The Scherzer Deal Report: January 3-7, 2022
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International and Lucas and Associates, LLC.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International and Lucas and Associates, LLC.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International and Lucas and Associates, LLC.
The NY FCRA sets forth notice and authorization requirements for investigative consumer reports as shown in “https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2017/gbs/article-25/380-c/” NY Gen Bus L § 380-C. However, this section is silent on the issue of employee misconduct investigations and we found no language in NY FCRA law that is analogous to the federal FCRA exemption for employee misconduct investigations as provided in 15 U.S.C.1681a(y)(1).
When analyzing this question, we reviewed a 2006 opinion by the Oklahoma Attorney General that addressed a very similar issue. A state senator wanted to know whether OK employers could rely on the FACTA amendment to the federal FCRA that provides the exemption for employee misconduct investigations and dispense with the OK notice requirements for consumer reports. The OK AG said “no,” the reason being that the OK statute (which specifically references the previously enacted federal FCRA) was enacted before FACTA and the OK legislature did not indicate in the statute that amendments to the original FCRA would also be adopted.
Of course, the AG opinion is not a binding law anywhere, including in OK. But it does show how the issue may be analyzed to the detriment of the employer if it arose in litigation. Like the OK statute, the NY FCRA was enacted well before the FACTA amendment in 2003 (NY FCRA was enacted in 1977). However, unlike the OK statute, the NY FCRA does not include any references to the federal FCRA and, therefore, does not rely on any of its language as originally enacted. That is a distinction that can undermine an OK AG-type analysis to the NY FCRA.
The most we can say is that the NY FCRA does not address employee misconduct investigations and that the federal FCRA does set forth an express exemption from its notice requirements for such investigations. Whether there is a conflict between the NY notice requirements (or any other state’s notice requirements) and the federal exemption for employee misconduct investigations remains to be seen and there are no court opinions addressing the issue.
In the absence of guidance from NY FCRA regarding employee misconduct investigations, the employer can follow the federal FCRA exemption for these investigations. It would be prudent for the employer to document the need for confidentiality of the investigation, specifying the reasons why alerting the employee would undermine the investigation.
Typically, an arrest record will show the date, arresting agency, and the subject’s name (and other identifiers such as DOB and address), without specifying the charge or charges. The reason for this is twofold: (1) until the district attorney (“DA”) files a criminal case, there are no charges; and (2) the charges filed by the DA may be different than the charges on which the arresting officer based the arrest. An “arrest” and “being charged with a crime” are different things (although obviously related). An “arrest” means that a person is taken into custody because they have been accused either by a warrant or by probable cause of committing a crime. Once in custody, the prosecutor’s office will decide whether the person will be charged with a crime. The person will then be given a charging document (complaint or information) that will state what charges they are facing.
A record will never show that an arrest was “dropped.” At best, you can infer that no charges were filed after an arrest if there is no corresponding court case.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International and Lucas and Associates, LLC.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
|
|
As explained in our previous posts, the most serious offenses are categorized as “felonies” and less serious as “misdemeanors.” While this is true in nearly every state, there is an exception (of course) and that exception is New Jersey.
In New Jersey, crimes are not categorized as felonies and misdemeanors but as “indictable crimes,” “disorderly person offenses,” and “petty disorderly person offenses.”
According to New Jersey law, indictable offenses are the equivalent of felonies in other states. Courts classify charges into first, second, third, and fourth-degree charges. A first-degree offense is the most serious of all charges. “Indictable” means that a grand jury has found enough evidence against the defendant to make them face trial.
“Disorderly person offenses” and “petty disorderly person offenses” (sometimes referred to as “DP offenses”) are the equivalent of misdemeanors in other states because they are less serious offenses and are punishable by less than one year in jail.
Here is this week’s Deal Report for private equity and venture capital activity for US-based PE and VC firms and portfolio companies, brought to you by Scherzer International.
Lightchain Capital, NT Investments, Morningside Ventures, Labcorp, Cultivation Capital, BioGenerator Ventures, Innovatus Capital Partners
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, employees working from home (WFH) have created a host of new wrinkles for employers, many of which are still being ironed out.
For employees, the WFH option can be safer (less chances of contracting COVID) and easier (no more commute); for employers, WFH reduces the cost of overhead and can result in happier, more productive employees.
While it may sound easy to simply hire a worker on the other side of the country, there are several legal questions for employers who want to recruit and hire an out-of-state employee who will WFH. The following are some of the important issues that employers should consider.
Several states – including New Jersey and New York – prohibit employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s salary, benefits and other compensation history.
Other factors may make certain locations a more advantageous space to find new WFH hires.
Some states offer financial incentives to remote workers. Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and West Virginia offer bonuses to entice remote workers, ranging from reimbursement of moving expenses to $12,000 in cash (West Virginia will pay $10,000 divided over the course of 12 months with $2,000 paid at the end of the second year in residence).
These differences can present the possibility of additional liability for employers on issues such as paid sick leave, paid family leave, minimum wage, disability, unemployment and vacation days, among others.
State laws on minimum wage vary widely, along with differences for tip credits and minimum salary thresholds for exemptions. The current minimum wage in Texas is $7.25 per hour, for example, while New York’s minimum wage is $11.00.
Paid family leave is now mandatory (or will be soon) in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Washington, D.C.
As for overtime, most states follow the standard payment of time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, but a handful (including California) have more stringent requirements, while some states (California again) mandate that earned vacation days never expire.
Without a physical location in the state where a WFH employee resides and a breakroom to hang various notices, an employer must still remember to fulfill poster and notification obligations as well as various mandatory trainings. Remote employees do not need to tape posters up on their walls to satisfy state laws, but employers do need to provide certain information and documentation to out-of-state WFH employees to achieve compliance by sharing – and updating – federal, state and local notices.
Even if an employer has a single WFH employee in another state, workers’ compensation insurance is necessary, along with registration with the appropriate state agency. Some states have their own fund that employers must contribute into, while a third-party insurance company will suffice in others.
In addition, each state has different laws on employee protections, sometimes with variations at the local level. Employers should be careful to consider state, county and/or municipal statutes and regulations with regard to noncompete agreements, discrimination and retaliation protections and the requirements to legally terminate an employee.
The registration process requires paperwork, time and patience, as it can take several weeks for an employee and the employer to be property registered. And some states – Pennsylvania, for example – also have local city or township registration requirements in addition to those at the state level.
Employers may also be subject to higher corporate income tax rates, which is calculated in part based on the employee’s role and seniority. So a WFH executive in a state with a high tax rate may cost an employer more money than a lower-level WFH employee in that state.
WFH employees themselves may face a tax conundrum with the “convenience of employer” rule that applies in seven states. In Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York and Pennsylvania, if an employee works in a different state than her employer by choice – not because the job mandates – then the employer’s state has the right to tax her, and the employer would be required to withhold taxes from her paycheck in both her home state and the employer’s.
Alternatively, some states have reciprocity agreements that expressly forbid this double taxation. A total of 16 states and Washington, D.C. have such deals, where an employee who lives in Wisconsin and works for an Illinois employer, for example, only pays income taxes in Wisconsin. States that have reached such agreements typically share a border, although Arizona has gone above and beyond, with reciprocity in California, Indiana, Oregon and Virginia.
One additional complication: some states have issued temporary guidance to deal with the out-of-state WFH situation during COVID. Alabama and Georgia stated that they would not enforce payroll withholding requirements for employees who are temporarily working from home due to government-mandated stay-at-home orders; Connecticut said that employees WFH due to the pandemic is a necessity for work but New York reached the opposite conclusion, stating that it is for the employee’s convenience.
Employers should consider all of the legal ramifications before hiring an out-of-state WFH employee.