Tag: Employment Law

A Bad Smoke Break: Stringent Documentation of Work Rules Defends Against Unemployment Claims

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

A recent Missouri case demonstrates the importance of documentation when defending against unwarranted unemployment claims. The case also underlines the need for the reforms passed by the Missouri General Assembly and pending signature by Gov. Jay Nixon.

cigarettes

Facts

James Sullivan worked as a part-time cook for nearly a year and a half at Landry’s Seafood House. One day, he disappeared during dinner service and was found 20 minutes later smoking and talking on his cell phone in the parking lot. He was fired and filed a claim for unemployment benefits. In Missouri, when employees are terminated for work-related misconduct, they can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. However, a deputy at the Missouri Division of Employment Security initially determined that Sullivan was eligible for benefits. The restaurant appealed that determination to the Division Appeals Tribunal.

Appeals Tribunal Finds Willful Misconduct

During the hearing, which Sullivan failed to attend, Landry’s Seafood House offered the testimony of a senior kitchen manager. The manager said the restaurant had policies prohibiting employees from smoking at work or leaving their work area without a supervisor’s permission. Landry’s posted signs on its doors to remind employees of the rule and had discussed the policy with employees at shift meetings. Further, Landry’s provided employees with a copy of its policies. Sullivan had signed an acknowledgment of receipt when hired. Sullivan had been counseled for violating the rules in the past and had complied with the policies on several occasions by asking for permission to leave his workstation and clocking out before going outside to smoke a cigarette.

After the hearing, the Appeals Tribunal reversed the determination and found in favor of Landry’s. Sullivan was to be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for work-related misconduct. Sullivan appealed.

Court of Appeals Sides with the Employer

The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the decision in Landry’s favor, finding there was substantial evidence to support it. The court noted that Sullivan was aware of the rules, had signed a written statement acknowledging receipt of the policies, and had been counseled on the rules. The supervisor’s testimony at the hearing established these facts and constituted substantial evidence that Landry’s terminated Sullivan for work-related misconduct. The court explained that Landry’s rule on breaks was also reasonable because a restaurant’s business depends on employees preparing food for its customers in a timely manner. Landry’s rule against smoking on the clock was reasonable because an employer has a right to expect employees to be engaged in meaningful work while being paid.

Bottom Line

At the time of this case, Missouri law defined misconduct as a “wanton and willful” act in order to disqualify a terminated employee from receiving unemployment benefits in Missouri. But as the first decision made by the deputy at the Missouri Division of Employment Security shows, that definition can lead to inconsistent rulings. Although the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employer, it was a time-consuming and expensive undertaking to work through the appeals process to secure a decision that would seem obvious to most people.

During the 2013 Legislative Session, the Missouri Chamber championed legislation to change the definition of misconduct to provide more consistency in unemployment compensation cases. Sponsored by Rep. Will Kraus, a Republican from Lee’s Summit, SB 28 is currently pending signature by Gov. Jay Nixon. House Bill 611 contains similar language and also awaits signature. Proof that you properly communicated your work rules to employees and required them to acknowledge receipt of the rules is key when seeking to establish that an employee’s violation of the rules was intentional. Landry’s actions in this case protected the restaurant from having to pay unemployment benefits to a former employee who violated its well-publicized policies.

Published in the July 2013 issue of Missouri Business, the Magazine of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry

2013 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Amendments: Have you Complied?

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

In February 2013, the U.S. DOL published the Final Rule implementing statutory changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA).  The final rule expanded the military family leave provisions, among other changes.  The following chart was adapted from the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division website and shows a side-by-side comparison of the salient provisions of the current regulations:

Qualifying Exigency Leave (§ 825.126)
2008 Regulations 2013 Regulations
An eligible employee may take FMLA leave for qualifying exigencies arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter or parent (the covered military member) is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to   active duty in support of a contingency operation.

Eligible employees may take qualifying exigency leave for any of the
following reasons:

(1) short notice deployment; (2) military events and related activities; (3) childcare and school activities; (4) financial and legal arrangements; (5) counseling; (6) rest and recuperation; (7) post-deployment activities; and (8) additional activities.

Employees who request qualifying exigency leave to spend time with a military member on Rest and Recuperation leave may take up to five days of leave.

 “Covered military   member” is now “military member” and includes both members of the National Guard and Reserves and the Regular Armed Forces.

“Active duty” is now “covered active duty” and requires deployment to a foreign country.

A new qualifying exigency leave category for parental care leave is added.  Eligible employees may take leave to care for a military member’s parent who   is incapable of self-care when the care is necessitated by the member’s covered active duty. Such care may include arranging for alternative care, providing care on an immediate need basis, admitting or transferring the parent to a care facility, or attending meetings with staff at a care facility.

The amount of time an eligible employee may take for Rest and Recuperation qualifying exigency leave is expanded to a maximum of 15 calendar days.
 

Military Caregiver Leave (§ 825.127)
2008 Regulations 2013 Regulations
An eligible employee who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a covered servicemember (a current servicemember) of the Armed Forces, including National Guard and Reserve members, with a serious injury or illness incurred in the line of duty on active duty for which the servicemember is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient   status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, may take up to 26 work weeks of FMLA leave to care for the servicemember in a single 12-month period. The definition of covered servicemember is expanded to include covered veterans who are undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy for a serious injury or illness.

A covered veteran is an individual who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable at any time during the five-year period prior to the first date the eligible employee takes FMLA leave to care for the covered veteran.

The period between enactment of the FY 2010 NDAA on October 28, 2009 and the effective date of the 2013 Final Rule is excluded in the determination of the five-year period for covered veteran status.
 

Serious Injury or Illness for a Current Servicemember (§ 825.127)
2008 Regulations 2013 Regulations
A serious injury or illness means an injury or illness incurred by a covered servicemember in the line of duty on active duty that may render the servicemember medically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The definition of a serious injury or illness for a current servicemember is expanded to included injuries or illnesses that existed before the beginning of the member’s active duty and were aggravated by service in the line of duty on active duty in the Armed Forces.
 

Serious Injury or Illness for a Covered Veteran (§ 825.127)
2008 Regulations 2013 Regulations
Not applicable. A serious injury or illness for a covered veteran means an injury or illness that was incurred or aggravated by the member in the line of duty on active duty in the Armed   Forces and manifested itself before or after the member became a veteran, and is:

(1) A continuation of a serious injury or illness that was incurred or aggravated when the covered veteran was a member of the Armed Forces and rendered the servicemember unable to perform the duties of the   servicemember’s office, grade, rank, or rating; OR

(2) A physical or mental condition for which the covered veteran has received a VA Service Related Disability Rating (VASRD) of 50 percent or greater and such VASRD rating is based, in whole or in part, on the condition precipitating the need for caregiver leave; OR

(3) A physical or mental condition that substantially impairs the veteran’s ability to secure or follow a substantially painful occupation by reason of a disability or disabilities related to military service or would do so absent treatment; OR

(4) An injury, including a psychological injury, on the basis of which the covered veteran has been enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers.
 

Appendices
2008 Regulations 2013 Regulations
The FMLA optional-use forms and Notice to Employees of Rights Under the FMLA (poster) are provided in the appendices to the regulations. The FMLA optional-use forms and poster are removed from the regulations and no longer available in the appendices. They are now available on the Wage and Hour Division website, www.dol.gov/whd, as well as at local Wage and Hour district offices.

 

If you are a covered employer under FMLA, have you done the following?

Displayed the new DOL FMLA Notice Poster, electronically or in hard copy?

  • Updated your FMLA policy, which must be in your
    employee handbook or distributed to each employee?
  • Started using the new FMLA forms, such as the
    Notice of Eligibility, Designation Notice, and various Certification forms?
Article By:
 of

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Sanctions Revlon Financial Makeover; Tips for Setting a Strong Foundation for Going Private Transaction Success

DrinkerBiddle

On June 13, 2013, the SEC entered into a cease and desist order and imposed an $850,000 civil money penalty against Revlon, Inc. (Revlon) in connection with a 2009 “going private” transaction (the Revlon SEC Order).  This article identifies some of the significant challenges in executing a going private transaction and highlights particular aspects of the Revlon deal that can serve as a teaching lesson for planning and minimizing potential risks and delays in future going private transactions.

lipstick-upper

Background of Revlon Going Private Transaction.

The controlling stockholder of Revlon, MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. (M&F), made a proposal to the independent directors of Revlon in April of 2009 to acquire, by way of merger (the Merger Proposal), all of the Class A common stock not currently owned by M&F (the Revlon Minority Stockholders).  The Merger Proposal was submitted as a partial solution to address Revlon’s liquidity needs arising under an impending maturity of a $107 million senior subordinated term loan that was payable to M&F by a Revlon subsidiary.  A portion of this debt (equal to the liquidation value of the preferred stock issued in the Merger Proposal) would be contributed by M&F to Revlon, as part of the transaction.  This was submitted as an alternative in lieu of potentially cost-prohibitive and dilutive financing alternatives (or potentially unavailable financing alternatives) during the volatile credit market following the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis.

In response to the Merger Proposal, Revlon formed a special committee of the Board (the Special Committee) to evaluate the Merger Proposal.  The Special Committee retained a financial advisor and separate counsel to assist in its evaluation of the Merger Proposal.  Four lawsuits were filed in Delaware between April 24 and May 12 of 2009 challenging various aspects of the Merger Proposal.

On May 28, 2009, the Special Committee was informed by its financial advisor that it would be unable to render a fairness opinion on the Merger Proposal, and thereafter the Special Committee advised M&F that it could not recommend the Merger Proposal.  In early June of 2009, the Special Committee disbanded, but the independent directors subsequently were advised that M&F would make a voluntary exchange offer proposal to the full Revlon Board of Directors (the Exchange Offer). Revlon’s independent directors thereafter chose to continue to utilize counsel that served to advise the Special Committee, but they elected not to retain a financial advisor for assistance with the forthcoming M&F Exchange Offer proposal, because they were advised that the securities to be offered in the Exchange Offer would be substantially similar to those issuable through Merger Proposal.  As a result, they did not believe they could obtain a fairness opinion for the Exchange Offer consideration.  The Board of Directors of Revlon (without the interested directors participating in the vote) ultimately approved the Exchange Offer without receiving any fairness opinion with respect to the Exchange Offer.

On September 24, 2009, the final terms of the Exchange Offer were set and the offer was launched.  The Exchange Offer, having been extended several times, finally closed on October 8, 2009, with less than half of the shares tendered for exchange out of all Class A shares held by the Revlon Minority Stockholders.  On October 29, 2009, Revlon announced third quarter financial results that exceeded market expectations, but these results were allegedly consistent with the financial projections disclosed in the Exchange Offer.  Following these announced results, Revlon’s Class A stock price increased.  These developments led to the filing of additional litigation in Delaware Chancery Court.

The Revlon SEC Order and Associated Rule 13e-3 Considerations.

A subset of the Revlon Minority Stockholders consisted of participants in a Revlon 401(k) retirement plan, which was subject to obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and a trust agreement (the Trust Agreement) between Revlon and the Plan’s trustee (the Trustee).  Provisions of ERISA and the Trust Agreement prohibited a 401(k) Plan participant’s sale of common stock to Revlon for less than “adequate consideration.”

During July of 2009, Revlon became actively involved with the Trustee to control the flow of information concerning any adequate consideration determination, to prevent such information from flowing back to Revlon and to prevent such information from flowing to 401(k) participants (and ultimately Revlon Minority Stockholders); certain amendments to the Trust Agreement were requested by Revlon and agreed to by the Trustee to effect these purposes.  This also had the additional effect of preventing the independent directors of Revlon from being aware that an adequate consideration opinion would be rendered for the benefit of Revlon’s 401(k) Plan participants.

On September 28, 2009, the financial advisor to the 401(k) Plan rendered an adverse opinion that the Exchange Offer did not provide adequate consideration to 401(k) Plan participants.  As a result, the Trustee informed 401(k) Plan participants, as previously directed by Revlon, that the 401(k) Plan Trustee could not honor tender instructions because it would result in a “non-exempt prohibited transaction under ERISA.”  Revlon Minority Stockholders, including 401(k) Plan participants, were generally unaware that an unfavorable adequate consideration opinion had been delivered to the Trustee.

In the Revlon SEC Order, the SEC concluded that Revlon engaged in a series of materially misleading disclosures in violation of Rule 13e-3.  Despite disclosure in the Exchange Offer that the Revlon Board had approved the Exchange Offer and related transactions based upon the “totality of information presented to and considered by its members” and that such approval was the product of a “full, fair and complete” process, the SEC found that the process, in fact, was not full, fair and complete.  The SEC particularly found that the Board’s process “was compromised because Revlon concealed from both minority shareholders and from its independent board members that it had engaged in a course of conduct to ‘ring-fence’ the adequate consideration determination.”  The SEC further found that “Revlon’s ‘ring-fencing’ deprived the Board (and in turn Revlon Minority Stockholders) of the opportunity to receive revised, qualified or supplemental disclosures including any that might have informed them of the third party financial advisor’s determination that the transaction consideration to be received by the 401(k) members . . . was inadequate.”

Significance of the Revlon SEC Order.

The Revlon Order underscores the significance of transparency and fairness being extended to all unaffiliated stockholders in a Rule 13e-3 transaction, including the 401(k) Plan participants whose shares represented only 0.6 percent of the Revlon Minority Stockholder holdings.  Importantly, the SEC took exception to the fact that Revlon actively prevented the flow of information regarding fairness and found that the information should have been provided for the benefit of these participants, as well as all Revlon Minority Stockholders.  This result ensued despite the fact that Revlon’s Exchange Offer disclosures noted in detail the Special Committee’s inability to obtain a fairness opinion for the Merger Proposal and the substantially similar financial terms of the preferred stock offered in both the Merger Proposal and the Exchange Offer transactions.

Going Private Transactions are Subject to Heightened Review by the SEC and Involve Significant Risk, Including Personal Risk.

Going private transactions are vulnerable to multiple challenges, including state law fiduciary duty claims and wide ranging securities law claims, including claims for private damages as well as SEC civil money penalties.  In the Revlon transaction, the SEC Staff conducted a full review of the going private transaction filings.  Despite the significant substantive changes in disclosure brought about through the SEC comment process, the SEC subsequently pursued an enforcement action and prevailed against Revlon for civil money penalties.

Although the SEC sanction was limited in scope to Revlon, it is worth noting that the SEC required each of Revlon, M&F and M&F’s controlling stockholder, Ronald Perelman, to acknowledge (i) personal responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of disclosure in each filing; (ii) that Staff comments do not foreclose the SEC from taking action including enforcement action with regard to the filing; and (iii) that each may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the SEC or any other person under securities laws.  Thus, in planning a going private transaction, an issuer and each affiliate engaged in the transaction (each, a Filing Person) must make these acknowledgements, which expose each Filing Person (including certain affiliates who may be natural persons) to potential damages and sanctions.

The SEC also requires Filing Persons to demonstrate in excruciating detail the basis for their beliefs regarding the fairness of the transaction.  These inquiries typically focus on the process followed in pursuing and negotiating the transaction, the procedural fairness associated with such process, and the substantive fairness of the overall transaction, including financial fairness.  As a result of this, each Filing Person (including certain natural persons) in a going private transaction should be prepared to diligently satisfy cumbersome process and fairness requirements as part of the pre-filing period deliberative process, and later stand behind extensive and detailed disclosures that demonstrate and articulate the basis of the procedural and substantive fairness of the transaction, including financial fairness.

Damages and Penalties in Going Private Transactions Can Be Significant.

It is worth noting that civil money penalties and settlements that have been announced to date by Revlon for its Exchange Offer going private transaction is approximately $30 million.  After factoring in professional fees, it would not be surprising that the total post-closing costs, penalties and settlements approach 50 percent of the implied total transaction value of all securities offered in the Exchange Offer transaction.  From this experience, it is obvious that costs, damages and penalties can be a significant component of overall transaction consideration, and these risks must be factored in as part of overall transaction planning at the outset.

Given the risks of post-transaction damages and costs, it is essential that future going private transactions be structured and executed by Filing Persons with the foregoing considerations in mind in order to advance a transaction with full transparency, a demonstrably fair procedural process and deal consideration that is substantively fair and demonstrably supportable as fair from a financial point-of-view.

New York State Court of Appeals Backs Starbucks Policy on Tip-Pooling

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Starbucks shift supervisors can legally participate in tip-sharing with other store employees, but the coffee chain’s assistant managers have enough managerial responsibility to disqualify them from sharing in customer tips, according to the New York State Court of Appeals.

Starbucks’ policy provides for weekly distribution of gratuities to the company’s two lower ranking categories of employees, baristas and shift supervisors, but not to its two higher ranking categories of employees, assistant managers and store managers. In addressing questions certified by the Second Circuit regarding the validity this policy, the Court of Appeals concluded that since shift supervisors, like baristas, directly serve patrons, they remain tip-pool eligible even if their role also involves some supervisory responsibility. But assistant managers, because they are granted “meaningful authority” over subordinates, are not eligible to participate in the tip pool.

The decision provides guidance to the Second Circuit as it hears appeals of two suits, Barenboim et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 10–4912–cv, and Winans et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 11–3199–cv, each brought by a different putative class of Starbucks workers. The plaintiffs in Barenboimare Starbucks baristas who argue that only baristas, and not shift supervisors, are entitled to participate in tip-sharing. The Winans plaintiffs are assistant managers who claim that they should be allowed a share of the tips. In both cases, the Southern District of New York awarded summary judgment to Starbucks, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the interpretation of New York Labor Law §196-d, which governs tip-pooling.

Shift Supervisors Are Not Company “Agents”

New York Labor Law §196-d prohibits an “employer or his agent or an officer or agent of any corporation, or any other person” from accepting or retaining any part of the gratuities received by an employee. It also states, “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting the… sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee.”

According to the plaintiff baristas in Barenboim, Starbucks’ policy of including shift supervisors in the stores’ tip pools violates §196-d because the shift supervisors are company “agents” and therefore not permitted to “demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee.” Starbucks argues that shift supervisors are sufficiently analogous to waiters, busboys and similar employees, and should therefore be permitted to share in the gratuities pursuant to §196-d.

The Court of Appeals, in deciding that shift supervisors are entitled to share in the tip pool, deferred to the New York State Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) long-standing view that “employees who regularly provide direct service to patrons remain tip-pool eligible even if they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility.” The Court compared the shift supervisors to restaurant captains who have some authority over wait staff, but are nonetheless eligible to participate in tip pools pursuant to the DOL’s Hospitality Industry Wage Order and DOL guidelines dating back to 1972.

“Meaningful Authority” Standard

In Winans, the Starbucks assistant store managers argue that they should be deemed similar to waiters and busboys under §196-d (and therefore eligible for tip-sharing) because they do not have full or final authority to terminate subordinates. The Court of Appeals disagreed: “[W]e believe that there comes a point at which the degree of managerial responsibility becomes so substantial that the individual can no longer fairly be characterized as an employee similar to general wait staff within the meaning of Labor Law §196-d.” That line is drawn, according to the decision, at “meaningful or significant authority or control over subordinates.”

Examples of meaningful authority, according to the decision, are the ability to discipline subordinates, the authority to hire and terminate employees, and input into the creation of employee work schedules. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ claim, authority to hire and fire is not the exclusive test for determining whether an employee is similar to wait staff for the purposes of §196-d.

Tip-Sharing Required?

In addition to the question of which employees are eligible for tip-sharing, the Second Circuit asked the Court of Appeals to consider whether an employer may deny tip pool distributions to an employee who is eligible to split tips under §196-d. The Court held that §196-d excludes certain employees from tip pools, but does not require employers to include all employees who are not legally barred from participating.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals decision provides specific guidance to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with the two Starbucks cases pending on appeal, but it also provides helpful clarity to any employers with tip-sharing policies. In particular, the decision confirms that employees who regularly provide direct service to patrons may still participate in tip-sharing, but are not required to do so, even if they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility. On the other hand, employees with meaningful authority over subordinates are not eligible to participate in tip-sharing. Employers should carefully review their tip-sharing policies in light of this guidance from the Court of Appeals.

Article By:

 of

Department of State Releases August 2013 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India advances by more than three years.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its August 2013 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the August 2013 Visa Bulletin Say?

The cutoff date in the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India has advanced by three years and four months in an effort to fully utilize the numbers available under the annual limit. It is expected that such movement will generate a significant amount of demand from individuals chargeable to India during the coming months.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: A cutoff date of January 1, 2008 is now in effect for individuals in the EB-2 category from India, reflecting forward movement of three years and four months. A cutoff date of August 8, 2008 remains in effect from the July Visa Bulletin for individuals in the EB-2 category from China. The cutoff date remains current for individuals in the EB-2 category from all other countries.

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category for all countries, with minor forward movement for EB-3 individuals from the Philippines and no forward movement for EB-3 individuals from the rest of the world.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)
India: January 22, 2003 (no forward movement)
Mexico: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)
Philippines: October 22, 2006 (forward movement of 21 days)
Rest of the World: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

In November 2012, the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India became current. This meant that EB-2 individuals chargeable to countries other than China and India could file AOS applications or have applications approved on or afterNovember 1, 2012. The August Visa Bulletin indicates that the EB-2 category will continue to remain current for these individuals through August 2013.

China

As with the July Visa Bulletin, the August Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of August 8, 2008 for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to August 8, 2008 may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

India

From October 2012 through the present, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India has been September 1, 2004. The August Visa Bulletin indicates forward movement of this cutoff date by more than three years to January 1, 2008. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 1, 2008 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in August 2013. The August Visa Bulletin indicates that this cutoff date has been advanced in an effort to fully utilize the numbers available under the EB-2 annual limit. It is expected that such movement will generate a significant amount of demand from individuals chargeable to India during the coming months.

This significant advancement in the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India will quite possibly be followed by significant retrogression in the new fiscal year. Consequently, AOS applications filed in September 2013 may be received and receipted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; however, adjudication could be delayed. Applications for interim benefits, including employment authorization and advance parole, should be adjudicated in a timely manner notwithstanding any possible retrogression of cutoff dates.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

In May, June, and July, the cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries advanced significantly in an attempt to generate demand and fully utilize the annual numerical limits for the category. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no additional forward movement in this category, with the exception of the Philippines, which advanced by 21 days.

China

The July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2009 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to January 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

India

Additionally, the July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 22, 2003 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 22, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

Rest of the World

The July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2009 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that individuals chargeable to all countries other than China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines with a priority date prior to January 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the August 2013 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website here.

Article By:

of

Michigan Supreme Court Won’t Give Advisory Opinion on Right-to-Work

barnes

Saying simply that “we are not persuaded that granting the request would be an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion,” the Michigan Supreme Court on Friday denied Gov. Rick Snyder’s request that the high court render an advisory opinion about the constitutionality of Michigan’s new right-to-work law.

Relying upon the provision in the state’s constitution’s that allows the governor to request the “opinion of the supreme court on important questions of law upon solemn occasions as to the constitutionality of legislation after it has been enacted into law but before its effective date,” the Governor had asked the Court for a ruling largely because the state’s public workers’ collective agreements are set to expire at the end of 2013. In a brief filed in support of the request for an advisory opinion, Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch said that an advisory opinion would prevent an “impasse at the negotiating table.”

Notwithstanding the Court’s decision, six lawsuits continue challenging the Act. Two of them are brought by unions or labor coalitions. Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Callaghan has been brought in federal court and challenges the constitutionality of the Act as to private sector workers. UAW v. Green, currently pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals, challenges the constitutionality as it applies to public sector workers. Here’s a helpful link to a chart describing the pending litigation.

SG Bursch also said in his filing with the Supreme Court that barring Supreme Court action, the state would consider filing a motion seeking an expedited ruling in the Green case.

The Detroit Free Press coverage on the court’s decision can be found here.

Article By:

 of

Defense of Marriage Act’s Demise (DOMA) – What it Means for Canadian Residents with U.S. Ties

Altro Levy LogoLast week, the US Supreme Court issued an historic and landmark ruling in the case of US v. Windsor. It has been hailed in the media as the demise of the Defense Of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), and celebrated as an extension of more than 1,000 federal benefits to same-sex couples.

In US v. Windsor, Edith Windsor brought suit against the US government after she was ordered to pay $363,000 in US estate tax upon the death of her wife Thea Spyer. Edith and Thea were legally married in Canada in 2007, but the US federal government did not recognize their marriage when Thea passed away in 2009. Under DOMA gay marriage was not recognized, even if it was legal in the jurisdiction where it was performed. This lack of recognition meant that Edith could not take advantage of the marital deduction that would have allowed her to inherit from her wife without paying US estate tax.

In its ruling on June 26th, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US federal government could not discriminate against same-sex married couples in the administration of its federal laws and benefits as previously dictated by DOMA. Same-sex couples, who are legally married in one of the 13 states that recognize gay marriage, or a country like Canada, now have access to the same federal protections and benefits as a heterosexual married couple.

Tax Benefits

The demise of DOMA will bring with it a multitude of changes under US tax law. We will not attempt to enumerate all of them here, though we will provide a brief overview of key changes for our Canadian and American clients.

i. US Estate Tax

The case of US v. Windsor was based on the US estate tax, which is imposed by the US federal government on both US citizens and residents, as well as non-residents who own US assets worth more than $60,000 USD. Currently US citizens and residents with less than $5.25 Million USD in worldwide assets do not owe US estate tax on death. Canadians with worldwide assets of $5.25 Million USD or less receive a unified credit under the Canada-US Tax Treaty that works to eliminate any US estate tax owed on their US property.

Under federal law a US citizen may pass his entire estate to his US citizen spouse tax-free upon death. Up until last week this rollover was unavailable to same-sex couples.

Canadian same-sex couples should now benefit from the Canada-US Tax Treaty provisions that provide a marital credit to the surviving spouse. This allows for a doubling up of credit against any potential US estate tax due on US property. Now a Canadian same-sex spouse can inherit a worldwide estate worth up to $10.5 Million USD and should see little to no tax on US assets due upon the death of the first spouse.

ii. Gift Tax

The US imposes a tax on gifts if they exceed $14,000 USD per recipient per year. There is an exemption for gifts between spouses, which are generally not taxable.

Gifts made in the US between non-US citizen non-resident spouses are taxable, but the annual exemption is $139,000 USD instead of $14,000 USD. Canadian spouses who gift each other US property, US corporate stocks, etc. may gift up to $139,000 USD per year without incurring US gift tax.

These exemptions have now been extended to same-sex couples, expanding their ability to use gifting for tax and estate planning.

iii. US Income Tax

Many Canadians move to the US each year, in part because of the lower personal tax rates. In the US spouses are allowed to engage in a form of income splitting by filing a joint income tax return. By filing jointly, married couples are also generally able to take advantage of further credits and deductions not afforded to individual or single filers. Being able to file jointly can be highly tax advantageous.

Previously, same-sex couples had to file either separately or as head of household. Now they have the option of filing jointly as spouses, and gaining access to the aforementioned income splitting, credits and deductions.

Couples may file up to three years of amended US Income Tax returns if they believe that they would have been entitled to a larger tax return by filing jointly in those years.

iv. Other Tax Benefits

In the US most individuals receive health insurance through their employer at least up until they qualify for US Medicare at age 65. Previously, if the employer sponsored health insurance plan covered the same-sex spouse as well, then it was considered a taxable benefit. Such coverage will now also be tax-free for same-sex couples.

Retirement Benefits

Among the many benefits now extended to same-sex couples are a variety of “Retirement Benefits.”

i. Social Security and Medicare Benefits

With the end of DOMA, same-sex couples may now qualify for retirement, death, and disability Social Security benefits based on their spouse’s qualifying US employment history. For example, same-sex couples that do not have the required US employment history to qualify for US Social Security benefits on their own may now qualify for spousal Social Security benefits based on their spouse’s qualifying employment history. These spousal Social Security benefits are typically equal to 50% of the Social Security benefits received by the spouse with the qualifying employment history.

Additionally, spouses can qualify for US Medicare based on only one spouse’s qualifying US employment. This allows access to premium-free, or reduced-premium, health coverage in retirement.

Previously these important retirement benefits were not available to same-sex spouses.

ii. Individual Retirement Accounts

Important changes to the rights and recognition of spouses under US retirement savings plans result from the end of DOMA. Same-sex couples will now be recognized under 401(k), 403(b), IRA, Roth IRA, and similar plans. Spouses will be required to give their consent for any non-spouse beneficiary designations for these accounts. They will be treated as spouses for purposes of determining required distributions. For example, an inheriting same-sex spouse will not have to begin IRA distributions until age 70 ½, whereas previously he would have had to begin required distributions immediately as would any non-spouse beneficiary.

Immigration

One of the biggest questions after the US Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA was whether there would be immediate changes to US immigration policy. Previously the US government did not recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. This meant that a US citizen spouse could not sponsor his husband for immigration to the US as a permanent resident (a.k.a. green card holder).

Last week, shortly after the ruling on DOMA, Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference that the USCIS would begin issuing green cards to qualifying same-sex couples.

As of Friday, June 29, 2013, USCIS began issuing green cards to same-sex spouses. USCIS has stated that it has been keeping a record of spousal green card petitions denied only due to a same-sex marriage for the past two years. It is expected to reopen and reconsider these spousal sponsorship petitions that were previously denied due to same-sex marriage.

Conclusion

The demise of DOMA is exciting news for Americans, and Canadians with US ties. It provides same sex couples a wealth of new tax and estate planning opportunities, not to mention new opportunities for retirement and immigration planning. It is not too early to review your current planning, and take advantage of these changes.

Article By:

 of

Obama Administration Delays Until 2015 Large Employer Shared Responsibility Requirements, Reporting and Tax Penalties

Dickinson Wright LogoOn July 2, 2013, the Department of Treasury announced a one-year delay in the employer shared responsibility mandate under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and related information reporting.

Complexity Leads to Delayed Reporting Implementation

The Department said that over the past several months, the Administration engaged in dialogue with businesses about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under ACA. It took into account employer concerns about the complexity of the requirements and their need for more time to implement them effectively. Based on this, the Administration announced that it will provide an additional year, to January 1, 2015, before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. It said the delay is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow the Department to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees. The Department said that within the next week, it will publish formal guidance describing the transition. In doing so, it said it is working hard to adapt and be flexible about reporting requirements as it implements the law.

More specifically, the Department said that the ACA includes information reporting (under Code Section 6055) by insurers, self-insured employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (under Code Section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. The Department expects to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders – including responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage that exceeds the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements – in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.

Once these rules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers, and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarily implement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the full application of the provisions in 2015. It said that real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation in 2015.

Delayed Implementation of Shared Responsibility and Tax Penalties

The Department said it recognizes that this transition relief will make it impractical to determine which applicable large employers owe the shared responsibility tax payment for not providing minimum essential coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value (under Code Section 4980H) for 2014. Accordingly, the Department is extending transition relief on the employer shared responsibility payments. Under the transition relief, applicable large employers will not owe either the $2,000 tax or the $3,000 tax for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility tax payments will not apply until 2015. During the 2014 transition period, the Department strongly encourages employers to maintain or expand the health coverage they provide to their employees.

Importantly, the Department said its actions do not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA, although without employers reporting on who they provide coverage to, it is hard to see how the government will know which individuals qualify for a tax credit. Without more, this suggests that the Department intends that marketplaces for individuals will still be available January 1, 2014. It also suggests that most Americans will still have to obtain health benefits coverage or pay the individual tax. It is not clear if the notice employers are required to send to all employees by October 1, 2013 advising them of the marketplaces will still be required. The upcoming guidance should address this and other requirements. The Department also said that this delay does not change the compliance requirements under any other provision of the ACA. This suggests that the PCORI fee payable by July 31, 2013 is still due, the 90-day maximum waiting period for benefits eligibility in 2014 still applies, etc.

Hopefully, the upcoming guidance will provide more detail on on-going employer responsibilities. Until then, it appears that, presuming there are no additional delays or relief:

  • Employers will not have to count full-time employees and full-time equivalents in 2013 to determine if they are applicable large employers beginning January 1, 2014.
  • Applicable large employers will not have to determine their full-time employees for purposes of providing minimum essential coverage in 2014.
  • Applicable large employers who do not provide minimum essential coverage to all full-time employees in 2014 will not owe the $2,000 tax times all full-time employees (minus 30) if one full-time employee purchases coverage through a marketplace and obtains a tax credit or subsidy.
  • Applicable large employers that provide minimum essential coverage that is not affordable or does not provide minimum value in 2014 will not owe the $3,000 tax times all full-time employees who purchase coverage through a marketplace and receive a tax credit or subsidy.
  • Employers will not have to report to the government on their full-time employees and health plan coverage in 2014, although the government will urge voluntary reporting.
  • Employers that have been considering adjusting the structure of their workforces to minimize the number of their full-time employees appear to have additional time in which to analyze and implement workforce changes.
Article By:

 of

In a Pro-Employee World, U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Offer Employers Hope

GT Law

In a pair of important opinions released last week, both of which are helpful to employers, the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar for employees asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. _, No. 12-484 (2013), the Court ruled that an employee claiming retaliation must do more than show that retaliatory animus was a “motivating factor” for discipline – it must be the “but-for” cause.  In Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. _, No. 11-556 (2013), the Court ruled that for employers to be held vicariously liable for the actions of a “supervisor,” the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “supervisor” had power to take a “tangible employment action,” such as transferring or terminating the employee. Authority merely to direct aspects of the employee’s work will not suffice.

Nassar and Vance represent significant victories for employers faced with Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims. The heightened requirements that charging employees now face should enhance an employer’s prospects for obtaining summary judgment and, failing that, impose a more rigorous hurdle for plaintiffs at trial.

Nassar Imposes More Stringent “But-For” Causation Test for Title VII Retaliation Claims

Plaintiff in Nassar was a physician of Middle Eastern descent. The defendant university hired him as a member of its medical faculty, and under the terms of the university’s affiliation agreement with a local hospital, the plaintiff also worked at the hospital as a staff physician. The plaintiff alleged that the University’s Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine harassed him because of her discriminatory “bias against Arabs and Muslims.” The plaintiff ultimately resigned from the university faculty, and accused his superior of discriminatory bias in his letter of resignation, which he sent to the university’s chair of Internal Medicine and other faculty members. The chair was allegedly dismayed by the public accusations of discrimination, and said that the chief must “be publicly exonerated” of the charges against her. When he learned that plaintiff had been offered a staff physician position at the hospital, the chair objected that the affiliation agreement required all staff physicians to also be faculty members, and the hospital therefore withdrew its offer to plaintiff.

Plaintiff brought suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that he had been constructively discharged by reason of the chief’s discriminatory harassment, and that the chair subsequently allegedly retaliated against him for complaining of that harassment. A jury found for plaintiff on both claims, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed only as to the retaliation claim, holding that retaliation claims under Title VII required a showing merely that retaliation was a “motivating factor” for an adverse employment action rather than its “but-for” cause.

The Supreme Court vacated that decision, concluding that “the text, structure and history of Title VII demonstrate that a plaintiff making a retaliation claim … must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” The Court reasoned that because Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision appears in a different section from the status-based discrimination ban, which utilizes the lesser “motivating factor” causation test, the “but-for” standard applies to Title VII retaliation claims. Accordingly, “Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” To establish a retaliation claim, employees must now show that their employer would not have taken the challenged employment action but for the employee’s protected activity.

Vance Limits “Supervisors” to Those with Power to Take a Tangible Employment Action

In a second critical decision for employers, plaintiff in Vance, an African-American woman, worked in the university’s Banquet and Catering Division of Dining Services. Plaintiff alleged that a fellow employee, a white woman named Davis, harassed and intimidated her because of her race.  Plaintiff sued under Title VII, alleging that her white co-worker created a racially hostile work environment. “The parties vigorously dispute[d] the precise nature and scope of Davis’ duties, but they agree[d] that Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Vance.”

The District Court granted defendant summary judgment, holding the university was notvicariously liable for Davis’s alleged actions because she could not take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff and therefore was not a “supervisor.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide “who qualifies as a ‘supervisor’” under Title VII. The Court held that “an employee is a ‘supervisor’ for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII [only] if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim” and affirmed.

In analyzing when an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, the Court defined “tangible employment actions” to include effecting “‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.’” The Court specifically rejected the EEOC’s definition of “supervisor,” which tied “supervisor status to the ability to exercise significant direction over another’s daily work[,]” as “a study in ambiguity.” Hence, under Title VII, if an employee is not authorized to impose tangible employment actions against another, the employer cannot be vicariously liable for the subject employee’s alleged harassment.

Vance enhances an employer’s ability to limit the company’s responsibility for harassment. Employers should remain mindful of the duties of their employees, ensuring that only key management and supervisory personnel possess the power to effect a “significant change in employment status”. Clear definitions of an employee’s responsibilities should greatly limit any future claims of vicarious liability against employers. This more precise definition of “supervisor” should, like Nassar, increase the likelihood of dismissal at the summary judgment stage and help obtain favorable in limine and trial rulings.

Conclusion

Nassar and Vance afford significant advantages to employers defending against discrimination and retaliation claims.  Importantly, although the decisions themselves were concerned with claims arising under federal anti-discrimination (not just Title VII) laws, the Court’s reasoning may well find acceptance among state courts, which frequently apply the Title VII analysis to claims asserted under analogous state laws. Nassar and Vance are likely to prove valuable tools to employers defending against claims of discrimination and/or retaliation, increasing both the prospects of obtaining summary judgment and, if necessary, the odds of success at trial.

Article By:

China to Strictly Regulate Secondment/Staffing Business Model

Morgan Lewis logo

Amendments to the PRC Labor Contract Law take effect on July 1, adding limitations on employment structures.

On July 1, 2013, amendments to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Labor Contract Law will take effect. The amendments increase the regulation of staffing and labor service businesses and discourage the use of secondment arrangements to avoid employer-related liabilities. The new law was published on December 28, 2012 and is an important development in China’s business community.

In recent years, increasing numbers of labor-intensive businesses, including state-owned banks and large multinationals, have used secondment services provided by staffing firms due to the difficulties involved in terminating employees and increased compliance costs in China. The secondment arrangements became attractive options among employers because the termination of such an arrangement was not subject to the numerous restrictions set forth in the labor law and regulations and avoided triggering severance obligations.

In light of the Chinese government’s amendments to the PRC Labor Contract Law, companies with operations in China should keep in the mind the below major requirements when formulating or executing compliance plans.

Qualification of Staffing Firms

To engage in a staffing business for the provision of secondment services, a company must meet the new law’s requirements, which include a minimum registered capital of at least RMB$2 million. In addition, a company must apply for a special permit before conducting any staffing business. As the law is silent on the qualifications of an applicant to obtain such a permit, the approval authorities have broad discretion. It is possible the Chinese government will control the number of service providers in a particular geographic area by limiting the number of permits issued. In practice, firms without permits may structure their business models as outsourcing businesses by arguing that they are not providing staffing services. However, because the distinction between “secondment” and “outsourcing” is not defined in any law or regulation, the regulatory authorities may treat the outsourcing model as secondment in substance and thus require a permit.

Equal Work, Equal Pay

The new law requires that the recipients of secondment services compensate the secondee for his or her services on the principle of “equal work, equal pay.” Although this concept has been in existence since the promulgation of the PRC Labor Law in 1994, it is not a defined term in any labor regulation, including the new law. Traditionally, benefits and other nonsalary items, such as equity incentive awards, have not been considered when applying the principle of equal work, equal pay. It remains to be seen how the courts and labor arbitration organizations will interpret the principle in the context of the new law.

Limitation on the Role of Secondees

The new law expressly states that, as a general principle, employers should hire employees through signed labor contracts and that secondment can be used only if the position is of a temporary, auxiliary, or replaceable nature. A position will be treated as temporary if it lasts no more than six months, but it is not clear whether the secondment term can be renewed upon expiration. “Auxiliary positions” are defined as noncore business positions without further explanation. In practice, it may often be very difficult to distinguish between core and noncore positions. For instance, while it can be argued that only bankers are core to the banking business, it can also be asserted that in-house lawyers should be core personnel as well because of their role in controlling and managing risks, which is critical to banks. The new law defines “replaceable positions” as those left vacant because the formal employees are on leave for personal or business reason, but it is not clear if replacement positions can be renewed.

Percentage Limitation on the Number of Secondees

The new law requires employers to strictly limit the number of secondees to a certain percentage of the total number of personnel (including secondees). Specific percentages will be announced by the State Council. It is generally understood that the percentage should be within a 10% to 30% range. A literal reading of the language of the new law suggests that any percentage limitation should be in addition to the requirement that the positions for secondees should be of a temporary, auxiliary, or replaceable nature. Thus, an employer may not argue that it complies with the law by limiting the number of secondees below the maximum percentage, regardless of the nature of a secondee’s position. In practice, however, employers or regulatory authorities may take the percentage cap as a safe harbor due to the difficulties of defining the nature of a secondee’s position.

Consequences of Breach

For staffing firms without a permit, the Chinese government may take away all illegal revenue and impose monetary penalties of up to five times the amount of the revenue. If a staffing firm or employer fails to comply with the law, the labor regulatory authority will order it to take corrective measures. A per person penalty ranging from RMB$5,000 to RMB$10,000 will be imposed if no remedial measures are adopted by the employer or staffing service provider. The new law is silent on whether a secondee may request that the employer convert him or her into a formal employee if the employer is found to be noncompliant. If the answer is no, what will happen to the existing secondment? Should the parties terminate the secondment and should the actual user of the employee’s service formally employ someone for the same position? May the secondee have a right of first refusal if the actual user is required to do so? These and other similar questions remain to be answered by further implementing rules from the State Council or judicial interpretation from the Supreme People’s Court.

Article By:

 of