December 15, 2022
Volume XII, Number 349
December 15, 2022
– OCC Revises Policies and Procedures for Civil Money Penalties by: Moorari Shah and A.J.S.Dhaliwal
– Battle Lines Drawn on Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Specifics by: William Ball
– Emerging Threats: Cyber Attacks and Side-Channel Evolution by: Iliana L.Peters and Colin H.
Black
– Guide to Creating a Corrective Action Plan Template by: Dr.Nick Oberheiden
– Ten Environmental and Energy Issues to Watch in 2023 by: J.Michael Showalter and Amy Antoniolli
– S.D.N.Y.Voids ERISA Plan’s Arbitration Provision by: Joseph E Clark and Daniel B.
Wesson
– DHS Issues Guidance on Additional H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural…by: Jessica Feinstein
– 12 Days of CRM: Day 1 – How to Measure CRM Success by: Christina R.
Fritsch JD
– Staff Says Some Non-GAAP Financial Disclosures Are Beyond Redemptive…by: Keith Paul Bishop
– Full Speed Ahead: District Court Entitled to Explore Litigation…
by: Amol Parikh
– Economically Motivated Adulteration in Honey by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
– China Announces New Management Measures for Food-Related Products by: David J.Ettinger and Eric Gu
– Ratings Agencies Increase Focus on “Green Ratings” by: Jacob H.
Hupart
– Applying Collateral Estoppel in IPRs by: Alexandra Cavazos, PhD
– The Ultimate Lawyer Time Off Checklist by: Kamron Sanders
– PTO Announces Cancer Moonshot Expedited Examination Pilot Program by: Bernard P.Codd
– Do Law Firms Use HubSpot? by: CRM News and Updates, Lawmatics
– The State of ESG Reporting in Australia by: Clive Cachia and Adam Levine
December 14, 2022
– Certain Green Cards Getting 24-Month Extensions as USCIS Deals With…by: Michael H.Neifach
– Australia: Climate and Sustainability-Related Financial Disclosure…by: Jim Bulling
– New Washington State Guidance A Reminder That More State Pay…by: Aaron Vance
– NLRB Unleashes New Damages Against Labor Law Violators by: Mark J.Neuberger
– Illinois Appellate Court Weighs in on Biometric Data Policies by: David M.
Poell and Kari M.Rollins
– FTC Issues Green Guides Questionnaire by: Phyllis H.Marcus
– Webinar Recording: Navigating Today’s Privacy Compliance…
by: Cynthia J.Larose
– US Executive Branch Update – December 14, 2022 by: Stacy A.Swanson
– AML Bill Key to Busting Russian Oligarchs by: Stephen M.Kohn and Grace Schepis
– New York State Provides Protection for Use of Leaves of Absence by: Jonathan A.
Wexler
– US Executive Branch Update – December 13, 2022 by: Stacy A.Swanson
– Looking Ahead to 2023: Pay Transparency Developments by: Allan S Bloom and Evandro C Gigante
– What Does 2023 Hold for California COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick…
by: Benjamin A.Tulis
– AND ANOTHER ONE! TCPA CLASS DISCOVERY LIMITED: Third Party Subpoena…by: Jenniffer Cabrera
– Speak Out Act Takes Effect, Enhanced Data Privacy Obligations for…by: George Carroll Whipple, III
– California Starts Mandating Employee Bereavement Leave in 2023 by: Paul R.Lynd
– GREAT LEGAL WORK: TCPA Defendant Wins a HUGE Certification Victory…
by: Eric J.
Troutman
– 401(k) Compliance Check #12: Don’t Borrow Trouble – Correcting…by: Belinda S.Morgan
– FDA Published Food Safety Culture Literature Review by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
– Does a business have to provide a privacy notice directly to a…by: David A.
Zetoony
– New Privacy Enforcement Act Commences in Australia by: Cameron Abbott and Rob Pulham
– NYC Delays Enforcement of Automated Employment Decision Tools Law to…by: Lindsay Colvin Stone
– U.S.Department of State to Update Design on Nonimmigrant and…by: Ashley K.
Kerr
– Cannon Fire: Newly-Famous Judge Stays All Discovery in TCPA Class…
by: Eric J.Troutman
– Why Do Law Firms Need CRM? by: CRM News and Updates, Lawmatics
– This California Rule by: Keith Paul Bishop
– UK Parliament Considers Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill…by: Emma Thomson
December 13, 2022
– DOL Issues Final Rule Amending Investment Duties Regulation –…by: James Frazier
– Renewed Era of Crypto Assets Growth in Hong Kong by: Jay Lee
– Division I Universities Must Be Ready for Changes to the NCAA…
by: Paul V.Kelly
– Damages in Pre-Certification Discovery are Premature, Discovery…by: Jenniffer Cabrera
– When Chains Change, Do NFTs Stay The Same? How Hard Forks May Affect…by: Jason H.Finger
– COVID-19: A Roadmap to Fraud Investigations: Office of Inspector…by: Stephen D.Bittinger
– Update: OFCCP Plans to Disclose EEO-1 Data for Non-Objecting…
by: Abby M.Warren
– DOJ Antitrust Division and HHS OIG Enter into Partnership to Increase…by: Diane Hazel
– Can Discovery Be Compelled from a Party? Possession, Custody, Control…by: Kathryn C.
Cole
– Weekly Bankruptcy Alert December 13, 2022 by: Bankruptcy & Creditors’ Rights
– All Things Chemical® Podcast: TSCA Regulation of Articles: The Saga…by: Lynn L.Bergeson
– Energy & Sustainability M&A Activity — December 2022 by: Thomas R.
Burton, III and Sahir Surmeli
– Energy & Sustainability IP Updates — December 2022 by: Brad M.
Scheller
– SEC Reopens Proposal on Stock Buyback Rules by: Erin Reeves McGinnis
– Chips Chatter: December 5-12, 2022 by: Pablo E.Carrillo and Ludmilla L.
Kasulke
– How Many Behavioral Advertising Trackers Do Websites Deploy Currently? by: David A.Zetoony
– FRB Proposes Climate-Related Financial Risk Management Principles by: Daniel Meade
– Energy & Sustainability Litigation Updates — December 2022 by: Jacob H.Hupart
– Cross Border Recognition, 25 years on: the view from each side of the…by: Michelle N.
Saney
– A New Era of Technology in the Private Markets by: Louis Lehot and Christopher Converse
– New York City Postpones Enforcement of Automated Employment Decision…by: Simone R.D.
Francis
– New Law Seeks To Curtail Coerced Debts by: Keith Paul Bishop
– Republican SEC Commissioners Continue to Criticize Proposed Climate…by: Jacob H.Hupart
December 12, 2022
– Raters gonna rate…but there’s a bright side! by: Daniel B.
Guggenheim
– SEC Awards More than $20 Million to Whistleblower by: Mary Jane Wilmoth
– Duty to Preserve Evidence Covers Climate Review by Higher Educational…
by: Monica H.Khetarpal and Laura A.Ahrens
– Preliminary Determination of Circumvention Regarding Solar Energy…by: Gregory Husisian and John E.Turlais
– Estate Planning for Football Season Ticket Holders by: Katherine M.Szymanski and Rebecca K.Wrock
– Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta Issues Statement on 2021 FBI…
by: United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
– NLRB General Counsel Proposes Lower Standard for Requiring Employers…by: Adam C.Abrahms and Steven M.Swirsky
– American Hospital Association Urges DEA to Issue Special Registration…by: Nathaniel M.Lacktman
– EPA Announces $25.7 Million in Grants to Support Water Systems in…
by: EPA
Love and Marriage: How the Respect for Marriage Act Affects Employers (or Does It?)
On December 13, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the Senate and House with bipartisan support.
Many see the bill as a reaction to a concurrence in the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v.Jackson Women’s Health Organization that hinted at some of the justices’ thoughts on privacy rights and questioned whether the Constitution guaranteed the right to same-sex and interracial marriage.The act specifically repeals the federal Defense of Marriage Act from the 1990s and prohibits states from denying “full faith and credit” to any marriage between two individuals based on sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.The question for employers is how does this act affect your obligations to married employees?
The Act Is a Placeholder
As of today, the U.S.Supreme Court has several decisions that protect marriages.In 1967, in Loving v.Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning marriage between individuals of different races.
In 2013, in U.S.v.
Windsor, the Court held that spousal benefits and protections provided under federal law had to be extended to same-sex married couples.Two years later, in Obergefell v.
Hodges, the Court held that all states were required to perform and recognize same-sex marriage.Finally, in 2020 in Bostock v.
Clayton County, GA, the Court ruled that Title VII discrimination protections also cover LGBTQ individuals.
All of those decisions are still the law.
However, as stated above, some of the Court’s language in Dobbs hinted that the Court might reassess some of those decisions.Nothing has been overturned, and employers are required to continue to meet their obligations to same-sex and interracial couples.With the enactment of the Respect for Marriage Act, at least the marriage-related portions of those decisions are now federal law.
Whether the new act draws a constitutional challenge has yet to be seen.
Religious Liberty and Conscience Protections
The act includes a section stating that it cannot be construed to diminish a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an employer under either the U.S.Constitution or federal law.The act also says that religious organizations are not required to provide services or goods for the “solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” Accordingly, if a religious organization refuses to provide goods or services based on this section, the act does not create a private right of action.These religious objections are the subject of some current litigation, and it is expected that the federal courts will provide guidance.
I Employ Married People — What Do I Need to Know?
Since the Bostock decision in 2020, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
The new Respect for Marriage Act (as well as the current Supreme Court decisions) make clear that employers may not treat same-sex and opposite-sex married employees differently.
If you offer retirement or insurance plans to married employees, you must treat all types of marriages equally.
If you offer health benefits for an employee’s spouse, you must offer them to all spouses, without regard to the type of marriage at issue.
The act’s religious and conscience section does not provide a lot of instruction on how it would apply.If an employer decides to treat couples differently based on this section, they should likely tread lightly and expect possible litigation.
One interesting aspect of the Respect for Marriage Act is that it specifically states that it does not cover polygamous marriages.Those continue to be outside the law..