Category Archives: Labor Law

Litigation may be Key in Response to Rising Denials of Employment-Based Visas. What Strategies Should Employers Consider when Hiring or Retaining Noncitizen Professionals?

Many U.S. employers have recently experienced frustration over legal obstacles to keeping high quality foreign-national employees. These valuable employees have often been with the company since finishing a degree and sometimes even interning with the employer. Other employers experience delays in hiring foreign nationals needed for specialized positions despite the obvious qualifications of the candidate.

These employers’ frustrations reflect the current climate of immigration law and policy. The standards applied by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in adjudicating H‑1B temporary work visa petitions have been shifting, both formally and informally, to the detriment of businesses seeking to hire or retain noncitizen professionals in specialty occupations—as well as those they would seek to employ. This, along with other similar trends in how the executive branch enforces immigration laws, requires that employers and their legal advocates test new strategies on behalf of their clients. If USCIS denies your H-1B petition and your awesome employee may have to leave the country, what options do you have?

Immigration lawyers, who typically fight their battles within administrative agencies, are increasingly looking to federal courts for judicial review of agency actions. One recent case highlights that strategic litigation can have a powerful impact, and suggests that specialized litigators may be a vital addition to the legal toolbox for businesses that depend on international hiring. See RELX, Inc. (d/b/a LexisNexis USA) v. Baran, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130286.

Subhasree Chatterjee earned her bachelor’s degree in computer science and engineering in her home country of India in 2011, and her master’s degree in business administration and analytics in the United States, from the University of Ohio, in 2016. She also has several years of professional experience in data analytics in both India and the United States.

Chatterjee began working as a data analyst for LexisNexis at its Raleigh, North Carolina Center for Excellence in 2017, at which time she was authorized to work in the United States because of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) associated with her F-1 student visa. But Chatterjee’s student visa and OPT was set to expire on August 3, 2019.

Lexis filed a petition for Chatterjee to remain in the United States through the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program so that she could continue in her role as data analyst supporting the company’s “flagship” product, LexisAdvance. The government denied the petition on the grounds that the data analyst position was not a “specialty occupation.”

By statute, a specialty occupation is “an occupation that requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1).   And by regulation, the position must meet at least one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: (1) a baccalaureate or higher degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; (2) the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or the position is so unique or complex that only an individual with a degree can perform it; (3) the employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or (4) the nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with attainment of a baccalaureate degree or higher.  8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).

In support of the H-1B petition, Lexis and Chatterjee submitted what the court would later call a “mountain of evidence” on three out of these four regulatory grounds, any one of which would have been sufficient to qualify the data analyst position as a specialty occupation. They responded to a request for redundant evidence and, following an initial denial, pursued administrative reconsideration. These efforts were unsuccessful.

To justify its denial, the government asserted, contrary to its regulations and past practices, that a specialty occupation is one requiring a degree from a particular academic discipline. In other words, for example, if the position could be filled by someone with a degree in computer science or engineering, then it could not be a specialty occupation.

Exactly one month before Chatterjee’s work authorization would expire, she and Lexis filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Washington D.C., serving USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security, and leaders of each, challenging the denial as a violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and seeking a preliminary injunction.

Given the extremely short timeline before Chatterjee’s status would expire, the court placed the case on an expedited schedule to resolve the matter on its merits, skipping over the motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The government spontaneously reopened the H-1B petition and then moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the reopening deprived the court of jurisdiction because plaintiffs’ claims were no longer ripe.

On August 1-2 (the two days immediately preceding the expiration date of Chatterjee’s work authorization), the court held a hearing on both motions. The government’s motion was denied from the bench. In a subsequent memorandum, District Judge Emmet Sullivan concluded that the government’s “position [was] untenable,” that the “decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors and was a clear error of judgment,” and that “USCIS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and abused its discretion.” RELX, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130286, *28, 31 (quotations omitted).

At the same time, plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion for an order directing USCIS to grant Lexis’s petition and place Chatterjee on H-1B status was granted—and just in time. Chatterjee was able to keep her job and remain in the United States, and Lexis continued business as usual with its data analytics team at full strength.

In the current market, employers and their legal counsel need to use all avenues available under the law to help hire and retain top talent. Litigation is not only an option, but may be a necessary addition to the overall toolbox of talent management strategies, especially when it comes to international hiring.

Second Circuit Holds Pro-Union Sentiment Outweighs Impropriety of Profanity-Laden Rant Against Supervisor, His Mother, and “His Entire ****ing Family”

Use of profanity by employees, whether in the workplace, outside the workplace, or on social media, presents difficult legal issues for the employer, as highlighted by a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning the firing of an employee who engaged in a highly profane Facebook rant against a supervisor. Although an employer has a justifiable interest in keeping profanity out of the workplace, its interest does not overshadow an employee’s Section 7 protected rights to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

In yet another NLRA-social media decision (see here and here), the court considered whether the vulgar and offensive language – directed at a supervisor – in an employee’s statement advocating for unionization is protected activity under the NLRA. See NLRB v. Pier Sixty, 855 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2017).  The court held that language was protected and overturned the company’s termination of the employee in question.

Two days before a union election, an employee posted the following statement on Facebook:

Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER F***ER don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f***ing family!!!! What a LOSER!!!! Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!!!

The post was visible to the public for three days before the employee took it down. Company management saw the post before it was removed and terminated the employee. An unfair labor practice charge followed shortly afterward, alleging a violation of section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to “self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”  29 U.S.C. § 157 (emphasis added).  Section 8(a)(1), in turn, protects these rights by prohibiting employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of these rights.  29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).  Ordinarily, an employer is prohibited from discharging employees for participating in union-election activity, and the employee’s Facebook post did explicitly call for a pro-union vote in the upcoming election.  But the protections of the NLRA are not absolute.  The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has long held that an employee engaged in “ostensibly protected activity may act in such an abusive manner that he loses the protection” of the NLRA. See NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S. 822, 837 (1984).

Here, the NLRB had ruled in favor of the employee. The Second Circuit upheld the Board, agreeing that the statement came close to, but did not cross, the line.  The Board and the court applied a “totality-of-the-circumstances” test.  Although the court gave considerable deference to the Administrative Law Judge’s factual findings (which were upheld by the Board), employers can find some comfort in the court’s note that the post seems “to sit at the outer-bounds of protected, union-related comments.”

The court provided several reasons for its decision:

  • First, although the post can be characterized as “dominated by vulgar attacks” on the supervisor, the message addresses the workplace concern of how management treats employees, qualifying the post as “concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining.”
  • Second, profanity among employees had been consistently tolerated by the employer, so it could reasonably be inferred that the employee was not fired for mere profanity, but for the protected, union-related content of the comment.
  • Third, the employer had engaged in other unlawful, anti-union conduct as the election approached, including threatening pro-union employees with the loss of their jobs or benefits, and by implementing a “no talk” rule prohibiting discussion of union issues.
  • Fourth, the court gave some weight to the fact that this post was made on Facebook—“a key medium of communication among coworkers and a tool for organization in the modern era,” and that the employee apparently (although erroneously) believed the post would not be publicly available. The court found that the Facebook posting was different from an outburst in the presence of customers.

Accordingly, there are a few takeaways for employers to keep in mind.

  • Implement a Clear, Written Policy. To effectively discipline employees for using offensive or vulgar language at the workplace, employers should have a clear written policy against profanity that informs employees of the rules regarding the use of profane or vulgar language in their interactions with colleagues and customers. The policy should specify the consequences for violations.
  • Enforce the Policy Consistently and Uniformly. Employers should be consistent in enforcing any policy against profanity in the workplace. Past failures to enforce or to impose appropriate sanctions may tie the employer’s hands in future situations where a sanctionable activity may arguably be clothed with NLRA-protection. (Consistency would necessarily include, for example, applying the policy to profanity by supervisors and managers as well as by line employees. The employer’s tolerance of profanity by supervisors was cited by the court as proof of inconsistent enforcement.) Consistent and uniform enforcement of the policy is key.
  • Be Careful Not to Limit Protected Activities. The enforcement of a policy against profanity or other inappropriate conduct must be balanced against an employee’s right to engage in protected activities under the NRLA. The employer’s other anti-union conduct in the Pier Sixty case was a factor in the decision. The Pier Sixty court has made clear that not all offensive language loses NLRA-protection. This decision confirms courts’ willingness to broadly construe the coverage of the NLRA, especially when considering employee activities on social media. Employers should carefully consider the context of potential profanity policy violations before taking disciplinary actions.

When faced with the question of whether to fire an employee who uses vulgar and offensive language in a Facebook post directed at a supervisor and her family, you should first determine whether the subject matter of the Facebook comment touches on any workplace concerns. If not, there may not be NLRA- protected conduct. But if the subject matter—notwithstanding the vulgarity—is arguably related to working terms and conditions, you should take extra caution to make sure that any discipline will not run afoul of the NLRA. Consider the company’s practice with regard to policing profanity at work. If the company has tolerated profanity use among its employees in the past, you may not be in a good position to sanction an employee for a statement that, although offensive, may be protected under the NLRA.

Quirky Question #279: Concerted Activity in 140 Characters or Less

Question: I am a manager in a medium-sized retailer that has locations and employees in 16 states.  The company maintains a social media policy, which was recently updated.  Last week, I noticed that one of our employees posted some pretty nasty things about the company on Twitter.  She accused the company of not treating employees fairly because some had to work on days when others did not.  Perhaps worse, in response to customers who were praising the company’s products and services, she basically called the company cheap by saying it did not provide good pay or benefits.  I have not noticed any reaction from other employees to the tweets, but I am worried they will hurt employee morale and possibly drive away customers.  Is there anything I should consider before disciplining the employee who tweeted these things?

Answer→

Quirky Question #269: Like it or Not – Facebook Post Protected Under the NLRA

Question: I own a small manufacturing company that employs 25-35 employees, depending on our workload.  Over the years, a number of my customers and my employees have “friended” me on Facebook.  Last week, I saw that one of our employees had posted a comment that I don’t pay enough overtime and that I’m, “f—ing cheap,” because I don’t give enough paid vacation.  Almost worse, I saw that three other employees “liked” the post.  I work hard to treat my employees fairly, and to ensure that I staff adequately so that employees do not need to work overtime.  I’m afraid this post is going to hurt employee morale, and I’d like to fire the employee who posted and the ones who liked the post.  Is there anything I should consider?

Answer→

NLRB Published Report Concerning Employee Handbook Rules and Policies

On March 18, 2015, NLRB General Counsel Richard Griffin published a Report concerning recent case developments arising in the context of employee handbook rules and policies. The thirty-page Report concludes that many commonly-used policies, if not phrased carefully, may have a chilling effect on Section 7 rights to engage in concerted activity. The policies critiqued by  General Counsel Griffin include, among others, confidentiality policies, employee conduct policies, media policies, trademark and copyright use policies, and conflict of interest policies. The Report’s broad interpretation of potential “reasonable” understandings of handbook provisions concludes that policies such as “be respectful of others and the Company” violate the NLRA. Given the NLRB’s increased focus on handbook policies and this Report’s conclusions regarding a number of frequently utilized policies, employers – even those with employees not represented by labor unions – should carefully review their handbooks to avoid NLRB scrutiny.

Answer→

Quirky Question #245, Last chance agreements

Question:

We operate a manufacturing plant with a union workforce where new employees begin with a 90-day probationary period during which they are not yet members of the union. I recently hired a guy who refused to work overtime on several occasions, so I had him sign a “last chance” agreement in which he agreed that any further unexcused refusals would result in the termination of his employment. I also had him agree that he would not be able to grieve that termination because it would be based on his behavior that occurred during his non-union probationary period. As you could predict, last week after his probationary period ended and he joined the union, he refused to work overtime on Saturday. I plan to discharge him, but I’m worried that he’ll still grieve the discharge through the union and win his job back. What’s your advice? Answer→

Quirky Question #241, Working for Free In Montana At A Start-Up Business

Question:

I was laid off by my Montana employer and I have decided to help my brother with his start up business. I will be a 50% owner but we are not going to take a salary until revenue is substantial. An accountant friend tells me that my work for free for the start-up may disqualify me for the unemployment benefits I am currently receiving. This cannot be right. I have paid into the unemployment system for years and I am not receiving any wages. Answer→

Quirky Question #229, The Not-Clear-Cut Case for Canning a Cussing Worker

Question:

I’m the owner of a small record store. I have 13 sales clerks and 4 back room employees. Things aren’t great these days – but we get by. Fortunately, while people listen to music on their phones and the internet way more than they do CDs, we’ve refocused ourselves toward vintage record collectors and hardware sales.

I just fired a sales clerk last week for what I thought was pretty obviously unacceptable behavior. He started complaining to me the other day about the way I pay commissions. I pay my sales clerks $10 per hour plus a small commission on certain items in the store. For instance, if they move a record-player, or a set of headphones, or a tube amplifier, they get 2% of the sale in their next check. Because this guy worked on the day shifts, he felt like he did not have as good a shot at selling the big-ticket pieces of equipment, which are often sold in the evening. He pestered me for weeks to reduce the commissions on the hardware, and to give him a commission on the used records that he sells during the day in order to make it more “fair” for him. On Thursday we were working together for most of the day, and he would not stop bringing it up with me. I kept telling him that I preferred not to talk about things like that when customers were around, and that I would talk to him about it later. About ten minutes before his shift ended, he blew up, and in front of a half-dozen customers started shouting, “You f@&%ing jerk! You just want to keep all the big commissions for yourself! I should kick your a@@! Who f@&%ing puts up with this bull$#!t!” Then he threw a box of cds at me, which smashed into the front desk and scattered all over the place. The customers were freaked out. I was furious.

Obviously, I fired him on the spot. The next day, he sent me an email claiming he had been talking to some lawyers (aka doing Google searches), and that what I did was a violation of something called the NLRA. He claims that unless I write him a big check, he’s going to file a lawsuit with the National Labor Relations Board, and “knock your sorry a@$ out of business.”

What on earth is he talking about? There’s no union in my store – why is he talking about the “National Labor Relations Board?” Not to mention, the guy launched into a cuss-word laden tirade at me in front of a bunch of our customers. Surely I can fire him for that, can’t I? Answer→

Quirky Question #206, NLRB

 Question:

I discovered one of my employees announced on Facebook that our company is a horrible place to work and she is just “coasting” and waiting to be fired.  Normally, I would just fire her, but our CFO is worried that internet communications between employees in social media can be “protected.”    What is the recent law? Answer→