Tag: covid

Legal News Reach Episode 4: The Perfect Storm: Law Firm Marketing & Business Development Budgeting with Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 4 of Legal News Reach! National Law Review Managing Director Jennifer Schaller is joined by Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp. Together, they discuss the best budgeting strategies for legal marketing departments as firms emerge from the pandemic with a new set of priorities and perspectives.

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Jennifer Schaller

This is Jennifer Schaller, and I’m the Managing Director of the National Law Review. We’ll be speaking with Beth Cuzzone, who’s the Global Practice Leader of Intapp. Beth, can you tell us a little bit about your background and what you do at Intapp?

Beth Cuzzone

Thank you for asking, Jennifer. I think it’s an important table-setting question. So I recently joined Intapp in 2022. It’s a global technology firm, and it partners with investors and advisors to help them run their businesses. And it basically follows those companies through the lifecycle of their companies, whether it’s intake or relationship management, or deal management, or billing or marketing or risk, and so many other operational functions. But my role Intapp sits in the marketing and business development corner of those companies. So as a Global Practice Leader, I’m responsible for working with a team of subject matter experts who help clients align their strategic priorities with our solutions. It’s been an interesting and challenging shift, because I spent more than 30 years of my career in the very types of companies that Intapp now helps. So it’s been an interesting and exciting and challenging change all at once. And I think it also gives me a unique lens into what we’re going to be diving into today.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, wow, it sounds like a spot-on match here we have today. So let’s dig into it. We’re talking about law firm budgets. So for this upcoming budget cycle, for firms who are either almost done with it, or in the process, or close to wrapping it up. What’s different this year than in previous years in law firm marketing and business development departments?

Beth Cuzzone

In one word, everything. If we take a step back and look at the easy formula that law firms have used traditionally when creating their budgets, there hasn’t been a lot of secret sauce. In its simplest form, and I am oversimplifying it for illustrative purposes, but in its simplest form, law firms for years and years and years, and year over year, would take into consideration their former budget number and give it an increase that aligned with the firm’s increase in their revenue for that year. And then the real work would begin on saying, Okay, we’re going to give ourselves a 2 or 3% increase, because we increased our revenue by 8%. So we’re going to take some slice of that, and we’re going to increase what we did last year, and then they would reallocate that number. And so if it was my budget was $1,000 last year, and you know, now I’m going to increase it by 3%, it’s going to be $1,300. And now let me just play around with the line items and see where we want to spend a little more, where we want to spend a little less. Given the years that we’ve had coming up to the 2023 budget season, we had 2020, when the pandemic hit, we had 2021, where we were still experiencing the effects of that. And then in 2022 as people tried to move back into some normalcy of spend market, you know, marketing, outreach, awareness, credibility, relationships, going back into the office, that sort of thing, the budgets are a little bit all over the place. So to answer your question, why is this coming year’s budget different? It’s because you don’t have last year’s budget that you get to just reset.

The interesting thing is that I think it actually is going to provide opportunities to relook at the way you think of your budget and think a little bit about very specific line items. You know, I do think one of the places that people are going to spend a lot of time thinking about is digital marketing. And, you know, a question I had for you is, have you seen an uptick in the digital marketing spend from law firms, where we were pre-pandemic, to pandemic to where people are moving towards?

Jennifer Schaller

That’s kind of a multi-layered question. I mean, over the last five years, there’s obviously been a switch to more digital. There’s a couple of different things going on in the larger digital advertising industry. Advertising rates right now as a whole are pretty suppressed digitally. So that’s impacting us a little bit, just because the baseline is down. But if you’re in a specific niche, like the National Law Review, where you know, we very much have the traffic and the audience, there’s always going to be a demand for it. What’s going to be super interesting to see is when cookies go away. People keep talking about that, because that’s going to make the content on the website far more relevant, as opposed to having retargeting ads and things like that. But the date keeps changing on that. So, you know, we’ll let you know when we know. And related to publishing end of it, there’s been a bit of a sea change on that. There always was sort of a pushback or a stigma somewhat attached to pay-for-play publishing. But a little bit of a difference with that is, over time, most marketing professionals, especially in legal, understand that there’s costs involved in running a quality publication, if you want to have analytics, if you want to have a responsive staff who’s around to make edits, that you have to pay for that, and that, you know, if you don’t have money coming in from subscriptions, if you’re a no login website, that there’s going to be cost. So there’s been a bit of a change there. There’s more receptiveness to it. And I think maybe because law firms themselves understand what it takes to publish, they’re a little more forgiving, and understanding that we have costs too, if that makes any sense.

Beth Cuzzone

It makes complete sense. It makes complete sense. And again, there’s no direct answer to some of these complicated questions that we’re asking each other today about where people are spending and where it’s going versus where it’s been when we’ve had this pause on so many levels. And like you said, I also just think that the lens of the marketing and business development departments and law firms are really starting to appreciate that looking at digital assets as a way to create awareness and credibility is going to be a leader in their budget.

Jennifer Schaller

Well, yes, especially since events have changed and gone away. And a lot of sponsorships have changed. And given that pandemic ripple effect of live events versus sponsoring tables at events, which used to be a part of legal marketing department spends, what’s becoming more the standard for law firm, legal marketing department and business development spend, is it changed? Is it reallocating? How is that working?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s a great question. So typically–I heard somebody say once, law firms are like snowflakes, everyone is different. And I know that when I look at industry statistics that talks about the swing of spend, that has to do with you know, the percentage of revenue of law firms, that it goes anywhere from 2 or 3% to 18, 19, 20%. And the reason that they have that swing is because in some marketing and business development department budgets, they include personnel when others don’t, okay, or in some marketing and business development, department budgets, it’s all marketing, whether it’s for the HR department, or legal recruiting, or the firm, and others. Those are each very separate departments and separate budgets. So there is this huge spread across the industry. But I think for most firms, we’re going to find that there’s that 3.5 or 4% to 8% budget target of revenue. And that’s kind of where people settle in. There are outliers on both sides. And interestingly, there’s often some surprises. I find that sometimes some of the smaller, mid-sized firms have larger percentage budgets. But I think that’s because they can’t enjoy the scales of economy that larger firms can. If you’re looking at your budget, and we can talk about this in a little bit, you know, in 2020 when the pandemic started, all discretionary budget items were removed from law firms, whether it was in marketing and business development or not. So it was like, “Unless we’re contractually obligated to pay something, we’re taking it off the table.” And so now firms are getting that opportunity to rebuild it. And again, that approach and that budgeting exercise is a real opportunity for these firms to say, “What haven’t we been asking ourselves?” Or, “What haven’t we done that we’ve wanted to? What’s not in our budget? What should be or what are the opportunities out there in terms of places or people or technology or intersections that we’ve never tried before?” So I think there’s some of those questions that are happening, too.

Jennifer Schaller

Yeah, I think if anything, this is just helpful to know, to have legal marketers or even law firm administrators, or management know how to ask questions about legal marketing budgets, that there is such a wide range, but the wide range prompts people to ask the question, “What’s in that figure and what’s not?”  I’ve never really had it broken down that well before. So thank you for taking the time to spell that out. Because it’s not spelled out a lot of different places. Many people will appreciate that.

When you’re talking about law firm marketing budgets, what’s the difference between acquisition marketing and retention marketing and preparing budgets? Should law firms dedicate more resources to one or the other? Or is it some sort of blend?

Beth Cuzzone

That is a very forward-thinking question that you’re laying out there. Because I think that law firms basically had two types of buckets, if you will: they thought of it as awareness and credibility building, or relationship building, it was one of the two. And so they had some things around awareness and credibility, we talked a little bit about it earlier, you know, it’s that one to many, the website, you know, the content, the newsletters, the big events, that sort of thing. And then the relationships are kind of those one-on-ones. It’s the spending time going out and sitting down with a prospective client to learn something, or having an entertainment budget or doing some small roundtables with thought leadership, or sitting down with different decision makers at a particular client site so that you’re staying close to them. And it was a little bit all over the place. And the shift that I’m starting to see happen is that law firms are starting to break down their budgets into exactly what you said: acquisition marketing, which is, “How are we getting new clients?” versus retention marketing, which is, “how are we keeping and growing the clients that we have, or the brands that we have, or the relationships that we have?” And by doing that, they’re also starting to do account-based marketing. And they’re able to put their budgets together and say, “We’re going to spend 70, or 60, or 80% of our budget on our existing relationships, because we know that it costs six to eight time more money, resources, people budgets to get a new client than it does to keep and grow an existing one. So when you look at the scale of acquisition versus retention, retention is going to get that bigger budget. And then the acquisition is going to have a smaller wallet share of the overall budget. But within that big budget, you’re going to start that retention budget, you’re going to start to see that being broken down a little bit by account-based marketing as therefore account based budgeting. Again, this is a little bit around the corner. And this is I think what firms are going to be dealing with over the next five years of exactly being able to measure their return on objectives or their return on investments and where their money is really being spent. Because they’re going to be tying it down to very specific objectives and very specific strategies, if you will.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so what would be some of the areas that there would be an overlap, like between acquisition and retention marketing, would that fall in the digital area? Or where would that be?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s a perfect example, please look at what we’re talking about like a Venn diagram, right, you’ve got your acquisition, you’ve got your retention and then there’s the place where they overlay. Digital assets are a perfect example that fall into both. It’s helping you in the marketplace. And it’s helping you find your next big relationships and clients and referral sources. And those are the same assets that you can use to add value and stay close to some of your existing relationships, places where they start to separate a little bit, again, is really by account or by client, client-based marketing versus account-based marketing. And so you might have a firm where you say, we’re going to spend a lot of our travel and entertainment budget on going to each one of their offices and doing junior executive training. So that we’re aligning ourselves with the next generation of decision makers, and that’s how we want to spend our money and our time and our budget and our resources and our people on that particular client this year, sort of thing. So it all depends, again, on the strategy. And it also depends a little bit on the firm.

Jennifer Schaller

Yeah, would it vary by practice group, or just like, if you had a firm that was, you know, just intellectual property law based, would there be differences in the ratio or the mix or network?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s a great question. So there are some firms and also practice areas where there’s annuity streams, if you will, right. There’s just an ongoing, “We represent this particular finance institution on all of these sorts of loans. And, you know, we do 5, 10, 15 a year for them.” Think about if you were actually a litigator, and you were representing financial institutions where you didn’t know how many you were going to have in a year or whether you were not going to have any for two years and how they think of you and they call us when it’s about the company or they don’t call us when it’s about the company so you have to again, look at the firm, its strategy, the cadence of those open matters, the cadence of when they’re being asked to help clients and then try to align your budget and the activities in your budget around those very objectives. Does that make sense?

Jennifer Schaller

Yeah, it does. A lot of what you’re breaking down is really helpful because people throw numbers out there, but they don’t go into the details of what moves the numbers up or down, like your example of depending on if the law firm is including the expenses for HR, or including the salaries of the marketing department in there, that should make a big difference. And nobody really spells that out. So that was very helpful.

Beth Cuzzone

What kinds of trends are you seeing…there’s this nuance that’s happening now Jennifer, where there was a period of time “back in the day” where all law firms took out one-page ads in some of the biggest business-to-business publications and journals, or like yours, very, very niche, industry-specific news-related channels. And it was “we want to be top of mind” with whoever the reader is, whether it’s our peers, whether it’s our competition, whether it’s a referral source, whether it’s a potential client, whether it’s somebody on the other side of the table, and over time, that awareness campaign started to move into that content campaign. And I’d really be interested to see how are law firms maintaining that mindshare in the marketplace? What are you seeing?

Jennifer Schaller

Some big change from print, and what’s really changed–COVID was sort of terrible for the world, but in a lot of ways good for law firms and legal publishing. Because there were so many rapid developments of a legal or administrative or regulatory nature going on, there was just a lot of content to be written on and a lot of people looking for that content. So there was inherently a lot of traffic just being driven by COVID and all the related changes to it. Now that that’s leveled out a little bit, what we’re seeing from law firms is when they do their informative writing, meeting, talking about cases that happened and why that’s important to a particular industry, or new regulations that are on the horizon, what’s a little bit different is they’re starting to impose–not impose, but impart–their personality a little bit more. We’re seeing more content come in where it talks about people’s journey in the legal profession, how they balance working from home or transitioning out of working from home in a little bit more with the content. So before there was very little of that. I mean, there was some. It’s pretty prevalent now where we’ll see many law firms just have entire blogs and podcasts and a whole kind of vertical dedicated to life balance, people’s career paths, and things like that, which is a bit different than what we’ve seen before. I think it provides a good opportunity for law firms to tease out their competitive differences just by letting people know who they are, because ultimately, with law firms, they’re buying the person and their knowledge and their background. And this is kind of a more forward way of doing it than what’s been done in the past.

Beth Cuzzone

You know, it’s so interesting to hear you say that. I don’t think I really put such a fine point on it until you just mentioned it. All law firms do the same thing. For the most part, a general practice firm does the same thing as the next general practice, you know, an IP boutique does the same thing as the next IP. But how you do it, who you do it with and the culture is what your differentiator is. And you’re right, as I’m thinking a little bit about the sorts of information that I’m seeing, either the types of information or the personality in which people are writing, it really is giving firms a way to showcase their culture and who they are and their differentiator as opposed to all sounding like really smart law firms.

Jennifer Schaller

It’s that and I think it’s a little bit recruiting as well. I mean, the whole world has experienced quite a bit of turnover. Law firms have always had more turnover than other industries. So we’d have some stuff coming in where folks are interviewing their summer associates. And they’re doing that on a couple different levels. I think it plays to people who may be interested to know how a person got a summer associate position at an Am law firm, but also, you know, it’s a big hug to that person, and it shows in a recruiting sense that that law firm really cares about folks at all levels of the organization. We wouldn’t have seen that 10 years ago, so that’s just really different.

Okay, so let’s get into the fun part: budgeting tips! You’ve been doing budgets for years, you work with an organization that helps law firms kind of balance competing things for their attention and help tease out what’s probably the best bet for the firm. Do you have a few tips to share with our readers, or our readers and our listeners today, concerning law firm budgets, what to include what to not get pushed back on?

Beth Cuzzone

Yes, I think that there are a few best practices out there that law firm marketing and business development departments want to be thinking about as they’re either negotiating their budgets with firm management, or if they’re actually putting it together. We talked a little bit about the fact that historically firms have used the previous year and that budget number is a benchmark. Ironically, in 2022 law firm marketing and business development budgets increased by more than 100%. And again, it’s because in 2020, and 2021, they were decimated, it was the place where there was the most discretion in the budget, there were things like they weren’t going to be doing sponsorships, they weren’t going to be holding webinars, they weren’t going to be traveling to see clients or things–like take it all out. So then when we started to move towards this normalcy of, “let’s get back to business in 2022”, with a kinder, gentler, more softer approach, they had to increase their budgets by more than 100%. So the first thing I would say is, do not prepare your 2023 budget based on your 2022 budget, because you’re going to show that there’s already been 100% increase, and there will probably be very little wiggle room. I would also scrap 2020 and 2021. So I think one of my tips or best practices is, use 2019 as your benchmark, not 2021 or 22. For the reasons we’ve just talked about.

The other thing, you just mentioned this in the way you asked the question, is that there is a very complex ecosystem in law firms, and the marketing and business development budget is one of many competing priorities. And I think understanding that budgeting is a long-term game, not one you win every year. And so what I’m trying to say is, take a panoramic view of where the firm is, what they’re trying to accomplish, what some of their major goals are for the next year or two, look left and look right at what other operating department budgets are going to be impacted by that, and prepare your budget within the context of what’s happening. So don’t ask for the greatest budget increase among every operations department, every year. There becomes a fatigue, where it’s like, “Nope, just give them the 2%, we’re not going to listen to why they deserve more every year, year over year than every other department.” So I think walking in and being able to communicate, “We understand that lateral growth is one of our top strategic priorities, and that you’re going to be spending a lot of our budget on legal recruiting. So this year, I’ve put in some particular items and activities that will support legal recruiting, and I’ve moved my budget request from a 6% increase to a 2% increase.” And again, you can negotiate two or three years in advance, then say, “I just ask that when we’re looking at my budget in two years, or in three years that we appreciate that I’m asking for a smaller increase this year, given where we are, what we’re doing.” You know, it also goes a long way when there’s been a down year.

So, so far we’ve said, use 2019 as your benchmark, don’t ask for the greatest budget increase among every operations department every year, try to negotiate for two or three years in advance at your firm, but also negotiate two or three years in advance with your partners or vendors, depending on what you call them. You know, to be able to say, “Listen, we want to do this. And we can’t be all-in this year because our budget isn’t going to allow us, but can we negotiate an 18-month relationship with you and spread it over a 24-month period?” Negotiate a little bit! These are companies that want to partner with you. I also think it never hurts to ask and get comfortable with, again, just partnering with your vendors. That’s why I always call them partners and not vendors. Be comfortable with partnering with them and saying, “Look here are two or three things I’m trying to accomplish. And I only see one of those things in the proposal that you sent to me. Are there some things that you can put in here that are revenue neutral? Or are there ways that you can reallocate our spend and help me hit these other budget objectives?” They’ll work with you. So negotiate with management and then partner with your vendors.

I’ve been talking with a lot of firms. And another thing that I’m seeing firms really start to do is ask themselves, “Where is the lowest risk and the highest return?” and vice versa, and making sure that your budget is representing that like, “Boy, this is the lowest risk and a really good return. So we’re going to do more of this. And this is a really high risk, very questionable return. We’re going to do less of this.” And by the way, having those conversations with your management committee or your manageing partners or your executive committee about the ways that you’re looking at risk versus return, or contextually where you are in the firm’s operational churn, if you will, those sorts of things will help you in the long run.

Jennifer Schaller

It’s really great that you point out the need to let your vendors know what your goals are. It’s very challenging sometimes when people are like, “What’s the price? You know, what, what, what is your best price?” What is important to you? It’s not really a negotiating technique, we want to know where to focus to best meet your needs. And if we have no concept of what your goals are, or what you’re trying to highlight, it makes it infinitely more challenging.

This year, or any historically, are there budget items that you would suggest CMOs pay more attention to this year than in previous years or anything that’s unique about this year that they might want to highlight other than the points that you made about using 2019 as a base point versus the previous two years? Which were just weird. Is there anything else different?

Beth Cuzzone

You know, I think this is the time everybody is peeking over the horizon wondering, “Is there a downturn? Is there a recession? Is there a down year coming? What do we do?” You know, you’ve got, you’re asking yourself all of those questions. I think this is also a year, when you’re looking at your budget, to look at things that are driving efficiencies, scalability, revenue generation, right? There’s a difference between cost and investment. Make sure that your budget has a nice healthy mix of, “These are things where we want to spend money to get more money. And then these are places where we want to spend money so that we can meet an objective,” and I call them return on objectives, and return on investments. “We want to be known in this new market. We want to open up an office in Texas. And so we’re going to be spending a lot of time and money and energy and budget on really getting the word out creating some top of mind awareness in Texas.” That’s an objective, right? If it is that we really want to get a little closer to the bottom quartile of our clients in terms of revenue and say, “How can we help them with more problems than we do now? How do we take them and really try to grow the wallet share that they spend on outside counsel?” That’s a return on investment. So you know, have that healthy mix on return on investment, and return on objective.

Jennifer Schaller

Fair enough. So briefly, your firm Intapp? How do they help law firms with their budgeting process? Are there specific things that they’re set up to do to help?

Beth Cuzzone

Thank you for asking me that and for being so gracious. Because yes, I think the answer is yes. So Intapp can help law firms create insights to find revenue, find where there’s work that’s more profitable, find where, you know, there’s whitespace, and opportunities, or be able to basically measure things, and have this one source of truth in your law firm, where you’ve got all of these technologies that help all of these different operating departments that all connect, that’s why it’s called Intapp, there’s an integration to this, and they all integrate and talk to each other. And those kinds of insights can inform law firms about the kind of money that they’re spending and the kind of return that they’re getting. And it can be as simple as looking at your marketing campaign open rate for your last email, all the way to looking at some very strategic insights of “here are some spaces or places in our firm where we could be working closer with clients, or an industry where we haven’t saturated as much as we could.” So it can go from tactical to strategic, and that’s what Intapp does. That’s why it’s such an amazing company.

Jennifer Schaller

So is Intapp more process or technology based or kind of marrying the both of them when they work with law firms?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s another great question. So it’s a technology company. And I think the thing I’ve been most surprised with is the brainpower that sits in Intapp and all of the people that are there to help clients successfully deploy, or change management professionals that help you get more engagement at your firm, or help you with use cases of smarter ways to use the technology.

So Intapp sells technology that has professionals that help you with the people in the process as well. It’s a little competitive secret.

Jennifer Schaller

Sounds like a good match. As always, we appreciate Beth’s time sharing her thoughts with us and her experience and kind of the trends that she’s seeing and marrying it with the experience that she’s had over the years. Thank you very much.

Beth Cuzzone

It was so great to see you, Jennifer. So great to see you. Thank you for inviting me and be well. True North.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Article By The National Law Review Editorial Team 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

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

EEOC Sanctions Employer for GINA Violations Relating to Collection of Employees’ Family Members’ COVID Test Results

On July 6, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it has entered into a conciliation agreement with a Florida-based medical practice for violations of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) arising out of the practice’s collection of employees’ family members’ COVID-19 testing results.

In a press release announcing the agreement, the EEOC stated that, following an investigation, it found that the medical practice – Brandon Dermatology – violated GINA by requesting the test results of employees’ family members and that “[s]uch conduct violates the GINA, which prohibits employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information about applicants or employees and their family members, except in very narrow circumstances which do not apply in this matter.”  GINA defines “genetic information” to include “the manifestation of a disease or disorder in an employee’s family members.”

While the press release includes limited details on the matter, the EEOC noted that “[i]n addition to compensating affected employees through restoration of leave time or back pay, as well as compensatory damages, the conciliation agreement resolving the charge requires Brandon Dermatology to review its COVID-19 policies; conduct training on EEO laws as they pertain to COVID-19; and post a notice.”

In its technical assistance guidance relating to COVID-19, the EEOC states that GINA “prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members” including asking an employee who is physically coming into the workplace whether they have family members who have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19.  However, the guidance goes on to state that “GINA . . . does not prohibit an employer from asking employees whether they have had contact with anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 or who may have symptoms associated with the disease.”  It also notes that “from a public health perspective, only asking about an employee’s contact with family members would unnecessarily limit the information obtained about an employee’s potential exposure to COVID-19.”

Article By Evandro C Gigante and Laura M. Fant of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

CMS Reduces COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Surveys and Rescinds Surveyor Vaccination Requirements

In two recent memoranda, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made changes to previously issued survey guidance related to COVID-19 vaccination issues.

In QSO-22-17-ALL, CMS modified the frequency by which State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations will survey for compliance with the federal staff vaccine mandate applicable to health care providers and suppliers (discussed in a prior post).  Noting that 95% of providers and suppliers surveyed have been found in substantial compliance with the rule, CMS is eliminating the previous requirement that State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations survey for compliance with the vaccine mandate during every survey.  Review of compliance with vaccine mandate is still required, however, during initial surveys, recertification surveys, and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  This means that a State Agency or Accreditation Organization is not required to review compliance with the staff vaccination requirement during, for example, a validation survey or a complaint survey unrelated to compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  A State Agency or Accreditation Organization may still choose to expand any survey to include review of vaccine mandate compliance; however, the new guidance should result in a reduction in survey frequency of this issue for providers and suppliers.

In QSO-22-18-ALL, CMS rescinded, in its entirety, the previously issued QSO-22-10-ALL memorandum, which had mandated that surveyors of State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations be vaccinated for COVID-19.  However, CMS noted that the State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations were responsible for compliance and prohibited providers and suppliers from asking surveyors for proof of vaccination.  While CMS is now encouraging vaccination of surveyors performing federal oversight surveys, the mandate for vaccination is no longer in effect.

Article By Allen R. Killworth of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Governor Rolls Back California COVID-19 Executive Orders & Cal/OSHA Releases Draft Permanent COVID-19 Standard

On June 17, 2022, Governor Newsom issued an executive order terminating certain provisions of prior executive orders related to Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Some of the terminated orders were no longer necessary due to changes in the ETS. For example, previously the Governor had issued an executive order stating exclusion periods could not be longer than California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines or local ordinances. However, since the ETS now defers to CDPH guidance on isolation and quarantine, the Governor has rescinded his prior executive order on this issue. Moreover, Cal/OSHA has issued guidance for employers on COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine that aligns with CDPH requirements.

The current version of the ETS remains in effect until the end of 2022. However, Cal/OSHA won’t be done with COVID-19 regulations in 2023. The agency is currently working on a permanent COVID-19 Standard. Recently, the draft of the proposed regulation was released.

The draft regulation carries over many of the employer obligations from the current ETS. The following are some of the proposed requirements:

  • COVID-19 procedures, either included in their Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or a separate document.
  • Exclusion and prevention requirements for positive employees and close contacts.
  • Employers would continue to be required to provide testing to employees who have a close contact in the workplace.
  • Employers would continue to have notice requirements for COVID-19 exposure.
  • Employers would continue to have to provide face coverings to employees.
  • Employers would continue to have reporting and recordkeeping requirements for COVID-19 cases and outbreaks in the workplace.

Currently, no public hearing has been set for the proposed permanent COVID-19 Standard, so it is uncertain how soon the regulations may be implemented.

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

Monkeypox—Do Employers Need to Worry?

Several cases of monkeypox have now been found in the United States. We do not yet know whether employers will need to worry about monkeypox in the context of their workforces and workplace, but it may be wise to be informed.

Monkeypox is a viral illness that has symptoms including body aches, headaches, fatigue, and, notably, a bumpy skin rash. It is primarily found in Africa, most particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Monkeypox has an incubation period that generally lasts 7-14 days but can be as long as 5-21 days. It has now recently been found in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The first case reported was in Massachusetts in a man who had been to Canada. The second was in New York City by another individual who had a virus similar to monkeypox. And the third was a “presumptive case” involving a Broward County, Florida, man who had traveled internationally, the CDC said.

Unlike what we have been through with COVID-19, wearing a mask will likely not be an issue with monkeypox. It is spread through infected animals, prolonged person-to-person contact, direct contact with lesion materials, or indirect contact through contaminated items, such as contaminated clothing. Avoiding these will help avoid the possibility of infection. Since frequent handwashing continues to be a good hygiene practice, continuing to make this an easy and frequent practice for employees is generally a good health practice, according to health officials.

Monkeypox has also recently been found in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. According to public health officials, the risk of exposure remains low although there are expected to be more cases in the United States. Health officials believe the smallpox vaccination will offer some amount of protection from monkeypox.

Employers that have employees who are soon to travel internationally, either for personal or business reasons, may want to consider educating them on the symptoms, how the virus is transmitted, and the fact that they may wish to consult with their own healthcare practitioners about the smallpox vaccination. There is no indication that travel should be avoided or prohibited.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

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

Return to Work Considerations – COVID and the ADA

Employers are contending with difficult challenges unlike any time in modern history. Even though many employees, especially in the manufacturing industry, returned to work after working from home during the COVID pandemic, the effects of the increased flexibility seen during the COVID era linger. Many employees enjoyed the benefits of working from home during the last two years, even if only part-time, and do not want to give up the benefit. By contrast, and especially as COVID restrictions ease, employers often desire their workforce return to work in a more consistent and routine capacity. These tensions are further complicated by an extremely competitive labor market. Recruiting and retaining employees is a challenge in the current environment. Against this backdrop, prudent employers will keep in mind employment law considerations when developing return-to-work and work-from-home policies.

Where should an employer look to determine what accommodations it should make for an employee who wishes to work from home, either due to a COVID diagnosis and/or a condition that places the employee at a heightened risk for severe COVID? Early in the pandemic, local or state health orders answered such questions regarding COVID-related leave. As the pandemic continued, many of those local health orders were rescinded or expired. As a result, employers are left without clear local guidance. When local requirements are of no assistance, employers should look to CDC guidance for quarantining and isolating guidelines.

In addition, employers should keep in mind that COVID may qualify as a “disability” depending on the symptoms and their severity. If an employee tests positive for COVID and is experiencing symptoms that require an absence from work that is longer than the CDC recommended quarantine period, employers should involve legal counsel to analyze whether the employee’s COVID diagnosis constitutes a disability under the ADA. If it does constitute a disability, the employer is then required to engage in the interactive process under the ADA with the employee to determine whether a reasonable accommodation for the disability can be made. Leave can be an accommodation under the ADA, as can working from home, in certain circumstance and for certain roles.

Likewise, some disabilities may heighten the risk of severe COVID symptoms. In the event that such a disabled employee requests an accommodation related to this heightened risk of COVID, the employer should treat the request as it would any request for accommodation under the ADA. As always, employers should seek legal counsel and check local requirements regarding COVID leave when considering accommodations for employees in these circumstances.

Employers have many competing and challenging considerations when determining a company’s return-to-work policy. While the labor shortage, industry, and specific role considerations certainly play a part in those decisions, employers should not lose sight of the ADA’s additional requirements. The ADA may play a role on an individual level and affect whether an employee may seek leave, work from home, or is entitled to other accommodations related to a COVID diagnosis or high-risk factors.

Article By Felicia S. O’Connor of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

FDA and FTC Issue Warning Letters to CBD Companies

  • On March 28, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly issued seven warning letters to companies marketing cannabidiol (CBD) products with COVID-19 related claims.
  • Specifically, the agencies warned the following companies regarding the promotion of their respective products with claims that they cure, mitigate, treat or prevent COVID-19: Cureganics, Heaven’s Organics LLC, Functional Remedies, LLC D/B/A Synchronicity Hemp Oil, Greenway Herbal Products LLC, CBD Social, UPSY LLC, and Nature’s Highway. Examples of claims include: “Our research suggest that CBD . . . can block SARS-Cov-2 infection at early and even later stages of infection. . .”, “Studies Show CBD Compounds Prevent COVID Cells From Replicating”, and “Can CBD Help with the Fight Against COVID? Some of the worst effects of COVID are caused by inflammation, and CBD is a potent anti-inflammatory.”
  • By way of background, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), products intended to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease are considered drugs and are subject to the requirements that apply to drugs. Therefore, the agencies classified the products as unapproved and misbranded drugs that may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without prior approval from FDA.
  • The letters included a cease-and-desist demand from FTC, prohibiting the companies from making such COVID-19 related claims. The companies were provided with 48 hours to respond with specific steps that were taken to correct the violations.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

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

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Better Late than Never, Just About – UK Government Issues Workplace Guidance on Living with COVID

So with Covid 19 now officially behind us for all purposes (except actual reality, obviously), we have now been graced by the Government’s new “Living with Covid” guidance.  This was due to come into force on 1 April and was released fashionably late in the afternoon on, well, 1st April.  You could say with some justification that this did not give employers much time to prepare, but that is OK because on close review of the guidance there is in fact very little to prepare for.  As a steer to businesses, this is little short of directionless.

First, it makes the obvious point that the abolition of the requirement to give covid express consideration in workplace risk assessments does not take away any of the employer’s obligations to continue to comply with its health & safety, employment and equality duties (in the latter two cases, although unsaid, presumably as they may be affected by the former).

From there, the Government moves to normalise covid through a long list of symptoms common to it, colds, flu and other respiratory diseases – fair enough so far – but also to other quite unrelated conditions such as hangovers, migraines, food poisoning, being unfit, malaria and frankly just getting old (“unexplained tiredness, lack of energy”).  The list is significantly expanded from the traditional trio of continuous cough, fever, loss of taste and smell and now also includes muscle pain, diarrhoea, headache, loss of appetite and “feeling sick” (what, really?). Some medical practitioners say that this is long overdue recognition of all the things covid can do to you. However, it is still a wincingly unhappy expansion for employers, since the published list now essentially includes something from pretty much every ailment known to man. The guidance notes that it will not usually be possible to tell whether you have covid or something else from the symptoms alone and of course the free testing by which that could have been determined in the past is now largely withdrawn.  Therefore the guidance to individuals is that “if you have symptoms of a respiratory infection such as covid and you have a high temperature or you do not feel well enough to go to work, you are advised to try to stay at home and avoid contact with other people” and then “Try to work from home if you can.  If you are unable to work from home you should talk to your employer about options available to you”.  Given the rich panoply of symptoms now available to the discerning malingerer, justifying taking yourself home for five days while you work out whether your headache is covid or just a headache has never been so easy.

As a result, the burden is shifted squarely to employers to keep up the anti-covid fight, and in particular to decide whether to maintain restrictions on entry to their premises for those who are unvaccinated and/or untested.  Both will be increasingly difficult to sustain in view of the obvious official indifference to the question evidenced by the guidance, which focuses instead on the traditional measures of ventilation, regular cleaning of high-touch surfaces, provision of sanitiser and hygiene advice, etc. The other big hole in the guidance is as to the employer’s rights (or is it obligation?) to send someone home if they have one or more of that long list of potentially relevant symptoms, and even if the employee himself feels able to work and/or cannot work from home.  Nor does it deal with the employees’ sick pay rights in those cases.

Taking a reasonably hawkish view of those two questions:-

  1. If you know that the employee has symptoms which could well indicate that he is suffering from covid, and even if it could equally be something less serious, are you complying with your Health & Safety at Work Act duty to take all reasonably practicable steps to maintain a safe system of work if you allow him in anyway?  If he works in a sparsely –occupied well-ventilated area, perhaps yes, but otherwise probably not.  Given the virulence of Omicron, it is unarguably foreseeable that allowing someone who may have it to breathe wantonly on other people may lead to their contracting it too.  It is also clearly foreseeable, if no longer as much so as with the earlier covid variants, that those other people may become properly ill or die as a result.  Put mathematically, breach of duty + foreseeable risk of injury + causation + actual injury = liability.

So in my view, despite the vacuum in the new guidance, an employer not just can, but really should send home immediately an employee with any material case of the symptoms listed, as a minimum until it becomes clear that the real issue is something else (though not malaria – best not let them in either).

A firm stance on this will also help combat reluctance to return to the office among those staff concerned about the health risk of doing so.  If they or their cohabitants are particularly vulnerable, the knowledge that basically no precautions are being taken to ensure that those present in the workplace are all covid-free will only feed those anxieties.

  1. If the employee is sent home on these grounds and cannot work there, will he be entitled to full salary (as it was not by his choice) or sick pay only?  In many cases he will be back within a week and the two may be the same.  Where they are not, however, I believe that it would strictly be sick pay only – though the employee may himself be physically able to work, he is practically unable to do so by reason of his own possible medical condition, the risk it may pose to others in the workplace and the duty of the employer to take reasonable steps to head off that risk.  That said, there are employment relations arguments both ways on this – on the one hand, that the symptoms listed are so varied and transient that they represent an easy avenue for abuse, and on the other that if reporting them means you get packed off home on reduced pay (perhaps none until SSP kicks in on day 4), you are much less likely to report them in the first place and will probably prefer to pass your day posing an undeclared but potentially quite serious risk to your colleagues.

Article By David Whincup of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Debt Ceiling Shrinks for Small Business Bankruptcies

Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which took effect in February 2020, creates a more streamlined and less expensive Chapter 11 reorganization path for small business debtors.  Under the law as originally passed, to be eligible for Subchapter V, a debtor (whether an entity or an individual) had to be engaged in commercial activity and its total debts — secured and unsecured – had to be less than $2,725,625.  At least half of those debts must have come from business activity.

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the CARES Act, which raised the Subchapter V debt ceiling to $7.5 million for one year.  Congress extended it to March 27, 2022.  A bipartisan Senate bill would make the Subchapter V debt limit permanent at $7.5 million and index it to inflation.  But Congress has not yet passed the legislation or sent it to President Biden for signature.  So, for now, the debt ceiling has shrunk to the original $2,725,625.

Subchapter V has proven popular, with over 3,100 cases filed in the last two years (78 in North Carolina).  Many of those cases could not have proceeded under Subchapter V but for the higher debt limits.  The American Bankruptcy Institute has reported that Subchapter V cases are experiencing higher plan-confirmation rates, speedier plan confirmation, more consensual plans, and improved cost-effectiveness than if those cases had been filed as a traditional Chapter 11.  Anecdotally, most debtors in North Carolina are filing under Subchapter V if they are eligible.

We will continue to monitor legislative activity and report if Congress passes a law to reinstate the $7.5 million debt ceiling.

Article By Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

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

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.