CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for May, 2018

DOJ and USCIS Join Forces Creating a Tougher Road for Employers

Posted on: May 18th, 2018

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

On May 11, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding information sharing and case referrals.  USCIS and DOJ state that this effort is meant to improve the way the agencies share information and collaborate on cases “to better detect and eliminate fraud, abuse and discrimination by employers bringing foreign workers to the United States.”  The Memo allows the agencies to share information and help “identify, investigate and prosecute employers who may be discriminating against U.S. workers and/or violating immigration laws.”

This Memo has been entered into by the agencies in the spirit of “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order issued by President Trump.  This new collaboration most likely will lead to more audits, site inspections and requests for evidence and create a difficult path for foreign workers and their employers.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

9th Circuit Holds Inadmissible Evidence May Support Class Cert

Posted on: May 17th, 2018

By: Ted Peters

Courts around the country are split over whether admissible evidence is needed to support a class certification.  The Fifth Circuit requires it, and the Seventh and Third Circuits appear to be of the same opinion.  In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has indicated that inadmissible evidence can be considered.  On May 3, 2018, the Ninth Circuit join ranks with the Eighth Circuit when it issued an opinion indicating that certification of a class action can be supported by inadmissible evidence.

The case arises out of the district court’s decision to deny class certification to a group of nurses based, in part, on the finding that two of the named plaintiffs had not offered evidence that they were underpaid.  Their only evidence consisted of a paralegal’s analysis of time cards reflecting that hours were not properly calculated.  While perhaps not sufficiently trustworthy to be admitted at trial, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court prematurely rejected such evidence when ruling on whether the class could be certified.  The Court stated: “Notably, the evidence needed to prove a class’s case often lies in a defendant’s possession and may be obtained only through discovery.  Limiting class-certification-state proof to admissible evidence risks terminating actions before a putative class may gather crucial admissible evidence.”

The Court also concluded that, because there was no consideration as to whether the employer controlled the nurses after they clocked in, the district court misapplied the definition of “work” under California jurisprudence.  Lastly, the Court was critical of the finding that the law firm representing the putative class action was incapable of properly representing the class, focusing on “apparent errors by counsel with no mention of the evidence in the record demonstrating class counsel’s substantial and competent work on [the] case.”

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].

Winemakers Decan’t Warn a Consumer About Every Risk

Posted on: May 16th, 2018

A Pour Result for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in California, but a Grape Win for Vintners

By: Robyn Flegal

In May 2018, the California Court of Appeals refused to revive a class action lawsuit claiming wines made by fifteen winemakers should contain an arsenic warning. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015, alleging that these wines exposed consumers to arsenic in violation of California law. The panel of the California Court of Appeals held that the alcoholic beverage warning on these wines sufficiently notified customers about the potential risks associated with consuming the wine, despite the lack of a specific arsenic warning.

California’s Proposition 65—the safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act of 1986—protects the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms. Prop 65 requires businesses to disclose exposures to such chemicals to Californians.

The appeals court held that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment requires companies to disclose one chemical for each health risk. Thus, because the alcoholic beverage warning alerted customers that wine could result in cancer and reproductive harm, the additional arsenic warning was unnecessary. The failure to provide a separate arsenic warning was therefore not a violation of the regulations.

Companies doing business in California should be aware of Proposition 65 and the labeling and disclosure requirements thereunder. For more information, please contact Robyn Flegal at [email protected] or any of FMG’s Commercial Litigation Professionals.

Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors Beware!

Posted on: May 15th, 2018

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

On May 10, 2018, USCIS published a Policy Memorandum to provide guidance on how the agency will be calculating unlawful presence for F-1, J-1, and M-1 nonimmigrant visa holders and their dependents.

Generally, foreign students and exchange visitors are admitted to the United States for “Duration of Status”.  This means that the student or the exchange visitor is admitted to the United States for as long as the individual is still doing the activity for which the visa was issued.  For nonimmigrant (F-1 and M-1) this is generally for the duration of time that they are full time students plus the time they are in their period of authorized practical training.  The length of time generally depends on their course of study.  For Exchange Visitors (J-1) this is the period of time for their program to be completed.  Previously, unless USCIS or an Immigration Judge affirmatively terminated the status, F-1, M-1 and J-1 visa holders and their dependents would not accrue unlawful presence in the United States.

USCIS is now providing the following guidance, which is a significant change in how USCIS has treated “Duration of Status” in the past:

Individuals in F, J, and M status who failed to maintain their status before August 9, 2018, will start accruing unlawful presence on that date based on that failure, unless they had already started accruing unlawful presence on the earliest of any of the following:

  • The day after DHS denied the request for the immigration benefit, if DHS made a formal finding that the individual violated his or her nonimmigrant status while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit;
  • The day after their I-94 expired; or
  • The day after an immigration judge, or in certain cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), ordered them excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is appealed).

Individuals in F, J, or M status who fail to maintain their status on or after August 9, 2018, will start accruing unlawful presence on the earliest of any of the following:

  • The day after they no longer pursue the course of study or the authorized activity, or the day after they engage in an unauthorized activity;
  • The day after completing the course of study or program, including any authorized practical training plus any authorized grace period;
  • The day after the I-94 expires; or
  • The day after an immigration judge, or in certain cases, the BIA, orders them excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is appealed).

Accruing unlawful presence can prevent an individual from being able obtain a change of status to another visa category while in the United States or obtaining a new visa at a US Embassy or Consulate.  It can also prevent an individual from obtaining US Residency (green card).  It is very important that international students and exchange visitors understand this new guidance and confer with their immigration attorney regarding any questions.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

DOL Fiduciary Rule Suffers a Slow Death

Posted on: May 15th, 2018

By: Ted Peters

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) promulgated a set of rules and regulations now infamously referred to as the “Fiduciary Rule.”  After multiple criticism and legal challenges, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal struck down the Fiduciary Rule effective May 7, 2018.  Surprising many, the DOL elected not to challenge the Fifth Circuit ruling.  Even more surprising, however, was the bulletin issued by the DOL on the effective date of the court’s order.

The court’s ruling, which was not opposed by the DOL, left many unanswered questions.  Enter the DOL’s field bulletin.  Rather than admitting the total defeat of the Fiduciary Rule, however, the DOL seeks to maintain the status quo.  Specifically, the DOL announced that pending further guidance, advisors will not be penalized for either complying with the Fiduciary Rule, or ignoring it in favor of pre-existing standards.  Unfortunately, this announcement leaves the single most important question unanswered – what is the standard to which advisors will be held?  With the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission working on its own set of rules, and the wait-and-see approach embraced by the DOL notwithstanding, only time will tell.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].