of economic conditions or economic or supply or demand. So, I certainly think it would be beneficial for the government to have some sort of system where that quota number can have a fluctuating number depending on our economic conditions.”

How Does US Immigration Policy Impact the US’ Supply Chain Woes?

Of course, changes to H-1B policy intended for highly skilled employees, are only helpful to a certain point. Some sectors of the U.S. economy are in dire need of employees for non-professional roles, such as the retail and service industries, where highly specialized knowledge is not as critical. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be employed in service occupations; natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations; and production, transportation, and material moving occupations. Companies often utilize the H-2B visa to fill these gaps; again, however, logistical considerations and static caps stand in the way. In May, the BLS released updated statistic revealing that employment fell by 2.7 million among the foreign born from 2019 to 2020, a decline of 9.8 percent.

Ms. Tang points to manufacturing as a key example of an industry for which immigration reform would be a windfall. “For the non-professional roles, I think there is certainly an area where perhaps the government needs to create some sort of a work permit to fill these specific demands that our manufacturers are seeing in that area, with respect to the need to staff their manufacturing facilities,” she said. “A visa that’s available that’s for seasonal or peak load work, but again, there’s a quota on that visa as well.”

Per the BIS, the demographic composition of the foreign-born labor force differs from the native-born US labor force. In 2020, men accounted for 57.3 percent of the foreign-born labor force, compared with 52.1 percent of the native-born labor force. By age, the proportion of the foreign-born labor force made up of 25- to 54-year-olds (71.8 percent) was higher than for the native-born labor force (62.2 percent). Labor force participation is typically highest among persons in the 25-54 age bracket.

“It can be very difficult to get the perspective of timing, and oftentimes, employers who are trying to pursue this H-2B visa, if the pursuit of that visa is unsuccessful and they miss the quota, then they’re out of luck with respect to being able to staff the staff in these areas that really require someone to be doing the frontline work.”

In considering how to alter U.S. immigration practices to address supply chain woes, it is also vital that American workers are not forgotten. Policy changes must take into account a variety of factors to ensure a fair playing field. “There have been some proposals in the past, that number be moved up or down based on for instance, the unemployment rate in the United States, so that you were not disadvantaging US workers,” said Ms. Tang. “But in years when unemployment is extremely low, and clearly we are having labor shortage issues, perhaps we can increase the quota numbers there for the H-1B.”

Aging Workforce and the US Losing its Ability to Attract and Keep Top Talent – Is Immigration Reform a Solution?

The US Census Bureau (USCB) projects that one in every five US residents will be older than age 65, by 2030. Additionally, by 2030 the USCB projects that net international migration will overtake birthrate as the primary driver of population growth in the United States, a first for the US. Accordingly, US will have to rely more on foreign workers as our workforce ages. If the labor shortage continues, the Chamber of Commerce said it’s possible the shortage will pressure lawmakers to act to raise the cap on workers. 

Additionally, bringing in more foreign workers in the US could help boost the economy, as foreign workers tend to be more focused in the service industries and more likely to be of prime workforce age, can fill job shortages and create additional jobs to alleviate the strain on the supply chain. Who wants to live in a country with shortages of basic supplies and poor infrastructure, if they have a choice to live elsewhere?  If lawmakers don’t act, the US risks losing talent and entrepreneurs to other countries that have more flexible immigration policies.

“I think we’re going to see some brain drain from the US to other countries that are perceived as having more favorable immigration systems and policies – for instance, Canada,” Ms. Tang said. Entrepreneurs need workers for their enterprises and have global mobility, and the US’ worker shortage for both service workers and specialized high skilled workers, limits the US’ ability to compete in the world marketplace.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

For more articles on immigration and hiring, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Disability in the Workplace: The Key to Equal Access and Accommodations

The month of October is designated as National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) to educate the public about the issues faced by people with disabilities in pursuing, obtaining, and keeping employment. 

There are approximately 5.5 million employees in the United States who have some type of disability, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and these employees account for at least 4% of the employed population. It is likely that almost all large employers have had disabled employees at some point in time. This has not always been the case, however. Until the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, disabled persons in the United States were often denied employment opportunities. And even today, despite the passage of the ADA, there are millions of individuals with disabilities who cannot find meaningful employment despite their capabilities and skills.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first legislation to address the idea of equal access for individuals with disabilities through the removal of architectural, employment, and transportation barriers. But the Rehabilitation Act only reached those businesses and employers who received federal funding — the vast majority of businesses were not impacted by it. But the advances created by the Rehabilitation Act marked the first time that the exclusion and segregation of persons with disabilities was recognized as unlawful discrimination. The Rehabilitation Act recognized that although there are major physical and mental variations in different disabilities, people with disabilities as a group faced similar discrimination in employment, education, and social access.

Thus spurred on by the advances achieved through the Rehabilitation Act, the disability rights community was determined to expand these rights to the larger general population. Their efforts culminated in the signing of the ADA in 1990, which is a watershed event in U.S. history. The ADA is premised on a basic presumption that people with disabilities want to and are capable of working, want to be members of the community, and that the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities would no longer be tolerated in our society.

Although the ADA reaches many parts of our lives, it has brought profound changes to the workplace. No longer is it legal for employers to refuse to hire applicants with disabilities, terminate employees who becomes disabled, or otherwise treat disabled employees differently than other employees in the terms and conditions of employment. And not only must employers treat disabled employees equally, the ADA requires them to affirmatively accommodate their disabilities in order that the disabled workers can participate equally with other employees in the workplace.

The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The ADA defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder that affects a body system and a mental impairment as a psychological or mental disorder, such as emotional or mental illness, developmental disorders, and learning disabilities. An impairment that is episodic or in remission, such as cancer or HIV, is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Major life activities include almost everything we do, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

Employers are required under the ADA not only to not discriminate against disabled employees but to also provide reasonable accommodations to them so they can perform the essential functions of their jobs. A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to a job or to the work environment that enables an individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity not only to get a job, but to successfully perform their job tasks to the same extent as people without disabilities. Reasonable accommodations should not be viewed as “special treatment,” and they often benefit all employees. Examples of reasonable accommodations include making existing facilities accessible, job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules, acquiring or modifying equipment, changing training materials or policies, and providing qualified readers or interpreters. Many job accommodations cost very little and often involve minor changes to a work environment, schedule, or work-related technologies.

Employers should always engage a disabled employee in a discussion to find a mutually acceptable reasonable accommodation that will permit the employee to perform their job but not create an undue hardship on the employer. Although employers do not necessarily have to provide the accommodation requested by the employee, they should take into account the employee’s wishes and attempt to accommodate unless such an accommodation would create an undue hardship. There are as many accommodations as there are individuals with disabilities, and the employer’s responsibility is to make sure they have looked at all reasonable accommodations before deciding that providing an accommodation would be an undue hardship to the employer. The undue hardship standard is very high and should be used very sparingly and only when all other accommodation efforts have been exhausted.

In conclusion, the passage of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA have provided great benefits to our society and have given opportunities to millions of individuals who in the past would have been unfairly and discriminatorily excluded from the workforce.

This article was written by Debbie Whittle Durban of Nelson Mullins law firm. For more articles about employee accommodation, please visit here.

Trade Secret Implications of Facebook’s Frances Haugen’s Testimony: Do NDAs Protect Trade Secrets Against Whistleblowers?

This month, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen publicly revealed her identity on CBS’ 60 Minutes and testified before a Congressional subcommittee on the matter. Ms. Haugen was formerly a member of Facebook’s civic misinformation team, and in a series of reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, she detailed Facebook’s ongoing illegal and unethical business practices. These include prioritizing profit over the safety of users, repeatedly lying to investors and amplifying the January 6th Capitol Hill attack on their platform. As a result, lawmakers have discussed potential solutions to rein Facebook in, including Section 230 reform and a new national data privacy law.

Previously, we discussed the legal implications of Ms. Haugen’s testimony for whistleblowers and employers, as well as implications for data privacy. In part three of our series, we will discuss the trade secret and intellectual property related implications of the Facebook testimony.

What are the Trade Secret Implications of Frances Haugen’s Testimony?

According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the confidentiality agreement Ms. Haugen signed with Facebook allowed her to disclose information to regulators, but not to share proprietary information. The company said it will not retaliate against Ms. Haugen for testifying to Congress, but has not said if it will respond to her disclosing information to the press and federal regulators. Trade Secrets as their name implies are the ‘secret sauce’ that is the result of a company’s investment in research and development and what makes them better and different.

However, in an interview with the Associated Press, Facebook’s Head of Global Policy Management Monika Bickert said Ms. Haugen “stole” documents from the company, which sheds light on how Facebook may view Ms. Haugen’s actions and may react differently down the road..

Furthermore, confidential information is not the same thing as trade secrets, with confidential information having its own protections, Davis Kuelthau Senior Attorney Michael J. Bendel explained to the National Law Review.

“From what I have seen, I don’t know if her testimony, or the documents she released, rise to the level of being trade secrets under the relevant law,” he said. “The information is likely confidential information, and that can create its own grounds for protection and breach, such as a breach of a fiduciary duty she may owe to Facebook, but to be a trade secret takes more than simply being confidential information.”

Do Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Protect Companies’ Trade Secrets?

Mr. Bendel said two laws in particular could be significant in determining if the information would be considered a trade secret and the implications of the sharing the information, including the California Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA) and the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Both laws could be used by Facebook against Ms. Haugen, since Facebook is headquartered in California.

Definition of a Trade Secret and How Does it Interact with the CUSTA and DTSA

“Even after the Frances Haugen situation, I predict all the usual trade secret protections will still be available. The basic definition of a trade secret is: information not generally known to the public that gives economic benefit to its owner and reasonable efforts are made by the owner to maintain its secrecy,” he said. “We would have to look at the particular CUTSA and DTSA requirements to determine how a particular business goes about creating a trade secret in its location, and then what happens to cause an improper disclosure of that trade secret where it occurs, and then what remedies are available to such a company to prevent that or seek damages and try to be made whole from such an improper disclosure.”

NDAs do protect companies’ trade secrets, but laws like the DTSA include whistleblower immunity as a safe harbor to encourage employees to disclose information that may be a trade secret and evidence of a violation of law by the company, Mr. Bendel said.

“An employee takes a risk that the trade secret information is in fact such evidence of a violation (or likely to lead to such evidence) to qualify for the immunity.  Differently, the CUTSA does not provide such whistleblower immunity,” he said. “As another example, the DTSA expressly allows an aggrieved company to seek, without any notice to the defendant, a court order to seize property to help prevent further damage to the trade secret. Differently, the CUTSA does not have the same such remedy.”

However, for companies to take advantage of its remedies under the DTSA when a case like Ms. Haugen’s arises, they need to include safe harbor language in employee contracts specifically mentioning that the company promises not to hold individuals liable under federal or state trade secret laws for the disclosure of trade secrets to an attorney, or a federal, state or local government official, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law. Additionally, the law does not allow employees to disclose trade secrets to private entities like newspapers and social media networks.

“So, in the Frances Haugen case where she shared information with The Wall Street Journal, that appears to create a clear issue for her under available trade secret law, if trade secrets were taken from Facebook, as we know that information has been disclosed without Facebook consent,” Mr. Bendel said.

Conclusion:  Is Your Company’s NDA Protecting Your Trade Secrets?

How effective a company’s NDA is in protecting trade secrets depends on how the agreement is drafted. Despite Facebook saying it won’t retaliate against Frances Haugen for testifying to Congress, it’s possible they may decide to press charges against her for talking to the press about their internal documents.

Even if Facebook decides to go down that route, whistleblower attorneys told the National Law Review that Ms. Haugen’s testimony may open the door for more whistleblowers to come forward with similar allegations against other tech companies. Additionally, even if a company can take action against an employee for disclosing trade secrets, they should not use NDAs to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.

“This position has some extensive basis in the law of public policy that prevents private actors from using their private business activities, and even such a thing as a trade secret, from being used to violate the law,” Mr. Bendel said. “This is similar rationale as the ‘safe harbor’ approach, but grounded in the fact that we do not want to enable people to hide behind certain tools like non disclosure agreements and trade secret protection, if the people/company is using these tools to hide activities that break the law.”

Read the first part in our series on Frances Haugen’s Facebook whistleblower testimony here.

Read more on the privacy implications of Frances Haugen’s Facebook whistleblower testimony here.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

For more articles on Facebook, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

New Report Highlights Need for Coordinated and Consistent U.S. Policy to Address Possible Impacts to Financial Stability Due to Climate Change

Climate change is an emerging threat to the financial stability of the United States.” So begins a recently issued Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Report, identifying climate change as a financial risk and threat to U.S. financial stability and highlighting a need for coordinated, stable, and clearly communicated policy objectives and actions in order to avoid a disorderly transition to a net-zero economy.

The FSOC’s members are the top regulators of the financial system in the United States, including the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Their charge is to identify risks facing the country’s financial system and respond to them. This new Report supports steps being taken by various financial regulators in the U.S.

The Report suggests four steps necessary to facilitate an orderly transition to a net-zero economy.

  1. Regulators must develop and use better tools to help policymakers. “Council members recognize that the need for better data and tools cannot justify inaction, as climate-related financial risks will become more acute if not addressed promptly.” The FSOC Report highlights the tool of scenario analysis, “a forward-looking projection of risk outcomes that provides a structured approach for considering potential future risks associated with climate change.” The FSOC recommends the use of sector- and economy-wide scenario analysis as particularly important because of the interrelated and unpredictable development of climate impacts and technologies necessary to address them. Each of these technologies may have an unexpected impact on a part of the economy.
  2. Climate-related financial risk data and methodologies for filling gaps must be addressed.  The FSOC Report noted that its members lacked the ability to effectively access and use data that may be present in the financial system. The FSOC Report also noted potential risks to lenders, insurers, infrastructure, and fund managers caused by physical and transitional risks of climate change and the need to develop tools to better understand those risks.
  3. As has been highlighted by the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement, disclosure by companies of their climate-related risks is a key piece of data not only for investors but also for regulators and policymakers. Disclosure regimes that promote comparable, consistent, or decision-useful data and impacts of climate change are necessary, according to the Report, and also regimes that cover both public and private entities. The Report highlights various ongoing discussions on this topic, including possible regulations by the SEC.
  4. To assess and mitigate climate-related risks on the financial system, methods of analyzing the interrelated aspects of climate change are necessary. The Report details the developing thoughts around scenario analysis as a tool to help predict the many aspects of climate change on the financial system but notes that clearly defined objectives and planning are essential for decision-useful analysis.

Eliminating Use of PFAS at Airports May Be Harder Than Congress Thought

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are emerging contaminants that are subject to increasing environmental regulation and legislation, including legislation to outright ban their use in certain products. Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to stop requiring PFAS in the foams used to fight certain fires at commercial airports, and to do so by Oct. 4, 2021. In complying with this order, FAA shows the difficult tightrope it has to walk to meet the “intent” of Congress’ directive, while not really meeting the goal Congress had hoped for.

The FAA issued Certification Alert (CertAlert) 21-05, “Part 139 Extinguishing Agent Requirements,” addressing the continued use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in order to meet the Oct. 4 deadline. In Section 332 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress directed that after this date, FAA “…shall not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet the performance standards referenced in chapter 6 of AC No: 150/5210–6D and acceptable under 139.319(l) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.”

The CertAlert directs airports to continue using AFFF with PFAS unless they can demonstrate another means of compliance with the performance standards stablished by the Department of Defense (DoD) for extinguishing fires at commercial airports. The FAA alert also reminds airports about the need to test their firefighting equipment. Airports can perform the required testing by using a device that has been available since 2019 which does not require the discharge of any foam. Finally, the FAA also reminded airports to comply with state and local requirements for management of foam after it has been discharged.

The FAA reported in its communication that it began constructing a research facility in 2014 that was completed in 2019 and that it has been collaborating with DoD in the search for fluorine-free alternatives for AFFF. The FAA reported that it has tested 15 fluorine-free foams and found that none of them meet the strict DoD performance specifications that also are imposed on commercial airports. More specifically, FAA said the tested alternative foams had the following failings:

  • Increased time to extinguish fires
  • Not as effective at preventing a fire from reigniting
  • Not compatible with the existing firefighting equipment at airports

AFFF was developed to fight fuel fires on aircraft carriers where the ability to suppress fires as rapidly as possible and keep them suppressed is vital to the health and safety of pilots, crews, firefighters and the ship. The military specification (commonly known as MilSpec) for effective firefighting foams for fuel fires is in place for both military and civilian airports.  For many years, the consequences of the use of AFFF to fight aircraft fuel fires – most specifically, the adverse impact on groundwater and surface water – was not fully appreciated. Only recently has this threat been understood and only even more recently has the management of firefighting debris been directly addressed.

Congress may have thought it was eliminating a threat with the legislation directing the FAA to no longer require airports to use AFFF. But FAA’s latest messaging on AFFF highlights just how difficult it is to find suitable replacements, especially when they also have to meet the DoD’s stringent performance standards. The FAA did invite any airport, if they identify a replacement foam that meets the performance standards, to share that discovery with the FAA. However, it is unclear what that would accomplish when it is the DoD and not the FAA that certifies a particular foam’s performance.

In essence, FAA could not solve the challenge that Congress gave it (approve a fluorine-free foam) and instead used the CertAlert to approve airports to use such foams if they can find them on their own. The bottom line is that inadequate progress has been made to fulfill congressional intent to stop using AFFF at commercial airports, and airports are left with no choice but to use PFAS containing foams.

There is legislative activity in many states to ban products with PFAS and at the federal level there have been legislative actions targeting the same – like removing them from MREs. The FAA’s removal of its mandate to use AFFF without offering a PFAS-free alternative is a particularly visible example of the challenge in transitioning away from reliance on PFAS chemicals.

© 2021 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more on travel and transportation, visit the NLR Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation section.

Knock Your Socks Off: A Conversation with EEOC Leaders

Mandatory vaccinations, harassment and retaliation charges, and guidance and enforcement priorities are just some of the important issues U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) officials addressed at Ward and Smith’s Fall Employment Law Update.

I moderated the discussion that was led by Tom Colclough, Deputy District Director of the EEOC Charlotte District Office, and Glory Gervacio Suare, Director of the EEOC Raleigh Area Office.

Over his 25 years with the EEOC, Colclough has investigated charges and complaints of discrimination, led high-performing teams, and served in various leadership positions. Currently, he plays a key role in fulfilling the agency’s mission through strategic enforcement, management, and planning.

Gervacio’s background includes serving as the director of the EEOC’s Honolulu office. Her career with the Commission began as an enforcement investigator in 2001, and she continually provides outreach and educational assistance to various committees in her jurisdiction.

The conversation began with an analysis of how many charges the EEOC handles in an average year, and of those charges, how many go through mediation, conciliation, or litigation. “We normally receive between 65,000 and 100,000 charges per year,” said Colclough. “This year, it was around 65,000. In our district, we received about 5,500 charges this year.”

Of that amount, Colclough explained that the EEOC:

  • Resolved 17.8% of cases through the negotiated settlement process;
  • Completed approximately 500 successful mediations;
  • Issued a ‘no cause’ determination for 65% of cases; and
  • Dismissed around 29% for untimely filing or because a summary review of the Charge allowed the investigator to determine that a violation did not occur.

The leading types of charges last year included retaliation, followed by disability and race. “This is interesting because, in the previous year, race was the second type of charge that was filed,” commented Gervacio. “So I think we’re seeing a trend because of COVID, and with reasonable accommodation requests and vaccination mandates, we’re probably going to see more disability charges in the near future.”

Enforcement Priorities

The local EEOC district office focuses their efforts in part on supporting six national strategic enforcement priorities, says Colclough. These enforcement priorities include:

  • Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring;
  • Protecting immigrants, migrants, and other vulnerable workers;
  • Addressing emerging and developing issues;
  • Enforcing equal pay laws;
  • Preserving access to the legal system; and
  • Preventing harassment through systemic enforcement and targeted outreach.

Colclough indicated his district has developed a complement plan to address issues that are important to the local community: “For the most part, we’re looking at vulnerable workers, also emerging issues dealing with the ADA. As you know, COVID is an emerging issue that continues to develop every single day. And retaliation is the number one priority.”

Retaliation goes beyond someone receiving an adverse result after objecting to a form of harassment or discrimination. “There’s more to retaliation than just the mirror opposition or exercising a right to complain,” noted Gervacio. “Disability is on the rise, and there’s a component of retaliation when somebody requests a reasonable accommodation due to their disability.”

COVID Vaccinations

The subject of mask mandates and vaccination requirements is still on employers’ minds and continually evolving. Generally, officials at the EEOC expect to see a substantial increase in COVID-related charges and inquiries pertaining to reasonable accommodations.

For those who watch the news every day, it’s clear that vaccination mandates remain a hot button issue, explained Colclough. “One thing I’d like to folks to know is that, on our website, we clearly state that federal laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19.”

Gervacio illuminated the subject with an analysis of a recent case involving United Airlines, in which a court order placed a temporary stay on the company’s vaccination mandate. Basically, the judge ordered that placing employees on unpaid leave for requesting an exception to the airline’s vaccination mandate due to a disability or religious exemption is not a reasonable accommodation.

“We are still waiting on guidance from our headquarters on how to address that,” said Gervacio, “so it is unfolding as we speak.”

In light of this development, employers should understand that it is doubtful that placing an individual who requests an exemption to a vaccine mandate on unpaid leave is a reasonable accommodation. Until the EEOC provides updated technical guidance, a potential best practice for employers is to go through an interactive process for all disability and religious-related exemption requests.

Is Long COVID a Disability?

Recently, the EEOC stated that it would be adopting the Department of Health and Human Services position on “long COVID” is to classify it as an ADA disability. The determination ultimately turns on whether or not it substantially limits one or more daily activities.

Employers should educate themselves on what “long COVID” is and its symptoms and understand that since it could potentially be classified as an ADA disability, they should be prepared to engage in an interactive discussion with the employee.

Working from Home

At the pandemic’s start, many employers suddenly had to transition the majority of their workforce to a remote or a virtual environment. With that in mind, the question of which positions are appropriate for telework remains relevant.

Given a choice, many employees would choose to work from home, but that may not be in the employer’s best interest. “Telework as a reasonable accommodation “might be the gold Cadillac standard of what an individual wants,” explained Colclough, “but that’s not necessarily what the employer has to provide.” Employers only need to consider whether an accommodation allows the individual to perform the essential job functions.

“Telework is just one of many tools of accommodation an employer has in their toolkit,” adds Colclough. Employers may sometimes feel that the employee is driving the interactive process and that they have to comply with the employee’s preferred accommodation.

Ultimately, however, it is up to the employer to decide what accommodations are reasonable based on the needs of the business and what will allow the employee to perform the essential job functions. Employers have various options for those who are averse to getting the vaccine, whether their request for an exception is ADA-related or due to a religious exemption. As far as reasonable accommodations, the following are listed on the EEOC’s website as technical guidance on potential reasonable accommodations to vaccine mandates:

  • Social distancing, e., placing an individual in their own office;
  • Modifying shifts to limit interactions with other employees and customers;
  • Periodic testing; and
  • Reassignment.

Gervacio pointed out that “[t]here are many examples of reasonable accommodation listed on the Job Accommodation Network. This service provided by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy offers technical guidance on various types of accommodations for certain disabilities, including specific COVID-related issues from telework.”

An unexpected outcome the EEOC has seen after the rise of telework is an increased number of sexual harassment complaints over the past 18 months. These complaints have originated from Zoom meetings, Facebook, and other forms of social media.

Employers should consider developing standards for how employees are expected to behave in a virtual environment, advised Colclough. “We’ve got to convince people to get back to being as professional as they were in person,” he said. “And perhaps that will help some harassment complaints go down.”

Gervacio recommended that employers train their managers and supervisors. “A lot of the charges we get, it seems the manager or supervisor is not aware of their roles and responsibilities, and whether or not they need to take action,” commented Gervacio. “This training should be tailored to the workforce because you want them to be engaged.”

Another update the EEOC leaders mentioned included a change to the notice of right to sue. When the EEOC decides to close an investigation, it issues what is commonly referred to as a notice of right to sue, which allows the charging party to file a federal lawsuit if they want to pursue the claim further.

Finally, the EEOC leaders shared that recently, the regulations were amended to make digital service an acceptable form of communication for this notice. “Doing it digitally is much, much faster,” added Colclough, “and we get an almost instantaneous notice when parties take a look at it. This helps us ensure the right to sue got into the right hands.”

© 2021 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

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

How COVID-19 is Impacting Global Supply Chains & How Companies Can Cope

Despite the positive impacts of ongoing safety measures and the development of effective vaccines, global supply chains are continuing to face unprecedented logistical challenges because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the emergence of the coronavirus in early 2020, supply chains across the world drastically slowed down for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to disrupted shipping lanes, labor and material shortages and fluctuating demand. Every sector of the economy is affected to some degree, most notably the automotive, tech and medical supply industries.

Global markets face many unknowns as the supply chain returns to normal. The impacts of COVID-19 are far reaching, and it is difficult to determine precisely how long the disruptions will last. Further, late deliveries or no supplies of materials or labor presents a number of legal implications, and many companies affected by the disruptions are looking for guidance on how to proceed.

How Has COVID-19 Impacted the Global Supply Chain? 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 4.3 million U.S. workers left their jobs as of August 2021. This 3 percent decrease in the U.S. work force is especially impacting the supply of truckers and warehouse workers which particularly impacts the supply chain. As variants of COVID-19 continue to spread throughout the globe, vaccine mandates and required coronavirus testing leaves employers scrambling to stay compliant amidst being short staffed. These actions are also occurring after a year-long closure of major manufacturers all over the world.

Even with President Biden’s Executive Order 14005, which aims to strengthen domestic supply chains, issues with cybersecurity and labor resignations continue to cause bottlenecks at U.S. ports. Without the necessary workforce to transport goods across the U.S., some ports are facing an 80 percent increase in congestion. As the global supply chain grows more chaotic, President Biden met with officials last Wednesday to discuss the nationwide supply chain bottlenecks, announcing that the Port of Los Angeles will begin operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week to help deal with the bottlenecks. Additionally, major retailers such as Walmart and Target committed to increasing shipping operations during off-hours, with logistics companies FedEx & UPS making a similar pledge.

“In my 40 years of living and working in Southern California, I have never seen container ships off the coast of Malibu, and yet there they are, because there is no more room for them in the parking lots that are the ports of LA and Long Beach,” said Brad Hughes, Member of the Transportation & Logistics Practice at Clark Hill PLC.

How Long Will COVID-19 Supply Chain Disruptions Last? 

It remains to be seen precisely how long the effects of COVID-19 will be felt on supply chains. In many cases, the answer is industry-specific since different industries rely on the global supply chain in different ways. However, in general, it does appear that the problem is unlikely to be resolved before the end of 2021.

“Unfortunately, the supply chain problem is not likely to be resolved before Christmas,” said Mark Andrews, Senior Counsel and member of the Transportation & Logistics Practice at Clark Hill PLC. “There are many grinches involved, from port bottlenecks, driver and truck shortages, to high freight costs and tariffs. These are compounding problems that need simultaneous attention but will take different times to resolve.”

Industries reliant on highly specific, specialized goods, such as semiconductors or rare earth metals, face a particularly long return to normal. Over 60 percent of businesses in the manufacturing industry reported domestic supplier shortages, followed closely by construction companies at just under 60 percent.

“While many project with cautious optimism a mid-2022 chip supply recovery, we do anticipate other supply chain woes well into late-2022,” said Scott Hill, Executive Partner and member of the Corporate Practice Team at Varnum LLP. “Supplies of raw materials such as resin, aluminum, and steel have become unreliable in this volatile market. Long lead times and increased prices for raw materials, especially in the auto space, are projected which will cause significant disruption when a full restart is demanded. Those who have the ability to order materials now will be better positioned to sell to the market.”

How Can Companies Handle COVID-19 Supply Chain Disruptions? 

The supply chain disruptions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have wide reaching legal implications, specifically the web of state and federal laws surrounding transportation.

“I would identify uniformity of federal and state transportation law as a badly needed element of ‘legal infrastructure’ to reduce transportation costs and delays,” Mr. Andrews said. “Examples include driver hours, worker classification and up-supply-chain liability for ‘negligent selection’ of motor carriers involved in traffic accidents.”

With there being no signs of the supply chain disruptions ending anytime soon, companies can take steps to manage their supply chain operations. Potential solutions include moving from a sole-source supply chain to a multi-source supply chain, according to Varnum’s Mr. Hill.

“Since the onset of the pandemic, we have worked closely with our clients to optimize their supply chain, whether they were operating under sole-source or multi-sourcing strategies. As you may imagine, multi-sourcing and on-shoring to the extent possible has been particularly important with bottlenecks in the chain across the globe,” he said.

Another consideration for companies experiencing supply chain disruptions is handling claims of delayed delivery, specifically for those in the automotive supplier industry. Mr. Hill said his clients are working daily to remedy automotive industry supply chain issues to ensure expectations are met.

“Many of our clients are in the automotive supplier space and the semiconductor shortage continues to warrant attention and necessitates daily if not hourly conversations up and down the chain to reflect good faith efforts to deliver under the terms of supply agreements,” he said.

Currently, federal agencies and the Biden Administration are responding to supply chain issues, specifically through President Biden’s executive order. The order addresses many of the issues facing supply chains right now, including directing heads of federal agencies to conduct a one-year review on supply chain vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

Even though many of the challenges presented by the supply chain disruptions are ongoing, the announcement from the Biden Administration that ports and retailers are committing to increasing operations to deal with supply chain issues may help ease some of the strain. Additionally, companies can expect more regulatory actions to come later in the year from other agencies.

“Federal agencies are actively undertaking a range of actions in response to recent executive orders and other presidential direction on the nation’s supply chain issues,” said Anthony Campau, Counsel and Director of Government Regulation for Clark Hill.

“Some of those measures are already public, but more detail will likely become visible this fall when the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) releases the Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which will list all regulatory actions currently under development at federal agencies. That publication should offer a helpful window into planned regulatory responses to the nation’s supply chain woes,” he said.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

For more articles on supply chain, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Why Legal Teams Need Digital Contracting for Modern Business

Legal teams have always had the arduous task of analyzing legal documents, which is not only time-consuming but also requires close attention to detail and years of education and training. On top of that, because this is traditionally done manually, the critical data buried within contracts has remained lost.

While manually analyzing contracts might have worked in the past, it simply won’t cut it in the fast-paced reality of today. It’s time for legal teams to join the digital transformation. Over the last decade and a half, every other facet of business has undergone digitization…except contracts. And with digital transformation investments projected to hit a total of $7.8 trillion from 2020 to 2024, it’s legal’s turn to get on board.

Businesses rely on contracts to survive. Think sales contracts, employment and partnership agreements, NDAs, licensing agreements and more. But as they exist today, contracts are a workflow impediment and the data they hold isn’t being used to its full potential.

Data is currently trapped in contracts

There is all kinds of information-rich, operational data hidden in contracts critical to a company’s success. As much as 90% of company spend and investments are determined by contract terms. At the same time, suboptimal terms and inefficient contract management can result in a whopping 9% loss of annual revenue. While the specific information businesses choose to focus on will vary, some common points hidden in contracts include:

  • Total contract value – the total value of the contract once it’s active, its recurring revenue and charges.
  • Auto-renewal opt-out notification period – the amount of time auto-renewal can be opted out of.
  • Personally identifiable information (PII) exchange – data identifying an individual.
  • Counterparty address region – the party on the other end of the contract.
  • Ability to terminate for convenience – the power to terminate a contract if it becomes unsatisfactory.
  • Exclusivity – a type of agreement where one party agrees to work exclusively with the other.

This critical data isn’t readily available and there’s no good way of tracking it unless we adopt a new way of doing things. Once unearthed, contracts will help businesses become efficient, effective and more accurate.

Contract data allows legal teams to operationalize and reduce risk

Legal teams need to be able to keep up in a world that runs on increasingly larger numbers and more complex scenarios. To do so, they need to be equipped with resources enabling them to be data-driven. For example, today, legal teams may lack the answers to simple questions about the contract pipeline simply because these insights aren’t stored, compiled and updated in real time. Without this, legal teams are unable to operationalize their processes, making it impossible to put the systems in place that allow for more efficient work. After all, inefficient contracts can cause losses ranging from five to 40% of deal value. It also exposes the company to danger because, without tracking, contracts are ripe with risk.

Contracts hold the operational and substantive information legal teams need to operationalize, set goals, mitigate risk and prove their value to the company. Operational data includes the number of workflows launched and completed as well as turnaround and response times. Substantive data, such as governing tax law, contract amount, data protection and implementation obligations, exposes risk and obligation.

With the right tools and a centralized system, legal teams can have access to all the details they need to prove their team’s value, work more efficiently and protect their companies.

A new standard: digital contracting

A new standard for companies and legal teams to keep up with a fast-paced, data-driven world: digital contracting, a standardized system for business contracting to connect people to systems and data. Once digitized, contracts will become living, collaborative documents to easily find and track the once-hidden goldmine of data within. The result is resilient teams.

Legal tech is leading the way in developing the software needed to support digital contracting. Next-generation contract management software makes metadata searchable and readily accessible. This will enable entire businesses to have the information they need to make well-informed decisions at their fingertips.

Soon, the days of in-house lawyers having to paper chase will be long gone. Instead, lawyers will be able to create agreements instantly, collaborate and get approval with ease, while having access to version history and the metadata needed to operationalize and reduce risk.

It’s time for legal teams to get the tools they need to thrive in today’s fast-paced work environment by getting on board with a better, faster, more sustainable way of work through digital contracting.

© 2021 Ironclad, Inc. All rights reserved.

Article By Chris Young of Ironclad

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