232 Auto Investigation Timeline Published

By Susan Kohn Ross

The Federal Register notice advising the timeline which applies to the Administration’s 232 investigation regarding automobiles and parts was published on May 30, 2018.  The relevant time frame requires that written comments are due by June 22, 2018 and rebuttal comments by July 6, 2018.  A public hearing will be held on July 19 and 20, 2018.  All comments should be filed through www.regulations.gov referring to Docket Number DOC-2018-0002.

In particular, Commerce wants information about:

  • The quantity and nature of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts and other circumstances related to the importation of automobiles and automotive parts;
  • Domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;
  • Domestic production and productive capacity needed for automobiles and automotive parts to meet projected national defense requirements;
  • The existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce automobiles and automotive parts;
  • The growth requirements of the automobiles and automotive parts industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements to assure such growth, particularly with respect to investment and research and development;
  • The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the U.S. automobiles and automotive parts industry;
  • The displacement of any domestic automobiles and automotive parts causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects;
  • Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy;
  • The extent to which innovation in new automotive technologies is necessary to meet projected national defense requirements;
  • Whether and, if so, how the analysis of the above factors changes when U.S. production by majority U.S.-owned firms is considered separately from U.S. production by majority foreign-owned firms; and
  • Any other relevant factors. Continue reading “232 Auto Investigation Timeline Published”

Which Way Is Up?

By Susan Kohn Ross

Living true to the times, it is nearly impossible to find predictability in current events. That fact makes it quite challenging for businesses, and we have recent events adding to the confusion.

One notable example is that on June 1, the suspension of the 232 tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) expire on the relevant goods from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the EU member countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom.  Last reports indicate that negotiations with Australia continue, while the NAFTA renegotiations with Canada and Mexico seem mired in the automobile domestic content requirement.  Continue reading “Which Way Is Up?”

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements Are Enforceable

By Stephen Rossi Last week, in an important win for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit-split on whether class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), holding that they are. The Court decided three cases, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., … Continue reading U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements Are Enforceable

New York City & State Implement Stronger Protections Against Workplace Harassment

New York City Dawn
Photo credit: iStock.com/Sean Pavone

By Greg Hessinger

As states begin to focus heightened attention on sexual harassment in the workplace in the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York State (“NY State”) and New York City (“NYC”) have implemented stronger protections for employees against workplace harassment. The new requirements, which have been passed into law in NY State and NYC, will impact employers’ training, policies & procedures, and employment agreements for New York employees.

New York State: Continue reading “New York City & State Implement Stronger Protections Against Workplace Harassment”

Is Everyone Now an Employee in California?

By Jeffrey Davine

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  It is likely that this case will drastically alter the landscape in California as to how workers are classified.  From a tax perspective, the result could be significantly increased costs and administrative burdens for businesses operating in California.

Worker Classification.
For tax purposes, workers are divided into two categories- employees and independent contractors.  The tax withholding and reporting obligations with respect to each category of worker are substantially different and significant dollars can turn on how a worker is classified. Continue reading “Is Everyone Now an Employee in California?”

California Supreme Court Adopts “ABC” Test As Standard To Determine Independent Contractor Status Under the Wage Orders

By Tony Amendola

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision adopting a new standard for determining whether a California worker is an employee or independent contractor under the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission. In adopting the new standard, the Court noted that, under the wage orders, “employ” has three alternative definitions: “(a) to exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.” Of these, the broadest definition is “to suffer or permit” to work. As the Court stated:

“We conclude that in determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work definition, a worker is properly considered the type of independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it is appropriate to look to a standard, commonly referred to as the ‘ABC’ test, that is utilized in other jurisdictions in a variety of contexts to distinguish employees from independent contractors. Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.” Continue reading “California Supreme Court Adopts “ABC” Test As Standard To Determine Independent Contractor Status Under the Wage Orders”

The GDPR is Coming – Are You Ready?

GDPR Webinar Invite l BackgroundBy Susan Kohn Ross and Aaron Wais

On May 25, 2018, important European regulations regarding data privacy and protection go into effect that will have a major impact on American companies, many of whom don’t realize they will be subject to compliance with its requirements. The General Data Protection Regulations (the “GDPR”) will have severe penalties for non-compliance (as high as €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover). The GDPR will also have very broad territorial reach applying not only to European entities, but also to entities located outside of Europe (including those in the U.S.) that process the personal data of living European individuals residing in the covered countries, including if the company:

  • Offers goods or services to individuals in the covered countries (e.g., e-commerce, capital raising, fund raising, immigration);
  • Employs individuals in one or more of the countries;
  • Monitors the behavior of individuals in any of these countries; and
  • Collects, stores, or processes the personal data of affected individuals on behalf of others.

For these purposes, the European definition of personal data mirrors nicely the American definition of personally identifiable information. Given the severe penalties and broad reach, it is important that each company in the U.S. consider whether the GDPR applies to its operations and, if so, how best to comply. Continue reading “The GDPR is Coming – Are You Ready?”

USTR Publishes 301 Product List / China Reacts With Its Own List

Tariffs - just ahead
Photo credit: iStock.com/gguy44

By Susan Kohn Ross and Kevin Rosenbaum

The U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) has prepared for publication a Federal Register Notice (“Notice”) that identifies a list of approximately 1,300 tariff lines on which it proposes to levy additional duties of up to 25% on goods made in China. The pre-published copy of the Notice was released yesterday, April 3, 2018, and includes an Annex identifying the products on which USTR proposes to assess the additional duties. The notice can be found here.  According to an accompanying press release, the sectors targeted for the proposed tariffs “include industries such as aerospace, information and communication technology, robotics, and machinery.” The press release further indicates these tariffs are intended to combat China’s “industrial plans, such as ‘Made in China 2025.’” The tariffs, therefore, are intended to “target products that benefit from China’s industrial plans while minimizing the impact on the U.S. economy.”

The Notice announces a public hearing and an opportunity for interested parties to submit written comments. The public hearing will take place on May 15th; interested members of the public must file requests to appear at that hearing, and a summary of expected testimony as well as any other pre-hearing submissions are due by April 23rd. Written comments must be filed by May 11th, and any post-hearing rebuttal comments are due May 22nd. Continue reading “USTR Publishes 301 Product List / China Reacts With Its Own List”

Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Exemptions Clarified

Industrial Welder With Torch
Photo credit: iStock.com/Kerkez

By Susan Kohn Ross

In off the record comments on March 28, 2018, an official of the Dept. of Commerce provided some clarification as to how the product exemption process will work relative to steel and aluminum tariffs. Of course, the starting point is: if your product is subject to the steel or aluminum tariffs and is not from an exempted country, the 25% or 10%, respectively, will have to be paid. After that, things get trickier.

If you decide to seek exemption for your product, the first step obviously is to gather the needed details and file your exemption request. The way the process is intended to work is once the exemption request is uploaded to regulations.gov, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) will review it for completeness. If not complete, the application will be rejected. If complete, it will be officially posted on the regulations.gov website. That date is key. Because, if your exemption request is later granted, while not official until five days after it is published, you will be able to seek refunds on any entries filed between the date the exemption request is posted and when it is granted. Continue reading “Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Exemptions Clarified”

Consumer Products Sellers Beware: New Prop 65 Warnings Coming in California

Prop 65 Warning
Photo credit: iStock.com/kchungtw

By Susan Kohn Ross

New Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings will take effect on August 30, 2018. While these new warnings relate to a wide range of goods and services, we are focused on changes that impact consumer products due to the focus of our clientele. If you are currently subject to Prop 65, you will continue to be subject to its requirements. If you are not currently impacted, you may be under the new rules!

Not sure? Check the various fact sheets published here, or more generally the “warnings page” here.

New Categories

Warnings are now expressly required on your website! Internet warnings – “a warning that complies with the content requirements of Section 25603(a) must also be provided by including either the warning or a clearly marked hyperlink using the word “WARNING” on the product display page, or by otherwise prominently displaying the warning to the purchaser prior to completing the purchase.” The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or OEHHA (the California state agency which oversees Prop 65) noted the following: “Some online retail sellers who currently provide an internet warning do so by providing the warning as a pop-up when the purchaser enters a California zip code. This is an example of a way to prominently display ‘the warning to the purchaser prior to completing the purchase’ as required by the regulation.” Continue reading “Consumer Products Sellers Beware: New Prop 65 Warnings Coming in California”