Tag: coronavirus

COVID Vaccine Class Action Reminds Employers to Individually Consider Accommodations

Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) is no stranger to religious accommodation lawsuits over the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate given its continued efforts to operate through the height of the pandemic in 2021—but the battle just heated up with a proposed class action complaint filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Tyson’s recent troubles derive from its 2021 vaccine mandate (the “Vaccine Mandate”) requiring all leadership team members to be vaccinated by September 24, 2021, all corporate team members to be vaccinated by October 1, 2021, and all other team members to be vaccinated by November 1, 2021. The Vaccine Mandate coincided with an OSHA rule (which the Supreme Court subsequently ruled unconstitutional) requiring workers with at least 100 workers to be vaccinated or to produce weekly test results showing that they were virus-free. Tyson, a huge company with warehouse operations, clearly fell within its ambit and had strong incentives to keep its workforce safe.

Notably, while in place, the OSHA rule required employers to grant medical and religious exemptions from the mandate. Likewise, Tyson’s Vaccine Mandate required Tyson to afford reasonable accommodations to employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs that prevented them from receiving the vaccine, as required by the OSHA rule. However, various plaintiffs have alleged that the only accommodation typically offered to religious objectors was to be placed on an unpaid leave of absence called LOA+, which lasted approximately one year. Plaintiffs claim that requests to telework were refused in favor of this unpaid leave.

One of the first suits to be filed was Reed, et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-CV-01155-STA-JAY, 2022 WL 2134410 (W.D. Tenn. June 14, 2022), in which several plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the Vaccine Mandate in part on religious and disability theories under Title VII and the ADA. Though parts of the case were allowed to proceed, these specific claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Tyson also succeeded on defeating religious claims based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) on a motion to dismiss in another Tennessee case, after failing to secure dismissal in another, similar case based on Title VII and the RFRA. Compare Johnson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-CV-01161-STA-JAY, 2023 WL 3901485 (W.D. Tenn. June 8, 2023) with Hayslett v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 3d 900 (W.D. Tenn. 2022). The latter case settled out-of-court in July 2023.

Beyond these, Tyson also faced other single-plaintiff suits on religious vaccine accommodation grounds in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, with varying results. Matthews v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-1192-STA-JAY, 2023 WL 25733 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2023)(motion to dismiss denied under Tennessee state law); Collins v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-00076-GNS, 2023 WL 2731047 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2023)(motion to dismiss granted under RFRA, ADA, and Kentucky state law, but denied under Title VII); Reese v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 3:21-05087-CV-RK, 2021 WL 5625411 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2021) (motion to dismiss granted as to public policy and invasion of privacy claims, but denied under state discrimination law). Some of these cases were subsequently settled, as well.

On November 16, 2023, plaintiff Sarah Pearson brought a proposed class action complaint in Pearson v. Tyson Foods Inc., 4:23CV01080, purporting to represent:

All Arkansas based Tyson employees or former Arkansas based Tyson employees who worked remotely (telework) prior to August 3, 2021, who requested a religious accommodation to continue working remotely (telework) in response to Tyson’s COVID Vaccine Mandate, and who were instead placed on LOA+ by Tyson;

and

All Arkansas based Tyson employees or former Arkansas based Tyson employees who worked remotely (telework) prior to August 3, 2021, who requested a religious accommodation when Tyson ended its COVID Vaccine Mandate on October 31, 2022, and who were subsequently not reinstated to the same job and terminated.

For each, Pearson recites the allegations required to sustain a class action: numerosity (in excess of 50 putative class members, per her complaint), commonality, typicality, and adequacy. These allegations can prove tricky in the case of sincerely-held religious beliefs and leaves of absence, but not necessarily impossible. Compare Robinson v. Gen. Motors Co., No. 4:15-CV-158-Y, 2015 WL 13731154 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2015) (denying class certification in part because “determining individual class members would require the Court to wade through thousands of leave requests and evaluate each individual’s circumstance . . . to determine whether a GM employee even qualifies . . .”) with Jennings v. St. Luke’s Health Network, Inc., No. 5:23-CV-1229, 2023 WL 5938755 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2023) (denying without prejudice motion to strike class action allegations in religious discrimination vaccine case, pending discovery).

Here, Pearson’s complaint reveals numerous specific allegations which are likely specific to her, including that Tyson offered her an in-person job in a different city once the Vaccine Mandate ended, which she declined.  However, it remains to be seen if Tyson’s alleged policy of placing all religious objectors on leave may break through the barriers to commonality, typicality, and adequacy otherwise posed by, e.g., different religions, belief systems, communications with human resources, and leave requests.

Following these recent developments, employers are advised to remember that religious discrimination accommodation requests should not be taken lightly, and should result in an individualized interactive process with each employee. Even apparently implausible religious beliefs, associated with religions that do not otherwise espouse such beliefs, may be (or be deemed by a court to be) sincerely-held.

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

New York HERO Act Enhanced Workplace Safety Committee Enforcement Provisions Enacted

On December 28, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill 9450, which added new enforcement provisions to the New York Health And Essential Rights Act’s (NY HERO Act) workplace safety committee requirements. The new law went into effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.

As a reminder, the NY HERO Act was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 1 of the NY HERO Act required employers to adopt and distribute an infectious disease exposure prevention plan (“safety plan”) and activate such safety plan upon the designation of an airborne infectious disease as a highly contagious communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm to the public health. While no current designation is in effect (the designation of COVID-19 ended on March 17, 2022), employers should be prepared to activate their safety plan in the event of a designation, and should review their existing safety plan periodically for any updates as required by the NY HERO Act.

Section 2, the often-overlooked portion of the NY HERO Act, provides employees the right to establish and administer a joint labor-management workplace safety committee. The recent law adds new enforcement provisions, and serves as an amendment to this section of the NY HERO Act. It requires employers to recognize workplace safety committees formed by employees pursuant to the NY HERO Act within five business days of receiving a request from employees for committee recognition. Failure to do so will result in penalties of $50 a day until the violation is remedied. Previously, there was no explicit timeframe required for employers to recognize a workplace safety committee and no related specific civil penalties.

While the New York Department of Labor has issued FAQ guidance related to Section 1 of the NY HERO Act, the new law is the first development or update regarding Section 2 since the NY HERO Act was enacted and subsequently amended.

The new law serves as a reminder that the NY HERO Act, and, relatedly, COVID-19’s impact on the workplace, are not completely in the rearview mirror. Employers should confirm their compliance with the NY HERO Act by:

  • evaluating their existing safety plans and revising or updating them as needed;
  • distributing their safety plans to all new hires;
  • including their safety plans in all updated handbooks;
  • ensuring their safety plans are posted in a visible and prominent location in the workplace; and
  • reviewing the workplace safety committee obligations and requirements, especially in light of the added enforcement provisions.

Article By Susan Gross Sholinsky, Steven M. Swirsky, Robert J. O’Hara, Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper, and Christopher Shur of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

©2023 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

A COVID Surge in China Results in Renewed Restrictions for Travel to the United States

Effective January 5 (at 12:01am, Eastern Standard Time), all passengers inbound from China, Hong Kong and Macau, or who were in the country in the 10 days prior to their departure to the United States, must show a negative PCR or monitored antigen test in order to board flights to the United States. In addition, the same requirement will apply for those passengers who were physically present in China within the 10 days prior to flying through South Korea’s Incheon International Airport, Toronto Pearson International, and Vancouver International.

Background:

Amid concerns over lack of transparency around COVID case data and loosening of COVID-related restrictions, China is facing their largest coronavirus outbreak since the start of the pandemic. The large surge of cases could potentially infect upwards of 800 million people over the next few months. Such a spike in infections over a very short period increases the chances of a new variant emerging, and with the risk of new mutations come the risks of heightened transmission and death rates.

In response, several countries including the United States, Japan, Italy, India, South Korea and Taiwan are implementing measures for travelers to both limit the spread of infection and to improve early detection of new variants. As of January 5, 2023, in order to enter the United States either directly or indirectly from China, Hong Kong and Macau, all passengers over the age of 2, regardless of nationality or vaccination status, must show evidence of a negative PCR or antigen test taken within two days at the departure gate. The only exception will be for those who have recently tested positive. Those who have had COVID-19 in the 90 days prior to their travel to the United States may present documentation of recovery from COVID-19 in lieu of a negative test result.

In addition to the steps taken to specifically protect against those who test positive while traveling from China to the United States, the CDC is also expanding its Traveler Genomic Surveillance program (TGS) to additional airports. TGS, run by the Travelers’ Health Branch at the Center for Disease Control, tests international travelers to detect new variants entering the country and to fill in gaps in global surveillance. During the early days of the Omicron surge, TGS detected two Omicron subvariants weeks before they were reported elsewhere. As part of the program, arriving international travelers volunteer to participate and anonymously provide nasal swabs that are then sent for testing to allow for detection of multiple variants as well as viral characterization to help provide information on a variant’s transmissibility, virulence, and response to current treatments or vaccines.

As the case counts and variants evolve and increase, so, too, must the guidelines around international travel and efforts to control the spread. Before making any international travel plans, make sure to double-check the guidelines in place for each intended destination, prepare for delays and disruption, and continually monitor reliable news sources for updates.

Listen to this post: Here

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.
For more Coronavirus Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Privacy Rights in a Remote Work World: Can My Employer Monitor My Activity?

The rise in remote work has brought with it a rise in employee monitoring.  Between 2019 and 2021, the percentage of employees working primarily from home tripled.  As “productivity paranoia” crept in, employers steadily adopted employee surveillance technologies.  This has raised questions about the legal and ethical implications of enhanced monitoring, in some cases prompting proposed legislation or the expanded use of laws already on the books.

Employee monitoring is nothing new.  Employers have long used supervisors and timeclock programs, among other systems, to monitor employee activity.  What is new, however, is the proliferation of sophisticated monitoring technologies—as well as the expanding number and variety of companies that are employing them.

 While surveillance was once largely confined to lower-wage industries, white-collar employers are increasingly using surveillance technologies to track their employees’ activity and productivity.  Since the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020, one in three medium-to-large companies has adopted some form of employee monitoring, with the total fraction of employers using surveillance technologies closer to two in three.  Workers who are now subject to monitoring technologies include doctors, lawyers, academics, and even hospice chaplains.  Employee monitoring technologies can track a range of information, including:

  • Internet use (e.g., which websites and apps an employee has visited and for how long);

  • How long a computer sits idle;

  • How many keystrokes an employee types per hour;

  • Emails that are sent or received from a work or personal email address (if the employee is logged into a personal account on a work computer);

  • Screenshots of a computer’s display; and

  • Webcam photos of the employee throughout the day.

These new technologies, coupled with the shift to remote work, have blurred the line between the professional and the personal, the public and the private.  In the face of increased monitoring, this blog explores federal and state privacy regulations and protections for employees.

What are the legal limitations on employee monitoring?

 There are two primary sources of restrictions on employee monitoring: (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.; and (2) common-law protections against invasions of privacy.  The ECPA is the only federal law that regulates the monitoring of electronic communications in the workplace.  It extends the Federal Wiretap Act’s prohibition on the unauthorized interception of communications, which was initially limited to oral and wire communications, to cover electronic communications like email.  As relevant here, the ECPA contains two major exceptions.  The first exception, known as the business purpose exception, allows employers to monitor employee communications if they can show that there is a legitimate business purpose for doing so.  The second exception, known as the consent exception, permits employers to monitor employee communications so long as they have consent to do so.  Notably, this exception is not limited to business communications, allowing employers to monitor employees’ personal communications if they have the requisite consent.  Together, the business purpose and consent exceptions significantly limit the force of the ECPA, such that, standing alone, it permits most forms of employee monitoring.

In addition to the ECPA’s limited protections from surveillance, however, some states have adopted additional protections of employee privacy.  Several state constitutions, including those of California, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, guarantee citizens a right to privacy.  While these provisions do not directly regulate employers’ activity, they may bolster employees’ claims to an expectation of privacy.  Other states have enacted legislation that limits an employer’s ability to monitor employees’ social media accounts.  Virginia, for example, prohibits employers from requiring employees to disclose their social media usernames or passwords.  And a few states have enacted laws to bolster employees’ access to their data.  For example, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which comes into full effect on January 1, 2023, and replaces the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), will provide employees with the right to access, delete, or opt-out of the sale of their personal information, including data collected through employee monitoring programs.  Employees will also have the right to know where, when, and how employers are using their data.  The CPRA’s protections are limited, however.  Employers will still be able to use surveillance technologies, and to make employment decisions based on the data these technologies gather.

Finally, several states require employers to provide notice to employees before monitoring or intercepting electronic communications.  New York recently adopted a law,  Senate Bill (SB) S2628, that requires all private-sector employers to provide notice of any electronic monitoring to employees (1) upon hiring, via written or electronic employee acknowledgment; and (2) in general, in a “conspicuous place” in the workplace viewable to all employees.  The new law is aimed at the forms of monitoring that have proliferated since the shift to remote work, and covers surveillance technologies that target the activities or communications of individual employees.  Delaware and Connecticut also have privacy laws that predate SB S2628.  Delaware requires notice to employees upon hire that they will be monitored, but does not require notice within the workplace.  Meanwhile, Connecticut requires notice of monitoring to be conspicuously displayed in the workplace but does not require written notice to employees upon hire.  Accordingly, in many states, employee privacy protections exceed the minimum standard of the ECPA, though they still are not robust.

How does employee monitoring intersect with other legal rights?

Other legal protections further limit employee monitoring.

First, in at least some jurisdictions, employees who access personal emails on their work computer, or conduct other business that would be protected under attorney-client privilege, maintain their right to privacy for those communications.  In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 408 N.J. Super. 54 (App. Div. 2009), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, considered a case in which an employee had accessed her personal email account on her employer’s computer and exchanged emails from that account with her attorney regarding a possible employment case against her employer.  The employer, who had installed an employee monitoring program, was able to access and read the employee’s emails.  The Court held that the employee still had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that sending and receiving emails on a company-issued laptop did not waive the attorney-client privilege.  The Court thus required the employer to turn over all emails between the employee and her attorney that were in its possession and directed the employer to delete all of these emails from its hard drives.  Moving forward, the Court instructed that, while “an employer may trespass to some degree into an employee’s privacy when buttressed by a legitimate business interest,” such a business interest held “little force . . . when offered as the basis for an intrusion into communications otherwise shielded by the attorney-client privilege.”  Stengart, 408 N.J. Super. at 74.

Second, employee monitoring can run afoul of protections related to union and other concerted activity.  The General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently announced a plan to curtail workplace surveillance technologies.  Existing law prohibits employers from using surveillance technologies to monitor or record union activity, such as by recording employees engaged in picketing, or otherwise interfering with employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity.  The General Counsel’s plan outlines a new, formal framework for analyzing whether employee monitoring interferes with union or concerted activity.  Under this framework, an employer presumptively violates Section 7 or Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where their “surveillance and management practices, viewed as a whole, would tend to interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in” protected activities.  Examples of technologies that are presumptively violative include key loggers, webcam photos, and audio recordings.

Do I have a claim against my employer?

While federal and state restrictions on employee monitoring are limited, you may have a legal claim against your employer if its monitoring is overly intrusive or it mishandles your personal data.  First, an invasion-of-privacy claim, for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, could exist if your employer monitors your activity in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, such as by accessing your work laptop’s webcam or internal microphone and listening in on private affairs in your home.  Second, you may have a claim against your employer for violating its legal duty to protect your personal information if data it collects in the course of monitoring your work activity is compromised.  In Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2018), employees at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and UPMC McKeesport (collectively, UPMC) filed a class-action complaint alleging that UPMC breached its legal duty of reasonable care when it failed to protect employees’ data, which was stolen from UPMC computers.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found for the plaintiffs, holding that employers have an affirmative duty to protect the personal information of their employees.  Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding was grounded in tort principles that are recognized by many states (i.e., duty of care and negligence), it may pave a path for future cases in other jurisdictions.  Third, if any medical information is accessed and improperly used by your employer, you may have a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires that employers keep all employee medical information confidential and separate from all other personnel information.  See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(B)-(C), (4)(B)-(C).

Conclusion

Employees are monitored more consistently and in more ways than ever before. By and large, employee monitoring is legal.  Employers can monitor your keystrokes, emails, and internet activity, among other metrics.  While federal regulation of employee monitoring is limited, some states offer additional protections of employee privacy.  Most notably, employers are increasingly required to inform employees that their activity will be monitored.  Moreover, other legal rights, such as the right to engage in concerted activity and to have your medical information kept confidential, provide checks on employee surveillance.  As employee monitoring becomes more commonplace, restrictions on surveillance technologies and avenues for legal recourse may also grow.

Article By Bonnie Henry of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

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

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

Global Dispute Resolution: The Future of Virtual Legal Proceedings Is Shaped by Soaring Travel Costs

While we may have passed through the worst of the global pandemic, it has unquestionably left a deep and lasting impact on our personal and professional lives. Restrictions that left everyone housebound for months on end resulted in adaptations to daily behaviors and how we do business—some of which are here to stay.

Progress in the Form of Virtual Proceedings

During the pandemic, keeping businesses afloat was challenging across the board in all industries. Videoconferencing was often the only option to connect with colleagues or to participate in a meeting of any kind, and the use of platforms like Zoom skyrocketed. Like most other businesses and professional organizations, legal forums around the world were closed for a time. When they began to reopen, they discovered a new (virtual) operational environment that arose out of necessity.

International arbitration centers and courts across the globe followed suit, reopening with a mandate to conduct business remotely. While they had already developed protocols for using technology to increase accessibility and efficiency before 2020, the use of videoconferencing in international arbitration centers and courtrooms took off rapidly and pervasively once the pandemic hit. The ramped-up schedule of online proceedings continues in international arbitration centers and courts now that they are increasingly comfortable with the virtual format, and protocols have been developed and vetted.

 

 

 

Many believe that these recent technological developments were long overdue. The pandemic essentially propelled the justice system to modernize its administrative and operational policies. Remote Courts Worldwide (a website created during the pandemic to encourage the global community of justice workers to exchange ideas related to remote alternatives to traditional court proceedings) documents that virtual hearings, arbitrations, and court proceedings are embraced by stakeholders in many countries.1 The consensus is that smart, efficient, industry-disrupting change has brought the international justice system into the twenty-first century. Virtual proceedings are a welcome change for many reasons, not the least of which is the prohibitively high cost of in-person attendance.

International Travel Costs & Virtual Legal Proceedings

The cost of air travel has increased markedly in 2022. Demand issues, inflation, and high fuel costs have driven up per-person airfares. According to the 2022 Global Business Travel Association’s Business Travel Index Outlook – Annual Global Report and Forecast, total international business travel spending is downby 50% from pre-pandemic levels, but individual airfares are on track to rise nearly 50% this year over 2021 and are predicted to continue to rise in 2023.2

An intercontinental long-haul business class ticket from the United States will usually average between $3,000 and $5,000 roundtrip onboard major national carriers. Fares are often the highest on flights longer than twelve hours (i.e., to the Middle East, Australia, or Southeast Asia) and may range from $5,000 to $12,000.3

COMPARING COSTS FOR IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE

The following is an example of a business travel cost profile for an international arbitration hearing taking place in London and involving three US attorneys, two Paris attorneys, two local witnesses, and three litigation support personnel. The average business trip to London is 5.8 days4, during which these travelers will require accommodations for five nights, food for six days, and ground transportation for six days.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRAVEL EXPENSES & TRAVEL TIME TO LONDON FOR ONE LEGAL PROCEEDING

 

 

Person Traveling Number Originating City Airfare Travel Time Hotel Food Ground Total
US Lawyers 3 Chicago $3,079 $5,850 $2,200 $750 $400 $36,837
Paris Lawyers 2 Paris $325 $1,950 $2,200 $750 $400 $11,250
Witnesses 2 London $0 $0 $1,500 $350 $250 $4,200
Trial Consultant 1 New York $2,325 $2,400 $2,200 $750 $400 $8,075
Trial Presenter 1 Los Angeles $3,944 $3,300 $2,200 $750 $400 $10,594
Graphic Designer 1 Dallas $3,079 $3,000 $2,200 $750 $400 $9,429
Total In-Person Attendance               $80,385

 

Notes: Airfares based on Delta business class in November 2022. Travel time based on Chicago to London 9hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; Paris to London 3hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; NY to London 8hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; LA to London 11hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; Dallas to London 10hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr. 

As demonstrated in the chart above, the cost of travel time can be as much or more than the cost of flights to attend an international arbitration or other legal hearing. Spending many hours traveling to and returning from the various steps of an international proceeding is not only an expense for a client, but productivity is also lost for the legal professionals involved.

If time is money, there could not be a more direct equivalency than the legal industry’s billable hour, and often lawyers apply the same hourly rate for travel hours as for work hours. When complex matters demand a legal team, these costs are multiplied. Then there is the issue of witnesses who would need to travel and perhaps wait around to testify, not to mention the time commitment and expenses related to other on-site billers and support staff. Add in the unpredictability of airline delays, and costs will continue to mount.

VIRTUAL HEARINGS SAVE MONEY (AND THEY’RE HERE TO STAY)

 

 

 

With the cost of international air travel rising sharply, remote hearings are a practical alternative to in-person proceedings. International travel is expensive, and the virtual option means that it is no longer necessary to count travel as a “cost of doing business” when pursuing an international dispute. The widespread use of technology in global dispute resolution proceedings gives attorneys and their clients the option to participate remotely, which is a compelling cost saver for all parties.

Industry news reports tell the story:

Technology has become ubiquitous in international arbitration.5 Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams.6 Beijing’s “Internet Court” enables people to file lawsuits online.7 In India, 19.2 million cases have been heard virtually in the High Court and district courts.8

Such reports are convincing evidence of the commitment to the continuation of virtual proceedings in legal forums around the globe. Remote and hybrid proceedings in the international legal setting appear to have a very secure future.

Put Your Best Foot Forward in Virtual Legal Proceedings

Technology in the courtroom is not particularly a new concept, and international arbitration centers were working in the direction of modernizing when they had to fast-track guidelines to convert to primarily virtual hearings.9 The wholesale adoption of online proceedings may have caught some firms unprepared from a technical production standpoint.

References:

  1. See www.remotecourts.org.
  2. See gbta.org.
  3. Keyes, Scott. The Complete Guide to Business Class Flights. Scott’s Cheap Flights. April 28, 2022.
  4. Johnson, Georgia-Rose. Business Travel Statistics. Finder.com. February 18, 2021.
  5. Vishnyakov, Mikhail. CIArb Guidelines on the Use of Technology, The Law Society Gazette. March 18, 2021.
  6. Yates-Roberts, Elly. Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams. Technology Record. February 4, 2020.
  7. China: Beijing’s ‘Internet Court’ enables people to file lawsuits online. Remote Courts Worldwide. September 20, 2022.
  8. Harris, Joanne. Access to justice: India leads post-Covid shift in courts’ use of technology. International Bar Association. October 12, 2022.
  9. Caroni, Barnardo. Fast Track Arbitration and Virtual Protocols in the COVID-19 ERA: Some Suggestions from Asia. October 20, 2022.

Article By IMS Consulting & Expert Services

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

© Copyright 2002-2022 IMS Consulting & Expert Services, All Rights Reserved.

Twelve Tips for Effective In-Person Networking in the Post-Pandemic World

I recently got on my first flight since the pandemic. I had been avoiding travel and conferences for many reasons, but it’s time to stop hiding at home and behind my computer screen.

Over the next few weeks I am speaking at several lawyer retreats and industry conferences – I’m excited but nervous.

I feel like a fish out of water (I accidentally let my TSA pre-check expire as well as my passport during Covid). It’s also the first time I’m leaving my pandemic puppies (I think it’s more traumatic for me than them).

I’m looking forward to seeing familiar faces and meeting new ones, and getting to know my clients in a setting other than Zoom because human connections are important and powerful.

In-person networking is essential – it is the secret sauce to building long-term and meaningful relationships. Those relationships can lead to opportunities of all kinds.

Even as an extroverted extrovert, I’m a bit rusty on networking.

I have been doing countless presentations to a computer screen since March 2020 and so being able to see and interact with real people is a much welcome change. A return to “normalcy.”

But after years of being an “expert” network, I’m not actually sure what to do when I actually see people again in a profesional group setting.

Do I hug? (I’m Italian, we like to hug) Shake hands? Fist bump? Just smile and nod? So glad we aren’t bathing in hand sanitizer anymore or cloroxing everything with which we come in touch.

Many of us are in the same position after the past few years, and we don’t feel like the same person we used to be. But that’s okay. Let’s collectively give ourselves a break (and some grace). We are all in the same boat – together.

Here are 12 tips for effective in-person networking I plan to use:

  1. Ask people about themselves more then I talk about myself.
  2. Practice active listening.
  3. Say their names a few times when talking to them – it helps me remember them and makes people like you more.
  4. Write notes after each meaningful conversation.
  5. Exit conversations gracefully.
  6. Follow up and connect on LinkedIn with new and renewed contacts.
  7. Put my LinkedIn QR code on my iPhone home screen to facilitate easy networking. Here’s how.
  8. Add new contacts to my CRM.
  9. Immerse myself in the programming. I am not going to check my email every second or do unnecessary work.
  10. Write a key takeaways blog and LinkedIn post from the sessions I enjoyed and tag the speakers.
  11. Create an email OOO message that supports my brand and business (see example from Paula Edgar).
  12. Have an intimate dinner with my clients/colleagues to get to know them better.

Do you have any tips for in-person networking in the post-pandemic environment?

Article By Stefanie M. Marrone of Stefanie Marrone Consulting

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

Copyright © 2022, Stefanie M. Marrone. All Rights Reserved.

Canada Announces Removal of COVID-19 Border Entry Requirements

The Government of Canada announced, on Monday, September 26, 2022, that after Friday, September 30, 2022, all requirements related to COVID-19 for entering Canada will expire. These include:

  • Providing proof of vaccination and other health information;
  • Mandatory usage of the ArriveCAN application;
  • Pre- or on-arrival testing and/or screening requirements;
  • Random testing at airports;
  • Monitoring and reporting if one develops COVID-19 symptoms;
  • Quarantine and isolation requirements.

As a result, as of September 30, 2022, persons entering Canada would still be required to follow local public health guidelines, where applicable. The removal of measures applies to all forms of travel, including by air, land (including rail), and sea, whether internationally bound or domestic.

Many of these requirements have been in place since early 2020, during the onset of the pandemic. Employers with employees traveling into Canada can be assured that such measures related to COVID-19 will no longer apply as of October 1, 2022. It is important to note that the Government of Canada did leave open the possibility of re-imposing measures if the situation regarding COVID-19 is seen as requiring it.

For more Coronavirus News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Large Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Decrease through First Half of 2022

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decline from mid-2020 pandemic highs.

New York—Following the spike in large corporate bankruptcy filings triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, filings in 2021 and the first half of 2022 fell to levels below historical averages, according to a Cornerstone Research report released today.

The report, Trends in Large Corporate Bankruptcy and Financial Distress—Midyear 2022 Update, examines trends in Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by companies with assets of $100 million or higher. It finds that 70 large companies filed for bankruptcy in 2021, down significantly from 155 in 2020 and below the annual average of 78 filings since 2005. In the first half of 2022, only 20 large companies filed for bankruptcy, compared to midyear totals of 43 in 1H 2021 and 89 in 1H 2020. The 20 bankruptcies in 1H 2022 were the lowest midyear total since the second half of 2014.

“U.S. government stimulus programs, low borrowing rates, and high debt forbearance helped disrupt predictions of continued growth in the number of bankruptcy filings,” said Nick Yavorsky, a report coauthor and Cornerstone Research principal. “Looking ahead, however, there are some concerns that increased corporate debt levels, rising interest rates and inflation, and a potential global recession may contribute to an increase in bankruptcy filings.”

In 2021, there were 20 “mega bankruptcies”—bankruptcy filings among companies with over $1 billion in reported assets—a substantial decline from the 60 mega bankruptcy filings in 2020. The first half of 2022 saw four Chapter 11 mega bankruptcy filings, compared to nine in the first half of 2021 and at a pace significantly lower than the annual average of 22 filings in 2005–2021.

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decrease in 2021 and the first half of 2022, including those industries with the highest number of filings following the pandemic’s onset: Mining, Oil, and Gas; Retail Trade; Manufacturing; and Services.

Read the full report here.

Article By Allie Schwartz, Joseph B. “J.B.” Doyle, Nicholas D. Yavorsky, and Diego Vega San Martin of Cornerstone Research

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

Copyright ©2022 Cornerstone Research

School Law Update: CDC Adjusts Direction on Exposure Quarantine Requirements for Employees

CDC Adjusts Direction on Exposure Quarantine Requirements for Employees

On August 11, 2022, the CDC updated its COVID-19 guidance as the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID exposure has significantly declined. More specific guidance for school districts was issued by the CDC, which can be found here.

In addition, the Department of Public Instruction has published guidance entitled “COVID-19 Infection Control and Mitigation Measures for Wisconsin Schools 2022/2023,” which can be found here.

While we published a Legal Update on the recent CDC guidance changes last week, that Update primarily focused on the private sector. This Update is primarily focused on the impact the new CDC guidance will have on school districts and identifies some of the key changes.

The more significant mask guidance has been reduced. Guidance now indicates that if COVID-19 is at a high Community Level, universal indoor masking in schools is recommended. The CDC also recommends masking in health care settings such as the school nurse’s office. The updated CDC guidance makes significant changes to quarantine and isolation protocols. Asymptomatic (exposed) children and staff, regardless of where the exposure occurred or vaccination status, no longer need to quarantine. Students or staff who self-identify as close contacts may continue to attend school/work if they remain asymptomatic.

Students or staff who come to school with symptoms or develop symptoms while at school should be asked to wear a well-fitting mask or respirator while in the building and be sent home. If testing is unavailable at school, students and staff should also be encouraged to get tested. Symptomatic people who cannot wear a mask should be separated from others as much as possible; children should be supervised by a designated caregiver who is wearing a well-fitting mask or respirator until they leave school grounds but masking with a high quality mask is suggested for 10 days from exposure.

If the school provides COVID-19 testing, a symptomatic student or staff member may remain in school if they are tested immediately onsite, and that test is negative. Best practice would include wearing a mask, if possible, until symptoms are fully resolved. If the student is “too ill” to be in school (fever, severe cough, vomiting, diarrhea, etc.), they should be sent home regardless of COVID-19 test results. If the symptomatic student or staff cannot be tested immediately, they should be sent home and encouraged to use an at-home-test-kit or be referred to a testing site.

Students and staff who test positive for COVID-19 should isolate for at least 5 days. If they are asymptomatic, they may end isolation after Day 5 (return Day 6). If they had symptoms, they may return to school/work after Day 5 if:

  • they are fever-free for 24 hours (without the use of fever-reducing medication)

  • their symptoms are improving

If the individual still has a fever or other symptoms have not improved, they should continue to isolate until the symptoms improve. Once isolation has ended, people should wear a well-fitting mask or respirator around others through Day 10. Testing is not required to determine the end of isolation or mask use following COVID-19 infection.

Article By James R. Macy, Ryan P. Heiden, and Anthony S. Wachewicz III of von Briesen & Roper, s.c.

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

©2022 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Regulations Will Likely Continue in 2023

The current Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) expires at the end of 2022. But Cal/OSHA is not done with COVID-19 regulations. There is a Non-Emergency Regulation in process. The Standards Board recently published its proposed non-emergency regulation and announced a public hearing for September 15, 2022.

Though the proposal is a non-emergency regulation, the proposed text states the requirements would only remain in effect for two years, except for certain recordkeeping requirements.

Here are other highlights of the proposed regulation:

  • Directs employers to include COVID-19 procedures in their written Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or as a separate document.

  • As part of an employer’s COVID-19 procedures, an employer must provide training to employees regarding COVID-19

  • Employers must have effective methods and procedures for responding to COVID-19 cases in the workplace such as exclusion and quarantine requirements.

  • Employers will still have certain notice requirements regarding positive cases in the workplace.

  • Face covering requirements shall still follow California Department of Public Health requirements

One notable omission from the proposed regulation is exclusion pay, which was a very contentious requirement under the ETS.

Article By Sean Paisan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022