Trump Blinks and Signs Revised Executive Order; States React Immediately

On March 6 President Trump signed a second Executive Order revoking his January Order and replacing it with Executive Order (“March Order”) effective March 16, 2017 that is intended to overcome court challenge. The March Order suspends for 90 days entry into the U.S. of nationals of six countries, but carves out limited exceptions for certain categories of affected aliens. After issuing the March Order, the Justice Department immediately asked the federal court in Seattle to halt Washington’s and Minnesota’s legal challenge from proceeding against the January Order and notified the Court notice that the Government plans instead to enforce the provisions of the March Order.  However, for the moment the Seattle lawsuit remains pending.

Under the March Order, entry by nationals of six countries -Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen- is suspended through June 14, 2017. The suspension of entry into the U.S. will apply only to foreign nationals from the six countries who 1) are outside the U.S. as of March 16, 2017, and 2) did not hold a valid visa as of 5 p.m. EST on January 27, 2017 and 3) do not have a valid visa as of March 16, 2017. The suspension of entry into the U.S. will not apply to U.S. permanent residents, any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the U.S. on or after March 16, 2017, any foreign national who has a document other than a visa valid on March 16, 2017 that permits the individual to travel in the U.S., any dual national of one of the six countries if the individual is traveling using a passport from the non-designated country, any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic visa, NATO visa, C-2 visa for travel to the U.N. or a G-1, 2, 3 or 4 visa, any foreign national granted asylum, and any refugee already permitted to be in the U.S. No immigrant or nonimmigrant visas issued before March 16, 2017 is being revoked by the March Order and any individual whose visa was revoked as a result of the January Order is entitled to a travel document permitting travel to and entry into the U.S.

Although the March Order does not list Iraq as a banned country, decisions about issuance of visas or granting entry to any Iraqi national will be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if the alien has connections to ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety.

The March Order also suspends all refugee travel into the U.S. under USRAP and suspends decisions on all refugee status applications through July 16, 2017. The January Order banned all Syrian refugees’ admission into the U.S. indefinitely. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security retain the ability to jointly determine a refugee’s admission into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis so long as admission is in the national interest and poses no threat to national security and welfare. Finally, for fiscal year 2017 entry by refugees in excess of 50,000 is suspended until the President determines additional entries are in the country’s interest.

The first state to challenge the March Order was Hawaii which sued in Honolulu federal court claiming that the March Order results in an unconstitutional establishment of religion and inflicts immediate harm on Hawaii’s economy, education and tourism. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson will hear Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order on March 15. New York’s Attorney General announced that New York will join Washington and Minnesota in the pending federal case in Seattle. Other states are expected to follow New York’s and Hawaii’s example.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the March Executive Order affects your employees and your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

9th Circuit Refuses to Stay Nationwide Injunction Against Enforcement of Trump Immigration Order While Government Appeals

On February 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting nationwide enforcement of key portions of the immigration Executive Order issued on January 27. A unanimous three-judge panel, consisting of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that “the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” As a result, the TRO stands and aliens from the seven listed countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen), including those with immigrant and non-immigrant visas, may continue normal processes for entry into the U.S. and refugees from the seven countries, including Syria, may resume their proceedings to relocate to the U.S. State of Washington v. Trump, (February 9, 2017).

Washington State and Minnesota argued that the Executive Order violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it disfavored Muslims and that the TRO merely returned the nation temporarily to the status quo in effect for many years. The Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ arguments. The Government, the judges observed, was hard pressed to point to a single recent example of an entrant from one of the seven listed countries who was arrested for terrorist activities. Regarding the argument that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause, the court withheld judgment for the time being, pending a decision on the merits, explaining, “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.”

The Ninth Circuit decision to maintain the nationwide TRO of the Trump immigration Order is immediately appealable to the Supreme Court. The President’s immediate tweet — “See You In Court, The Security Of Our Nation Is At Stake!” – anticipates that the Supreme Court will ultimately review the constitutionality of the Executive Order.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the Executive Order affects your employees and your business, please contact  Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

Philadelphia Becomes First U.S. City to Prohibit Inquiries into Applicants’ Wage Histories

On January 23, 2017, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed into law the “Wage History Ordinance,” which bans all employers doing business in Philadelphia from asking job applicants about their wage histories, subject to a few exceptions. The Ordinance, unanimously passed by the Philadelphia City Council on December 8, 2016, amends Chapter 9-1100 of the Philadelphia Code, the “Fair Practices Ordinance.” The new law, the first for a U.S. city, will take effect on Tuesday, May 23, 2017.

The Wage History Ordinance specifically prohibits employers from the following:

  • To inquire about, require disclosure of, or condition employment or consideration for an interview on the disclosure of a potential employee’s wage history, unless done pursuant to a “federal, state or local law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of wage history for employment purposes;”
  • Determine a potential employee’s wages based upon his/her wage history provided by his/her current or former employer, unless the potential employee “knowingly and willingly” disclosed such information to the prospective employer; and/or
  • Take any adverse action against a potential employee who does not comply with a wage history inquiry (anti-retaliation provision).

For purposes of this Section 9-1131, “to inquire” shall mean to “ask a job applicant in writing or otherwise,” and “wages” shall mean “all earnings of an employee, regardless of whether determined on time, task, piece, commission or other method of calculation and including fringe benefits, wage supplements, or other compensation whether payable by the employer from employer funds or from amounts withheld from the employee’s pay by the employer.”

Notably, the exception allowing wage history inquiries where a law “specifically authorizes” such applies not only when the inquiry is required by law, but when it is merely permitted by law.

The new law also requires a prospective employee who alleges a violation of the Ordinance to file a complaint with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act before he/she may file a civil action in court. Violations of the Ordinance can result in an award of injunctive or other equitable relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages (not to exceed $2,000 per violation), reasonable attorneys’ fees and hearing costs.

Advocates of the legislation, like Philadelphia Councilman Bill Greenlee, have suggested that the Ordinance is aimed at reducing the gender wage gap.  According to the “Findings” section of the Ordinance, women in Pennsylvania are paid 79 cents for every dollar that a man earns.  Amongst minorities, it claims that African-American women are paid 68 cents, Latinas are paid 56 cents, and Asian women are paid 81 cents for every dollar paid to men.  The belief is that, since women have historically been paid less than men, an employer’s knowledge of applicants’ wage histories can perpetuate a cycle of lower salaries.  Advocates profess that the Ordinance forces prospective employers to, instead, set salaries based on an applicant’s experience and the value of the position to the company.

Opponents of the Ordinance, like Rob Wonderling, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, denounce it as an unnecessary “hassle” driving businesses away from Philadelphia.  Corporations like Comcast have also threatened costly lawsuits contesting the legality of the Ordinance.

It is recommended that employers review their hiring practices and applications for employment in advance of the Wage History Ordinance’s effective date of May 23, 2017.  Moreover, anyone involved in the hiring and interview process must be trained to ensure compliance with the new law prohibiting inquiries into an applicant’s salary history.

For more information on the Wage History Ordinance, how it may affect your business, or ways to ensure that your company’s hiring documents and policies comply with the Ordinance, please contact John C. Petrella, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group, at jpetrella@nullgenovaburns.com, or Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.

Governor Christie Conditionally Vetoes Social Networking Bill; Legislature Responds

Written By Brett M. Pugach, Esq., and Jordan S. Hollander

The New Jersey Legislature recently passed a social media law, also known as the “Facebook Bill”.  On May 7, 2013, the Facebook Bill was conditionally vetoed by Governor Christie.  The Facebook Bill would have prohibited employers from requiring or requesting current or prospective employees to disclose their user name or password or otherwise provide the employer with access to a personal account on a social networking site.  Such accounts did not include those used for business purposes of the employer.

In addition, employers would have been prohibited from requiring or requesting that a current or prospective employee disclose whether he/she has a personal account on a social networking site.  Such a prohibition would have been the first of its kind.  This prohibition has been particularly controversial for certain employers due to its potential implications with respect to social media outlets focused on business connections such as LinkedIn.  However, the Facebook Bill does not appear to prevent employers from conducting research online on their own.  The Facebook Bill also contained controversial provisions with respect to the potential liability of employers for violations and civil penalties of up to $1,000 for the first offense and $2,500 for additional violations.

While Governor Christie thought the bill was “well-intentioned,” he issued a conditional veto due to apprehensions over balancing privacy concerns and an employer’s need “to hire appropriate personnel, manage its operations, and safeguard its business assets and proprietary information.”  For example, under the vetoed bill, an employer interviewing a candidate for a marketing job would have been prohibited from asking that candidate about their use of social networking to gauge their technological skills and savvy.

In the accompanying conditional veto message, the Governor left the civil penalties intact but suggested that provisions allowing employees to sue for violations of the law and that bar employers from asking about the existence of social media accounts be struck from the law.  In addition, the Governor proposed adding additional exceptions allowing employers to investigate work-related employee misconduct or the unauthorized transfer of confidential company information to a private account and allowing employers to view, access, or utilize information about a current or prospective employee that can be obtained in the public domain.

After the conditional veto, the bill was sent back to the Legislature.  The State Assembly incorporated the Governor’s changes, and on May 20, 2013, approved the bill, known as A2878, by a vote of 74-0 to send it back to the Governor’s desk.  However, before Governor Christie may act on the bill, it must also be approved by the State Senate.

Employers should note that the Facebook Bill, as amended and if approved by the State Senate and signed by the Governor, would not take effect until the first day of the fourth month after it is enacted.  Employers are encouraged to consult with an attorney to review social media related policies and/or draft a social media hiring policy.

If you need advice with respect to this legislation or assistance regarding an existing social media policy or developing a new social media policy, please contact Joseph M. Hannon, Esq., jhannon@nullgenovaburns.com or Brett M. Pugach, Esq., bpugach@nullgenovaburns.com, in the Labor Law Practice Group.

NLRB Sets the Example for Sound Social Media Policies

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently issued its Third Report on social media cases. In doing so, it emphasized the importance of clarifying permissible and prohibited conduct through the use of examples. By using examples in this context, employers can avoid situations where an employee can reasonably interpret the social media policy as restricting Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) which protects protected concerted activity when employees communicate with one another to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. Moreover, providing examples can prevent a social media policy from being found to be overbroad.

In its review of social media cases, the NLRB Third Report cites many instances where policies were found to violate the NLRA because they did not include clarifying examples. For instance, a policy that instructed employees to not release confidential information regarding guests, team members or the company was impermissible because there was no limiting language or context to assure employees that Section 7 rights were not restricted. In addition, a policy instructing employees to ensure that posts were accurate and not misleading was overbroad because it could be interpreted to prohibit employee discussions about working conditions and did not provide examples of the prohibited conduct.

However, the NLRB Third Report pinpoints a few instances where policies that were otherwise overbroad were nevertheless found to be lawful due to the inclusion of clarifying examples. A policy prohibiting harassment, bullying, discrimination, and retaliation between co-workers in the workplace and online (even if it was after work hours) was found to be permissible because a list of prohibited conduct was provided, and included only plainly egregious activity. Finally, the NLRB found that Wal-Mart’s social media policy was valid in its entirety, and attached the entire policy to the report as an “example” of how “examples” can be used effectively to prevent a social media policy from being overbroad or interpreted as infringing upon Section 7 rights under the NLRA.

If you need assistance regarding an existing social media policy or with developing a new social media policy, please contact Joseph M. Hannon, Esq., jhannon@nullgenovaburns.com or Brett M. Pugach, Esq., bpugach@nullgenovaburns.com, in the Labor Law Practice Group.

New Jersey Interest Arbitration Reform: Are You Prepared For Your Next Round of Negotiations?

New Jersey public employers are currently feeling the effects of Arbitration Reform Bill P.L. 2010 c.105 (“the legislation”), which applies to any collective negotiations agreement (“agreement”) expiring on or after January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. This legislation sunsets on April 1, 2014. But in the meantime, the legislation greatly impacts the role of arbitration in police and firefighter contract negotiations by establishing a 2 percent cap on the aggregate increase in “base salary” that can be provided to public employees in an interest arbitration award. The legislation’s 2 percent cap prohibits an arbitrator from issuing an award that, on an annual basis, increases “base salary” by more than 2 percent of the aggregate amount expended by the employer on “base salary” items for the members of the union in the 12 months immediately preceding expiration of the agreement. An arbitrator can distribute the aggregate monetary value over the term of the agreement in unequal annual percentages.

In negotiations and during interest arbitration, disputes often arise as to what qualifies as “base salary” and “non-salary economic issues”. The legislation provides that the 2 percent cap applies to all “base salary” items, such as step increment payments, longevity and cost of living increases. The legislation specifically prohibits an arbitrator from issuing an award that addresses “non-salary economic issues” unless already included in the existing contract. “Non-salary economic issues” encompass paid time off, pension costs, and health /medical insurance costs. The legislation’s exclusion of “non-salary economic issues” from an award is particularly important because it restricts an arbitrator’s ability to create new cost items in successor contracts.

There is currently no case law to provide further guidance on the legislation’s distinction between “base salary” and “non-salary economic issues,” but we will provide updates on any new developments.

Should you need assistance or have any questions regarding interpretation or implementation of the legislation, please contact Joseph Hannon, Esq. or Phillip Rofsky, Esq. in our Labor Law Group.