The National Law Forum

The Latest in the NLRB Handbook Saga? Another Unlawful Recording Policy Fails to Pass Muster

Last month, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) yet again shed further light on its analysis – and increased scrutiny – of employers’ handbook policies. The NLRB’s decision in T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (Apr. 29, 2016), serves as a follow-up to an earlier decision with respect to rules restricting employees’ use of recording devices. We talked about the T-Mobile decision in our post last week and thought we would continue the discussion by elaborating on another of the board’s decisions on recording rules.

In one of many recent decisions scrutinizing employer handbook policies, the board in Whole Foods evaluated an employer rule prohibiting the use of recording devices on company premises. Whole Foods, 363 NLRB No. 87 (Dec 24, 2015). The NLRB specifically explained that it was not holding that all rules regulating recordings are invalid. Rather, the board found “only that recording may, under certain circumstances, constitute protected concerted activity under Sec. 7 and that rules that would reasonably be read by employees to prohibit protected concerted recording violate the Act.” Id. at *3, n.9. The NLRB further explained that employers are not prohibited from maintaining rules restricting or prohibiting employee use of recording devices, but they must be narrowly drawn so that employees understand that Sec. 7 activity is not restricted. This was the board’s issue with respect to the Whole Foods policy, as it found the rules to be overly broad. The board relied on the fact that the rules applied regardless of the type of activity engaged in and that it covered all recordings.

The T-Mobile decision, which we wrote about last week, provides additional insight on how to interpret Whole Foods. In T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (Apr. 29, 2016), the board found the following policy to be unlawful:

To prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information, employees are prohibited from recording people or confidential information using cameras, camera phones/devices, or recording devices (audio or video) in the workplace. Apart from customer calls that are recorded for quality purposes, employees may not tape or otherwise make sound recordings of work-related or workplace discussions. Exceptions may be granted when participating in an authorized [] activity or with permission from an employee’s Manager, HR Business Partner, or the Legal Department. If an exception is granted, employees may not take a picture, audiotape, or videotape others in the workplace without the prior notification of all participants.

Id. at *4. The administrative law judge found that T-Mobile had set forth valid, nondiscriminatory rationales for the rule, including maintaining a harassment-free work environment and protecting trade secrets, and that the rule was narrowly tailored to these interests. However, the NLRB reversed, noting that “[t]he rule does not differentiate between recordings that are protected by Section 7 and those that are not, and includes in its prohibition recordings made during nonwork time and in nonwork areas.” Id. at *5. Notably, though, the policy did state that the restriction is limited to recordings “in the workplace.”

With respect to the policy justifications alleged, the board conducted the following analysis:

Harassment: T-Mobile asserted that its recording prohibition was in place to prevent harassment and noted that, under federal and state laws, employers have an affirmative obligation to prevent harassing conduct. However, the NLRB found that the recording prohibition was not narrowly tailored to this interest. The board noted that it neither cited laws regarding workplace harassment nor specified that the restriction is limited to recordings that could constitute unlawful harassment.

Confidential information: T-Mobile asserted as an additional justification its interest in protected confidential information in the workplace. The NLRB noted that the employer’s other policies defined “confidential information” as inclusive of employee information such as employee contact information and wage and salary information. The board also cited Whole Foods and said that the employer’s interest in protecting confidential information was too insufficient to justify the broad prohibition on recording.

While Whole Foods indicated that such policies are not per se unlawful, the T-Mobile decision makes clear that simply inserting business justifications into the policy will not distinguish the lawful from the unlawful. The board seems to be closely scrutinizing the justifications and requiring detailed explanations thereof. The decisions in T-Mobile and Whole Foods indicate that the NLRB will also require that a rule carve out recordings that would be considered protected activity under the Act, and it appears – at least for now – that rules which fail to do so will be struck down. T-Mobile teaches us that, while recording rules are still lawful in some circumstances, the rules must be especially specific with regard to their application and justifications. Employers should continue to closely monitor NLRB decisions to stay up-to-date on all decisions analyzing employer handbook policies.

Article By Jackie S. Gessner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

European Commission Gives Portugal Two Months To Address Issues With Biofuel Law Compliance

On April 28, 2016, the European Commission (EC) encouraged Portugal to become fully compliant with the Renewable Energy Directive (Directive) through the release of an April infringements fact sheet. The Directive has set the goal of 20 percent of the European Union’s (EU) 2020 energy consumption coming from renewable energy, with each Member State consuming at least ten percent renewable energy. Biofuels used in reaching this goal must meet a set of harmonized sustainability requirements, and must be treated equally by Member States regardless of the country of origin. Portugal has been sent a reasoned opinion urging it to stop favoring biofuels produced in Portugal over those produced in other countries, and to reduce sustainability requirements that are not warranted by the Directive. Portugal has two months to address these concerns, or else it could be sent to the Court of Justice of the EU.

Article By Kathleen M. Roberts of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C

Whistleblower Wins Big in Case that Tests Limits of Confidentiality Agreements

Confidentiality agreements are common in corporate America. Many companies require new employees to sign them as part of the hiring process. In some industries like healthcare, privacy policies are elevated to a legal requirement. Can these agreements be used to stop an employee from reporting his or her employer for fraud or turning documents over to an attorney? The answer is “no” but there are some limits on what an employee can take and do with the information. The most recent case to examine the issue comes from the Northern District of Illinois.

On May 9th, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier dismissed a counterclaim brought by LifeWatch Services against a whistleblower in a federal False Claims Act case.

Matthew Cieszynski was a certified technician working for LifeWatch. His job was to conduct heart monitoring tests. LifeWatch conducts remote heart monitoring testing throughout the United States. Patients can wear heart monitor devices anywhere in the world and have those devices monitored through telemetry. Cieszynski’s job was to look for unusual or dangerous heart arrhythmias. The testing results would be passed to the patients’ cardiologists who use the data to diagnose and treat various heart ailments.

When first hired by the company in 2003, Cieszynski signed a confidentiality agreement that said in part, “you agree that both during your employment and thereafter you will not use for yourself or disclose to any person not employed by [LifeWatch] any Confidential Information of the company…” The agreement also restricted Cieszynski’s ability to access computer systems and records or remove information from the company’s premises.

In 2006, Cieszynski signed a HIPAA confidentiality statement.

Years later, Cieszynski became concerned that LifeWatch was sending some of the heart monitoring work offshore to India in violation of Medicare regulations. He became especially concerned that some of the Indian workers were not properly certified to review and interpret the heart monitoring data.

In 2012, Cieszynski believed that a patient died because of an improper diagnosis made by an unlicensed offshore technician. That is when he became a whistleblower and filed a False Claims Act lawsuit in federal court. In order to file his lawsuit, he provided what he believed were important company documents to his lawyer. Those were later turned over to the government.

Under the Act, complaints are filed under seal and served on the government instead of the defendant. This allows regulators and prosecutors to investigate the merits of the case in secret. Usually the case is unsealed when the government decides to intervene or allow the whistleblower’s counsel to pursue the case. Until unsealed, the whistleblowers identity is not disclosed.

When the complaint was unsealed, LifeWatch Services discovered that Matt Cieszynski was the person who brought the suit. Their response was to file a counterclaim against Cieszynski for violating his employment agreement and the separate HIPAA nondisclosure agreement.

On May 9th, Magistrate Judge Schenkier dismissed LifeWatch’s counterclaim in a case widely watched by both members of the plaintiffs and defense whistleblower bar.

In dismissing the counterclaims, Judge Schenkier discussed the “strong policy of protecting whistleblowers who report fraud against the government.”

The court recognized the legitimate need for companies to protect confidential information. Those needs must be carefully balanced against the need to prevent “chilling” whistleblowers from coming forward, however.

In deciding that the counterclaim against Cieszynski should be dismissed, the court examined a number of factors. Those include:

What was the intent of the whistleblower when taking the documents? Here Cieszynski took them for the sole purpose of reporting what he believed to be fraud. There was no evidence that he sought to embarrass the company.
How broad was the disclosure? In this case there was no disclosure to the public or competitors. Cieszynski only provided documents to his lawyer and the the government.
The scope of the documents taken from the employer. Although LifeWatch claimed Cieszynski took more documents than were necessary to prosecute his case, the court said it wouldn’t apply hindsight and require a whistleblower to know exactly what documents the government might need. Since the documents were reasonably related to what the government could need, Judge Schenkier elected not to second guess Cieszynski.

There are limits to what a person can take and what he or she can do with those documents. For example, disclosing trade secrets to competitors or releasing sensitive healthcare information to the public will not likely elicit sympathy from the court.

In a case like this, however, courts will give the benefit of doubt to the whistleblower. Especially when there has been no public disclosure and no real harm to the defendant. Although LifeWatch claimed harm, the court found the only harm was the “fees and costs associated with pursuing the counterclaim – which is a self-inflicted wound.”

Corporate counsel should think long and hard before bringing counterclaims against whistleblowers. Not only are courts generally unsympathetic to these challenges, the fee shifting provisions of the False Claims Act can make these cases expensive for the defendants. Under the False Claims Act, defendants must pay the relator’s (whistleblower) lodestar legal fees if the relator prevails.

Article By Brian Mahany of Mahany Law

No Going Back – Rejection of Promotion Offer Not a Failure to Mitigate

Gibbs -v- Leeds United Football Club concerned the former Assistant Manager of the Club who took his £330,000 constructive dismissal claim to the High Court so as to sidestep the compensation ceiling in the Employment Tribunal.

Having fairly easily established the fundamental breach of contract necessary to win his claim against Leeds, Mr Gibbs then faced two more difficult questions about his compensation. First, how do you provide for mitigation where you know the dismissed employee is going to get a bonus from his new employer, and when, but don’t know how much it will be? Second, is it a failure to mitigate that the employee declines to accept an offer of improved employment terms from the old employer?

On the first point, the Judge reviewed the options of (i) estimating the bonus figure (but thereby certainly being wrong in one party’s favour of the other) or (ii) delaying the compensation award until the bonus amount were known, but thereby racking up interest charges for Leeds and denying Mr Gibbs receipt of his money. Note that part of the relevant bonus was due to be paid by Mr Gibbs’ new employer, Tottenham Hotspur FC, little more than four months after the High Court’s decision, at a time of low prevailing interest rates and when Mr Gibbs was safely in receipt of a salary from Spurs and so had no immediate need for the money. Nonetheless, this was still felt to be hardship enough all round to leave that option on the bench.

The Judge chose instead to order that:

the full amount of the £330,000 award should be paid to Mr Gibbs’ solicitors to be held in an interest-bearing account;
the parties should then agree how much of that could be released to Mr Gibbs (i.e. leaving at least enough in the account to cover any likely bonus award from Spurs); and
the rest would be offset against that bonus, with the bonus amount going back to Leeds and the balance to Mr Gibbs, plus interest in each case.

All very sensible and the fact that this was a High Court case in no way prevents a similar Order (or agreement between the parties) being made by the Employment Tribunal where there is a need to reflect an uncertain future receipt in the amount of a settlement or compensation award.

On the second point, was it a failure by Mr Gibbs to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses when he rejected Leeds’ post-resignation offer to stay at Elland Road as Head Coach/Manager? The Judge gave this allegation a fairly short shrift – having found the Club guilty of a repudiatory breach of Mr Gibbs’ contract, it could not fix things so easily. Though the new role would have been more senior and presumably better paid, the damage caused to Mr Gibbs’ credibility among players and staff by the Club’s earlier treatment of him made it reasonable for him to refuse. He could have taken the chance that Leeds would change its behaviour towards him, but he was not obliged to do so. Bear in mind also the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Cooper Contracting -v- Lindsey which stressed just how high is the hurdle of showing a failure to mitigate, and also Buckland –v- Bournemouth University in 2010. There the Court of Appeal decided much against its own better judgment that once the employer was guilty of a repudiatory breach of contract, it could not “mend” that breach by profuse apologies and other appropriate steps afterwards, even if those measures would have undone all or most of the harm caused in the first place.

See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/no-going-back-rejection-promotion-offer-not-failure-to-mitigate#sthash.ueEsoJnq.dpuf

Biomass Research And Development Initiative Provides Seven Projects With Up To $10 Million In Funding

On May 9, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) announced the recipients of up to $10 million in funding through the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI). BRDI is a joint program through DOE and USDA that helps develop sustainable sources of biomass and increase the availability of biobased fuels and products. DOE selected two of the grant winners to receive between $1 million and $2 million: the Ohio State University (OSU) project is “Biomass Gasification for Chemicals Production Using Chemical Looping Techniques,” and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) project is “Improving Tolerance of Yeast to Lignocellulose-derived Feedstocks and Products.”

USDA then selected five grant winners to receive a total of $7.3 million in funding:

University of California-Riverside, to convert poplar to ethanol and polyurethane via pretreatment and lignin polymer synthesis;
University of Montana, to quantify ecological and economic opportunities of various forest types and to quantify benefits of replacing fossil fuel with forest-based bioenergy;
North Carolina Biotechnology Center, to optimize production of educational resources on biomass sorghum production in the Mid-Atlantic region;
Dartmouth College, to overcome the lignocellulosic recalcitrance barrier; and
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, to provide life cycle understanding for the production of willow and forest biomass to mitigate investment risk.

Article By Kathleen M. Roberts of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act: Impact on Employers

Trade Secrets Confidential Chain.jpg On May 11 2016, President Obama signed The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA” or the “Act”). Effective immediately, the DTSA creates a federal civil cause of action that allows companies to file civil lawsuits for trade secret theft under the federal Economic Espionage Act. Before the passage and signing of the DTSA, the statute only provided for criminal cases brought by prosecutors. Civil trade secret cases had to be brought under state law. While the DTSA provides an added layer of protection for companies’ trade secrets, its impact on employers is more uncertain.

Federal Cause of Action

Prior to the DTSA, victims of trade secret theft could only bring civil causes of action understate trade secret laws. These laws vary widely despite the fact that many states have passed some formulation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The DTSA provides a federal civil cause of action covering any trade secret “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” There is a three year statute of limitations which is triggered on the date on which the trade secret misappropriation was discovered or “by the exercise of reasonable due diligence should have been discovered.” The availability of a federal trade secret cause of action could make interstate trade secret disputes more efficient by reducing choice of law disputes that happen when it is uncertain which state’s trade secret law should apply and also provides access to federal courts which are accustomed to addressing sometimes complex issues of formulations and technical information that is often necessary in these cases. However, the DTSA does not preempt state trade secret actions, so forum shopping and choice of law disputes will remain prevalent.

Seizure Clause

Along with providing a federal cause of action, the DTSA affords victims of trade secret theft an ex parte seizure proceeding to prevent the propagation of misappropriated trade secrets. Such an order can be obtained only under “extraordinary circumstances.” For a seizure order to issue, the trade secret owner must show, inter alia, that the accused party has actual possession of the trade secret and that an immediate and irreparable injury will occur without the seizure.

Companies should exercise caution when invoking the DTSA’s seizure provision because the Act also provides that parties who have been accused of trade secret theft will have a claim for damages as a result of any wrongful seizure and demand the return of any material that was wrongfully seized along with the trade secret information.

Restrictions on Employee Mobility

The DTSA contains provisions related to employee mobility. The Act restricts the availability of injunctive relief to “prevent a person from entering an employment relationship” and provides that if an injunction were to place conditions on a person’s employment, such restrictions must “be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows.” This provision effectively rejects the inevitable disclosure doctrine applicable in certain jurisdictions, whereby an employer can enjoin a former employee from working in a new job that would inevitably result in the use of the employer’s trade secrets. Under the inevitable disclosure doctrine, an employer does not have to provide evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets, just the former employee’s knowledge of such trade secrets. This claim will not be available under the DTSA. Lastly, the DTSA prohibits the issuance of an injunction which would “conflict with an applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade or business,” so employers in states that are more restrictive vis a vis non competes, will still be governed by those state laws.

Whistleblower Immunity

The Act’s most employee friendly clause, provides immunity to employees who disclose trade secrets either to the government for the purpose of reporting or assisting in an investigation of a suspected violation of law, or in a complaint filed in a lawsuit or related proceeding if such a filing is made under seal. Also, an individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may reveal the trade secret to his or her attorney and utilize the trade secret information in the proceeding if the person files any document containing the trade secret under seal and does not disclose the trade secret except under court order.

The whistleblower provision contains a notice requirement that applies to any employer that utilizes employment contracts that concern the use of trade secrets. The Act requires employers to “provide notice of the [whistleblower] immunity . . . in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.” The employer may instead, provide in the contract a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer’s reporting policy for a suspected violation of law. Employers who neglect to comply with the Act’s notice requirements lose the ability to recover exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees under the DTSA in actions brought against employees or independent contractors who were not given the notice. This requirement applies to any new agreements or revisions to agreements made as of May 11, 2016, the date of enactment of the Act.

Employer Tips

The DTSA offers a mixed bag for employers. While the Act provides a federal trade secret cause of action (and the concomitant promise of more uniformity), it does not preempt state trade secret law, so forum shopping and choice of law issues will remain. The Act provides for a robust ex parte seizure proceeding to prevent the dissemination of trade secrets, but also a wrongful seizure cause of action for the accused party which could lead to costly satellite litigation. The Act limits an employer’s ability to restrict a former employee’s subsequent employment by requiring the employer to provide evidence of threatened misappropriation, rather than merely evidence of what the employee knows. Finally, the Act provides immunity for individuals who disclose trade secrets in whistleblowing situations and in retaliation lawsuits, simultaneously requiring employers to notify all employees or independent contractors subject to employment contracts that touch on trade secrets about the whistleblowing immunity. The whistleblowing notice requirements add costly administrative and legal burdens to employers who utilize such contracts.

Article By David I. Rosen, Galit Kierkut & Charles H. Kaplan of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

FDA Outlines Future Medical Device Coordinating Center

FDALogo The federal Food and Drug Administration’s planning board (Planning Board) for a medical device evaluation system (NMDES) recently recommended the creation of a centralized Coordinating Center to develop a national system to evaluate medical devices. Convened in 2014 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Brookings Center for Health Policy, the Planning Board emerged out of an FDA action plan in 2012 seeking to strengthen the medical device post-market surveillance system by building a more coordinated and efficient system that would track medical devices and share evidence regarding safety and efficacy.

In the report, issued on April 5, 2016, NMDES is described as a voluntary, coordinated network of partnerships that include government agencies, device manufacturers, provider organizations, health plans, and patient communities that share the common goal of “generating higher quality data and evidence at lower costs to inform and improve patient care.” The Coordinating Center proposed by the Planning Board would be responsible for governing, coordinating, and standardizing efforts among these participants. The Coordinating Center would not have explicit regulatory authority, but FDA’s authorities could authorize and initiate activities through the Coordinating Center.

NMDES as a Coordinated Network of Partners

ll post

This proposed network would build on the currently-existing limitations in obtaining evidence regarding medical devices, such as the absence of a broad adoption of unique device identifiers (UDIs) for tracking purposes, the expense of manual data entry and delays in data extraction, and limited participation in medical device tracking experts by health care providers and patients.

Although the Coordinating Center should be able to meet its objectives of optimizing data sharing, promoting best practices for device evaluation, and developing a process for disseminating safety and efficacy information, the proposed plan still has several hurdles to overcome. Under the timeline proposed in the report, it is “unlikely that a de novo entity can be organized.” Therefore, the Coordinating Center would have to be incubated at an “established hosting entity” with the plan to spin off the Coordinating Center and Governing Board into a “financially stable and independent entity.” Additionally, there is little concrete discussion of the source of early seed funding. Until such organizational and funding details are determined, NMDES and the Coordinating Center will remain aproposed system; however, as the report is the first in a series of papers to be released by the Planning Board, we expect more information to be forthcoming.

Article By M. Leeann Habte & Lindsey E. Gabrielsen of Foley & Lardner LLP

Night Moves: FAA Makes Front Page News With Drone Exemption

On April 18, 2016, the FAA approved, for the first time ever, nighttime operation of a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS or “drone”) when used for commercial activity. The FAA permitted Industrial Skyworks, Inc. to use drones to inspect buildings at night.

In order to get the exemption, the FAA required the following of Industrial Skyworks:

The pilot in command had to possess a commercial or private pilot certification that allowed night operations;
The pilot needed a medical certificate per 14 C.F.R. part 67; and
The drone had to remain in the pilot’s and visual observer’s line of sight at all times.

Industrial Skyworks bolstered its case by taking these steps to ensure the drone’s safe operation at night.

It would be launched from an illuminated landing and take-off area and equipped to continually alert the pilot of its location and altitude.
It possessed anti-collision lights visible from 5,000 feet.
The site of the preprogrammed flight was limited in size, and the area was restricted to authorized personnel.
The pilots completed a training program that included nighttime operating skills and experience.
The company created a comprehensive security plan, including a provision that the pilot in command and visual observer would arrive at the work site 30 minutes prior to flight to ensure their eyes adjusted to the darkness.

Article By Jeffrey K. Phillips of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

U.S. Solar Installations Reach 1 Million

Last week the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and George Washington University (GWU) issued a report estimating that the United States has reached 1 million solar installations and will surpass 2 million installations by 2018. This is a 1,000-fold increase over 15 years as only 1,000 systems were installed in 2001, and these numbers highlight the tremendous growth experienced by the solar industry. Of the 1 million PV systems, there are currently over 942,000 residential installations, nearly 57,000 PV installations at businesses, non-profits and government agencies, and over 1,500 utility-scale PV installations. SEIA and GWU anticipate 4 million installations by 2020 and for the U.S. to be installing one million PV systems annually by 2025. To learn more about this solar milestone and the factors contributing to the solar industry’s growth, read on!

While currently only supplying 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation, solar energy accounted for 30 percent of new capacity last year and is expected to continue developing. This growth has profoundly affected the job sector, where solar jobs grew 123 percent in the past five years and created 1 in 83 new U.S. jobs in 2015. Overall, the solar industry now employs over 200,000 Americans, three times more jobs than U.S. coal mining.

Multiple factors were credited for playing a role in the U.S. reaching 1 million solar installations, including lower installation costs and predictable, stable federal and state policies. In the last ten years, installation costs have dropped more than 70 percent, driven by declining solar module prices. Enacted in 2008, the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), a 30 percent tax credit for solar systems on residential and commercial properties, was extended in December through 2021. Meanwhile, state policies such as net-metering and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have allowed solar to enter markets. Currently, 44 states have net metering policies and 29 have RPS policies.

One challenge for the future of solar is the inability of lower-income households to benefit from solar due to a multitude of barriers, including a high rate of renters, multi-tenant buildings, and a lack of access to financing.

Article By Thomas R. Burton, III of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

June 2016 Visa Bulletin Update

The Department of State (DOS) has released the June 2016 Visa Bulletin that includes the “Application Final Action Dates” and “Dates for Filing Applications.”

For both family-sponsored and employment-based filings, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website indicates that the Application Final Action Dates chart must be used for May 2016.

Please see below for the Application Final Action Dates for both family-sponsored and employment-based preference filings:

Application Final Action Dates for Family-Sponsored Visa Applications

Movement from the May 2016 Visa Bulletin shows gradual but insignificant jumps in processing dates for this category, with the exception of China, F4 dates retrogressing from July 22, 2003 to January 1, 2003.

Application Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Cases

Of particular note is that China EB-2 and EB-3 preference categories saw a retrogression from September 1, 2012 to January 1, 2010; and August 15, 2013 to January 1, 2010, respectively; and India EB-2 preference category also experienced a four-year retrogression from November 22, 2008 to October 1, 2004.

See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/june-2016-visa-bulletin-update#sthash.svy3O7QO.dpuf

The National Law Forum

The Latest in the NLRB Handbook Saga? Another Unlawful Recording Policy Fails to Pass Muster

Like this:

European Commission Gives Portugal Two Months To Address Issues With Biofuel Law Compliance

Like this:

Whistleblower Wins Big in Case that Tests Limits of Confidentiality Agreements

Like this:

No Going Back – Rejection of Promotion Offer Not a Failure to Mitigate

Like this:

Biomass Research And Development Initiative Provides Seven Projects With Up To $10 Million In Funding

Like this:

The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act: Impact on Employers

Like this:

FDA Outlines Future Medical Device Coordinating Center

Like this:

Night Moves: FAA Makes Front Page News With Drone Exemption

Like this:

U.S. Solar Installations Reach 1 Million

Like this:

June 2016 Visa Bulletin Update

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Federal Cause of Action

Seizure Clause

Restrictions on Employee Mobility

Whistleblower Immunity

Employer Tips

Share this:

Like this:

NMDES as a Coordinated Network of Partners

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Application Final Action Dates for Family-Sponsored Visa Applications

Application Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Cases

Share this:

Like this: