by Stephen D. Hans | Jun 30, 2024 | JUUL Labs to Pay $462 Million for Role in “Epidemic”
JUUL Labs to Pay $462 Million for Role in “Epidemic” JUUL Labs Inc., the California-based company that has been a leader in the electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) and vaping market, has agreed to pay nearly half a billion dollars to settle a multidistrict federal lawsuit that included litigation file by New York State Attorney General Letitia James in 2019. According to James, about one-quarter of the settlement will go to the state of New York. The lawsuit originally filed by James alleged that JUUL intentionally marketed an unsafe product to minors. They also contended that, though JUUL’s product was addictive (containing nicotine), the company included no product warnings from its introduction into the market in 2015 until 2018. James likened the actions of JUUL to those of many big tech companies, which she said have “fueled a mental health crisis among young people with…addictive products…” She noted that, when JUUL introduced its products to the market, underage vaping increased dramatically. James said that the settlement funds in New York will be used in communities and schools to provide education about the real consequences of vaping. The money will be distributed to all counties, to the Board of Cooperative Educational Services, and to the five largest cities in the state. In addition to the monetary award, the settlement also requires that JUUL ensure that its products are found and displayed behind the counter in any retail establishment, and that consumers only be allowed to purchase JUUL products after appropriate age verification. The settlement also: Prevents JUUL from engaging in marketing that directly or indirectly targets minors Limits the amount of product...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jun 24, 2024 | Work Permits Available to Undocumented Aliens
Administration Announces Expansion of Parole in Place Program Earlier this month, President Joe Biden announced that the country’s “parole in place” program, which has focused primarily on military spouses and children over the past couple decades, will be expanded to potentially provide protection to as many as 500,000 foreign nationals in the United States. The parole in place program derives its authority from the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which initially granted parole authority to the United States Attorney General. That authority now rests with the Department of Homeland Security. Who Qualifies for Protection under the New Policy? To be eligible for the protections afforded by the amended policy, a foreign national must: Be legally married to a U.S. citizen Have resided in the United States for a minimum of 10 years, as of June 17, 2024 What Benefits Will a Qualified Applicant Receive under the Policy? Perhaps most importantly, anyone covered by the amended policy will be eligible for work authorization. Eligible persons must file an application for lawful permanent residency status within three years of a grant of parole. Furthermore, parolees will receive an I-94 travel record, a prerequisite for filing an adjustment of status to obtain a family (marriage)-based green card. It is also expected that parole in place applications will be processed more quickly than other applications for lawful permanent residency. What Does the Program Mean for Employers? Employers will potentially have access to a larger employee pool, as skilled or qualified workers who previously could not obtain work authorization will be able to do so. Let Stephen Hans & Associates Handle Your Employment Law...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jun 11, 2024 | Supreme Court to Review Labor Law Exemption Test
High Court Seeks to Clarify Standard for Exempt Employees Under federal labor laws, employees are generally entitled to overtime pay when they exceed a certain number of hours worked in a given pay period, unless they are deemed to be exempt employees. An employee may be considered exempt based on his or her compensation and the actual duties performed. The specific exemptions are set forth by the United States Department of Labor and generally include executive, professional, administrative and outside sales personnel who are paid a salary. As disputes have arisen over the years, the federal courts have established the legal standard by which an employee may be considered exempt. To date, seven federal circuit courts have ruled on the matter, with six of the seven concluding that a worker’s exempt status need only be proved by “a mere preponderance of the evidence.” The 4th Judicial Circuit, though, located in Richmond, Virginia, has long held that such proof must involve “clear and convincing evidence,” a higher standard. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to consider the matter, responding to a petition filed by EMD Sales, a grocery distributor located in Baltimore, Maryland. The dispute to be resolved by the Supreme Court arose when three employees of EMD filed a class action, contending that their employer had wrongfully classified them as exempt outside sales personnel. The federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the employees were not exempt and citing precedent requiring EMD to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to the contrary. The 4th Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding it...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jun 4, 2024 | Employment Defense Counsel
Employer Obligation to Terminate in 2025 In the wake of the COVID pandemic, New York legislators passed a law compelling employers to allow employees to take a specified amount of paid sick leave if they were under a mandatory or precautionary order to submit to quarantine or isolation because of exposure to or a positive test for COVID-19. The statute allows for up to 14 days of paid, job-protected time off to persons under a quarantine order who do not have the ability to work from home. The paid sick leave under the law is in addition to any other paid time off an employee may accrue, whether as family leave or through a disability claim. The paid leave under the law is also unrelated to eligibility for FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) leave. In light of the recent decision by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to no longer recommend a five-day period of isolation subsequent to a positive COVID test, legislators have faced pressure to repeal the paid time off requirement. Legislators have responded, amending the law to set July 31, 2025 as the date that the law will no longer be effective. Until that date, however, all provisions of the law remain fully in force—employers must strictly comply with all provisions of the Paid Emergency Leave Act. Employers must continue to comply, as well, with all relevant provisions of the state’s paid sick leave laws, which allow employees to take sick leave for their own or a family member’s COVID diagnosis or exposure. Let Stephen Hans & Associates Handle...
by Stephen D. Hans | May 28, 2024 | NYC Noncompete Ban with the FTC Final Rule
New York City Law Affords Workers with Greater Protections In late 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a proposed statute that would have outlawed non-compete agreements across the state of New York. In response, the New York City Council took up consideration of a new law that would prohibit such agreements within the five boroughs of the city. The proposed law, Bill No. 140, is still under review. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission chimed in on the subject, issuing a final rule that bans virtually all non-compete agreements nationwide. Though the final rule has been challenged in court, no ruling has yet been handed down. What Are the Basic Principles of the Proposed NYC Law? The new law, if ratified and signed, will amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York, banning the use of all non-compete agreements within the city. The proposed bill defines a noncompete contract as any “agreement between and employer and a worker that prevents, or effectively prevents, the worker from seeking or accepting work for a different employer, or from operating a business, after the worker no longer works for the employer.” Pursuant to the law, a worker may be a wage earner, salaried employee, volunteer, freelance employee or independent contractor. The law allows the Office of Labor Standards to impose and collect a $500 fine for each violation. If enacted, it will go into 120 days after being signed. How Does the NYC Law Differ from the FTC Rule? There are two significant differences between the federal approach and the New York City ban: The FTC rule allows for the enforcement...
