Our colleague Joshua A. Stein, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “As the ADA Turns 27, Recent Developments Suggest No End to Website Accessibility Lawsuits.”
Monthly Archives: July 2017
OIG Updates FY 2017 Work Plan to Include Review of Medicare Claims for Telehealth Services Provided to Rural Beneficiaries: Will Substantive Change to Medicare Reimbursement for Telehealth Follow?
Updates to OIG FY 2017 Work Plan
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) recently updated its FY 2017 Work Plan. Traditionally, OIG’s annual Work Plan has given health care providers a preview of OIG’s enforcement priorities. With the OIG now making updates to its Work Plan on a monthly basis, providers stand to gain even more insight into how the focus of OIG is constantly shifting in order to assist in the identification of significant compliance risk areas.
Today marks the 27th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Unfortunately for businesses, two recent developments in the context of website accessibility suggest that there is no reason to celebrate and every reason to believe the ever-increasing wave of demand letters and lawsuits in this area will continue unabated.
First, in Lucia Marett v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC (Case No. 1:17-cv-00788-KBF), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has finally issued a decision directly speaking to the applicability of Title III of the ADA (Title III) to websites, denying Five Guys’ motion to dismiss, and holding that Title III does indeed apply to websites. Facing a class action lawsuit brought by serial plaintiff, Lucia Marett, Five Guys sought to dismiss the claim that its website (which, among other things, allows customers to order food online for delivery or pick up at its brick and mortar stores) violated Title III and related state/local statutes because it is inaccessible to the blind, on the grounds that Title III does not apply to websites and, even if it did, the case was moot because Five Guys was in the process of updating its website to provide accessibility.
How can we network better?
Many posts offer the same tips, spun in a different way – and that’s important, because I can always get something out of implementing the tried and true. But when I find something unique, I’m always happy to share it.
A recent European regulation permits applications to court for orders freezing bank accounts in various other European countries.
This relief is available before judgment proceedings are issued, in the course of proceedings and post-judgment.
The Federal Circuit Court has found that an employer took unlawful adverse action against a pregnant employee when it dismissed her for taking time off work due to morning sickness and to attend medical appointments1.
The background to the dismissal was that:
- In March 2016, the employee attended a three-month review meeting halfway through her six month probation period. The company told the employee that she appeared to be “going alright” and did not raise any performance concerns. The employee told the company that she was pregnant and that she intended to commence maternity leave on 1 September 2016.
- Over the next three months, the employee took a total of seven days sick leave due to morning sickness, plus four days’ annual leave to attend medical appointments related to her pregnancy.
- On 3 June 2016, the last working day before her probation period expired, a director of the company dismissed the employee telling her that: “due to your current circumstances, your employment has become unreliable and we have decided not to continue with your employment”.
In December 2015, the Federal Government proposed changes to its insolvency laws as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA). Changes included a proposal to reduce the minimum bankruptcy period from three years to one year, with the aim of encouraging innovation and risk taking by reducing the consequences associated with bankruptcy.
Other reforms proposed as part of NISA include a proposed safe harbour carve out to protect directors from insolvent trading liability and a stay on the enforcement of ipso facto clauses while a company is under voluntary administration. These three reforms are separate to those contained in the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth).
Arnstein & Lehr LLP
Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
Now that the USCIS has released amendments to its Policy Manual regarding the required “sustainment period” for EB-5 investors to retain their investments “at risk,” the authors of this updated White Paper have revised our original standards and guidelines for redeployment of EB-5 investment capital issued in February 2017 to reflect the new policies adopted by the USCIS on redeployment. We believe that the guidelines provided in this updated White Paper should meet the “sustainment” requirements established by USCIS in its amended Policy Manual, and should also meet the requirements of federal securities laws and the fiduciary duties of the general partner or manager of each new commercial enterprise when making a decision to redeploy their investment capital in a new investment.
By Maxim Ali
By Robert Houchill
As has been extensively reported in Russia, since 1 July 2017 the Russian Code for Administrative Offences has been amended to include new fines for the ‘inappropriate’ processing of personal data.
Public attention has mainly been focused on the size of the new fines as set out in Article 13.11 of the Code; whilst previously a company or organisation could be fined up to 10,000 roubles (around $170) for a breach, this has now been increased to 75,000 roubles (around $1,270). The risks are heightened by the fact that a fine can be imposed for each individual breach, accordingly for an organisation that might be involved in the processing of a large volume of data (such as internet companies, banks, insurers or large corporations) the total fines can quickly add up to be a very significant sum.