Category: News

Employment Law Alert: The Implications of NLRB’s New Joint Employer Rule for Businesses and Contractors

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

Did you know that the law may consider people who work with you, but not necessarily for you, to be your responsibility as an employer?  The concept of joint employment involves situations where multiple legal entities exert control or influence over workers, making them all employers of the worker. This status carries substantial implications, including shared liability for unfair labor practices and obligations for collective bargaining.

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) unveiled a final rule (“New Rule”) that defines the criteria for joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  The New Rule takes effect December 26, 2023, and replaces the 2020 rule instated during the Trump administration (the “Old Rule”).

Under the New Rule, two or more entities can be classified as joint employers if they share or jointly determine any of the employees’ essential employment terms. These terms include wages, benefits, work hours, duties, supervision, work rules, tenure, and safety conditions. Notably, the New Rule emphasizes that even indirect control or reserved authority over these terms can establish joint employer status, diverging from the Old Rule’s focus on direct and immediate control.   What does this mean in plain English?  Think about the cleaning people in your office space.  Do your managers tell them when or how to clean, if they are not doing a good enough job, or how they want things done?  This type of interaction could be construed as indirect control over the employees of the third-party cleaning service, and those employees might have an argument that as a result of those directions your company is a joint employer responsible for any legal non-compliance.

The New Rule reinstates the broader criteria for joint employment that was in place during the Obama administration. Under this framework, a company can be considered a joint employer of another company’s employees, not just when it exercises direct and immediate control, but also when it has indirect influence or simply reserves the right to exercise such control, even if it never actually does so. The expansive definition of joint employment in this New Rule echoes the Biden administration’s focus on labor rights.

The implications of being recognized as a joint employer are significant. Such employers might need to engage in collective bargaining with unions representing jointly employed workers and could face joint and several liabilities for unfair labor practices committed by the other employer.  And the implications are not necessarily limited to NLRA protections.  Courts could extend the joint employer status and impose liability for things like wage/hour violations and discrimination or harassment claims.

We highly encourage employers to contact their Shulman Rogers attorney to review their relationships with vendors, independent contractors, and other third parties to determine potential joint-employer status under the New Rule. The New Rule is expected to lead to more litigation and legal challenges, emphasizing the need for employers to adapt to this new landscape in labor relations.

CONTACT

Meredith “Merry” Campbell

Joy C. Einstein

Alexander I. Castelli

Drew T. Ricci

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.

Eric von Vorys Quoted in Press: Intellectual property attorney tells Press Club members artificial intelligence won’t immediately replace authors

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

Eric von Vorys, Practice Chair of Shulman Rogers’ Intellectual Property Group, recently addressed members of the National Press Club, on the topic of artificial intelligence.

Explore insights from Eric in the full article, “Intellectual property attorney tells Press Club members Artificial Intelligence won’t immediately replace authors,” by Edward Segal on Press.org.

 

Shulman Rogers Ranked by Best Law Firms in 2024

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

Potomac, MD, November 2, 2024 — Shulman Rogers has been recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers®, nationally in 4 practice areas and regionally in 9 practice areas.

Firms included in the 2024 Best Law Firms® list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. To be considered for this milestone achievement, at least one lawyer in the law firm must be recognized in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Achieving a tiered ranking in Best Law Firms® on a national and/or metropolitan scale signals a unique credibility within the industry. The transparent, collaborative research process employs qualitative and quantitative data from peer and client reviews that are supported by proprietary algorithmic technology to produce a tiered system of industry-led rankings of the top 4% of the industry.

Receiving a tier designation represents an elite status, integrity and reputation that law firms earn among other leading firms and lawyers. The 2024 edition of  Best Law Firms® includes rankings in 75 national practice areas and 127 metropolitan-based practice areas. Additionally, one “Law Firm of the Year” was named in each nationally ranked practice area.

Shulman Rogers received the following rankings in the 2024 Best Law Firms®:

  • National Tier 1
    • Land Use & Zoning Law
  • National Tier 2
    • Litigation – Real Estate
    • Real Estate Law
  • National Tier 3
    • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
  • Regional Tier 1
    • Washington, D.C.
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Family Law
      • Land Use & Zoning Law
      • Real Estate Law
  • Regional Tier 2
    • Washington, D.C.
      • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Litigation – Real Estate
      • Trusts & Estates Law
  • Regional Tier 3
    • Washington, D.C.
      • Family Law Mediation

 

About Shulman Rogers

Shulman Rogers is a full-service law firm with its principal office located in Potomac, Maryland and branch offices in Alexandria, Virginia, Tysons Corner, Virginia and Washington, D.C. Our 100+ attorneys work collaboratively across our real estate, corporate, commercial litigation and personal services departments to support national, regional and local clients in response to all of their legal needs.

Eric von Vorys Quoted in Forbes: What Biden’s New Executive Order Could Mean For The Future Of AI

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

Eric von Vorys, Practice Chair of Shulman Rogers’ Intellectual Property Group, contributed to a recent article in Forbes addressing what Biden’s New Executive Order means for the future of Artificial Intelligence.

In the feature, Eric mentions that Biden’s executive order aims to instruct government agencies to develop AI regulations, establish data privacy and cybersecurity standards, enhance national security and set government standards in the rapidly expanding AI industry.

Read the full article, “What Biden’s New Executive Order Could Mean For The Future Of AI“, by Edward Segal in Forbes.

New Regulations Affect Lending to Maryland Cannabis Licensees

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

  • Only banks, credit unions, and similar entities are permitted to obtain a security interest in a Maryland cannabis license.
  • All security interests in Maryland cannabis licenses must be approved by the Maryland Cannabis Administration.
  • Several questions remain unanswered in the Emergency Regulations, including whether an eligible secured creditor can take a security interest in a license as a collateral agent for itself and other lenders (some of which may not be eligible secured creditors).

 

Like most companies, Maryland-licensed cannabis businesses generally rely on access to capital to purchase equipment and other capital assets, fund acquisitions and other forms of expansion, and provide working capital to cover short-term expenses.  Industry experts agree that venture capital is extremely difficult to obtain in the cannabis space and that most equity raises are limited to friends and family rounds.  In addition, because the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis and products containing cannabis remain in violation of federal cannabis laws, cannabis businesses are unable to obtain loans from any financial institution that is regulated by a federal agency (which includes the vast majority of banks operating in Maryland).

As a result, Maryland-licensed cannabis business have had only two choices for obtaining debt capital – either one of the few state-regulated financial institutions willing to lend to cannabis companies, or a non-bank lender that is not regulated.  In either case, as is typical of secured transactions, the lender would expect to obtain a security interest in all of the assets of the borrower, including any cannabis license.  Once a lender or other secured party obtains a security interest in assets of a borrower and takes certain steps such as filing a notice called a financing statement (referred to as a UCC-1 in the Uniform Commercial Code), the secured party expects to be able to foreclose on the assets of the borrower if the borrower does not repay the loan by its terms – this foreclosure typically is an out-of-court sale of the pledged assets to the highest bidder, with the proceeds of the sale used to repay (in order) the costs of sale, the debt owed to the secured party, and any additional sale proceeds paid the borrower.

But one unresolved question was whether the security interest in a Maryland-issued cannabis license was enforceable.  In other words, it has never been clear whether a secured party ever obtains any rights in a cannabis license – arguably one of the most valuable assets of a cannabis company.  If not, then a foreclosure sale following default of a loan to a cannabis company would be much less likely to generate proceeds in an amount to repay the defaulted loan in full.

Adult Use in Maryland and Recent Emergency Regulations

Following approval by Maryland voters of adult-use cannabis legalization as part of a November 2022 ballot referendum, the Maryland legislature passed the Cannabis Reform Act which was signed into law by Governor Moore in May of 2023.  On June 23, 2023, the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review approved Emergency Regulations, found at COMAR 14.17.01 – 14.17.22, which took effect on July 1, 2023.

These new regulations cover many topics related to the expansion of cannabis into adult use, including:  conversion of existing medical licenses into adult use licenses; the process for issuance of new licenses (including new license categories); testing laboratory registration and operations; operational issues for growers, processors, and dispensaries; record keeping, inspections, and enforcement issues; ownership and control; and related issues.  Enforcement will be supervised by the Maryland Cannabis Administration (the “Administration”), as a successor to the Maryland Cannabis Commission.

 

This alert focuses on the subset of the new Emergency Regulations that relate to the ability of a lender to obtain a security interest in a cannabis license.

 

Security Interest in a Maryland Cannabis License

Which Lenders Can Obtain

The Emergency Regulations provide that a licensed grower, processor, or dispensary may pledge to an eligible secured creditor an interest in the proceeds from an Administration-approved sale of cannabis license as a security interest for a loan.  But there are numerous requirements and restrictions baked into this simple statement.

The secured party must be a “secured creditor” – under the Emergency Regulations this means a lending institution as defined under the Maryland Financial Institutions Code, whether chartered by Maryland or any other state.  Such institutions include commercial banks, non-depositary trust companies, savings banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations.  Note that this definition would exclude any of the non-bank lenders that typically are funds using private capital to make loans (sometimes in addition to private equity investments).

Approval to Act as Secured Creditor

To act as a secured creditor the lending institution must submit to the Administration for approval (i) a compliance and reporting plan; (ii) a proposed plan for the appointment of a receiver that meets the requirements set forth in the emergency Regulations; (iii) confirmation that the lending institution is in good standing and eligible to conduct business in Maryland and is in compliance with any regulatory requirements applicable to the lending institution; and (iv) any other information requested by the Administration.  The secured creditor also will need to submit an annual report to the Administration certifying continued compliance and eligibility.  The Administration will maintain on its web site a list of approved secured creditors.

Approval of Security Interest

To obtain approval for a security interest in connection with a specific transaction, the approved secured creditor must submit to the Administration for approval a copy of the security agreement intended to be used.  An approved security agreement may not contain provisions that authorize the secured creditor to unilaterally:  (i) require the loan to become due, except if the licensee materially breaches or defaults on its material obligations as set forth in the security agreement; (ii) convert the debt under the loan to equity; (iii) deprive the licensed grower, processor, or dispensary of the right to operate the license; or (iv) restrict the ability of the licensed grower, processor, or dispensary from making payment on the secured loan through a third party unless the payment restriction would cause the secured creditor to violate a law by which it is governed.  The Administration also may restrict a security interest for “other good cause” as determined by the Administration.

The scope of the security interest, once approved, is limited to the proceeds of a sale of the license that occurs in accordance with a disposition plan as required by the Emergency Regulations.  The security interest excludes any right to operate the license.

Plan of Disposition

The Emergency Regulations include detailed provisions addressing the plan for the disposition of a cannabis license, including:  (i) selection of an eligible receiver; (ii) application for receivership; (iii) security protocols for the receiver in non-public areas of licensed premises; (iv) the receiver’s responsibilities; and (v) sale of the cannabis license.

Although foreclosure sales of personal property collateral under the Uniform Commercial Code can proceed rather quickly, often in as few as 10 days following a required notice of sale, the timeline for the disposition of a license under the Emergency Regulations will be considerably more time consuming.  The starting point will be that either (i) the lender has obtained a receivership order from a court, (ii) the borrower is insolvent, or (iii) the borrower has materially breached its obligations under the Administration-approved security agreement.  Following one of these triggering events, the Administration must approve the appointment of the receiver following submission of an application with detailed information about the proposed receiver as well as a plan of disposition.  Any proposed sale requires advance notice of at least 60 days, and potential bidders must be approved by the Administration.  Any completed disposition and transfer of a license will not be final until approved by the Administration.

Summary

While the Emergency Regulations have clarified some important issues with respect to secured lending to Maryland-licensed cannabis companies, the new restrictions may have the unintended result, at least in the short term, of limiting the ability of Maryland licenses to obtain much-needed debt capital.  Potential lenders that cannot qualify as eligible “secured creditors” under the Emergency Regulations may not want to lend the Maryland licensees now that it is clear that such non-bank lenders will not be able to obtain a security interest in cannabis licenses.  And lenders that could be eligible to obtain a security interest in a cannabis license, such as state-chartered banks, will have to jump through many time-consuming hoops to obtain Administration approval.

 

Unanswered Questions

  • Do the regulations limit the ability of a lender that is not a “secured creditor” (as defined in the Emergency Regulations) from making a loan to a Maryland-licensed cannabis company and taking a security interest in assets other than the license(s)?
  • Can an eligible secured creditor take a security interest in a license as a collateral agent for itself and other lenders (some of which may not be eligible secured creditors)?
  • What is an example of “other good cause” that would permit the Administration to restrict the security interest in favor of an eligible secured creditor?
  • The scope of the approved security interest is limited to the proceeds of an Administration-approved sale of a licensed grower, processor, or dispensary – but does this provision refer only to a sale by a receiver established at the request of the secured party, or will the scope of the security interest include any sale of a license, even without use of the receiver or consent of the secured party?

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding your cannabis business or how the Act may affect the operation of your business.

To read the full text of the Emergency Regulations, click HERE.

CONTACT

R. Timothy Bryan

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Cannabis Industry Group.

Employment Law Alert: Enhanced Collaboration between EEOC and WHD: What Employers Should Know

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

In a landmark move for inter-agency cooperation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (“WHD”) recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) focused on the enforcement of federal laws overseen by both agencies. This collaboration will focus on information sharing, joint investigations, and extensive training and outreach initiatives.

Key Highlights of the MOU

  1. Enhanced Information Sharing
  • Data Exchange: The EEOC and WHD can share data that aids either agency’s enforcement. This sharing includes complaint referrals, contents of investigative files, employers’ submissions like EEO-1 Reports or payroll data under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and other permitted analyses or summaries related to an investigation.
  • Focus Areas for Information Sharing: The collaboration will particularly spotlight:
    • Employment discrimination based on various factors, including race, sex, age, and disability.
    • Compensation practices that break the law, such as wage discrimination or violation of minimum wage standards.
    • Unlawful working and living conditions.
    • Denial of provisions for nursing mothers.
    • Unlawful retention of tips.
    • Denial of family and medical leave or related discrimination.
    • Issues surrounding misclassified employees.
    • Retaliation against workers advocating for their rights, especially in cases exploiting immigration status.
  1. Coordinated Investigations and Enforcement
  • Referral System: If either agency identifies possible unlawful conduct during an investigation that falls under the other’s jurisdiction, they will provide guidance to the aggrieved party to file a charge with the other agency.
  • Joint Investigations: If both agencies find a violation, both agencies’ field staff will collaborate and strategize on the best approach, which might involve one agency holding its investigation while the other proceeds, marking a shift towards more comprehensive enforcement actions.
  • Publicizing Resolutions: If a joint decision isn’t reached, agencies will discuss with involved parties on announcing any resolutions. Confidentiality is paramount, and according to the MOU, details about investigations or violations found by the other agency won’t be disclosed without mutual consent.
  • Impacted Statutes: The MOU will notably influence various acts, including but not limited to the FLSA, Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022.
  1. Training and Outreach
  • Collaborative Efforts: Both the EEOC and WHD will:
    • Train each other’s staff on recognizing potential violations.
    • Participate in joint outreach and public awareness campaigns.
    • Share or co-create training materials.
    • Formulate joint policy guidelines and technical assistance documents when suitable.

Guidance for Employers

Given the heightened commitment to enforcement by the EEOC and WHD, employers are likely to experience more frequent investigations. Considering the new data-sharing provisions, any information provided to one agency could potentially be shared with the other. In light of these developments, it is imperative that employers engage legal counsel when sharing information with either agency during investigations to ensure compliance and avoid potential pitfalls.

We highly encourage you to contact your Shulman Rogers attorney for guidance in the event you are contacted by either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor with regard to any request for information or investigation.

The full text of the MOU can be found here.

CONTACT

Meredith “Merry” Campbell

Joy C. Einstein

Alexander I. Castelli

Drew T. Ricci

 

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.

HHS Makes History: Recommending that Cannabis be Reclassified

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a letter formally recommending the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) re-classify cannabis from a Schedule I Controlled Substance to a Schedule III Controlled Substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Schedules

Since the founding of the DEA in 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I substance. Under federal law, Schedule I drugs are defined as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Along with cannabis, other Schedule I drugs include heroin and LSD.

Under federal law, Schedule III drugs are defined as having “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.” Schedule III drugs include ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone.

HHS Recommends Reclassification[1]

Pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, the HHS Secretary and Attorney General began their review of how marijuana is scheduled under federal law last year. HHS completed the administrative process in less than 11 months, reviewing eight factors: (1) its actual or relative potential for abuse; (2) scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect; (3) current scientific knowledge regarding the drug and other substances; (4) current pattern of abuse; (5) the scope, duration, and impact of abuse; (6) whether there is (and if so what) risk to public health; (7) its psychic or physiological dependence capability; and (8) whether the substance is an immediate precursor to an already controlled substance.[2] After comprehensive evaluations, HHS provided its recommendation for marijuana in a letter to the DEA on August 29, 2023.

Next Steps

The DEA has the final authority to reschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, the DEA will now initiate its review based on the information provided by HHS. If the DEA determines the drug should be reclassified, then it will begin the formal rulemaking procedures, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Once the formal rulemaking process is complete, an administrative law judge (ALJ) will decide whether to adopt the regulation. If the ALJ adopts the regulation, it will be published in the Federal Register.

Impact

If cannabis is rescheduled to Schedule III instead of Schedule I, the drug will still be federally illegal. States will continue to have the power to legalize cannabis but do not have to. This also means that interstate commerce in cannabis would not, technically, be legal.[3]

But it does mean that Section 280e of the IRS tax code will no longer be a barrier to cannabis businesses. 280e prohibits state-licensed cannabis businesses from claiming standard business deductions (which are available to every other business in America) and applies to Schedule I and II substances. If cannabis were reclassified to Schedule III, cannabis businesses would have an opportunity to increase their cash flow by claiming the deductions. More cash flow could lead to greater ability for businesses to take in debt for improvements and expansions.

It also means that institutional lenders may be more willing to be a source of capital for cannabis businesses. The reclassification may signal to risk-averse investors that the federal government views cannabis as less of a problem than it once was, and these investors may see the opportunity to get involved as less risky. This may further lead to stimulation of the lending market, which would, hopefully, reduce high-interest rates imposed on current loans in the cannabis space. Further, if the SAFE Banking Act is passed, financial institutions would be exempt from liability and penalties for seeking out opportunities with marijuana businesses that are compliant with state law.

Questions

For now, we must sit and wait to see what the DEA decides, but this is nonetheless a historic step in a direction that would have a strong impact on cannabis businesses. If you have additional questions, please reach out to your Shulman Rogers Attorney.

[1] Reclassification (or rescheduling) is distinct from descheduling. While rescheduling would transfer cannabis to another schedule (i.e., Schedule I to Schedule III), descheduling completely removes cannabis from the list of controlled substances entirely. SMART, Understanding The Difference Between Rescheduling and Descheduling Cannabis, September 6, 2023, https://studentmmj.com/rescheduling-and-descheduling-cannabis/#:~:text=Rescheduling%20moves%20cannabis%20to%20a,it%20more%20like%20common%20items.

[2] Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, To Reschedule or To Deschedule: That is the (Marijuana) Question, September 20, 2023, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fc68e77a-d321-4a4a-abdf-0e13553f0a8f&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+d.

[3] While interstate commerce may remain illegal, the possibility of rescheduling may impact the ability to advertise across states.

Employment Law Alert: Montgomery County and Prince George’s County Introduce Bills to Phase Out the Tip Credit

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

On September 19, 2023, a bill was introduced in the Montgomery County Council that would increase the minimum wage for tipped workers from $4.00 per hour to $6.00 per hour effective July 1, 2024, and then $2.00 per hour a year until July 1, 2028.  The tip credit would be discontinued as of July 1, 2028.

On October 3, 2023, a bill was introduced in the Prince George’s County Council that would increase the minimum wage for tipped workers from $3.63 per hour to $7.00 per hour effective July 1, 2024, and then $2.00 per hour a year until July 1, 2028.  The tip credit would be discontinued as of July 1, 2028.

The Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group will continue to monitor developments regarding these bills.  If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.

Employment Law Alert: How Federal Contractors Will Be Impacted By The Government Shutdown

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

It is unfortunately likely that the federal government will shut down after funding expires this Saturday. This Alert discusses many of the significant employment-related issues caused by the shutdown. Contractors who are required to stop work will need to decide whether to continue to pay employees for the period of the shutdown, reassign employees to unaffected contracts, require employees to take paid or unpaid leave or lay off/furlough employees.

 

Wage and Hour Issues

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a federal contractor may make mandatory deductions from an exempt employee’s paid leave or other leave banks for a full or partial day’s absence during a shutdown, furlough or reduced hours plan without affecting the employee’s FLSA-exempt status, as long as the employee receives their full salary.  However, federal contractors will need to be mindful of applicable state wage and hour laws before requiring the use of paid time off.

Federal contractors can withhold payment for any full week in which an exempt employee does not work.  However, payment cannot be withheld if an exempt employee performs any work during a furlough week.  Non-exempt employees who perform work must be paid for all time worked.  Accordingly, federal contractors should instruct employees not to perform any work while on furlough.

Potential layoffs may trigger the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), which generally requires covered employers to provide 60 days’ notice to employees affected by a plant closing or mass layoff resulting in an “employment loss.”  An “employment loss” is defined as: (1) a termination, (2) a layoff exceeding 6 months, or (3) a reduction in an employee’s hours of work of more than 50% in each month of a 6-month period.  If the shutdown lasts for more than 4 months, federal contractors will need to consider whether to provide the notices required under the WARN Act.  Federal contractors also will need to consider applicable state laws governing employer obligations that may be triggered by layoffs.

 

Employee Benefits Issues

Federal contractors may also need to consider the shutdown’s impact on employee benefits.  For example, federal contractors should consider how they will handle a furloughed employee’s portion of insurance premiums if the shutdown lasts longer than anticipated.   In addition, a furlough or reduction in hours may cause employees to lose coverage under the employer’s health plans.  In that case, affected employees could be eligible for COBRA continuation coverage, and the employer would need to send out COBRA notices.

Federal contractors should be aware that employees who are furloughed may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.  State laws vary on eligibility for benefits, and may require the employer to provide certain notices to employees at the beginning of the furlough.

Federal contractors should reach out to their contracting agencies for guidance on the status of their contracts.  If you have any questions about this Alert, we encourage you to contact your Shulman Rogers attorney for solutions and recommendations.

 

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.

Employment Law Alert: 2022 EEO-1 Reporting Period Opens October 31, 2023

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

The EEOC has announced that the 2022 EEO-1 reporting period will open on October 31, 2023.  Employers with 100 or more U.S. employees and federal contractors with at least 50 U.S. employees are required to submit an EEO-1 report to the EEOC each year. The 2022 EEO-1 report will be based on a workforce payroll snapshot taken between October 1 and December 31, 2022.  The deadline to file the report is December 5, 2023.

Additional information about the 2022 EEO-1 reporting period is available here.

If you have any questions about this Alert, we encourage you to contact your Shulman Rogers attorney for solutions and recommendations.

 

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.

CANMD to Host Cannabis Conference on October 10, 2023

Posted on by Laura Gastwirth

Shulman Rogers is pleased to serve as a sponsor CANMD’s Maryland Cannabis Conference on October 10, 2023 from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM at The Universities at Shady Grove. This free conference will feature panel discussions led by cannabis licensees and subject matter experts and networking opportunities for those interested in learning what it takes to operate a successful cannabis business in Maryland. For more information and to register, click HERE.

 

REGISTER HERE

Employment Law Alert: Government Bans TikTok on Federal Contractors’ Devices

Posted on by Hanna Hefner

The federal government recently issued a rule banning TikTok or any successor application developed by ByteDance Limited on all government-owned or managed information technology used by federal contractors and subcontractors, including personal devices used for federal contract work.  This means that federal contractors and subcontractors must require employees to remove TikTok from personal cell phones and other devices that are used in the performance of a federal contract.  The rule applies to solicitations issued on or after June 2, 2023, and awards occurring after June 2, 2023.

The full text of the rule can be accessed here.

If you have any questions about this Alert, we encourage you to contact your Shulman Rogers attorney for solutions and recommendations.

 

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.