Novel Coronavirus European Travel Ban (Effective March 13, 2020)
By Frida Glucoft and Benjamin Lau
On March 11, 2020, the White House issued Proclamation 9984 “Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Certain Additional Persons Who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus,” which suspends entry to the United States for immigrants and nonimmigrants who were physically present in the Schengen Area during the 14-day period preceding their arrival to the United States. The Schengen Area includes the following 26 countries:
| Austria | Hungary | Norway |
| Belgium | Iceland | Poland |
| Czech Republic | Italy | Portugal |
| Denmark | Latvia | Slovakia |
| Estonia | Liechtenstein | Slovenia |
| Finland | Lithuania | Spain |
| France | Luxembourg | Sweden |
| Germany | Malta | Switzerland |
| Greece | Netherlands |
Exceptions: The travel restriction does not apply to US Citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), spouses of US Citizens or legal permanent residents, unmarried children under the age of 21 of US Citizens or legal permanent residents, parents or legal guardians of US Citizens or legal permanent residents who are unmarried and under the age of 21, or members of the US Armed Forces and spouses and children of members of the US Armed Forces. Additional less common immigration statuses, such as individuals traveling on diplomatic visas, United Nation visas, or C-1/D crewmember visas, are also excluded from the travel restriction. Continue reading “Novel Coronavirus European Travel Ban (Effective March 13, 2020)”
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Led Zeppelin, Clarifies Standards for Copyright Infringement
By David A. Steinberg and James Berkley
On March 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in the long-running and closely watched copyright case concerning the rock group Led Zeppelin’s 1971 song “Stairway to Heaven.” Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin et al., Case No. 16-56057, 16-56287 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2020). A 2014 lawsuit in the Central District of California alleged that “Stairway to Heaven” infringed portions of an instrumental composition titled “Taurus” that had been recorded and released in 1967 by the group Spirit. Capping off several years of uncertainty, the Court’s en banc opinion reversed the previous 2018 ruling of a three-judge panel and reinstated the judgment entered at the district court, where a jury found that “Stairway to Heaven” does not infringe the “Taurus” musical composition.
Among many topics covered, the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion contains three sets of holdings that, absent a successful petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, should have continuing implications for copyright litigation in the Ninth Circuit. These holdings may be summarized as follows: Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Led Zeppelin, Clarifies Standards for Copyright Infringement”
SEC Proposes Rule Changes That Will Enable Entrepreneurs to Raise More Capital at Lower Costs
This week, in a nearly 300-page release, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed significant changes to its rules applicable to online equity crowdfunding and other securities offerings that are exempt from SEC registration.
These kinds of offerings generally are most advantageous to smaller and emerging companies that have limited funds to spend on raising capital. Last year, exempt securities offerings accounted for an estimated $2.7 trillion (69.2%) of new capital, compared to $1.2 trillion (30.8%) raised through SEC-registered offerings.
If adopted, the proposed changes will enable entrepreneurs to raise more capital through exempt offerings and simplify certain complex rules, thereby reducing legal costs associated with funding a business. The changes also will continue provisions to protect investors, especially individual retail investors. Continue reading “SEC Proposes Rule Changes That Will Enable Entrepreneurs to Raise More Capital at Lower Costs”
YouTube May Be An Enormous Town Square, But It’s Still Not Subject to The First Amendment
Written by Theresa B. Bowman
In Prager University v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 18-15712 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit against YouTube late last week, holding that the video hosting giant is a private forum that is free to foster particular viewpoints – and need not be content-neutral. The victory is a significant message to other online content hosts, aggregators and service providers that they need not feel threatened by censorship claims for selecting and curating content on their systems.
The lawsuit began in 2017, when conservative media company PragerU sued YouTube for imposing restrictions on some of PragerU’s short animated educational videos. YouTube tagged several dozen videos for age-restrictions and disabled third party advertisements on others. PragerU claimed the restrictions constituted censorship because they muted conservative political viewpoints. Continue reading “YouTube May Be An Enormous Town Square, But It’s Still Not Subject to The First Amendment”
Be Prepared: What Should Employers Do About the Coronavirus?
Written by Jeremy Mittman and Thea Rogers
This week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the Coronavirus, otherwise known as COVID-19, will likely continue its spread around the world and to the U.S. While we don’t know the extent to which the Coronavirus will take hold in the U.S., employers should start planning now so they can protect the safety of their workforces and maintain normal business operations, to the extent possible, should the Coronavirus have a significant impact.
In doing so, employers face potentially conflicting laws that should be taken into account in determining how to move forward. For example, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and similar state laws, employers have a general duty and obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment and must not place their employees in situations that are likely to cause serious physical harm or death. On the other hand, overreacting or implementing overbroad bans or quarantines that aren’t based on reasonable or reliable facts or information could violate laws that prohibit discrimination (based upon disability, national origin, or other protected characteristics).
Employers should contact counsel with any questions as they navigate putting together their Coronavirus (or general infectious disease prevention) plans and policies, or dealing with employee-specific issues that may arise.
Continue reading “Be Prepared: What Should Employers Do About the Coronavirus?”
NLRB Issues Final Rule on Joint-Employer Standard
Written by Jeremy Mittman
Why This Matters
On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) announced that, on February 26, 2020, it will issue its final rule governing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Under the NLRB’s final rule, an entity may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two share or co-determine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment. “Essential terms and conditions of employment” are specifically defined as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction. The Board’s intent in issuing the final rule is to restore the joint-employer standard that was applied for many years prior to the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris.
The final rule will be effective April 27, 2020. The NLRB’s Fact Sheet regarding the final rule is available here.
Continue reading “NLRB Issues Final Rule on Joint-Employer Standard”
California High Court Rules That Employers Must Pay Employees For Exit Searches
Written by Carly Epstein
Why This Matters
Last week, the California Supreme Court dealt tech giant Apple Inc. a blow when the Court ruled that California law requires the company to compensate employees for the time they spend waiting for company-required searches before leaving Apple’s retail stores.
To the extent California employers require their workers to undergo unpaid security screenings, the Apple ruling means employers must now either compensate their employees for that time or dispense with their mandatory bag-check/security screening policies. If the latter isn’t an option, employers may be best served by speeding up their security screens. The Supreme Court suggested several measures an employer could adopt to limit the scope of searches, such as imposing “reasonable restrictions on the size, shape or number of bags” workers bring and providing workers with off-site lockers in which to store their personal items.
Continue reading “California High Court Rules That Employers Must Pay Employees For Exit Searches”
California’s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Ban Stopped In Its Tracks
Written by Alfredo Ortega Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a request for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the State of California from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) as to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). AB 51 generally bars conditioning employment or employment-related benefits on the signing of an arbitration agreement covering claims … Continue reading California’s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Ban Stopped In Its Tracks
New Revisions to the CCPA
The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) took effect on January 1, 2020. In October 2019, the California Attorney General (“CA AG”) published proposed regulations. In the lead up to January 1, 2020, the CA AG repeatedly made the point that those subject to the CCPA should plan for compliance with its broad principals by the first of the year, while admitting enforcement would not start until the regulations were final, meaning July 1, 2020. As part of this process, the CA AG advised he did not expect there to be significant changes to the regulations between October and July. However, upon receiving comments to those October proposed regulations, he changed his mind and on February 7, 2020 revised regulations were issued. A subsequent notice on February 10, 2020 corrected the earlier publication, which omitted certain updates.
To be clear, some of the changes were long awaited (such as what the “Do Not Sell My Personal Data” button looks like), while others were unexpected (such as the change to the training requirement by raising the level of records from four million to ten million). This Alert will summarize the key proposed changes. Continue reading “New Revisions to the CCPA”
New USPTO Guidelines for Electronic Filings and Specimens
By Alesha M. Dominique and Dima S. Budron
On February 15, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new rules will go into effect (84 Fed. Reg. 37081) requiring applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to provide their own email address to receive USPTO correspondence, and file all trademark submissions electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), with limited exceptions. In addition, the new rule amends the requirements for specimens in accordance with the Trademark Act and precedential case law.
Requirement to Provide Applicant, Registrant and Party Email Address
As of February 15, 2020, applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB, will be required to provide and maintain their own valid email address for receipt of correspondence from the USPTO. This requirement is in addition to the attorney address that is already required. The applicant’s, registrant’s, or party’s email address will be publicly displayed along with other contact information already available in the USPTO’s public database. Continue reading “New USPTO Guidelines for Electronic Filings and Specimens”
MSK Blog 