The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has held that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
In two recent memoranda, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made changes to previously issued survey guidance related to COVID-19 vaccination issues.
In QSO-22-17-ALL, CMS modified the frequency by which State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations will survey for compliance with the federal staff vaccine mandate applicable to health care providers and suppliers (discussed in a prior post). Noting that 95% of providers and suppliers surveyed have been found in substantial compliance with the rule, CMS is eliminating the previous requirement that State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations survey for compliance with the vaccine mandate during every survey. Review of compliance with vaccine mandate is still required, however, during initial surveys, recertification surveys, and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement. This means that a State Agency or Accreditation Organization is not required to review compliance with the staff vaccination requirement during, for example, a validation survey or a complaint survey unrelated to compliance with the staff vaccination requirement. A State Agency or Accreditation Organization may still choose to expand any survey to include review of vaccine mandate compliance; however, the new guidance should result in a reduction in survey frequency of this issue for providers and suppliers.
Almost a year since the NCAA revised its guidelines to permit college athletes to exploit and monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights, the collegiate NIL business has grown to almost $500 million. While the revised guidelines have benefited student-athletes considerably, a lack of uniform standards has led to confusion among states, limited oversight and questionable practices.states began passing legislation in 2019 enabling student-athletes to monetize their NIL rights, many delayed implementation with the hope that the NCAA would update its guidance to provide uniform rules. However, following the Supreme Court decision in Alston v. NCAA, concerns about antitrust challenges led the NCAA to implement a limited “interim policy” with little guidance on implementing NIL rules, while calling for Congress to pass federal legislation that would provide comprehensive national guidance. Read more…States Wait for NCAA and NCAA Waits for Feds When
This week’s episode (below) covers the latest issues in cross-border trade between Texas and Mexico. Texas-based Customs Broker Adrian Gonzalez of Global Alliance Solutions helps break down the current state of supply chain disruptions, Title 42, the Summit of the Americas, and the future of international commerce between the United States and Mexico.
Today, June 21, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) comes into effect. It is the latest – and perhaps strongest – tool in the belt of U.S. regulatory and enforcement agencies to combat forced labor. The UFLPA puts the onus on importers to ensure their supply chains and merchandise are free from forced labor. This article will discuss forced labor enforcement generally, the UFLPA, and what it means for importers and how they can comply with the new regulations. If you have any questions about the UFLPA or other forced labor enforcement, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Torres Trade Law, PLLC.
To access the full article, click here.
Video: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave – Employment Law This Week
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we look at two significant court decisions for employers and bring you a practical update on new bereavement leave rules in Illinois.
You don’t hear much positive news these days about noncompete agreements. Instead, most national media outlets take cases of extreme abuse and frame them as the norm instead of the outliers that they are. And the national media also often portrays employers in a negative light for allegedly forcing noncompetes on employees who purportedly have no choice in the matter and receive no benefit from the transaction. The data does not bear this out—indeed, according to reputable studies, workers who are presented with noncompetes before accepting jobs receive higher wages and more training, and are more satisfied in their jobs than those who are not bound by noncompetes—but that is beside the point when there is an attention-grabbing story to be written.
What are the limits of what can be said on social media about a candidate in an election? The question was answered in Laprise c. Simard, 2022 QCCS 1384, a recent decision by Justice Claude Bouchard of the Superior Court.
The plaintiff is the candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Beauport–Côte-de-Beaupré–Île d’Orléans–Charlevoix in the last federal election of September 20, 2021.
On June 6, 2022, the Quebec legislator enacted an Act respecting remittance of deposits of money to account co-holders who are spouses or former spouses [Act]. That is part of the wide-reaching Bill 2, An Act respecting family law reform with regard to filiation and amending the Civil Code in relation to personality rights and civil status.
The purpose of this newsletter is to focus on the significance of the Act for successions in Quebec.
Employment issues to consider while awaiting decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization
The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) will imminently release its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and if the final ruling is consistent with the recently-leaked draft opinion (overturning Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey), employers may soon need to contend with a variety of novel employment and benefits related issues. Some employers have already begun to consider and plan for a post-Roe workplace. Those who have not would be wise to do so now, to best ensure a well-coordinated and thoughtful approach.
For example, some employers have publicly announced plans to provide expanded healthcare benefits, travel, lodging and other benefits to employees who may seek abortion-related services in states where those medical services will be prohibited or limited. These benefits raise complex legal issues applicable to employers’ group health plans and fringe benefit plans, including conflicts between federal and state law, federal ERISA preemption and potential employer civil and/or criminal liability for providing these benefits.