U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 Finally Makes Its Appearance

The National Law Review recently published an article, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 Finally Makes Its Appearance, written by W. Chapman Hopkins of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC:

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) just announced the long-awaited new Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.  Although the previous form expired on August 31, 2012, employers have continued using the previous form pending the issuance of the revised form.

As before, all U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States, including citizens and non-citizens. The form requires input from both the employee and employer (or an authorized representative of the employer). Although the new form is largely substantively the same, several stylistic changes were made in order to make it easier to read and more user-friendly.

For example, the instructions are clearer and there are new distinct data fields for employee information. The entire document consists of nine pages, with only two of these (pages 7 and 8) requiring completion. When providing the form to employees to fill out, however, it is important to provide the entire form so that they may read all instructions.

If your business maintains an electronic I-9 system, you should receive an update from your vendor about implementation. If you use paper versions, you can access the form here. It is a fillable PDF file, but may also be completed by hand. Despite only two pages requiring information, the form in its entirety should be kept on file.

Employers can start using the new form immediately, but must use it after May 7, 2013, as the old form will no longer be accepted after that date. Failure to use the new form could result in fines and penalties. Remember that required government forms are free, so you should never have to pay to be in compliance.

The USCIS provides in-depth detail about Form I-9, however government instruction is not legal advice.

© 2013 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC

The IP Strategy Summit (TIPSS): Monetization – Harvesting Your IP

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Monetization:  Harvesting Your IP conference:

Monetization IP - April 23-24 2013

April 23-24, 2013

New York

KEY TOPICS THAT WILL BE COVERED:

  • Evaluation of your IP
  • Monetization Models
  • Building a Monetization Strategy
  • Managing and communication across your organization
  • Selling your IP
  • Running a licensing program
  • Discover the Best Enforcement Strategies
  • Multi-National Litigation
  • Financial reporting of revenues

340B Drug Pricing Program Notices on Group Purchasing Organizations and Medicaid Exclusion File

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Following the recent release of new Program Notices regarding the Group Purchase Organization (GPO) prohibition and Medicaid Exclusion File, 340B participating entities should review their 340B program policies and procedures to ensure compliance with new and clarified guidance regarding GPO purchasing and dispensing of 340B drugs to Medicaid patients.

On February 7, 2013, the Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA) issued new Program Notices related to the Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) prohibition and the Medicaid Exclusion File (the Program Notice).


GPO Prohibition 

Disproportionate Share Hospitals, children’s hospitals and freestanding cancer hospitals that participate in the 340B program are prohibited from purchasing “covered outpatient drugs” through a GPO or other group purchasing arrangement.  Covered outpatient drugs include most outpatient drugs obtained by written prescription, with the exception of vaccines and certain drugs classified as devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Prior to the release of the new Program Notice, OPA had provided little guidance regarding the scope and enforcement of the GPO prohibition.  The Program Notice appears to have resulted from OPA concern that certain hospitals may have been routinely using outpatient GPO accounts when unable to purchase drugs at 340B prices.  With the Program Notice, OPA has now formally established policies regarding the application of the GPO prohibition to drug shortages, outpatient clinics and virtual inventory/replenishment purchasing models.

With the new Program Notice, and accompanying FAQs released subsequent to the publication of the Program Notice, OPA advises that the GPO prohibition applies even when a covered outpatient drug is not available at the 340B price due to a manufacturer shortage.  In such cases, hospitals are instructed to notify OPA of the issue, but may not obtain the drug through a GPO.

The Program Notice also provides that the GPO prohibition does not extend to certain off‑site outpatient clinics.  A hospital may use a GPO to purchase covered outpatient drugs for an off-site outpatient clinic if all of the following requirements are met:

Further, OPA establishes that a hospital may not use a GPO to purchase covered outpatient drugs for dispensing to patients through a contract pharmacy.  This guidance does not prohibit a contract pharmacy that is not owned by a hospital (which is the entity that would be subject to the GPO prohibition) from accessing GPO pricing through its own account, so long as the hospital is not involved in the pharmacy-GPO arrangement and does not benefit from the pharmacy’s GPO pricing.

  • The off-site outpatient clinic is located at a different physical address than the hospital
  • The off-site outpatient clinic is not registered in the OPA 340B database as participating in the 340B program
  • Covered outpatient drugs for the off-site outpatient clinic are purchased through a separate pharmacy wholesaler account than the hospital
  • The hospital maintains records demonstrating that drugs purchased through a GPO for the off-site outpatient clinic are not utilized by or transferred to the hospital or any off-site outpatient location registered in the OPA 340B database

Hospitals, including their outpatient sites, subject to the GPO prohibition must discontinue GPO purchasing of covered outpatient drugs before the first day of their respective 340B program eligibility, although each may continue to dispense previously purchased GPO inventory.  Those hospitals that maintain pharmacy inventory through a virtual inventory/replenishment model, in which 340B drugs are purchased based on prior dispensing to 340B-eligible patients, are also prohibited from using a GPO to purchase covered outpatient drugs.  OPA has advised that hospitals utilizing a replenishment model in “mixed use” (inpatient and outpatient) pharmacies must now account for (“accumulate”) dispensed drugs for inventory replenishment as either inpatient, 340B-eligible or outpatient non-340B.  Drugs accumulated for outpatient non-340B replenishment may only be purchased through a non-340B, non-GPO account.  In addition, a hospital may not purchase drugs on a 340B account until the 340B-eligible accumulator reaches a full package size and/or minimum order quantity.  The result is that such drugs typically must be purchased at wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) or prices individually negotiated between the hospital and manufacturer.

The new Program Notice advises that hospitals subject to the GPO prohibition that are found in violation of the prohibition may be immediately removed from the 340B program and subject to repayment to manufacturers for the period of non-compliance.  However, in a separate FAQ on the OPA website, OPA advises that it will not enforce the GPO prohibition until after April 7, 2013.  Those hospitals that are unable to meet the compliance deadline are advised to either notify OPA of non-compliance and submit a corrective action plan (such submissions will be handled on a case-by-case basis) or disenroll either the entire hospital or, if applicable, non-compliant off-campus locations, from the 340B program.

Medicaid Exclusion File

Drug manufacturers are not required to provide a 340B discount and Medicaid rebate on the same drug.  In order to prevent these “duplicate discounts,” OPA maintains the Medicaid Exclusion File.  This database lists all 340B participating entities (covered entities) and indicates whether the covered entity has elected to dispense 340B drugs to Medicaid patients (carve-in) or obtain drugs for Medicaid patients at non-340B pricing (carve-out).  Covered entities that have elected to carve-in are listed in the Medicaid Exclusion File by Medicaid billing number.

State Medicaid programs are instructed to access the Medicaid Exclusion File to ensure they do not seek manufacturer rebates from those covered entities that are listed in the database.  In the Program Notice, OPA reminds states to use the Medicaid Exclusion File to prevent duplicate discounts and to report any discrepancies between provider billing practices and the information in the database to OPA.

The Program Notice advises covered entities of a change in OPA policy regarding the timing of changes to a covered entity’s decision to carve-in or carve-out.  While changes previously could be made at any time, OPA will now only permit changes on a quarterly basis.  OPA also clarifies that a covered entity may choose to carve-in or carve-out for a subset of 340B enrolled locations, but if it does so, must obtain a separate Medicaid provider number for any eligible locations that carve-in.  Covered entities are also reminded that they must ensure their information is accurately reflected in the Medicaid Exclusion File and that they may be subject to manufacturer repayment if the database reflects that the covered entity opted to carve-out, but the covered entity has been dispensing 340B drugs to Medicaid patients.

Next Steps

340B participating hospitals subject to the GPO exclusion should review their current operations and policies and procedures to evaluate compliance with the guidance released in the new Program Notice and FAQs, with particular attention to use of GPO purchasing to obtain covered outpatient drugs that are not available at 340B pricing and for replenishment inventory.  As necessary, hospitals should cease purchasing covered outpatient drugs through a GPO and begin revising purchasing procedures to ensure compliance by April 8, 2013.

Hospitals should also evaluate current policies regarding use of GPOs at off-site outpatient clinics not registered in the OPA 340B database to determine whether such locations may be eligible to purchase covered outpatient drugs through a GPO.  Previously, many such off-site outpatient clinics were restricted to only purchasing at WAC pricing due to the GPO exclusion.  The new Program Notice makes clear that, so long as purchasing is conducted through a separate pharmacy wholesaler account (not the hospital’s), hospitals subject to the GPO exclusion can use a GPO to purchase drugs for off-campus outpatient clinics that are not registered in the OPA 340B database.  Therefore, outpatient sites now have the flexibility to purchase drugs through a GPO for those clinics that are not yet eligible for 340B enrollment (e.g., they have not yet appeared on a filed Medicare cost report) and to opt-out of enrolling off-site outpatient clinic sites if certain locations would see greater benefit from GPO purchasing than from 340B participation.  Further, hospitals may wish to explore opportunities for selective enrollment of off-site outpatient locations to ensure patient access to certain drugs, such as intravenous immunoglobulin, that have historically been difficult to obtain at 340B pricing and cost-prohibitive to obtain at WAC.

All covered entities should review their information in the Medicaid Exclusion File to ensure the database reflects current Medicaid billing practices and be aware that any changes will only be effective as of the next quarter beginning January 1, April 1, July 1 or October 1.  Covered entities should also use this opportunity to review state Medicaid program requirements regarding carve-in or carve-out restrictions and billing rules related to 340B drugs.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

Internal Corporate Investigations and Forum for In-House Counsel – April 24-26, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Internal Corporate Investigations and Forum for In-House Counsel by the ABA:

Internal Corporate Investigations April 24-26 2013

April 24 – 26, 2013

Where

  • St. Regis
  • 923 16th St NW
  • Washington, DC 20006-1701
  • United States of America

This intensive National Institute remains incomparable in its examination of the demanding issues that define corporate internal investigations.   Our distinguished faculty is comprised of in-house & outside counsel, and government lawyers along with nationally-acclaimed forensic accountants and investigators.  These professionals, top in their field from years of corporate practice, will share key strategies for avoiding the pitfalls often faced by in-house counsel on a daily basis and particularly during corporate investigations.

Attendees of this advanced national curriculum will:

  • Learn strategies to avoid new challenges facing in-house counsel
  • Gain practical knowledge about the Responsible Corporate Officers Doctrine
  • Increase their proficiency in current compliance and fraud investigation procedures
  • Walk away with information that will address unique challenges and needs during daily practice

Not so Fast at the Eden Roc

The National Law Review recently published an article, Not so Fast at the Eden Roc, written by Nelson F. Migdal with Greenberg Traurig, LLP:

GT Law

 

Within hours of the appeals court’s ruling [Marriott International v Eden Roc 3-26-2013.pdf], there have been announcements about the demise of the long-term hotel management agreement and the hotel owner’s inviolate right to terminate (revoke) management agreements “at-will.”  But the wiser course might be to not speak too soon, but, rather, to ponder the consequences.  Remember that Judge Schweitzer’s prior ruling on October 26, 2012 granted Marriott’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the hotel owner from removing the hotel operator in another of a series of “midnight raids,” where the hotel owner sweeps in and removes the hotel operator.  The hotel operator at the Eden Roc chose to stand its ground, and the injunction order maintained the status quo.  In many situations, the parties are able to resolve their dispute, either on their own or with the assistance of a mediator.  In fact, the Judge urged the parties to do just that.

The parties were not able to resolve their differences, and on March 26, 2013, a New York appeals court vacated Judge Schweitzer’s injunction.  This is not a sweeping and staggering new law. Citing the 1991 Woolley case, the order merely confirms that a principal may freely remove its agent and terminate the agency relationship “at-will” (absent the presence of a “coupled interest” as part of the contract; see the attached link to our prior piece on the Turnberry decision).  (To this extent, I disagree with the appellate court’s dicta that the agreement in question is not an agency agreement; in fact it is). The order further confirms that certain contracts that have the characteristics of a personal services contract cannot be enforced by means of an injunction.  It is also not news that if a hotel owner desires to terminate its management agreement with the hotel operator in this manner, that the hotel owner may be answerable in damages to the hotel operator.  Some blog posts within the last 24 hours make reference to the recent Fairmont Hotels & Resorts termination at the Turnberry Resort.  Very few of those blog posts complete the factual story and note that the hotel owner ultimately paid Fairmont damages reported to be roughly $19,000,000, representing the approximate present value of expected future management fees. Depending on the performance of the hotel, an Owner’s summary revocation of a hotel management agreement could be akin to selling “puts”; you get to own the stock, but do you really want to own it that cost?

So, let’s just be more judicious here.  Hotel owners and hotel operators actually do talk with each other more often than not, and do enter into legally binding agreements for management of the owner’s hotel.  I will continue to advocate for good faith negotiation over litigation, and monitor the complete story, including the fact that terminating the hotel management agreement may grant an owner its wish to regain the hotel, but that will come at a price, and then, the next step is that the hotel owner will need to replace the removed hotel operator with yet another hotel operator – which hotel owners realize can add a significant expense for the owner.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

2013 National Law Review Law Student Writing Competition

The National Law Review is pleased to announce their 2013 Law Student Writing Competition

NLR-Writing-Competition-2013

The National Law Review (NLR) consolidates practice-oriented legal analysis from a variety of sources for easy access by lawyers, paralegals, law students, business executives, insurance professionals, accountants, compliance officers, human resource managers, and other professionals who wish to better understand specific legal issues relevant to their work.

The NLR Law Student Writing Competition offers law students the opportunity to submit articles for publication consideration on the NLR Web site.  No entry fee is required. Applicants can submit an unlimited number of entries each month.

  • Winning submissions will be published according to specified dates.
  • Entries will be judged and the top two to four articles chosen will be featured on the NLR homepage for a month.  Up to 5 runner-up entries will also be posted in the NLR searchable database each month.
  • Each winning article will be displayed accompanied by the student’s photo, biography, contact information, law school logo, and any copyright disclosure.
  • All winning articles will remain in the NLR database for two years (subject to earlier removal upon request of the law school).

In addition, the NLR sends links to targeted articles to specific professional groups via e-mail. The NLR also posts links to selected articles on the “Legal Issues” or “Research” sections of various professional organizations’ Web sites. (NLR, at its sole discretion, maydistribute any winning entry in such a manner, but does not make any such guarantees nor does NLR represent that this is part of the prize package.)

Congratulations to our 2012 and 2011 Law Student Writing Contest Winners

Fall 2012: October Contest

Spring 2012:

Winter 2012:

Fall 2011:

Why Students Should Submit Articles:

  • Students have the opportunity to publicly display their legal knowledge and skills.
  • The student’s photo, biography, and contact information will be posted with each article, allowing for professional recognition and exposure.
  • Winning articles are published alongside those written by respected attorneys from Am Law 200 and other prominent firms as well as from other respected professional associations.
  • Now more than ever, business development skills are expected from law firm associates earlier in their careers. NLR wants to give law students valuable experience generating consumer-friendly legal content of the sort which is included for publication in law firm client newsletters, law firm blogs, bar association journals and trade association publications.
  • Student postings will remain in the NLR online database for up to two years, easily accessed by potential employers.
  • For an example of  a contest winning student written article from Northwestern University, please click here or please review the winning submissions from Spring 2011.

Content Guidelines and Deadlines

Content Guidelines must be followed by all entrants to qualify. It is recommended that articles address the following monthly topic areas:

March 2013 Suggested Topic:

  1. Labor Law
  • Submission Deadline:  Monday, March 4, 2013

Articles covering current issues related to other areas of the law may also be submitted. Entries must be submitted via email to lawschools@natlawreview.com by 5:00 pm Central Standard Time on the dates indicated above.

Articles will be judged by NLR staff members on the basis of readability, clarity, organization, and timeliness. Tone should be authoritative, but not overly formal. Ideally, articles should be straightforward and practical, containing useful information of interest to legal and business professionals. Judges reserve the right not to award any prizes if it is determined that no entries merit selection for publication by NLR. All judges’ decisions are final. All submissions are subject to the NLR’s Terms of Use.

Students are not required to transfer copyright ownership of their winning articles to the NLR. However, all articles submitted must be clearly identified with any applicable copyright or other proprietary notices. The NLR will accept articles previously published by another publication, provided the author has the authority to grant the right to publish it on the NLR site. Do not submit any material that infringes upon the intellectual property or privacy rights of any third party, including a third party’s unlicensed copyrighted work.

Manuscript Requirements

  • Format – HTML (preferred) or Microsoft® Word
  • Length  Articles should be no more than 5,500 words, including endnotes.
  • Endnotes and citations – Any citations should be in endnote form and listed at the end of the article. Unreported cases should include docket number and court. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and proper format of related cites. In general, follow the Bluebook. Limit the number of endnotes to only those most essential. Authors are responsible for accuracy of all quoted material.
  • Author Biography/Law School Information – Please submit the following:
    1. Full name of author (First Middle Last)
    2. Contact information for author, including e-mail address and phone number
    3. Author photo (recommended but optional) in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 150 x 200 pixels.
    4. A brief professional biography of the author, running approximately 100 words or 1,200 characters including spaces.
    5. The law school’s logo in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 300 pixels high or 300 pixels wide.
    6. The law school mailing address, main phone number, contact e-mail address, school Web site address, and a brief description of the law school, running no more than 125 words or 2,100 characters including spaces.

To enter, an applicant and any co-authors must be enrolled in an accredited law school within the fifty United States. Employees of The National Law Review are not eligible. Entries must include ALL information listed above to be considered and must be submitted to the National Law Review at lawschools@natlawreview.com. 

Any entry which does not meet the requirements and deadlines outlined herein will be disqualified from the competition. Winners will be notified via e-mail and/or telephone call at least one day prior to publication. Winners will be publicly announced on the NLR home page and via other media.  All prizes are contingent on recipient signing an Affidavit of Eligibility, Publicity Release and Liability Waiver. The National Law Review 2011 Law Student Writing Competition is sponsored by The National Law Forum, LLC, d/b/a The National Law Review, 4700 Gilbert, Suite 47 (#230), Western Springs, IL 60558, 708-357-3317. This contest is void where prohibited by law. All entries must be submitted in accordance with The National Law Review Contributor Guidelines per the terms of the contest rules. A list of winners may be obtained by writing to the address listed above. There is no fee to enter this contest.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in “Pay-for-Delay” Patent Settlement Antitrust Case

The National Law Review recently published an article, Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in “Pay-for-Delay” Patent Settlement Antitrust Case, written by Jeffrey W. Brennan and Glenn Engelmann with McDermott Will & Emery:

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument on the issue of pharmaceutical patent settlement agreements between branded and generic drug companies that contain so-called “pay-for-delay” or “reverse payment” provisions. Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., involves the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s order affirming dismissal of an FTC charge that such an agreement was an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  Proof that an agreement between competitors is anticompetitive under Section 5 (which only the FTC may enforce) and under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (for which there is a private right of action) is essentially the same.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis will almost certainly have major implications for the viability of FTC and private suits alleging that pay-for-delay settlements are anticompetitive, and for the level of antitrust risk facing companies that enter into such settlements.

Pay-for-delay challenges arise from settlements of patent infringement suits by branded drug patent holders against generic drug applicants under the Hatch-Waxman framework.  Two provisions must be present for the theory to apply: a restriction on generic entry until a future date (even if the entry precedes patent expiration), and payment of money or other value by the brand to the generic firm.  The payment typically is part of an ancillary agreement, such as a supply or co-promotion arrangement or IP license (coined a reverse payment because the plaintiff pays the defendant to settle).  The FTC argues that this paradigm delays competition because it likely induces the generic to settle for later entry, or would have under exclusivity provisions if it won the lawsuit.  The FTC finds the agreements presumptively unlawful and would put the burden on defendants to prove otherwise.  Defendants counter that the patent conveys a right to exclude and that these settlements promote and accelerate competition, because they enable generic entry prior to patent expiration.  Defendants assert that the burden should remain with the plaintiff to prove an anticompetitive effect.

The facts alleged in the FTC complaint squarely fit this paradigm.  The settlement occurred in 2006.  Solvay marketed branded drug Androgel.  A formulation patent claiming Androgel expires in 2020.  Generic drug firm Watson (now Actavis) had applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to launch a generic version of Androgel and certified that the generic product did not infringe Solvay’s patent and that the patent was invalid.  Solvay sued Watson and another firm for patent infringement, then settled.  The parties agreed that Watson would not launch its generic version of Androgel until 2015—five years prior to patent expiration—and that Watson would promote Androgel to a key customer source, urologists, and be compensated by Solvay for those services.  The agreement thus contains both components of an FTC pay-for-delay paradigm: a time-restriction on generic entry and a reverse payment.

The 11th Circuit followed its own precedent in rejecting the FTC case under the “scope-of-the-patent” test.  (The Second and Federal Circuits apply the same test.)  Under that analysis, if the patent was not obtained by fraud, and the infringement suit is not a sham (i.e., objectively baseless), then a settlement does not violate the antitrust laws if its terms do not expand the exclusionary scope of the patent, such as by prohibiting generic entry even after the patent expires.  Since the Solvay-Watson settlement provided for generic entry five years before patent expiration and did not otherwise allegedly fail the foregoing tests, the 11th Circuit affirmed dismissal of the FTC complaint.  The Supreme Court likely accepted the case because of a circuit split on this issue.  In 2012, in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, in which the FTC was not a party, the Third Circuit reversed a district court and applied a legal analysis that rejects the scope-of-the-patent test and essentially adopts the FTC approach.

In the oral argument, the Justices directed a number of pointed questions and comments to each side.  As noted, the government would put the burden on defendants to show that their agreement is not anticompetitive, arguing that “agreements of this sort should be treated as presumptively unlawful, with the presumption able to be rebutted in various ways” that do not include an assessment of the patent’s validity or of the strength of the infringement claim.  Members of the Supreme Court expressed skepticism about that rule.  Justice Kennedy responded, “[t]hat’s my concern, is your test is the same for a very weak patent as a very strong patent.  That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”  Justice Scalia said that to not evaluate the strength of the patent in assessing competitive effects is to leave out “the elephant in the room.”  Justice Breyer remarked that the government proposes “a whole set of complex per se burden of proof rules that I have never seen in other antitrust cases,” adding, “I’m worried about creating some kind of administrative monster.”

Justices also had pointed comments for the companies’ counsel, particularly on whether it is appropriate to find that the patent has an absolute right to exclude even though it was being tested in court.  The companies’ counsel argued that “the patent gives the patentholder the legal right to exclude” and that unless the patent is legally unenforceable, the patentholder is “entitled to monopoly profits for the whole duration of the patent.”  Justice Sotomayor said “there is no presumption of infringement” by the generic product, “[s]o what you’re arguing is that in fact a settlement of an infringement action is now creating the presumption.”  She added, “I don’t know why we would be required to accept that there has or would be infringement by the product that has voluntarily decided not to pursue its rights.”  Justice Kagan remarked that “[i]t’s clear what’s going on here is that [the brand and generic firms are] splitting monopoly profits and the person who’s going to be injured are all the consumers out there,” and that under the companies’ proposed rule, the brand and generic firm will have the incentive “in every single case . . . to split monopoly profits in this way to the detriment of all consumers.”

The Supreme Court’s term concludes in June 2013, by which time a decision is expected.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

Inside Counsel 13th Annual Super Conference – May 6-8, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Inside Counsel Super Conference:

Super Conference May 6-8 2013

SuperConference

No longer just providing legal counsel, in-house attorneys have become strategic business partners within their companies.They not only need to be influential in the boardroom, but must demonstrate the ability to make strategic decisions on both commercial and legal analysis.

  • Elevate your legal knowledge 
  • Create innovation within your legal department 
  • Change and evolve to become a better strategic partner 

InsideCounsel’s 13th Annual SuperConference is designed to provide senior-level legal professionals insights, ideas and solutions to help them meet their growing responsibilities and evolving needs.Developed by in-house counsel, for in-house counsel,SuperConference will provide you innovative resolutions essential to addressing your department’s business and legal needs.

The 2013 SuperConference will be held May 6th-8th, in Chicago, IL

From Silver Bullets to Bazookas: Workers’ Innovative Challenge to Wal-Mart’s Employment Practices

The National Law Review recently announced a winner in our Law Student Legal Writing Contest.  We are pleased to publish the winning article regarding Wal-Mart’s Employment Practices by Courtney Anne Chicvak with St. John’s University School of Law:

“We know nothing of what will happen in future, but by the analogy of experience.” – Abraham Lincoln

I. INTRODUCTION

Wal-Mart is pioneer of the “Big-Box” store business model, which now dominates the American arena of the corporate retail industry. Built upon the bedrock principle of offering “every day low prices,” the retail giant strives to offer the highest quality product for a lower price then competitors, and to do so, reduces input costs by relying upon frugal and efficient business practices. Wal-Mart has minimized labor input costs in their in-store operations by strategically opening stores in rural areas and saturating markets, utilizing distribution networks, relying upon in-store technology and providing minimal in-store customer service. Because of these reduced labor costs, Wal-Mart is able to pass these savings on and can offer lower prices than other retailers. As a result, corporate competitors are forced to adopt a similar business model, while small-town stores are pushed out of business. As competitors begin to adopt the Big-Box business model of replacing labor with capital, thus reducing labor costs, and simultaneously small town stores cannot keep up and close, the result has been a decrease in job opportunities for workers in the surrounding area. In effect, fewer employment opportunities for workers has allowed Wal-Mart, and other similar big box retailers, to retain a greater control over working conditions, including, but not limited to the size of the workforce, wages, and working conditions.

The big-box business model, paired with external economic factors such as high unemployment rates and fewer job opportunities to select from, has left some in-store retail workers dissatisfied with working conditions. Foreseeing the possibility of a dissatisfied workforce, Wal-Mart has animatedly implemented aggressive union avoidance strategies to prevent the organization of in-store workforces. The size and economic power of Wal-Mart has resulted in a massive disparity in bargaining power. As a result, workers have consistently failed in making changes to in-store working conditions.

On November 22 and 23, in-store workers orchestrated and executed a nationwide protest against the working conditions at Wal-Mart stores.[i] Relying upon the internet and a blend of traditional organizing methods, Wal-Mart employees, supported by Alternative Worker Organizations and coalition groups, protested work conditions at 26 Wal-Mart stores in 12 states on Black Thursday and Friday, the biggest day of the year for the nation’s retailers. Distinguishable from the silver bullet strategy relied upon in past protests, where workers organized on a small scale and efficiently targeting individual employment practices, the Black Friday attack on Wal-Mart labor relations relied upon a bazooka strategy, by increasing the scale and scope of the protest. Because both prevalent and relevant nationwide, the protests received enormous attention from the media.

As a result of these recent events, both Wal-Mart and OUR Walmart, a worker’s organization involved in coordinating the employee protests, filed Unfair Labor Practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. In response to these charges, on January 30, 2013, the NLRB issued an Advice Memorandum offering a temporary resolution to the dispute and a News Release summarizing a settlement reached between OUR Walmart and Wal-Mart.[ii] Although firing allegations of ULP’s at each other may provide short-term relief, it is unlikely that the resolution of these allegations will result in peace between labor and management in big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart. Underlying these claims are the conflicting cultural views of consumerism and solidarity, as well as the policy issues of the increasing disparity of income and the disappearance of the middle class. Vaguely reminiscent of the Pre-New Deal conflict in labor relations, as seen during the 1920’s, the recent events in the retail industry could potentially lead to a public reemergence of the labor union, thus reviving the labor movement and modernize organizing strategies in the 21st century.

II. WAL-MART AND THE BIG-BOX BUSINESS STRATEGY

Wal-Mart is more than the world’s largest retailer: In recent years it has morphed into an economic powerhouse and cultural phenomenon. Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world, employs over 1.4 million workers in the United States in 4,602 stores throughout the United States, and had a total revenue of $464 billion in 2012 fiscal year.[iii] Not only has Wal-Mart dominated in the retail arena, it is also the nation’s largest grocer. Super Wal-Mart consumes 19 percent of the grocery sector market-share. Today, Wal-Mart employees represent one percent of total employment and ten percent of retail employment.[iv]

Since the first Wal-Mart opened in Bentonville, AR in 1968, the store has expanded rapidly throughout the United States.[v] While this expansion may appear to bring jobs to these areas, local communities have opposed the opening of Wal-Mart for a variety of reasons. Citizens in these areas argue that Wal-Mart should stay out of their communities to prevent urban sprawl, preserve historical culture, protect the environment and avoid road congestion. But two of the main arguments these locals use are that Wal-Mart does not create as many retail jobs as it eliminates, and consequently, it results in lower wages for workers in their community, particularly in the grocery sector. Wal-Mart executives have denied these claims by reassuring communities that store openings can create more jobs in communities, not just at Wal-Mart, because their low prices will draw more shoppers to the area.[vi] Another argument that Wal-Mart advocates assert is that the store provides the lowest prices possible for consumers, allowing people in the community to save money on their shopping.

A.Wal-Mart Corporate Culture and Philosophy: Everyday Low Prices

Wal-Mart, a new “invention” in the retail sector, is rooted in the philosophy of providing the lowest priced items of the same quality as competitors are offering to shoppers. The origin of this philosophy can be traced back to founder Sam Walton, a man who believed in offering value to customers. By fixating on the numerical aspect of the business, Walton was able to offer products for lower costs then competitors, no matter how slight the cost may be. As to labor, Walton believed workers wages to be an additional operating expense, which increased the cost of production and subsequently the cost of labor would be passed onto the customer.[vii]

Emerging from the philosophy of Walton, the Wal-Mart corporate culture continues to concentrate on offering a value product for customers. This core principle is manifested in the Wal-Mart company motto of offering “Everyday Prices. Everyday” for customers. Deeply embedded in company practices, this philosophy still appears to control most of Wal-Mart’s business decisions.

B. Wal-Mart’s Saturation of Rural Areas

When Walmart stores first opened, one of the primary factors to be considered was the location of the store in relation to the first store in Bentonville, Arkansas. Walton used a saturation method of store openings, where the company used a “spreading out, filling in” strategy. The reasoning behind this method was to connect stores with access to both warehouses, to stock the shelves, and management, to ensure the store was managed properly. Five years after the first opening in 1968, Wal-Mart had 18 additional stores in surrounding states and totaled revenue of $9 million. Wal-Mart continued this opening pattern and “saturated” surrounding areas, depending on the control of store openings and word-of-mouth advertising. Studies have shown that Wal-Mart tends to enter small towns where population growth is expected and projected retail growth was high. Sam Walton described the control and distribution motive as follows:

“[Our growth strategy] was to saturate a market area by spreading out, then filling in.  In the early growth years of discounting, a lot of national companies with distribution systems already in place—Kmart, for example—were growing by sticking stores all over the country.  Obviously, we couldn’t support anything like that. … We figured we had to build our stores so that our distribution centers, or warehouses, could take care of them, but also so those stores could be controlled.  We wanted them within reach of our district managers, and of ourselves here in Bentonville, so we could get out there and look after them.  Each store had to be within a day’s drive of a distribution center.  So we would go as far as we could from a warehouse and put in a store.  Then we would fill in the map of that territory, state-by-state, county seat by county seat, until we had saturated that market area.  … So for the most part, we just started repeating what worked, stamping out stores cookie-cutter style” [viii]

C. Wal-Mart’s Supplier Relations

In order to successfully provide high-quality yet low-priced products to customers, Wal-Mart relies on cutting deals with large suppliers by guaranteeing massive orders for lower prices. Surrounding Bentonville, AR, the area “Vendorville” developed containing hundreds of satellite offices of huge suppliers because these companies wanted to develop a relationship with Wal-Mart.[ix] An example of this is Wal-Mart’s relationship with the company Rubbermaid, who is known for high quality plastic goods. In the 1980’s, Rubbermaid’s CEO recognized the potential success for the company and began selling them huge quantities for lower prices than they would usually offer. After a few years though, Rubbermaid began demanding higher prices for their products, but Wal-Mart refused. Wal-Mart realized the power they held over the suppliers because they were able to provide so much business for the companies, and could essentially charge these companies any price, despite how low, and they would have to pay.[x] By buying their products in bulk for much lower costs, Wal-Mart can slash prices lower than their competitors.

Not only has Wal-Mart made deals with suppliers in the United States, they have also began to depend on international suppliers to keep their prices the lowest on the market. By seeking out retailer’s over-seas, they can make deals with companies located in places with lower labor costs and again buy their products from the supplier for lower costs than any other business.[xi]

C. The Consumer Appeal of Wal-Mart

For consumers, shopping at Wal-Mart is appealing for a variety of reasons.[xii] First, these single stores house thousands of products ranging from clothing to produce under one roof. The diverse range of products makes shopping convenient for consumers, because they do not have to go to multiple stores for different products. Second, Super Wal-Mart’s advertisements are based around the idea of “roll-backs,” which are discounted prices. This makes shoppers feel thrifty because they are buying items for the lowest price on the market. Third, the multitude of stores and standardized design breeds familiarity for consumers. If a shopper lives in Williamsport, PA but goes on vacation to Santa Fe, NM, the Super Wal-Mart they go to at home will closely resemble the store they visit thousands of miles away. Each store has a similar layout and sells almost the exact products, which draws shoppers because it is something they normally encounter. Finally, the creators have turned shopping at Super Wal-Mart into an “experience,” where everything from the plastic bags to the oversized neon sign outside makes people easily recognize the store.

D. Pressure on Competitors

The combination of these unique traits has built the Super Wal-Mart brand, and it has created a cult-like following among customers. However, the increase in Wal-Mart sales poses a threat to the competition. Although a smaller family-owned store can offer more personalized and custom-tailored services, most people do not require this. When a shopper is posed with the choice of paying lower prices to go to a large and familiar place or to go to a small local business and pay more money for the same product but get unique service, majority would choose lower prices. Other large retailers are also under pressure to reduce prices to compete with Wal-Mart. In order to stay in business, nation-wide retailers such as K-Mart and Sears also began to adopt Wal-Mart’s distribution center method.[xiii] [xiv]

E. How Wal-Mart Reduces Labor Costs

This new “invention” has implications for employment rates and the number of stores throughout the United States. Shopping at Wal-Mart means buying in bulk versus buying individual items, and getting consumers more of a given product for a lower price. But by opting to shop at a large store, the consumer must forfeit personal help for lower prices. Wal-Mart expects people to do their own searching while shopping. Although they can buy products in bulk for lower prices, they give up the personalized assistance and service while shopping.[xv]

Wal-Mart was the first retailer to use the barcode system in order to determine when to order or replace items on store shelves. Traditionally, retailers relied upon in-store employees to manually count the number of items on shelves and place orders when the item was almost out of stock. Wal-Mart recognized the value in connecting the barcode number to stocking shelves, and developed a system to alert distribution centers when certain items were running low on shelves.[xvi]

III. WAL-MART’S LABOR RELATIONS POLICY

Wal-Mart has taken advantage of the high unemployment rate and the reduction in the number of job opportunities in rural areas. By maintaining control over a significant portion of the labor market in rural areas, Wal-Mart has retained discretion over in-store working conditions by publically announcing a “pro-associate” culture, yet by deviating from this culture on a case-by-case basis with retaliation and anti-unionization techniques.

A. Pro-Associate Culture

Wal-Mart has created a “pro-associate” culture, in which management uses different techniques to empower workers and create the illusion of solidarity in stores. These techniques include, but are not limited to “coaching” workers when they make mistakes instead of citing or writing them up[xvii], daily cheers and chants to boost employee morale, and the creation of an “open door policy,” which allows anyone to state a problem or concern without fear of retaliation. Consequently, Wal-Mart’s company policy states that because the company has an “open door policy,” there is no need for third-party representation.[xviii] To rebut negative publicity received, Wal-Mart advertises and publically boasts of in-store worker satisfaction. For example, on November 30, 2012, an executive publically claimed that eighty-six percent of Walmart hourly workers said in a survey “they agree with the statement ‘I really love my job.’”[xix]

B. Union Avoidance Techniques

Although Wal-Mart’s “pro-associate” culture has proven useful to control the majority of the workforce, Wal-Mart’s company policies are not always adhered to and not always strictly enforced. In order to prevent the unionization of a store location, management will use a variety of union avoidance techniques, some more militant than others. Examples of these techniques include, but are not limited to the threatening, harassment, and termination of outspoken workers. Workers have attempted to report these acts taken against them by the employer through filing Unfair Labor Practice charges. Yet because of the sporadic nature of these incidents, usually contained to one store location, paired with employee fear of retaliation for doing so, Wal-Mart has not yet changed its labor relation techniques.[xx]

C. The Walmart Store Associate

The current economy has also left some workers hesitant to speak out against Wal-Mart’s employment practices. High unemployment rates have made it more difficult to organize a union because workers are even more fearful of their jobs. Half of the people who lose their jobs qualify for unemployment insurance. Big-box workers rarely qualify for unemployment because they have not been on the job long enough or they are only part-time. This makes the risk of job loss even greater.

The composition of Wal-Mart’s in-store workforce reflects the company’s strategy of opening stores in rural areas. The typical Wal-Mart employee is about 30 years old. The average Wal-Mart worker nationwide earns $8.81 per hour. A third of Wal-Mart’s employee’s work less than 28 hours per week, therefore not qualifying for benefits. The composition of the Wal-Mart workforce is startling. The majority of Wal-Mart’s employees are over thirty years old. Two-third’s of the Wal-Mart in-store workforce are women. Wal-Mart’s in-store jobs cannot be outsourced abroad, nor is it likely to be replaced completely with automated computers or other machinery. These are jobs that are personal and direct, and typically involve helping customers locate items and checkout at the register. [xxi]

IV. FAILURE OF TRADITIONAL METHODS OF ORGANIZING

Thus far, Wal-Mart employees have had little success using traditional methods for improving working conditions and wages. Attempts to organize have consistently failed, and currently, there are no Wal-Mart stores in the United States where workers are represented by a union. Legal challenges, although some successful and others not, have not made a significant impact upon or have significantly changed the working conditions of Wal-Mart employees.[xxii] The traditional methods of unionizing were successful in different industries during a different era. The size of Wal-Mart and the enormity of the corporation’s economic power have proven challenging in union organizing among workers in retail stores.

Prior to Black Friday, each of these challenges had relied on traditional methods of union organizing. First, challenges tend to be isolated and contained to one store at a time. Generally, there has been little coordination between organizing events at Wal-Mart stores. When workers at one store location at a time seek to change the working conditions, it is easy for management to intervene and prevent the store from unionizing. Second, workers’ tended to focus on certain employment practices rather then the generalized proposition of “working conditions.” Third, challenges to employment practices were targeted at one link of the Wal-Mart distribution chain – either in store or warehouse. Fourth, challenges were either legal challenges or through organizing attempts.

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF BLACK FRIDAY

Black Friday’s organizing technique varied significantly. The use of the Internet during the organizing process allowed workers to coordinate protests throughout the country. First, the protests were widely coordinated. Protests took place at about 28 stores throughout 12 cities in the United States. By relying upon social media programs such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, as well as e-mail, websites, and blogs, protesters were able to communicate before, during and after Black Friday. Additionally, these Internet platforms were used as a source of support, encouragement and a constant reminder of worker solidarity. While some of the benefits of online organizing include the ability to communicate instantly and anywhere, the disadvantages of online organizing include the public availability information, which is more accessible to management. Online organizing requires forfeiting secrecy, but the size of the movement may be a greater advantage. Third, Wal-Mart employees challenged “working conditions,” including but not limited to, wages, hours, health care insurance, and other benefits. Fourth, Wal-Mart employees relied upon support from multiple Alternative Worker Organizations and coalition groups. Although these Alternative Worker Organizations had received funding from unions in the past, thus union subsidiaries, they continuously state that they are not affiliated with any union organizations. Fifth, those who worked in both the distribution centers and warehouses supported workers protesting in-store conditions.

VI. ALLEGATIONS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

A. Prior to Black Friday – Week of November 16, 2012

The NLRB had been caught in crossfire of Unfair Labor Practice charges between Wal-Mart and workforce. Once Wal-Mart learned of workers’ plans to protest wages and working conditions on Black Thursday and Friday, Wal-Mart anticipated the effect such protests may have upon sales. On November 16, 2012, a week before the planned protests, Wal-Mart filed an unfair labor practice charge against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).[xxiii] Wal-Mart alleged that the UFCW violated § 8(b)(7)(C) of the NLRA, which prohibits the picketing of any employer by a labor organization for more than thirty days without filing a petition with the NLRB, where the object of the picketing is to force the employer to bargain with the labor organization. [xxiv]

According to Wal-Mart, the UFCW is responsible for these demonstrations “through its subsidiaries, affiliated organizations, and agents, including that labor organization known as ‘OUR Walmart.’”  Wal-Mart alleges that UFCW, a labor organization under the Act, had provided funding to the alternative workers organizations to allow them to orchestrate and execute the Black Friday protests. In a 2011 filing with the Labor Department, OUR Walmart was listed as a subsidiary of the UFCW, but contends that it no longer receives such support.

Even if it is found that OUR Walmart is a subsidiary of the UFCW, § 8(b)(7)(C) also requires that the object of the demonstration must have been to force Wal-Mart to bargain with the UFCW. Wal-Mart claimed that the protests were for the purpose of organizing in-store workforces, while OUR Walmart argued that the Black Friday protests were planned to pressure management into adopting the terms and conditions in their “Workers Declaration of Rights.”[xxv]

On November 20, 2012, the Tuesday prior to Black Friday, OUR Walmart filed an unfair labor charge with the Board asserting that Wal-Mart was making illegal threats to deter its employees from participating in protests scheduled for Black Friday. Exposed in a leaked memo[xxvi] addressed to salaried Wal-Mart employees, management advocated the use of boilerplate union avoidance tactics to handle any employee unrest on Black Friday.[xxvii] The complaint said that a statement alerting Wal-Mart employees that “there would be consequences” if they did not report for work, made by Wal-Mart Vice President David Tovar on the CBS Evening News constituted an illegal threat meant to discourage workers from exercising their § 7 right to protest working conditions.[xxviii]

B. Post-Black Friday – Week of January 30, 2013

Months after the events that occurred on Black Friday, on January 30, 2013, the NLRB issued an Advice Memorandum[xxix] and published a News Release[xxx] relating to the Black Friday charges. In the memorandum, OUR Walmart states that the group is not an affiliate of a labor organization and agrees not to picket for 60 days. Significantly, OUR Walmart does not denounce the group’s purpose of improving working conditions or its intention of doing so.

VII. CONCLUSION

It is unlikely that the agreement outlined in the NLRB’s Advice Memorandum, even if adhered to, will resolve the on-going conflict between workers and management over the working conditions in Wal-Mart stores. After the Black Friday protests, it is clear that Wal-Mart will be forced to address the complaints made by workers.[xxxi] If Wal-Mart must address these issues, the question then becomes whether management will choose to meet some of the workers’ demands in order to retain some control over their business practices. Slight concessions, such as raising hourly workers from a minimum wage to a living wage standard, may be wise.[xxxii]

Underlying both of these allegations are greater issues of unresolved issues of conflicting public policies and ideologies. First, the recent events of worker protest are a reminder of dramatic and increasing disparity of income among the American population. While workers protested their job conditions and wages, other Americans leisurely attended Black Friday shopping events nationwide, either blind to or ignorant of the protests. Second, by forcing employees to work on Thanksgiving Day, Wal-Mart in effect cancelled Thanksgiving for millions of Americans. Protests of working conditions on Thanksgiving Day symbolically reject modern consumerism. Ironically, Wal-Mart boasted of a greater number of shoppers this year compared to last, as well as over 10 million purchases made. Finally, history is cyclical. Nearly one hundred years ago, although in a different era and form, similar conditions lead to workers challenging work conditions. During the 1930’s, workers challenged big business for wage increases and changes in working conditions. Now, although finding success with alternative methods, workers still seek the similar reforms.


[i]See Walmart Workers Plan Black Friday Protestshttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57552153/walmart-workers-plan-black-friday-protests/(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[ii]See NLRB Charge Alleging Illegal Picketing at Wal-Mart Held in Abeyance,http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-releases/nlrb-charge-alleging-illegal-picketing-wal-mart-held-abeyance(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[iii]See Walmart vs. Union-Backed OUR Walmarthttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-13/walmart-vs-dot-union-backed-our-walmart(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[iv]See Walmart Factshttp://corporate.walmart.com/(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[v]See Walmart Growth Chart,http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/storysupplement/walmart_spread/index.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[vi]An example of this can be seen in a letter written by Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to the New York Times in 2005 saying, “This year, we plan to create more than 100,000 new jobs in the United States.”

[vii]See generally, B Ortega In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton.

 By Bob Ortega = page 87 “no matter which way you slice it”

[viii]See Store wars http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[ix]See generally, A Bianco, The Bully of Bentonville.

[x]See generally http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/interviews/lehman.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xi]See Store wars http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xii]See generally, C Fishman The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works.

[xiii]Id.

[xiv]See N Lichtenstein, Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism.

[xv]See generally, N Copeland Walmart and the American Dream.

[xvi]See Generally http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/barcode.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xvii]See generally J Dicker, The United States of Wal-Mart.

[xviii]See Store warshttp://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xix]See Walmart Wants You to Know That Their Workers ‘Love Their Jobs’http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/walmart-workers_n_2218746.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xx]See Walmart Employees to Stage Black Friday Protest http://fox6now.com/2012/11/23/wal-mart-employees-to-stage-black-friday-protest/(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxi]See Organizing McDonalds and Walmart, and Why Austerity Economics Hurts Low-Wage Workers the Most http://robertreich.org/post/36892075499(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxiii]See Wal-Mart filed unfair labor charge against UFCWhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/16/walmart-union-idUSL1E8MGBV920121116(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxiv]See http://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20121116/Wal-Mart-UFCW-NLRB-charge-document.pdf(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxv]See Worker Declaration of Rights http://forrespect.org/our-walmart-declaration-for-respect/(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxvi]See Internal Walmart Memo http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Walmart-2.pdf(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxvii]See Walmart Strike Memo Reveals Confidential Management Planshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/13/walmart-strike-memo_n_1962039.html(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxviii]See Walmart Workers Plan Black Friday Protests http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57552153/walmart-workers-plan-black-friday-protests/(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxix]See https://www.nlrb.gov/case/26-CP-093377(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxx]See NLRB Charge alleging illegal picketing Wal-Mart held abeyance http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-releases/nlrb-charge-alleging-illegal-picketing-wal-mart-held-abeyance(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxxi]See Labor Union Agrees to Stop Picketing Walmarthttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/labor-union-agrees-to-stop-picketing-walmart.html?_r=0(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

[xxxii]See Living Wages http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/bigbox_livingwage_policies11.pdf(last visited Mar. 4, 2013).

© 2011 St. John’s University School of Law

Health Care Fraud 2013 – May 15-17, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Health Care Fraud Conference:

Health Care Fraud May 15-17 2013

May 15 – 17, 2013

Where

  • Eden Roc Renaissance Miami Beach
  • 4525 Collins Ave
  • Miami Beach, FL 33140-3226
  • United States of America

The 23rd Annual National Institute on Health Care Fraud provides a rewarding educational experience for health care attorneys, regulators, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and qui tam relators’ counsel. This National Institute draws panelists, facilitators, and participants from each of these significant groups and offers unique opportunities to meet and share experiences and concerns in a non-adversarial setting.  The program planning committee is committed to creating a program that advances education, communication, professionalism, and discussion of current legal and ethical issues that arise in the health care fraud practice. These issues are addressed in panel discussions and small workshop formats designed to maximize audience participation.