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 514 of 753 - Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News.

A Guide to Dealing with Illnesses in the Workplace

Godfrey Kahn Law Firm

As a result of all of the media coverage surrounding the Ebola issues, many of our clients have wondered whether they need to do anything, as employers, to prepare for similar issues and to address related employment issues. Whether it is the Ebola virus or another virus or pandemic, the general rules for employers remain the same.

The Ebola Virus Basics

The key to contracting the Ebola virus is direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose or mouth) with someone who is carrying the virus.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has a website dedicated to understanding, preparing for and preventing the spread of the Ebola virus.  For additional information regarding the Ebola virus, including symptoms and other useful information, please visit the CDC’s website.

For employers, the key is not to panic.  Given that we are at the early stages of flu season, employers should avoid overreacting at the first sight of an employee with flu-like symptoms.  Employers concerned about particular employees should consult with legal counsel before taking any steps that may lead to liability under various employment laws (more on this below).

Important Employment Issues Each Employer Should Consider

Pandemics (whether the Ebola virus, the 2009 H1N1 virus or influenza) implicate a number of employment laws.  Employers must strike a proper balance between protecting employees from infection and operating within the confines of applicable law.

1. Consider the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act before requiring employees to undertake a medical examination.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits, among other things, medical examinations for applicants and employees.  An employer cannot require a current employee to undergo a medical examination unless the examination is job related and consistent with business necessity.  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), medical examinations of an employee are job-related and consistent with business necessity when an employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that (1) an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions of his/her job will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.  “Direct threat” means “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.”  29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).  For additional guidance on direct threats, please see the EEOC’s website.

The EEOC’s 2009 guidance specific to the H1N1 virus sheds additional light on how employers should make direct threat assessments before requiring a medical examination.  The EEOC states that whether a pandemic virus rises to the level of a direct threat depends on the severity of the illness.  Helpful data points to determine the severity—and associated direct threat—of a virus are the warnings and guidance from government agencies such as the CDC, state health departments and other recognized authorities on illness and disease.

2. Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Act when accessing your workplace practices.

In addition to the ADA’s medical inquiry restrictions, most employers must follow the safety and health regulations dictated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”).  Although OSHA does not specifically regulate Ebola or other pandemics, employers may trigger workplace safety violations under OSHA’s General Duty Clause if they do not take proper steps to protect their employees.

Employers run the risk of receiving citations under the General Duty Clause if they expose employees to a hazard that the employer could reasonably have reduced and that the employer recognized would cause or likely would cause serious physical harm to employees.  Employers in industries with a high risk of disease contamination (e.g., healthcare employers) should therefore evaluate potential hazards and determine whether they can take steps to reduce the risk of exposure to employees.

Employers should also keep in mind that an employee who reasonably refuses to report to work because of a dangerous work condition—including contracting a pandemic virus—may be protected from retaliation.

OSHA’s guidance about Ebola and pandemic influenza provides useful information for employers who want to prepare for and respond to contagious disease risks in their workplaces.

3. Employees may be entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Federal and state (where applicable) family and medical leave laws (“FMLA”) complicate the web of responsibilities an employer has to navigate when it comes to dealing with ill employees.  For employers covered by these laws (generally employers with 50 or more employees under federal law), an eligible employee who has contracted the Ebola virus or another pandemic virus may qualify for leave based on a serious health condition.  Similarly, an eligible employee may qualify for leave if an eligible family member contracts a virus that qualifies as a serious health condition.

If an emergency situation prompts the need for FMLA leave, administering the leave in a lawful manner gets more complicated than under normal circumstances.  For example, it may not be practical to solicit and review medical certification forms.  In these situations, employers must have sufficient information (including the employee’s statements) that the underlying condition qualifies as a serious health condition.  Designating leave as FMLA without sufficient information establishing a serious health condition can result in a retaliation claim.  In emergency situations, employers may also need to exercise forbearance on the return of medical certification forms, particularly if an employee needs to assist a family member who is ill.  For additional FMLA guidance, please visit the United States Department of Labor website.

Steps Employers Should Take to Minimize Workplace Safety and Health Issues

As with any other workplace safety and health issues, the recent Ebola-related news has raised many questions about what employers should do when facing similar situations.  Although each employer is unique and each industry must confront different obstacles and risks, employers should, at a minimum, follow the steps outlined below.

  • Have a plan.  Consult with internal safety experts and review the guidance provided by government agencies regarding specific safety issues.  Create a plan (preferably with the assistance of legal counsel) that addresses issues specific to your workplace and your industry.

  • Communicate your plan to employees.  Your company’s protocols for dealing with safety issues should not be a secret to any of your employees.  Publicize the plan internally and ensure that employees have ready access to the plan.

  • Train your employees.  Train your employees about your company’s safety protocols on a yearly basis.  If you are concerned about a particular risk that is not usually common to your workplace or if you update your plan, provide additional training as needed to address these issues.

  • Supervise implementation of the plan.  Having a plan in place and training your employees to follow certain procedures is meaningless if no one supervises the process.  Designate individuals to review employee actions to ensure that the plan’s protocols are followed and to identify potential shortcomings of/improvements to the plan.  Whenever necessary, update your plan to ensure that it addresses all major safety risks and train employees on the changes made to the plan.

Employers that consult government and other advocacy organization websites to adopt ideas, disseminate information and prepare practices and procedures for addressing workplace safety and health issues will be in a good position to protect against unwanted legal action.

ARTICLE BY

Rufino Gaytán
OF
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

EEOC Sues Sushi at the Lake for Disability Discrimination

EEOCSeal

Cornelius Restaurant Unlawfully Refused to Hire Applicant Because of Amputated Arm, Federal Agency Charges

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc., dba Sushi at the Lake, which operates a restaurant in Cornelius, N.C., violated federal law when it refused to hire a job applicant because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Matthew Botello’s left arm was amputated above his elbow around November 2010. On or about Oct. 4, 2013, Botello applied to work as a busboy (or “busser”) at Sushi at the Lake, and on Oct. 10, Botello was told to report to the restaurant to work the following day. Shortly after Botello arrived on Oct. 11, the restaurant’s owner saw that Botello’s left arm had been amputated. The EEOC said that the owner gestured at Botello’s left side and told Botello that he could not bus tables because he had only one arm. Although Botello told the owner that he had bussed tables at another restaurant, the owner told Botello he could not work and to leave Sushi at the Lake.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division (EEOC v. Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Sushi at the Lake, Civil Action No.3:14-cv-00569 after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“Employers need to understand the importance of treating people equally despite whatever physical challenges they may face,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “In this case, we allege that Mr. Botello was not hired because of assumptions made about his abilities based on his arm amputation. Employers must be careful not to violate federal law by making assumptions about people with disabilities.”

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Ebola and Potential Labor Relations Issues

Proskauer Law firm

The Ebola panic presently sweeping the U.S. raises a host of potential issues for employers.  We recently provided guidance to help employers ensure employee safety while also complying with legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws.  In addition, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) recently released a comprehensive summary of requirements, recommendations and guidelines for employers and workers.  The escalating concern over Ebola also raises potential labor relations issues.  Many of the workplaces with the potential for employees to come into contact with infected persons or material – health care providers, cleaning services, waste disposal firms, ambulance and other transportation services, to name a few – are unionized, and unions have begun to seek greater protections for their members.  Non-union employers may be affected as well, as at least one group of non-union employees has engaged in a strike to protest inadequate safety measures.

An important step all employers can take, whether unionized or not, is to share information disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other public health agencies to educate their employees.  Indeed, a recent Washington Post article highlighted the information gap that is fueling public fears.  Sharing accurate, up to date information should help address employee concerns and avoid potential workplace disruptions based on unfounded fears.

Beyond the dissemination of information, in workplaces where employees may have some potential to come into contact with persons or material infected with the Ebola virus, employers must comply with applicable workplace health and safety laws and regulations, including making sure that effective protocols are in place, that protective equipment and clothing are available, and that employees receive appropriate training.  Not surprisingly, healthcare workers – nurses in particular – have been at the forefront in demanding increased protection and training.

National Nurses United (NNU) has been especially outspoken.  In addition to its criticism of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where two nurses caring for an Ebola patient became infected themselves, it has launched a multi-pronged campaign to achieve increased training and protection for nurses who may be called upon to treat Ebola patients.  As part of their campaign, they have released an Ebola Toolkit that includes a guide to state and federal whistleblower laws and a comprehensive set of collective bargaining demands.  Their demands include detailed proposals for Ebola-specific protocols, training and protective equipment, creation of a joint labor-management infectious disease task force, medical services for exposed or potentially exposed employees, and full paid time off for nurses exposed to an infectious disease.  Healthcare employers should expect to be presented with comparable demands from the unions representing their employees, if they have not done so already.

Other unions are engaging in similar activities.  As the largest union in the U.S. representing healthcare workers, cleaners, and other service employees who could potentially come into contact with a person or material infected by Ebola, the SEIU has been particularly active.  Its public efforts to date have been focused largely on educating union members and training them to use protective equipment.

In addition to union advocacy and education, there has been at least one work stoppage arising from employees’ Ebola concerns.  At LaGuardia airport, a group of more than 200 non-union aircraft cabin cleaners recently engaged in a one-day strike to protest what they claimed were inadequate protections from exposure to Ebola.  In that case, the SEIU is attempting to organize the striking cleaners, but regardless of whether non-union employees are seeking union representation, they have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection, such as a strike to protest working conditions related to Ebola risks.

Education and communication are critical to addressing employees’ Ebola-related concerns and avoiding workplace disruptions based on unfounded fears.  In unionized workplaces, union representatives should be included in the education and communication process. Of course, all employers must comply with applicable workplace safety and health laws and regulations.  Depending upon the circumstances, unionized employers may have bargaining obligations with respect to additional measures they seek to implement in response to Ebola concerns.  They may also be faced with bargaining demands by employees seeking greater protection.  Finally, it is important for non-union employers to understand that their employees also have the right to act in concert for their mutual aid or protection.

ARTICLE BY

Scott Faust
OF
Proskauer Rose LLP

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Two Immigration-Based Cases for 2015 Term: Will the Government Have to Explain Its Exercise of “Discretion”?

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

The United States Supreme Court is back in session as of last Monday, Oct. 6—often referred to as “First Monday” due to the fact that the term must begin on the first Monday of October by law. Among its roughly 50 case docket, featuring headliners that will refine Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and agency regulatory authority, the Justices will tackle two cases that stand to have a considerable impact on American immigration law and procedure.

The first of those cases, Mellouli v. Holder, concerns the issue of whether a noncitizen—even a green card holder—can be mandatorily detained and deported for possessing drug paraphernalia.Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act broadly authorizes the deportation of noncitizens that find themselves caught up in charges related to a “controlled substance.” Currently, the circuits are split as to whether the drug paraphernalia itself, the possession of which is prohibited by some states, must be related to a substance listed in Section 802 of Title 21, the Controlled Substances Act, in order to properly form the basis of a deportation order under the immigration laws.

The defendant, Moones Mellouli, is a lawful permanent resident who earned two master’s degrees and worked as an actuary. He was convicted of a Kansas misdemeanor offense, “possession of drug paraphernalia,” a charge that did not make reference to a controlled substance. In fact, his conduct would constitute a crime neither under federal law nor under the laws of many states. Nonetheless, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested Mellouli and sought to deport him for violating a state law “relating to a controlled substance.” This case could also simultaneously serve as a conduit for showing the public at large how draconian adherence to prioritizing the prosecution of “alien criminals” produces undesirable effects, such as insufficient due process and wildly disproportionate consequences—like deportation—for minor offenders.

The second case, Kerry v. Din, also has at its base important due process concerns. Here, they flow from a U.S. citizen petitioner’s rights before a Department of State (“DOS”) denial of her husband’s visa at one of its consular posts. At issue is (1) whether the consular officer’s refusal of a visa to a spouse of a U.S. citizen impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether a citizen-petitioner is entitled to challenge in court the refusal of a visa to her spouse and to require the government to identify a specific statutory provision rendering him inadmissible and the explicit conduct that would render the spouse ineligible in order to sustain the visa refusal.

Thus, Kerry v. Din will squarely exhort a review of the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability”—sometimes referred to as “consular absolutism.” This principle surged following the SCOTUS decision in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy roughly 65 years ago and embodies the notion that a consular officer’s (i.e., at an exterior post, by definition) decision to grant or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. The Knauff court explicitly stated that “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” [338 U.S. 537, 544 (1950)]. Those familiar with immigration law will recognize that this was but a culmination of successive rulings reinforcing the idea that the power to exclude aliens is both inherent in the sovereign and exclusive to its political branches of government; that a noncitizen’s rights are at their lowest prior to acceding to our borders. In practice, this means that the exercise of “discretion” by immigration agents often results in an unsatisfactory “because I said so” explanation by the government, without more, as if it were dealing with insolent children. In an area that impacts many fundamental facets of an individual’s daily life, the current dearth of due process and unquestioning reliance on a particular agent’s determinations is grossly misplaced.

Amber and Victor Ramirez of Kankakee, Illinois, is just one couple that has experienced the negative consequences of this amorphous agency “discretion” in 2011. USCIS granted Amber’s petition for a visa for Victor, her spouse. Victor then traveled to the U.S. consulate abroad—a routine practice for noncitizens that switch immigration status—in Juarez, Mexico to obtain the visa. The DOS consular officer refused to grant the already-approved visa, citing only that there was “reason to believe” Victor might engage in illegal activity in the United States. No further explanation was given.

As it turns out Victor has tattoos and the couple perceived that the consular office was focusing on them. “Victor has never been in a gang, and is not listed in Illinois’ gang database. Amber worked with the local police to explain that Victor’s tattoos did not match any known gang tattoos. The couple explained each of his tattoos, including the tattoo of the name of their daughter. The consulate refused to reconsider or to explain its reasoning, even though over 40 percent of American households include a member with tattoos. The family remains separated based solely on the word of an anonymous bureaucrat.”

This is precisely the category of government action that would be unreviewable under the prevailing consular nonreviewability doctrine, which forms the foundation of the government’s argument in Din. And Din, for its part, bears on the extent to which the government can get away with vague and perfunctory rationales—perhaps not even truly reaching the substantive inquiry of whether an agent’s subjective profiling of an individual is a lawful basis upon which a discretionary immigration action may be made.

Shaun Staller also contributed to this article.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

‘Jersey Shore’ Star Pleads Not Guilty to Tax Fraud

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

C’mon, admit it: you’ve watched at least a few minutes of MTV’s “Jersey Shore.” Okay, fine, not all of us have let our curiosity get the best of us, but for those who have, one of the main characters of the series is currently making headlines for a tax fraud case.Mike Sorrentino, whose nickname on the show was “The Situation,” is currently facing charges that he and his brother failed to pay $8.9 million of taxes between 2010 and 2012.

According to the IRS, the brothers filed false income tax returns, failing to report personal and business income and claiming false business deductions. Those earnings were largely from public appearances for which potentially thousands of dollars were paid. Authorities also accused Sorrentino of altering accounting records or having them altered after a grand jury issued a subpoena.

Sorrentino denies the allegations and has pleaded not guilty to the charges. His attorney made a public statement last month that Sorrentino “denies that he criminally violated the tax laws.” In effect this means that he is claiming the violations were due to negligence rather than fraud.

The difference between tax negligence and tax fraud is pretty significant, not only in terms of the mental state of the taxpayer at the time the filing was made but also in terms of the penalties attached. Penalties for fraud, of course, are much more significant.

While the IRS usually has a pretty good idea of when an individual has committed fraud or negligence, this is not always the case. Those who have been wrongfully accused of tax fraud need to work with an experienced attorney to ensure their rights are protected.

ARTICLE BY

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC

Today is the Last Day! Don’t Forget to Vote for NLR to Receive a Small Business Grant! Sponsored by Mission Main Street and Chase

National Law Review Mission Main Street Small Business Grant Sponsored by Chase
Click here to vote!

The National Law Review is applying for a grant from Chase’s Mission Main Street program. Chase is committed to helping a small business like ours. They are awarding $3 Million to help small businesses, like the National Law Review, make it big! Today is the last day to cast your vote, so please vote for NLR!

We are committed to providing quality compiles timely, well-researched articles submitted to us from law reveiws, law journals, law firm newsletters, bar associations and original thought leadership.  The dynamic landscape of healthcare reform, data privacy and human resources compliance, is frustrating and time consuming for business professionals. The National Law Review streamlines news updates and research, by curating vetted experts who provide timely insight and solutions – no login needed.

We have done all these incredible things with a very small team. Imagine the great things we can do with help from a Mission Main Street Grant. Please cast your vote for us! Thank you so much for supporting the National Law Review and all small businesses!

Ebola and Bribery in Liberia?

steptoe-johnsonlogo

With today’s newscasts full of stories about a second Dallas healthcare worker contracting the Ebola virus, people are focused on this woman and the 75 other Dallas healthcare workers (and their pets!) being monitored for symptoms. So what does this have to do with our usual subject of international corruption? Plenty, as it turns out.

More than 4,000 people in Africa have died from the virus. The international community has put on a full court press to contain the virus. But families in Liberia, which is at the epicenter of the epidemic,are reportedly bribing retrieval teams to let them keep their loved ones’ bodies and give them traditional burials. Traditional Liberian funerals include surviving relatives washing the body and keeping it around for a wake that sometimes lasts days, while family and friends stop by to kiss the corpse before it is buried in a shallow grave in the family grave plot nearby.

The Liberian government has ordered that bodies be collected and cremated, and sends retrieval teams out to collect the bodies. But according to news reports, grieving relatives are paying $40 to $150 for death certificates that don’t show Ebola as the cause of death. Having Ebola carries a stigma in Liberia, and it is important to some families that they don’t have to admit that Grandma had the disease. The Liberian government has said that the retrieval teams do not have the authority to issue death certificates, but for $40, they are doing so anyway.

Half of the Ebola deaths have happened in Liberia, so one can imagine the confusion of a young man who lived next door to an Ebola victim. He told the Wall Street Journal that the government tells its citizens to call the body retrieval teams and not to touch the bodies themselves, but then the teams come and don’t insist on taking the corpses. “They told us not to bury the bodies. They told us to call. But now I am not sure if they are the ones trying to eradicate this virus or to make it grow.”

So a small bribe still carries the day in some locations, even in the face of a catastrophic dilemma. Companies doing business, or contemplating doing business, in west Africa are understandably wary of doing so now, and that’s the last thing this impoverished area needs.

Half-Billion Dollar Arbitration Award in Trade Secrets Case Affirmed by Minnesota Supreme Court in Trade Secrets Dispute

Jackson Lewis Law firm

The Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed an arbitrator’s eye-popping award of $525 million plus prejudgment interest totaling $96 million and post-award interest in a trade secrets dust up between Seagate Technology, LLC and Western Digital Corporation, et al. Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, et al and Sining Mao, No. A12-1994 (Minn. October 8, 2014).  The Court’s decision is replete with lessons about the legal boundaries, risks, and protections for litigants in arbitration. It is notable also for the magnitude of the award which was, in part, the consequence of falsified evidence.

Seagate designs and manufactures hard disk drives for computers. Sining Mao was a senior director for advanced head concepts at Seagate working on technology that involves incorporating tunneling magnetoresistance (“TMR”) in to read heads to improve storage capacity. When he was hired by Seagate, he signed an employment agreement which included a requirement to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets and to return company documents. The employment agreement contained an arbitration clause which stated, in part, that the “arbitrator may grant injunctions or other relief in such controversy” arising out of the agreement.  Arbitration was subject to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).

Mao left Seagate in September 2006 to join Western Digital, a competitor. Seagate then commenced a district court action seeking injunctive relief and alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to TMR technology.  Western Digital invoked the arbitration clause of Mao’s employment agreement with Seagate, and the district court stayed the lawsuit pending arbitration.

Things started to go south for Western Digital and Mao argued that three of the alleged trade secrets had been publicly disclosed before Mao left Seagate because they were included in a PowerPoint presentation he gave at a conference.  Seagate argued that Mao had fabricated and inserted additional PowerPoint slides containing the information after the fact to make it appear as if this information had been made public.  The arbitrator found that “[t]he fabrications were obvious. There is no question that Western Digital had to know of the fabrications and yet continued to represent to the Arbitrator that Dr. Mao did in fact insert the disputed slides at the time of the conferences.” The arbitrator found that the fabrication and Western Digital’s complicity was an egregious form of litigation misconduct that warranted severe sanctions.

Specifically, the arbitrator precluded any evidence or defense by Western Digital and Mao disputing the validity of the three trade secrets or any defense to the allegation of misappropriation or use of the three trade secrets, which resulted entry of judgment on liability and monetary damages in the amount of $525 million, calculated based on an unjust enrichment method. Western Digital brought a motion to vacate the award in district court. The district court granted the motion in part, finding that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority under the arbitration agreement.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court on the ground that Western Digital had waived its right to challenge the arbitrator’s ability to issue punitive sanctions by not raising the issue with the arbitrator himself (and because Western Digital had earlier sought sanctions against Seagate in the same matter).

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals although based on a different analysis. The Supreme Court held that Western Digital did not waive its right to challenge the Arbitrator’s authority under Minnesota statutes regarding arbitrations and requests for vacatur, specifically Minn. Stat. Section 572.19.   The high Court then went on to conclude that the arbitrator did have the authority to impose the disputed sanctions, looking at the employment agreement, AAA arbitration rules, and case law.

The Court noted that:

Some believe that arbitration has benefits, potentially including faster resolution and less expense than the judicial system as well as a higher degree of confidentiality. But the benefits come with costs, including significantly less oversight of decisions, evidentiary and otherwise, and very limited review of the final award. Here, despite the best efforts of experienced appellate counsel to argue otherwise, Mao and Western Digital’s decision to demand arbitration necessarily limited the availability of the protections and advantages of the judicial system.

It is unclear if a district court could have reached the same result as the arbitrator in the Seagate case, but the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision suggests that arbitrators can have greater discretion than judges.  The case certainly highlights the fact that arbitration may not always be the best forum, depending on which side of the dispute you are on.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2014
ARTICLE BY

V. John Ella
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

ICANN’s gTLD Program – A Look Back and Forward

Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox

ICANN’s new Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) program has been in full swing for over a year now, so it seems an apt time to examine some statistics as to how brands are engaging with new gTLDs, utilizing the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), and which new gTLDs may give .com a run for its money.

gTLD Registration

While ICANN is expecting more than 1,300 gTLDs to go live in the following years, for the moment only slightly more than 400 are available. Despite the relatively slow roll-out of new top level domains (the characters following the ‘.’ in a domain name), the total number of registrations within these new domains has exceed the one million mark.

To date, the top five strings sitting atop the gTLD registrations list are: .xyz, .club, .guru, .berlin, and .photography. The most popular new string .xyz, which is marketing itself as an alternative to the crowded .com registry, has amassed nearly 525,000 registrations alone.

Interest and Adoption by Top Brands

World Trademark Review (WTR) recently explored the .xyz domain registration of the 50 most valuable brands and found that 80% had either registered or blocked their brand in this space. WTR’s review also found evidence of prevalent cybersquatting; for example, a single individual currently owns the domains names “americanexpress,” “honda,” and “homedepot” in the .xyz space.

In general, the levels of brand adoption and interaction with the gTLD program overall remains inconsistent, with some brands significantly more pro-active than others in their fields. Even when it comes to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), companies traditionally known for brand protection, including RedBull, Nintendo, and Blackberry, have evidently decided not to register their marks with this rights protection database

Trademark Clearinghouse

The TMCH is ICANN’s centralized database of registered trademarks related to the new gTLD program. According to the most recent figures released by the TMCH, nearly 33,000 marks from 103 countries and covering 119 jurisdictions have been submitted. These marks represent protection for over 11,000 brands and businesses worldwide. Of the marks submitted, 87% have been registered by a trademark agent, approximately 50% for multiple years, and nearly 98% have been verified. The TMCH will still be accepting mark submissions and renewals indefinitely, and approximately 7,000 marks have been submitted since the beginning of the year. On November 5 of this year, the first group of TMCH registrations will be up for renewal.

The TMCH is also tasked with delivering Claims Notices to those attempting to register a domain name matching a trademarked term. In March the Clearinghouse revealed that in excess of 500,000 Claims Notices had been issued, and 95% of the infringing domain registrations were no longer being pursued. The TMCH hailed the number of delivered Claims Notices as an indication of a “high level of interest in trademarked terms from third parties,” and proof that “protection mechanisms are working.”

But, while these findings appear to suggest the success of defensive mechanisms, there are at least two alternative interpretations of the data that likely influence these numbers. First, many of the infringing domain registrations were likely the product of data-mining and unlikely to have been pursued regardless. The second is that the sheer number of Claims Notices being issued may be keeping individuals with valid applications on the sidelines. Regardless of the reasoning behind the Claims Notices, they are at least evidence of the popularity and interest surrounding the new gTLD program.

gTLD Round Two?

As the first expanded gTLD round rollout progresses towards conclusion, ICANN has begun planning the second round. The organization has stated publically that the next round is expected in 2016 at the earliest,” but experts believe 2017 is a more realistic time frame.

In preparation for the second round of gTLDs ICANN has published a Draft Work Plan. The 27 page document details several sets of reviews and activities scheduled to guide consideration for the second round of applications. The plan addressed program implementation reviews, root stability, rights protection, the GNSO, and competition, consumer trust, and choice reviews.

As the gTLD space continues to expand indefinitely, brands will have to continue to monitor and reassess how to navigate this dynamic landscape.

ARTICLE BY

Monica Riva Talley
OF
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

EEOC Sues Florida and Michigan Companies for Transgender Discrimination

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has just filed suit against two companies for alleged discrimination against transgendered employees. The suits were filed separately in Florida and Michigan, against Lakeland Eye Clinic and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., respectively. In both cases, employees alleged that they were fired after they disclosed they were undergoing gender transitions.

Title VII does not specifically protect against transgendered persons. In 2012, however, in Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination against employees because they are transgender, because of gender identity, and/or because they have transitioned (or intend to transition) is discrimination based on sex, and thus violates Title VII.

The EEOC identified “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions” as one of their top enforcement priorities in its 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan. Thus, these suits should not be surprising. Earlier this year, President Obama also issued an Executive Order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers.

In light of the recent emphasis on the protection of these individuals, employers should take extra precautions to ensure that no discriminatory practices are in force in the workplace. Further, all adverse employment decisions should be properly documented and managers and supervisors should be properly trained about what to do should a discrimination-related issue arises.

© 2014 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC. All rights reserved.
ARTICLE BY

Benjamin L. Riddle
OF
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC