Tag: Labor Law

ERIC Files Amicus Brief Rebutting DOL Attempt to Create New Regulations in Lawsuit, Petitions US Supreme Court on Seattle Healthcare Case

Read on below for coverage of recent law firm news from McDermott Will & Emery.

ERIC Files Amicus Brief Rebutting DOL Attempt to Create New Regulations in Lawsuit

McDermott Will & Emery’s Andrew C. Liazos, Michael B. Kimberly and Charlie Seidell recently filed an amicus brief in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). McDermott filed the brief in response to a US Department of Labor (DOL) amicus brief that advanced a novel interpretation of its regulations which, if adopted through litigation, would change longstanding procedures for benefit determinations under self-funded medical plans sponsored by large employers. The amicus brief focuses on key arguments against the DOL’s attempted regulatory reinterpretation, including that:

  • DOL may not rewrite its regulations outside of notice-and-comment rulemaking;
  • DOL’s interpretation of its own regulations is inconsistent with the plain text of the regulations;
  • There are good policy reasons underlying differential treatment of healthcare and disability benefits determinations; and
  • DOL’s interpretation of the regulations in its amicus brief is not entitled to deference under the Supreme Court decision in Kisor.

Read ERIC’s amicus brief here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

ERIC Petitions US Supreme Court on Seattle Healthcare Case

McDermott Will & Emery’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos, are co-counsel on a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). The petition calls for review of ERIC’s legal challenge to the City of Seattle’s hotel healthcare “play or pay” ordinance. The ordinance mandates hospitality employers make specified monthly healthcare expenditures for their covered local employees if their healthcare plans do not meet certain requirements. The petition demonstrates that Seattle’s ordinance is a clear attempt to control the benefits provided under medical plans in violation of the preemption provision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). This case is of significant national importance. Several other cities have proposed making similar changes, and complying with these types of ordinances will substantially constrain the ability of employers to control the terms of their medical plans on a uniform basis. ERIC’s petition is joined by several trade associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council and the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Read ERIC’s petition for writ of certiorari here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

 

Article by , , and .

Attorney Advertising © 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

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

 

New Sexual Harassment Prevention Requirements for Many Chicago Employers

Beginning July 1, 2022, Chicago employers who are licensed by or have work locations in the City of Chicago must comply with new sexual harassment prevention training and notification requirements. These requirements were formalized on April 27, when the Chicago City Counsel amended the Chicago Human Rights Ordinance.

The amendments require covered employers to:

  • Provide annual training for employees and supervisors on sexual harassment prevention and bystander intervention.

  • Adopt a written sexual harassment policy.

  • Display a poster (in English and Spanish) in a conspicuous area in the workplace on sexual harassment prohibitions.

Covered Employers

The law applies to employers with one or more employees within the City of Chicago that:

  • Are subject to one or more of the license requirements in Title 4 of the city’s municipal code; and/or

  • Maintain a business facility within the city’s geographic boundaries.

Covered Employees

A covered employee is an individual who is engaged in work within the geographical boundaries of the City of Chicago.

Requirements for Employers

Sexual harassment prevention and bystander intervention training. Employers must mandate that employees participate annually in:

  • Sexual harassment prevention training, the duration of which depends on the type of employee:

    • One hour for rank-and-file employees

    • Two hours for supervisors and managers

  • One hour of bystander intervention training.

Note that these requirements exceed those currently applicable to employers by the State of Illinois. Employers must ensure that covered employees participate in their first  required trainings by no later than June 30, 2023 (one year following the effective date of the law) and annually thereafter.

Written sexual harassment policy. Employers must adopt a written policy on sexual harassment that includes:

  • A statement that sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment are illegal in Chicago;

  • The meaning of “sexual harassment” as defined in the city’s municipal code (which is broader than the definition under federal or state law, as it includes sexual misconduct, which encompasses “any behavior of a sexual nature involving coercion, abuse of authority, or misuse of an individual’s employment position.”)

  • The annual training requirements for sexual harassment prevention and bystander intervention;

  • Examples of prohibited conduct that constitute sexual harassment; and

  • Details on resources available to employees, including:

    • How to report allegations of sexual harassment internally, such as instructions for confidential reporting to a manager, employer’s corporate headquarters, or human resources department; and

    • Legal services, including governmental services, available to individuals who may have experienced sexual harassment.

The written policy must be available in employees’ primary language within the first week of their employment.

Poster. Employers must conspicuously display (in English and Spanish), in at least one location in the workplace where employees commonly gather, posters designed by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations (the Commission). The posters address the prohibitions on sexual harassment.

Other Changes to Consider

The amendments give employees extra time to file complaints, give the Commission extra time to act on such complaints, impose certain recordkeeping requirements, and enhance penalties for violations. Specific issues include:

Increased statute of limitations. Employees who experience sexual harassment now have 365 days, instead of 300 days, after the violation occurs to file a complaint with the Commission.

More time for the Commission to issue a complaint. The Commission may delay issuing a sexual harassment complaint to the respondent from 10 days to up to 30 days after the complainant files such complaint.

Recordkeeping. Employers must retain for at least five years, or for the duration of any claim, civil action, or investigation pending pursuant to the ordinance, whichever is longer, records regarding their sexual harassment policy, training, and compliance with the ordinance.

Penalties. An employer that violates the policy, training, or posting requirements is subject to a fine ranging from $500 to $1,000 per violation. Every day that a violation continues will be considered a separate and distinct offense.

Recommendations

Covered employers should make sure that they adopt a written sexual harassment policy, provide training, and display posters that comply with the new requirements. Employers also should be prepared to provide their sexual harassment policy, in the employee’s primary language, to newly hired employees during onboarding. Much’s labor and employment attorneys are available to help you navigate these new requirements and implement changes to ensure compliance.

Article By Camille N. Khodadad and Charlotte F. Franklin of  Much Shelist, P.C.

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

© 2022 Much Shelist, P.C.

Monkeypox—Do Employers Need to Worry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC and the DOJ Issue Guidance for Employers Using AI Tools to Assess Job Applicants and Employees

Employers are more frequently relying on the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools to automate employment decision-making, such as software that can review resumes and “chatbots” that interview and screen job applicants. We have previously blogged about the legal risks attendant to the use of such technologies, including here and here.

On May 12, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued long-awaited guidance on the use of such AI tools (the “Guidance”), examining how employers can seek to prevent AI-related disability discrimination. More specifically, the Guidance identifies a number of ways in which employment-related use of AI can, even unintentionally, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), including if:

  • (i) “[t]he employer does not provide a ‘reasonable accommodation’ that is necessary for a job applicant or employee to be rated fairly and accurately by” the AI;
  • (ii) “[t]he employer relies on an algorithmic decision-making tool that intentionally or unintentionally ‘screens out’ an individual with a disability, even though that individual is able to do the job with a reasonable accommodation”; or
  • (iii) “[t]he employer adopts an [AI] tool for use with its job applicants or employees that violates the ADA’s restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.”

The Guidance further states that “[i]n many cases” employers are liable under the ADA for use of AI even if the tools are designed and administered by a separate vendor, noting that “employers may be held responsible for the actions of their agents . . . if the employer has given them authority to act on [its] behalf.”

The Guidance also identifies various best practices for employers, including:

  • Announcing generally that employees and applicants subject to an AI tool may request reasonable accommodations and providing instructions as to how to ask for accommodations.
  • Providing information about the AI tool, how it works, and what it is used for to the employees and applicants subjected to it. For example, an employer that uses keystroke-monitoring software may choose to disclose this software as part of new employees’ onboarding and explain that it is intended to measure employee productivity.
  • If the software was developed by a third party, asking the vendor whether: (i) the AI software was developed to accommodate people with disabilities, and if so, how; (ii) there are alternative formats available for disabled individuals; and (iii) the AI software asks questions likely to elicit medical or disability-related information.
  • If an employer is developing its own software, engaging experts to analyze the algorithm for potential biases at different steps of the development process, such as a psychologist if the tool is intended to test cognitive traits.
  • Only using AI tools that measure, directly, traits that are actually necessary for performing the job’s duties.
  • Additionally, it is always a best practice to train staff, especially supervisors and managers, how to recognize requests for reasonable accommodations and to respond promptly and effectively to those requests. If the AI tool is used by a third party on the employer’s behalf, that third party’s staff should also be trained to recognize requests for reasonable accommodation and forward them promptly to the employer.

Finally, also on May 12th, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released its own guidance on AI tools’ potential for inadvertent disability discrimination in the employment context. The DOJ guidance is largely in accord with the EEOC Guidance.

Employers utilizing AI tools should carefully audit them to ensure that this technology is not creating discriminatory outcomes.  Likewise, employers must remain closely apprised of any new developments from the EEOC and local, state, and federal legislatures and agencies as the trend toward regulation continues.

Article By Joseph C O’Keefe and Edward C. Young of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation Continues to Vex Employers

An employee needs time off from work because of a medical issue. The employee is not eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), so the employer cannot call it FMLA leave.

Since the FMLA does not apply, does the employer have to give the employee leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a reasonable accommodation? If so, for how long?

The issue of leaves of absence as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA continues to trouble employers. In comparison to the FMLA, which provides fairly bright lines regarding when leave is required and how much leave is permitted, the ADA’s lines are blurry when it comes to leave as a reasonable accommodation.

Medical Leave Can Be a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA – Even When In-Person Attendance Is Essential

A very recent decision (April 2022) from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals further illustrates this point. In the case of King v. Steward Trumbell Memorial Hospital, Jeanne King worked as an RN for Steward Trumbell Memorial Hospital. King had asthma, and when her asthma flared up badly enough, she needed to miss work. In April 2017, King had an asthma attack that left her unable to breathe, and she continued to suffer from severe asthma-related symptoms for five weeks, which caused her an emergency room stay in the hospital where she worked. During this period of time, she missed her next 14 shifts.

Four days after being released from the ER, King requested FMLA, but King was not an eligible employee under the FMLA as she had not worked 1,250 hours within the prior 12-month period. It took a few weeks for King to find out she was not FMLA eligible, however, and during that period of time, the hospital terminated her for failure to timely apply for a leave of absence. King filed a lawsuit claiming, among other allegations, violations of the ADA for failure to provide medical leave as a reasonable accommodation.

In her lawsuit, King claimed that if she had been given medical leave as a reasonable accommodation, she could have returned to work and satisfactorily performed her job. On the other hand, the hospital argued that regular, in-person attendance as an RN was an essential function of King’s position, and that the hospital was not required to eliminate that essential function as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

The trial court ruled that the hospital was right – regular, in-person attendance was an essential function of the RN position – and therefore King’s request for an exception from that requirement was per se unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, however, and held that leave can be a reasonable accommodation even when in-person attendance is required to perform the job’s essential functions because the leave “enables the employee to return to work following the period of leave requested as an accommodation – i.e., it enables the employee to perform the essential function of attendance.”

So, What Makes a Leave of Absence Request Reasonable?

Given that a medical leave of absence can be a reasonable accommodation, the question then becomes what makes an accommodation request reasonable? In other words, how much leave is reasonable?

As the Sixth Circuit stated in King, there are few bright-line rules regarding how much leave an employer may have to give as a reasonable accommodation. One general rule that applies in most cases is that an employee’s request for indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation. So, if an employee is truly requesting an indefinite leave of absence, then an employer could likely deny that request for accommodation because it is unreasonable.

In contrast to indefinite leave, a request for a defined period of leave can be a request for a reasonable accommodation. For instance, in the King case, King requested five weeks of medical leave, which the Sixth Circuit found to be reasonable. While the reasonableness of a leave of absence oftentimes depends on the circumstances, generally speaking a leave request of 30 days or less is likely to be reasonable. It would likely take an employer about that long to fill the position anyway – so up to 30 days may be OK.

When determining whether the length of a leave request is reasonable, courts can refer to the amount of leave that the employer grants under its medical leave policy. For instance, in the King case, the hospital had a policy allowing for up to one year of non-FMLA leave. In comparison to seeking a year of non-FMLA leave, King was seeking five weeks. Since the hospital allowed up to one year of non-FMLA leave, and King was requesting five weeks, that helped make King’s request reasonable in the Sixth Circuit’s eyes.

Another factor to consider when deciding whether to grant leave as a reasonable accommodation is whether the leave could be effective in allowing the employee to return back to work. If the employee’s prognosis indicates a likelihood of recovery, then that weighs in favor of granting a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation. On the other hand, a leave of absence for a situation in which the employee likely can never return to work is probably not a reasonable accommodation.

Tips and Takeaways

As the King case illustrates, leaves of absence as a reasonable accommodation continues to trouble employers and causes mistakes that can lead to costly litigation. There are some tips and takeaways that can help tame the leave-as-a-reasonable-accommodation beast:

  • If an employee requests leave as an accommodation (and is not FMLA eligible), then the employer should request medical information from the employee’s physician (through the employee because of privacy concerns) that supports the need for leave and specifies an expected return-to-work date.
  • If the information from the employee’s physician states that the employee’s leave should be indefinite, then indefinite leave is likely not a request for a reasonable accommodation and the employer could deny the request (with appropriate documentation).
  • If the employee’s physician does state an expected return-to-work date, then the employer should determine whether the amount of leave requested is reasonable. In doing so, the employer should consider its own policies concerning how much leave it grants for non-FMLA situations.
  • Also, the employer should consider how much time it would take to replace the employee if he or she was terminated. If it would take a comparable amount of time to replace the employee as it would to allow the employee to take leave, then the employer should likely just grant the leave.
  • The employer should also consider whether a leave of absence would be an effective accommodation. If an employee shows little to no ability to ever return to work because of ta medical condition, then granting leave for leave’s sake is likely not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
  • If the employee’s physician requests a reasonable amount of leave for the employee, and the employer decides to grant the accommodation, the employer should send a letter or email to the employee acknowledging the granting of the leave of absence, specifying how long the leave of absence has been granted for, and discussing return-to-work issues. In that letter, the employer should allow for the employee to request an extension of the leave of absence if medical conditions warrant. If the employee returns to work at the conclusion of that leave of absence, the employer may want to consider getting a letter from the employee’s physician releasing him or her to return to work and stating what, if any, restrictions the employee has. If the employee cannot return to work at the conclusion of the leave and does not request an extension, then the employer would likely be on solid footing to terminate the employee at that point in time.
  • An employer should treat each reasonable accommodation request as unique, not pre-judge it, and decide whether under the circumstances a reasonable accommodation should be granted.

Although dealing with leave-of-absence issues under the ADA will continue to cause employers issues because of the lack of bright lines, an employer who follows the steps outlined above may help tame the leave-as-a-reasonable-accommodation beast.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Article By John P. Rodgers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more articles on labor law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Cryptocurrency As Compensation: Beware Of The Risks

A small but growing number of employees are asking for cryptocurrency as a form of compensation.  Whether a substitute for wages or as part of an incentive package, offering cryptocurrency as compensation has become a way for some companies to differentiate themselves from others.  In a competitive labor market, this desire to provide innovative forms of compensation is understandable.  But any company thinking about cryptocurrency needs to be aware of the risks involved, including regulatory uncertainties and market volatility.

Form of Payment – Cash or Negotiable Instrument

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay minimum and overtime wages in “cash or negotiable instrument payable at par.”  This has long been interpreted to include only fiat currencies—monies backed by a governmental authority.  As non-fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies therefore fall outside the FLSA’s definition of “cash or negotiable instrument.”  As a result, an employer who chooses to pay minimum and/or overtime wages in cryptocurrency may violate the FLSA by failing to pay workers with an accepted form of compensation.

In addition, various state laws make the form of wage payment question even more difficult.  For example, Maryland requires payment in United States currency or by check that “on demand is convertible at face value into United States currency.”  Pennsylvania requires that wages shall be made in “lawful money of the United States or check.”  And California prohibits compensation that is made through “coupon, cards or other thing[s] redeemable…otherwise than in money.”  It is largely unclear whether payment in cryptocurrency runs afoul of these state requirements.

Of note, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) allows employers to satisfy FLSA minimum wage and overtime regulations with foreign currencies as long as the conversion to U.S. dollars meets the required wage thresholds.  But neither the DOL nor courts have weighed in on whether certain cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are the equivalent, for FLSA purposes, of a foreign currency.

Volatility Concerns

When compared to the rather stable value of the U.S. dollar, the value of cryptocurrencies is subject to large fluctuations.  Bitcoin, for example, lost nearly 83% of its value in May 2013, approximately 50% of its value in March 2020, and recently lost and then gained 16% of its value in the span of approximately 15 minutes one day in February 2021.

Such volatility can give payroll vendors a nightmare and can, in some instances, lead to the under-payment of wages or violation of minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA.

Tax and Benefits Considerations

Aside from wage and hour issues, the payment of cryptocurrency implicates a host of tax and benefits-related issues.  The IRS considers virtual currencies to be “property,” subject to capital gains tax rates.  It has also confirmed in guidance materials that any payment to employees in a virtual currency must be reported on a W-2 based upon the value of the currency in U.S. dollars at the time it was delivered to the employee.  This means that cryptocurrency wage payments are subject to Federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax.

For 401k plan fiduciaries, the Department of Labor recently issued guidance that should serve as a stern warning to any fiduciary looking to invest 401k funds into cryptocurrencies.  Specifically, the DOL wrote: “[a]t this early stage in the history of cryptocurrencies, the Department has serious concerns about the prudence of a fiduciary’s decision to expose a 401(k) plan’s participants to direct investments in cryptocurrencies, or other products whose value is tied to cryptocurrencies.”  Given the risks inherent in cryptocurrency speculation, the DOL stated that any fiduciary allowing such investment options “should expect to be questioned [by the DOL] about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty in light of the risks.”

Considerations for Employers

Given the combination of uncertain and untested legal risks, employers should consider limiting cryptocurrency compensation models to payments that do not implicate the FLSA or applicable state wage and hour laws.  For example, an employer might provide an exempt employee’s base salary in U.S. dollars and any annual discretionary bonus in cryptocurrency.

Whether investing in cryptocurrencies themselves to pay employees or utilizing a third-party to convert US dollars into cryptocurrency, employers should also stay abreast of the evolving tax and benefits guidance in this area.

Ultimately, the only thing that is clear about cryptocurrency compensation is that any decision to provide such compensation to employees should be made with a careful eye towards the unique wage, tax, and benefits-related issues implicated by these transactions.

Article By Daniel J. Butler and Kevin J. White of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

Taking a reasonably hawkish view of those two questions:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

The X Box: EEOC Announces Addition of Nonbinary Gender Option to Discrimination Charge

In recognition of Transgender Day of Visibility, today, the EEOC announced that it would be providing members of the LGBTQI+ community the option to select a nonbinary “X” gender marker when completing the voluntary self-identification questions that are traditionally part of the intake process for filing a charge of discrimination.

Specifically, in an effort to promote greater equity and inclusion, the EEOC will add an option to mark “X” during two stages of the intake and charge filing process. This addition will be reflected in the EEOC’s voluntary demographic questions relating to gender in the online public portal, which individuals use to submit inquires regarding the filing of a charge of discrimination, as well as related forms that are used in lieu of the online public portal. The nonbinary “X” gender marker will also be included in the EEOC’s modified charge of discrimination form, which will also include “Mx” in the list of prefix options.

Additionally, the EEOC will incorporate the CDC and NCHS’s proposed definition of “X,” which provides as follows: (1) “unspecified,” which promotes privacy for individuals who prefer not to disclose their gender identity; and (2) “another gender identity,” which promotes clarity and inclusion for those who wish to signify that they do not identify as male or female.

The EEOC’s announcement came shortly after the White House released a detailed Fact Sheet highlighting the steps the federal government has taken to address equality and visibility for Transgender Americans.

Article By Aretta K. Bernard and Stephanie Olivera Mittica of Roetzel & Andress LPA

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

©2022 Roetzel & Andress

USCIS Policies Lead to High Denial Rates for L-1B Petitions

The L-1B nonimmigrant visa program is regularly utilized by companies to transfer employees with specialized knowledge from foreign countries to the United States. According to a recent analysis, the program continues to experience significant denial rates, raising questions about the underlying causes of the phenomenon.

L1-B Visa Program

The L1-B Visa Program allows employers to transfer certain nonimmigrant employees from foreign offices to offices within the United States. Specifically, the employment-based nonimmigrant visa program allows the transfer of professional employees with specialized knowledge relating to the organization’s interests from foreign offices to the United States, sometimes even to establish a U.S. office. To qualify under the program, the employee must possess “specialized knowledge,” which, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), requires knowledge of the petitioning employer’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. USCIS evaluates L-1B petitions on a case-by-case basis.

In practice, L-1B petitions are filed by employers on behalf of their employees seeking intracompany transfer. While an employer may file an L-1B petition for an individual employee, larger companies may have the option to file a “blanket petition” so long as the company meets certain criteria. When petitioning for individual employees, the petition must be approved and then taken to a U.S. consulate for approval. For blanket petitions that have been approved, the employer need only submit a Form 129S, Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition, which then may be taken to a consulate for approval.

High Denial Rates of L-1B Petitions

A recent article by Forbes analyzed government data concerning L-1B petitions and detailed their trends over the last decade. During that period, the average denial rate for L1-B petitions was 28.2%, a significant number, especially considering the denial rate for H-1B petitions averages under 5%. While the denial rate declined to 21.3% in the third quarter of the fiscal year 2021 and 20.7% in the fourth quarter, the denial rates were 32.7% and 33.3% respectively for the first two fiscal quarters of 2021.

Given that L-1B petitions appear to receive greater scrutiny than other business nonimmigrant visas, one must wonder what causes the denial rate, and what steps can be taken to ensure approval of such a petition.

Explanations for High L-1B Denial Rates

The unusually high denial rate for L-1B petitions could be explained in part by the high bar set by USCIS in adjudicating the petitions. However, at least one attorney noted the case-by-case nature of the petitions do not easily lend itself to a simple adjudication process, noting that “USCIS applies [the standard] in a way that favors documentary evidence while discounting the company’s own assessments of the worker’s importance and knowledge […]” While the USCIS Policy Manual provides immigration officers with some guidance, more comprehensive guidance could certainly be helpful.

In response to the investigation conducted by Forbes, USCIS commented,

“USCIS officers review each L-1B petition on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet all standards required under applicable laws, regulations, and policies. […] The agency will continue to solicit feedback from stakeholders to identify procedural efficiencies and promote policies that break down barriers in the lawful immigration system.”

Additionally, the denial rate can be attributed at least in part to the political implications of the executive branch. For the fiscal year 2021, the improvement that can be detected in the L-1B denial rate followed President Biden’s assumption of office. This shift may be attributed not to a more liberal implementation of policy, but rather to the reinstatement of the USCIS policy of giving deference to previous decisions. This deference does not extend to petitions or applications made by Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) or Department of State (“DOS”) officials.

The high denial rate for L-1B petitions serves to frustrate employers, and even discourages foreign investment in the United States. While the petitions continue to receive increased scrutiny, it is advisable to take the utmost care in the preparation of applications and ensure that all are supported with sufficient evidence and documentation.

Article By Raymond G. Lahoud of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

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

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Stay of OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard Lifted By Sixth Circuit – “All Systems Go,” For Now…

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay on the Occupational Safety and Health Association’s Emergency Temporary Standard (“OSHA ETS”) late Friday night (December 17, 2021). The Sixth Circuit had previously been selected at random to hear the consolidated OSHA ETS litigation.

As a result of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, OSHA announced that it would exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the OSHA ETS.  To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance:

  • OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the OSHA ETS before January 10, 2022; and

  • OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements before February 9, 2022.

These “extensions” are conditioned on an employer exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the OSHA ETS.

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit found that the petitioners (Republican-led states, businesses, religious groups, and individuals) were unable to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit considered and analyzed a myriad of statutory and constitutional arguments. Two out of the three judges on the panel determined that the petitioners would be unlikely to be successful on their constitutional arguments that OSHA violated the commerce clause or the non-delegation doctrine.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA is required to show that health effects may constitute a “grave danger” in order to warrant an emergency temporary standard. The Sixth Circuit held that the determination as to what constitutes “grave danger” should be left, in the first instance, to the agency. The Sixth Circuit expressly disagreed with, and in effect overruled, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by holding that OSHA was not required to make findings of exposure in all covered workplaces. The Sixth Circuit held that to require so would mean that no hazard could ever rise to the level of “grave danger.” Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit found that OSHA had shown that COVID-19 is a danger and relied on proper science in issuing the ETS. The Sixth Circuit further held that simply because OSHA did not issue the ETS at the beginning of the pandemic did not mean the agency did not consider COVID-19 an emergency worth addressing.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision was appealed this morning to the Supreme Court; however, this appeal does not alter the decision unless and until the Supreme Court rules.  In the meantime, employers should resume (or continue) preparations to comply with the ETS requirements. For a summary of the OSHA ETS and its requirements, visit here.

Article By Lilian Doan Davis and Isaac T. Caverly of Polsinelli PC

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

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California