So here is Week 3 of Bond’s New York Paid Family Leave (“PFL”) Q&As. This week we are focusing on which employers are and are not covered. We also answer your questions about what certain exempt employers (i.e., those who are not required to have PFL coverage) must do in order to opt in for voluntary PFL coverage. In fact, certain exempt employers have an obligation to make a decision by December 1, 2017, as to whether to opt in for PFL coverage and will be required to report their decision to the NYS Workers Compensation Board (“WCB”). Continue Reading
Welcome to Week 2 of Bond’s New York Paid Family Leave (“PFL”) Q&As. Many of the most commonly asked questions during Bond’s PFL webinars focused on the intersection of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Disability Benefits Law (“DBL”) and PFL. In this post, we answer some of those questions. Continue Reading
Thank you to everyone who attended Bond’s webinar on New York Paid Family Leave (“PFL”) on Tuesday, July 25, 2017. We had a tremendous turnout and received hundreds of questions. While we didn’t have the opportunity during the webinar to address all of the inquiries that we received, we noted afterwards that many employers raised the same questions. Accordingly, for the month of August, we will be posting a weekly blog article dedicated to answering some of the most frequently asked questions we received during the webinar. We hope this follow-up will be helpful to employers in preparation for the launch of PFL in 2018.
Today’s PFL Q&As focus on taking leave to provide care for a family member with a serious health condition. Continue Reading
Today, July 26, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (“USDOL”) published a Request for Information (“RFI”) in the Federal Register regarding the regulations defining the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees. Public comments can be submitted by any of the methods set forth in the RFI by September 25, 2017. Continue Reading
The New York Workers’ Compensation Board published its final regulations implementing the New York Paid Family Leave Law today, Wednesday, July 19, 2017. The final regulations largely mirror the proposed regulations issued on May 24, but the Board provided further clarification in certain areas. For example, in its commentary, the Board clarified the rules applicable to coverage of out-of-state employees, the measurement of “days worked” as applied to part-time employees, and how to calculate an employee’s average weekly wage. Core provisions, such as PFL coverage, eligibility, and interplay with other leave laws, remain the same.
Bond will discuss the final regulations in more detail at a live, complimentary webinar on July 25, 2017 (1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.). Click here to register for the webinar. In addition, please continue to follow Bond’s New York Labor & Employment Law Report for additional updates leading up to the January 1, 2018 effective date of PFL in New York.
Now that the regulations are final, employers should begin, in earnest, to modify existing leave policies and processes to incorporate PFL requirements, and to develop new PFL policies that provide employees with information about their rights and obligations under the law. Bond’s team of labor and employment attorneys are at the ready to answer questions and guide employers through this process.
If you have any questions about PFL, please contact the authors of this post, any of the attorneys in our Labor and Employment Law Practice, or the Bond attorney with whom you regularly work.
We have received a number of questions about the current status of OSHA’s new electronic injury and illness reporting rule, upon which we have previously reported here and here. There is, yet again, more to report!
First things first: the implementation date of the rule has been delayed from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. The reason for the delay is to give the new administration an opportunity to determine whether any changes to the rule are warranted as well as to give employers time to familiarize themselves with electronic reporting. The Department of Labor did seek additional comments as part of the process. We will keep you posted regarding any further delays in the implementation of, or changes to, the rule.
Second, the rule will likely go into effect in some form: OSHA announced that its website at which employers can submit their Form 300A electronically will be live as of August 1 here. All employers must submit their 2016 Form 300A via the website before December 1, 2017.
Today, July 17, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) released a new Form I-9 to replace the prior form which it released back in late January of this year. For now, employers will have a 60-day grace period, giving them the option to use the updated form (Rev. 07/17/17 N) or continue using the previous Form I-9 (Rev. 11/14/2016 N) until September 17, 2017. As of September 18, 2017, however, employers must use the updated form for the initial employment verification for all new hires, as well as any applicable employment re-verifications. All prior versions of the Form I-9 will no longer be valid. The new Form I-9 has an expiration date of August 31, 2019.
Initially, the planned revisions to the Form I-9 were primarily meant to address USCIS’ proposed International Entrepreneur Rule, which was originally set to go into effect on July 17, 2017. Under the proposed rule, a foreign passport and Form I-94 indicating entrepreneur parole would be considered acceptable documentation for a foreign entrepreneur to use for employment eligibility verification purposes. However, with the Trump administration’s freeze on all new regulations, the effective date for the International Entrepreneur Rule has been pushed back until March 14, 2018. Despite the delayed effective date for the proposed rule, the USCIS has still implemented a number of revisions to the form.
The good news for employers is that the current changes are relatively minor and should not have a major impact on the hiring and employment verification process. A summary of the revisions to the new Form I-9 appears below.
Revisions to the Form I-9 instructions:
- The anti-discrimination and privacy act notices on the instructions are revised to change the name of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-related Unfair Employment Practices to its new name, “Immigrant and Employee Rights Section”.
- The phrase “the end of” is removed from the phrase “the first day of employment”.
Revisions related to the List of Acceptable Documents on Form I-9:
- The Consular Report of Birth Abroad (“Form FS-240”) has been added as a new “List C” document. Employers completing Form I-9 online are now able to select Form FS-240 from the drop-down menus available in List C of Section 2 and Section 3. E-Verify users are also able to choose Form FS-240 when creating cases for employees who have presented this document for Form I-9.
- All certifications of report of birth issued by the Department of State (Form FS-545, Form DS-1350 and Form FS-240) are now combined into one selection within List C.
- As a result of the combination, all List C documents (with the exception of the Social Security card) are now renumbered.
According to a press release issued by the USCIS, in an attempt to make the revised Form I-9 more user friendly, all of the latest changes to the form will be included in a revised Handbook for Employers: Guidance for Completing Form I-9 (M-274).
Although the changes to Form I-9 are minimal, with the new administration’s heightened immigration enforcement, employers should consider reviewing their I-9 procedures and records to ensure compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”). If you have questions about the new Form I-9 or I-9 compliance issues, please contact the Bond Immigration Practice Group.
As a result of an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii last night, foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are now considered exempt from President Trump’s travel ban if they are coming to the U.S. to visit with grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins. In addition, the court held that the travel ban cannot be enforced against refugees from the six countries who have formal assurance from a resettlement agency in the U.S. for placement.
The District of Hawaii’s order greatly expands the number of people who are exempt from the travel ban which, as we reported earlier, was partially reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam decision issued at the close of its term late last month. Previously, under the Supreme Court’s decision and implementing FAQs issued by the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State, foreign nationals from the six banned countries could only travel to the U.S. to visit with parents, spouses, siblings, fiancés, children, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law.
We will continue to report on any additional developments as they unfold.
If you work in human resources anywhere in New York, you have inevitably heard about New York’s new paid family leave law (“PFL”). But other than what the law’s name implies — that there will now be a form of paid family leave available to employees in this state — what are the administrative and practical implications that this new law will have on your workplace? You are not alone if you have questions, and more questions, about what this new law will entail. Although we are still waiting for final regulations to be issued by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board that would definitively answer many questions being raised, based on the statutory language and the proposed regulations that are currently pending, here are answers to some of the more frequently asked questions regarding New York’s PFL. Continue Reading
On June 26, 2017, the final day of its judicial term before summer recess, the United States Supreme Court addressed the Trump Administration’s hotly contested travel ban. The Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision on June 26, 2017 allowing the federal government to implement a portion of the travel ban set forth in Executive Order 13780 (Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States), which was signed on March 6, 2017. Recall, EO 13780 called for the suspension on the admission of all refugees for 120 days and also sought to impose a 90-day “temporary pause” on the admission of foreign nationals from six countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The Supreme Court’s June 26th decision marks the latest move in the game of legal ping pong regarding the Trump Administration’s stated efforts to protect Americans and safeguard the nation’s security interests. The Supreme Court will fully consider the legal arguments at stake when the fall session begins in October 2017. For now, the Supreme Court’s decision will allow the Trump Administration to exclude foreign nationals from each of the six countries of concern, provided they have no “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. Stated differently, if a foreign national can establish the existence of a “close familial relationship” with someone already in the United States or a formal, documented relationship with an American entity, the travel ban will not apply. It is expected that enforcement of this limited travel ban will begin on June 29, 2017, just as the nation’s peak summer travel season gets underway.
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves a number of unanswered questions regarding the meaning of the “bona fide relationship” standard. In an effort to shed some light on this issue, the Supreme Court provided several examples of the circumstances that would satisfy the “bona fide relationship” standard:
- Individuals seeking to come to the United States to live or visit a family member (i.e., spouse, mother-in-law), though it remains to be seen just how far the federal government will go to recognize a “close” familial relationships (e.g., cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.);
- Students who have been admitted to an educational institution in the United States;
- Foreign nationals who have been extended, and have accepted, an offer of employment with a corporate entity in the United States;
- Foreign nationals who have been invited to temporarily address an American audience as lecturers; and
- Refugees who have family connections in the United States or who have connections with refugee resettlement agencies.
While the examples provided by the Supreme Court are helpful to a certain degree, they do not address all scenarios that may arise for foreign nationals seeking to enter into the United States in the immediate future. Nevertheless, it appears that individuals who currently hold valid immigrant and/or non-immigrant visas will not be subject to the travel ban.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement on June 27, 2017 noting that DHS’ implementation of EO 13780 will be “done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry”.
We will continue to apprise clients regarding any developments as they unfold.