Earlier today, March 8, 2018, President Trump signed two Presidential Proclamations, one dealing with additional tariffs on steel and the other with additional tariffs on aluminum. As has been widely reported in the general press, those rates are 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. The only countries exempted are Canada and Mexico.
Steel articles are defined as those which are classified under HTSUS 7206.10 through 7216.50 (including ingots, bars, rods and angles), 7216.99 through 7301.10 (including bars, rods, wire, ingots, and sheet piling), 7302.10 (rails), 7302.40 through 7302.90 (including plates and sleepers), and 7304.10 through 7306.90 (including tubes, pipes and hollow profiles). Aluminum products are defined as unwrought aluminum (HTS 7601); aluminum bars, rods, and profiles (HTS 7604); aluminum wire (HTS 7605); aluminum plate, sheet, strip and foil (flat rolled products) (HTS 7606 and 7606); aluminum tubes and pipes and tube and pipe fittings (HTS 7608 and 7609); and aluminum castings and forgings (HTS 7616.99.5160 and 76184.108.40.206). (more…)
Earlier today, President Trump announced his intention to adopt the recommendations of the Dept. of Commerce and impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. The formal signing is said to be taking place “next week.” President Trump has stated those tariffs will be 25% on foreign-made steel and 10% on foreign-made aluminum. Hopefully when the final document is signed and released, it will become clear how long these tariffs will be in place and whether they will be accompanied by any other measures, such as quotas.
Commerce’s original steel recommendations were: (i) a 24% tariff on all steel imports; or (ii) a 53% tariff on steel imports from Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam; which (iii) could include a quota from all other countries equal to their 2017 level of imports; or (iv) no tariffs, but a quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of their 2017 import levels. (more…)
A. Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Policy)Law, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16
1. Anti-SLAPP Statute Does Not Provide a Safe-Harbor Against Employee FEHA Lawsuits, Even if the Claims Arise Partially from Employer’s Protected Conduct
In Nam v. Regents of the University of California, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176, 1193 (2016), a resident in the anesthesiology department at UC Davis Medical Center brought a lawsuit claiming sexual harassment and retaliation against her employer. The resident accused her residency program director of sexual harassment, alleging that after she rebuffed his advances, he retaliated against her by, among other things, issuing an unwarranted disciplinary letter and placing her on investigatory leave. The resident further alleged that she was retaliated against because she complained about the clinical behavior of another doctor and serious patient care and safety issues. (more…)
1. Layoffs Of Any Length Require Compliance with Cal-WARN
In The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers etc. v. NASSCO etc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 1105 (Nov. 30, 2017), the employer notified 90 employees, without prior notice, to not return to work for at least 3 weeks due to a lull in shipyard production work. NASSCO later extended the layoff period by several weeks for some of the employees. The WARN Act’s notice requirement provides that a covered employer “may not order a mass layoff, relocation or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order to … the employees of the covered establishment…”
The employer argued that such short “furloughs” were not a mass “layoff” covered by Cal-WARN. The Court disagreed because the law defined “mass layoff” as “a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.” (§ 1400, subd. (c)) (emphasis added). The Court reasoned that, based on the plain meaning of that statutory language, a “separation” can be either temporary or permanent and there was no temporal requirement. The Court also noted that the Cal-WARN act was meant to give greater protection to employees than the Federal WARN act, which requires notice only when a layoff will last more than six months.
Liability for violations of the Cal-WARN act can include compensatory damages, attorney fees, and statutory penalties. (more…)
1. Excluding claims arising from Confidentiality provision from the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable
In Farrar v. Direct Commerce, Inc., 9 Cal. App. 5th 1257, review filed 4/28/17, a successful entrepreneur, Farrar, negotiated with Direct Commerce (“Direct”) a contract to become its VP of Business Development. The contract excluded claims arising from the confidentiality provision from the arbitration clause. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable, because it carved out more than provisional remedies and was therefore too “one-sided.” The Court of Appeal, however, found the offending provision could be severed so that the arbitration provision could be enforced. (more…)
1.No Administrative Exemption for Mortgage Underwriters
In McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Sav. Bank, 862 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that mortgage underwriters qualified for the “administrative exemption” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In particular, the plaintiff alleged that she and other underwriters often worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and, therefore, were owed overtime compensation. The defendant argued that mortgage underwriters were exempt under the administrative exemption, and the district court agreed. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and focused on the distinction, imposed by Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations interpreting the scope of the FLSA exemptions, between “work directly related to running or servicing of the business” and “working on a manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment,” also known as the “administrative-production dichotomy.” According to the DOL, those engaged in management of the business are exempt from the overtime-pay requirements of the FLSA, while those involved in making the goods it sells or performing the services a business provides to the marketplace are not exempt. The Ninth Circuit noted that two other circuit Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit (which ruled underwriters are non-exempt) and the Sixth Circuit (which ruled they are exempt) have reached opposite conclusions.
A. The “New” National Labor Relations Board Decisions and Memos
As of this past fall, following confirmation of Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel as new members of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), that agency has obtained a 3-2 Republican majority for the first time in almost a decade. As expected, in the few short months thereafter, the Trump era NLRB has been on a path to reverse many of the decisions and actions taken by the Obama era NLRB. Here are the more significant NLRB decisions that fall in this category. Notably all were decided this past December.
1. NLRB Establishes New Standard Governing Workplace Policies
On December 14, 2017, in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 156, the NLRB overturned its standard for evaluating the legality of employee handbook policies. The standard that was overruled was established in Lutheran Heritage Village – Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). In Lutheran Heritage, the NLRB stated that a policy is illegal if employees could “reasonably construe” it to bar them from exercising their rights to engage in union or other concerted activities under the NLRA. In the Boeing case, the administrative law judge applied the Lutheran Heritage rule to Boeing’s workplace policy restricting workers’ use of camera-enabled devices and similar recording devices such as cellphones on company property violated the NLRA. Although Boeing’s “no-recording” policy would have violated the NLRA under Lutheran Heritage, the NLRB in Boeing stated that Lutheran Heritage’s “reasonably construe” standard entails a “single-minded consideration of NLRA-protected rights, without taking into account any legitimate justifications associated with policies, rules and handbook provisions.” (more…)
On January 26, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced their annual update to the size-of-transaction thresholds for both premerger notifications and interlocking directorates. The FTC revises these thresholds annually based on changes in gross national product. This year’s update included significant increases.
Changes to Premerger Notification Thresholds
Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR), transactions that meet the following three tests are required to file premerger notifications with the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department: (more…)
AB 168, which enacted California Labor Code Section 432.3, is intended to promote equal pay, particularly between men and women. In passing AB 168, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, California joins a handful of states (Massachusetts, Delaware and Oregon) and municipalities (New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco) which have enacted similar measures. In sum, AB 168 prohibits all California employers (including public employers) from
Inquiring or seeking from job applicants, whether “orally or in writing, personally or through an agent,” salary history information (the law does not define the term “salary history); and
Relying on or considering salary history as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant. (more…)
1. NY State Paid Family Leave Law Goes into Effect
In 2016, New York State adopted a 12-week paid family leave policy for New York employees (the “Paid Leave Law”). Once fully implemented, the Paid Leave Law will provide New York employees with up to 12 weeks of job-protected paid family leave for the purpose of (1) caring for a new child, (2) caring for a family member with a serious health condition, or (3) relieving family pressures when a family member, including a spouse, domestic partner, child or parent, is called to active military service. Starting on January 1, 2018, employees will be eligible for eight weeks of paid leave, earning 50% of their weekly pay (capped at 50% of the statewide average weekly pay). The number of weeks of leave and amount of pay increases yearly until, by 2021, employees will be eligible for the full 12 weeks of paid leave, earning 67% of their weekly pay (capped at 67% of the statewide average weekly pay).
Paid leave to care for a new child will be available to both men and women and will include leave to care for an adoptive or foster child. An employee may take paid leave to care for a new child any time within the first 12 months after the child’s birth or 12 months after the placement for adoption or foster care of a child with the employee. Paid leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition includes leave to care for a child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, spouse or domestic partner. (more…)