Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131
The National Law Forum - Page 441 of 753 - Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News.

EEOC’S Lawsuit Against Costco to Proceed

Costco smallA federal district court judge ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) claim that Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to prevent a male customer from stalking and harassing a female employee at the company’s Glenview, Ill. warehouse will be decided by a jury.

Judge Ruben Castillo, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment on EEOC’s claim it failed to protect one of its former employees from a sexually hostile work environment. The decision in EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 14-cv-6553, was entered on Dec. 16, 2015. The court announced it will select a jury trial date at a status hearing in January.

The court said it found evidence the employee was subjected to harassing behavior by a customer for more than a year, including ominous staring, unwanted physical touching, unwanted requests for dates and overly intrusive personal questions. The court found evidence the customer interactions continued to escalate, even though he had been talked to by Costco’s managers and the Glenview police to avoid her. The court also concluded that, added together and given the length of time over which the incidents occurred, they amounted to a level of a hostile work environment.

The court also found evidence Costco failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, noting that Costco waited more than a year to ban the customer from the store. The court granted summary judgment for Costco on EEOC’s constructive discharge claim.

Costco is an international membership warehouse retailer which, according to its website, has over 650 locations worldwide, annual revenues over $100 billion, and over 125,000 employees in the United States.

EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. This information was previously published on the EEOC website, www.eeoc.gov.

Article By U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

DNC, Bernie Sanders’ Data Breach – Breaches Are Not Just About Social Security Numbers or Payment Cards

Are pundits discussing the personal information allegedly accessed by a campaign staffer for Bernie Sanders? No, not really, and that is the point.

In Saturday’s debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton jousted over an alleged intrusion into Clinton’s voter data by a Sanders campaign staffer. According to reports, the staffer accessed confidential voter data maintained by a vendor, NGP VAN, while the firewall protecting that data had been removed. (hmmm…a third party vendor) In response, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) terminated the Sanders campaign’s access to all voter data, including the campaign’s own data. Litigation followed, a deal was reached, but reverberations continue. Turn to your favorite cable news channel.

One hears “data breach” and immediately Social Security numbers, credit card data, or medical information come to mind. In this case, the personal information reported to be involved included names, addresses, ethnicity, and voting history, hardly considered to be sensitive personal information in the United States. In fact, none of the state data breach notification laws would require notification based solely on these data elements. (But see, e.g., FTC settlement involving email addresses). But, some of the information, particularly analytical data concerning voter preferences, can be tremendously helpful to a campaign. So it is easy to see why it is causing such a stir, particularly for the Sanders campaign.

Why is this important beyond presidential politics?

Organizations are beginning to recognize the need for data breach preparedness. This is good – we are seeing more internal teams being assembled and comprised of key stakeholders within organizations. They are meeting, learning and developing data breach response plans including sample investigation checklists and policies, template notification letters, vendor relationships and engaging in tabletop exercises.

Their initial focus, however, is often exclusively on breaches involving personal information that would trigger notification obligations under federal (e.g., HIPAA) and state laws. The Sanders breach and others before it should make clear that these teams need to look beyond Social Security numbers and payment cards and account for data breaches that could initiate an entirely different set of concerns, exposures, considerations and mitigation steps.

If breached, an organization’s proprietary data, internal email communications among executives and management, customer or client data, sales information, and as we are seeing even voter data can have catastrophic consequences for an organization. A breach exposing insensitive email correspondence in the c-suite about customers, or suggesting systemic discriminatory employment practices, or outlining detailed labor management strategies can have significant implications for a company’s market position and workforce management. It can also trigger unwanted litigation and adversely impact the organization’s reputation. Putting data belonging to others at risk also could result in the loss of access to critical business information help by others, as in the Sanders breach. These are only a handful of examples and one need only think about some of the sensitive business information maintained or accessed by their own organizations that is not personal information to understand the effects of a breach of that information.

Organizations cannot prevent all unflattering emails that are sent and received by members of their workforce, they cannot avoid collecting or accessing sensitive business information entirely, nor can they prevent all data breaches from occurring. But they can take steps to be prepared in the event of a breach and in doing so, should consider the broad range of breaches they could encounter. Organizations engaged in data breach response planning, therefore, need to consider a wide range of data breaches that could affect their organizations – those affecting personal information and those affecting other sensitive and critical business information.

Article By Joseph J. Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Ten Rainmaking Tips for Finders, Minders and Grinders

This past week, I was speaking at an IP firm here in Chicago. The Managing Partner and I met ahead of time and discussed the group dynamics. He said, “Steve there are three types of attorneys that you’ll be presenting to today; the finders, the minders and the grinders. The finders are out there looking for business. The minders are thinking about looking for new business. And the grinders are too busy and disinterested to even think about developing new business.”

While I had heard these terms and definitions before, it struck me funny because I have worked well with all three of these groups to successful outcomes. Whether you are indeed a finder, minder or a grinder, remember that all you need to be successful in developing new business is the right motivation and education. If you are interested in learning how to improve your business development skills and see value in doing so, there’s hope for you yet.

Regardless of what group you fit into, here are TEN solid tips to motivate and educate the finders, minders and grinders.

  1. You must become a great lawyer, before becoming a great rainmaker. Without understanding the law and how it applies to the real world, it is nearly impossible to speak intelligently about your services. I have worked with hundreds of attorneys and they all agree that selling legal services requires knowledge and experience of the law.

  2. Developing your skills as a networker right out of law school can dramatically help you in advancing your career 2-3 years ahead of your peers. Building new relationships and leveraging existing contacts can unearth all types of opportunities. Make sure you have a solid elevator speech or a few sentences that describe what you do and how you help people. Also, be ready and willing to find ways to help the people you are meeting with. Networking is all about reciprocation, so try to think strategically about whom you are helping and how that help might be reciprocated over time.

  3. While social media is all-the-buzz, the only one you need to really think about is LinkedIn. The reason I say this is because LinkedIn has become the Google for business professionals. Instead of going to google to find an attorney, people just use LinkedIn. So be sure to have a complete profile with a picture. Also, it’s incredibly easy to find good connections through LinkedIn if you know how to use it. If you are looking for introductions from your clients, connect with them on LinkedIn and search through their contacts to see who they know. It’s just that easy!

  4. One of the biggest mistakes attorneys make in trying to grow a practice is not having a plan for growth and success. This plan doesn’t have to be a fifty page MBA level plan, just a 2-3 page plan that outlines how you will focus your time on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The key is to write a one sentence objective, followed by strategies and tactics. A strategy could be; develop quality introductions from my existing clients. The tactics would then describe how, when and what you are going to do in order to accomplish those strategies.

  5. Talking about your goals with your peers is another way to push yourself into achieving them. If you commit to losing ten pounds and never tell anyone, it’s easy to back out of it. On the other hand, you’re more likely to stick to the goal if you tell everyone because of the possible embarrassment of not following through. It also can be helpful to partner up with someone for accountability. Find a partner at your firm or a lawyer at another firm and share your goals. Speak or meet monthly to discuss progress and encourage one another. This works for losing weight and also works for building books of business. A little friendly competition never hurts as well.

  6. Hiring a coach or finding a mentor can change your life! Why do all the top athletes have professional coaches? Aren’t they already at the top of their game? The reality is that we can all learn from people more experienced than ourselves. I have personally hired 4 coaches over the past ten years and it has been the best investment I have ever made. Do your research and find a coach or mentor that is highly regarded and recommended.  Meet with the coach and discuss your issues and goals.  If it feels right, pull the trigger and give it your all.  Waiting for things to change on their own rarely improves one’s book of business.

  7. Finding a niche’ is another way to grow your book of business. Every lawyer knows who the top specialists are in different categories. How about the best generalists? Not so much. Find an area of law that you excel in and enjoy and start working more aggressively in that area.  Read the paper and try to find the legal issues that are trending.  If you are in health care law, look into medical marijuana laws right away.  You might have an edge in getting an article published or speaking on the subject.

  8. Stop those awful “pitch meetings” that you keep having. No one wants to be sold to and no one likes a fast talking blowhard. My mantra has always been “Prescription before diagnosis is malpractice.” This means that we should focus on learning about the prospect’s needs and wants before saying too much. Ask open ended questions and really try to listen. You’ll be amazed at how well the meeting goes. Plus, think about how good your presentation will be once you understand more about your prospective client’s needs.

  9. Always target and go after low hanging fruit. You may have clients, strategic partners and friends around you that could be referring business your way. Before investing huge amounts of time attending new networking events, think about your best contacts. Spending an hour calling them to set up coffee or lunch meetings will be a much better return on your investment of time and energy.  Once you’re meeting with your best contacts, be sure to ask for quality introductions. Some of my clients are amazed at how easy this was to accomplish once they actually did it.

  10. In addition to being a good attorney, it has never been more important today to be a resource for your clients. The Godfather had a consigliore, so why not be a counselor for your clients. This means helping your clients achieve their goals beyond simply doing the “work.” To have client loyalty you must go way above and beyond their expectations. I recommend finding them business, being a source of new information and investing time to know them personally.

By thinking about and using these ten tips, you can dramatically improve your practice. Whether you find, mind or grind, everyone needs to do his part in assuring your firm is successful today and well into the future. Try to select one or two of my top ten points to help guide you in your journey. Sometimes even small steps forward can produce a dramatic result for someone who is interested in learning.

Article By Steve Fretzin of Sales Results, Inc.

Copyright @ 2015 Sales Results, Inc.

When Quirk of Copyright Law Creates Christmas Classic: It’s Wonderful Life and Public Domain

Christmas treeGeorge Bailey stands on a bridge begging for another chance at life. Upon being granted a second chance, he joyously runs home to embrace his family. As the community of Bedford Falls rallies around him and raises funds to save the endangered Building and Loan and George Bailey personally from an unjustified failure, someone proclaims a toast to George Bailey, “the richest man in town.” It’s a powerful ending to a beloved holiday classic, and it would have been forgotten over time but for accidentally allowing a copyright to expire.

The 1909 Act is the copyright act that governs copyrightable works created before 1964. The Act created two, distinct copyright terms for each individual work: a 28-year initial term and a 28-year renewal term. The initial term applied automatically, but the copyright owner had to file a renewal application with the U.S. Copyright Office to get the second term. If the owner failed to file a renewal application before the first 28-year term expired, the work automatically entered the public domain.

Into this copyright framework, a movie called It’s a Wonderful Life was released in December 1946. It was directed by Frank Capra and starred James Stewart. Upon its release, it was not the booming success that one might imagine based on its reputation now. While it was not a complete box-office failure, it struggled financially and never came close to reaching its break-even point. Capra and Stewart would never work together again. In fact, it was a major blow to Capra’s reputation, and in the aftermath of the film, Capra’s production company went bankrupt.

More holiday movies were created over the years, and the film was largely forgotten. At the end of the initial 28-year copyright term in 1974, a clerical mistake prevented the copyright owner of It’s a Wonderful Life from filing a renewal application, and the movie went into the public domain. TV studios, eager for inexpensive content to show during the holidays, began showing the movie every year because they were not required to pay any royalties while the film was in the public domain. Over the next approximately 20 years, the film was shown repeatedly every holiday and claimed its current status as a holiday classic.

Everything changed in 1993. In response to a Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend, the current copyright owners of It’s a Wonderful Life were able to enforce a copyright claim to the movie. The Court in Steward v. Abend held that a current copyright owner has the exclusive right to exploit derivative works, even in light of potentially conflicting agreements by prior copyright holders. Coincidentally, the Steward v. Abend case involved another James Stewart movie, Rear Window.

Because the current copyright owners of It’s a Wonderful Life still owned the movie rights of the original story on which the movie is based, the current copyright owners argued that their rights to the story told in It’s a Wonderful Life still existed and were enforceable to prevent unauthorized showing of the movie in its current form. The newly-returned owners were thus able to stop any unauthorized showings of the movie, but by then the movie was firmly entrenched as a holiday classic. It has been popular ever since. So the next time you sit down to watch George Bailey offer to lasso the moon for Mary or watch them dancing over an expanding swimming pool, just remember that we all might have missed this movie entirely if not for a clerical mistake causing a renewal application not to be filed.

Article By Lisa Adams & Derek E. Constantine of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Smartphone Wars – Supreme Court Awakens: Samsung Files Petition for Certiorari in New Hope to Harmonize Design Patent Law

On Monday, in the latest episode of the smartphone wars, Samsung filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Smartphone Wars

Samsung is appealing a Federal Circuit decision that upheld a $399 million judgment against Samsung for infringing three of Apple’s design patents. Samsung argues that the decision, if left unchecked by the Supreme Court, could dramatically increase the value of design patents. While the Supreme Court is the ultimate power in patent jurisprudence, it was a long time ago that it last considered a design patent case; more than 120 years ago according to Samsung. Samsung’s petition presents two fundamental questions concerning design patents:

1. Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope?

2. Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?

With respect to the first question – whether a district court should be required to limit the protection of a design patent to only ornamental features – Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision conflicts with both Section 171 of the Patent Act and with the Supreme Court’s precedent requiring judicial construction of patent claims.

According to Samsung, the Federal Circuit refusal “to cabin design patents to their protected ornamental scope” conflicts with Section 171 and allows infringement to be “found based on the use of nonornamental attributes.” Thus, argues Samsung, the Federal Circuit broadened the protectable scope of design patents, which are limited to “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture,” under section 171. Samsung argues the Federal Circuit’s ruling also creates tension with other areas of intellectual property law that routinely enforce limitations to protectable scope, such as copyright doctrine of “filtration” and trademark law’s doctrine of functionality.

Samsung also maintains that the ruling is contrary to Supreme Court precedents in the analogous context of utility patents, which recognize that district courts have a duty to construe patent claims and eliminate unprotected features. In Samsung’s view, similar to a Markman hearing, a district court should instruct a jury to identify non-ornamental features of a design patent and exclude them from the infringement analysis.

Turning to the second question – whether damages should be limited to the profits attributable to the infringing component – Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision conflicts with Section 289 of the Patent Act and the basic principles of causation and equity.

Samsung urges that “the Federal Circuit’s holding as a matter of law that an infringer of a design patent is liable for all of the profits it made from its entire product, no matter how little the design contributed to the product’s value or sales” be corrected. Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the article of manufacture is the entire smartphone, and not specific subcomponents, is wrong based on a natural reading and purpose of Section 289 of the Patent Act, contemporary extrinsic evidence regarding the definition of “articles of manufacture,” and non-controlling case law (see note below).

According to Samsung, the Federal Circuit’s “interpretation of Section 289 also flies in the face of well-settled tort principles of causation” and “ignores that disgorgement of the defendant’s profits is a classic equitable remedy for which the accepted measure of recovery generally is ‘the net profit attributable to the underlying wrong.’” “The cardinal principle of damages in Anglo-American law is that of compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty,” This is the backdrop in which Section 289 was adopted. “Where disgorgement is available in patent cases, it has [] been ‘given in accordance with the principles governing equity jurisdiction, not to inflict punishment but to prevent an unjust enrichment by allowing injured complainants to claim ‘that which … is theirs, and nothing beyond this.’”

Samsung claims that certiorari should be granted because the Federal Circuit’s decision dramatically increases the value of design patents relative to other forms of intellectual property. Without correction, design patents will have whatever scope juries choose to give them, and a design-patent holder will be entitled to the infringer’s profits on the entire product even if the patented design applies only to a part of the product, and contributes to only a minor faction of the overall value. The Federal Circuit’s decision allows design patent owners to obtain the infringer’s total profits – a remedy not available under utility-patent law. Samsung contends that such leverage “poses a real danger for companies everywhere,” that it will lead to an “explosion of design patent assertions and lawsuits.”

Will the Supreme Court agree with Samsung that the Federal Circuit has caused a great disturbance in design patent jurisprudence? Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902, 904 (2d Cir. 1915), (allowed an award of infringer’s profits from the patented design of a piano case but not from the sale of the entire piano, holding that “recovery should be confined to the subject of the patent.”); Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966 (6th Cir. 1920), (Affirmed the denial of all profits from the sale of refrigerators where the infringed patent related only to the design of the refrigerator’s door latch, explaining that it was not even “seriously contended” that the patentee could recover all profits from sales of refrigerators containing that latch.)

Article By, Patrick T. Driscoll, James Wodarski, Michael T. Renaud & Michael C. Newman of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

That Drone in Your Holiday Stocking Must Now Be Registered With FAA

Fearing for public safety over the explosion of hobby-type drones taking to the air, on December 14, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued the first rule1 of its kind directed squarely to owners and operators of hobby and recreational small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS aka drones) that now requires their registration on the FAA’s new online drone registration portal.2 A second, more comprehensive drone rule is expected to issue in 2016 to allow the use of drones for certain commercial purposes where the risk to public safety is low.

In the meantime, the hobby drone rule, which goes into effect on December 21, 2015 ahead of the holiday rush, requires all hobby-type drones weighing between 0.55 pounds (about two sticks of butter) and 55 pounds that have flown prior to December 21, 2015 to be registered no later than February 19, 2016.3 For hobby drones in this weight class flying for the first time on or after December 21, 2015 (i.e. holiday stocking stuffers), the rule requires that the owner register the drone before the first flight.

The FAA structured the grace period to encourage registration of millions of pre-existing drones while also requiring that all new drones be registered before first flight. To further encourage registration, the $5.00 registration fee will be credited back to registrants if they register within the first 30 days. And to lessen the burden of registration, the rule provides that a single registration applies to as many drones as an owner/operator owns or operates. If these incentives are insufficient to prompt compliance, the rule provides civil penalties up to $27,500, and criminal penalties including fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years.

U.S. citizens age 13 or older can register their drones at the FAA’s registration portal. The registrant will need to provide the FAA with their name, physical address, mailing address (if different) and email address. Upon completion of the registration process, the FAA will provide the registrant (or certificate holder, as the FAA calls them) with a unique registration number that must be affixed to each drone.4 In addition, each registration must be renewed every 3 years and will require an additional $5.00 renewal fee.

After the rule goes into effect on December 21, 2015, all operators of hobby drones falling within the weight limits of the rule must provide proof of registration in the form of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, either in printed or electronic form—much the same way as an angler or a hunter currently provides proof of a state fishing license or a state hunting license to a game warden.5

A number of exceptions to the rule are worth mentioning. First, hobby drones that weigh less than 0.55 pounds (i.e. radio-controlled micro quadcopters that fit in the palm of your hand) do not require registration.6 The rule will not apply to drones flown solely indoors. The rule also does not apply to those who want to fly drones for commercial purposes (i.e. for pay and/or hire) or on behalf of a state or federal government agency (i.e. fire departments, police departments, etc.). Such operators must first obtain an exemption of the FAA’s rules applicable to, for example, passenger-carrying aircraft, that the FAA has interpreted as also being applicable to commercial operators of unmanned drones regardless of size and weight. In addition, any types of entities other than individual hobbyists—such as corporations, or anyone wanting to record a lease or security interest—cannot use the online registration portal.

The new rule is the first concrete step that the FAA has taken in response to Congress’ mandate to the FAA under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to integrate unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System (NAS). The next big step will be the FAA’s issuance in 2016 of rules that provide a legal path for using drones for commercial purposes without having to obtain prior FAA approval. Those rules will likely have a sweeping impact on business owners of all types who want to buy and sell aerial imaging and/or aerial data transmission services, including large-scale land developers, shopping mall operators and owners of other large structures, real estate agents, wedding photographers, and live TV/radio broadcast providers, to name a few, as well as industries that support those businesses, including software and hardware component suppliers, venture capital and financing providers, accountants, and the like.

In the interim, the new rule will force a dramatic change in the way consumers think about small radio-controlled unmanned aircraft in the future—they’re not just toys anymore.

Article By Thomas E. Williams of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
© 2015 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

1 See FAA Interim Final Rule (IFR) available at: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf
2 The FAA’s drone registration portal is available at: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/
3 Model radio-controlled aircraft of all types, including the type of fixed wing, radio-controlled model aircraft that have flown in parks and fields for decades, fall under the new rule.
4 The unique registration number may be affixed via permanent marker, label, engraving or other means as long as the number is readily accessible and readable upon close visual inspection.
5 Although it is unlikely that the FAA will have the manpower to enforce the new rule against hobbyists who do not register their drones, the FAA nevertheless intends to employ a strategic approach to encourage compliance ranging from outreach and education programs to administrative and/or legal action should the facts of a case so warrant.
6 According to the FAA, most toy drones costing $100 or less will likely weigh less than 0.55 pounds (250 grams).

Legal Executive Institute 23rd Annual Marketing Partner Forum – January 20-22 Orlando

Join Thomson Reuters’ Legal Executive Institute next January as Marketing Partner Forum heads to Orlando for a three day summit on transformative value in law firm profitability and business development. Set against the Tuscan luxury of the Loews Portofino Bay Hotel, Marketing Partner Forum will welcome law firm marketing partners, rainmakers, practice group heads, business development leaders and esteemed corporate counsel for a dynamic and vibrant conference designed for the industry’s elite.

For more information and to register, call 1-800-308-1700.

Why You Should Attend

  • Hear from venerable thought leaders both within and outside of the legal industry.
  • Network with colleagues and enjoy the family-friendly adventure of Universal Orlando®.
  • Broaden your horizons through a number of interactive seminars that ask participants to collaborate.
  • Participate in a number of compelling sessions designed for law firm partnership.
  • Interact with clients and network for new business.
  • Focus on global business development and the impact of “glocalization” on legal services.
  • Depart the event with practical takeaways to share with peers and firm leadership.

Who Should Attend

  • Law Firm Partners
  • Managing Partners
  • Marketing Partners
  • Practice Group Heads
  • Chief Marketing Officers
  • Senior Business Development Professionals

Testing Waters: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Army Corps’ Clean Water Act Determinations Challenge

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the Eighth Circuit’s April 2015 ruling that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Army Corps”) jurisdictional determinations are final agency actions subject to judicial review. The Eighth Circuit’s decision is contrary to a July 2014 Fifth Circuit ruling and thus created a circuit split. The Supreme Court’s decision could resolve that split and settle the question of whether parties may challenge Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations.

Many types of development projects may impact “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Such activities might therefore be subject to the Army Corps’ requirements for permitting and implementation of mitigation measures. Whether “waters of the U.S.” may be impacted by a project is often far from clear, so project developers and property owners frequently request jurisdictional determinations from the Army Corps before proceeding with a project. The Army Corps’ long-standing position is that its jurisdictional determinations are not judicially reviewable final decisions since a party is not required to act or refrain from acting based solely on the decision. Rather, the Army Corps has taken the position that a party’s rights are not affected until a party is either denied a permit or subject to enforcement proceedings for acting without a permit. Developers and property owners have long struggled with this position, since a party must either go through the time intensive and costly permitting process before being able to seek review of the underlying jurisdictional decision, or choose to act without a permit and then possibly be subject to enforcement proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit Decision

In Belle Co. LLC et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 761 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2014), the Army Corps had issued a jurisdictional determination that a portion of the property in question was a “water of the U.S.”

On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the Court decided that the Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations are not final agency actions subject to judicial review, but are simply “notifications” regarding a property’s classification. The Fifth Circuit explained that for an agency action to be final it must: 1) be the “consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking”, and 2) the action must be a vehicle “by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” The Fifth Circuit ruled that although jurisdictional determinations are the consummation of agency action, they do not determine legal rights or consequences, these decisions merely serve as a “notice.” Agreeing with the Army Corps’ position, the Court reasoned that the jurisdictional determination did not force the companies to refrain from acting on the property, and did not impose a penalty scheme for continuing with the project.

The Eighth Circuit Decision

The more recent Eighth Circuit decision, Hawkes Co., Inc., et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 782 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015), dealt with the Hawkes Company’s plan to mine peat. The Army Corps determined there were “waters of the U.S.” on the proposed mining site so the company would need a CWA permit before it could start mining. At the first stage of judicial review, the District Court denied Hawkes’ challenge, agreeing with the Fifth Circuit’s view that the determination was not a final agency action. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Eighth Circuit held that the Fifth Circuit had misapplied the law in ruling otherwise.

The Eighth Circuit noted that without judicial review the Hawkes Company had no choice other than “to incur substantial compliance costs (the permitting process), forego what they assert is lawful use of their property, or risk substantial enforcement penalties.” These options adversely affected the property and business interests of the company. The Court reasoned: “the prohibitive costs, risk, and delay of these alternatives to immediate judicial review evidence a transparently obvious litigation strategy: by leaving [property owners] with no immediate judicial review and no adequate alternative remedy, the Corps will achieve the result its local officers desire . . . without having to test whether its expansive assertion of jurisdiction” would ultimately be upheld in the courts. The Eighth Circuit found the jurisdictional determination process analogous to the administrative order process at issue in the 2012 Supreme Court decision in Sackett. There the Court ruled “[t]here is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review – even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the [federal agency’s] jurisdiction.” Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367, 1374 (2012).

The Eighth Circuit found the Army Corps’ contention that Hawkes had adequate alternative remedies – either seeking a permit or acting without one and then challenging any compliance action that resulted – was untenable and failed to consider that Hawkes could never recover the time it lost or expense it incurred in taking either action.

Practical Implications of a Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could have important practical implications for project developers and property owners. The Army Corps’ long-term position has left the regulated community with few pre-permitting or enforcement options. The Eighth Circuit decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision to review this issue, provide some hope to developers and property owners that they may soon be able to seek judicial review of jurisdictional determinations before going through the permitting process.

Article By Sarah A. Slack & Amanda K. Beggs of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

USCIS Visa Bulletin Coming January 2016

On December 14, 2015, USCIS released an updated Visa Bulletin chart listing the dates to file adjustment of status applications starting in January, 2016.  Applicants can use the charts issued by USCIS as a guide to determine whether visas in particular categories are available for them and whether they are eligible to file I-485 adjustment of status applications.

As we previously reported, earlier in September 2015, USCIS and DOS revised the procedures for determining visa availability for individuals looking to file adjustment of status applications.  The Visa Bulletin now has two categories of cut-off dates:

  • Application Final Action Dates (dates when visas may finally be issued); and

  • Dates for Filing Applications (earliest dates when applicants are eligible to apply).

The two categories listed in the Visa Bulletin are Family-sponsored immigrant visas and Employment-based immigrant visas.  The Visa Bulletin charts jointly released from USCIS and Department of States are listed below[1]:

January 2016

DATES FOR FILING FAMILY-SPONSORED VISA APPLICATIONS

Photo 1

As indicated in the chart for Family-Sponsored visa categories, applicants may use the Dates for Filing Visa applications chart for January 2016.

Recent Procedural Changes by USCIS

On October 14, 2015, USCIS again changed its instruction for the adjustment of status process[2]. Under the new guideline, applicants will only be permitted to use the Dates for Filing chart if USCIS first determines there are more immigrant visas available for a fiscal year than available applicants.  This decision is made each month by USCIS, and applicants must use the Application Final Action Dates chart unless USCIS states otherwise.  The Visa Bulletin in January 2016 reflects this newly implemented instruction, and applicants must use the Application Final Action Dates.  The chart below lists the dates for Employment-Based preference visas:

APPLICATION FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES Photo 2

Article By Ian R. Macdonald of Greenberg Traurig, LLP
©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

[1] See Dept of State, Visa Bulletin For January 2016, Number 88, Vol. IX, available at  http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2016/visa-bulletin-for-january-2016.html; see also USCIS, When to File Your Adjustment of Status Application for Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Preference Visas: January 2016, available at:  http://www.uscis.gov/visabulletin-jan-16.

[2] USCIS, Updated Instruction for Using the DOS Visa Bulletin, available at http://www.uscis.gov/news/updated-instruction-using-dos-visa-bulletin.

HHS Recognizes Changing Environment of Research: Still Time to Comment

Late last month the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other Federal Departments and Agencies announced an extension until January 6, 2016  to the comment period for the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The proposed rulemaking is the most sweeping since 1991 when HHS codified The Common Rule, 45 C. F. R. part 46,  and  recognizes the changed research environment with many multisite studies and the  expansion of research with more data accessible through technology.  The NPRM seeks to further the principles of autonomy and  beneficence by protecting privacy and improving the consent process  in the new world of research while creating avenues to lessen the administrative burden  and to promote research.

The NPRM proposes to apply The Common Rule to all studies, regardless of funding source, conducted by a U.S. institution that receives federal funding for human subjects research.  Currently, The Common Rule applies to studies funded by certain federal agencies. Most significantly, the proposed rules impact the following areas:

Streamlined process  – To streamline the process of initiating certain activities the NPRM creates a  new category not currently in The Common Rule, exclusions.  Exclusions are for activity that is not research, that is low risk and for which there may be statutory protections.  Accordingly,  no procedures need to occur under the Common Rule to approve of the activity.  An example of an exclusion would include quality assurance activities.

The exemptions under The Common Rule are expanded in the NPRM. Exemptions are different than exclusions in that certain procedures need to occur for them to proceed such as recording, privacy safeguards, broad consent, or notice.  How HHS ultimately defines adequate notice will be critical in protecting privacy and autonomy rights in exempt research.

As well, a single institutional review board (IRB) would approve all multisite research. Independent IRBs would be held directly responsible for compliance with The Common Rule.

In addition, another streamline in the IRB process is not requiring continuing review of research where there is minimal risk. For instance, continuing review would not be required if a study undergoes expedited review or if there are completed interventions where only data continues to be analyzed. There would need only to be an annual confirmation that there are no changes.  An IRB would be able to require continuing review  with documentation of  the reason for the increased requirement.

Informed Consent  – The NPRM mandates a simplified  informed consent form with appendices with more detailed information. The goal is to provide potential research subjects all the essential information  that a reasonable person would need to consent to participation in research.  The NPRM suggests using the reasonable person standard as a means to gauge the protections in the process.  Currently, there are recommendations that informed consent forms should to be at no higher than an eighth grade education level, but the consent forms are often mired in so much detail human subjects may not easily comprehend the forms.

Research with Biospecimens – A particularly sweeping area of the NPRM is the protection of biospecimens (e.g., blood or urine) which is reflected in a proposed change in the definition of human subjects to include unidentified biospecimens. Hospitals, providers and laboratories  collect biospecimens from patients as part of medical care. Those biospecimens may be stored and used as part of research without the patient’s knowledge. The ethical issue regarding the use of biospecimens in research is well described by Professor Ellen Wright Clayton of Vanderbilt University, “[a] tremendous amount of epidemiological  research and other types of investigations have been done in the United States for decades without any informed consent or notification whatsoever….” [i] The proposed rule would require a broad consent  template covering the consent for storage  and maintenance of the biospecimens and the consent for future unspecified research. An alternative to the broad consent for the use of biospecimens would be a potential waiver of consent by the IRB for compelling scientific research, but consent could not be waived if the human subject declined to sign the broad consent form. Use of the IRB waiver of consent mostly likely would be rare, as proposed in the NPRM.

Secondary Research Use of Data – The NPRM also recognizes the growing business of information technology and the availability of data available for secondary use.  Researchers often can find data from sources such as the internet or through mHealth devices. The goal of the NPRM seems to be able to allow the secondary use of data in research or other activities while creating a balance for privacy protections. Secondary research activity excluded from The Common Rule would be a) publically available data (not biospecimens) or data recorded without identifiers; b) data protected through the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA); c) data confined to a single institution and its internal quality assurance programs and d)  data through federally conducted research.

Exempt secondary use research proposed in the NPRM would include a) identifiable private information where there is notice, privacy safeguards and use solely for specific research and b) storage and maintenance of data for secondary use where there are privacy safeguards, limited IRB review of the consent process, and  specific studies where the individual results will not be provided to the subjects.  Again, the procedures for notice will be a critical component of privacy protections with secondary use research.

There has been an overwhelming response to the NPRM which proposes comprehensive changes to The Common Rule. While there is seemingly a streamlined process to allowing certain activities or research to occur in the NPRM, there are areas in need of additional guidance such as the lack of clarity on certain privacy protections. A copy of the NPRM as well as details on how to submit comments can be found in this link.

Article By Dawn R. Crumel & Sonja S. Carlson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

© 2015, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

[i] Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, Establishing Precompetitive Collaborations to Stimulate Genomics-Driven Product Development: Workshop Summary, Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011, 6, Ethical Challenges in the Use of Biospecimens.