Tag: employment

NLRB, Labor Laws and the Impact on NCAA Athletes

Can—and should—college athletes be classified as employees? The answer to that question may be in flux. In a recent episode of the In-House Roundhouse Podcast, Womble Bond Dickinson attorney and host Mark Henriques welcomed Womble Bond Dickinson attorney Mike Ingersoll and University of North Carolina School of Law Professor Barbara Osborne to discuss the latest developments. Both guests were scholarship student-athletes themselves during their college days, adding to their perspective on the many issues pertaining to college athletes as employees. This article is derived from that conversation and is the latest installment in Womble Bond Dickinson’s Opportunity Economy series.

Just when you think you have all the answers about college athletes as employees, the National Labor Relations Board changes the questions.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s September 2021 memorandum states that her office will consider some college athletes to be employees moving forward. But a number of significant questions—including whether Abruzzo’s memo has the full support of the NLRB—remain unanswered.

The NLRB Memo: What it Says

Ingersoll explained that Abruzzo’s memo dovetailing off of the NLRB’s 2015 Northwestern University decision—which really was a non-decision. In that case, the NLRB failed to render a decision as to whether or not Northwestern University’s scholarship football players were university employees under the National Labor Relations Act. That non-decision created a gray area of the law that Abruzzo’s memo seeks to fill.

“Essentially, she has decided her office will prosecute disputes brought by students under the NLR Act as if they are employees,” Ingersoll said. “She said any mischaracterization of players as ‘student-athletes’ – which is a nomenclature that has been used for decades – will itself be consider a violation of the NLRA as far as her office is concerned.”

The NLRB hasn’t adopted this as its official position, though, and the memo appears to be limited only to private colleges and universities, because the NLRA only applies to private schools.

“The memo itself raises more questions than it answers,” Osborne said. “I think it invites student-athletes to file claims that they deserve to be paid as employees, and that opens a whole new can of worms.”

“The memo itself raises more questions than it answers. I think it invites student-athletes to file claims that they deserve to be paid as employees, and that opens a whole new can of worms.”

BARBARA OSBORNE, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW

So should the term “student-athlete” be scrubbed from the college sports lexicon?

Ingersoll believes colleges and universities should avoid using it, at least in the short term, if they believe they are at risk of having to defend employment claims in front of the NLRB.

“I always thought of myself as a student-athlete and was proud of that,” Osborne said. “I don’t necessarily know that using that term misidentifies, but you need to classify those people as employees.”

Unanswered Questions in the NLRB Memo

However, as Osborne notes, this raises the first of many serious unanswered questions. The NLRB memo would require at least some college athletes to be classified as employees. However, this is at odds with NCAA rules, which prohibit athletes from being institutional employees.

“So we have a conundrum,” she said.

Another question: Which athletes are covered by the memo? Ingersoll said that is unclear.

“The memo distinguishes ‘Certain Players’ as a capitalized term – but it doesn’t actually define the term,” he said. The NLRB only has jurisdiction over private colleges and universities, not state-supported schools.  The Northwestern University case applied only and explicitly to scholarship football players at Northwestern. It provided no opinion on other players in any other sport or at any other university, Ingersoll noted.

So to which students and sports does the memo apply? Only scholarship players or all varsity athletes? Both men’s and women’s athletics? Only so-called “revenue sports” or any officially sanctioned sport? To date, college officials and athletes don’t have any answers to these questions.

“Wait and see how it gets enforced,” Ingersoll said. “My assumption would be that it is intended to apply as broadly as the GC’s office can make it apply.”

Osborne said, “The ‘Certain Players’ term is very unclear. The only sport she mentions is football, but it’s hard to say if it’s just about football. But if the memo only applies to scholarship football players, you are leaving everybody else vulnerable.”

She explained that the NLRA is all about the ability to unionize and engage in activities related to exploring unionization, with the employer being prohibited from interfering.

“What she’s saying is that if these athletes want to unionize, we’re going to support that and (the colleges) can’t interfere. Again, though, that opens up so many more questions than there are answers,” Osborne said. For example, which athletes may organize? Can only private school athletes organize? And what exactly are “revenue sports?” This may vary from school to school. For example, the University of Georgia’s Gymnastics program is a profitable operation, while many schools actually lose money on football.

Another key question is that if athletes can organize, may they then collectively bargain with the NCAA about its rules and requirements. Ingersoll said all of this is unprecedented territory for college sports.

“From a legal standpoint, there’s been no union activities among college sports that I’m aware of,” he said. “As an athlete, it’s made clear to you early on that when you participate on a team, you are part of a dictatorship, not a democracy. There is no forcing the coaching staff or administration to do something they don’t want to do.”

Osborne said, “I absolutely agree that it’s not something athletes think about doing – they’ve got too much personally at stake…. The flip side is that we do see student-athletes, through the free speech aspect, uniting for causes. I see that as a more hospitable way to open up a dialogue as to what could be done to make things better, but I don’t see that in union terms.”

“From a legal standpoint, there’s been no union activities among college sports that I’m aware of. As an athlete, it’s made clear to you early on that when you participate on a team, you are part of a dictatorship, not a democracy.”

MIKE INGERSOLL

As an example, Ingersoll noted the 2020 college football season, in which a number of teams influenced their conferences to hold the season amid COVID-19 concerns.

What’s Next for Athletes as Employees?

The NLRB memo isn’t the only significant development related to the employment status of college athletes.

An Eastern District of Pennsylvania case brought by college athletes alleges employment status under FLSA demanding wages. The claim survived a motion to dismiss and is now up on appeal. This is quite different from the Seventh Circuit precedent in Berger, which the Appeals Court dismissed because it decided college athletes weren’t employees and, thus, aren’t subject to the FLSA.

“We’ll see what ends up happening at the appellate level in light of these decisions,” Ingersoll said. “At the time of the Berger decision (in 2016), the landscape was significantly different than it is now.”

Also, the NLRB hasn’t adopted the Abruzzo memo as its official position and is limited in scope. But Ingersoll said the memo may “bleed into” state and federal litigation—litigation he expects to increase in volume.

One factor driving increased litigation surrounding college athletes-as-employees is Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence in this year’s NCAA v. Alston decision. The case opened the door for college athletes to use their name, image and likeness for commercial purposes

“At the point where you get favorable state and federal decisions in court, you get some teeth behind this notion of athletes as employees,” he said.

“At the point where you get favorable state and federal decisions in court, you get some teeth behind this notion of athletes as employees.”

MIKE INGERSOLL

Osborne pointed out that there may be many unintended consequences if student-athletes are reclassified as university employees. For example, scholarships would be considered taxable income, and athletes may even be owed wages. Employment status also may impact Pell Grants or need-based financial aid eligibility. For student-athletes who are dependents on families, how would family taxes be impacted? “There are all sorts of tax implications,” Osborne said.

Such a change in status also could require colleges and universities to provide Worker’s Compensation coverage for student-athletes who are hurt on the job.

And then there is the NLRB memo itself. Is it effective without board adoption? And what would happen if the board does (or does not) adopt it?

“The memo essentially means that Abruzzo and her office will investigate and prosecute claims with the assumption that the athlete is a university employee,” Ingersoll said. However, he said the full board ultimately will have to make a decision on the memo and stake out a position.

“If the board were to reject Abruzzo’s position, that essentially kills it—Abruzzo is bound by the board. The board is going to have to stake out an official position. If the board adopts it, that will be the NLRB’s position and as long as the athlete meets the criteria, then the case will have to proceed under the assumption the athlete is an employee under the NLRA.”

“If the board were to reject Abruzzo’s position, that essentially kills it—Abruzzo is bound by the board. The board is going to have to stake out an official position.”

MIKE INGERSOLL

But the NLRB’s position certainly could change later under a different administration. “The real teeth are in state and federal litigation decisions. That’s when you will see a bit of a sea change,” he said.

“The thing that stops that wave of litigation would be if we have federal legislation—which we’ve had a lot of lobbying for,” Osborne said. Proposals on the table run the gamut from supporting everything the NCAA has done in the past to the proposed College Athlete Bill of Rights, which would provide compensation and revenue sharing for student-athletes. Osborne wonders if the uncertainty created by the memo might force some form of Congressional action.

In addition, she notes that 37 court cases decided that state student-athletes are not employees and do not have rights associated with employment. “We have to reconcile those precedents,” she said.

So the path forward remains uncertain, with many questions still left to be decided.

Ingersoll said, “Justice Kavanaugh did provide a road map for these challenges to move forward. But right now, the NLRB memo is limited in its scope and impact. There should be no rush to judgment until we have some binding case law.”

Also, click here to read “Alston Aftermath: NLRB General Counsel Memo Confirms Employment Status for Certain College Football Players Under the National Labor Relations Act and Declares an End to the ‘Student-Athlete’” by Mike Ingersoll.

Copyright © 2021 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on employment law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Immigration and Compliance Briefing: Fall Travel & COVID-19 Policy Update

On October 25, 2021, the Biden Administration issued a Presidential Proclamation to lift the travel bans which currently restrict entry into the U.S. directly from specific geographic areas (for a full list of restricted countries, see our prior client alert here), to be effective November 8, 2021. Instead of banning entry from specific locations abroad, the U.S. will utilize vaccine status-based restrictions for incoming travelers entering the country as noncitizen nonimmigrants (i.e., temporary visa holders or visa-free travelers). Once the new rules go into effect, most travelers will be required to provide proof of being fully vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to boarding an airplane, regardless of recent travel history (“fully vaccinated” refers to individuals who received the final dose of the COVID-19 vaccine more than 14 days prior).

Currently, the list of acceptable vaccines approved/authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO), are as follows:

  • Pfizer-BioNTech

  • Moderna

  • Johnson & Johnson

  • Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield

  • Sinopharm

  • Sinovac

  • Mixed doses comprising of any two authorized/approved vaccines

As additional vaccines receive authorization/approval by either the FDA or WHO, it is anticipated that they will be added to the list of acceptable vaccines. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control will implement contact-tracing protocols. Mask mandates for airlines and airports, as well as the pre-travel negative COVID-19 test requirements, will remain in place until at least mid-January.

Exceptions include, but are not limited to, the following types of noncitizen nonimmigrants:

  • Certain noncitizen nonimmigrants traveling in an official capacity (i.e., foreign government officials and their family, individuals entering pursuant to a NATO visa classification, or individuals traveling pursuant to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement)

  • Children under the age of eighteen (18) years

  • Individuals participating in COVID-19 clinical trials*

  • Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to a medical contraindication, as determined by the CDC

  • Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to unavailability in their country of residence who are seeking to enter the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa except B-1/B-2

  • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces

  • Sea crew members

  • Individuals whose entry is in the national interest

  • Individuals granted exceptions for humanitarian or emergency reasons

*The CDC will determine the qualifying criteria for individuals seeking to enter under this exception.

In addition to the restrictions above, all unvaccinated travelers traveling to the U.S. must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within one day of travel. This requirement includes unvaccinated U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders).

Vaccinated U.S. citizens and Green Card holders must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.

Finally, additional measures may be required for certain types of travelers, including self-quarantine and vaccination within sixty (60) days of entry.

This policy will remain in place for an initial period of sixty (60) days and may be renewed on a monthly basis after that.

U.S. Land Border Updates

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will lift travel restrictions for land and ferry border crossings from Canada and Mexico in two phases, beginning November 8, 2021. Instead of keeping the land borders closed to nonessential travel, the Biden administration will implement the same policy as for air travel. Beginning November 8, nonessential travel will be permitted for fully vaccinated individuals, as described above. Nonessential travel will continue to be permitted regardless of vaccination status. However, beginning in early January 2022, all individuals entering the U.S. via the land border or ferry will be required to be fully vaccinated. This decision will permit nonessential travel via the land border between Canada and Mexico for the first time since March 21, 2020.

Vaccine Requirement for Individuals Seeking Permanent Immigrant Status

Effective October 1, 2021, applicants for immigrant status (i.e., a “green card”) in the U.S. who are subject to submitting Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record must be fully vaccinated as described above against COVID-19, before a civil surgeon designated by the Immigration Service can complete and sign the Form I-693 medical exam.

Waivers may be granted in certain circumstances, including where the COVID-19 vaccine is:

  • Not age appropriate;

  • Contraindicated due to a medical condition;

  • Not routinely available where the civil surgeon practices; or

  • Limited in supply and would cause significant delay for the applicant to receive the vaccination.

    © 1998-2021 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more articles on COVID-19 Immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Legal Industry Highlights: Law Firm Hires, Awards, and COVID-19 Innovation in May 2020

While the world has been hunkered down at home, participating in Zoom calls and getting jobs done from kitchen tables and home offices across the country, the legal industry has continued to innovate, respond and move forward, even during these troubled times.

Read on for a sampling of legal industry changes from May 2020.

Hiring and Law Firm Moves

Last week, Perkins Coie announced that Jill Louis joined the Corporate & Securities practice as a partner in the Dallas office, in a move that further augments their capabilities in the Lone Star state. Randy Bridgeman, the co-chair of Perkins Coie’s Corporate & Securities practice praised Louis’s entrepreneurial spirit and her in house and leadership experience.  He says, “Jill’s background in M&A and representing private equity-backed healthcare, infrastructure, and technology companies will be highly valuable to our clients across Texas and beyond.”

Jill Louis Corporate Lawyer
Jill B. Louis Perkins Coie

Louis has experience working with public and private companies in mergers and acquisitions, franchise transactions, corporate governance matters and working in industries including retail, technology and healthcare.  She has worked with large and small companies, from startups to Fortune 50 corporations, and has worked both in house and in private practice during her career. Dean Harvey, the Dallas office managing partner, says, “Jill’s arrival aligns with our ongoing strategy of expanding our corporate offering in Dallas to support our growing technology and privacy capabilities.”

Up in the northeast, Pierce Atwood added bankruptcy and creditors’ rights attorney Alex F. Mattera to the firm’s Boston office. Mattera focuses his practice on creditor and debtor rights, commercial bankruptcy, bankruptcy litigation and insolvency. He represents secured creditors, focusing on the collection and workouts of defaulted and troubled loans, creditors’ committees, debtors, trustees and other parties involved in bankruptcy.

“Alex’s expertise in bankruptcy and creditors’ rights matters, particularly his loan workout experience, will really help us serve our lending and business clients. This is the third major recession Alex has been through,” said Pierce Atwood Business Practice Group Chair Keith J. Cunningham. “That kind of experience is so valuable in times like these. We couldn’t be happier to welcome him to the firm.”

Mattera has presented and sat on panels for the American Bankruptcy Institute, as well as Massachusetts Continuing Education and the Boston Bar Association.

 “Alex’s expertise in workouts and collections will provide the firm even greater depth on the backend of loan transactions as we continue to provide a comprehensive suite of services to creditors and banks,” said Bruce I. Miller, Pierce Atwood’s real estate lending partner.

Devon Williams Named Managing Partner Elect
Devon Williams Ward and Smith

With an eye to the future and succession planning, North Carolina firm Ward and Smith elected labor and employment attorney Devon Williams as the firm’s co-managing director elect. Williams will assume the new role at the end of 2020. She will serve alongside Brad Evans, who has served as the Ward and Smith’s managing director since 2017. Williams is preceded in the co-managing director position by Ken Wooten, who is retiring from Ward and Smith at the end of this year.

“Succession planning is essential to all businesses, including our own, and choosing a strong leader enables seamless continuity in client service, and maintains stability within the firm,” Wooten said. “I think it says a lot about our firm that we’re selecting a millennial leader to take us into the next decade. Devon will bring a unique, and much needed perspective to the perennial concerns of a fully-engaged law firm.”

Since joining Ward and Smith in 2012, Williams has led the firm’s Labor and Employment Section and co-chaired the Raleigh Geographic Team.

“I’m grateful for and enthusiastic about the opportunity to build upon the legacy the firm has experienced under Ken’s leadership while working in tandem with Brad to continue our efforts to innovate efficient legal solutions for our clients, and attract and retain top-tier talent,” Williams said.

As co-managing director of Ward and Smith, Williams will maintain her labor and employment practice, where she advises employers on wage and hour issues, federal contractor compliance, prevention of employment discrimination, employee discipline and retaliation and harassment claims.

Life sciences attorney Frank Rahmani joined Sidley Austin as a partner in the firm’s Palo Alto, Calif., corporate practice, and will be a member of the Global Life Sciences practice. Ramani counsels CEOs, boards of directors, founders and investors on financings and public offerings, strategic collaborations, licensing matters, technology acquisition and spin-off transactions.

“Frank has a well-earned reputation as a trusted adviser, which is built on enduring relationships and breadth of experience representing high-growth, cutting edge life sciences and technology companies and investors at all stages,” said Martin Wellington, managing partner of Sidley Austin’s Palo Alto office. “He has great energy, a high-quality practice and a clear vision for growth that aligns with ours. Frank’s arrival signifies our strategy to build out Sidley’s presence in Northern California.”

Womble Bond Dickinson retired partner and North Carolina trial lawyer Allan R. Gitter passed away May 17 at the age of 83.

Allan Gitter Womble Bond Dickinson
Alan Gitter

Gitter joined Womble Bond Dickinson in 1962, when Womble had about a dozen attorneys.  Gitter was the lead attorney in over one thousand cases filed in North Carolina state and federal courts between 1964 and 2009. Many lawyers who are now partners with the firm tried their first cases with Gitter, including Gemma Saluta, Murray Greason, Rachel Keen, Jim Morgan, Rick Rice, Bill Raper, Ellen Gregg, Alison Bost, Brad Wood and Chris Geis.

Gitter was inducted as a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1982, and served as an Advocate in the American Board of Trial Advocates. He loved legal research and the law, but his interests also included coaching the Tiny Demons Pop Warner football team and his work at the Children’s Center, a facility devoted to the education and care of children with chronic health issues.  He put himself through law school in part with his work as a night radio deejay on the campus radio station, employing his trademark sign-off at the end of the night:  “Remember never to buy bad dreams.”

Gitter is survived by his wife of 32 years, Sandy; three children, Alison, Kent, and Ryne; two step-children, Wendy and Rob; multiple grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Law Firm Innovation, Awards and Accomplishments

Redgrave LLP, a law firm focused on information governance and eDiscovery law,  formed a Restructuring Discovery Team, working closely with law firms and advisors on litigation readiness and discovery for all types of restructurings. The Redgrave team handles data collection, preservation and review efforts during pre-petition and after a bankruptcy has been filed.

“We are proud to be the nation’s leading eDiscovery law firm, and we are very excited to formalize our experience in restructuring discovery,” said Redgrave partner Christine Payne, head of the firm’s restructuring team. “Many people do not realize how different discovery can be in the restructuring and bankruptcy contexts, as opposed to typical civil litigation. There is significant client need in this area, and we want to support that.”

Managing Intellectual Property named three Texas Bracewell partners as IP Stars. Albert B. Kimball, was recognized for patents and trademarks, and Constance Gall Rhebergen and Douglas W. Rommelmann were recognized for patents.

IP Stars covers IP practice areas in over 70 jurisdictions, making it one of the most comprehensive guides in the industry.

In a decision that could provide a roadmap for local Marijuana dispensaries, A Kutak Rock team including litigation partners Andrew King and Fred Davis, and intellectual property counsel Sara Gillette representing Conway, Arkansas-based Harvest Cannabis Dispensary (“Harvest”) secured a preliminary injunction in a trademark dispute.  Natural State Wellness Dispensary, LLC (“NSW”), and Natural State Enterprises, LLC, were using the name “Harvest” in for cannabis facilities across Arkansas, something the preliminary injunction now prohibits.

After an evidentiary hearing conducted over Zoom, Circuit judge Susan Weaver rejected the argument that  The NSW Entities were authorized to use the name “Harvest” through their connection with Arizona-based Harvest Health & Recreation, Inc, a company using the Harvest mark in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Florida prior to the opening of the Arkansas Harvest dispensary.   The court looked at precedent set by the USPTO and other federal courts, indicating products containing more than 0.3% THC are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act and therefore do not enjoy Trademark rights under the Lanham Act. Furthermore, Harvest adopted its name in 2017 and opened its facility in October of 2019, providing the dispensary with state-law trademark rights in Arkansas.

Kutak Rock partner Andrew King: “The Faulkner County outcome is the first of its kind, where a local cannabis dispensary prevailed under state trademark law against a multi-state operator for which federal trademark protection is unavailable. This outcome could provide a road map for local cannabis companies in states where cannabis has been legalized.”

Law Firm and Legal industry Response to COVID-19: A Sampling

COVID-19 has upended business as usual across the country; injecting terms like “flatten the curve”; “PPE” and “Contract Tracing” into everyday conversation.  The National Law Review has covered some of the steps firms and other legal industry groups have taken to have a positive impact during these challenging times.  For example, DLA Piper has signed on to the Ascend’s Five Point Action program, demonstrating a dedication to mitigating the disparate impact of COVID-19 on minority communities.  Additionally, to broaden the reach of Coronavirus information and regulatory developments, Cornerstone Research worked with Stanford University to provide a database of legal articles and memos.  Below are some more instances of law firms and other legal industry groups taking steps to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19.

Health Care Contact TracingMintz Law Firm provided pro bono counsel to Partners in Health (“PIH”), a Boston global health nonprofit, helping with the development of the Massachusetts COVID-19 Community Tracing Collaborative (“CTC”). The CTC is an initiative that works with PIH, the Massachusetts COVID-19 Command Center, Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority and Massachusetts Department of Public Health to train, hire and deploy workers who will work with individuals exposed to Coronavirus.  This veritable army of “contact tracers” will provide individuals with information about the virus, social support to facilitate self-isolation or quarantine, and provide appropriate next steps so individuals can stay healthy and protect their families; ultimately enhancing the Commonwealth’s ability to respond to COVID-19.  Dr. Joia Mukherjee, PIH’s chief medical officer, says on contact tracing:

Access to this information helps contacts to know how to protect their loved ones, and to get tested or cared for themselves,” she said. “Without knowing our own status, without being able to specifically protect our loved ones, we are all living in the dark. (And) we know that there is significant anxiety in this darkness.

An interdisciplinary group of Mintz attorneys worked with PIH to facilitate this partnership on a pro-bono basis, helping this critical work get off the ground.  Attorneys involved were Dianne Bourque and Ellen Janos, Members in Mintz’s Health Practice,  Elissa Flynn-Poppey, Chair of the Government Law Practice, Julie Korostoff Chair of the firm’s IT Transactions & Outsourcing Practice, Andrew Matzkin, a Member in the firm’s Employment practice, and Corporate Associate Daniel Marden.

“Mintz is pleased to have been able to assist PIH in its efforts to change the course of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth,” said Mintz Member Ellen Janos. “It has been deeply rewarding to work on such a critically important project.”

Another group working to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 is the Diverse Attorney Pipeline Program (“DAPP”), a group with a mission to diversify the legal profession by expanding opportunities for women of color law students to secure summer positions at law firms and corporations following their first year of law school, an activity that greatly increases the likelihood of an offer of paid employment after graduation.  DAPP was founded by Tiffany Harper and Chastity Boyce, both women of color who graduated from law school during the previous recession, and are passionate about mitigating the negative effects on women attorneys of color.

Recognizing the disruption that COVID-19 has had on everyone, and specifically law firm internships, DAPP is launching a fund and fellowship for students who are unable to complete their law firm internships this year.  Started with seed money from the organization, DAPP has a goal of 100,000 to fund this program, and is requesting support from law firms, corporations, bar associations, and other nonprofit organizations in the form of earmarked donations.

“As law firms and businesses are forced to cut their summer internship programs, we hope they’ll consider contributing to this fund to support our work of infusing the pipeline to the legal profession with talented, highly qualified women of color in order to address the dismal statistics surrounding the number of women of color who are hired, retained and promoted at large law firms across the nation,” said Harper.

Students who receive the stipend will receive financial support as well as intensive professional development; involving volunteer legal work to facilitate skill development and meaningful training for participants.  Additionally, the awardees will be matched with lawyer mentors, be provided with professional development and coaching.

“This is not a time to give up on diversity and inclusion efforts; it’s a time to refocus our efforts on preparing the next generation of lawyers for the challenges they’ll face in a diverse, global marketplace,” added Boyce.

Copyright ©2020 National Law Forum, LLC

For more Law Firm News updates, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

Brazil and India Act to Protect Employers and Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the global workplace and international employer-employee relations in profound ways. As COVID-19 continues to spread, countries are enacting legislation and issuing guidance to support employers and employees as they confront the global crisis. In particular, Brazil, with a population of over 211 million, and India, with a population of approximately 1.3 billion, each has enacted measures to combat the ongoing economic and financial troubles caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Specifically, Brazil has issued federal provisional measures, including Provisional Measure No. 936 (“MP-936”) and Provisional Measure No. 927 (“MP-927”), to socialize the idea that employers may seek to reduce employees’ pay in exchange for greater job security. MP-936 provides for an Emergency Employment and Income Maintenance Program, including an Emergency Employment and Income Preservation Benefit (the “Benefit”), as well as policies for reducing salary and working hours and suspending employment agreements, and provisions for collective bargaining agreement (“CBAs”) meetings by virtual means. In particular, MP-936 and MP-927 provide for the following:

  • Salary and Hourly Reductions: MP-936 allows salary and hours reductions for up to a 90-day period. Each employee’s pay rate, hours and tenure must be preserved and reinstated upon the employee’s return to work. In the event of a reduction in salary and/or hours, the government is responsible for paying the Benefit. Employees who receive the Benefit still may receive unemployment insurance benefits. The amount of the Benefit that employees receive is based upon the amount of unemployment insurance to which they are entitled. For employees who earn less than R$3,135 or more than R$12,202.12 there is no obligation to have collective negotiations. There are various notice requirements for any salary and hours reduction, and an employer’s failure to comply may result in legal sanctions or fines. The presence of a CBA may provide for different reduction and notice requirements.
  • Suspension of Employment: MP-936 provides for suspension of employment agreements (e.g., furlough) for a period of up to 60 days, with the government paying a Benefit of 100% of the unemployment insurance to which employees are entitled. Employers are required to preserve employees’ current pay rate, hours and tenure, and employees are entitled to all employer-provided benefits. For employers who earned a gross revenue exceeding R$4,800,000 in 2019, the government will pay a Benefit of 70% of the employment insurance that employees are entitled to, provided that during the suspension period, employers pay to employeesfinancial support equal to 30% of employees’ salary. There are various notice requirements for any reduction. If employees work during a suspension, including engaging in any telework, then the suspension will be deemed not to have occurred, and legal sanctions and fines may be imposed upon employers. For employers whose income tax is calculated on the basis of actual income, financial support is deductible from the net revenue for purposes of calculating employers’ income tax. Note that redundancy terminations are considered terminations without cause, and employers have the sole discretion to determine selection criteria and severance packages.
  • Use of Accrued, Unused Paid Leave: MP-927 authorizes not only the use of accrued but unused paid leave, but also the use of holidays still being accrued, as well as holidays for which the accruing period has not even started.

India has imposed even broader employee protections that require employers to bear the heavy economic burden to support employees during the national lockdown. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian government invoked special provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (the “DMA”) to implement a series of orders under the DMA (“Orders”) to impose a 21-day nationwide lockdown, effective March 25, 2020.

To counter the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on India’s labor force, the Orders include strict directives for employers. The Orders prohibit employers from terminating any employees or contract labor during the lockdown, except for disciplinary reasons. In addition, the Orders bar employers from reducing employees’ wages. In addition, the Indian government has addressed the following issues that affect employers and employees:

  • Maintaining the Workforce: During the lockdown, employers should not reduce or stop salary payments or terminate employees. Similarly, employers may not reduce work hours and wages during the lockdown. Employers, however, may temporarily halt non-statutory benefits and postpone incentives until the business normalizes, provided that such measures adhere to employers’ internal policies, employee handbook provisions and/or employment agreements. In addition, employers may defer or suspend bonuses and annual increments for employees, subject to some narrow exceptions.
  • Paid Leave: Employers are prohibited from requiring employees to use paid time off during the lockdown. Employees, however, are entitled to use their accrued annual leave at their discretion, subject to internal policies. Employers cannot mandate that employees take unpaid leave.
  • Medical Checks: Employers may take steps to verify employees’ health, as long as such measures protect the health, safety and well-being of other employees. Such steps include, for example, requiring medical check-ups for employees who have travelled internationally. If employers pursue such measures, they must ensure that they have systems in place to ensure that employees’ medical records remain confidential and secure. Employers should be mindful not to discriminate against employees by selecting employees for medical checks based upon race or nationality.
  • Sick Time for Employees with COVID-19: Certain state governments have issued notifications/orders requiring employers to grant 28 days of paid leave to employees who have been infected with COVID-19. Employers may encourage, but not require, employees who have contracted COVID-19 to use their accrued sick leave. If necessary, employers may require COVID-19-positive employees to continue to take leave until such employees medically certify that they may return to work, during which time employers should continue to pay employees’ full wages and benefits.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

For more employment considerations amid the COVID-19 pandemic, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

The 2019 Honig Act Means New Obligations for New Jersey Employers Around Cannabis at Work

Employers cannot afford to ignore the direct impact of the 2019 amendments to the law permitting legal medicinal marijuana use in New Jersey. Among the most important areas of concern, employers must be prepared to (1) create policies that will comply with federal, state and local laws, as well as maintain a safe workplace and (2) respond to a potential increase in positive drug tests and the resultant challenges to any employer action taken in response to a positive test result (e.g., denial of employment for an applicant or termination of the employment of a current employee).

New Jersey’s former Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) contained language stating:

[N]othing in [CUMMA] shall be construed to require… an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14.

On July 2, 2019, Governor Murphy signed into law the Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-2, et seq. (Honig Act), which replaced CUMMA. The revised employment law provisions of the Honig Act create job protections. The above-cited language from CUMMA changed, and the Honig Act provides as follows:

It shall be unlawful to take any adverse employment action against an employee who is a registered qualifying patient based solely on the employee’s status as a registrant with the commission [i.e., the Cannabis Regulatory Commission established pursuant to the law].

The Honig Act defines “adverse employment action” as “refusing to hire or employ an individual, barring or discharging an individual from employment, requiring an individual to retire from employment, or discriminating against an individual in compensation or in any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” N.J.S.A. 24:6I-3. State regulations were adopted to support CUMMA (N.J.A.C. 8:64-1 et seq.) but no new regulations were promulgated in furtherance of the Honig Act.

The patient/employee-friendly provision moves New Jersey into the group of states with medical marijuana laws that expressly provide employment law protections for medical marijuana users (e.g., Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia).

The Honig Act establishes a procedure employers must follow when an employee tests positive for marijuana. If an employee (or prospective employee) tests positive for cannabis, the employer is required to (1) provide written notice of the right to provide a valid medical explanation for the test result and (2) offer an opportunity to present a valid medical explanation for the result. N.J.S.A. 14-6I-9.

The employee or applicant has three (3) working days after receipt of the employer’s written notice to explain the result or request a retest of the original sample (at the employee’s expense). The Act does not define “working days.” A valid explanation for the positive test result may include an authorization for medical cannabis issued by a health care practitioner or proof of registration with the medical marijuana commission.

If an employee demonstrates she is a valid medical marijuana user, employers will not be permitted to use that alone as a basis to take adverse employment action, unless the employer can demonstrate that one of the federal exemptions applies.

The Honig Act permits employers to take adverse action if an employee possesses or uses an intoxicating substance during work hours, or if such use would require an employer to commit any act that would cause the employer to be in violation of federal law.

“Cannabis” has the meaning given to “marijuana” in section 2 of the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-2. The NJ Controlled Dangerous Substance Act includes cannabis as a Schedule I(e) hallucinogenic that has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. Accordingly, we assume “intoxicating substances” includes medical marijuana as it’s used in the Honig Act.

Nothing in the Honig Act requires an employer to commit any act that would cause the employer to be in violation of federal law, lose a licensing-related benefit pursuant to federal law, or lose a federal contract or federal funding. For example, most federal contractors are required to comply with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA), which precludes the possession or use of controlled substances at work sites. 41 U.S.C. §8101(a)(5)(B).

Future lawsuits surrounding marijuana use are likely to be focused on the types of reasonable accommodations employers should make and what jobs are too safety-sensitive to permit an accommodation for medical marijuana use. Due to the Honig Act’s infancy, it is not clear if New Jersey courts will follow precedent from other states imposing a burden on the employer to engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine if there are medical alternatives that are equally effective, and the use of which would not violate company policy.

In some other states, when there are no equally effective alternatives, the employer bears the burden of proving that the use of a medication would cause an undue hardship to the employer’s business to justify the employer’s refusal to make an exception to an anti-drug policy. In addition, the use of medical marijuana may be for an underlying condition meeting the definition of a disability, a condition that affords job protections, including the need to engage in the interactive process seeking to reach a reasonable accommodation.

For example, in Massachusetts, an employer may be able to show an undue hardship exists where accommodating the medical marijuana use would impair the employee’s performance of her work; pose an unacceptably significant safety risk to the public, the employee or fellow employees; or violate an employer’s contractual or statutory obligation and thereby jeopardize its ability to perform its business. We do not yet know how New Jersey will interpret what constitutes an undue hardship in accommodating an employee’s medical marijuana use.

On March 27, 2019, New Jersey’s Appellate Division, the second-highest court, issued an unpublished opinion in Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. et al., A-3072-17T3 (March 27, 2019). Mr. Wild appealed dismissal of his lawsuit against his former employer alleging various Law Against Discrimination (LAD) violations and common-law defamation. His lawsuit claimed his employer discriminated against him for his use of medical marijuana, which he used as part of his cancer treatment. Both parties pointed the Appellate Division to the fact that “nothing” in CUMMA requires an employer to accommodate a medical marijuana user. Based on that the defendants argued, the plaintiff’s claims under the LAD could not go forward.

The Wild court analyzed whether the plaintiff pleaded a case under the LAD; it did not weigh and analyze proofs. The court concluded the plaintiff set forth allegations necessary to his cause of action and the matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Appellate Division held CUMMA’s declaration should not be construed to “require” an accommodation, but does not mean such a requirement might not be imposed by other legislation. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14. Further, the court concluded that CUMMA’s refusal to require an employment accommodation for a user does not mean CUMMA immunizes employers from obligations already imposed elsewhere. Essentially, CUMMA does not limit the LAD by permitting an employer’s termination of a cancer patient’s employment by discrimination without compassion.

The Appellate Division rejected the argument CUMMA and the LAD are in conflict because CUMMA states that “nothing in this act shall be construed to require … an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14. CUMMA intended to cause no impact on existing employment rights; CUMMA neither created new employment rights nor destroyed existing employment rights. CUMMA imposes no burden on defendants, and negates no rights or claims available to a plaintiff under the LAD.

The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral argument on February 4, 2020. The State Supreme Court is considering the impact of the Honig Act’s amendments providing employment protections to medical marijuana users. Because the Honig Act was passed after the events leading to Wild’s termination, it is unclear how it will affect his case on appeal. The Court may address whether the Honig Act, as amended, grants employees a private right of action, and, if so, whether the amendments are retroactive. We anticipate the Supreme Court’s decision within the next three to six months.

While the Honig Act grants employee protections, it is likely that employees still will seek to bring suits under the LAD as a continued source of protection because, unlike the Honig Act, the LAD allows the possibility for punitive damages and contains a fee-shifting provision.

For now, employers should, at a minimum, make sure they comply with the notice and communication provisions in the Honig Act when an employee/applicant tests positive.

© 2020 Wilson Elser

For more on marijuana and employment see the National Law Review Labor & Employment section.

Coronavirus and the Workplace: What Employers Need To Know

News that multiple cases of the newly-identified 2019 Novel Coronavirus have reached the United States have prompted employers to think about employee safety and ways to address disease prevention in the workplace. Although, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), “most American workers are not at significant risk of infection” at this time, the situation is evolving, and it is never too early for employers to consider how they can address employee concerns, help prevent an outbreak, or address one if it occurs. Employers should also be aware of legal pitfalls that they may encounter when attempting to protect their employees from the virus.

The following addresses some of the key questions employers may have regarding the Coronavirus threat.

What is the Coronavirus and How Is It Transmitted?

At this point, relatively little is known about the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, more commonly known as the “Coronavirus.” According to the CDC, the initial reports of the illness originated in Wuhan, China, where people likely contracted the virus from animals at a seafood and animal market. Experts now believe that the virus is spreading from human-to-human when an infected person coughs or sneezes, similar to the spread of a cold or flu. However, it is still too early to know how easily the virus is transmitted between people.

What Are the Primary Symptoms of the Coronavirus?

In the confirmed cases of Coronavirus thus far, affected individuals have reported mild to severe respiratory symptoms, fever, cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. In severe cases, the virus has led to pneumonia, kidney failure, and, in at least 100 deaths (presently, all in China), as of the time of this writing.  The CDC believes at this time that symptoms may appear within two to fourteen days after exposure.  However, some infected individuals have shown little to no symptoms.

How Can Spread of the Coronavirus Be Prevented?

Because there is presently no Coronavirus vaccine available, the CDC is recommending standard precautions to avoid the spread of respiratory viruses, such as washing hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, or, if soap is not available, using hand sanitizer; avoiding close contact with people who are sick; staying at home when you are sick; and disinfecting frequently touched objects and surfaces.

What If My Employees Travel to China For Business?

As of January 27, 2020, the CDC has issued a level 3 health travel notice (the highest threat level) recommending that people avoid all nonessential travel to China.

Employers whose employees travel to and from China should keep in mind the following:

  • Consider whether to limit business travel to affected areas. While the current CDC travel notice does not specifically define “nonessential travel,” the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires employers to furnish “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause the death or serious physical harm to … employees.”  Although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (also referred to as OSHA) has not promulgated specific standards covering the Coronavirus, requiring employees to engage in nonessential business travel to China (or any other areas in which the risk of contagion is heightened) could create risk under the General Duty Clause, particularly in light of the CDC warning against nonessential travel.  For that reason, employers whose business may involve travel to China (or other areas that become subject to travel restrictions or otherwise experience an increase in the spread of the virus) should consider other available options for employees for the duration of the threat, such as videoconferencing.

By the same token, employers should also be prepared to respond to employees who may express concerns about traveling to affected areas due to the virus.  While an employer generally has broad discretion to decide the duties and requirements of a job and to discipline employees who fail to fulfill those requirements, as a practical matter employers may wish to consider offering employees reasonable alternatives to such travel.

Finally, while employers may implement restrictions on work-related travel to affected areas, employers should tread more carefully when attempting to police personal, non-work-related travel. That said, recent decisions in the Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the disability discrimination protections of the ADA do not apply where an employer takes an employment action based on the potential for an employee to become ill and disabled in the future.  Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit found no liability under the ADA where an employer terminated an employee who requested time off to travel to Ghana to visit family because of the perceived risk that the employee would contract the Ebola virus, due to recent outbreaks of the disease in neighboring countries.  While courts have tended to take this view, it is worth noting that the EEOC has argued on at least one occasion that an employer acting on a potential future health condition may be viewed as “regarding” an employee as disabled as long as the condition otherwise qualifies as a disability under the law.  For this reason, employers should consider the risks with imposing a ban on personal, non-work-related travel to affected areas.

  • Provide relevant safety information to employees. Employers whose employees travel to affected areas should provide information to their employees about how the Coronavirus is transmitted, its symptoms, and how to avoid exposure – utilizing trusted and reputable sources such as the CDC. Employers would be well advised to also provide these employees with resources and contact information for local health departments and the CDC.
  • Understand that employee travel may be interrupted. The Chinese government has closed transit within and out of Wuhan and certain other areas of the Hubei Province. Hong Kong has also imposed certain restrictions on travel to and from the Chinese mainland. The United States is also re-routing passengers from Wuhan, China to certain designated airports (including Chicago O’Hare, Atlanta, New York JFK, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) for enhanced screening. While screening for common viruses usually takes several hours, officials have indicated that those suspected of having the Coronavirus could be delayed for up to a day if additional screening is needed.

What Should I Do if an Employee Has Recently Traveled to China or Otherwise May Have Been Exposed to the Coronavirus?

Employers should remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) places certain restrictions on the kinds of inquiries that can be made into an employee’s medical status. Specifically, the ADA prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries and requiring medical examinations, unless (1) the employer can show that the inquiry or exam is job-related and consistent with business necessity, or (2) where the employer has a reasonable belief that the employee poses a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot otherwise be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

According to Pandemic Preparedness Guidance published in 2009 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the midst of the H1N1 influenza outbreak, whether a particular outbreak rises to the level of a “direct threat” depends on the severity of the illness.  Employers should look to the most up-to-date assessments being made by the CDC or other public health authorities, as they relate to the employer’s location, to determine the severity level of an illness and, in turn, whether an employee who potentially has been exposed to the illness may constitute a “direct threat.”  Employers should not rely on speculation or unofficial information when making determinations about whether there is a direct threat.  At the moment, the CDC is not classifying the Coronavirus as a pandemic and has not issued a heightened threat level for the United States.  However, the situation continues to rapidly evolve and we will provide updates should additional guidance be released by the CDC or other public health officials on this important issue.

All this being said, employers should keep in mind the following when it comes to employees who have traveled to affected areas:

  • Employers need not wait until an employee returning from travel develops symptoms to inquire about exposure to the Coronavirus. Inquiring about whether an employee has traveled to an affected area or about possible exposure to a contagious illness during such travel would not constitute a disability-related inquiry.  However, as discussed below, the extent to which an employer may act on the information received will depend on the most recent information available from the CDC or other public health officials.  Further, employers inquiring into whether employees have traveled to affected areas should do so of all employees known or believed to have recently traveled, rather than directing such inquiries only to employees of certain races, ethnicities, or national origins. Finally, employers should be mindful to keep confidential all medical-related information received from an employee, in accordance with the ADA.
  • Under certain circumstances, employers may require employees who have traveled to areas affected by serious health threats to stay home. If the CDC or other local public health officials recommend that people who visit specified locations remain at home for several days until it is clear they do not have illness symptoms, an employer may require an employee who traveled to an affected area to remain out of work for the suggested period of time.  While presently the CDC states that individuals who may have been in close contact with someone with the Coronavirus may continue with their daily activities so long as they are not showing any symptoms, employers should continue to monitor the CDC website for further developments. In the absence of a CDC directive that employees who have traveled to affected areas stay at home, an employer who is considering requiring such employees to remain home, they should consult with counsel.

What Other Things Should Employers Be Thinking About When it Comes to the Coronavirus?

  • Employers may – and should – send employees home if they exhibit potential symptoms of contagious illnesses at work. The EEOC has said that sending an employee home who displays symptoms of contagious illness would not run afoul of the ADA’s restrictions on disability-related actions because: (i) if the illness ultimately turns out to be relatively mild or “run of the mill” (such as seasonal influenza), then it would not have constituted a covered disability in the first place; and (ii) if the illness does turn out to be severe (such that it may constitute a disability under the law), then the actions would be warranted under a direct threat analysis. In either case, an employer can send an employee home who is displaying symptoms of contagious illness, even if this is against the employee’s wishes.  Employers should also consider making clear in their policies that employees who have symptoms of a potential contagious illness must not report to work while they are sick.
  • Determine whether the FMLA or other leave laws may apply. An employee who is experiencing a serious health condition or who requires time to care for a family member with such a condition may be entitled to take unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or state-law analogues.  Employees may also be eligible for leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA or related state or local law, if the underlying condition constitutes a qualifying disability.  However, employees generally are not entitled to take FMLA or reasonable accommodation leave to stay at home to avoid getting sick (though an exception may exist where a preexisting medical condition is likely to be worsened by exposure to a contagious disease). Furthermore, employees in certain jurisdictions may be entitled to paid sick leave if needed to care for themselves or a sick family member in the event of an illness, or if their workplace or a child’s school or day care is closed due to a public health emergency.
  • Consider whether OSHA requirements may apply. While, as noted above, OSHA has not promulgated specific standards covering the Coronavirus, it has issued a notice indicating that employers should be aware of the following general standards to which employers may be subject under OSHA:
    • General Duty Clause: As discussed above, the OSHA General Duty Clause requires employers to furnish “a place of employment which [is] free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause the death or serious physical harm to … employees.” To that end, there are some readily achievable steps that employers can take to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus (and other contagious illnesses) within the workplace, such as: providing hand sanitizer to employees, ensuring that surfaces and eating areas are disinfected regularly, and encouraging employees who are sick to stay home. Employers also may start to consider certain policy changes they may wish to implement in response to the Coronavirus should the situation become more severe in the U.S., such as allowing employees to work from home.
    • Personal Protective Equipment: OSHA requires that protective equipment, clothing, and barriers be provided whenever it is necessary to prevent employees from being exposed to environmental hazards. Employers are required to assess the workplace, determine if hazards are present, and if so, select and have employees use protective equipment. Employers whose employees may encounter individuals infected with the Coronavirus, such as those in the healthcare and travel industries, should begin to consider what protective equipment would be necessary to protect its workforce should the virus begin to spread within the United States.
    • Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: OSHA requires that certain employers keep a record of certain work-related illness and injuries (often referred to as an OSHA Form 300 log). While there is a regulatory exemption for recording instances of the standard cold and flu, OSHA has deemed the 2019 Novel Coronavirus a recordable illness when a worker is infected on the job. In addition, certain employers may be subject to reporting requirements under state and local law if they have a reasonable belief that a significant disease is present in the workplace.
    • Employers in Higher-Risk Industries: While, again, OSHA has yet to issue any standards or controls specific to Coronavirus, employers operating in industries where employees may be at a potential increased risk of exposure should prepare for the possibility that heightened requirements may be put in place. In the past, OSHA has issued such guidance for employers in industries such as healthcare, airlines, and mortuary services, such as during the MERS outbreak in 2015.

*          *          *

Information about the Coronavirus is constantly developing, so employers also should continue to refer to the CDC, WHO, and OSHA websites for the latest on appropriate precautions, including changes to travel notices.  Of course, we will continue to monitor this situation and report on any updates as they develop.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Workers Act May Endanger Economy

The Fairness for High-Skilled Workers Act has passed the House of Representatives, and is pending before the Senate where it may pass by unanimous consent (i.e., with no actual vote or hearing).

On its face, the Fairness Act seems fair. By eliminating the 7% per country cap, Indian nationals and Chinese nationals who have been waiting and would continue to wait for years to capture green cards would be placed at the front of line. But this would be at the expense of workers from other countries who are also important to the United States.

About 25% of all STEM workers in the U.S., including those in the fields of healthcare, physical science, computer, and math, are foreign-born and that figure is on the rise. One quarter of all doctors in the U.S. are foreign-born — many from sub-Saharan Africa — and are particularly important in poor, rural areas of the country where physicians are scarce. One in five pharmacists and one in four dentists are foreign-born. Other types of healthcare workers come from Asia, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean and our need for these workers rises as baby boomers age.

If the Fairness Act were to pass, recruiting from countries other than India and China might become more difficult, and this talent may well turn elsewhere. New Zealand, Ireland, Australia and the UK are also dependent on foreign-trained doctors.

High-tech workers from India and China are also important to the U.S. and its economy; but our current immigration system is driving them out as well. This started in 2008, when it became difficult for high-tech companies to get the number of H-1B visas they needed. That frustration has grown with the increased scrutiny of H-1B petitions and the long green card waiting lines. Indian and Chinese talent is heading for other countries, and Canada is welcoming them and their companies with open arms. South Africa, Argentina, India, Chile, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Israel, Australia, and Ireland also are popular competitors.

Quotas of one kind or another have been part of the U.S. immigration system since the early part of the 20th century. Literacy requirements limited immigration from some of the poorer countries of the world. Country-of-birth quotas benefited those from the UK, Ireland, and Germany at the expense even of those born in southern and eastern Europe. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Hart-Celler Act), which is the basis of our current system, abolished national origin quotas (to eliminate discrimination) and focused on family reunification. The 7% annual ceiling on the number of immigrants from any one country was established. The ceiling was not meant to be quota, but rather a “barrier against monopolization.”

Senator Rand Paul, who opposes the Fairness Act, introduced the BELIEVE Act (Backlog Elimination, Legal Immigration and Employment Visa Enhancement Act) (S. 2091) on July 11, 2019. That bill would simply quadruple the number of employment-based visas by doubling the number available annually and exempting dependents from being counted toward the annual quota of visas. His bill also would exempt all shortage occupations from green card limits.

The Fairness Act may be just an interim solution. Rather than pitting family-based immigration against employment-based immigration and rather than pitting one country against another or one industry against another, perhaps it is time for legislation like the BELIEVE Act that would simply increase the number of green cards available to everybody.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019

For more on green card legislation, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.

California Arbitration Roundup: Employers Are 3-1 For Favorable Arbitration Rulings

California employers received mostly good news this past month on the arbitration front, with a trio of pro-employer arbitration-related rulings.  The California Supreme Court’s recent ruling invalidating an employer’s arbitration agreement (discussed below) is a notable exception.

California Supreme Court Invalidates Employer’s Arbitration Agreement As Unconscionable.

In OTO LLC v. Ken Kho, the California Supreme Court ruled that an Oakland Toyota dealership’s arbitration agreement with a former employee was unenforceable and was so unfair and one-sided that it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  “Arbitration is premised on the parties’ mutual consent, not coercion, and the manner of the agreement’s imposition here raises serious concerns on that score,” the majority opinion said.

In 2013, Ken Kho, then an employee of the dealership, One Toyota, was asked to sign several documents, including an arbitration agreement.  Kho signed it, and was later terminated.

The California Supreme Court acknowledged that California and federal laws strongly favor arbitration. However, the Court considered the following factors in determining that One Toyota’s arbitration agreement was unconscionable:

  • The arbitration agreement purported to waive Kho’s right to file a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner and to have a “Berman” hearing before the Labor Commissioner (while not dispositive, the Court noted that this remains a significant factor in considering unconscionability of employee arbitration agreements);

  • The agreement was presented to Kho in his workspace, along with other employment-related documents;

  • Neither its contents nor its significance was explained;

  • Kho was required to sign the agreement to keep the job he had held for three years;

  • Because One Toyota used a piece-rate compensation system, any time Kho spent reviewing the agreement would have reduced his pay;

  • A low-level employee (a porter) presented the agreement to Kho, “creating the impression that no request for an explanation was expected and any such request would be unavailing”;

  • By having the porter wait for the documents, One Toyota conveyed an expectation that Kho sign them immediately, without examination or consultation with counsel;

  • There was no indication that the porter had the knowledge or authority to explain the terms of the agreement;

  • Kho was not given a copy of the agreement he had signed;

  • The agreement was written in an extremely small font in the form of a “single dense paragraph” of 51 lines, and the text was “visually impenetrable” and “challenge[d] the limits of legibility”;

  • The sentences were complex, filled with statutory references and legal jargon;

  • Kho was not offered a version to read in his native language (while the Court noted this factor, it did not consider it because it did not know Kho’s English proficiency);

  • The arbitration agreement did not make clear One Toyota’s obligation to pay arbitration-related costs (and rather cited to statutory provisions and referenced legal precedent; the Court noted “It would have been nearly impossible to understand the contract’s meaning without legal training and access to the many statutes it references. Kho had neither.”);

  • One Toyota’s agreement did not mention how to bring a dispute to arbitration, nor did it suggest where that information might be found (e.g., by citing to a commercial arbitration provider such as JAMS or AAA); and

  • One Toyota’s arbitration process was complicated to navigate and would likely require an attorney, making it cost-prohibitive for Kho.

The Court concluded that “[w]e have not said no arbitration could provide an appropriate forum for resolution of Kho’s wage claim, but only that this particular arbitral process, forced upon Kho under especially oppressive circumstances and erecting new barriers to the vindication of his rights, is unconscionable.”

Employers would thus be well-advised to revisit their employee arbitration agreements to ensure that they do not contain any of the defects discussed by the Supreme Court in the Kho case.

NLRB Upholds Employer Conduct Related to Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

In Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) addressed the lawfulness of employer conduct surrounding mandatory arbitration agreements for the first time since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, where the Court held that mandatory arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (see here).  In Cordua Restaurants, the NLRB ruled in part that employers are not prohibited under the NLRA from: (1) informing employees that failing or refusing to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement will result in their discharge; and (2) promulgating mandatory arbitration agreements in response to employees opting in to a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act or state wage-and-hour laws.

The NLRB’s decision in Cordua Restaurants is a natural extension of the Supreme Court’s analysis and ruling in Epic Systems.  There, the Court held that Congress, when passing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in 1925, instructed courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written.  Since the passage of the FAA predates the NLRA by ten years, and since the NLRA says nothing about overruling the FAA, the NLRB could not, under the guise of enforcing the NLRA, rule that an arbitration agreement that otherwise is lawful on its face violates the NLRA.  This decision by the NLRB is further evidence of that agency’s retreat from past policies advanced by the NLRB in the prior administration and likely will not be overruled.

California Court of Appeals Compels Employee to Arbitrate Claims Even Though He Filed Suit Before Signing Arbitration Agreement

In Quiroz Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium, the California Court of Appeals compelled an employee to arbitrate his claims against his employer even though the employee filed his lawsuit two days before he signed an arbitration agreement.  The Court held that the arbitration agreement was clear in that it required arbitration of any claims and that it did not contain any restriction based on when a claim was filed.

In the case, Quiroz Franco, the employee, was given an arbitration agreement on March 9, 2018, and a Spanish translation shortly thereafter.  On March 19, 2018, he filed a lawsuit against his employer, alleging harassment, discrimination, and wage and hour claims among others.  On March 21, 2018, Quiroz Franco handed in his signed arbitration form, which the employer used to attempt to compel him to arbitrate. The lower court ruled that the claims in the employee’s suit started to accrue before he signed the arbitration agreement, so arbitration couldn’t be compelled.  The employer appealed and the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision.

California Court of Appeals Rules that Unfair Competition Law Claims Are Arbitrable

In Clifford v. Quest Software Inc., the California Court of Appeals addressed whether an employee’s claim against his employer for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the UCL) was arbitrable, ruling that it was.  The employee brought various wage and hour claims against his employer, and the employer moved to compel arbitration based on the parties’ arbitration agreement.  The trial court granted the motion in part and ordered to arbitration every cause of action except the employee’s UCL claim, which the court concluded was not arbitrable.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the employee’s UCL claim was subject to arbitration along with his other causes of action—more good news for California employers.

© 2019 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP

Are Your AI Selection Tools Validated? OFCCP Provides Guidance for Validation of AI-Based Algorithms

We have long counseled employers using or contemplating using artificial intelligence (“AI”) algorithms in their employee selection processes to validate the AI-based selection procedure using an appropriate validation strategy approved by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“Uniform Guidelines”).  Our advice has been primarily based on minimizing legal risk and complying with best practices.  A recently updated Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) from the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) provides further support for validating AI-based selection procedures in compliance with the Uniform Guidelines.

On July 23, 2019, the OFCCP updated the FAQ section on its website to provide guidance on the validation of employee selection procedures.  Under the Uniform Guidelines, any selection procedure resulting in a “selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact,” which in turn requires the validation of the selection procedure.  These validation requirements are equally applicable to any AI-based selection procedure used to make any employment decision, including hiring, termination, promotion, and demotion.

As stated in the Uniform Guidelines, and emphasized in the FAQ, the OFCCP recognizes three methods of validation:

  1. Content validation – a showing that the content of the selection procedure is representative of important aspects of performance on the job in question;

  2. Criterion-related validation – production of empirical data demonstrating that the selection procedure is predictive or significantly correlated with important aspects of job performance; and

  3. Construct validation – a showing that the procedure measures the degree to which candidates possess identifiable characteristics that have been determined to be important in successful performance on the job.

With the exception of criterion-related validating studies, which can be “transported” from other entities under certain circumstances, the Uniform Guidelines require local validation at the employer’s own facilities.

If a selection procedure adversely impacts a protected group, the employer must provide evidence of validity for the selection procedure(s) that caused the adverse impact. Thus, it is crucial that employers considering the implementation of AI-based algorithms in the selection process both conduct adverse impact studies and be prepared to produce one or more validation studies.

The new FAQ also provides important guidelines on the substantial methods utilized by OFCCP in evaluating potential adverse impact.  In accordance with the Uniform Guidelines, OFCCP will analyze the Impact Ratio – the disfavored group’s selection rate divided by the favored group’s selection rate.  Any Impact Ratio of less than 0.80 (referred to as the “Four – Fifths Rule”) constitutes an initial indication of adverse impact, but OFCCP will not pursue enforcement without evidence of statistical and practical significance.  For statistical significance, the OFCCP’s standard statistical tests are the Fisher’s Exact Test (for groups with fewer than 30 subjects) and the Two Independent-Sample Binomial Z-Test (for groups with 30 or more subjects).

With the publication of this new FAQ, employers – and particularly federal contractors – should be sure to evaluate their use of AI-based algorithms and properly validate all selection procedures under the Uniform Guidelines.  Moreover, although not addressed in the OFCCP’s new FAQ, employers should also ensure that their AI-based algorithms are compliant with all other state and federal laws and regulations.

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

State Attorney Generals Brace for Battle with Department of Labor Over Newly Proposed Federal Overtime Salary Exemption Threshold

After the March 7, 2019 unveiling by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) of its long- awaited proposed rule, which would make more workers eligible for statutory overtime  pay, the attorneys general (“AGs”) of 14 states and the District of Columbia announced on May 21, 2019 that they oppose DOL’s proposed rulemaking. Included among the states opposing DOL’s proposal are New Jersey and New York.

The existing annual salary overtime exemption threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is $23,600 for full-timers (or $455 per week). Employees who are paid below that salary must be paid overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week. The FLSA salary threshold test has not changed since 2004.

DOL’s newly proposed rule, characterized as an Executive Order 13771 “deregulatory action,” would, among other things, increase the qualifying salary threshold for overtime exemption to $35,308 annually for full-time workers (or $679 per week). In doing so, the rule, if promulgated, would effectively convert an estimated one million workers to hourly wage status and qualify them for time-and-one-half overtime pay for hours they work in excess of 40 in a given workweek.

The newly proposed rule also would clarify the type of compensation (such as payments made for vacations, holidays, illness, or failures to provide sufficient work) which would be excluded from the definition of an employee’s “regular rate” for purposes of calculating whether overtime pay is due, and increase the total annual compensation threshold for “highly compensated employees” (for whom overtime wages generally need not be paid) from $100,000 to $147,414 annually.

The proposed new rule stands in sharp contrast to the final rule promulgated by DOL during the Obama Administration in 2016, which would have raised the annual salary exemption threshold to $47,476 for full-timers (or $913 per week) and require automatic adjustments to the salary threshold standard every three (3) years. However, on November 22, 2016, a federal district court in Texas held that that rule was inconsistent with Congressional intent and issued a nationwide injunction staying its implementation. On October 30, 2017, DOL appealed the district court’s summary judgment decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 6, 2017, the appellate court granted the Government’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance while DOL reexamined the salary threshold test.

The AGs argue that the proposed rule does not go far enough, championing instead the Obama-era 2016 Final Rule, which would have made roughly four million workers newly eligible for overtime pay. In the May 21, 2019 letter signed by each of the AGs, they contend, among other arguments, that the newly proposed rule would be arbitrary and capricious, and therefore unlawful under the  federal  Administrative Procedure Act, because it would unreasonably institute a markedly lower salary threshold level and improperly eliminate mandated periodic reviews of the salary threshold standard. Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have announced plans to introduce legislation that would revive the Obama-era salary exemption threshold.

On March 29, 2019, DOL published its newly proposed rule, triggering a 60-day public comment period that expired May 28, 2019. Presumably, DOL will be reviewing the comments it received and publishing its final rule, though the final rule’s promulgation date is uncertain. Given the anticipated political and judicial battles over what the new threshold should be, it is not clear what overtime salary exemption threshold ultimately will emerge.

Takeaways for Employers

  • Employers should closely monitor administrative, judicial and legislative developments relating to the proposed increase in the salary exemption overtime threshold.

  • An increase in the threshold is likely, though the amount of the increase and the effective date of same remain uncertain.

  • Once the threshold is increased, certain employees previously exempt from overtime will be eligible for hourly overtime pay depending on what dollar amount is established as the new salary threshold standard, and employers will be required to maintain time worked records for those newly converted hourly employees.

  • In anticipation of the change in the threshold amount, employers should begin the process of identifying job classifications that potentially may be impacted by a change in the salary exemption standard.

© Copyright 2019 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
This post was written by Clifford D. Dawkins, Jr. and David I. Rosen of Sills Cummins & Gross P.C.
Read more news on the DOL Overtime Regulations on the National Law Review’s Employment Law Page.