Copyright Infringement before the Copyright Claims Board?

Suppose you have not registered your copyright in a book with the U.S. Copyright Office until someone has infringed your copyright by copying substantial portions of your book. Let’s also suppose you can prove that the alleged infringer has infringed your work and you can prove that the infringement caused you lost sales, lost opportunities to license, or diminution in the value of the copyright in the amount of $20,000. Can you sue the alleged infringer for actual damages for the copyright infringement without going to federal court? The answer to this question is YES!

The U.S. Congress has established the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (CASE Act) to provide an alternative forum to federal court before the Copyright Office called the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) for resolving certain copyright disputes that involve up to $30,000 (called “small claims”). The use of the CCB is voluntary and both parties must agree to participate. The CCB provides advantages over federal court because certain copyright disputes may be resolved before a panel of copyright experts as opposed to a jury or a federal judge. The CCB proceeding is a streamlined proceeding and a less-expensive alternative compared to federal court.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Re-Domiciliation Out of Cyprus

Application for re-domiciliation abroad

A Cyprus company registered under the provisions of the Companies Law, Cap. 113 may apply to a foreign country to be registered and continue its existence under that legal regime provided that the following has been obtained:

(a) the consent of the Registrar of Cyprus companies has been obtained; and

(b) a legal opinion from the foreign jurisdiction proving that such re-domiciliation is allowed. Read more…

Read full article

EEOC Walks Back Its Advice on When Workplace COVID Testing Is Appropriate

On July 12, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) yet again updated its COVID-19 FAQs, revising earlier guidance about worksite screening through viral testing for COVID-19, modifying some Q&As, and making various generally non-substantive editorial changes throughout. According to the EEOC, it revised the guidance in light of the evolving circumstances of the pandemic. Here’s a run-down of the substantive changes in this latest iteration of “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.”

When is worksite viral screening testing permissible?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), once an employee begins work, any disability-related inquiries or medical exams must be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” At the outset of the pandemic, the EEOC’s guidance considered that this “business necessity” standard for conducting medical exams would always be met for employers conducting worksite COVID-19 viral screening testing. That has changed. The new guidance makes clear that the EEOC no longer considers viral screening to be automatically justified. Going forward, employers will need to assess whether current pandemic circumstances and individual workplace circumstances justify viral screening testing of employees to prevent workplace transmission of COVID-19.

Specifically, the guidance states that employers that wish to implement viral screening must meet the “business necessity” standard based on the relevant facts and suggests factors employers may wish to consider in making the “business necessity” assessment:

  • level of community transmission;
  • vaccination status of employees;
  • accuracy and speed of processing of available COVID-19 viral tests;
  • degree to which breakthrough infections are possible for employees who are “up to date” on vaccinations;
  • ease of transmissibility of the current variant(s);
  • possible severity of illness from the current variant;
  • what types of contacts employees may have with others in the workplace or other places they are required to be to perform their work (e.g., working with medically vulnerable individuals); and
  • potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with COVID-19.

In considering whether to implement viral screening, the EEOC reminds employers to check the latest CDC guidelines, and any other relevant sources, to determine whether screening testing is appropriate.

Is this the end of workplace COVID-19 screenings?

The EEOC states that it does not intend to suggest, through its updated guidance, that screening through testing is no longer warranted, but only that that evolving pandemic circumstances now require individualized assessments by employers to determine whether testing is warranted, consistent with the ADA’s requirements.

Indeed, given the fact that the majority of the country continues to face high or medium rates of COVID-19 transmission, the new guidance may not have an immediate practical impact on the decision of whether to test. Employers that test (or wish to) should nevertheless consistently monitor the CDC and related public health authorities to remain up-to-date on relevant data and advice to support their ongoing decision-making.

The Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodations

The EEOC’s updated guidance acknowledges that at the outset of the pandemic, issues such as disrupted work routines may have justified delays in an employer’s response to requests for accommodation, but notes that such issues may no longer exist. While novel issues, such as an increased number of accommodation requests as employers push to get employees back in the office, could still affect how quickly an employer can respond to requests and slow the interactive process, the guidance cautions employers not to assume that delays are always justified. As such, the EEOC advises that employers must endeavor to engage in the interactive process in a timely fashion.

The Hiring Process and Withdrawal of Job Offers

Previously, the EEOC guidance briefly stated that an employer could withdraw a job offer to an individual who was required to start immediately if the candidate has COVID-19 or symptoms of it because the individual “cannot safely enter the workplace.” The updated FAQ C4 expands on this guidance to advise that an employer may withdraw the offer if:

  • the job requires an immediate start date;
  • CDC guidance recommends the person not be in proximity to others; and
  • the job requires such proximity to others, whether at the workplace or elsewhere.

The updated guidance further suggests that in cases where only a short period of time is required for isolation or quarantine, an employer may be able to adjust a start date or permit telework (if job duties can be performed remotely). Additions to FAQ C5 remind employers that they may not postpone a start date or withdraw a job offer merely because the individual is older, pregnant, or has an underlying medical condition and the employer is concerned about the applicant’s well-being.

In addition, the updated guidance notes that if an employer screens everyone (i.e., applicants, employees, contractors, visitors) for COVID-19 before permitting entry to the worksite, then an applicant in the pre-offer stage who needs to be in the workplace as part of the application process (e.g., for a job interview) may likewise be screened for COVID-19, but only to the same extent as those others.

Return to Work

While the COVID-19 FAQs previously advised that employers may be justified in requesting confirmation from a qualified medical professional that an individual is able to safely return to work (as either a disability related inquiry or a non-disability related inquiry), the updated guidance reminds employers that requesting such confirmation in disability-related cases is justified pursuant to ADA standards as long as the inquiry is job-related and consistent with “business necessity.” The EEOC continues to suggest that employers consider other ways to determine the safety of allowing an employee to return to work if doctors or other healthcare professionals are unable to provide such documentation in a timely manner. Alternatively, the guidance suggests that employers may follow CDC guidance to determine whether it is safe the allow an employee to return to the workplace after being out with COVID-19 without confirmation from a medical professional (i.e., at the end of an isolation period in accordance with CDC guidelines).

Personal Protective Equipment

The updated COVID-19 FAQs also expand upon the EEOC’s guidance regarding the wearing of employer-mandated personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and use of other infection control practices. The new guidance suggests that federal EEO laws permit an employer to require employees to wear PPE and to observe infection control practices in “most instances,” but does not provide examples of circumstances where such requirements are not permissible.

Flexibility for Older Employees

The updated FAQs elaborate on the EEOC’s guidance with respect to the protection of older employees, inasmuch as the risk for severe illness increases with age. While noting that, unlike the ADA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) does not include a right to reasonable accommodation due to age, the EEOC goes on to state that the ADEA does not prohibit employers from providing flexibility to older workers, even if that results in younger workers being treated less favorably based on age. It is important to note, however, that some state and local laws define age discrimination more broadly than the ADEA, including to prohibit discrimination against younger employees. As such employers should be mindful of the applicable law(s) where they do business that might be implicated if older employees are favored to the detriment of younger ones.

Employer Recordkeeping and Confidentiality

The updated guidance also includes examples of when an employer may share confidential medical information (e.g., COVID-19 vaccination status or test results) with an employee who is required to use it to perform their own job duties. Examples include circumstances where:

  • an administrative employee is assigned to perform recordkeeping of employees’ documentation of vaccination and requires access to information for this purpose (but must keep such information confidential);
  • an employee is assigned to permit building entry only by employees in compliance with a work restriction, such as COVID-19 vaccinations, testing, and/or masking (but should only receive a list of the individuals who may or may not enter, but not any confidential medical information about why they are on or not on the list); or
  • an employee is tasked to ensure compliance with a testing requirement for employees would need to review testing documentation submitted by those employees (but must keep that testing information confidential).

Where to go from here?

Employers should consider reviewing their COVID-19 policies or practices to ensure they are consistent with the EEOC’s current guidance. For a thorough analysis, this may require a deeper dive into the latest CDC, state, or local health department guidelines, in addition to review of state and local anti-discrimination laws and regulations.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Torres Talks Trade Podcast Episode 7 on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

This week’s episode discusses the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States “CFIUS,” the U.S. interagency body that reviews foreign investment for national security purposes. Host Olga Torres is joined by Albert Schulz, founder of Kaerus Consulting LLC, which provides a variety CFIUS Mitigation services to clients, to look at the ins and out CFIUS mitigation, and how to ensure international mergers and acquisitions in critical areas proceed smoothly while minimizing risk to national security.

Read full article

The FTC Seemingly Thumbs Its Nose at the Supreme Court

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA that regulatory agencies must have “clear congressional authorization” to make rules pertaining to “major questions” that are of “great political significance” and would affect “a significant portion of the American economy,” and the import of that ruling to the area of noncompete regulation (which we addressed in detail in Law360), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced yesterday that they are teaming up to address certain issues affecting the labor market, including the regulation of noncompetes.

In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) issued on July 19, 2022, the FTC and NRLB shared their shared view that:

Read full article
ILN Today Post

3 legal documents every 18-year-old needs to have

As 18-year-olds across the country prepare to take their first steps into adult life – whether attending college, university, vocational training program, entering the workforce, or taking a gap year – parents of those now-adult-children should be aware there are important legal documents that should be in place to ensure they can continue to be there for their child if needed.

At 18, your child has reached the age of majority and many parents are surprised to learn they can no longer act on their child’s behalf to assist in medical or financial decisions. Should there be an accident or an illness that requires hospitalization, a parent could be shut out from knowing what is happening due to HIPAA laws and would be unable to make healthcare decisions for their child. Parents could also be frustrated to learn they can no longer contribute money into their child’s account without all of the appropriate account numbers, and that they cannot make a financial decision to assist their child. Read more…

Read full article

Spilling Secrets Podcast: Hiring from a Competitor? Don’t Get Sued.

Welcome to Spilling Secrets, a new monthly podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law.

If you’re hiring from a competitor amid the Great Resignation, one of your top priorities is not getting sued.

In our first Spilling Secrets episode, hear about the steps and tactics employers can use to mitigate non-compete and trade secrets litigation risks when hiring from a competitor.

Our all-star panel of attorneys – Pete SteinmeyerKate RigbyMillie Warner, and Erik Weibust – discuss more.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

ILN Partnership Event | Anti-Corruption London

September 20-21, 2022 | Millennium Gloucester Hotel London Kensington, London

C5’s 16th International Conference on Anti-Corruption London is taking place this 20–21 September! Don’t miss out on re-connecting with the “who’s who” of the Anti-Corruption and compliance community.

Read full article

Podcast: Spilling Secrets: Hiring from a Competitor? Don’t Get Sued. – Employment Law This Week

As featured in #WorkforceWednesdayThis week, we introduce Spilling Secrets, a new monthly podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law.

If you’re hiring from a competitor amid the Great Resignation, one of your top priorities is not getting sued. In our first Spilling Secrets episode, hear about the steps and tactics employers can use to mitigate non-compete and trade secrets litigation risks when hiring from a competitor.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Trade Alert- DDTC Issues Two Open General License

On July 13, 2022, the U.S. Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), as part of a pilot program, issued two Open General Licenses (“OGL”), which were subsequently published via Federal Register on July 20, authorizing the retransfer and reexport of defense articles subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) within or between Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Like General Licenses issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control under the U.S. Treasury Department, OGL No.1 and OGL No. 2 apply if the transaction meets the stated requirements, without specific application to DDTC.

To access the full article, click here.

Read full article