Criminal or Civil Liability for Sharing Streaming Accounts?

We are at the beginning of a new era of media consumption.  Traditional content delivery systems such as satellite and cable television are hemorrhaging customers to a wave of “cord cutting” that has been facilitated by the availability of streaming services such as Hulu Plus, Netflix and HBO Go.[1]  Now that smart televisions are becoming more common place, cord cutting is no longer limited to the technologically hip youth, as accessing a Netflix account is as easy as changing the channel.

1-26-2016 3-38-45 PMBut with the proliferation of streaming services, users have elected to share the benefits of the accounts―i.e. their passwords―with others.  A staggering 46% of accountholders admit to sharing their streaming account password with people outside of their household.[2]  This raises some interesting questions of federal and state criminal, tort and contract laws.  What sort of liability might someone have for sharing their account with friends or family?  For using a shared account of a friend?

But in order to figure out if sharing of passwords violates the law, we first have to see if it violates the streaming service’s terms of service.

Netflix

Netflix is arguably the pioneer in password sharing.  For years Netflix has allowed multiple user profiles to better enable its suggestion algorithm to tailor its offerings to a targeted user.  By tactical use of user profiles, parents can limit the likelihood that Netflix will suggest the latest episode of Barney and Friends based on their child’s viewing of Teletubbies the week before.[3]  Netflix has also long offered the ability to stream its services on a limited number of devices simultaneously. [4]  Netflix’s commitment to account sharing was recently echoed by its CEO Reed Hastings who stated:  “As kids move on in their life, they like to have control of their life, and as they have an income, we see them separately subscribe. It really hasn’t been a problem.”[5]  But Netflix’s position on non-family members sharing the passwords has been a little more vague.

Hulu Plus

Hulu has not taken the vocal stance on account sharing that Netflix has.  Though it is apparent that Hulu has at least contemplated password sharing to some degree.  In section 5 of its terms of use, Hulu acknowledges that people within the same household are likely to use the account, and holds the primary account holder accountable  for their activities:  “You are responsible for all use of your account, including use of your account by other members of your household. By allowing others to access your account, you agree to be responsible for ensuring that they comply with these Terms and you agree to be responsible for their activity using the Services.”[6]  However unlike Netflix, Hulu Plus accounts are limited to streaming on one device at a time, which minimizes the advantage of sharing.

HBO Go

Like Netflix, HBO Go specifically contemplates the idea of multiple users within the same household.  HBO has two tiers of accounts.  The first is a “Registered Account” which consists of account holders who meet certain eligibility criteria, namely, they subscribe to HBO and HBO On Demand or Cinemax and Cinemax on Demand.[7]  These Registered Account holders can create “Household Member Accounts” for members of their household.  The Register Account serves as the master account for the Household Member Accounts and can control what content the junior accounts have access to.  However, despite the ability to create Household Member Accounts, HBO Go appears to take an antagonistic view of sharing the master account password itself.  HBO Go’s terms of service specifically state that “You are responsible for all activity occurring under your Registered Account and any Subaccount authorized by you, including maintaining the confidentiality of each Username and Password, and you agree that any household member account users authorized by you will not permit the disclosure of any Username and Password to any person.”   Contrast the above statements to Hulu’s request to “Please keep your password confidential,” and it is apparent that one is an order, and the other a request.

But statements by HBO’s CEO bely the strict terms of their agreement. In an interview with Buzzfeed, HBO’s CEO stated:  “It’s not that we’re ignoring it, and we’re looking at different ways to affect password sharing. I’m simply telling you: it’s not a fundamental problem, and the externality of it is that it presents the brand to more and more people, and gives them an opportunity hopefully to become addicted to it. What we’re in the business of doing is building addicts, of building video addicts. The way we do that is by exposing our product, our brand, our shows, to more and more people.”[8]

So HBO intends on building a legion of addicts, and with shows like Game of Thrones, they are well on their way to being the Pablo Escobar of digital content.  But like any drug dealer, the first sample is free, but the second is going to cost you.  No one knows for sure when HBO will start demanding money for that next “hit.”

It is apparent that these three streaming services all authorize sharing of an account among members of a household. A reasonable argument could be made that this extends to college age children who are away from the home during the school year, but whose primary residence is still their family home.

But what about sharing the account with third parties?  What liability might an individual incur if they use a friend’s account with the friend’s permission?  Arguably such activity goes beyond the terms of service of a user’s account, and presents some interesting questions of both state and federal law.

Trouble in Tennessee

In 2011, Tennessee, the home of Nashville and the birthplace of country music, became one of the first states to formally criminalize user account sharing.  HB1783, effective July 1, 2011, modifies Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-106 subdivision 35 by adding “entertainment subscription service” to the list of services protected by its theft of services offence.[9]   Section 39-14-104 defines theft of services as any person who: “(1) intentionally obtains services by deception, fraud, coercion, false pretense or any other means to avoid payment for the service; (2) having control over the disposition of services to others, knowingly diverts those services to the person’s own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto.”  The punishment for violation of this provision ranges from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on the value of the services rendered.

The first provision of 39-14-104 targets the friend who is using the primary account holder’s password without permission from the streaming service.  The person has “obtain[ed] services by . . . any other means to avoid payment for the service.”  The second provision targets the account holder who has shared his password with a friend.  That person has control of a subscription service and diverts it to his friend, who is not entitled to the service.

California is Not the Golden State For Sharing

It is unsurprising that California would not take kindly to people sharing the fruits of its most visible industry.  California Penal Code Section 502 is an “anti-hacking” statute that covers a broad variety of activities.  To the extent that sharing a primary accountholder’s password with people outside of the household is beyond the scope of the terms of use of the streaming service, there are several provisions of Section 502 that would criminalize such activity (along with giving a private cause of action), including subsections: (1) “knowingly accesses and without permission  . . . otherwise uses any data in order to . . . wrongfully control or obtain . . . data;” (3) “knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services;” (6) “knowingly and without permission provides or assists in providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network in violation of this section;”  and (7) “knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system or computer network.”  Violation of these sections can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Like the Tennessee law, sections 1, 3 and 7 apply to the friend who is using the account without permission of the streaming service.  Section 6 applies to the account holder who is sharing the account with a friend without the permission of the streaming service.

It Might Be A Federal Offense

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act offers broad protection against unauthorized access to computers.  It has been amended a half dozen times in its nearly 20 year history, and likely covers password sharing that is beyond the scope of the terms of service of a streaming account.

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) makes it a crime to “intentionally access a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . (c) information from any protected computer.”  A “protected computer” is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) as any computer “which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication.”  A streaming service’s streaming servers undoubtedly qualify as a protected computer under the Act as they stream their stored media all across the country.

Using a third party’s password to access a streaming service clearly “exceeds authorized access” as it is beyond the scope of the access defined in Netflix, Hulu Plus, or HBO Go’s terms of use.  The user of the password is “obtaining information”―the streamed media―from the protected computer.

An interesting wrinkle is that the Act arguably has a jurisdictional requirement of $5,000 in damages over the course of one year.  18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4).   This would probably be hard for a streaming site to demonstrate, especially against an individual who is making use of a friend’s password.  However, it would be easier to meet the limit for the primary account holder who decided to share the account with a group of friends.  All it takes is sharing a $20 dollar a month account with 21 people to meet the $5,000 threshold.

So what does all of this mean?  Sharing an account with members of a household is just fine under Netflix, Hulu Plus, and HBO Go’s terms of use.  Arguably this extends to children of the account holder who are away at school but whose primary residence is still the family home.

But sharing the password with people outside of the household or using someone else’s account opens up the potential for liability.  Not only does sharing a password expose the primary account holder to the possibility of a claim of breach of contract, it also gives rise to various causes of action under both state and federal law for everyone involved.

At the moment none of the sharing services seem to care all that much, and it would be easy for them to mitigate their exposure to shared accounts by simply limiting the number of devices that the account can be used on simultaneously.  Some seem to view account sharing as a marketing tool.  But all that may change without notice.  Sharer beware.

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.


[1] Todd Spangler, Cord-Cutting Gets Ugly: U.S. Pay-TV Sector Drops 566,000 Customers in Q2, Variety (August 8, 2015).

[2] Is it Okay to Share Log-Ins for Amazon Prime, HBO Go, Hulu Plus, or Netflix?, Consumerreports.org (Jan. 28, 2015).

[3] Netflix User Profiles, Netflix (Jan 14, 2016) https://help.netflix.com/en/node/10421.

[4] Terms of Use, Netflix (Jan 14, 2016) https://help.netflix.com/legal/termsofuse.

[5] Sarah Perez, Netflix CEO Says Account Sharing is OK, TechCrunch (Jan 11, 2016),

[6] Terms of Use, Hulu (Jan 14, 2016), http://www.hulu.com/terms

[7] Terms of Use, HBO Go (Jan. 14, 2016), http://www.hbogo.com/#terms/

[8] Greg Kumparak, HBO Doesnt Care if You Share Your HBO Go Acccount . . . For Now, TechCrunch (Jan 20, 2014),

[9] http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB1783.pdf

Department of State Releases February 2016 Visa Bulletin

Employment-based adjustment of status applicants must file using the Application Final Action Dates chart.

The US Department of State (DOS) has released its February 2016 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate immigrant visa availability and the flow of adjustment of status and consular immigrant visa application filings and approvals.

What Does the February 2016 Visa Bulletin Say?

The February 2016 Visa Bulletin includes both a Dates for Filing Visa Applications and Application Final Action Dates chart. The former indicates when intending immigrants may file their applications for adjustment of status or immigrant visa, and the latter indicates when an adjustment of status application or immigrant visa application may be approved and permanent residence granted.

If the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines that there are more immigrant visas available for a fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas, it will state on its website that applicants may use the Dates for Filing Visa Applications chart. Otherwise, applicants should use the Application Final Action Dates chart to determine when they may file their adjustment of status applications. For February 2016, USCIS has announced that employment-based (EB) applicants may only use the Application Final Action Dates chart.

To be eligible to file an EB adjustment application in February, foreign nationals must have a priority date that is earlier than the date listed below for their preference category and country (changes from last month’s Visa Bulletin dates are shown in yellow):

EB

All Chargeability
Areas Except
Those Listed

China
(mainland born)

India

Mexico

Philippines

1st

C

C

C

C

C

2nd

C

01MAR12—
(was 01Feb 12)

01AUG08
(was 01FEB08)

C

C

3rd

01OCT15
(no change)

01OCT12
(was 01JUL12)

15JUN04
(was 15MAY04)

01OCT15
(no change)

08JAN08
(was 01NOV07)

Other Workers

01OCT15
(no change)

22DEC06
(was 01AUG06)

15JUN04
(was 15MAY04)

01OCT15
(was 01SEPT15)

08JAN08

(was 01NOV07)

4th

C

C

C

C

C

Certain Religious Workers

C (was U)

C (was U)

C (was U)

C (was U)

C (was U)

5th
Nonregional
Center
(C5 and T5)

C

15JAN14
(was 08JAN14)

C

C

C

5th
Regional
Center
(I5 and R5)

C (was U)

15JAN14 (was U)

C (was U)

C (was U)

C (was U)

How This Affects You

The largest change in the Application Final Action Dates chart is in the EB-2 India category, which has advanced by six months to August 1, 2008. The EB-2 China category advanced by one month only, and the EB-3 China category advanced by two and a half months to October 1, 2012. Certain Religious Workers and EB-5 matters (Regional Center I5 and R5) became current once again, with the exception of China, which is backlogged to January 15, 2014, in the EB-5 category. Other classification categories saw only minimal advancement of three weeks to three months. Read the entire February 2016 Visa Bulletin.

Copyright © 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

2016’s TechBridge Challenge Focuses on Advanced Surfaces

Are you working on or interested in advanced surface technologies? Look no further than the TechBridge Challenge on Advanced Industrial Surfaces! In collaboration with ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Fraunhofer TechBridge is using this Challenge to accelerate the development of new material formulations, manufacturing methods, deposition techniques, and other innovations to improve energy efficiency in the petroleum and chemical processing industries. Winners will be awarded up to $100,000 in prototyping, demonstration, and/or validation services from the Fraunhofer R&D network. To learn more about TechBridge, the TechBridge Challenge on Advanced Industrial Surfaces, and how to apply, read on!

Founded in 2010 at the Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems CSE, the TechBridge program aims to advance cleantech startups by evaluating and preparing innovative early-stage companies to demonstrate the value of their promising technologies to investors and the industry. Unlike traditional accelerators, TechBridge provides R&D and prototyping services to its clients, thereby helping to de-risk technologies and increase the chance for private investment.

TechBridge oversees several industry and government-sponsored programs each year, focusing on specific cleantech innovation areas and concluding with the selection of top startups to receive Fraunhofer’s services. For this TechBridge Challenge on Advanced Industrial Surfaces, improvement examples include:

– Improved performance of surface-enhanced features (e.g., improved heat exchange, reduced frictional losses, fouling, or adhesion)
– Improved thermal, mechanical, and chemical stability of equipment surfaces
– Improved deployment of surface modifications in retrofit applications and hard-to-reach locations
– Increased affordability and ease of adoption at scale
– Optimization for process fluids other than water

Completed proposals can be submitted at www.FhTechBridgeChallenge.org/surfaces. Applications are due February 17th so get started today!

Article By Katy E. Ward of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

EEOC Releases New Guidance on Rights of HIV-Positive Employees Applicable to Health Care Providers and Employers

In December 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released new guidance for job applicants and employees with HIV infection that is particularly applicable to employers in the health care industry.  This guidance is applicable not only to applicants and current employees with HIV infection, but also to physicians and other health care providers who treat individuals with HIV infection to the extent their assistance is requested in obtaining workplace accommodations.

The first publication, “Living with HIV Infection: Your Legal Rights in the Workplace Under the ADA,” discusses rights provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Although the guidance is directed to applicants and employees with HIV infection, there are key takeaways for employers.  First, the EEOC emphasizes the workplace privacy rights of those with HIV infection, but reminds individuals that in certain situations an employer may ask medical questions about their condition.  Second, HIV infection should be treated as a disability and HIV-positive individuals are protected against discrimination and harassment at work because of the condition.  Finally, those with HIV infection may have a legal right to reasonable accommodations at work, which may include altered break and work schedules, changes in supervisory methods (e.g., written instructions from a supervisor), accommodations for visual impairments, ergonomic office furniture, unpaid time off (e.g., for treatment), and reassignment to a vacant position.

The second publication, “Helping Patients with HIV Infection Who Need Accommodations at Work,” informs physicians about their HIV-positive patients’ rights to reasonable accommodations at work.  While the guidance effectively coaches health care providers to advocate for their patients’ rights to accommodation, the EEOC reminds providers that that their legal and ethical obligations are not altered by the ADA.  Thus, providers should only disclose the medical information if requested by the patient and an appropriate release is signed.  Further, providers are reminded not to overstate the need for a particular accommodation in case an alternative accommodation is necessary.

Health care entities should be aware that, in its press release regarding the guidance, the EEOC continues to take the position that HIV-positive employees, even in health care settings, should not be excluded from jobs unless they pose a “direct threat” to safety, a strict standard under the ADA.  The EEOC—following CDC guidance—has said that “HIV-positive health care workers who follow standard precautions and who, except in specified circumstances do not perform specially defined exposure-prone invasive procedures, do not pose a safety risks in their employment based on HIV infection.”  For example, says the EEOC, an HIV-positive phlebotomist who draws blood does not pose a direct threat to patient safety based on her HIV-positive status if she follows standard precautions.

The EEOC guidance makes clear that HIV infection is a disability under the ADA.  Employers should be aware that applicants and employees have a right to privacy and, in most situations,  need not reveal the exact diagnosis of their medical illness. Employers should not unnecessarily inquire about the exact illness diagnosis if it is not needed for the purposes of determining reasonable accommodations.  Most importantly, health care employers should not use stereotypes or misinformation in evaluating patient safety implications for those employees with HIV infection.  Even in safety sensitive positions, an HIV-positive health care employee generally poses no safety risk when using standard precautions.  Health care employers should make sure that their front-line supervisors are also aware of the rights of their subordinates who may have HIV infection.

©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Is Your LinkedIn Profile Violating Attorney Advertising Rules? Depends.

Linkedin Logo NeonThe vast majority of lawyers have a LinkedIn page. Or if they don’t, their marketing department will make them create one eventually. Some use LinkedIn to build their profile and network, others to promote success, articles and speaking engagements. But is a LinkedIn page lawyer advertising and, if so, what must lawyers do to be sure they are on the right side of the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Rules 7.1 to 7.5 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct govern lawyer advertising and solicitation. Some states, like New York, provide very detailed rules about what an advertisement may or may not include (or what it must include), how long it should be retained, etc.  In fact, whereas Mass. R. Prof. C. 7.1 contains only two sentences, its New York counterpart is more than three pages long.

Because of the more specific requirements in New York, an important issue for lawyers there (and other states with similarly detailed attorney advertising rules) is whether their individual profile on LinkedIn constitutes attorney advertising. If it is advertising, the attorney would have to comply with requirements like labeling the content “Attorney Advertising” and preserving a copy (of each iteration) for at least one year.

Last month, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics issued a formal opinion that stated that a LinkedIn profile does not constitute attorney advertising unless it meets each of five criteria:

  • It is a communication made by or on behalf of the lawyer;
  • The primary purpose of the LinkedIn content is to attract new clients to retain the lawyer for pecuniary gain;
  • The LinkedIn content relates to the legal services offered by the lawyer;
  • The LinkedIn content is intended to be viewed by potential new clients; and
  • The LinkedIn content does not fall within any recognized exception to the definition of attorney advertising. Formal Opinion 2015-7.

The NYC Committee report noted that it had come to a different conclusion that the Professional Ethics Committee of the New York County Lawyer’s Association (“NYCLA”), which had concluded in March 2015 that “[a] LinkedIn profile that contains only one’s education and current and past employment does not constitute Attorney Advertising[, but] [i]f an attorney chooses to include information such as practice areas, skills, endorsements, or recommendations, the attorney must treat his or her LinkedIn profile as attorney advertising and include appropriate disclaimers pursuant to Rule 7.1.”NYCLA Ethics Op. 748 (2015).

For practitioners in Massachusetts, the New York debate may be academic. There is no question that Massachusetts lawyers may advertise on the internet. See Mass. R. Prof. C. 7.2(a) (“Subject to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.3, a lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media.”). And, even if an attorney’s LinkedIn profile were considered to be “advertising” in Massachusetts, the only requirement that the lawyer must comply with is the same requirement that runs through all of the Rules of Professional Conduct: honesty. See Mass. R. Prof. C. 7.1 (“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”). But this, of course, is the norm in all facets of legal practice. See, e.g., Mass. R. Prof. C. Preamble, 2.1, 3.3, 3.9, 4.1, 8.2, 8.4.

Thus, at least here in the Commonwealth, a lawyer who scrupulously insures that his or her LinkedIn profile is truthful and not at all false or misleading – including with respect to statements that the attorney is a “specialist” or “certified” in a particular field of law, see Mass. R. Prof. C. 7.4 – is within the bounds of our governing Rules.

© 2016 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

January 2016 UK Immigration Update

United Kingdom ButtonNew developments include the Migration Advisory Committee announcing its findings regarding Tier 2 of the Points-Based System, a requirement for private landlords to conduct right-to-rent checks, and changes to UK immigration application fees.

MAC Announces Its Findings Regarding Tier 2

The UK Government’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its findings on Tier 2 of the Points-Based System. In reviewing Tier 2, the MAC sought to balance the Government’s objective to reduce volumes with its desire to ensure that Tier 2 remains open to the “brightest and best workers who will help Britain succeed”.

The MAC has made the following recommendations to the Government:

  • The best way for the Government to achieve its aim to restrict volumes under Tier 2 and focus on more highly skilled migrants is through salary thresholds, and the minimum salary threshold for Tier 2 should be increased from £20,800 to £30,000

  • The minimum qualifying period for Tier 2 long-term and short-term Intra-Company Transfers should be increased from 12 months to 24 months

  • The cost of Tier 2 recruitment should be raised by introducing an annual Immigration Skills Charge that would be payable by Tier 2 Sponsor Licence holders

  • The use of the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) route for third-party contracting should be moved into a separate immigration category with a higher salary threshold of £41,500

  • Tier 2 (General) is not restricted only to occupations on an expanded shortage occupation list

  • The Government should not restrict automatic work rights for dependants or an automatic sun-setting of occupations on the shortage occupation list

We are waiting to hear whether the Government will adopt these recommendations in full and how they will apply to Tier 2 migrants in practice. We will release an additional LawFlash once the Government announces the changes to the immigration rules.

Right-to-Rent Checks

Starting 1 February 2016, all private landlords will be required to conduct right-to-rent checks and to request documents that confirm prospective tenants’ right to reside in the UK. Individuals must provide evidence of their right to rent in the UK up to 28 days before their tenancy’s start date.

Where employees move or transfer from overseas and have not yet travelled to the UK, a landlord can elect to enter into a “conditional agreement” in which an individual provides evidence of his or her right to rent after arrival and before occupying a property. Individuals who provide a Biometric Residence Permit as evidence of their right to rent in the UK will need to present the permit to their landlord before they can occupy a property.

The following agreements will be exempt from the right-to-rent checks:

  • Long leases that grant a right of occupation for a term of seven or more years

  • Existing tenants and occupiers who moved in before the requirements were introduced

  • Tenancies renewed between the same parties at the same property without a break, where the start of a tenancy predates the requirements

Changes to UK Immigration Application Fees

The UK Government recently set out proposed changes that will take effect beginning 6 April 2016 to the fees for visas, immigration and nationality applications, and associated premium services, with the aim to make the services self-funded by those who use them over the next four years. The changes include the following:

  • Entry clearance fees for Tier 2 will rise from £564 to £575 for a three-year visa and from £1,128 to £1,151 for a five-year visa

  • In-country further leave to remain will rise from £651 to £664 for a three-year visa and from £1,302 to £1,328 for a five-year visa; the same fees will be charged for each dependant

  • Same-day processing for in-country applications will increase from £400 to £500

  • Fees for indefinite leave to remain (settlement) will rise from £1,500 to £1,875 per applicant—if same-day processing is required, each applicant will now need to pay £2,375

  • Fees for all sponsor licensing applications will stay at the current rates

Fees for all sponsor licensing applications will remain at the current rates.

View a comprehensive table that details of the indicative fees.

Copyright © 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Winter Weather Causes Congressional Cancellations

Legislative Calendar in Flux from Winter Storm Jonas

Following severe weather in Washington this weekend, this week’s legislative calendar is in flux. As noted below, the Senate has delayed its scheduled by a day (for now) and the House has cancelled session for the week. As such, it is unclear to what extent Committee work will be impacted.

Senate Legislative Activity

Due to this weekend’s winter storm, the Senate has pushed its schedule back a day. As such, the Senate will now meet on Wednesday, January 27. At 5:30pm, the Senate is expected to take up the confirmation of Executive Calendar #306, the nomination of John Michael Vazquez, of New Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. The delay has also called into question the exact timing of the Senate’s consideration of S.2012, Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015.

House Legislative Activity

As a result of this weekend’s inclement weather, the House will not be in session this week. Next votes are scheduled for Monday, February 1 at 6:30pm, during which time Members will consider:

  • H.R. 3662, Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and

  • the Veto Message on H.R. 3762, Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Act

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Handling Employee Attendance and Pay When the Weather Outside is Frightful

Handling Employee Attedance and Pay When the Weather Outside is FrightfulLike it or not, winter has finally arrived.  During times of snowy and icy road conditions, employers will undoubtedly be faced with tardiness, absenteeism, and the possibility of implementing office and/or plant closures.  One question that often arises during inclement weather is how to handle pay issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  If you find yourself in that boat snowmobile, read on!  While it’s been a while since anything new has been issued in this area, the U.S. Department of Labor has previously issued guidance to help employers administer the FLSA when bad weather affects employee attendance.  The answers to many of your questions probably depends on two factors – first, whether the employee is exempt or non-exempt, and second, whether the employer’s business remains open or closes during the inclement weather.

Must Employees be Paid When the Employer Closes its Business Due to Bad Weather? 

The DOL’s position is that employers who close their business because of weather conditions must still pay exempt employees their regular salaries for any shutdown that lasts less than one full workweek.  However, the DOL notes that no provision of the FLSA prohibits employers from requiring exempt employees to use vacation time or other accrued leave to cover the missed work.  So long as there is no state law restriction, written policy, or collective bargaining agreement which provides otherwise, employers may require employees to use their PTO to cover absences in the event of an office closure in bad weather.  Due to the negative effect on employee morale, however, many employers opt not to require employees to do this.  If you intend to require employees to use paid leave in this circumstance, you should make that clear in your written policy.  The key, for an office closure lasting less than one workweek, is to ensure that an exempt employee’s salary is not affected.

If an exempt employee is required to use PTO for an office closure but doesn’t have any leave left in his leave bank, then what?  The employee must still be paid his regular salary when the employee’s business is closed for inclement weather for less than a week, regardless of whether he has available PTO.  In cases where a weather closing leaves an employee with a negative leave balance, employers can grant the leave and allow the employee carry a negative PTO balance until he accrues additional leave to make up for the deficit in the employee’s leave bank.

The rule for non-exempt employees is much simpler – they are paid only for time worked.  Thus, if the employer’s business is closed due to bad weather, the employer is not required to pay a non-exempt employee for time that is not worked, even if the employee was scheduled to work on the day of the closure.  However, if non-exempt employees are required to report to work and asked to stay until a decision can be made whether to shut down or remain open in inclement weather, they must be paid – even if the employee is simply waiting around for his supervisor to make a decision about closing and there is no work for the employee to do. 

Must Employees be Paid When the Employer’s Business Remains Open during Bad Weather, but Employees are Either Late to Arrive, Leave Early, or Entirely Absent? 

Since non-exempt employees are paid only for the time worked, any scheduled work time that is missed due to late arrival, early departure, or absence in the event of inclement weather may be unpaid.

For exempt employees, proper pay depends on whether the employee misses a full day or only a partial day of work.  If the employer’s business remains open, but an exempt employee is unable to make it into work due to bad weather and misses an entire day, the DOL regards the absence as one for personal reasons. Thus, the employer may deduct a full day’s pay from the employee’s salary, or require the employee to use available vacation time (or accrued PTO) to cover the time off, according to the DOL.

Conversely, if the employer’s business remains open but an exempt employee shows up for only part of the day, she must be paid for a full day’s work, regardless of how long she is there.  The employee can be required to use vacation time (or other accrued PTO) to cover the hours missed due to late arrival or early departure, but the exempt employee’s salary can’t be affected.  Docking an exempt employee’s pay for partial-day absences is not permitted under the FLSA and may compromise the employee’s exempt status.

There’s no question that bad winter weather creates havoc, stress, and unpredictability for employers and employees alike.  Having clearly-communicated and consistently-followed policies about how weather-related absenteeism and tardiness will be handled can help to alleviate some of that anxiety and uncertainty, and knowing what the DOL regulations permit you to do as an employer can’t hurt either.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Appellate Division Upholds Decision in Walmart Workers’ Comp Case

walmart-signA particularly noteworthy case was recently decided by the Appellate Division on November 20, 2015. This case, Colleen Fitzgerald v. Walmart, is so interesting because the Court found that the worker’s injured condition did not qualify as a work related injury simply because she felt a “pop” in her low back while walking at work.

The Petitioner, Colleen Fitzgerald, filed a claim for an accident that occurred on April 26, 2010, while she was working for Walmart. She stated that she was merely walking in the store and felt a “pop” in her low back. While at the time of the claim Ms. Fitzgerald said she felt the pop she was not doing anything other than walking, later testimony revealed that at some time prior to the incident she had been doing some lifting at work in her position as a zone merchandise supervisor.

She reported the accident to her manager, and after seeing her family doctor who diagnosed her with protruding lumbar discs, she took FMLA for 12 weeks and a leave of absence while she received treatment. She did return to work at Walmart for a period of time, however because she then had another non-work related slip and fall accident where she broke her elbow, she was ultimately terminated from her job at Walmart. There was never any authorized treatment provided by the Workers’ Compensation carrier for Walmart.

Petitioner filed two claim petitions, one for the specific incident that occurred on April 26th and an occupational claim for work she did from December 2008 through April 2010. Since Walmart denied both claims, petitioner filed a Motion for Medical and Temporary Disability benefits with the Workers’ Compensation Court. The Motion was heard by Judge Gangloff, who found in favor of Walmart, as did the Appellate Division on appeal.

In the trial before Judge Gangloff, both sides called medical experts to testify. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Gaffney, testified that in his opinion petitioner’s injury was caused by her work at Walmart, while Respondent’s expert, Dr. Meeteer felt that the injury was not related.

The Appellate Division upheld Judge Gangloff’s decision under Close v. Kordulak and held that they found no reason to disturb his well-reasoned findings. They stated that the Judge reviewed the applicable case law and applied the two step “positional risk test” for determining whether the injury arose out of the course of employment. The first part of this test requires the petitioner to prove that “but for” the fact of employment the injury would not have happened. The next part of the test is to analyze the “nature of the risk” that caused the injury.

In this case, the Court concluded that that the petitioner failed to satisfy the first part of the test because “the facts here do not establish that the petitioner would not have been exposed to the risk if she had not been at work.” In other words, as she was simply walking when she felt the “pop” in her back, the back injury could have just as easily occurred while she was not at work. According Judge Gangloff, “she could have been walking anywhere at the time of onset of pain.” He found that there was nothing about the workplace that contributed to petitioner’s injuries. The Judge did not find that petitioner had a compensable occupational claim either, because the medical records did not support Dr. Gaffney’s opinion that her condition was somehow related to a progressive occupational condition.

COPYRIGHT © 2015, STARK & STARK

Visa Waiver Program Changes Now Being Implemented

visaVWP nationals who have visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 1, 2011, or who hold dual nationality with one of the countries are no longer eligible for the VWP.

The United States on January 21, 2016, began to implement changes to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) that were mandated under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). Under the Act, which was included as an amendment to the December 18, 2015, omnibus spending bill (H.R. 2029), certain individuals are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted into the United States under the VWP. The affected are

  • nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country) and

  • nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria.

Individuals who are ineligible for the VWP are still eligible to apply for a B-1/B-2 visitor visa at a US embassy or consulate. Individuals who need a US visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States may be eligible for expedited visa processing at a US embassy or consulate.

A waiver of these restrictions may be granted on a case-by-case basis by the secretary of homeland security if he determines that such a waiver is in the interests of US law enforcement or national security. Procedures for seeking a waiver are not currently available, but will presumably be published in the future. Waivers may be available for

  • individuals who traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and subnational governments on official duty;

  • individuals who traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on behalf of a humanitarian nongovernmental organization on official duty;

  • individuals who traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria as a journalist for reporting purposes;

  • individuals who traveled to Iran for legitimate business-related purposes following the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (July 14, 2015); and

  • individuals who have traveled to Iraq for legitimate business-related purposes.

The VWP allows citizens of participating countries to travel to the United States without a visa for stays of 90 days or less. Travelers must be eligible to use the VWP and have a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) approval prior to travel. ESTA approval is issued by US Customs and Border Protection through the ESTA portal. ESTA will usually inform a traveler within one to two days whether his or her application has been approved, after which the traveler may purchase a plane ticket and travel to the United States.

Beginning January 21, 2016, travelers who currently have valid ESTAs and who have previously indicated that they hold dual nationality with one of the four countries listed above on their ESTA applications will have their current ESTAs revoked. However, it is unclear how government agencies will implement revocations for individuals who have traveled to any of the four countries since March 1, 2011.

Individuals whose ESTAs are being revoked should receive notification that that they are no longer eligible to travel under the VWP; however, revocation can occur without notice. All individuals should confirm that their ESTAs remain valid prior to making final travel plans by checking the US Customs and Border Protection ESTA website.

A person whose ESTA is revoked remains eligible to travel to the United States but will first need to obtain a valid nonimmigrant visa issued by a US embassy or consulate. Travelers affected by these new rules should apply for a US nonimmigrant visa well in advance of desired travel to minimize the chance of delays. The visa application process requires every individual traveler to complete an online visa application. Such travelers will be required to appear for an interview and obtain a visa in their passports at a US embassy or consulate before traveling to the United States. Individuals who will require a visa should check the website of the US embassy in their country of residence for instructions on how to apply for the visa. Visa processing times range from as little as one week to several weeks for an appointment, depending on the specific embassy or consular office.

Canadian citizens are visa exempt and are not participants in the VWP; thus, the new restrictions do not apply to Canadian citizens who have dual nationality in one of the specified countries.

© 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.