Tag: business

EPA Emphasizes its Criminal Enforcement Program

This Alert Update supplements a recent VNF alert analyzing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) enforcement priorities for fiscal years (FY) 2024-2027. EPA recently announced that its criminal program helped to develop the Agency’s national enforcement compliance initiatives and strongly suggested that it would look to pursue criminal cases under each initiative.

Previously announced National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECIs) for FY 2024-2027 include climate change, coal ash landfills and impoundments, a new focus on contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and environmental justice initiatives. Current NECIs address aftermarket defeat devices for mobile sources, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.

EPA’s head of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), David Uhlmann, stated the agency is “promoting far greater strategic coordination between our criminal and civil enforcement programs” when speaking to the American Legal Institute-Continuing Legal Education’s (ALI-CLE) Environmental Law 2024 meeting on February 22, 2024.

Uhlmann highlighted that some prior cases handled civilly should have been potentially handled criminally, and that this may change moving forward. The practical implications for companies of the shift to a more active EPA criminal program may include significantly higher penalties and potential jail time for violations. Uhlmann also noted that “EPA will continue to reserve criminal enforcement for the most egregious violations.” His comments suggest that “egregiousness” will be evaluated based on the adverse effects of the violation, particularly on disproportionately overburdened communities, and the degree of intent. Uhlmann also added that companies could avoid criminal prosecution if they are “honest with the government” and have “strong ethics, integrity, and sustainability programs.”

The U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and National Resources Division (ENRD) litigates both civil and criminal cases for EPA and closely coordinates on enforcement initiatives. The Assistant Attorney General of ENRD, Todd Kim, also spoke during the February 22 ALI-CLE panel, and focused some of his remarks on the enforcement of environmental laws in the online marketplace. He cautioned that “online companies, just like brick-and-mortar companies, would do well to take pains to ensure that they are complying with environmental laws in selling and distributing products,” because EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will enforce such laws in all market settings.

Both Uhlmann and Kim highlighted “21st century” challenges and opportunities, with NECIs addressing challenges and new opportunities such as data availability and analysis allowing EPA and DOJ to better enforce environmental laws and regulations in a targeted and effective manner. Some of the newest data and data analytics are being used to advance EPA’s environmental justice priorities. “So again, companies would do well to think about the ways we use data and to be talking with their neighbors to ensure that they’re doing what they can to ensure that disproportionately overburdened communities are getting the help they need,” Kim stated.

These EPA and DOJ statements clearly signal a potential increase in criminal environmental enforcement actions, creating additional risks for companies that run afoul of regulatory requirements. These corporate risks, which also may also be borne by executives and other employees, may be mitigated through the prompt detection and reporting of non-compliant conduct and through the development and maintenance of robust compliance programs. The ability to conduct prompt and thorough internal investigations and compliance audits should be a central part of an effective corporate compliance program.

© 2024 Van Ness Feldman LLP
by: Arthur “A.J.” Singletary , Paul Libus , Britt Speyer Fleming , Michael D. Farber of Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more news on Environmental Protection Enforcement, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

DHS and DOJ Announce Joint Guidance on Electronic Form I-9 Processing

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a fact sheet to guide employers on electronically completing, modifying, or retaining Form I-9. The joint guidance applies to employers using private sector commercial or proprietary I-9 software programs to complete Form I-9 or participate in E-Verify.

Requirements for Employers Using Electronic Form I-9 Software Programs

DHS permits completing Form I-9 electronically provided that the I-9 software complies with I-9 and E-Verify requirements. The DHS/DOJ fact sheet confirms that employers, rather than the software vendor, are responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. It provides the following key requirements and states that an I-9 software must:

  • Provide employees with access to the current acceptable version of Form I-9, I-9 instructions, and list of acceptable documents.
  • Allow employees to leave optional fields blank and accommodate employees with only one name.
  • Meet integrity, accuracy, security, and reliability requirements designed to prevent and detect unauthorized or accidental creation, alteration, or deletion of stored I-9s.
  • Comply with standards for electronic I-9 signatures.
  • Comply with general requirements applicable to I-9 documentation, retention, and audit trail requirements.
  • Ensure the electronic generation or storage of Form I-9 is inspected and monitored periodically.
  • Ensure the I-9 forms and all information fields on electronically retained I-9s are fully and readily accessible in the event of a government audit.

Specifically related to modifying and retaining Forms I-9 electronically, the fact sheet states that I-9 software must provide employees, employers, and preparers/ translators the option to make and record corrections to a previously completed I-9 form. Further, the software must uniquely identify each person who accesses, corrects, or changes an I-9 form. Modifications to stored I-9 forms must be properly annotated to include the date of access, the identity of the person making the change, and the nature of the change. Commercial or proprietary I-9 software may lack the functionality to comply with these guidelines regarding providing an audit trail and permitting corrections to completed I-9 records, so these are specific considerations employers should be aware of when assessing potential I-9 software for compliance.

Requirements for Employers Using Electronic Form I-9 Software Programs to Create E-Verify Cases

The DHS/DOJ fact sheet notes that employers who participate in E-Verify and access E-Verify through a software must:

  • Confirm that the software’s functionality allows employers to follow the requirements detailed in the E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding and DHS’s E-Verify guidance.
  • Refrain from creating new E-Verify cases due to corrections made to the previously completed I-9 if the employee received a prior “employment authorized” result. Depending on functionality, commercial or proprietary I-9 software may require completing a new I-9 instead of allowing a correction to the previously completed form.
  • Be able to delay creating E-Verify cases as instructed by E-Verify rules. For example, E-Verify instructs employers to postpone creating E-Verify cases for employees who have not yet received their Social Security numbers and for employees who show certain acceptable receipts for the Form I-9. The software’s functionality should permit employers to delay creating the E-Verify case in these scenarios.

Training for Employer Personnel Administering I-9 Software on Behalf of the Employer

The DHS/DOJ fact sheet also reminds employers to properly train personnel completing electronic Forms I-9 on the employer’s behalf. Key points include the following:

  • Employer personnel should be familiar with the employer’s procedures to complete Form I-9 or create an E-Verify case outside of the Form I-9 software program if, for example, the person completing the I-9 cannot use the I-9 software program or there is a software outage.
  • Employers should not pre-populate fields on electronic I-9 forms with employee information. An I-9 software may be part of the employer’s other HR-related systems and the system may initiate the I-9 verification process through impermissibility pre-populating the employee’s information on the electronic I-9.
  • The employer must not use auto-correct, use predictive text, or post-date an I-9 when completing an I-9 with an I-9 software.
  • The employer should not complete the I-9 on an employee’s behalf and must not change or update the employee’s citizenship or immigration status attestation. For corrections to Section 1, the process is the same as when completing a paper I-9 and changes or corrections to Section 1 must be made by the employee. The I-9 software must have the functionality to allow the employee to make corrections to a previously completed I-9 form.
  • The employer must not remove or add fields to Form I-9. An I-9 software that adds additional questions seeking information that is not requested by the I-9 form may violate this guidance.
  • Employers must permit preparers or translators to assist an employee in completing an electronic I-9.
  • Employers must permit employees to present any valid and acceptable documentation to establish identity and employment authorization, including acceptable receipts, and should not suggest specific documents for this purpose. Thus, an I-9 software should not notify the employer to, for example, request documentation to reverify an employee’s identity document or reverify a permanent resident card.
  • The fact sheet reminds employers to not impose unnecessary obstacles that make it more challenging for employees to start work or get paid, such as by requiring a Social Security number to onboard or by not paying an employee who can complete the Form I-9 but is still waiting for a Social Security number.

Given the significant penalties for non-compliance, employers should exercise thorough due diligence when evaluating I-9 software, considering compliance with DHS regulations alongside factors like cost, functionality, and interoperability with its other systems. Although government guidance has been minimal, the fact sheet provides some insight into the government’s stance on regulatory requirements for electronic I-9s and may be helpful to employers when selecting an I-9 software.

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more news on Electronic Form I-9 Processing, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Confronting Cognitive Abilities in Well-Rounded Estate Planning

Ask anyone how they would define “trusts and estates law” and the odds are the answer will uniformly focus on the act of making the plan as to who will receive a person’s assets when he or she dies.

What happens, however, when the person who makes the so-called plan loses the cognitive ability not only to plan, but further, to carry on with the tasks of ordinary daily living. When that happens, the person we expect to be planning may be taking actions that unbeknownst to him or her are, in fact, jeopardizing the financial well-being of the estate in question and the ultimate inheritance that he or she intends for his or her loved ones to receive upon his or her death.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Acting Justice Chris Ann Kelley), In the Matter of the Application of T.K., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50045 (Suffolk Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2024), illustrates what can happen when the person whom we expect to make the estate plan is no longer competent to protect the very assets contemplated for disposition under that plan.

In T.K., a petition was filed by T.K. (son of K.K.) seeking the appointment of a guardian for his father’s personal needs and property management under Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law. The basis for the petition was that T.K.’s father was suffering from “severe delusions,” which put his well-being at risk of imminent harm, and which could cause “catastrophic financial loss.”

K.K., the alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”) was an 80-year-old retired advertising executive. He resided with his wife of more than 50 years. T.K. testified that his father had deteriorated mentally over the past 10 years, including more regular consumption of alcohol in large quantities. Of most concern, the AIP had a 15-year business relationship with “Hugh Austin” (“Mr. Austin”), who lived two miles away from the AIP.

T.K. testified that his father had given Mr. Austin approximately $2,500,000 as part of a so-called investment in Mr. Austin’s businesses, which the AIP believed would result in an “imminent return” to the tune of millions of dollars—the AIP never received any money back from Mr. Austin.

Mr. Austin (and his son), meanwhile, was indicted for fraud crimes against 20 victims in excess of $10 million. Yet, the AIP insisted that Mr. Austin “has done nothing wrong.” While Mr. Austin was under house arrest, the AIP continued to meet with him.

The Court Evaluator reported that the AIP had become a “willing participant” in the exploitation perpetrated by Mr. Austin, luring the father into investments coupled with promises of major returns. The evidence also showed that the AIP’s funds were used to pay Mr. Austin’s personal expenses, including trips to Las Vegas. Cash App payments, and various other non-“business-related” charges.

The Court ultimately found that there was a substantial likelihood that the AIP would continue to engage in self-harming activities as a result of years of being psychologically victimized by Mr. Austin. Such victimization caused psychological stress to the AIP, which manifested itself in the forms of “substantial weight loss, excessive consumption of alcohol and diminished abilities to concentrate and communicate.”

In view of the foregoing, the Court appointed a property management guardian to prevent the AIP from self-harm “by reason of his functional limitations and lack of understanding and appreciation of them.”

Many of us have lived the experience of having a parent, or grandparent, lose cognitive functioning to the point where it is inconceivable that such a person could be in any position to properly plan for the disposition of his or her assets.

The T.K. decision presents another reminder as to why a critical element of estate planning is not just the plan to dispose of one’s assets, but also, defining how to implement that plan when the individual himself or herself is no longer able to carry out the directives of that very plan, and to ensure that a plan is in place to address the situation where the individual lacks the necessary capacity to continue to make decisions with respect to his or her own personal affairs.

These are difficult discussions to have, particularly amidst a culture that walks on eggshells when topics such as death and divorce enter the fray. But to ignore these discussions within our own families, and separately, with our trusts and estates counsel, is a mistake; they are elemental to proper estate planning, not to mention the acceptance of reality.

© 2024 Blank Rome LLP
For more news on Estate Planning, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.

Design Patent vs. Trade Dress: Strategic Considerations for Protecting Product Designs

Product designs often serve as the cornerstone of a brand’s identity, evoking instant recognition and loyalty among consumers. From the iconic silhouette of Coca-Cola’s glass bottle to the distinctive shape of Gibson guitars, the visual appeal of product designs can be a critical asset in the competitive marketplace. However, protecting a product design requires careful consideration and strategic planning. Two forms of IP protection are the most common – design patents and trade dress.

1. Design Patents

Design patents offer a streamlined and cost-effective means of protecting the ornamental appearance of product designs. The allowance rate is extremely high – over 95% – and is usually complete within 18 months. The result is that a design patent is significantly easier and less expensive to obtain as compared to conventional utility patents. This might explain the growing popularity of design patents for protecting product designs across various industries.

Design Patents Filed by Industry1

Enforcing design patents can sometimes be more streamlined as compared to utility patents. For example, a design patent can be quickly enforced on the Amazon Brand Registry and other e-commerce platforms against copycat products sold on the platform. While Amazon does offer a procedure for utility patent enforcement, it tends to be more expensive and unpredictable.

However, design patents are not always an option. For example, a design patent can protect a functional article, but the protection only applies to the ornamental appearance of that article. So, a design patent on Crocs footwear does not protect the overall idea of a ventilated shoe. Instead, the protection only extends to the overall ornamental appearance of the shoe. And this protection only lasts for 15 years after the patent issues.

A design patent risks being overly narrow if its drawings contain too many solid lines. To counter this, a common practice involves converting unnecessary solid lines into dashed lines to broaden the patent’s scope and enhance its exclusionary effect. An example is below – the dashed lines do not narrow the design and are only provided to show the environment in which the design exists.

Is the End of Crocs Really Upon Us? Not So Fast. - The Fashion Law

Figure from Crocs Design Patent – U.S. Design Patent No. D517,789

2. Trade Dress

Trade dress is a form of trademark that protects the commercial look and feel of a product. Like all trademarks, trade dress indicates or identifies the source of the product and protects against consumer confusion in the marketplace. A classic example is the Coca-Cola bottle and how its shape and design immediately connect a consumer to the Coca-Cola brand:

A black and white drawing of a bottle Description automatically generated

Coca-Cola Bottle Trade Dress – U.S. Registration No. 696,147

 

Trade dress protection offers several advantages. It can sometimes be considered broader than a design patent because it attaches to any confusingly similar design. Additionally, trade dress protection is not limited to a 15-year term, like a design patent, and can continue for as long as the trade dress is used commercially in the marketplace.

So why not protect every product design as trade dress? First, product trade dress is not protectable unless it has “acquired distinctiveness” in the minds of consumers.
The Coca-Cola bottle serves as an example; its distinctive shape immediately invokes consumer association with the brand, demonstrating its acquired distinctiveness. However, proving acquired distinctiveness can be difficult and usually requires consumer survey evidence or other more costly endeavors. As a result, trade dress protection is less common than design patent protection for product designs.

Second, trade dress protection does not extend to any functional aspect of the product. The functionality requirement of trade dress protection is stricter than that of design patents – anything that is “essential to the use or purpose of the product or [that] affects the cost or quality of the product”2 cannot be protected as trade dress. Many product designs include functions that cannot be separated from their branded “look and feel” and this disqualifies the design from trade dress protection.

Determining the optimal form of protection for a product design hinges on the specific attributes of the design and its commercial significance to the company. Navigating the path to protection demands meticulous attention to crafting intellectual property rights that are expansive yet defensible.

Footnotes

[1] This chart reflects the top ten owners of design patents over the past five years.

[2] Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.,456 U.S. 844 (1982).

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
by: Patrick T. Muffo , Hillary E. Maynard of Polsinelli PC
For more news on product design protections, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

An Update on the SEC’s Cybersecurity Reporting Rules

As we pass the two-month anniversary of the effectiveness of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC’s”) Form 8-K cybersecurity reporting rules under new Item 1.05, this blog post provides a high-level summary of the filings made to date.

Six companies have now made Item 1.05 Form 8-K filings. Three of these companies also have amended their first Form 8-K filings to provide additional detail regarding subsequent events. The remainder of the filings seem self-contained such that no amendment is necessary, but these companies may amend at a later date. In general, the descriptions of the cybersecurity incidents have been written at a high level and track the requirements of the new rules without much elaboration. It is interesting, but perhaps coincidental, that the filings seem limited to two broad industry groups: technology and financial services. In particular, two of the companies are bank holding companies.

Although several companies have now made reports under the new rules, the sample space may still be too small to draw any firm conclusions or decree what is “market.” That said, several of the companies that have filed an 8-K under Item 1.05 have described incidents and circumstances that do not seem to be financially material to the particular companies. We are aware of companies that have made materiality determinations in the past on the basis of non-financial qualitative factors when impacts of a cyber incident are otherwise quantitatively immaterial, but these situations are more the exception than the rule.

There is also a great deal of variability among the forward-looking statement disclaimers that the companies have included in the filings in terms of specificity and detail. Such a disclaimer is not required in a Form 8-K, but every company to file under Item 1.05 to date has included one. We believe this practice will continue.

Since the effectiveness of the new rules, a handful of companies have filed Form 8-K filings to describe cybersecurity incidents under Item 8.01 (“Other Events”) instead of Item 1.05. These filings have approximated the detail of what is required under Item 1.05. It is not immediately evident why these companies chose Item 8.01, but presumably the companies determined that the events were immaterial such that no filing under Item 1.05 was necessary at the time of filing. Of course, the SEC filing is one piece of a much larger puzzle when a company is working through a cyber incident and related remediation. It remains to be seen how widespread this practice will become. To date, the SEC staff has not publicly released any comment letters critiquing any Form 8-K cyber filing under the new rules, but it is still early in the process. The SEC staff usually (but not always) makes its comment letters and company responses to those comment letters public on the SEC’s EDGAR website no sooner than 20 business days after it has completed its review. With many public companies now also making the new Form 10-K disclosure on cybersecurity, we anticipate the staff will be active in providing guidance and commentary on cybersecurity disclosures in the coming year.

Copyright © 2024, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For news on SEC Cybersecurity Regulations, visit the NLR Securities & SEC section.

It’s Protected: NLRB Finds “Black Lives Matter” Insignia on Employee Uniform Constitutes Protected Activity Under Circumstances

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), in a 3-1 decision, held that an employee’s display on their work uniform of “BLM,” an acronym for Black Lives Matter, constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). Accordingly, the NLRB reversed an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) decision, and found that the employer (Home Depot) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by directing the employee to remove the BLM insignia because it violated the company’s uniform policy. The employee resigned instead of removing the insignia from their uniform.

Procedural History

In June 2022, an ALJ found that the employer did not violate the Act by requiring the employee to remove the BLM messaging, because the insignia lacked “an objective, and sufficiently direct, relationship to terms and conditions of employment.” The ALJ concluded that the BLM messaging was “primarily used, and generally understood, to address the unjustified killings of Black individuals by law enforcement and vigilantes … [and] while a matter of profound societal importance, is not directly relevant to the terms, conditions, or lot of Home Depot’s employees as employees.” (emphasis in original).

Further, the ALJ determined that the employee’s motivation for displaying the BLM message (i.e., their dissatisfaction with their treatment as employees) was not relevant. The petitioner sought review before the NLRB.

NLRB Finds Wearing BLM Insignia at Work Constitutes Protected Activity

On review, the NLRB concluded that the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act because the activity was for “mutual aid or protection,” as it was a “logical outgrowth” of the employee’s and other employees’ complaints about race discrimination in the workplace that allegedly occurred over the preceding months.

According to the NLRB, an individual employee’s actions are a “logical outgrowth” of the concerns expressed by the group where “the record shows the existence of a group complaint,” even though “the employees acted individually and without coordination.” In this case, the fact that the group complaints post-dated the employee’s initial display of the BLM insignia was not dispositive. Instead, and contrary to the ALJ’s conclusion, the NLRB focused on whether the employee’s subsequent refusal to remove the BLM insignia was a “logical outgrowth” of the prior protected concerted activity.

Additionally, the NLRB found that no special circumstances existed, such that there was a sufficient justification for the company to preclude their employees from wearing such insignia. For instance, this was not a situation where display of the insignia might jeopardize employee safety, exacerbate employee dissention, or unreasonably interfere with the company’s public image. In this regard, the NLRB concluded that the company’s public image was not at issue because it encourages employees to customize their uniforms. Likewise, the NLRB held that the company failed to put forth evidence of any non-speculative imminent risks to employee safety from the public and/or any violent or disruptive acts or threats thereof by other employees connected to the BLM insignia.

The NLRB ordered the employer to, among other things, (1) cease and desist from prohibiting employees from taking part in “protected concerted activities,” such as displaying “Black Lives Matter” insignia on their uniform aprons; (2) reinstate the employee without prejudice and compensate him for lost back pay and any adverse tax consequences; and (3) post notice of the decision for 60 days at the store where the dispute arose. The company may still appeal the Board’s decision to a federal appeals court.

Significantly, the NLRB declined to adopt a broader objective advanced by the NLRB General Counsel that protesting civil rights issues on the job is “inherently concerted” activity that is protected by Section 7 of the Act. The fact-intensive reasoning behind the NLRB’s decision here reflects that the underlying circumstances in each situation will play a significant role in the legal outcome as to whether the conduct at issue is protected, and it is not advisable to adopt a broad, one-size fits all rule from this decision.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Open Permits, Empty Pockets

Real estate transactions can be influenced by various factors. One often-overlooked aspect is the existence of open building permits at a municipal building department. These seemingly minor components may significantly affect the dynamics of buying or selling commercial or residential properties, potentially causing delays, financial burdens, and legal complications.

UNDERSTANDING OPEN PERMITS:

Open permits refer to permits that have been issued for construction or renovation projects and that appear as uncompleted at the local building department. They may have been left open because the construction was commenced but not completed, or the contractor failed to obtain final inspections, or the required land use or operational approvals were not obtained, such as a board of health license. Such permits remain open in the property’s records until properly closed out, potentially posing significant challenges when buying or selling commercial real estate. This occurrence is especially problematic in the context of commercial real estate where a landlord may have multiple tenants who engage contractors for construction projects. Such permits may remain open without landlord’s knowledge. Landlords may also be unaware of the specific contractor undertaking the work, thus preventing landlord from directing such contractor to cause the permit to be closed. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this problem, as closures of municipal offices interfered with filings and on-site inspections, and the tenants that engaged the contractors (and sometimes the contractors themselves) went out of business, resulting in numerous permits being left open.

THE IMPACT ON COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS:

Open permits can complicate real estate transactions in several ways. Firstly, they can signal potential safety or code compliance issues, raising concerns for buyers about a property’s integrity and potential code violations. Moreover, open permits can hinder the closings, as lenders may hesitate to provide financing; buyers may similarly be unwilling to take on the burden of owning a property subject to open permits. Resulting delays may jeopardize a deal, or result in price reductions to offset risks associated with open permits. Sellers may also be required to spend time and money to undertake necessary filings and obtain inspections. Longstanding open permits may result in fines or penalties, further complicating matters and potentially souring the deal.

MITIGATING AND PREVENTING HARM:

To mitigate the impact of open permits on real estate transactions, proactive measures are essential. For buyers, conducting thorough due diligence is paramount, including comprehensive inspections of building records at the municipal building department to identify any open permits and/or notices of building violations early in the sale process. Sellers should prioritize closing out permits before listing a property in order to streamline the transaction and enhance marketability.

Commercial landlords should take additional measures with tenants to ensure these issues do not arise in the first place. For example, landlords should include lease provisions requiring tenants to obtain landlord’s prior consent for any work requiring a permit, and require that all open permits be closed within a stated period of time (within 30 days of completion), with proof of closure furnished to landlord. Landlords can enforce such provisions by mandating that the failure to adhere constitutes an event of default under the lease. They may also stipulate in the lease that a security deposit will not be released unless and until all open permits attributable to the specific tenant are closed out.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, open permits can pose significant complexities in commercial real estate transactions. By taking proactive steps to address them, stakeholders can minimize disruptions and facilitate smoother transactions.

© 2024 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
For more news on Open Permits in Real Estate, visit the NLR Real Estate section.

USCIS Releases H-1B Lottery Information: Registration Process Begins March 6

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released guidance on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 H-1B lottery process. The registration system will be open from noon Eastern, March 6, 2024 until noon Eastern, March 22, 2024. The application fee will remain $10 for each case entered into the system.

This year, USCIS will implement a new “Beneficiary Centric Selection” process that will help to ensure all beneficiaries have an equal chance of selection, regardless of the number of times each beneficiary is registered. Please see “Winning Futures? The H-1B ‘Lottery’ Will Open Soon. USCIS Predicts Success” for more details.

Why is H-1B filing season important?

This is the only time of year (with minor exceptions indicated below) USCIS accepts H-1B specialty worker petitions for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, 2024. For a petition to qualify in the H-1B category, the job offered must be a specialty occupation in which a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) is normally the minimum requirement, and the foreign national employee must hold a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) in the specialty defined by the position. In some cases, a bachelor’s-level threshold may be met through a combination of the employee’s education and work experience.

There is an overwhelming demand for the annual allotment of 85,000 new H-1Bs. The number of H-1B approvals requested by employers has reached the annual H-1B cap every year for more than 10 years. Last year, USCIS received 780,884 registrations within the electronic lottery system for 85,000 H-1B slots. If you have an employee that needs a “new” H-1B visa, it is imperative that you take action during the H-1B filing season or you will have to wait a full year for another opportunity.

Electronic registration process in 2024

USCIS will use same the electronic registration system from years past to implement the new beneficiary centric selection process. Employers seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions must complete an electronic registration for every case the employer wishes to enter into the H-1B lottery. This year, the employer must enter a valid passport or travel number for each registrant. If selected, the passport or travel number used in the H-1B petition filing must be the same number used at the time of registration. This new approach, focusing on the individual registrant, should increase selection odds.

After the registration period closes, USCIS will conduct a random selection lottery from the registrations. The date of the lottery selection has not been announced but will likely occur on or about April 1, 2024. Employers whose cases are selected will then have at least 90 days to complete and file H-1B petitions with USCIS.

Dinsmore attorneys are available to assist employers in navigating the new application process, including completion of the electronic registration and subsequent preparation and filing of selected petitions. USCIS continues to develop its electronic registration system and is expected to release additional details as the registration period approaches.

Are there certain employees we should consider registering?

Yes, four situations come to mind:

  1. Students who hold F-1 visa status and who are working for your organization under a grant of Curricular Practical Training, Optional Practical Training or STEM Optional Practical Training work permission;
  2. Certain L-1 Intracompany Transferees or TN (USMCA/NAFTA) workers who work for your organization;
  3. Candidates who are not yet working for your organization but whom you have an interest in employing in the near future; and
  4. Dependent spouses who hold H-4 status and who have been authorized to work with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

Why F-1 students?

Some F-1 students may qualify for an Optional Practical Training (OPT) work permission that is limited to one year following completion of their degree. Other F-1 students may be eligible for an additional 24 months of STEM OPT work permission. Either way, OPT is time-limited. Furthermore, some additional students may hold Curricular Practical Training (CPT). CPT authorizes employment off campus while the student is still taking classes. These students may be pursuing their first degree in the U.S., or they may have returned to school for an additional degree following exhaustion of their first round of OPT if they were not selected in the H-1B cap lottery. Bottom line: If you have a student working for you on OPT or CPT, it is worth evaluating if they need an H-1B cap registration.

Why L-1 intracompany transferees?

The L-1 intracompany transferee visa category applies to foreign nationals who have been employed abroad in executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacities for at least one year with a commonly owned foreign company, and who are in the United States working for the same or a related U.S. employer.

L-1 executives or managers (L-1A) may remain in the United States for a maximum of seven years. Specialized knowledge (L-1B) employees may remain for a maximum of five years. There is no possibility of an extension once the seven-or five-year limit has been reached and the time table to complete the permanent residence process continues to climb, especially for Indian foreign nationals.

Why H-4 spouses with employment authorization documents?

H-4 spouses are eligible to apply for an H-4 Employment Authorization Document (EAD) if their spouses in H-1B status have an approved I-140 petition. The H-4 EAD allows the spouse to obtain work authorization and engage in employment in the United States. H-4 spouses working with EADs may wish to have their H-4 statuses changed to H-1B for greater long-term employment security.

Why TN employees?

While TN workers under the U.S. Mexico-Canada Agreement (formerly known as NAFTA) are not limited in employment duration like their L-1 counterparts, pursuing permanent residence while holding TN status can be problematic. Employers may want to change their TN employees to the H-1B category to facilitate permanent residence (green card) sponsorship.

Are there any exemptions from the annual H-1B cap?

Persons already counted under the H-1B cap and who need an extension of stay are not subject to the annual limitation. Similarly, persons who already hold H-1B status and are transferring to a new employer are exempt from the cap. The annual limitation applies only to persons not yet counted against the annual cap. Also, certain types of educational or nonprofit organizations that file H-1B petitions are exempt from the H-1B numerical limitation.

© 2024 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
by: Katie P. Jacob , Jazmin E. Harris of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
For more news on H-1B Lottery Information, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Understanding How U.S. Export Controls Affect Manufacturers’ Hiring Practices

The U.S. government has adjusted export control regulations in an effort to protect U.S. national security interests. The revisions primarily affect export of electronic computing items and semiconductors to prevent foreign powers from obtaining critical technologies that may threaten national security. As manufacturers are facing increased demand for their products and critical labor shortages, they may find themselves seeking to hire foreign national talent and navigating U.S. export control and immigration and anti-discrimination laws.

Export Control Laws in United States

The primary export control laws in the United States are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Under these regulations, U.S. Persons working for U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. U.S. Persons include: U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, Lawful permanent residents, Refugees, and Asylees. Employers might need authorization from the appropriate federal agency to “export” (in lay terms, share or release) export-controlled items to workers who are not U.S. Persons, which the regulations call foreign persons. Employers apply for such authorization from either the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Department of Commerce, depending on the item.

The release of technical data or technology to a foreign person that occurs within the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the foreign person’s “home country.” Whether an export license is required for a particular release may depend on both the nature of export controls applicable to the technology or technical data (including whether it is subject to the ITAR or EAR) and the citizenship of the foreign person.

Recent revisions to the EAR cover controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items, among other controls. These revisions particularly affect semiconductor and chip manufacturers and exporters.

Intersection With Immigration and Anti-Discrimination Laws

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics.

The INA prohibits discrimination based on national origin or citizenship, among other characteristics. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, which typically includes discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. Furthermore, the INA prohibits “unfair documentary practices,” which are identified as instances where employers request more or different documents than those necessary to verify employment eligibility or request such documents with the intent to discriminate based on national origin or citizenship.

The intersection of export control laws, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws can create a confusing landscape for employers, particularly manufacturers or exporters of export-controlled items. Manufacturers and exporters, like all employers, must collect identity and employment authorization documentation to ensure I-9 compliance. At the same time, however, they must collect information relating to a U.S. Person in connection with export compliance assessments. To address these areas of exposure for employers, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division released an employer fact sheet to provide guidance for employers that includes best practices to avoid discrimination.

Implications

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should separate the I-9 employment authorization documentation process from the export control U.S. Person or foreign person identification process. Employers should implement or revisit internal procedures and provide updated training to employees.

The export rule revisions highlight the challenges for employers in avoiding discrimination when complying with export control laws. Manufacturers and exporters should review their compliance practices regarding U.S. export control, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws with experienced counsel. Employers should implement policies and procedures reasonably tailored to address export control compliance requirements while not engaging in discrimination on the basis of citizenship or national origin.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2024

by: Maurice G. Jenkins , Kimberly M. Bennett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more news on Export Control Laws, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights January 2024

On December 7, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered Atlantic Union Bank, an approximately $20 billion bank headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, to pay $6.2 million for “illegal overdraft fee harvesting” and “illegally enrolling thousands of customers in checking account overdraft programs.” The bank was ordered to pay $5 million in refunds and $1.2 million to a victims’ relief fund.

Regulation E provides that a bank may not charge a fee for an ATM or one-time debit card transaction unless it completes four steps. First, the bank must provide the customer with a notice describing the bank’s overdraft services in writing. Then, the bank must provide the customer with a “reasonable opportunity” for that customer to “affirmatively consent” to the payment of the ATM or one-time debit card transaction fee. Third, the customer must provide that “affirmative consent” or opt-in to the bank. And finally, the bank must provide the customer with written confirmation of their consent, including a statement of the right to revoke the consent at any time.

The CFPB alleged that Atlantic Union Bank failed to obtain proper consent when an account was opened in person at a branch. Bank employees orally provided customers with options for opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees pursuant to Regulation E. Bank employees asked customers to opt in orallyand then input the option into the bank’s account-opening computer system before printing the written consent form. The consent form was printed at the end of the account-opening process and was pre-populated with the customer’s oral opt-in choice.

In instances in which a customer was given options for opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees over the phone, bank employees did not have a script and allegedly provided misinformation and misleading statements about the benefits, costs, and other aspects of opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees pursuant to Regulation E.

The CFPB has taken the logical approach that a bank must provide the customer with a written disclosure of its overdraft practices prior to having them opt in. Additionally, without providing the customer with a prior written disclosure, a bank should not pre-populate its Regulation E opt-in form. Now is the time to review the consent order and your bank’s Regulation E opt-in processes and procedures.

© 2024 Jones Walker LLP
by: Memrie M. Fortenberry of Jones Walker LLP
For more news on CFPB Compliance, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.