The National Law Forum

Soaring to New Heights With Drones: The Rise of UAVs in Construction Projects

The next time you visit a construction site, look up. You may see a drone in flight. The explosion of interest in the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) industry is driven by their potential for data collection because of the ability to carry many different onboard sensors. In the construction industry, drones are used for inspections, security and surveillance, material delivery, securing investment, augmented reality, and to identify safety issues.

Drones can also be used to improve day-to-day operations by creating time lapses, job-site monitoring, and thermal imaging. Other examples of ways drones can be used in the construction industry include: design, engineering, planning, marketing, volumetrics, asbuilts, construction progress, and site logistics.

Prior to August 2016, there were many legal prohibitions that limited the use of commercial drones. However, 14 CFR § 107 (Part 107) revolutionized the operation of UAS weighing less than 55 pounds and operating for commercial purposes. This regulation affords commercial operators with the opportunity to fly UAS without prior case-by-case approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as long as they comply with certain restrictions. Some of the key operating restrictions include maintaining a visual-line-of-sight, operating only during the daytime or twilight hours, not flying over people not directly participating in the drone mission, and maximum speed and altitude limits. Transport Canada, which is responsible for transportation policies and programs in that country, has also recommended similar guidelines, including keeping the drone in visual line of sight and operating the drone during daylight hours. Additionally, there are extensive requirements for commercial operations under Special Flight Operating Certificate (SFOC), but Transport Canada is in the process of revisiting these rules.

Most of the restrictions under Part 107 are waivable, if granted permission from the FAA through an online application process. The Part 107 waiver process incorporates significant flexibility into the regulations. The waiver process is a tool that the construction industry can utilize to maximize the value and use of UAS. Possible areas to request a waiver include nighttime operations, simultaneous operation of multiple aircraft, operation over people, and operation in restricted airspace.

Use of UAVs in the United States is subject to the enforcement authority of the FAA. The FAA has broad enforcement authority and investigatory powers, which require it to regulate aircraft operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) in order to ensure the safety of persons, property, and manned aircraft. The FAA may take enforcement action against anyone who conducts an unauthorized UAS operation or operates a UAS in a way that endangers the safety of the NAS. The FAA works with local and state law enforcement to explain the legal framework surrounding UAS and to seek help in identifying unlawful UAS operators. Specifically, UAS must comply with safety requirements of Part 107. In addition, those who “endanger the safety of the national airspace system” may face penalties, including warning notices, letters of correction, and civil penalties. With regard to the FAA’s investigatory power, it needs only a “reasonable ground” to show a violation of a statute or regulation to initiate an investigation.

Transport Canada overall has conducted minimal enforcement of drone operations. In 2016, it undertook a large educational effort with regard to the safe operation of drones. It does have an online enforcement tool that provides information about “dos and don’ts” for flying drones, as well as details about regulations.

The increased prevalence of UAVs has prompted the courts to review the unsettled area of airspace law. One issue is the private versus public control of airspace. On one hand is the common law principle of property ownership that states that one controls the airspace above their privately owned land. On the other hand are FAA regulations, which claim jurisdiction over all U.S. airspace. Additionally, increased state legislation aimed at drone regulation has created preemption concerns, particularly when the state laws are in conflict with federal laws.

Another risk is that liability arising from drones is not covered in typical commercial liability insurance policies. However, it can be added to both property and liability coverage, which generally protects the insured against damage done by or to its drone. Some regulators propose requiring certain drone users to purchase liability insurance.

In order to keep up with the growth and changing needs of drone use, rulemaking for drone usage will likely continue and expand over the coming months.

California’s Equal Restroom Access Act: 5 Facts You Need to Know

California’s Equal Restroom Access Act, which requires some establishments with single-occupancy restrooms to display signs indicating that the restroom is gender-neutral, has been in effect since March 1, 2017. Assembly Bill No. 1732 (AB 1732), which Governor Jerry Brown signed on September 29, 2016, requires these restrooms “to be identified as all-gender toilet facilities” and that the signs used to designate these restrooms comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

1. Which Restrooms Are Covered?

The new law applies to “[a]ll single-user toilet facilities in any business establishment, place of public accommodation, or state or local government agency.” AB 1732 defines “single-user toilet facility” as “a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by the user.”

2. What Does the Law Require?

The law simply requires businesses, agencies, and places of public accommodation to use the proper signage—i.e., gender-neutral signage—on any single-user restrooms that they have.

3. What Must the Sign Look Like?

The signs on single-user restrooms must comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. This means that each covered single-user restroom must, at minimum, have the following signage:

A sign with a geometric symbol of a triangle superimposed on a circle
A designation tactile (i.e., capable of being read by touch) sign that indicates that the facility is a restroom

4. Does the Law Require That Specific Language Be Used?

The law does not require any specific wording on the signs as long as the wording used is gender neutral. For example, the sign may state “Restroom,” “All-Gender Restroom,” “Gender-Neutral,” “Unisex,” or “All Welcome.” Similarly, language written in raised letters and/or Braille must also be gender-neutral.

Note that the City of San Francisco has more restrictive laws in place regarding the wording and images on restroom signs.

5. How Will the Law Be Enforced?

The law permits inspectors, building officials, and other local officials who are “responsible for code enforcement” to inspect a restroom for compliance with this section during “any inspection of a business or a place of public accommodation.”

Key Takeaways

Affected employers with single-occupancy restrooms on their premises should ensure that the signs on the single-user restrooms are in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Employers should also take this opportunity to review the Fair Employment and Housing Council’s gender identity regulations that went into effect on July 1, 2017. The regulations’ restroom access provisions require an employer to allow an employee to use the restroom facility that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity or gender expression, regardless of the employee’s sex assigned at birth.

For more analysis check out The National Law Review.

This post was written by Hera S. Arsen of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Federal Communications Commission Tackles the “Reassigned Number Problem”

Reassigned numbers have been at the center of the surge in litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) during the last few years. By now the story is well known to businesses that actively communicate with their customers: the customer consents to receive telemarketing and/or informational robocalls^[1] at a wireless telephone number, but months or years later the customer changes his or her wireless telephone number and—unbeknownst to the business—the telephone number is reassigned to a different person. When the recipient of the reassigned number starts receiving calls or messages from the business, a lawsuit often ensues under the TCPA because that party has not consented to receive such calls. The FCC adopted on July 13 a Second Notice of Inquiry (“Second NOI”) that promises to address this problem in a meaningful way. Specifically, the Second NOI focuses on the feasibility of “using numbering information to create a comprehensive resource that businesses can use to identify telephone numbers that have been reassigned from a consumer who has consented to receiving calls to a consumer who has not.”

Background on the Reassigned Number Problem

Under the current regime, the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) Administrator generally provides telephone numbers to voice service providers—including those who supply interconnected voice—in blocks of 1000. The voice service providers recycle those numbers in and out of service, such that, after a number has been dropped, the number goes into a pool for a short period and then is brought out of the pool and reassigned to a different consumer.

The “reassigned number problem” occurs when a consumer consents to receive robocalls (telemarketing and/or informational), but then terminates service to the relevant wireless number without informing the businesses the consumer previously gave consent to make the robocalls. Businesses that find themselves making robocalls to numbers that (unbeknownst to them) had been reassigned to a different consumer increasingly find themselves subject to lawsuits under the TCPA—this even though it has been widely acknowledged that (1) customers often switch telephone numbers without providing notice to businesses and (2) there is no public directory of reassigned wireless numbers that businesses can rely on to identify and scrub reassigned numbers. When various industry groups and business entities asked the FCC to intervene, the FCC clarified that businesses making robocalls needed the consent of “the actual party who receives a call,” not of the intended recipient of the robocall. FCC created a so-called “safe harbor” that afforded little protection in practice: a business could make a single call to a reassigned number without triggering liability under the TCPA, but the business would then be imputed with “constructive” knowledge that the number had been reassigned even if the single call did not yield actual confirmation that the number had been reassigned. The FCC did so even as it admitted that the tools available to identify reassigned numbers “will not in every case identify numbers that have been reassigned” and that the steps it was taking “may not solve the problem in its entirety” even “where the caller is taking ongoing steps reasonably designed to discover reassignments and to cease calls.”

The Second NOI

The Second NOI promises to more meaningfully address the reassigned number problem by suggesting the creation of a reliable, complete list of reassigned numbers that service providers would be required to update. In pertinent part, the Second NOI addresses a number of other topics, including, but not limited to, possible reporting alternatives, compensation schemes, frequency of updates, and fees and eligibility requirements for accessing reassigned number data. It also asks a number of logistical questions, including, but not limited to:

(1) What are the ways in which voice service providers could report the information in an accurate and timely way?

(2) Would the reporting—into a database or other platform—“substantially improve robocallers’ ability to identify reassigned numbers?”

(3) What information should voice service providers report?

(4) In what ways might the information reported raise concerns regarding the disclosure of private, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information?

(5) Should reassignment of toll-free numbers also be reported?

(6) What is the quantity of numbers reassigned and the benefits of reducing unwanted calls to these numbers?

(7) Should there be a safe harbor from TCPA violations for robocallers who use the new reassigned number resource? What would be the advantages and disadvantages?

(8) How can the FCC incentivize robocallers to use the reassigned number resource?

In addition, the Second NOI seeks comment on whether the notification requirement should apply to all voice service providers or just providers of wireless services, and how to “balance the reporting burden placed on voice service providers against consumers’ privacy interests and robocallers’ interest in learning of reassignments.” The item also seeks comment on which entity should be responsible for notification in circumstances when a voice service provider does not receive numbers directly from NANP, but instead obtains numbers “indirectly” from carrier partners.

The Commission claims it has the authority under Sections 227(b) and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended—which give the FCC control over the US portion of NANP and incorporate the TCPA—to require entities that obtain numbers from NANP to also report reassignments. In fact, the Commission claims that doing so may further the statutory goals underlying the TCPA, which generally prohibits unwanted robocalls.

Although many details remain to be discussed and addressed by the FCC, the creation of the list that the FCC is proposing would address one of the main challenges faced by businesses that want to comply with the TCPA: how to gather reliable and complete information regarding which wireless telephone numbers have been reassigned. The possibility of such a list working similar to that available to identify telephone numbers in the Do Not Call List is particularly promising, especially if it comes accompanied by safe harbor provisions similar to those attached to the Do Not Call List obligations in the FCC’s rules.

Comments are due August 28, 2017 and Reply Comments September 26, 2017.

_{[1] For purposes of this post “robocalls” refers to both calls made using an automatic telephone dialing system or using an artificial voice or pre-recorded message.}

This post was contributed by Eduardo R. Guzmán Paul C. Besozzi and Koyulyn K. Miller of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more legal analysis check out the National Law Review.

US Attorney’s Office in Chicago Announces Creation of Health Care Fraud Unit

Acting US Attorney Joel Levin says the new dedicated unit aims to bring “even greater focus, efficiency, and impact to our efforts in this important area.”

The US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois recently announced the creation of a Health Care Fraud Unit—a team of five assistant US attorneys devoted to prosecuting all types of healthcare fraud cases, including fraudulent billing schemes and diversion of controlled substances.

The announcement came just days after the largest US Department of Justice national healthcare fraud enforcement “takedown” action against 412 defendants across 41 federal districts for the alleged participation in schemes involving over $1 billion in fraudulent healthcare billing. Fifteen individuals, including two Chicago-area licensed physicians, are facing federal criminal charges and potential Office of Inspector General (OIG) exclusion as a result of this action.

Nationwide, US Attorney offices have a major role in healthcare fraud enforcement. In Fiscal Year 2016 alone, US Attorney offices opened 975 new criminal healthcare fraud investigations and 930 new civil healthcare fraud investigations.^[1]

While the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois has a long history of prosecuting healthcare fraud cases, the creation of a dedicated unit within the office may have a number of quantifiable effects, including the following:

Rise in Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions. The dedicated unit, comprised of criminal prosecutors, will focus on the criminal prosecution of entities and individuals when the alleged healthcare fraud rises to the level of criminal culpability. As such, there likely will be a rise in investigative activity that includes attempted interviews of potential targets, subjects, or witnesses by government agents; the issuance of grand jury subpoenas; and the execution of search warrants.

In addition, the criminal prosecutors undoubtedly will work closely with government attorneys assigned to the civil division and—to the extent permitted in accordance with grand jury secrecy rules—share certain information with civil division attorneys.

Rise in Enforcement Investigations and Actions. With increased focus, resources, and the sharing of information obtained from criminal investigations, there also may be a rise in the number of civil investigative demands issued to companies in the healthcare industry that are suspected of fraud, waste, and abuse. The US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois may become more proactive in its efforts—alongside the OIG—to increase the collection of civil penalties against healthcare organizations and executives.

Rise in Qui Tam Suits. With a dedicated Health Care Fraud Unit, the Northern District of Illinois may become a more attractive venue for whistleblowers seeking to recover under the False Claims Act for alleged fraud, waste, and abuse.

The new Health Care Fraud Unit will operate within the criminal division of the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. Assistant US Attorney Heather McShain will lead the unit, and Assistant US Attorney Stephen Chahn Lee will serve as senior counsel.

For more Health Care news go to the National Law Review.

_{[1] See The Department of Health and Human Services and The Department of Justice Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016.}

This post was written by Tinos Diamantatos and Eric W. Sitarchuk of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Government Contract Law: The Deskbook for Procurement Professionals, Fourth Edition

The fourth edition of Government Contract Law is a comprehensive, step by step guide through all aspects of federal government contracting and incorporates numerous significant changes in procurement since the Third Edition was published.

To purchase, click here.

Based on the Contract Attorney’s course of The Judge Advocate General’s Law Center and School, this valuable deskbook is designed to help you safely navigate the entire federal contracting process — from pre-bidding through award, and on to protest and litigation — with the least risk to your client or company.

Since the last edition, there have been many changes in government contract law. The executive branch has implemented several policy initiatives through the power of federal contracting, including revised labor policies. Similarly, Congress has implemented changes, including regulation of contractor business systems, trafficking in persons, and provisions addressing problems that have been identified in the past decade such as perceived misuse of commercial items. What has not changed is the basic system of acquiring goods and services.

This fourth edition of the ABA’s revisions to the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School’s Contract Law Deskbook, includes updates to references, new chapters (which do not appear in the JAG School’s version) as well as chapter revisions that include material that is useful to contractor attorneys and the private bar. This edition has been expanded and can be used by military attorneys as well as practitioners who are not a part of the military.

This Deskbook has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a foundation for numerous continuing legal education materials, and is used daily by hundreds of attorneys.

Eating Disorders are Mental Health Conditions Subject to Parity Law

The Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services (Departments) continue to issue FAQs addressing the implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), as amended by the Affordable Care Act and the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). The MHPAEA prohibits group health plans from imposing financial requirements and treatment limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than the requirements imposed on medical and surgical benefits. The Cures Act requires the Departments to solicit public feedback regarding how to improve required disclosures under the MHPAEA. The FAQs in Part 38 contain the same request for public comment that was in Implementation Part 34, and provide a draft model form that can be used by participants to request information from a health plan regarding nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTL) that may affect their mental health and substance use disorder benefits, or to obtain documentation after an adverse benefit determination involving these benefits.

In addition, the FAQs provide guidance regarding eating disorder coverage. If a plan provides these benefits, FAQ-1 in Part 38 confirms that the coverage must comply with the MHPAEA. The guidance indicates that “eating disorders are mental health conditions and therefore treatment of an eating disorder is a ‘mental health benefit’ within the meaning of that term as defined by MHPAEA.” Plans should be reviewed to determine whether financial requirements and treatment limitations placed on eating disorder treatment comply with the parity requirements under the MHPAEA.

This post was written by Sarah Roe Sise of Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

For more legal analysis check out the National Law Review.

Chairman Clayton Outlines His “Guiding Principles” for SEC

In remarks to the Economic Club of New York on July 12, 2017, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton outlined eight guiding principles for his chairmanship and identified certain areas in which such principles could be put into practice. Chairman Clayton’s remarks – his first public speech as SEC Chairman – indicated his interest in, among other things, creating a Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee to give advice to the SEC on regulatory issues impacting fixed income markets and coordinating with the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) to bring “clarity and consistency” to the issue of standards of conduct for investment professionals, noting the DoL’s Fiduciary Rule is now partially in effect.

Guiding Principles

Clayton stated that the following principles will guide his SEC chairmanship:

• Principle 1: “The SEC’s mission is our touchstone.” Chairman Clayton stated that each tenet of the SEC’s three-part mission – (1) to protect investors, (2) to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and (3) to facilitate capital formation – is critical.

• Principle 2: “Our analysis starts and ends with the long-term interests of the Main Street investor.” According to the Chairman, an assessment of whether the SEC is abiding by its threepart mission must focus on the impact of its actions on “Mr. and Ms. 401(k)” and whether the SEC’s actions further the long-term interests of such investors.

• Principle 3: “The SEC’s historic approach to regulation is sound.” The SEC’s regulatory approach, focusing on disclosure and materiality, and using the SEC’s “extensive enforcement capabilities” as a “back-stop” to disclosure rules and oversight systems, is sound. In expressing his support for disclosure-based rules, Clayton asserted that informed decision-making by investors supports more accurate valuations of securities and more efficient allocation of capital. As to the “back-stop,” the anti-fraud regime established by Congress and the SEC, Clayton noted the government’s “extensive enforcement capabilities on those who try to circumvent established investor protections or otherwise engage in deceptive or manipulative acts in the markets.” Taking the foregoing into account, Chairman Clayton maintained that “wholesale changes” to the SEC’s fundamental regulatory approach would “not make sense.”

• Principle 4: “Regulatory actions drive change, and change can have lasting effects.” Although Chairman Clayton endorsed the disclosure-based regime of the SEC, he cautioned that the incremental impact of regulatory changes to this regime has included a significantly expanded scope of required disclosures “beyond the core concept of materiality.” He cited increased disclosure as among the factors that may make alternatives for raising capital increasingly attractive for small and medium-sized companies. Chairman Clayton added that fewer small and mediumsized public companies may mean less liquid trading markets for those that remain public and, to the extent companies are not raising capital in public markets, “the vast majority of Main Street investors will be unable to participate in their growth.”

• Principle 5: “As markets evolve, so must the SEC.” Noting that technology and innovation are changing the way markets work and investors transact, Chairman Clayton stated that the SEC must take this “dynamic atmosphere” into account and “strive to ensure that our rules and operations reflect the realities of our capital markets.” Further to this point, Clayton remarked that the evolution of capital markets presents opportunities for regulatory improvements and efficiencies and noted that the SEC is “adapting machine learning and artificial intelligence to new functions, such as analyzing regulatory filings.” Chairman Clayton cautioned, however, that implementing regulatory change has costs, including the “significant resources” spent by companies to build compliance systems.

• Principle 6: “Effective rulemaking does not end with rule adoption.” Chairman Clayton stated that the SEC should review its rules “retrospectively,” and listen to investors and others as to areas in which rules are, or are not, functioning as intended.

• Principle 7: “The costs of a rule now often include the cost of demonstrating compliance.” Chairman Clayton noted that the SEC must ensure that, at the time of adoption, the SEC has a “realistic version for how rules will be implemented,” as well as how the SEC will examine for compliance. In this regard, according to Clayton, “[v]aguely worded rules can too easily lead to subpar compliance solutions or an overinvestment in control systems.”

• Principle 8: “Coordination is key.” According to Chairman Clayton, coordination with, between, and among all of the various U.S. federal regulatory bodies, state securities regulators, selfregulatory organizations and various other regulatory players “is essential to a well-functioning regulatory environment.” To illustrate his point, Clayton cited the dual regulatory structure for over the-counter derivatives called for by the Dodd-Frank Act and working with the CFTC in this respect. Chairman Clayton noted that cybersecurity is also an area where coordination is critical, adding that the SEC is working with “fellow financial regulators to improve our ability to receive critical information and alerts and react to cyber threats.”

Fixed Income Markets

In a portion of his remarks titled, “Putting Principles into Practice,” Chairman Clayton observed that the “time is right for the SEC to broaden its review of market structure to include specifically the efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness of our fixed income markets.” The SEC, according to Clayton, must explore whether fixed income markets “are as efficient and resilient as we expect them to be, scrutinize our regulatory approach, and identify opportunities for improvement.” In this connection, Chairman Clayton stated that he has asked the SEC staff to develop a plan for creating a Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee.

Fiduciary Rule

Chairman Clayton also touched upon the DoL’s Fiduciary Rule, noting that he recently issued a statement seeking public input on standards of conduct for investment advisers and broker-dealers. Chairman Clayton expressed hope that the SEC can “act in concert with our colleagues at the [DoL] in a way that best serves the long-term interests of Mr. and Ms. 401(k).” He also noted that “any action will need to be carefully constructed, so that it provides appropriate and meaningful protections but does not result in Main Street investors being deprived of affordable investment advice or products.”

The transcript of Chairman Clayton’s remarks is available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/remarks-economicclub-new-york.

Read more SEC news at the National Law Review.

This post was by the Investment Services Group of Vedder Price

HSAs and the ERISA Fiduciary Rule: What Employers Should Know

With the fate of health care reform—and its repeal and/or replacement—up for grabs in Washington, there is a health-related compliance item outside of health care reform that should be on employers’ radars: health savings accounts (HSAs) and the new Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary rule.

We have previously kept you apprised concerning the evolving saga of the ERISA fiduciary rule, the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE), and other related exemptions in a series of posts. As you likely know, post-inauguration, this hotly-debated and controversial rule and its exemptions largely became effective June 9, 2017 (with a transition period extending through year-end).

At this stage, most employers and plan sponsors have engaged in dialogue with their retirement plan investment advisors and recordkeepers to understand what is being done to comply with the rule. However, employers offering HSAs, the custodial accounts that can be paired with high deductible health plans (HDHPs) to gain significant tax benefits, should not turn a blind eye to this rule.

Discussing the ERISA fiduciary rule in context of HSAs may seem surprising or bizarre given that HSAs are generally not plans governed by ERISA. These accounts are employee-owned (no “use it or lose it” applies) and not employer-sponsored. That said, the Department of Labor has taken the position that an HSA should be treated like an Individual Retirement Account for purposes of the ERISA fiduciary rule, given that its investment accounts may be used as savings accounts for retiree health care expenses. Depending upon the level of involvement an employer has with the HAS, including whether the employer offers or actively facilitates the provision of investment recommendations/advice on the HSA investments or receives a benefit (including revenue sharing) from an HSA vendor or investment, ERISA’s expanded fiduciary rule could come into effect.

At a minimum, an employer who offers a HDHP and facilitates HSA contributions should consider whether its involvement could trigger ERISA fiduciary status. This undertaking could involve reviewing HSA vendor agreements and related practices touching investments. Even if it is determined that the employer is unlikely to be a fiduciary for its HSA plan, an employer may still benefit from implementing certain features of ERISA best practices to mitigate risk for their organization and employees during this transition time period.

For more legal analysis, go to the National Law Review.

This post was written by Carrie E. Byrnes and Jorge M. Leon of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP.

Department of State Releases 2017 TIP Report

The Department of State has released its 2017 Trafficking in Persons (“TIP”) Report. As with prior versions of the annual report, the State Department reviewed efforts made by more than 180 countries to address the minimum Prosecutorial, Protective, and Preventative standards necessary for effective anti-trafficking measures, as these standards are outlined in the United States’ Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”).

The release of the report is notable because it can directly impact contractors’ diligence obligations for supply chain review under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Human Trafficking Rule (located at FAR § 52.222-50). As we have highlighted in previous articles, for those contractors required to submit compliance plans to the government, such plans should be appropriately shaped to the “nature and scope of activities to be performed for the Government . . . and the risk that the contract or subcontract will involve services or supplies susceptible to trafficking in persons.” See FAR § 52.222-50(h)(2)(ii). Additionally, as set forth in a recent proposed memorandum, which remains the clearest articulation of the government’s views on supply chain diligence obligations to date (covered in a prior post), contractors are expected to take steps to “identify high-risk portions of [their] supply chain[s].”

For these reasons, movement of a particular country up or down in risk classification in the TIP Report may greatly impact a contractor’s supply chain risk profile, especially if the contractor sources a significant amount of goods or materials from that country. Even where countries are not designated under the Trade Agreements Act for direct importation and sale of goods to the U.S. government, to the extent that contractors rely on these countries for the supply of materials or components to be “substantially transformed” in the U.S. or a designated country, those contractors will bear heightened risk of non-compliance under the FAR requirement should a country fall in placement.

Although this year’s TIP Report was recently revised for increased clarity per the recommendation of a late 2016 GAO Report, it continues to classify countries by the same “Tiers,” that it has in years past. Tier 1 countries “fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking,” and consequentially are considered to be relatively low risk. Tier 2 countries “do not fully meet TVPA’s minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance.” Tier 2 Watch List countries are still considered to be “making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance,” but may have only made commitments to take action over the next year, or have yet to stem the absolute number of trafficking cases. Finally, Tier 3 countries fail to meet TVPA standards and are not considered to be taking significant steps to come into compliance, either through commitments or otherwise.

For 2017, Iceland and China each fell in placement, while Malaysia and Afghanistan moved up in placement. Per the classification standards mentioned above, Iceland is now on par with Afghanistan in terms of basic classification — both are now Tier 2 designated countries. Malaysia is now also a Tier 2 designated country, moving up in placement from the Tier 2 Watch List. The People’s Republic of China, in contrast, fell to a Tier 3 classification this year, greatly increasing its risk profile. (Hong Kong, however, remains on the Tier 2 Watch List.)

In light of these changes, and recent indications that the Trump Administration remains committed to “devoting more” to anti-trafficking programs, contractors would be advised to make sure that their supply chain compliance and diligence programs are updated to reflect the latest information on country risk profiles available from the government.

For more legal analysis go to the National Law Review.

This post was written by Jennifer L. Plitsch Ryan Burnette and Alexander B. Hastings of Covington & Burling LLP.

Take a Screen Shot of This: Supervisor Unlawfully Interrogated Employee Through Text, NLRB Says

Texting has become one of the most common ways people communicate. Despite its prevalence, however, texting can raise serious concerns for employers, particularly when such communication takes place between a supervisor and employee in the context of a union election. A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case makes that point clear. In RHCG Safety Corp and Construction & General Building Laborers, Local 79, the Board held that a coercive text message from a supervisor to an employee could serve as evidence that an employer unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union support.

This decision echoes other NLRB decisions holding that an unlawful interrogation does not need to be face-to-face to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board has held that such unlawful interrogation can occur over a phone call, a written job application form, and now, it seems, via a short text message containing 40 characters.

The case arose in the context of a union election. During the union’s campaign, an employee texted his supervisor asking if he could return to work after a leave of absence. The supervisor responded, by text message, “U working for Redhook or u working in the union?” (Redhook is how RHCG Safety is known.) The Board found that by juxtaposing working for the employer with working in the union, the supervisor’s text strongly suggested that the two were incompatible. The Board accordingly ruled that the text constituted an unlawful interrogation and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

Significantly, the NLRB found that for purposes of determining legality, it doesn’t matter whether the message actually coerced the employee, so long as the interrogation was coercive in nature. To this end, the Board found certain facts weighed in favor of making the text coercive in nature. First, the employee was not an open union supporter at the time of the interrogation. Second, the supervisor did not communicate to the employee any legitimate purpose for asking if he was working in the union. Finally, the supervisor didn’t provide the employee with any assurances against reprisals.

This case suggests that seemingly offhanded communications between supervisors and employees may be determined to be coercive, interrogative, and in violation of the NLRA. Employers should consider their communication policies and train supervisors on methods of communicating with employees, particularly during a union election.

Read more legal analysis at the National Law Review.

This post was written by Minal Khan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

The National Law Forum

Soaring to New Heights With Drones: The Rise of UAVs in Construction Projects

Like this: