Employment Law Archives - Page 2 of 35

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

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

Procedural History

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

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

NLRB Finds Wearing BLM Insignia at Work Constitutes Protected Activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is H-1B filing season important?

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

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

Electronic registration process in 2024

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

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

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

Are there certain employees we should consider registering?

Yes, four situations come to mind:

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

Why F-1 students?

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

Why L-1 intracompany transferees?

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

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

Why H-4 spouses with employment authorization documents?

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

Why TN employees?

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

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

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

Chicago’s New Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance Delayed Six Months

Just over a month after passing the Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (the Ordinance), which brought sweeping new paid leave and paid sick leave requirements to employers with Chicago employees, the city has amended the Ordinance to delay its effective date and limit the number of covered employees.

As amended, the Ordinance will not take effect until July 1, 2024, rather than December 31, 2023. In addition, the Ordinance no longer covers employees who have worked merely two hours within the city in any two-week period. Instead, the Ordinance now reverts to the definition of “Covered Employee” found in the current Chicago and Cook County paid sick leave ordinances: an employee who has worked at least 80 hours in any 120-day period within the city’s geographic limits.

The amended Ordinance also potentially gives employers an opportunity to remedy Ordinance violations before being subject to claims for non-compliance. Specifically, employees will be prohibited from filing claims against their employers until the earlier of 16 days or the next regular payday after the employer’s alleged violation. While described by some as a “cure” period, there is no requirement that an employee actually notify their employer of an alleged violation before bringing a claim. For employers concerned about fielding claims for inadvertent violations, this change may be small comfort.

With the effective date of the Ordinance delayed until July 1, 2024, Chicago employers now have six more months to prepare for its new requirements. In the meantime, the city’s current paid sick leave ordinance remains in effect, so for now that benefit is business as usual for Chicago employers.

What Are the Top 3 Labor Law Developments of 2023 (So Far)?

It’s hard to believe the end of 2023 is upon us. This year is one for the history books on the labor law and labor relations fronts. In a year packed with significant legal landscape changes and high-profile labor disputes, it’s worth a quick recap of what are – in my view – the top 3 developments.

1. NLRB Revamps the Union Organizing Process

At the top of my list are changes the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made to the union organizing process. The board did several things in this regard. First, the NLRB reinstated the Obama-era “ambush” election rules that accelerate the union election timetable. Specifically, these rules truncate the amount of time between an election petition being filed and a vote being held (i.e., shorten the amount of time a company has to campaign).

Second, the agency issued arguably one of its most groundbreaking decisions in decades in Cemex. In that case, the NLRB altered the framework for how unions can and will be recognized and significantly loosened the standard for Draconian bargaining orders in some cases. Bottom line: The legal landscape, relatively speaking, makes it exponentially easier for workers to vote in unions now.

2. UAW Strikes at the Big 3

Labor relations issues haven’t been top headlines in recent decades. That changed this year. The ongoing nationwide union push at Starbucks over the last two years has garnered much attention, along with some other high-profile union pushes and disputes. But the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) coordinated strike efforts at Detroit’s “Big Three” automakers truly was remarkable in terms of the national attention it garnered. For the first time, the UAW struck General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (aka Chrysler) at once.

The UAW took a creative approach: it targeted specific plants for work stoppages while leaving others operational. This approach had two primary benefits to the union: 1) it allowed it to slow the cash burn on their strike pay bank (estimated to be north of $800 million at one point) and 2) it allowed the union to keep the companies guessing as to which plants the UAW may bring offline next – creating operational inefficiencies and uncertainty. Ultimately, this strategy resulted in deals with each of the Big 3, and most view the UAW as having come out on top in these negotiations.

3. NLRB Starts to Scrutinize Non-competes

On May 30, the NLRB’s top lawyer, Jennifer Abruzzo, turned heads when she issued a memo signaling that her office was taking the view that non-compete agreements, in some circumstances, violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This development was somewhat surprising to some given that the NLRA was passed nearly 100 years ago and was not cited previously as a basis to invalidate standard restrictive covenants found in countless employment agreements around the country.

Abruzzo further announced the NLRB will be coordinating enforcement and a potential crackdown on non-competes with the other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission – which this year also signaled an emphasis on these agreements – and the Department of Justice.

Given there’s a month left to go before the end of 2023, there may be other significant developments to come, but, for now, these are my top three. Happy Holidays!

What Employers Need to Know about the White House’s Executive Order on AI

President Joe Biden recently issued an executive order devised to establish minimum risk practices for use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) with focus on rights and safety of people, with many consequences for employers. Businesses should be aware of these directives to agencies, especially as they may result in new regulations, agency guidance and enforcements that apply to their workers.

Executive Order Requirements Impacting Employers

Specifically, the executive order requires the Department of Justice and federal civil rights offices to coordinate on ‘best practices’ for investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations related to AI. The ‘best practices’ will address: job displacement; labor standards; workplace equity, health, and safety; and data collection. These principles and ‘best practices’ are focused on benefitting workers and “preventing employers from undercompensating workers, evaluating job applications unfairly, or impinging on workers’ ability to organize.”

The executive order also requested a report on AI’s potential labor-market impacts, and to study and identify options for strengthening federal support for workers facing labor disruptions, including from AI. Specifically, the president has directed the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to “prepare and submit a report to the President on the labor-market effects of AI”. In addition, there is a requirement for the Secretary of Labor to submit “a report analyzing the abilities of agencies to support workers displaced by the adoption of AI and other technological advancements.” This report will include principles and best practices for employers that could be used to mitigate AI’s potential harms to employees’ well-being and maximize its potential benefits. Employers should expect more direction once this report is completed in April 2024.

Increasing International Employment?

Developing and using generative AI inherently requires skilled workers, which President Biden recognizes. One of the goals of his executive order is to “[u]se existing authorities to expand the ability of highly skilled immigrants and nonimmigrants with expertise in critical areas to study, stay, and work in the United States by modernizing and streamlining visa criteria, interviews, and reviews.” While work visas have been historically difficult for employers to navigate, this executive order may make it easier for US employers to access skilled workers from overseas.

Looking Ahead

In light of the focus of this executive order, employers using AI for recruiting or decisions about applicants (and even current employees) must be aware of the consequences of not putting a human check on the potential bias. Working closely with employment lawyers at Sheppard Mullin and having a multiple checks and balances on recruiting practices are essential when using generative AI.

While this executive order is quite limited in scope, it is only a first step. As these actions are implemented in the coming months, be sure to check back for updates.

NLRB Issues Complaint for Athlete Misclassification against NCAA, Pac-12, and USC

On May 18, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board’s (the Board) regional director in Region 31 issued a complaint against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Pac-12 Conference, and the University of Southern California (USC), alleging they violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by misclassifying college football and basketball players as “non-employee student-athletes.” The original charge was issued back in February 2022 and alleged all three entities were in violation of the Act as “joint employers” of these athletes.

While this issue is not necessarily new to higher education, the Board’s decision to issue a complaint—and issue that complaint against all three entities—is new ground, as it departs from a 2015 precedent and paves the way for student-athletes to unionize at potentially both private and now public institutions. Under the Act, the Board has authority over private-sector workers, while state labor boards have jurisdiction over employees at state institutions. However, because the students at issue in Thursday’s complaint would be considered employees of the private NCAA and Pac-12 as well as USC, all three entities would be subject to potential liability as “joint employers.” What this means for public institutions is that there is a real and likely potential that the “joint employer” doctrine will allow for an end run around the Act’s coverage exemption for public-sector entities. As such, all student-athletes could potentially seek to collectively bargain at the NCAA level.

Finding merit to the charge and issuing this complaint is a logical result of General Counsel (GC) Memorandum GC 21-08 issued by the Board’s GC Jennifer Abruzzo in late September 2021. At that time, we issued an alert detailing the GC’s desire to expand the definition of “employee” in order to bring scholarship collegiate athletes under the Act. In February 2022, we issued another alert detailing how USC was likely to be the test case for that endeavor.

Alleging the violation of Section 7 of the Act, Thursday’s complaint arises from charges filed by the National College Players Association, a nonprofit advocacy association founded by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma. The charge and complaint asserted that USC, the Pac-12, and NCAA misclassified student-athletes in order to deny them their rights under the Act, including the right to speak about compensation and working conditions. In addition to the alleged misclassification issue, the complaint alleges that USC illegally obstructed athletes’ organizing by “maintaining unlawful rules and policies in its handbook, including restricting communications with third parties, in the media, etc.”

Colleges and universities may be tempted to minimize this issue by thinking that the shift to seeing student-athletes as employees would affect them only in the event their athletes attempt to form a union. That is not the case. While a Board determination that student-athletes are employees could lead to a renewed effort by college athletes to organize, the GC has already cautioned (and made good on that warning) that the Board will seek to issue unfair labor practice charges against colleges and universities that misclassify student-athletes as “non-employees” or engage in other violations of the Act. For example, the GC has previously made clear that protections afforded by the Act apply to concerted activity such as expressions of support for social justice issues and other advocacy. As such, higher education institutions would be wise to tread lightly into these waters when they arise, because where employee status exists, concerted efforts of those employees to speak their minds or speak out on certain issues will be viewed as protected under the Act.

The hearing on the Board’s complaint is set for November 7, 2023.

For more Labor and Employment Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Marijuana in the Manufacturing Workplace

The requirement to maintain a safe workplace often clashes with state and local laws that protect the rights of individuals who use marijuana while off-duty, creating unique challenges for manufacturing employers.

Manufacturing employers still may prohibit the use of marijuana at work, as well as marijuana impairment at work. But marijuana drug testing is complicated and controversial because of the legal protections for off-duty marijuana use in some states and cities, the legal protections for medical marijuana users in many jurisdictions, and because there are no drug tests that can detect current marijuana impairment or very recent use of marijuana.

Federal Law

Manufacturers no longer should defend “zero tolerance” marijuana drug testing policies. Previously, employers could argue that marijuana still is illegal under federal law or that the employer is a federal contractor that must comply with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act. The federal government has not enforced the law that makes marijuana illegal for some time, and it has permitted states to create and enforce their own laws with respect to medical and recreational marijuana.

Some courts have recognized that the federal government is allowing state governments to regulate marijuana and, therefore, courts are enforcing state marijuana laws despite marijuana’s illegal status at the federal level. Courts also have rejected arguments that federal contractors “must follow federal law” because the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing and does not permit employers to regulate off-duty conduct.

State Laws

At present, 39 states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws, while 22 states and the District of Columbia have recreational marijuana laws (Maryland’s law will take effect in July and others will be enacted in the coming months). Many of these laws provide employment protections to applicants and employees. The variations in the laws make it difficult for multi-state manufacturers to have consistent marijuana policies in all locations.

What It Means for Employers

Due to the recent trend in some states to protect off-duty use of marijuana, and even prohibiting pre-employment marijuana testing, many manufacturers are discontinuing pre-employment marijuana testing, especially in states where marijuana is legal. Applicants often are surprised to learn that a positive marijuana drug test will lead to withdrawal of the job offer. If the positive marijuana drug test result is due to medical use (and there are no general off-duty protections in the state), manufacturers must be familiar with the applicable law.

Some states prohibit discrimination against medical marijuana users, while other states may allow an employer to take an adverse employment action if the job is considered “safety-sensitive,” i.e., a job with dangerous duties, as defined by applicable state law.

In certain other states where discrimination is prohibited and the manufacturing employer has safety concerns, the employer should engage in the “individualized assessment” and “direct threat analysis” required under state laws that mirror the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. This process includes discussions with the applicant and the applicant’s physician to assess the safety risk.

Reasonable suspicion marijuana testing is permissible in most states because impairment at work never is permitted. In states where off-duty marijuana use is protected, manufacturers should rely on the impaired behaviors when taking disciplinary action, rather than rely solely on the positive marijuana drug test result (assuming that testing for marijuana is permitted). This is because marijuana stays in the human body for a long time, so the positive drug test result is not conclusive proof that the employee was impaired at work. Manufacturers also should make sure that supervisors and managers are trained to observe and document reasonable suspicion determinations properly, as these documented observations will be key evidence in a potential lawsuit.

To make matters even more complicated, CBD (cannabidiol), “low THC,” and hemp products are being marketed and sold everywhere since Congress legalized hemp (having no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana) in 2018. Separate from marijuana laws, the use of “low THC” or CBD products is allowed in a number of states, usually for medical purposes, which means that manufacturing employers should tread carefully when an applicant or employee claims to use CBD products for medical reasons. While many CBD and hemp products are marketed as having little or no THC, these statements may not be true, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not yet regulate them. These products may cause positive drug test results for marijuana. There has been an increase in lawsuits where former employees claim that their positive marijuana drug test results allegedly were caused by CBD products.

While it appears that marijuana eventually will be legalized at the federal level, manufacturers must ensure they are complying with all applicable laws. Manufacturing employers should:

Review drug and alcohol policies for compliance with applicable drug testing and marijuana laws;
Remove marijuana from the drug testing panel in locations where testing for marijuana is prohibited and locations where off-duty use is protected and consider removing it in other locations where it may be an obstacle in the hiring process;
Train Human Resources employees and other managers to engage in the interactive process with employees who use medical marijuana (or medical CBD products); and
Train supervisors to make appropriate and timely “reasonable suspicion” determinations.

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

Automating Entertainment: Writers Demand that Studios Not Use AI

When the Writers Guild of America (WGA) came with their list of demands in the strike that has already grinded production on many shows to a halt, chief among them was that the studios agree not to use artificial intelligence to write scripts. Specifically, the Guild had two asks: First, they said that “literary material,” including screenplays and outlines, must be generated by a person and not an AI; Second, they insisted that “source material” not be AI-generated.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which represents the studios, rejected this proposal. They countered that they would be open to holding annual meetings to discuss advancements in technology. Alarm bells sounded as the WGA saw an existential threat to their survival and that Hollywood was already planning for it.

Writers are often paid at a far lower rate to adapt “source material” such as a comic book or a novel into a screenplay than they are paid to generate original literary material. By using AI tools to generate an outline or first draft of an original story and then enlisting a human to “adapt” it into screenplay, production studios potentially stand to save significantly.

Many industries have embraced the workflow of an AI-generated “first draft” that the human then punches up. And the WGA has said that its writers’ using AI as a tool is acceptable: There would essentially be a robot in the writers’ room with writers supplementing their craft with AI-generated copy, but without AI wholly usurping their jobs.

Everyone appears in agreement that AI could never write the next season of White Lotus or Succession, but lower brow shows could easily be AI aped. Law and Order, for instance, is an often cited example. Not just because it’s formulaic but because AIs are trained on massive data sets of copyrighted content and there are 20 seasons of Law and Order for the AI to ingest. And as AI technology gets more advanced who knows what it could do? Chat GPT was initially released last November and as of writing we’re on GPT-4, a far more powerful version of a platform that is advancing exponentially.

The studios’ push for the expanded use of AI is not without its own risks. The Copyright Office has equivocated somewhat in its determination that AI-generated art is not protectable. In a recent Statement of Policy, the Office said that copyright will only protect aspects of the work that were judged to have been made by the authoring human, resulting in partial protections of AI-generated works. So, the better the AI gets—the more it contributes to cutting out the human writer—the weaker the copyright protection for the studios/networks.

Whether or not AI works infringe the copyrights on the original works is an issue that is currently being litigated in a pair of lawsuits against Stability AI, the startup that created Stable Diffusion (an AI tool with the impressive ability to turn text into images in what some have dubbed the most massive art heist in history). Some have questioned whether the humans who wrote the original episodes would get compensated, and the answer is maybe not. In most cases the scripts were likely works for hire, owned by the studios.

If the studios own the underlying scripts, what happens to the original content if the studios take copyrighted content and put it through a machine that turns out uncopyrightable content? Can you DMCA or sue someone who copies that? As of this writing, there are no clear answers to these questions.

There are legal questions and deeper philosophical questions about making art. As the AI improves and humans become more cyborgian, does the art become indistinguishable? Prolific users of Twitter say they think their thoughts in 280 characters. Perhaps our readers can relate to thinking of their time in 6 minute increments, or .1’s of an hour. Further, perhaps our readers can relate to their industry being threatened by automation. According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, generative artificial intelligence is putting 44% of legal jobs at risk.

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

The End of the COVID Public Health Emergency and Its Effect on Employee Benefit Plans

The COVID-19 public health emergency ends on May 11, 2023. The emergency resulted in two big changes to welfare plans: the relaxation of certain notification and timing requirements, and the requirement for plans to cover COVID testing and vaccination at no cost to plan participants. While the public health emergency ends May 11, 2023, plans have a grace period until July 11 to take certain actions and come into compliance with the normal rules.

Plan Sponsor Requirements

Before the grace period ends, plan sponsors will generally need to follow the rules that existed before COVID. Among the most important of these rules are the requirements for plan sponsors to:

Timely provide all notices, including those for HIPAA and COBRA.
Review COVID-related coverage under their employee assistance programs (EAPs) to determine if such coverage would be considered “significant medical care,” which can result in additional reporting and compliance obligations.
Review telehealth options to ensure they are properly integrated and provided by an entity that can comply with the post-COVID requirements. Telehealth rules were substantially relaxed during COVID. With telehealth now expected and utilized by more participants, getting telehealth right is more crucial than before.

Plan Sponsor Decisions

With the end of the public health emergency, plan sponsors must also make several important decisions with respect to their employee benefit plans:

Whether testing will continue free of charge or will be subject to cost sharing.
Whether non-preventative care vaccines for COVID will continue to be free of charge.
Whether costs for certain COVID-related services will continue to be posted.

As they are mostly based on what costs the plan sponsor or plan will cover going forward, these plan sponsor decisions are largely business-related. In the absence of a choice by the plan sponsor, the insurance provider will likely make a default choice. The important legal consideration is that the plan documents and employee communications should be consistent and accurately reflect the plan sponsor’s decisions.

Participant Requirements

In addition to the changes for plan sponsors, the end of the public health emergency will result in the reinstatement of a number of rules applicable to participants. Participants will need to:

Follow the HIPAA Special Enrollment timing rules.

Elect COBRA within the 60-day window for elections.

Make all COBRA payments timely.

Timely notify the plan of disabilities and qualifying events under COBRA.

Follow the timing limitations of their plans and insurance policies regarding filing claims, appeals, and external reviews.

Next Steps

First, plan sponsors should decide what COVID-related coverage will remain fully paid by the plan, if any. Some insurance companies are already starting to communicate with participants, and maintaining a consistent message will avoid unnecessary problems.

Second, plan sponsors should review their EAP and telehealth coverages for compliance with the rules that will soon be in effect. To the extent necessary, plan sponsors should update the documentation for their plans.

Finally, plan sponsors should consider a voluntary reminder communication to participants. Many rules have been relaxed over the last two years or so, and participants may be confused regarding the rules. A reminder may save stress for participants and those administering the plan, and will also serve to document the plan sponsor’s intention to properly follow the terms of the plan.

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

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline Approaches for Chicago Employers

As a reminder to employers in Chicago, anti-sexual harassment training is required by Chicago’s Human Rights Ordinance and must be completed by July 1, 2023. This requirement applies to all Chicago employers, regardless of size or industry.

The training consists of one (1) hour of anti-sexual harassment training for all non-supervisory employees and two (2) hours of anti-sexual harassment training for supervisory employees. Regardless of supervisory status, all employees must also undergo one (1) hour of bystander training. Employers must provide training on an annual basis. Additional information about training requirements can be found here. Employers who fail to comply may be subject to penalties.

Article By Audrey H. Shinn of Vedder Price

Tag: Employment Law

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

Like this:

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

Like this:

Chicago’s New Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance Delayed Six Months

Like this:

What Are the Top 3 Labor Law Developments of 2023 (So Far)?

Like this:

What Employers Need to Know about the White House’s Executive Order on AI