Tag: labor

EB-5 Filing Strategies: Continued Immigrant Visa Availability Under the RIA’s Set-Aside Categories

The passage of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) in 2022 resulted in the most significant changes to the EB-5 investor immigrant visa program since its establishment in 1990. Among the most notable changes implemented through the RIA was the creation of new “set aside” visa categories for EB-5 investors. These set-aside categories allocate a certain amount of the 10,000 EB-5 immigrant visas available each year to investments in certain areas or projects, which include:

  • 20% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a rural area;
  • 10% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a ‘targeted employment area’ (TEA), which meets the requirements that apply to areas of high unemployment (unemployment rate of at least 150% of the U.S. national average); and
  • 2% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects.[1]

Additionally, the RIA allows for the concurrent filing of the investor immigrant visa petition on Form I-526E and adjustment of status (AOS) filing on Form I-485 for those present in the U.S.[2] While certain types of EB-5 investments filed prior to the passage of the RIA remain subject to visa bulletin backlogs, which particularly impact petitioners and dependent family members born in countries with the highest demand for immigrant visas (e.g., mainland China and India), the Visa Bulletin has not yet announced a visa backlog for any of the set aside categories established by the RIA.

With the establishment of the set-aside categories, the availability of EB-5 immigrant visas is now subject to multiple factors, in addition to country of birth, under the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin, which dictates an applicant’s ability to apply for an immigrant visa or concurrent AOS (if in the U.S.) based on per-country limitations released monthly by the Department of State (DOS).[3] As the visa bulletin is based on visas approved visa petitions and the petitioners’ countries of birth (as opposed to petitions filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and currently in process), investors understandably are faced with a level of uncertainty when strategizing the timing of their investments and associated petition filings. This is due to the uncertain nature of the continued availability of immigrant visas, which can retrogress with little notice based on the DOS’ contemporaneous issuance of immigrant visas under the EB-5 program. This post will outline data and strategies available to investors to clarify questions related to potential changes to the visa bulletin that may impact EB-5 immigrant visa availability in the coming months. As the progression of the Visa Bulletin is subject to internal data shared between USCIS and the DOS, as well as the DOS’ internal visa issuance metrics, some level of obscurity and uncertainty should be accounted for when planning for immigrant visa petition filing, but the below is meant to help address and account for these inherent uncertainties.

Background on the Visa Bulletin

In connection with the U.S. government’s policy imperative to encourage a diverse pool of immigrants to the U.S., family- and employment-based immigrant visas are subject to a specific allocation of available visas every federal fiscal year. A total of approximately 140,000 immigrant visas are available every fiscal year for employment-based immigrant visas, including the EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, and EB-5 immigrant visa categories. Of the total of 140,000 immigrant visas available annually, approximately 10,000 are allocated to the EB-5 investor visa program, which are also subject to the below per-country visa quotas.

To that end, no one country (based on the applicant’s country of birth) can be allocated more than approximately 7.1% of all available immigrant visas.[4] Importantly, the DOS recently revised its interpretation of the statutory language on the 7.1% per country limit to clarify that it applies in any preference only if a country’s use of visas exceeds 7.1% of all employment-based preferences together.[5] For example, the 7.1% per country limit for Vietnam will only start in the EB-5 category if Vietnam were to reach the 7.1% limit for the overall 140,000 employment-based visas available. In the past, investors born in Vietnam and Taiwan also have been high users of EB-5 visas; however, with this new interpretation by DOS, they will likely never be subject to a per-country limitation for EB-5 again given that these countries generally have never reached 7.1% of the overall 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas.

The above only tells part of the story on immigrant visa allocation. This is because in addition to the total of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas allocated yearly to all countries, unused visa numbers from prior fiscal years (i.e. immigrant visas that are available to those born in under-subscribed countries, but not utilized) roll over for use by applicants of over-subscribed countries according to priority date and availability within the immigrant visa preference category.[6] Moreover, unused family-based immigrant visas may also be utilized to address excess demand in employment-based categories.[7] While the specific number of unused immigrant visas varies considerably year to year, there tends be some available unused family-based visa numbers from under-subscribed categories each federal fiscal year based on the most recent data made available by USCIS and DOS.[8] Additionally, unused EB-5 numbers from the unreserved ‘general pool’ of EB-5 immigrant visas available yearly (based on worldwide applicant demand), are reallocated to over-subscribed EB-5 categories, including the above-referenced EB-5 set-aside categories created post-RIA implementation.[9]

EB-5 Investor Immigrant Program Data

With the dynamic nature of the immigrant visa allocation process in mind, there is no simple, readily available formula that can help predict the numbers of EB-5 immigrant visas that may be available in a given fiscal year, nor one that can precisely predict how soon retrogression may impact the EB-5 program, particularly in connection with I-526E petitions filed by investors born in traditionally high-demand countries, like China and India. This process is made difficult because USCIS and the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) have not released important statistics to the public that would allow investors to accurately predict how long of a backlog may form in the various set-aside categories. However, we do have some data.

To solve for the lack of government-released data, stakeholders have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that provide more nuanced data on the government’s current processing volumes. Notably, recent data disclosures made available through FOIA requests found a significant increase in demand for the rural set-aside category, but demand remains “below the needed level to absorb the near-term annual visa supply.” The data released also showed that demand for high unemployment TEA set-aside continued to increase through the end of 2023, which may result in a backlog for that specific set-aside category.[10] As expected, demand remains particularly high for immigrant applicants born in mainland China; the below chart published in connection with the data disclosed pursuant to FOIA provides further insight on the processing volumes:

TOTAL NUMBER OF I-526/I-526E FILED FROM APRIL 1, 2022,TO NOVEMBER 2023, BY TEA CATEGORY AND COUNTRY OF CHARGEABILITY (LATEST STATS AS PER AIIA FOIA DATA)[11]

China India Taiwan Rest of World Total Total %
Rural 767 174 18 134 1,093 32%
High unemployment 976 375 209 625 2,185 63%
Infrastructure 0%
Multiple TEA categories 7 3 5 16 0.5%
Not TEA 26 21 6 97 150 4%
Total 1,776 573 233 861 3,444 100%
Total % 52% 17% 7% 25% 100%

While the data above is subject to change and specifically reflects government filings through November 2023, and spanning multiple federal fiscal years (2022-23), it shows that about two times as many high unemployment set-aside I-526E Petitions were filed as compared to rural area set-aside I-526E Petitions. However, in June 2024, USCIS also released their January to March 2024 form data, which revealed that an additional 1,810 I-526E Petitions had been filed with USCIS over that three-month period, leaving 3,672 I-526E Petitions pending as of March 31, 2024.[12]

Importantly, the quarterly USCIS data shows a huge number of new I-526E Petitions were filed during Q2 2024. Half of all I-526E Petitions pending as of the date of this blog were filed just in Q2 of 2024. USCIS has not released any statistics to show the breakdown of I-526E Petitions filed in the high unemployment or rural area set aside categories. Anecdotal evidence from stakeholders and projects seems to show a strong uptick in the demand for rural area projects, and it is possible that many of these new I-526E Petitions were for rural area set-aside visa numbers. More data from USCIS will be required on this point to give investors a more accurate picture on visa wait times in both rural area and high unemployment set-aside projects.

Moreover, the USCIS Q2 2024 data shows that the agency only completed review of 356 I-526E Petitions this fiscal year. The statistics do not break down completions by approvals or denials. Given the small number of case completions during this fiscal year, no visa retrogression has been announced in the Visa Bulletin because an insufficient number of I-526E Petitions have been approved to necessitate announcement of retrogression for any country.

In fact, at a recent conference, the DOS indicated that there is a record amount of EB-5 visas available for this year and predicted again for next year. Specifically, DOS is predicting that there are more than 14,000 unreserved EB-5 visas and more than 8,000 set-aside visas available in FY 2024, and that there will be more than 11,000 unreserved EB-5 visas and more than 6,800 set-aside visas available in FY 2025. Together, that is more than 14,800 set-aside visas over this fiscal year and next, split between rural and high unemployment according to their percentages. This would mean approximately 9,800 rural visas and 4,900 high unemployment EB-5 visas are available over this fiscal year and next, with additional high numbers remaining available in the unreserved EB-5 category. Even assuming that each petitioner also brought two dependent applicants with them to the U.S., the sheer number of EB-5 visas available in these categories over this year and next would provide many immigrant visa numbers for applicants and their dependents in both set-aside categories, and drastic retrogression wait times are not yet predicted.

Additionally, note that the data provided reflects raw numbers of petition filings and does not take into account potential roll overs of additional unused immigrant visas, as noted above. In addition, applicants born in under-subscribed countries, like Vietnam and Taiwan, with robust demand for EB-5 immigrant visas that may qualify for the set-aside category, still have the option to choose to process under the general pool of unreserved EB-5 visa numbers, thereby freeing up additional availability under the reserved high-unemployment and rural TEA set-aside categories for individuals born in mainland China. This selection is typically made at the time that the National Visa Center (NVC) processes the immigrant visa application for applicants based outside of the U.S.

Key Takeaways

  1. There are a record number of EB-5 visas available to applicants in both the high unemployment and rural area set-aside categories in FY 2024 and FY 2025. While stakeholders need more data from USCIS on the breakdowns of pending I-526E Petitions between the high unemployment and rural set-aside categories, there is a record number of visas available and extensive backlogs are not expected to occur like those experienced by pre-RIA I-526 Petitions.
  2. File the I-526E Petition and associated AOS applications concurrently if possible. Although visa numbers remain available in the set-aside categories even for traditionally high-demand countries, the dynamics associated with the DOS Visa bulletin may result in retrogression with little notice. Filing concurrently where eligible can provide multiple benefits in the event of retrogression, including:a. Locking in dependent child’s age under chart A or chart B of the DOS Visa Bulletin, which under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) allows for a tolling of age progression while the petition is in process and based on the unavailability of a visa number; and

    b. Obtaining short-term U.S. immigration benefits that allow for work (employment authorization document (EAD)) and travel (advance parole (AP)) while the USICS processes the AOS filing.

  3. Individuals born in under-subscribed countries with qualifying investments in rural or high-unemployment TEAs should consider opting for processing under the general unreserved pool where possible. This would allow for use of additional reserved immigrant visas in the set-aside categories by those born in countries with higher demand for EB-5 immigrant visas, such as China and, potentially, India.
  4. Monitor visa bulletin progression and available government data. It will remain important to continue monitoring Visa Bulletin releases and planning for potential retrogression. As noted above, while the set-aside categories created under the RIA remain broadly available for immigrant visas and concurrent AOS processing, conditions may change with little notice as the government processes its backlog of filed EB-5 petitions or if USCIS speeds up its processing of I-526E Petitions.

[1] INA § 203(b)(5)(B)(i)(I).

[2] See INA § 245(n); 203(b)(5).

[3] See U.S. Dept. of State Visa Bulletin.

[4] See INA § 203(b).

[5] See 88 Fed. Reg. 50, 18252 (March 28, 2023).

[6] See, e.g. “Practice Pointer: Strategic Planning in an Era of EB-5 Visa Waiting Lines,” AILA EB-5 Committee, AILA Doc. No. 18060537, June 5, 2018.

[7] See, e.g., “The CIS Ombudsman’s Webinar Series: USCIS’ Backlog Reduction Efforts,” June 22, 2022 (“DOS currently estimates that approximately 57,000 unused family sponsored visa numbers from FY 2022 have been added to the employment-based limit for FY 2023.”).

[8] See, e.g., “Employment-Based Adjustment of Status FAQs,” USCIS, May 20, 2024 (“DOS determined that the FY 2023 employment-based annual limit was 197,091, due to unused family-based visa numbers from FY 2022 being added to the employment-based limit for FY 2023. In addition, 6,396 EB-5 visas carried over from FY 2022 to FY 2023 in the reserved subcategories.”)

[9] See id.

[10] See “AIIA FOIA Series: Updated I-526E Inventory Statistics for 2023,” American Immigrant Investor Alliance, Feb. 29, 2024.

[11] Id.

[12] See USCIS Quarterly Statistics “All USCIS Application and Petition Form Types (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 2).

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

by: Jennifer Hermansky, Jack Jrada of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more on EB-5 Filing, visit the NLR Immigration section

Understanding the New FLSA Overtime Rule: What Employers Need to Know

Changes to overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) announced on April 23, 2023 affect most U.S. employers. The Final Rule substantially increases the number of employees eligible for overtime pay. It is critical that employers understand the rule and its implications for their business.

Current FLSA Overtime Regulations: The Basics

The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime pay of at least 1.5 times an employee’s standard pay rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, “white collar” and “highly compensated” employees are exempt from this overtime pay requirement if they meet a three-part test:

  • Salary Basis Test – an employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed.
  • Salary Level Test – the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount. (Spoiler Alert: The new rules change the salary level.)
  • Duties Test – the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties.

THE WHITE COLLAR EXEMPTION

The white-collar exemption applies to employees who perform primarily executive, administrative, and professional tasks. Workers who perform these tasks are considered to have more autonomous, managerial, or specialized roles justifying exemption from overtime. Therefore, if an employee’s duties are executive, administrative, and professional, and they satisfy the salary basis and salary level tests in the FLSA, they are not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.

HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES

A highly compensated employee (HCE) is someone who earns a high annual compensation (according to salary thresholds in the FLSA) and whose role includes one or more executive, administrative, or professional duties. The FLSA exempts “highly compensated employees” from the overtime pay requirement.

Key Changes to the FLSA Overtime Rules

The new rule increases the salary thresholds in the salary level test for highly compensated and white collar employees. As a result of the changes, less employees will be considered exempt and employers will be liable for significantly more overtime pay. Notably, the types of duties eligible for exemption are not impacted.

The new salary thresholds are introduced in two phases with the first increase becoming effective on July 1, 2024, and the second occurring on January 1, 2025. Importantly, the new rule also includes a mechanism for automatically updating these salary thresholds every three years based on current wage data. This means employers will need to stay vigilant for future increases.

THE NEW SALARY THRESHOLDS

In general, the minimum annual salary to qualify for the white collar exemption is increasing from $35,568 to $58,656 and the total annual compensation requirement for the highly compensated employee exemption is increased from $107,432 to $151,164. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the higher salary thresholds and their effective dates:

New FLSA Overtime Rule - The New Salary Thresholds

Why This Rule Matters: Essential Steps for Employers

This rule will have a significant impact on Pennsylvania employers, potentially reclassifying millions of currently exempt employees as non-exempt and eligible for overtime pay. Employers who fail to comply risk costly back pay, penalties, and lawsuits.

There are practical steps that employers can consider to ensure compliance with the new FLSA rule:

  • Review Current Employee Salaries, Hours, and Duties: Audit current salaries, hours, and job duties. This review will help identify which employees’ status may be affected by the new salary thresholds for exempt status under the FLSA.
  • Reclassify Employees as Non-Exempt as Necessary: Based on the review, determine which employees will need to be reclassified from exempt to non-exempt, or awarded a salary increase, to comply with the new rules. This reclassification will make them eligible for overtime pay, altering how their work hours are managed and compensated. It is advisable to consider an employee’s perception of this reclassification when taking this step.
  • Time Recording Policies and Processes: For employees who are reclassified as non-exempt, implement or update timekeeping procedures to accurately track hours worked. This may also require training employees on time-keeping systems. Effective and accurate time recording is essential for managing overtime and ensuring compliance.
  • Update Overtime Policies: Revise company overtime policies to reflect changes in employee classifications. Include clear procedures for overtime approval to manage overtime work more effectively and ensure it aligns with budget constraints and business needs.
  • Bonuses, Incentive Pay, Commissions: Evaluate how non-salary forms of compensation will factor into the new salary thresholds for exempt status. The FLSA determines how this compensation should be treated in determining total annual compensation, which could influence exemption status.
  • Remember Contractual Obligations: The FLSA is a federal law which applies to all U.S. employers. However, any additional salary commitments in an employment contract still legally bind the employer. These should not be ignored.

Despite the quickly approaching compliance date, we also anticipate legal challenges to this rule, which could delay or change the rules. For now, though, employers should proceed on that basis that the updated regulations will take effect on July 1, 2024. Preparing for this deadline ensures that employers will not be caught off guard and can avoid any potential legal and financial repercussions.

©2024 Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky
For more news on FLSA Regulations, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Big Labor Got Bigger in 2023

While union numbers on the whole generally declined in 2023, some of the biggest American unions were able to augment their numbers in spite of the downward trend.

According to a recent report from Bloomberg, “Many of the nation’s largest unions including the Teamsters and West Coast dock workers saw membership gains last year, signaling potential for new organizing even as the labor movement struggles to tighten its grip on the workforce, according to new federal data.

“The numbers paint a more optimistic portrait of unions’ ability to recruit new members, particularly in the service and manufacturing sectors, even in the face of declining density nationwide. Two dozen groups added members in 2023, a year marked by high-profile strikes and labor stoppage threats across industries. The additions overcome losses from seven other peer unions, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of disclosures filed with the US Department of Labor last week.”

For context, union membership rates across private and public sector workers overall dropped to 10 percent in 2023, down from 10.1 percent in 2022. For comparison, when this data first became available in 1983, that number was at 20.1 percent – or double where unions are now. In the private sector, only 6 percent of those workers now belong to unions as of 2023.

Nevertheless, this report showing gains by some of the nation’s largest labor organizations, combined with historic union organizing numbers and the seemingly growing number of union election successes, may move those union membership percentages upward by the close of 2024. In addition, recent changes by the National Labor Relations Board to the union election process may further help unions bolster their ranks. We’ll see how this all shakes out by year’s end. Stay tuned.

© 2024 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more on Unions, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

H-1B Cap Registration Period Now Open

The registration period for the fiscal year (FY) 2025 H-1B cap petitions opened at noon ET March 6, 2024, and will continue to run through noon ET March 22, 2024. Employers seeking to file an H-1B cap-subject petition must electronically register during this period using a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) online account. The registration process includes basic information about the prospective petitioner and each beneficiary along with a $10 registration fee for each beneficiary. The registration process for FY 2025 is governed by the final rule published Feb. 2, 2024, which took effect March 4, 2024.

The final rule includes a new beneficiary-centric selection process to ensure all beneficiaries have an equal chance of selection. Under the new process, registrations will be selected by unique beneficiary rather than by registration. As part of the registration process this year, each beneficiary must provide a valid passport that matches the registration details. See our February 2024 blog post for additional information on the new passport expiration requirements.

As with prior years, it is expected that USCIS will receive enough registrations during the registration period to meet the 65,000 H-1B cap, with an additional 20,000 visas available for those who possess a U.S. master’s degree or higher from an accredited U.S. institution. If the cap is reached, USCIS will conduct a random lottery of the registrations it receives following the close of the registration period. Petitioners will receive an electronic notification if their registration has been selected and can move forward with filing the H-1B petition for only those beneficiaries named on the selection notice.

H-1B cap-subject petitions for those registrations that are selected in the initial drawing can be filed between April 1, 2024, and June 30, 2024. USCIS clarifies in the final rule that requesting an H-1B cap employment start date after Oct. 1 of the relevant fiscal year is permissible. Petitioners that have received H-1B selections will be able to use their USCIS organizational account to electronically file any H-1B petitions that were selected in the process, or they can file a traditional paper filing of the H-1B petition that is sent to USCIS by mail or courier.

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on H-1B Cap Registration, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Clueless in the Cubicle

The Journal’s recent piece about managing employees with misperceptions about their employment self-worth reminds us once again why honest and timely performance feedback makes good business sense. I have written before about the benefit of candid performance reviews, even at the risk of hurt feelings. I have also defended performance evaluations as an important tool to mitigate potential liability for employment claims. The Journal’s piece states that nearly four in 10 employees who received the lowest grades from their managers last year rated themselves as highly valued by the organization based on almost two million assessments. If true, that represents an astounding disconnect between performance-related perception and reality.

Theory is one thing. Managers who are adept at giving feedback is another. While businesses are rightly focused on running the organization’s business, training managers how to deliver quality feedback is often assigned a low priority. Adding to that deficiency is the often unmet need for managers with the right EQ to deliver feedback. But despite those challenges, which exist even for employees who relish feedback, there are some important guidelines for managing employees with an inflated sense of employment worth. Here are a few suggestions for delivering feedback for performance-deniers, who clearly require a more exacting approach.

First, performance discussions (especially about the areas in which the employee is falling short) must be done regularly and ongoing, and especially promptly after an error or mistake is committed. Performance deniers will use a one-time annual review (even if negative) to point out the obvious: if they are falling so short, the manager would not have waited so long to deliver that message (and which, in their view, adds to the review’s inherent unreliability).

Second, managers should not shy away from a denier’s tendency to fight the feedback (they disagree with it, it is wrong, it is fake). Rather, managers should use the denier’s dispute to double down on feedback: the employee’s inability to accept criticism, consider it, and even hear it, are all key parts of an employee’s commitment to the organization to grow and do better. Growth requires introspection. The refusal to engage in that process is itself a performance deficiency.

Third, managers should not permit performance conversations to become a discussion about victimization, unfair treatment or perceived persecution (all of which may end up becoming a legal claim). Performance deniers are adept at deflecting: one key deflection is to blame others and make the discussion about things entirely outside performance parameters. Managers need to be empowered to insist on returning the feedback conversation back to the key and only focus: what is the employee doing well and how can (and must) the employee improve?

Finally, organizations need to assess the impact performance deniers have on employee morale. While not all employees will share the same perception, most people are aware when others aren’t pulling their weight – especially when they are tasked to pick up the pieces. Those on the downhill slope of these assignments – often the best performers because of the natural inclination to step up – may not stick around. The slippery slope here is clear and cluelessness at work is not a great look for the business or the employee.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
by: Jennifer B. Rubin of MintzFor more news on Employer Performance Reviews, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

United States | H-1B Denial Rates Up Slightly From 2022

H-1B denial rates in fiscal year 2023 increased slightly from FY 2022, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

Despite the increase, H-1B denial rates for FY 2023 still remain substantially lower than during the Trump administration when they peaked in FY 2018.

Fiscal Year New Employment H-1B Denial Rate
2023 3.5%
2022 2.2%
2021 4%
2020 13%
2019 21%
2018 24%
2017 13%

The low denial rate in recent years is at least in part due to legal challenges that forced USCIS to issue new guidance on the adjudication of H-1B visas in June 2020.

The NFAP analysis stated that “H-1B temporary status remains often the only practical way for an international student or other high-skilled foreign national to work long term in the United States” and said the 85,000 H-1B cap “remains the leading immigration problem for most tech companies.” The report can be read here.

©2024 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.
by: BAL U.S. Practice Group of Berry Appleman & Leiden
For more on H-1B, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Minimizing National Labor Relations Act Liability for Employers with Non-Unionized Workforces

This post continues our consideration of comments submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).

Under current law, if a plan provides any mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits in any classification of benefits, benefits for that condition or use disorder must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical (M/S) benefits are provided. Classifications for this purpose include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. The proposed regulations modify this standard by providing that a plan does not provide benefits for MH/SUD benefits in every classification in which M/S benefits are provided unless the plan provides meaningful benefits for treatment for the condition or disorder in each such classification “as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for medical/surgical conditions in the classification.”

The term “meaningful benefits” is nowhere defined. The regulators nevertheless “recognize that the proposal to require meaningful benefits [ ] is related to scope of services.” “Scope of services” for this purpose generally refers to the types of treatments and treatment settings that are covered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer. The preamble to the proposed regulation invites comments on how the meaningful benefits requirement “would interact with the approach related to scope of services adopted under the 2013 final regulations.” The preamble of the 2013 final regulations addressed an issue characterized as ‘‘scope of services’’ or ‘‘continuum of care’’ but otherwise failed to provide any substance. Two examples from the proposed regulations do, however, give us a sense of what the regulators have in mind.

  • A plan that generally covers treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a mental health condition, and covers outpatient, out-of-network developmental evaluations for ASD but excludes all other benefits for outpatient treatment for ASD, including applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy, when provided on an out-of-network basis. (ABA therapy is one of the primary treatments for ASD in children.) The plan generally covers the full range of outpatient treatments and treatment settings for M/S conditions and procedures when provided on an out-of-network basis. The plan in this example violates the applicable parity standards.
  • In another example, a plan generally covers diagnosis and treatment for eating disorders, a mental health condition, but specifically excludes coverage for nutrition counseling to treat eating disorders, including in the outpatient, in-network classification. Nutrition counseling is one of the primary treatments for eating disorders. The plan generally provides benefits for the primary treatments for medical conditions and surgical procedures in the outpatient, in-network classification. The exclusion of coverage for nutrition counseling for eating disorders results in the plan failing to provide meaningful benefits for the treatment of eating disorders in the outpatient, in-network classification, as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for M/S conditions in the classification. Therefore, the plan violates the proposed rules.

Notably, the newly proposed meaningful benefits requirement is separate from, and in addition to, the newly prescribed nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) testing standards. These latter standards include a “no more restrictive” requirement, a “design and application” requirement and an “outcomes data and network composition” requirement. A handful of comments nevertheless urge the regulators to add scope of services to its non-exhaustive list of NQTLs. As a result, a plan’s scope of services would be subject to comprehensive NQTL testing. Or, put another way, they would be fed back into the NQTL testing loop. Using the first of the examples above, this would require that ABA therapy to be first compared to the treatment limitations imposed on some M/S benefits in each classification. But what benefits, exactly? The problem is that a plan’s scope of services – what types of treatments a plan will pay for and in what settings – is a high-level plan design feature and not an NQTL.

While reasonable minds can and do differ on much of the substance of the proposed regulations, we doubt that anyone would claim that they streamline or simplify compliance. Compliance with these rules is already complicated and expensive; if the final rule looks anything like the proposed regulations, compliance will only get more complicated and more expensive. The proposed meaningful benefits requirement is intended to prevent plans, as a matter of plan design, from satisfying the parity rules by offering nominal or insubstantial MH/SUD benefits when compared to similar M/S benefits in each classification. Treating a plan’s scope of services as itself a separate NQTL does not advance this goal.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
by: Alden J. Bianchi of McDermott Will & Emery 

For more news on Health Care Law, visit the NLR Health Law and Managed Care section.

U.S. Immigration Strategies to Attract, Retain, and Develop Talent

Amid the evolving global economy throughout the past year, employers may be reassessing their approach to talent acquisition and retention. Companies are navigating uncertainty by recalibrating mobility programs, aiming to not only attract but also retain talent to fulfill a skills gap in the U.S. workforce. Central to leveraging foreign talent is the power of immigration branding and messaging. A strategic emphasis on employee longevity proactively curtails workforce attrition and preempts potential labor shortages in the future.

Attracting talent

Understanding and leveraging avenues offered by U.S. immigration laws can be pivotal in securing the right skills and meeting business demands to drive success. Employers commonly leverage F-1 student OPT/STEM OPT training and the H-1B and L-1 work visa programs to source foreign workers in the talent ecosystem.

Foreign students with work authorization pursuant to OPT/STEM OPT are prime candidates for expanding a company’s talent pool with long-term development potential. Employers may attract foreign students through internships while the student completes their academic program, post-graduation employment pursuant to OPT/STEM OPT, and subsequent work visa and green card sponsorship. For most foreign students, switching from a student visa to a work permit is often challenging due to the restrictions and limited availability of H-1B visas. However, companies with an overseas presence may be able to set up strategically located hubs abroad to recruit and employ foreign nationals who were not able to obtain an H-1B visa, and then transfer them back to the United States with L-1 intracompany transfer visas following their employment abroad over at least one year. A company’s corporate immigration policy outlining support of various immigration pathways, and benchmarked against the policy of industry peers, is a competitive tool to meet foreign workers’ needs and attract high-potential talent.

Retaining talent

In response to the need for talent retention, employers are strategically tapping into their existing talent pool to bolster operational efficiency. With post-COVID-19 employees seeking greater fulfillment, employers may want to consider proactively refining their retention efforts to include top-tier foreign talent.

Companies are increasingly turning to their internal talent reservoirs to bridge skill gaps and curtail additional hiring costs. Retaining current talent is becoming pivotal for success, mobility, and business continuity. To address the evolving landscape of talent retention and the demand from foreign talent for immigration support, employers may consider several key strategies.

Various immigration pathways offer avenues for continued employment, providing stability to existing talent. For example, some companies leverage sponsorship for work visa programs and employment-based green cards to retain skilled foreign workers. Payment of legal fees and the provision of immigration counsel are initial steps in this effort, and other offerings including immigration seminars for employees and family members, an internal immigration portal with FAQs and self-service features that provide status reports, and access to documents and opportunities for interaction with the immigration team are also important. Employers leverage streamlined extension processes for work authorization to ensure continuity for employees and the business without disruptions. Embracing technological advancements in immigration processes may streamline procedures, reduce processing times, and minimize errors. Further, a robust green card sponsorship program signals a long-term commitment to retain valuable talent and grants employees a sense of security and stability in their professional journey within the company. Clearly defined benchmarks when the company initiates green card sponsorship are not only a recruitment and retention tool but also ensure that foreign workers do not lose immigration status or work authorization.

Adaptability and foresight also benefit companies navigating corporate immigration policy frameworks. Companies can implement consistent yet flexible approaches to immigration sponsorship that cater to both business needs and the foreign worker’s circumstances. For example, timing adjustments in initiating green card sponsorship may prevent work authorization gaps. Evaluating risks versus benefits might lead to early green card sponsorship for students to safeguard their status and work authorization if they are not selected in the H-1B lottery. Exploring alternative sponsorship options, such as supporting family-based or self-sponsored petitions, could be viable alternatives for a company to retain critical talent and may streamline the process and save time. Finally, recognizing and addressing the needs of dependents, such as spouses and children, within the immigration sponsorship process may be determinative to retain valuable talent.

Developing talent

Companies recognize the importance of not just attracting and retaining foreign talent but also developing their skills and potential. With strategic planning, immigration strategies can help advance the capabilities of international talent within a corporate setting.

Demand for H-1B visas has increased while the number of available visas has remained static. In response, employers are assisting international talent to develop their credentials to become eligible for an O-1 visa as an alternative. The O-1 visa for individuals with extraordinary abilities allows companies to support foreign workers in advancing their careers by recognizing their exceptional talent and contributions. Although the standard to qualify is high, for many foreign workers there are specific steps they can take to proactively bolster their resume toward becoming “O-1 visa ready.”

Sponsorship of certain visa categories, such as EB-1A for individuals with extraordinary ability or a National Interest Waiver to bypass the requirement to test the labor market, may encourage innovation and leadership among an employer’s foreign workers. Elevating a green card process to a higher preference category generally accelerates the process and the prospect of a higher preference category may lead foreign nationals to excel in their fields, drive innovation, and propel critical progress for the company.

Multinational employers are increasingly implementing international rotational programs and cross-border exchanges to foster skill development and broaden experiences. This approach not only addresses internal labor shortages but also mitigates the need for expensive talent searches and replacements. These programs offer benefits akin to longer-term assignments, facilitating knowledge transfer and nurturing company culture at a reduced cost. Such exposure can empower foreign workers with diverse market insights, enriching their skill sets and fostering a global perspective. Moreover, it allows businesses to harness internal expertise to bolster critical initiatives. However, the rise in popularity of these short-term rotation and remote work programs may invite heightened compliance measures, including increased audits and inspections. Hence, employers should anticipate a trend towards more rigorous immigration requirements aligning with labor, tax, and social security laws.

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on Immigration Strategies, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Another Government Shutdown Looms: What It Means For Employers With Foreign National Employees

Only two days before the deadline in November 2023, the U.S. Senate passed a temporary budget to fund federal agencies through Jan. 19, 2024, marking the first time since 2012 that Congress entered a holiday season without the threat of a December shutdown. Now, following the start of a new year, lawmakers have less than two weeks to advance a recent spending agreement and reach a more permanent solution.

The November 2023 vote marked the second time Congress extended the budget for fiscal year 2023, which expired in September, to avert a government shutdown.

IMPACT ON IMMIGRATION

For employers, immigration funding and legislation are top of mind whenever a shutdown looms. Each time the government is on the verge of a shutdown, employers must identify cases that are affected and attempt to locate an avenue to mitigate the impact of the potential shutdown. This increases costs and reduces efficiency, among other complex consequences.

During the 2019 government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Justice suspended 60,000 hearings for non-detained migrants, causing significant delays in the immigration system. Rescheduling an appearance on the immigration docket can often take years, leaving migrants and their families to wait in uncertainty in the interim.

On the employment-based side of immigration, a mad dash ensues each time a government shutdown becomes imminent because applications made to the Department of Labor that are critical steps in both nonimmigrant and immigrant visa categories come to a halt. With already lengthy processing times, foreign national beneficiaries and their employers cannot afford to wait 90 days, as we saw in 2019, for government processing to resume.

Employers and their legal teams would be wise to shift their focus during these times to pushing forward the submission of as many Labor Condition Applications (LCAs), permanent labor certification applications (PERM), and prevailing wage determination requests as possible. A missed window of opportunity can result in years-long delays, or worse, the loss of work authorization, for critical foreign national talent in the U.S.

HOW TO PREPARE

With deadline déjà vu, now is the time for employers to prepare. Employers should consider the following three actions:

1) Submit Labor Condition Applications for all foreign nationals with a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) status expiring within the next six months, should the relevant nonimmigrant visa category require an application, such as for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa classifications

2) Submit Prevailing Wage Requests for all initiated PERM processes

3) File any PERM applications of individuals for whom the requisite recruitment steps and waiting periods have been completed

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more on Foreign National Employees, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

New Year, (Potentially) New Rules?

SOMETIMES, THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE. THIS NEW YEAR IS NO DIFFERENT.

In 2023, we saw several developments in labor and employment law, including federal and state court decisions, regulations, and administrative agency guidance decided, enacted, or issued. This article will summarize five proposed rules and guidance issued by the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which will or may be enacted in 2024.

DOL’s Proposed Rule to Update the Minimum Salary Threshold for Overtime Exemptions

In 2023, the DOL announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) recommending significant changes to overtime and minimum wage exemptions. Key changes include:

  • Raising the minimum salary threshold: increasing the minimum weekly salary for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees from $684 to $1,059, impacting millions of workers;
  • Higher Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) compensation threshold: increasing the total annual compensation requirement for the highly compensated employee exemption from $107,432 to $143,988; and
  • Automatic updates: automatically updating earning thresholds every three years.

These proposed changes aim to expand overtime protections for more employees and update salaries to reflect current earnings data. The public comment period closed in November 2023, so brace yourselves for a final rule in the near future. For more information: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19032/defining-and-delimiting-the-exemptions-for-executive-administrative-professional-outside-sales-and

DOL’s Proposed Rule on Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act

The long-awaited new independent contractor rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) may soon be on the horizon. The DOL proposed a new rule in 2022 on how to determine who is an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA. The new rule will replace the 2021 rule, which gives greater weight to two factors (nature and degree of control over work and opportunity for profit or loss), with a multifactor approach that does not elevate any one factor. The DOL intends this new rule to reduce the misclassification of employees as independent contractors and provide greater clarity to employers who engage (or wish to engage) with individuals who are in business for themselves.

The DOL is currently finalizing its independent contractor rule. It submitted a draft final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in late 2023. While an exact date remains unknown, the final rule is likely to be announced in 2024. More information about the rule can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/13/2022-21454/employee-or-independent-contractor-classification-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act

NLRB’s Joint-Employer Standard

The NLRB has revamped its joint-employer standard under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The NLRB replaced the 2020 standard for determining joint-employer status under the NLRA with a new rule that will likely lead to more joint-employer findings. Under the new standard, two or more entities may be considered joint employers of a group of employees if each entity: (1) has an employment relationship with the employees and (2) has the authority to control one or more of the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment. The NLRB has defined “essential terms and conditions of employment” as:

  • Wages, benefits, and other compensation;
  • Hours of work and scheduling;
  • The assignment of duties to be performed;
  • The supervision of the performance of duties;
  • Work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline;
  • The tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge; and
  • Working conditions related to the safety and health of employees.

The new rule further clarifies that joint-employer status can be based on indirect control or reserved control that has never been exercised. This is a major departure from the 2020 rule, which required that joint employers have “substantial direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of employment.

The new standard will take effect on February 26, 2024, and will not apply to cases filed before the effective date. For more information on the final rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/27/2023-23573/standard-for-determining-joint-employer-status

EEOC’s Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment

A fresh year brings fresh guidance! On October 2023, the EEOC published a notice of Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The EEOC has not updated its enforcement guidance on workplace harassment since 1999. The updated proposed guidance explains the legal standards for harassment and employer liability applicable to claims of harassment. If finalized, the guidance will supersede several older documents:

  • Compliance ManualSection 615: Harassment (1987);
  • Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment(1990);
  • Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism (1990);
  • Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. (1994); and
  • Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors(1999).

The EEOC accepted public comments through November 2023. After reviewing the public comments, the EEOC will decide whether to finalize the enforcement guidance. While not law itself, the enforcement guidance, if finalized, can be cited in court. For more information about the proposed guidance: https://www.eeoc.gov/proposed-enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace

OSHA’s Proposed Rule to Amend Its Representatives of Employers and Employees Regulation

Be prepared to see changes in OSHA on-site inspections. Specifically, OSHA may reshape its Representatives of Employers and Employees regulation. In August 2023, OSHA published an NPRM titled “Worker Walkaround Representative Designation Process.” The NPRM proposes to allow employees to authorize an employee or a non-employee third party as their representative to accompany an OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer (“CSHO”) during a workplace inspection, provided the CSHO determines the third party is reasonably necessary to conduct the inspection. This change aims to increase employee participation during walkaround inspections. OSHA accepted public comments through November 2023. A final rule will likely be published in 2024.

For more information about the proposed rule to amend the Representatives of Employers and Employees regulation: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/30/2023-18695/worker-walkaround-representative-designation-process

Preparing for 2024

While 2023 proved to be a dynamic year for Labor and Employment law, 2024 could be either transformative or stagnant. Some of the proposed regulations mentioned above could turn into final rules, causing significant changes in employment law. On the other hand, given that 2024 is an election year, some of these proposed regulations could lose priority and wither on the vine. Either way, employers should stay informed of these ever-changing issues.

© 2023 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.
       
For more news on 2024 Labor and Employment Laws, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.