Compliance Stuff

Although they may not realize it, even non-union employers face risk under the National Labor Relations Act. Everyday workplace decisions can trigger scrutiny and while the enforcement climate is shifting, the underlying risk remains. For employers, this is no longer a niche legal issue. It’s a legitimate business risk. Business owners used to lose sleep over ordinary problems: rising costs, staffing shortages, difficult customers, and whether anyone in the office can operate the printer without filing a support ticket. But for a growing number of employers, the concerns keeping them awake at 2:00 a.m. include whether their employee handbook violates federal labor law, whether a supervisor’s offhand comment during a tense performance review could trigger an unfair labor practice charge, or whether an employee group text complaining about the schedule somehow became protected concerted activity under the NLRA. The most surprising part? Many of these employers don’t have a union in sigh...

  Virginia is poised to further expand its restrictions on employee non-competes. The Virginia legislature r ecently passed   SB 170   (the “SB 170”), making employee non-competes unenforceable if an employer terminates an employee without cause and does not provide severance or other monetary compensation . This new requirement applies to non-competes for employees at all levels regardless of compensation. Failure to comply with SB 170 can lead to civil penalties and private rights of action with recovery of attorney fees and damages. SB 170 is headed to Governor Abigail Spanberger, who is expected to sign it. This development is the latest in the growing patchwork of state non-compete laws. Although the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) nationwide non-compete rule has been  sidelined , scrutiny of restrictive covenants at the FTC remains. States, such as  Colorado ,  Illinois , and  Minnesota , continue to pass laws seeking to limit or ban employ...

The recent shutdown of the federal government has left many critical services in limbo, including the nation’s primary cybersecurity agency. Amid the ongoing budget standoff in Congress, funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency lapsed, coinciding with the expiration of the  Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 . The expiration of the Act creates operational and legal uncertainty for organizations at a time when cyberattacks are at an all-time high. The law had long provided liability protection for companies that shared cyber threat information in good faith, establishing a legal framework for public-private defense collaboration. Role of CISA Before the Act took effect in 2015, companies that alerted federal partners or peers about cyber incidents risked violating privacy, contract, and competition laws. The Act was designed to remove those disincentives and encourage information sharing by providing the following: Liability protections:   Shi...

  When a federal government shutdown occurs, contractors often face difficult decisions about whether to continue performance on certain contracts. In some cases, contractors may feel pressure — from either operational necessity or the government’s informal requests — to keep working despite funding lapses. However, doing so can expose a contractor to significant financial and legal risks. Below, we outline what it means to perform “at risk” during a shutdown, and key factors government contractors should carefully evaluate before making that decision. What Does Working “At Risk” Mean? A contractor is considered to be working “at risk” when it continues to perform under a government contract without a valid funding obligation in place — meaning there is no appropriated funding legally available to pay for the work being performed. During a government shutdown, this situation often arises because agencies cannot obligate new funds or modify existing contracts. Even if agency person...

The Trump administration’s push to downsize the federal workforce has entered a new phase, marked by rounds of layoffs, the deferred-resignation plan, and other voluntary departure programs. As the federal government shutdown enters its second week, the administration has escalated its response by threatening sweeping program cuts and workforce reductions. As the administration continues its focus on reducing federal spending, many federal contractors are bracing for a wave of contract and grant reviews, reductions, and terminations . These changes, often sudden and sweeping, can force federal contractors and grant recipients into difficult decisions about workforce reductions. For recipients of federal funds, these decisions are not just operational or financial—they also carry significant legal obligations under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, and in some cases, under state “mini-WARN” laws that can be even more stringent. Navigating the complexi...

We continue our series on the legal and regulatory challenges facing individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs); this time, we are focusing on the fintech-related requirements that may apply to ICHRA vendors. In  part one  of our series, we summarized an array of health benefit plan and third party administrator compliance requirements with a brief mention of money transmission considerations. In  part two , we further explored other health benefit plan compliance issues as well as tax and insurance agency topics. In part three (this article), we explore an array of financial services laws and regulations that may apply to many ICHRA vendor activities, many of which may surprise you. Overview Some ICHRA vendors see themselves as merely the administrators of a simple employee benefit, striving to provide excellent user experiences, streamlined processes, and robust healthcare benefit administration services. So why would financial services laws and reg...