Tag: business

September 2022 Legal Industry News and Updates: Law Firm Growth and Expansion, Industry Recognition, and Spotlights on Women in Law

Happy autumn from the National Law Review! As the seasons change, we hope you are having a safe and healthy year. Please read on for the latest news coverage in the legal field, including law firm hiring and expansion, industry awards and recognition, and continued updates on women in law.

In addition, please be sure to check out Episode 4 of the Legal News Reach podcast: “The Perfect Storm: Law Firm Marketing & Business Development Budgeting with Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp.”

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP has named two new attorneys to lead their growing Public Sector practice group: partner Andy Mayts will serve as the chair of the group, and partner Patrick Duggan will serve as co-chair. Mr. Matts focuses his practice on banking, finance, and construction-related litigation. He handles complex civil litigation for many clients, including large businesses, national banks, and other financial institutions. Mr. Duggan practices employment law and litigation in complex workplace public sector and business disputes, with a specific focus on the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other prominent legislation.

“It will take unique thinking and creativity to help governmental and public entities meet the growing needs of our communities,” said Shumaker Management Committee Vice Chair Jennifer Compton. “Andy and Patrick are top-performers and ready to meet this demand. With their leadership, we are confident that Shumaker’s Public Sector Practice will have continued growth and success.”

Stephanie J. Blumstein has joined law firm A.Y. Strauss as a partner in the Franchise practice group. Ms. Blumstein has a great deal of franchise litigation experience, including matters related to breach of contract, trademark infringement, fraud claims, business competition, and lease negotiations. She has assisted prospective franchisees as well as veteran franchise owners on all types of issues. Ms. Blumstein was also recognized in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

“I am thrilled to welcome Stephanie to the team,” said Marisa Rauchway, chair of the firm’s Franchise Group. “As a veteran of the national franchise community, her broad legal talents and deep industry knowledge will add immediate value to both existing and future clients of our practice.”

Michael Best added Dan Forest, former Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, as a senior advisor in the firm’s Raleigh office. Joining the Government Relations practice group, Mr. Forest assists Michael Best Strategies with developing a strong bipartisan team of professionals who are focused on serving clients with public affairs and government relations needs. In his former role as Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Forest also served as President of the North Carolina Senate, Chairman of the Energy Policy Council, and Chairman of the Digital Technology Committee as a member of the State Board of Education.

“We’re excited to add Dan to our leadership team in North Carolina,” said Andy Jones, North Carolina Managing Partner for Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP. “Dan’s record of service and deep network across the State will help us continue to build our entrepreneurial-minded team of professionals and round out our ability to provide full-service solutions to our clients.”

BakerHostetler added Lisa Houssiere as a member of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group and Energy Industry team in their Houston office.  Ms. Houssiere has extensive experience in international disputes and investigations, particularly in the energy sector, and has worked on several high-profile Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases and advised clients under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Commission.

Commenting on Ms. Housssiere’s addition to the firm, W. Ray Whitman, chair of BakerHostetler’s national Litigation Practice Group, stated. “Her range of trial work, including complex energy, antitrust and intellectual property matters, brings additional depth to our internationally recognized litigation practice.”

Venable LLP expanded its Product Liability and Mass Torts team in the Chicago and Los Angeles with the addition of partner John Roberts (Chicago) and partner Karen Firstenberg (Los Angeles). Mr. Roberts assists clients in the areas of product liability, commercial litigation, insurance recovery, and regulatory compliance, with much experience serving as national litigation counsel for a variety of clients. Mrs. Firstenberg provides counsel to life sciences companies on compliance, toxic torts, and product liability, representing clients in all fields, including medical devices, materials science, biotech, and pharmaceuticals.

“We are thrilled to welcome John and Karen to Venable and to our product liability team. Their addition will not only diversify our practice, but further solidify our presence in Los Angeles and expand it to Chicago, a long-standing life sciences hub and the home of some of our most valued clients. John and Karen’s success in the courtroom also deepens our bench of proven products trial lawyers,” said Kathleen Hardway, a co-chair of Venable’s Product Liability and Mass Torts Group.

Industry Awards and Recognition

Steve Adamczyk, partner at Varnum LLP, has been named to the 2022 Gulfshore Business 40 Under 40. This magazine seeks to recognize young legal professionals in the Southwestern region of Florida who have aided the area through volunteer work and philanthropy. Mr. Adamczyk has served on the board of the Florida Southern Gulf Coast to Heartland Chapter of the American Red Cross since 2015. He has also supported local elected officials and long-term recovery efforts in the wake of Hurricane Irma.

Mr. Adamczyk has a great deal of experience in estate and trust planning services. At Varnum, he broadly focuses his practice on residential and commercial real estate transactions, as well as community association representation, providing counsel and assistance for condominium and homeowners associations across the state of Florida.

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP was recognized at the 2022 HFM US Services Awards ceremony as the best onshore law firm for hedge fund client services in the United States. Recipients were chosen by a panel of leading hedge fund chief operating officers, as well as chief financial officers and general counsels. Wendy Cohen and Allison Yacker, co-chairs of the firm’s Investment Management and Funds practice, accepted the award on behalf of the firm.

Lance Zinman, Global Chairman of Katten‘s Financial Markets and Funds group, said the following of the award: “Receiving this distinction underscores what clients and others have told us they appreciate about Katten: That we provide excellent and sophisticated counsel in a business-savvy manner that takes into account the practical aspects of our clients’ business; that we analyze complex market and legal issues and close investments and transactions, navigating regulatory issues quickly and comprehensively; and that we quickly see the big picture, to name just some of what we hear.”

Lawmatics, a leading legal client relationship management platform, was named a “Hot Product” in the 2022 TechnoLawyer Buyer’s Guide. TechnoLawyer continues to report on the latest developments in legal technology and law office management; the publication cited Lawmatics’ versatile automation capabilities as a particularly significant feature that set the platform apart.

“We’re extremely proud to be identified as a premier tool for helping law firms grow,” said Matt Spiegel, CEO of Lawmatics. “Our software empowers law firms to spend less of their time on administering the business of their practice, and more time focusing on the clients they serve. We know that firms thrive when they can prioritize people rather than paperwork.”

Thomas F. Zych, co-chair of Thompson Hine’s Antitrust, Competition & Distribution and Emerging Technologies practices, and Privacy & Cybersecurity team, has been selected to chair the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Law Section, through August 2023.

Based in Cleveland, Mr. Zych has over 39 years of experience in a wide range of data protection, intellectual property, consumer protection, social media, competition and antitrust matters. He also represents a full range of business enterprises in their privacy and data security operations.

Los Angeles Business Journal’s 2022 “Most Admired Law Firms” list added Sidley, as one of the most distinguished and “best law firms to work for” in the Los Angeles area. The Los Angeles Business Journal’s list recognizes law firms who are working toward creating diverse, positive, and supportive professional environments.

Of note is the 2022 launch of Sidley’s “Built to Lead,” program designed to help the firm’s associates by equipping them with greater business acumen by partnering with top business schools and helping young lawyers grow their leadership capabilities by partnering with select nonprofit legal and community organizations.

Women in Law

Foley and Lardner Partner Natasha Allen has been recognized on The Recorder’s California Legal Awards “Women Leaders in Tech Law” list. A co-chair of Foley’s Venture Capital Committee and Innovative Technology Sector Artificial Intelligence Section, Ms. Allen guides domestic and international corporations through mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures, with a special focus on cybersecurity, software, and virtual reality firms.

The California Legal Awards celebrate legal innovators who are influential in the ongoing development of technological jurisprudence. Allen and her peers will be celebrated at an awards ceremony on November 3, 2022.

Paula Cozzi Goedert, a leading nonprofit attorney with Barnes and Thornburg specializing in tax, compliance, and strategy, has been recognized on Crain’s Chicago Business 2022 “Notable Women in Law” list. Crain’s annual list illustrates the power of women in law by showcasing leaders with compelling professional stories.

Ms. Goedert chairs Barnes and Thornburg’s Associations and Foundations Group and has served over 300 clients, including the National PTA, American College of Surgeons, American Library Association, and Bank Administration Institute. Goedert’s expertise was invaluable during the COVID-19 crisis, where she guided her clients through challenges including staff furloughs, endowment raids, and insurance claims.

Additionally, Perkins Coie Partners Gina LaMonica and Lucy Park, were included on the 2022 Chicago Business Notable Women in Law list, whose requirements include mentoring other women lawyers, promoting inclusive practices in the workplace, and assuming a leadership role in professional organizations and civic and community service initiatives.

Ms. LaMonica practices white-collar criminal defense and is regularly retained to conduct internal investigations involving employee misconduct, regulatory violations, financial fraud, and is co-chair of Perkins Coie’s Educational Institutions & Services industry group and a co-founder and current secretary of the Chicago chapter of the national Women’s White Collar Defense Association.

Ms. Park  a partner in Perkins Coie’s Trust & Estate Planning group, counsels high-net-worth individuals, families, and family-owned businesses on wealth preservation and transfer, charitable giving, and succession planning and is a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, Strategic Diversity Committee,  and co-chair of the firm’s Women’s Forum, a  resource group, which works to attract, retain, and promote and support the firm’s female lawyers.

Former White House Administrator Sharon McGowan is adding her anti-discrimination background to her new role as partner at nationally-recognized civil rights law firm Katz Banks Kumin. Ms. McGowan has previously worked as Chief Strategy Officer and Legal Director for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS projects, and lead attorney for seminal trans workplace antidiscrimination case Schroer v. Billington. During Obama’s administration, Ms. McGowan worked toward ending various forms of discrimination as Principal Deputy Chief at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and Acting General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel for Policy at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

“Sharon is a brilliant legal advocate who has played an unparalleled role in securing some of our nation’s greatest achievements in civil rights,” said firm Co-Founding Partner Lisa J. Banks. “Her unique perspective and wide range of counseling experience will be a tremendous asset to our clients in the areas of whistleblower law, employment law, sexual harassment law, and civil rights and civil liberties matters.”

Firm Co-Founding Partner Debra S. Katz added: “Sharon’s experience as one of President Obama’s top anti-discrimination attorneys, as well as her deep level of public policy and advocacy expertise, will be invaluable to our clients and the firm’s ongoing efforts to advance civil rights in the workplace.”

Article By Chandler Ford, Crissonna Tennison, and Jennifer Schaller of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

NLRB’s Proposed New Joint Employer Rule: What to Do Now to Manage the Risk

On September 7, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, if adopted, make it much easier for the NLRB to find a company to be a “joint employer” of persons directly employed by its contractors, vendors, suppliers and franchisees. The consequences of a joint employer finding are significant and can lead to: liability for unfair practices committed by the direct employer; a duty to bargain with a union representing the direct employer’s employees; exposure to liability for one’s own conduct that fails to take into account the indirect employer relationship and spread of a union from the direct employer’s employees to the indirect employer.

Joint-employer theory creates far more risk for employers than related doctrines such as single employer or alter ego because, unlike those theories, joint employer status does not require any common ownership or corporate control. Two companies operating entirely at arm’s length can be found joint employers.

The major proposed change relates to the degree of influence that an indirect employer must have to justify a finding of single employer status. Under the current NLRB standard, the indirect employer must actually exercise “immediate and direct” control over key terms of employment, normally limited to wages, benefits, hours and termination.

The proposed rule relaxes that standard in three key ways. First, it eliminates the actually exercise requirement and states that possession of even unused authority can be sufficient.

Second, it does away with the immediate and direct requirement so that influence exercised by the indirect employer through the direct employer can be used to support a finding.

Third, it expands, beyond the list enumerated in the current rule, the types of employment terms control of which will justify a finding of joint employer status. The Obama Board had adopted the currently proposed standard by an NLRB decision, Browning-Ferris Inds. 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). However, that decision was overturned by the Trump Board’s adoption of the current rule, 85 FR 11184, codified at 29 CFR 103.40, (Feb. 26, 2020). The proposed rule seeks to reinstate Browning-Ferrisas the governing law.

Because Browning-Ferrisand the NPRM endorse pre-1984 NLRB decisions regarding joint employer status, those decisions provide guidance for how the new rule may be enforced. The NLRB and courts frequently relied on what authority was given to the alleged indirect employer in its agreement with the contractor or vendor. Clauses that required or allowed the indirect employer to approve hirings, terminations or wage adjustments to contractor employees usually resulted in finding joint employer status. In addition, cost-plus arrangements, particularly those that were terminable on short notice were often found to support a joint employer finding. Finally, clauses allowing the indirect employer to set work schedules, production rates, or requiring contractor employees to abide by the indirect employer’s work rules and other policies governing conduct also were found supportive of joint employer status.

The proposed rule is still subject to comment and revision, but it is likely to be adopted without significant change. The comment and review period, which closes on November 21, 2022, provides a window in which savvy employers can assess the risks to their organization when the Rule goes into effect. A key step is to examine existing contractual relationships with vendors to identify and modify those terms that may potentially support joint employer status, or, if modification is untenable, to manage the risk through indemnity agreements with the vendor.

Article By Ahmad Chehab and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield
© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Ethylene Oxide Verdict First of Its Kind, and It’s Eye Opening!

Our prior reports discussed when an ethylene oxide case would go to verdict, and what the ensuing result would look like.  We no longer need to speculate.  On September 19, 2022, a Cook County (Illinois) jury awarded $363 million to a plaintiff who alleged that she developed breast cancer as a result of ethylene oxide emissions from the Sterigenics Willowbrook plant.  This was the first ethylene oxide personal injury case to go to trial, but there are hundreds of cases behind it waiting their turn.

Trial

After a five week trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Law Division (Sue Kamuda v. Sterigenics et al, case number 2018-L-010475), the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $363 million.  Plaintiff had requested $21 million in compensatory damages and $325 million in punitive damages.

Plaintiff Kamuda argued that the ethylene oxide utilized at the Willowbrook plant, opened in 1984 and used primarily to sterilize medical equipment, caused serious cancer and reproductive health risks. Kamuda alleged that the company failed to analyze how long the chemical would stay in the air in the Willowbrook community or the distance it would travel. Further, Kamuda argued that Sterigenics recklessly failed to install emission controls decades earlier to reduce releases of the chemical.

For its part, Sterigenics argued that plaintiff Kamuda’s reliance on risk assessment and regulatory studies inaccurately led to her assertion that her breast cancer resulted in part from the plant’s ethylene oxide emissions.

Notably, the facility was closed a few years ago after the state of Illinois issued a seal order in February 2019 directing that ethylene oxide emissions had to be reduced significantly. Ultimately, the company decided to keep the facility closed.

Analysis

With this very large jury verdict, plaintiff firms will surely be pushing to get their ethylene oxide cases to trial, or, at a minimum, leverage steep pre-trial settlements.  Further, plaintiff firms will surely recruit new plaintiffs who allege some type of cancer as a result of residing in the vicinity of an ethylene oxide plant.

The next ethylene oxide case to go trial is scheduled for two weeks from now in the same court, though with different plaintiff counsel and judge, as well as a different alleged disease (leukemia).

We note that it remains to be seen whether the Kamuda verdict will be appealed. It also remains to be seen whether this verdict is aberrational or is a bellwether for future trials. Will juries return verdicts based on one type of cancer but not for another?  We will continue to report as these ethylene oxide trials go to verdict and analyze the ramifications.

Article By David A. Goldman of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental, energy, and resources legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Reinventing the American Road Trip: What the Inflation Reduction Act Means for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) signifies a turning point in domestic efforts to tackle climate change. Within the multibillion-dollar package are robust investments in climate mitigation initiatives, such as production tax credits, investment tax credits for battery and solar cell manufacturers, tax credits for new and used electric vehicles (“EV”)1, automaker facility transition grants, and additional financing for the construction of new electric vehicle manufacturing facilities.2 One thing is abundantly clear, the IRA’s focus on stimulating domestic production of electric vehicles means that the marketplace for electric vehicles will see a dramatic change. The Biden Administration has set an ambitious target of 50% of EV sale shares in the U.S. by 2030. However, if electric vehicles are going to achieve mass market adoption, a central question remains — where is the infrastructure to support them?

Addressing gaps in EV Supply and EV Infrastructure

As it stands, the shortage of charging infrastructure is a substantial barrier in the push for mass consumer adoption of EVs.3 Experts estimate that in order to meet the Biden Administration’s EV sale target by 2030, America would require 1.2 million public EV chargers and 28 million private EV chargers by that year.4 Department of Energy data shows that approximately 50,000 EV public charging sites are currently operational in the United States.5 In comparison, gasoline fueling stations total more than 145,000.6 However, federal legislation such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”) passed earlier this year signifies a clear commitment to remedying this disparity. The BIL establishes a National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (“NEVI”) to provide funding to States and private entities to deploy EV-charging infrastructure and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate “data collection, access and reliability.”7 The Federal Highway Administration, the federal agency charged with implementing NEVI, proposed minimum standards and requirements that states must meet to spend NEVI funds:

  • Installation, operation and maintenance by qualified technicians of EV infrastructure

  • Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure

  • Network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure

  • Data collection pertaining to pricing, real-time availability and accessibility8

The goal of the proposed rule is to secure EV charging infrastructure that works seamlessly for industrial, commercial and consumer drivers. Combining the historic investments in clean energy and climate infrastructure in the BIL and IRA, the federal government has jumpstarted what will be a fundamental shift in how consumers use transportation. Earlier this week, the Biden Administration announced more than two-thirds of EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans from States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been approved ahead of schedule under NEVI.9 With this early approval, these states can now unlock more than $900 million in NEVI funding from FY22 and FY23 to help build EV chargers across highways throughout the country.10

Section 13404’s Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit

Building up the U.S. capacity to build EVs, and then ensuring people can use said vehicles more easily by shoring up EV infrastructure is a crucial facet of the Inflation Reduction Act. Section 13404 of the IRA provides an Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit that targets the accelerated installation of EV charging infrastructure and assets.11 Section 13404 extends existing alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit through 2032, and significantly restructures the credit by allowing taxpayers to claim a base credit of 6% for expenses up to $100,000 (for each piece refueling property located at a given facility) so long as the property is placed in service before Jan. 1, 2033.12 However, the alternative fuel property must be manufactured for use on public streets, roads and highways, but only if they are (1) intended for general public use, or (2) intended for exclusive use by government or commercial vehicles and (3) must be located in a qualifying census tract (i.e., low-income communities or non-urban areas).13 From a job creation standpoint, the IRA also provides an alternative bonus credit for taxpayers that meet certain wage requirements during the construction phase.14

The Future of EV Infrastructure

EV stations in city streets, parking garages and gas stations will become a prominent part of the nation’s infrastructure as it moves towards a green future. The effort will require coordination among municipal, state and federal policymakers. Even more, electric utilities must ensure that local infrastructure can support the additional strain on the grid. Utilities also have a direct interest in a cleaner, efficient, and less overburdened grid. Federal tax incentives, like the IRA, and subsides from states and local ordinances are integral to the implementation and construction of these networks. The private sector has already taken steps to do its part. In a recent study conducted by consulting company AlixPartners, as of June 2022, automakers and suppliers expect to invest at least $526 billion to fund the transition from gasoline powered vehicles to EVs through 2026.15 This is double the five-year EV investment forecast of $234 billion from 2020-2024.16 Even more, according to Bloomberg, not including deals that have disclosed financials, more than $4.8 billion has already been invested in the EV charging industry this year in the form of debt financing and acquisitions.17 Driven by fast growth and robust availability of government funds, financiers and large companies seeking to acquire EV charging companies, sense immense opportunity.18

FOOTNOTES

1“Electric Vehicle” is used interchangeably with the acronym “EV” throughout this article.

2 Isaacs-Thomas, I. (2022, August 11). What the Inflation Reduction act does for green energy. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/what-the-inflation-reduction-act-do…

3 Consumer Reports (2022, April). Breakthrough Energy: A Nationally Representative Multi-Mode Survey. https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Cons…

4 Kampshoff, P., Kumar, A., Peloquin, S., & Sahdev, S. (2022, August 31). Building the electric-vehicle charging infrastructure America needs. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insight…

5 U.S Department of Energy. (2022). Alternative Fueling Station Locator. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Alternative Fueling Station Locator. https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC&ev_levels=all&…

6 American Petroleum Institute. (n.d.). Service station FAQs. Energy API. https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/consumer-information/consumer-re…

7 U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program fact sheet: Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/nevi_formula_prog…

8 The Office of the Federal Register of the National Archives and Records Administration and the U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2022, June 22). National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/22/2022-12704/national…

9 United States Department of Transportation. (2022, September 14). Biden-Harris Administration announces approval of First 35 state plans to build out EV charging infrastructure across 53,000 miles of Highways. United States Department of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-…

10 See Id.

11 As a note, “refueling property” is property used for the storage or dispensing of clean-burning fuel or electricity into the vehicle fuel tank or battery.  Clean-burning fuels include CNG, LNG, electricity, and hydrogen.

12 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. § 13404 (2022); See also Wells Hall III, C., Holloway, M. D., Wagner, T., & Baldwin, E. (2022, August 10). Nelson Mullins tax report–Senate passes Inflation Reduction Act. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. https://www.nelsonmullins.com/idea_exchange/alerts/additional_nelson_mul…

13  Id.

14  Id.

15 AlixPartners, LLP. (2022, June 22). 2022 Alixpartners global automotive outlook. AlixPartners. https://www.alixpartners.com/media-center/press-releases/2022-alixpartne… See also Lienert, P. (2022, June 22). Electric vehicles could take 33% of global sales by 2028. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/electric-vehicles-…

16 Id.

17 Fisher, R. (2022, August 16). Electric car-charging investment soars driven by EV Growth, government funds. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/car-charging-investme…

18 Id.

Article By Lawrence L. Ostema and Jeffrey E. Joseph of Nelson Mullins

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

911 Network Reliability Deadline Approaching

Earlier this month, the FCC announced that its 2022 911 Reliability Certification System is now open for Covered 911 Service Providers to file annual reliability certifications.  The filings are due on October 17, 2022.  Failure to submit the certification may result in FCC enforcement action.

Background

In 2013, the FCC adopted rules aimed at improving the reliability and redundancy of the nation’s 911 network.  Those rules require Covered 911 Service Providers (“C9SP”) to take steps that promote reliable 911 service with respect to three network elements: circuit auditing, central-office backup power, and diverse network monitoring.  The Commission identified these three network elements as vulnerabilities following a derecho storm in 2012 that significantly impacted 911 service along the eastern seaboard.

Applicability. The rules apply to all C9SPs, which are defined as any entity that provides 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), or the functional equivalent of those capabilities, directly to a public safety answering point (PSAP).

Certification. The rules require C9SPs to certify annually that they have met the FCC’s safe harbor provisions for each of these elements or have taken reasonable alternative measures in lieu of those safe harbor protections.  The certification must be made under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer with supervisory and budgetary authority over network operations.

In 2018 and 2020, the FCC sought comment on changes to the 911 reliability certification rules, but the rules have not yet been updated as a result of those proceedings.

Enforcement Against Noncompliant Providers

Last year, the FCC entered into eight consent decrees with Covered 911 Service Providers that failed to submit their reliability certifications in 2019, 2020, or both.  A Consent Decree typically requires the recipient to admit it violated an FCC rule, pay a fine to the federal government, and implement a Compliance Plan to guard against future rule violations.  These Compliance Plans required the C9SPs to designate a compliance officer, establish new operating procedures, and develop and distribute a compliance manual to all employees.

Additionally, the providers were required to establish and implement a compliance training program, file periodic compliance reports with the FCC detailing the steps the provider has taken to comply with the 911 rules, and report any noncompliance with 911 rules within 15 days of discovering such noncompliance.

Looking Forward

C9SPs have about one month to confirm compliance with the reliability rules and submit a required certification.  Based on the FCC’s enforcement efforts last year, C9SPs would be well-advised to work diligently to meet this upcoming deadline.

Article By Wesley K. Wright and Liam Fulling of Keller and Heckman LLP.

For more communications and telecom legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Whistleblower Receives $11 Million for Reporting Pharmaceutical Fraud

September 16, 2022.  The United States Department of Justice settled a case against the pharmaceutical manufacturer Bayer Corporation.  Under the terms of the settlement, Bayer paid $40 million.  A former employee in the pharmaceutical company’s marketing department filed two qui tam lawsuits alleging violations of the False Claims Act.  For reporting fraud, the whistleblower received approximately $11 million, and they pursued both cases after the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to intervene.

According to the allegations, the pharmaceutical company was paying kickbacks to healthcare providers to “induce them to utilize the drugs Trasylol and Avelox, and also marketed these drugs for off-label uses that were not reasonable and necessary.”  This lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey and alleged that the because of these kickbacks, the pharmaceutical company caused submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid.  The lawsuit that was transferred to the District of Minnesota entailed the pharmaceutical company knowingly misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of Baycol, a statin drug, and also renewing contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency based on these misrepresentations.  To settle these allegations, Bayer paid $38,860,555 to the United States and $1,139,445 to the Medicaid Participating States.  The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General remarked about this settlement, “Today’s recovery highlights the critical role that whistleblowers play in the effective use of the False Claims Act to combat fraud in federal healthcare programs.”

The False Claims Act incentivizes private citizens to report fraud against the government and holds accountable companies that financially benefit from participation in government contracts and government-sponsored programs.  The Department of Justice needs whistleblowers to the be the antidote to pharmaceutical fraud.

Article By Renée Brooker and Eva Gunasekera of Tycko & Zavareei LLP

For more whistleblower and white collar crime legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

The Cost of Bicycle Accidents: Why Bike Safety Pays Off

Along with the COVID-19 pandemic’s stay-at-home orders and a worldwide pause on travel plans, 2020 marked the onset of another phenomenon: a boom in bicycle riding. Bicycles gave people a sense of exploration and adventure during this difficult time.

This rise in cyclists comes with some sobering statistics, including a 16% rise in preventable deaths and a 5% increase in non-fatal injuries. Of the 1,260 bicyclist deaths reported in 2020, 806 of those directly involved motor vehicles. These injuries come at a significant expense: the over 13,000 bicycle injuries each year cost more than $23 billion in the United States.

But no one wants to experience a bicycle accident or the long-term consequences of one. Here’s what you need to know about bicycle safety to protect you or your loved ones while exploring the world on two wheels.

Bike accident risk factors

While the rise in bike accidents and their associated medical costs is primarily due to the increased numbers of bicyclists, there are risk factors that can affect specific individuals more than others. Common bike accident risk factors include:

Age

While adolescents, teens, and young adults make up nearly one-third of all cycling injuries treated in emergency departments, bicycle death rates are highest in adults between the ages of 55-69.

Sex

Compared to female cyclists, the death and injury rates of males are 6 and 5 times higher, respectively.

Traffic

Most cycling accidents occur in urban areas, with 64% of deaths occurring away from intersections and 27% occurring at intersections.

Alcohol

Nearly one-third of bicycling fatalities involved alcohol, either from the motor vehicle driver or the cyclist.

Bike accident cost breakdown

Fatal and non-fatal alike, cycling accidents cost the US billions each year. In addition to the injuries and fatalities which occur as a result of road accidents, there are personal costs to account for as well:

  • Medical bills

  • Recovery/rehabilitation costs

  • Loss of wages due to missing work

  • Possible changes to earning potential

  • Possible funeral and burial expenses

In terms of costs, the individual cost of a serious adult bicycle accident has grown from $52,495—medical bills, missed work, loss of quality of life—to $77,308. Today, the number would be even higher.

Of course, that’s not to mention the emotional burden of a cycling accident—especially if a cycling accident results in a long-term injury or the loss of a loved one.

That’s why prioritizing bike safety is so important. To reduce these costs, communities need to create better conditions for cycling, including safer cycling infrastructure (cycling tracks, improved street lighting) and widespread education about safe cycling practices.

Bicycle safety measures at the state level

Personal safety while cycling is critical, but state legislators in New Jersey have been working to improve safety measures for cyclists as well.

The Safe Passing Law, which was put on the books in August of 2021, requires drivers to leave at least four feet of space between vehicles and anyone sharing the road, whether on foot or by bicycle. A violation of these rules can result in a $500 fine and two motor vehicle points if bodily harm is caused.

The Division of Highway Safety and the Department of Transportation has been running a social media campaign to spread awareness about the law, an effort that included a $78,342 grant to the New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition to educate the public on the law and the community impacts of bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Improving your bicycling safety

It’s essential to take the necessary steps to promote safety—for yourself and for others who share the road. While bicycle safety courses and education are essential, having safe bicycles and gear should also be part of the equation.

Make sure to budget for safety

Appropriate bicycling kits, from bare necessities to high-end gear, can cost anywhere from $150 to $1,000; costs can vary depending on the type of riding you do, the features you prioritize, and your budget.

Helmets, for example, may cost as little as $25 or as much as $500. Active lighting—white front lights, red rear lights, reflective tape, gear, and accessories—will typically cost a minimum of $45. Pumps, multi-tools, and patch kits can cost between $10-30 or more. Of course, investing in bright, visible clothing to wear while riding is also a good idea.

Cyclists should also regularly maintain their bicycles to keep them in good order. Many cyclists perform routine maintenance on their bikes themselves, seeking assistance from bike shops for parts and guidance. This can run between $300-500 a year in expenses.

While the costs of your bike’s features and accessories can add up, keep in mind that the investment is well worth it, as the cost of getting into an accident can be much higher.

Article By Domenic B. Sanginiti, Jr. of Stark & Stark

For more personal injury legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

COPYRIGHT © 2022, STARK & STARK

EMTALA in the Post-Dobbs World

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals with emergency departments and participating in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs to provide medical screening, treatment and transfer for patients with emergency medical conditions (EMCs) or women in labor.1 EMTALA, which was enacted in 1986 to address concerns about patient dumping, went unnoticed for many years, but has garnered heightened attention as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs).2

EMTALA is a federal law and expressly preempts state laws with which it directly conflicts. After the Dobbs decision was officially published in June, a number of states implemented laws that prohibited or restricted access to reproductive care. Many of these laws include potential civil sanctions and criminal liability for healthcare providers offering or performing these services regardless of the circumstances, including emergency situations. The Biden Administration, in contrast, has taken action to preserve access to reproductive care through a number of executive and federal agency actions. These actions are intended by the federal government to apply in all states, including those states where restrictions have been put in place. Following this activity, litigation between the federal government and several states has ensued to address potential conflicts between federal laws requiring the provision of access and state laws that prohibit or restrict access to reproductive health services. A summary of the current EMTALA landscape is set forth below.

EMTALA Requirements

Under EMTALA, hospitals with emergency departments (EDs) must provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to the ED, regardless of insurance status. EMTALA prohibits hospitals with EDs from refusing to examine or treat individuals with an EMC. Upon provision of a medical screening examination, hospitals must provide necessary stabilizing treatment for EMCs and labor within the hospital’s capability. If the hospital is unable to properly treat or stabilize the patient, the hospital must provide an appropriate transfer to another medical facility.

Under EMTALA, an EMC includes “a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part…”3

Many common pregnancy-related complications, such as preeclampsia or ectopic pregnancies, qualify as EMCs. However, certain state anti-abortion laws prohibit or criminalize abortions regardless of the existence of an EMC under federal law, which creates a potential conflict when an abortion is necessary to stabilize an EMC under EMTALA. As a result of this friction between state and federal law, EMTALA has received renewed attention at a federal and state level in recent months.

Executive Order on Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services

On July 8, 2022, after the Dobbs decision was officially issued, President Biden issued Executive Order 14076 (Executive Order), which directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a report identifying steps to ensure all patients, including pregnant women and women experiencing pregnancy loss, receive the full protections offered by EMTALA. The Executive Order also directed HHS to consider updates to guidance on obligations under EMTALA.

CMS Memorandum and HHS Letter to Healthcare Providers

On July 11, 2022, in response to the Executive Order, CMS published a memorandum to State Survey Agency Directors to restate existing guidance for hospital staff and physicians in light of new state laws that prohibit or restrict access to abortion (Memorandum). The Memorandum reinforced CMS’ view that:

  • EMTALA mandates that all patients who come to a EDs and request examination or treatment must receive an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilizing treatment, and transfer regardless of any state law restrictions about specific procedures,

  • Only physicians and qualified medical personnel may make the determination of an EMC,

  • Hospitals should ensure that all staff who interact with patients presenting to the ED are aware of the hospital’s obligations under EMTALA,

  • Hospitals may not cite state law or practice as the basis for transfer,

  • Physicians’ professional and legal duties under EMTALA preempt any conflicting state law or mandate,

  • If a physician believes that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an EMC, the physician must provide that treatment, and

  • State law is preempted by EMTALA when it prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person or has a more restrictive definition of EMC.

The Memorandum also clarified that pregnant patients may experience EMCs including, but not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features and that stabilizing treatment encompasses both medical and surgical interventions, such as methrotrexate therapy or dilation and curettage.

The Secretary of HHS also published on July 11, 2022 a letter to healthcare providers reminding them of their obligation to provide stabilizing medical treatment to their pregnant patients in accordance with EMTALA, regardless of the state in which the provider practices (Letter). The Letter also reiterated that:

  • any state laws or mandates which employ a more restrictive definition of EMC are preempted by EMTALA statute, and

  • the course of necessary stabilizing treatment is under the physician’s or other qualified medical personnel’s purview.

The State of Texas Sues the Biden Administration

On July 14, 2022, the Texas Attorney General brought suit against HHS and CMS to challenge the Memorandum and Letter relating to federal law obligations for pregnant patients.4 The complaint alleged that EMTALA does not preempt state law when state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person or draws the exception more narrowly than the definition of EMC under EMTALA. Specifically, Texas sought to enforce a state statute, the Human Life Protection Act, which would ban and criminalize abortions unless a woman “has a life-threatening physical condition arising from pregnancy that places her ‘at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed”(emphasis added).5 The complaint also alleged that EMTALA does not require a healthcare provider to perform an abortion if it is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an EMC. On August 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Lubbock Division) blocked enforcement of the Memorandum and Letter in the State of Texas on the basis that federal guidance did not preempt state law, exceeded the authority of EMTALA, and was issued without a proper notice and comment period. The Court found that, because EMTALA is silent regarding abortion and “how stabilizing treatments must be provided when a doctor’s duties to a pregnant woman and her unborn child possibly conflict,” “there is no direct conflict” between federal and Texas law with the end result that “EMTALA leaves it to the states”.6

The Biden Administration Sues the State of Idaho

On August 2, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Idaho, alleging violation of EMTALA. Under Idaho’s proposed abortion law, which was slated to go into effect on August 25th, the performance of all abortions are criminalized regardless of the reason for which they may be performed including to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.7 Instead, the law permits physicians to raise two affirmative defenses to avoid criminal liability:

(i) The physician determined, in h/her good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and

(ii) Prior to the performance of the abortion, the pregnant woman reported the act of rape or incest to a law enforcement agency and provided a copy of such report to the physician.8

The DOJ’s complaint alleged that  Idaho’s law does not provide a defense when the health of the pregnant patient is at stake, which is considered to fall within the definition of an EMC under EMTALA. In addition, the DOJ asserted that the fear of criminal prosecution may lead providers to avoid performing abortions even when it is a medically necessary treatment to prevent severe risk to the patient’s health. On August 24, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho found that Idaho’s law conflicted with EMTALA and granted the federal government a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Idaho’s proposed abortion law.9 In contrast to the Northern District of Texas Court’s interpretation of the conflict between state law and EMTALA, the District Court of Idaho noted that found that Idaho’s criminal abortion statute deterred abortions given that it provided for an affirmative defense rather than an exception for the provision of emergency care and, therefore, obstructed EMTALA’s purpose.10

Looking to the Future

While EMTALA has been in place for decades, its applications in the post-Dobbs world continue to evolve and will be at the forefront in states with abortion restrictions, particularly where the scope of federal law obligations to provide stabilizing treatment for conditions that threaten the health of the pregnant patient conflict with state law exceptions or affirmative defenses.

The law, policy and regulatory climate surrounding the Dobbs decision is complex and quickly developing. The information included in this article is current as of writing, but it does not address all potential legal issues or jurisdictional differences, and the information presented may no longer be current. Readers should consult counsel regarding their specific situation.

FOOTNOTES

1 42 U.S.C. §1395dd.

2 For additional information regarding the Dobbs decision, please refer to the following resources: Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Overturns 50 Years of Precedent on Abortion Laws and Rights | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), WHLC Dobbs Series Part 1 Where are we now?: Sheppard Mullin Webinar.

3 42 U.S.C. §1395dd(e)(1).

4 State of Tex. v. Becerra, et al., No. 5:22-cv-185 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2022).

5 Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.

6 State of Tex. v. Becerra, et al., No. 5:22-cv-185 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2022), Memorandum Opinion and Order at 49.

7 Idaho Code § 18-622.

8  Idaho Code § 18-622(3).

9 U.S. v. Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW.

10 U.S. v. Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW, Memorandum Decision and Order at 26-31.

Article By Amy J. Dilcher and Arushi Pandya of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

NAVEX Report Reveals Increase in Whistleblower Retaliation and Reporting of Misconduct

NAVEX’s 2022 Risk & Compliance Hotline & Incident Management Benchmark Report reveals an increase in internal reporting about misconduct and an increase in allegations of retaliation.  The analysis of data from 3,470 organizations that received more than 1.37 million individual reports identified the following trends (see the full report for a discussion of additional trends and analysis of the data):

  • “More actual allegations of misconduct, rather than inquiries about policies or possible misconduct. Ninety percent of all reports in 2021 were allegations of misconduct, up from 86 percent last year and hitting an all-time high since our first benchmark report more than ten years ago.”

  • “Reports about retaliation, harassment and discrimination jumped – especially retaliation. In 2021, reports of retaliation nearly doubled . . . Taken altogether, these findings suggest employees are more attuned to workplace civility issues. That would fit with external trends such as more talk about systemic racism, income inequality and political divisions; as well as increasing protection for whistleblowers and employees’ awareness of  those protections.”

  • “Substantiation rates continue to edge upward. Overall substantiation rates rose from 42 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2021, and up from 36 percent a decade ago. The reports substantiated most often were data privacy concerns (63 percent), environmental issues (59 percent), and confidential and proprietary information (54 percent). The reports substantiated least often were about retaliation (24 percent).”

  • “The substantiation rate for reports of retaliation also went up slightly, from 23 percent in 2020 to  24 percent in 2021 – the highest substantiation rate seen since 2016. While steady, this substantiation rate is significantly below the overall median case substantiation rate of 43 percent in 2021. These cases, though difficult to prove, warrant attention.”

  • “Reports of harassment exceeded levels from the height of the #MeToo movement.”

Corporate Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblower retaliation remains all too prevalent.  A September 14, 2022 Bloomberg article titled Whistleblower retaliation remains all too prevalent discusses how “choosing to be a whistle-blower can also be a lonely, risky road” and identifies many deterrents to speaking up – “[t]hey may be afraid of litigation, ruining their reputations, losing security clearances or facing jail time.”

Fortunately, federal and state laws afford corporate whistleblowers remedies to combat retaliation, and whistleblower reward laws incentivize whistleblowers to take the considerable risks entailed in reporting fraud and other wrongdoing to the government.  For example, the

SEC Whistleblower Program offers awards to eligible whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to successful SEC enforcement actions with total monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. A whistleblower may receive an award of between 10% and 30% of the total monetary sanctions collected in actions brought by the SEC and in related actions brought by other regulatory or law enforcement authorities. The SEC Whistleblower Program allows whistleblowers to submit tips anonymously if represented by an attorney in connection with their tip.

What is Whistleblower Retaliation?

Whistleblower retaliation laws prohibit a broad range of retaliatory actions against whistleblowers, including any act that would dissuade a worker from engaging in protected whistleblowing.  Examples of actionable whistleblower retaliation include:

  • Terminating a whistleblower;

  • Constructively discharging a whistleblower;

  • Demoting a whistleblower;

  • Suspending a whistleblower;

  • Harassing a whistleblower or subjecting the whistleblower to a hostile work environment;

  • Reassigning a whistleblower to a position with significantly different responsibilities;

  • Issuing a performance evaluation or performance improvement plan that supplies the necessary foundation for the eventual termination of the whistleblower’s employment, or a written warning or counseling session that is considered discipline by policy or practice and is routinely used as the first step in a progressive discipline policy;

  • Placing the whistleblower on administrative leave;

  • Threatening to take an adverse action against a whistleblower;

  • Subjecting a whistleblower to a retaliatory investigation or retaliatory surveillance;

  • Suing a whistleblower for the purpose of retaliating against the whistleblower;

  • Outing a whistleblower;

  • Intimidating a whistleblower;

  • Initiating a law enforcement investigation or facilitating an employee’s detention by U.S. ICE after the employee reported a serious injury; or

  • Discriminating against a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of whistleblowing.

The DOL Administrative Review Board has emphasized that statutory language prohibiting discrimination “in any way” must be broadly construed and therefore a whistleblower need not prove that a retaliatory act had a tangible impact on an employee’s terms and conditions of employment.

What Damages Can a Whistleblower Recover in a Whistleblower Retaliation Case?

Whistleblower retaliation can exact a serious toll, including lost pay and benefits, reputational harm, and emotional distress.  Indeed, whistleblower retaliation can derail a career and deprive the whistleblower of millions of dollars in lost future earnings.

Whistleblowers should be rewarded for doing the right thing, but all too often they suffer retaliation and find themselves marginalized and ostracized.  Federal and state whistleblower laws provide several remedies to compensate whistleblowers that have suffered retaliation, including:

  • back pay (lost wages and benefits);

  • emotional distress damages;

  • damages for reputational harm;

  • reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof;

  • lost future earnings; and

  • punitive damages.

Combating Whistleblower Retaliation: How to Maximize Your Recovery

Whistleblower protection laws can provide a potent remedy, but before bringing a retaliation claim, it is crucial to assess the options under federal and state law and develop a strategy to achieve the optimal recovery.  Key issues to consider include the scope of protected whistleblowing, the burden of proof, the damages that a prevailing whistleblower can recover, the forum where the claim would be litigated, and the impact of the retaliation claim on a whistleblower rewards claim.

Scope of Protected Whistleblowing

There is no federal statute that provides general protection to corporate whistleblowers.  Instead, federal whistleblower protection laws protect specific types of disclosures, such as disclosures of securities fraud, tax fraud, procurement fraud, or consumer financial protection fraud.  The main sources of federal protection for corporate whistleblowers include the whistleblower protection provisions of the following:

  • The False Claims Act (FCA) — protecting disclosures about fraud directed toward the government, including actions taken in furtherance of a qui tam action and efforts to stop a violation of the FCA;

  • The Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA) — protecting whistleblowing about gross mismanagement of a federal contract or grant; a gross waste of federal funds; an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract or grant or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract;

  • The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) — protecting disclosures about mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, a violation of any SEC rule, or shareholder fraud;

  • The Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) — protecting whistleblowing to the SEC about potential violations of federal securities laws;

  • The Taxpayer First Act (TFA) — protecting disclosures about tax fraud or tax underpayment;

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) — protecting disclosures concerning violations of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules or federal laws regulating unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in the provision of consumer financial products or services; and

  • The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) — protecting disclosures about violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

While most of these anti-retaliation laws protect internal disclosures (e.g., reporting to a supervisor), whistleblower protection under the DFA is predicated on a showing that the whistleblower disclosed a potential violation of federal securities law to the SEC prior to suffering an adverse action.

State law may also provide a remedy, including the anti-retaliation provisions in state FCAs.  And approximately 42 states recognize a common law wrongful discharge tort action (a public policy exception to at-will employment), which generally protects refusal to engage in illegal activity and the exercise of a statutory right.

Burden of Proof

To maximize the likelihood of winning a case (or at least getting the case before a jury), it is useful to select a remedy with a favorable causation standard (the level of proof required to link the protected whistleblowing to the adverse employment action).  SOX has a favorable “contributing factor” causation standard, i.e., the whistleblower prevails by proving that their protected whistleblowing affected in any way the employer’s decision to take an adverse action.  In contrast, the FCA and DFA require the whistleblower to prove “but for” causation, i.e., the adverse action would not have happened “but for” the protected whistleblowing (albeit there is no need to prove that it was the sole factor).

Damages and Remedies in Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

Variations in the remedies available to whistleblowers under federal anti-retaliation laws may warrant bringing more than one claim.  For example, the DCWPA authorizes an award of back pay (the value of lost pay and benefits), and the FCA authorizes an award of double back pay.  If the whistleblower’s disclosures are protected under both statutes, then the whistleblower should bring both claims.

While a prevailing whistleblower can recover back pay under both the DFA and SOX (double back pay under the former and single back pay under the latter), the DFA does not authorize special damages, i.e., damages for emotional distress and reputational harm.  In contrast, SOX authorizes uncapped compensatory damages.  Therefore, a whistleblower protected under both statutes should bring the SOX claim within the much shorter SOX statute of limitations (180 days) to recover both double back pay and special damages.

State law may also provide a remedy, and if the whistleblower can pursue both a statutory remedy and a wrongful discharge tort, the latter may offer the opportunity to seek punitive damages.

Forum Selection and Administrative Exhaustion

When selecting the optimal remedy to combat retaliation, a whistleblower should consider the forum where the claim would be tried and determine whether the claim must initially be investigated by a federal agency before the whistleblower can litigate the claim.  SOX provides an unequivocal exemption from mandatory arbitration, but Dodd-Frank claims are subject to arbitration.  Accordingly, a whistleblower protected both by SOX and Dodd-Frank should file a SOX claim within the 180-day statute of limitations to preserve the option to try the case before a jury.

Several of the corporate whistleblower protection laws require that the whistleblower file the claim initially at a federal agency and permit the agency to investigate the claim before the whistleblower can litigate the claim.  This is called administrative exhaustion, and failure to comply with that requirement can waive the claim.  In contrast, the FCA and DFA do not require administrative exhaustion.

Impact of Whistleblower Retaliation Claim on Whistleblower Rewards Claim

Another important consideration is the potential impact of a retaliation case on a qui tam or whistleblower rewards case.  Filing an FCA retaliation claim while a qui tam suit is under seal poses some risk of violating the seal, which could bar the whistleblower from recovering a relator share.  Therefore, counsel should consider filing the FCA retaliation claim under seal along with the qui tam suit.

Further, whistleblowers pursuing rewards claims at federal agencies (e.g., SEC or IRS whistleblower claims) while simultaneously pursuing related retaliation claims (e.g., a SOX or TFA claim) should assess the potential impact of the retaliation claim and the potential discoverability of submissions to the SEC or IRS on the rewards claim(s).

Although the patchwork of whistleblower protection laws fails to protect disclosures about certain forms of fraud, there are important pockets of protection.  To effectively combat retaliation, whistleblowers should avail themselves of all appropriate remedies.

Article By Jason Zuckerman and Matthew Stock of Zuckerman Law

For more criminal law / business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Zuckerman Law

Could Leagues and Teams be Joint Employers Before the NLRB?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change the standard for determining if two employers may be joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The proposed rule, expected to become effective sometime in 2023, could make it more likely that professional and collegiate leagues would be found to be joint employers of any unionized professional players or collegiate student-athletes who play for teams that are members of those leagues.

As a joint employer of unionized players of member teams, a league could be jointly responsible for unfair labor practices committed by the teams or the team’s supervisors or managers (i.e., coaches and administrators), be required to participate in collective bargaining negotiations with the teams concerning the wages and other terms and conditions of employment of the players, and picketing directed at the league would be considered primary and therefore permissible (rather than secondary and subject to injunction).

Currently, the NLRB will find two or more employers to be joint employers if there is evidence that one employer has actually exercised direct and regular control over essential employment terms of another employer’s employees. An employer that merely reserves the right to exercise control or that has exercised control only indirectly will not be found to be a joint employer. The NLRB has proposed that the Browning Ferris standard be restored. Under the proposed rule, two or more employers will be found to be joint employers if they “share or codetermine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.” Importantly – and the critical import of the proposed rule – the NLRB will consider both evidence that direct control has been exercised and that the right to control has been reserved (or exercised indirectly) over these essential terms and conditions of employment when reviewing two or more employers for status as joint employers.

Professional athletes are employees under Sec. 2(3) of the NLRA, of course. As for collegiate student-athletes, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum, GC 21-08, announcing the intention to consider scholarship athletes at private colleges and universities to be employees because, as she wrote, they “perform services for their colleges and the NCAA, in return for compensation, and subject to their control.” Stating in summation “that this memo will notify the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA, that [she] will be taking that legal position in future investigations and litigation” under the NLRA, Abruzzo signaled that conferences, leagues, and the NCAA will face joint-employer analysis in an appropriate case.

The “essential terms and conditions of employment” will translate to the sports workplace in the nature of game, practice and meeting times, travel and accommodation standards, equipment and safety standards, conduct rules and disciplinary proceedings, the length of a season, the number of games and playoff terms, and numerous other areas. Professional leagues may already coordinate with their member teams on a number of employment terms for players. For collegiate conferences and leagues, this may be new. Under the current standard, a league could better insulate itself from the decisions made by its members’ coaches and administrators by not exercising direct involvement in those matters. Under the proposed rule, a league or conference that merely has the power (even if reserved and unexercised) to make decisions affecting the “work” conditions for student-athletes could be jointly liable along with the institution for decisions made solely by the institution’s agents.

Consequently, conferences and leagues should consider training managers on their responsibility under the NLRA to private sector employees. They should also consider the role they want to play in collective bargaining should any of the student-athletes at their member institutions unionize.

Article By Patrick L. Egan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022