Phillips Murrah Paying it Forward campaign benefits CASA of Oklahoma County in April

Phillips Murrah Paying It Forward Header Graphic

Phillips Murrah Presents: Paying It Forward

Amplifying the message of one non-profit each month for a year

[Paying It Forward] In Dec. 2020, Phillips Murrah partnered with Oklahoma NPR radio station KGOU to sponsor broadcast announcements each month that shine a light on a selected non-profit organization. Our aim is to amplify each beneficiary organizations’ needs and goals, and to help increase awareness, drive volunteer quality and quantity, assist in fundraising support, and improve capacity to deliver service to the community.

Our beneficiary in April is CASA of Oklahoma, an organization that is critical to the wellbeing of our community.  #PIFOKC


April Beneficiary

CASA of Oklahoma County 

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Oklahoma County provides trained volunteers to be champions for the individualized best interests of children in foster care.

CASA provides a trained caring adult to advocate for the best interest of children who have been removed from their home due to abuse or neglect. CASA volunteers get to know the children and communicate with all parties in the case and people in the child’s life in order to provide complete information and sound recommendations to the court. As “the eyes and ears” of the judge, the CASA volunteer offers a neutral, third-party opinion to the court, one that is unbiased and child-focused.

Contact The Homeless Alliance: https://okcountycasa.org

DONATE to CASA at this link: https://okcountycasa.org/support/

CASA on Social Media:

Facebook logo icon Instagram logo icon Twitter logo icon YouTube logo icon


Previous Beneficiaries

March 2021: The Homeless Alliance
February 2021: Mental Health Association Oklahoma
January 2021: Positive Tomorrows
December 2020: Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma

PM Director Fred Leibrock earns CIPP/US Information Privacy Professional designation

graphic of gears with cyber security terms in them.

In today’s information economy, it is more important than ever for companies and organizations to manage and safeguard their data. It is equally important to understand and develop privacy practices to comply with the latest regulations regarding records management and reporting obligations for privacy, as well as a plan of action in the event of a breach.

Photograph of Fred Leibrock

Fred A. Leibrock is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried dozens of jury trials and has served as lead counsel in a number of significant cases involving complex, multi-jurisdiction issues.

Phillips Murrah Director, Fred A. Leibrock, recently earned his Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) designation. According to The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), which administers the designation, their certification program, is “the most encompassing, up-to-date and sought-after global training and credentialing program for privacy and data protection.” The CIPP designation, one of several certifications on offer by the IAPP, is geared toward laws and regulations as they pertain to the information economy.

“The Information Privacy Professional designation awarded by the International Association of Privacy Professionals demonstrates that the credentialed individual has undertaken a detailed course of study in information privacy and passed a comprehensive credentialing exam,” Fred explained.

“A CIPP designation allows prospective clients to know that the attorney they are considering hiring is recognized as having significant knowledge in data breach prevention, response, mitigation, remediation and reporting, state and federal privacy law requirements, cybersecurity regulation compliance, data retention compliance, and cybersecurity insurance issues,” he continued. “The CIPP designation is important to insurance companies who are looking for an attorney to handle a cybersecurity incident for one of their insureds.”

Fred, who is also the Firm’s Chief Information Officer, has experience in defending claims and lawsuits alleging damages due to data breaches, in fortification against tactics, techniques, and procedures of cyber threat agents, in information security policies, in data breach incident response and after-action reporting, in data retention polices, in cybersecurity regulation compliance, and in cybersecurity insurance law.


For more information on how cyber security has affected or may affect your business, please call 405.235.4100 or email Fred A. Leibrock.

facebook iconFollow our coverage on FACEBOOK 

Phillips Murrah Director Catherine Campbell successfully appeals client’s $4.3 million defamation jury verdict

Congratulations to Phillips Murrah Director Catherine L. Campbell on her successful appeal of a defamation jury verdict against former Oklahoma lawmaker, Wayne Pettigrew.

Portrait of Phillips Murrah Director Catherine L. Campbell

Catherine L. Campbell is a versatile and experienced appellate attorney whose practice is focused on commercial litigation and labor and employment matters.

A story about the verdict is featured in the March 18 edition of the Oklahoman newspaper, which states:

In the appeals court’s 2-1 decision issued last month, Vice-Chief Judge Barbara G. Swinton wrote that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on what kind of defenses could overcome a defamation challenge and did not provide a list of the alleged defamatory statements.

“As a consequence, there is a high probability the jury was misled by these errors and reached a different result than they would have reached but for the error,” Swinton wrote, reversing the decision.

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. It will be sent back to the lower court for another trial.

Click here to view the full article at oklahoman.com.

 

USDOL seeks to overturn two proposed FLSA rules: Independent Contractor Rule and Joint Employer Rule

USDOL header employee classification graphicBy Byrona J. Maule and Phoebe B. Mitchell

In January, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the classification of independent contractors. Now, just months into President Biden’s term, his administration seeks to overturn both this proposed rule and the DOL’s final rule regarding joint employers.

Independent Contractor

The proposed independent contractor rule, discussed at length here, significantly changed the legal analysis involved for employers deciding how to classify their employees. In stating its intention to rescind the new independent contractor rule, the DOL stated that the new “economic reality test,” which is not used by courts or the department, is not supported by longstanding case law or the text of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Further, the DOL commented that the new rule minimizes the traditional factors utilized by courts in classifying workers, making it less likely to establish that a worker is an employee under the FLSA. Worker classification is an important issue for employers as it determines which workers are entitled to benefits and the overtime protections under the FLSA.

The DOL did not provide guidance on a replacement for the proposed rule. President Biden has stated his support for a uniform independent contractor test modeled after California’s “ABC” test. The “ABC” test considers a worker to be an employee unless their employer establishes all three of the following:

  1. The worker is free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;
  2. The worker performs work that is outside of the “usual course” of the hiring entity’s business; and
  3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the type of work performed for the company.

Joint Employer

The DOL’s joint employer rule clarified an employee’s joint employer status, such as when an employee performs work for his or her employer that simultaneously benefits another individual or entity. The rule, which took effect on March 16, 2020, was subsequently challenged by 17 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit claimed that the new joint employer rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Southern District of New York agreed, holding that the new rule was contrary to the FLSA.

The March 16, 2020 final rule included several elements that were not consistent with the DOL’s prior joint employer rule, including:

  • a four-factor balancing test to determine when a person is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to the employee;
  • a provision that an employee’s economic dependence on a potential joint employer does not determine whether it is a joint employer; and
  • a provision that an employer’s franchisor, brand and supply, or similar business model and certain contractual agreements or business practices do not make joint employer status under the FSLA more or less likely.

Jessica Looman, the DOL Wage and Hour Division Principal Deputy Administrator stated that “The Wage and Hour Division’s mission is to protect and respect the rights of workers. Rescinding these rules would strengthen protections for workers, including essential front-line workers who have done so much during these challenging times.”

The DOL is seeking public input until April 12, 2021 on its proposal to rescind these two rules.

Phillips Murrah’s labor and employment attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide up-to-date advice to our clients regarding the DOL’s new rules.


Portrait of Byrona J. Maule

Click to visit Byrona J. Maule’s profile page.

For more information on this Employment Alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.552.2453 or email me.

COVID-19_Virus graphicFollow our Pandemic coverage at our Covid-19 Resource Center

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on Facebook

 

Kanye Family Law Lessons – Digging for Gold in Oklahoma

By Robert K. Campbell

Music has permeated our society since the beginning of time. Artists have touched on all topics, such as politics, religion, social matters, etc. In 2005, Kanye West had a number-one hit song with “Gold Digger.” Urban Dictionary defines the term “gold digger” as “someone who only likes people because of how much money they have, or because of the items they own.”

In this article, I will discuss some of the lyrics and how West’s sentiments would apply based upon Oklahoma laws. For purposes of this article, any gender specificity as it relates to the term “gold digger” should be disregarded, as the term is gender neutral. After all, anyone can dig for gold. I am not, however, suggesting explicitly, implicitly, or in any other manner, that either Kim Kardashian West or Kanye West is a gold digger.

The first lines in verse two of the song begin: Eighteen years, eighteen years / She got one of your kids, got you for eighteen years

Attorney Robert Campbell

Robert K. Campbell’s legal practice is focused in the area of family law, specifically concentrated in matters of divorce, legal separation and custody issues. He represents clients by providing steady, thoughtful and resourceful counsel to advise them through significant family and life transitions.

This is mostly a true statement. Oklahoma law requires both parents to provide financial support for their children during a divorce, or in situations where the parents were never married. Typically, one parent pays the other parent child support. Child support is generally owed until the minor child reaches the age of 18 or graduates high school, whichever is later. Considering the lyrics above, if you have a child, you will be obligated to pay child support until at least the age of 18, so, the above lyrics are, in essence, correct.

“Gold Digger” lyrics go on to state: I know somebody payin’ child support for one of his kids / His baby mama car and crib is bigger than his … She was supposed to buy your shorty Tyco with your money / She went to the doctor, got lipo with your money

This sentiment is often a complaint that the child support payor makes about paying child support. The argument is that the payor pays the other parent monthly child support, and the payor does not know how the support is being spent by the other parent.

In Oklahoma, a child support obligation assumes that all families incur certain child-rearing expenses comprised of housing, food, transportation, basic public educational expenses, clothing, and entertainment. Absent a binding and enforceable agreement between the parents, there is no requirement that the child support funds be used for any specific purpose. In other words, yes, it could happen that a parent pays child support and the other parent uses it for a car, home, or whatever else they wish.

In a dramatic twist of events, “Gold Digger” lyrics include lines that state: Eighteen years, eighteen years / And on the 18th birthday he found out it wasn’t his?

Imagine believing you are the parent of your child, to then find out after 18 years that the child was not yours after all. This can and has happened. There is a published opinion in Oklahoma touching on this very point.

In Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24, Mr. Miller sued his ex-wife and her parents for damages for inducing him to marry his ex-wife and knowingly misrepresenting to him that she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Miller sued his ex-wife under the theories of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that his ex-wife was unjustly enriched equal to the amount of child support he paid his ex-spouse per month.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Mr. Miller had a viable claim for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not for unjust enrichment for the child support he paid his ex-wife. To avoid such a situation, if there is any question or doubt that you are the father of a child, then genetic testing can be performed to establish your parentage, or lack thereof, to hopefully avoid the situation described above.

To side-step the mishaps that West sings about in “Gold Digger,” he attempts to provide his listeners with some words of wisdom. “Gold Digger” contains the lyrics: Holla, “We want prenup! We want prenup!” / It’s something that you need to have / ‘Cause when she leave yo’ ass, she gon’ leave with half

While these lyrics are not bad advice, the part about leaving you with half without a “prenup” is not always true. In Oklahoma, the courts divide the marital estate equitably, which does not always mean equally. However, in most circumstances, the Court attempts to divide the marital estate equally, but there may be circumstances that warrant a disproportionate division.

Oklahoma does recognize and enforce a valid prenuptial agreement. However, at this time, it does not recognize a post-nuptial agreement. Thus, if you want to determine how your estate will be divided upon death or divorce, you must execute a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage.

Additionally, while a prenuptial agreement can allow a couple to determine matters related to the division of their estate and support alimony, it cannot be used to determine custody, visitation, and child support. Issues related to children are always subject to the Court’s determination and what is in the best interest of the children.

And remember, as I stated earlier in the article: Now, I ain’t saying she a gold digger


For more information about this article or any other Family Law inquiries, please call Robert K. Campbell at 405.606.4797 or email him at rkcampbell@phillipsmurrah.com.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

OSHA issues updated guidance on workplace COVID-19 prevention programs

By Lauren Symcox Voth

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) published updated COVID-19 guidance for businesses on Friday, Jan. 29, 2021. The guidance, Protecting Workers:  Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace, (“Guidance”) outlines obligations for employers to comply with OSHA’s General Duty Clause during the pandemic and draws on previously published OSHA and Centers for Disease Control guidance.[1]  OSHA emphasizes the need for employers’ to plan and prepare to protect employees in the workplace from COVID-19.  The Guidance states that it does not create any new legal requirements for employers, but instead provides more detail on “existing mandatory safety and health standards.”  OSHA implies the Guidance may be used for purposes of enforcing employer compliance with COVID-19 prevention programs.

Stock image of industrial worker wearing a mask

(Adobe Stock)

OSHA recommends employers include employees in the development of company prevention programs.  OSHA takes a stronger stance on masking requirements for employees and anyone entering the workplace, physical distancing of employees and non-employees, installing barriers to protect employees, and improved ventilation to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in buildings.

OSHA considers the following to be essential to an effective COVID-19 prevention program.  Many of these elements have been in place for employers for several months.  Companies can benefit from documenting these elements to ensure a cohesive and complete COVID-19 prevention program.  A comprehensive COVID-19 Prevention Program should address the following elements:

  1. Assignment of a workplace coordinator, centralizing responsibility and communication from the company to employees regarding COVID-19 issues.
  2. A Company assessment of hazards in order to identify where and how workers might be exposed in the workplace.
  3. Identify the combination of measures that will limit the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, which includes prioritizing what controls are most effective and least effective. For example, sending home people with a known exposure, physical distancing, improving ventilation, and cleaning routines.  The Guidance states face coverings should include “at least two layers of tightly woven fabric” and “Employers should provide face coverings to workers at no cost”.
  4. Consider protections for workers at higher risk for severe illness through supportive policies and practices. This element may overlap with an employer’s federal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family Medical Leave Act, or state statutory obligations for accommodating disabled employees to protect them from the risk of contracting COVID-19.
  5. Establish a system for communicating effectively with workers in a language they understand. This includes communicating to employees about COVID-19 hazards and a method for employers to receive communications from employees, without fear of reprisal or discrimination.  The communication plan should allow employees to report illness, exposures, hazards, and closures related to COVID-19.
  6. Educate and train workers on company COVID-19 policies and procedures using accessible formats and in a language employees understand. This includes education on COVID-19, prevention policies, and making sure employees understand their rights to a safe and healthful work environment.
  7. Instruct workers who are infected or have potential exposure to stay home, isolate or quarantine to prevent or reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19. OSHA states that absences to prevent or reduce the spread of COVID-19 should be non-punitive.
  8. Minimize the negative impact of quarantine and isolation on workers. OSHA believes this can be achieved by employers permitting remote work or allowing employees to work in areas isolated from others.  OSHA also encourages implementation, or allowing the use of, paid sick leave policies for time off work.  In some states employees may be entitled to COVID-19 related leave.  Although the paid leave requirements in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act expired on December 31, 2020, employers may continue these leave policies and can find more information here [insert link to PM article].  Employers should continue to watch for further changes in federal and state paid leave requirements in 2021.
  9. Isolate, send home and encourage medical attention for employees who show symptoms.
  10. Perform enhanced cleaning and disinfection after people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 have been in the facility. This may include closing areas, opening doors or windows, waiting to clean, and using disinfectants appropriate to clean COVID-19.
  11. Provide state and local guidance on screening and testing.
  12. Record and report COVID-19 infections and deaths on the company’s Form 300 logs according to OSHA standards. Outbreaks should also be reported to the local health department for contact tracing.  Employers are also prohibited from retaliating or discriminating against employees who speak out about unsafe working conditions or report infection or exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace.
  13. Implement protections from retaliation and set up an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19-related hazards.
  14. Make a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccination series available at no cost to all eligible employees.
  15. Employers should not distinguish between workers who are vaccinated and those who are not. This means that vaccinated employees must still comply with all COVID-19 protective policies including but not limited to physical distancing, masking, and other steps necessary to limit transmission.
  16. Apply all other applicable OSHA standards and requirements (i.e. respiratory protection, sanitation, etc.) to ensure that the company provides a safe and healthful work environment free from recognized hazards that can cause serious physical harm or death.

The Guidance provides additional detail for implementing these essential elements to a COVID-19 prevention program, including procedures for isolating infected or potentially infected employees, physical distancing guidelines, physical barrier guidelines, face coverings, cleaning and ventilation improvements.

This OSHA Guidance is likely the first of many updates to COVID-19 prevention procedures for employers in 2021.  Employers should review the full Guidance for more information on COVID-19 prevention programs and keep watch for more information from OSHA, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding employer obligations.

[1] The General Duty Clause requires employers to provide employees with a work environment “free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”  OSH Act of 1970, §5(a).


Attorney Lauren Symcox Voth

For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.606.4740 or email me.

Phillips Murrah’s labor and employment attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide up-to-date advice to our clients during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Phillips Murrah Director Jim Roth featured in USA Today energy article

Jim Roth is a Director and Chair of the firm’s Clean Energy Practice.

On Monday, Jan. 18, 2021, Phillips Murrah Director Jim Roth was featured as a source in the USA Today energy article titled “Biden’s administration could affect Oklahoma’s energy industry in surprising ways.”

From the article:

Presidential administrations and Congresses throughout the past 40 years undoubtedly worked to nudge the nation’s energy and climate-related policies one way or another.

Debates about ways to support the energy industry both in Oklahoma and across the nation have been part of every presidential and congressional election since the 1980s, and subsequent governmental actions have prompted applause or angst as they have helped or hurt energy production along the way.

That’s no surprise. While the number of Oklahomans employed by oil and gas companies in the state is relatively small, the industry’s impact on the overall health of the state’s economy and the services provided by state and local governments is huge.

Roth is referenced and quoted after after remarks by Mike Cantrell, co-chairman of the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance.

“I have done my fair share of that, looking back and asking whether or not the positions I took were right,” Cantrell said. “The question is, should we have let the marketplace decide?”

His thoughts are similar to those of Jim Roth, an attorney who is the dean of Oklahoma City University’s School of Law and a past Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner.

Roth said past Congresses and administrations indeed have been able to influence rises and falls in domestic energy production through regulatory and tax-related policies.

“But there are market forces that are evolving, regardless who is in control,” Roth said.

To read the entire story, click HERE.

Limitations of the Texas Citizens Participation Act

Originally published in Texas Lawyer on Jan. 05, 2021.

Logo Texas LawyerThe Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), commonly referred to as the Texas Anti-SLAPP statute, provides litigants a valuable tool: an early opportunity to move to dismiss a lawsuit that infringes on their First Amendment rights, and if successful, an award of attorney fees.

By Laurel L. Baker |

 The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), commonly referred to as the Texas Anti-SLAPP statute, serves as a constitutional safeguard protecting the “rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect[s] the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.” In other words, the statute provides litigants a valuable tool: an early opportunity to move to dismiss a lawsuit that infringes on their First Amendment rights, and, if successful, an award of attorney fees.

Although the Texas Supreme Court has previously described the TCPA as “casting a wide net,” recent changes to the statute’s language, in effect since Sept. 1, 2019, have significantly narrowed its application:

  • Prior to the amendments, a litigant could file a motion to dismiss under the TCPA if the “legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association.” The amended statute omits the “relates to” language.
  • The amendments limit “right of association” to matters “relating to a governmental proceeding or a matter of public concern.”
  • The amended statute defines a “matter of public concern” as a statement or activity regarding a public official, public figure, or other person who has drawn substantial public attention due to the person’s official acts, fame, notoriety or celebrity; a matter of political, social or other interest to the community, or; a subject of concern to the public.

Although not an exhaustive list of the amendments to the TCPA, these changes are likely to be the most litigated, as evidenced by the Dallas Court of Appeals recent decision in Vaughn-Riley v. Patterson.

In Patterson, the Dallas Court of Appeals was asked to interpret the changes to the TCPA and determine whether the statute applies to claims related to alleged defamatory statements made by an actor, Terri Vaughn. Vaughn argued that her statements fell within the purview of the TCPA because they “concerned the quality and timeliness of the public performance of a theatrical work authored and produced by a limited purpose public figure and marketed to the public in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.” The appeals court, ultimately unpersuaded by Vaughn’s argument, focused on the amended definition of a “matter of public concern” and held that the statements were “not based on or in response to” Vaughn’s exercise of the right to free speech or right of association.  In the court’s view, “Vaughn’s actions and communications regarding one isolated performance that did not go on as scheduled is simply not a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”

In light of the 2019 amendments to the TCPA and the resulting opinion in Patterson, the intent of the legislature and Texas courts could not ring louder—to rein in the circumstances to which the TCPA would apply. While the statute previously served as a frequently used sword in litigation, we will likely see courts less likely to apply it to cases in which the statute’s application to the facts is not “black and white.”


Laurel L. Baker portrait

Click to visit profile.

Laurel L. Baker is a litigation attorney at the law firm of Phillips Murrah. Her primary practice focus is on commercial and business litigation matters representing both plaintiffs and defendants disputes involving banking, corporate governance, contracts, mergers and acquisitions, employment, and other business issues. Baker received her J.D. from the SMU Dedman School of Law and was a Dean’s Scholarship Recipient. She is also a member of the Junior League of Dallas, through which she volunteers in the community.


Reprinted with permission from the January 5, 2021 edition of the Texas Lawyer © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com.

Employee or independent contractor? DOL finalizes new rule

By Michele C. Spillman

The United States Department of Labor announced a new final rule on January 6, 2021 regarding classification of workers as independent contractors under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  “Streamlining and clarifying the test to identify independent contractors will reduce worker misclassification, reduce litigation, increase efficiency, and increase job satisfaction and flexibility,” said DOL Wage and Hour Division Administrator Cheryl Stanton.  The rule takes effect on March 8, 2021, absent action by the new administration (more on that below).

The FLSA entitles employees, but not independent contractors (aka “freelancers,” “gig workers,” and “consultants”), to certain protections, such a minimum wage and overtime requirements. Classification of workers has long been a confusing issue for employers because neither the FLSA nor its regulations define “employee” or “independent contractor.”

contract gig workerDOL has historically used the “economic reality” test to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Under the economic reality test, “[I]n the application of the FLSA an employee, as distinguished from a person who is engaged in a business of his or her own, is one who, as a matter of economic reality, follows the usual path of an employee and is dependent on the business which he or she serves.” Department of Labor. (2008).  Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act [Fact Sheet 13].

In applying the economic reality test, DOL relied on six factors developed by the U.S. Supreme Court. But these factors often proved difficult to apply and led to conflicting results across various employers and industries, making worker classification a moving target and a hotly debated issue.

The new rule reaffirms the “economic reality” test, but identifies and explains two “core factors” that are most probative to the question of whether a worker is in business for herself (an independent contractor) or someone else (an employee): (1) the worker’s nature and degree of control over the work; and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment.

DOL identified three other factors that “may serve as additional guideposts in the analysis, particularly when the two core factors do not point to the same classification”: (1) the amount of skill required for the work; (2) the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer; and (3) whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.

Despite this clarification, worker classification remains a very fact-specific inquiry. As DOL cautions, “the actual practice of the worker and the potential employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible.”

Whether the final rule will become effective as planned remains a question. President-Elect Biden has pledged to combat worker misclassification, and many predict he will freeze the rule when he takes office on January 20, 2021.

We will continue to post updates on new guidance from DOL and other federal agencies on our website.  For more information, consult with a Phillips Murrah labor and employment attorney.


Spillman portrait

With a background in both commercial litigation and labor and employment law, Michele offers clients comprehensive solutions to meet their business goals.

For more information on how this DOL guidance may impact your business, please call 214.615.6365 or email Michele C. Spillman. Click HERE to visit her profile page.

For ongoing coverage of information related to COVID-19, please visit our COVID-19 Resource Center.  

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Sign of the Times: Department of Labor publishes guidance on electronic postings and telemedicine visits in light of pandemic changes

By Janet A. Hendrick

Janet Hendrick

Janet Hendrick is an experienced employment litigator who tackles each of her client’s problems with a tailored, results-oriented approach.

Recognizing ongoing changes the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the way we work and receive medical treatment, the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor issued employer guidance on December 29, 2020 on two issues:  electronic posting of required employment law notices and when a televisit with a health care provider counts as an in-person visit under the Family and Medical Leave Act. DOL’s guidance comes in the form of Field Assistance Bulletins, which provide guidance to the Wage and Hour Division field staff.

Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2020-7:  Electronic Statutory Postings

DOL published this guidance in response to “questions from employers regarding the use of email or postings on an internet or intranet website, including shared network drive or file system, to provide employees with required notices of their statutory rights.”  The bulletin provides guidance as to when these forms of electronic notice satisfy the notice requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, and the Service Contract Act.  DOL’s general view is that electronic postings should supplement, but not replace, physical postings in most cases.

Electronic communications graphicFirst, if a statute requires the posting of a notice “at all times,” DOL will only consider electronic posting an acceptable substitute where (1) all employees work exclusively remotely, (2) all employees ordinarily receive information from the employer electronically, and (3) all employees have access to the electronic posting at all times.  For employers that have both remote and on-site employees, the employer may supplement physical postings with electronic postings and in fact the DOL “would encourage both methods of posting.”

Second, if a statute, such as the Service Contract Act, permits employers to meet notice requirements by delivery of individual notices to each employee, an employer satisfies this requirement by emailing notices, but only if the employee customarily receives information from the employer electronically.  Otherwise, the employer must send a physical notice to satisfy the notice requirement.

Third, any electronic notice must be as effective as a physical, hard-copy posting to meet statutory requirements.  This means employees must be able to readily see a copy of the posting, which DOL says will “depend on the facts.”  At a minimum, DOL requires that the employees are capable of accessing the posting without having to request permission to view a file or access a computer.  DOL will not consider an employer to have complied with a posting requirement if:

  • The employer does not customarily post employee notices electronically;
  • The employer has not taken steps to inform employees where and how to access the notice electronically;
  • The employer posts the notice on an unknown or little-known electronic location, which DOL equates to “hiding the notice, similar to posting a hard-copy notice in an inconspicuous place, such as a custodial closet or little-visited basement”; or
  • The employees cannot easily determine which electronic posting applies to them and their worksite.

Following the general guidance, the bulletin provides further guidance specific to each relevant statute, with examples of when DOL will consider electronic postings compliant with the relevant statutory requirement.

Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2020-8:  Telemedicine and Serious Health Conditions under the FMLA

DOL’s Wage and Hour Division issued a frequently asked question (FAQ #12) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that states “Until December 31, 2020, the WHD will consider telemedicine visits to be in-person visits . . ., for purposes of establishing a serious health condition under the FMLA.  To be considered an in-person visit, the telemedicine visit must include an examination, evaluation, or treatment by a health care provider; be performed by video conference; and be permitted and accepted by state licensing authorities.”  Bulletin 2020-8 provides guidance to DOL staff regarding telemedicine visits past December 31, 2020.

As a reminder, under the FMLA, eligible employees may take leave for their own or a family member’s “serious health condition.” A “serious health condition” requires either inpatient (overnight) care or “continuing treatment,” which in turn includes “examinations to determine if a serious health condition exists and evaluations of the condition.”  FMLA regulations provide that “treatment by a health care provider means an in-person visit to a health care provider,” and does not include a phone call, letter, email, or text message.”

Noting the rapid acceleration of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Wage and Hour Division’s “experience . . . that health care providers are now often using telemedicine to deliver examinations, evaluations, and other healthcare services that would previously have been provided only in an office setting,” the bulletin states that “WHD will consider a telemedicine visit with a health care provider as an in-person visit,” provided certain criteria are met.

To be considered an in-person visit, the visit must include:

  • An examination, evaluation, or treatment by a health care provider;
  • Be permitted and accepted by state licensing authorities; and
  • Generally, be performed by video conference.

Phone calls, letters, emails, or text messages remain insufficient, alone, to satisfy the in-person visit requirement.

We will continue to post updates on new guidance from DOL and other federal agencies on our website.


For more information on how this DOL guidance may impact your business, please call 214.615.6391 or email Janet A. Hendrick.

For ongoing coverage of information related to COVID-19, please visit our COVID-19 Resource Center.  

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

SCOTUS declines to hear same-sex parent case

Supreme Court building graphic

By Janet A. Hendrick and Mark E. Hornbeek

On December 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision requiring the State of Indiana to list two females on the birth certificate of a child of a lesbian couple who was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. Ashlee and Ruby Henderson brought suit against the Indiana State Health Commissioner claiming that the State’s practice of listing only the birth mother and her husband, if any, violated their rights to equal protection under the United States Constitution. Indiana argued that forcing it to identify both women as parents would prevent the State from treating the sperm donor as a parent, while providing parental rights to an individual who provided neither the sperm nor the egg.

Same sex parents graphicThe trial court ruled in favor of the couple and ordered Indiana to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples with regard to parentage on birth certificates. Indiana appealed, and the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision. Indiana then filed a petition of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Court-watchers have monitored this case, waiting to see if the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, given the addition of new Justice Amy Coney Barrett, would take this opportunity to roll back rights of same-sex couples as established by the Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage, and confirmed by the Court’s 2017 decision in Pavan v. Smith, which requires the government to provide the same rights to all couples with respect to parentage on birth certificates, regardless of the parents’ genders.

Many observers have been particularly interested whether Justice Coney Barrett, who has been critical of same-sex marriage, will seek to disturb Obergefell and Pavan and whether this case would present the opportunity for her to do so.

Once a party has appealed a lower court’s decision to the Supreme Court, it requires the vote of four justices before the Court will grant certiorari agreeing to hear the case. While we know that the Court denied certiorari, neither the margin of the vote, nor the vote cast by any individual justice, is publicly revealed, so we cannot know how any particular justice, including Justice Coney Barrett, voted. At least six justices, including at least three of the justices typically considered to be conservative, voted against hearing Indiana’s appeal.

The Court’s refusal to take this case may be a signal that the current Supreme Court is not interested in reversing or narrowing the rights established by its recent opinions. The value of the Court’s denial of certiorari in Box, however, is somewhat limited, as the denial does not necessarily indicate that the majority of justices agree with the lower court’s ruling. Rather, refusal to take the case means that fewer than four justices felt this particular case was worth review.  Because the Court refused to hear the case, it will not issue an opinion either confirming or upsetting the rights of same-sex couples or set any new precedent that would bind future courts.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit’s Box decision will continue to guide courts, at least within that court’s jurisdiction, which includes Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. While other appellate courts will undoubtedly consider the Seventh Circuit’s opinion when faced with similar cases, it is possible that another court may reach a conflicting conclusion.  While the Supreme Court’s decision not to consider Box may signal some stability of same-sex rights, the door remains open for future challenges.


Janet Hendrick

Janet Hendrick is an experienced employment litigator who tackles each of her client’s problems with a tailored, results-oriented approach.

For more information on this article, please call 214.615.6391 or email Janet A. Hendrick.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Employers should prepare for COVID-19 vaccine in the workplace

By Phoebe B. Mitchell

On December 11, 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first emergency use authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 vaccine, which allows Pfizer-BioNTech, the manufacturer of the vaccine, to distribute the vaccine throughout the United States. This encouraging step for the United States in its fight against COVID-19 also raises several important questions for employers as the vaccine becomes more broadly available.

Covid vaccine imageWhile we wait for both full FDA approval and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) anticipated employer guidance on the vaccine, we recommend that employers prepare now to address the legal issues that arise when the vaccine is accessible to the American workforce.

May Employers Mandate the COVID-19 Vaccine as a Condition of Employment?

Even though the EEOC has not yet issued formal guidance, the EEOC has stated that an employee who has COVID-19 or symptoms of COVID-19 poses a “direct threat” to the health and safety of the workplace. This means that a person with COVID-19 or symptoms of COVID-19 poses a significant risk of substantial harm to himself or others. The EEOC continues to use this standard to allow employers to exclude employees who have contracted COVID-19 or who are showing symptoms of COVID-19 from the workplace.

Until the FDA fully approves the COVID-19 vaccine, and the EEOC issues formal guidance regarding the vaccine in the workplace, employers should strongly encourage, rather than require, their employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine. After full FDA approval and guidance from the EEOC, we expect employers will be able to mandate that their employees take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment, subject to possible exceptions under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII. In fact, mandatory flu vaccines are already common in the health care field, and many health care employers require their employees to take the flu shot each year or forfeit employment.

What Happens When An Employee Refuses the COVID-19 Vaccine?

If an employer requires the COVID-19 vaccine for all its employees, there are situations in which an employee’s refusal will require additional analysis to determine if the employee should be exempted from the mandate, including (1) where the refusing employee is a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) where the employee’s refusal is due to their sincerely held religious belief, and (3) where the refusing individual is subject to a collective bargaining agreement.

First, qualified employees under the ADA whose disability puts them at higher risk for an adverse reaction to the vaccine may be able to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine as a reasonable accommodation.  If an employee requests a reasonable accommodation in the form of refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine, the ADA requires an employer engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine if the requested accommodation is reasonable and/or creates undue hardship on the employer. Because the EEOC has made clear that COVID-19 meets its “direct threat” standard, it is possible that, even with a qualified disability under the ADA, an employee cannot safely perform his or her job without the COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, COVID-19’s classification as a “direct threat” will unquestionably impact the interactive process for reasonable accommodations.

Next, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from religious discrimination, an employee may refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine based on a sincerely held religious belief. The sincerely held belief must be religious, rather than political or philosophical. An employer who receives a request from an employee to refuse the vaccine based on religious reasons has the right to inquire further to determine whether the belief is truly a sincerely held religious belief. Even where an employee refuses a vaccine based on a sincerely held religious belief, courts recognize that an employer may lawfully refuse such an accommodation where it would cause the employer an undue hardship. For example,  courts have held that the spread of influenza, which could be caused by an employee’s failure to take the flu shot, constitutes a safety risk to a health care employer’s workforce and patients, thus posing an “undue hardship” on the health care employer. As a result of this reasoning, employers in fields where transmission of COVID-19 is highly likely may be able to terminate an employee for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine, even if the refusal is based in a sincerely held religious belief.

Lastly, if an employee is a party to a collective bargaining agreement, the employer should negotiate the mandatory vaccination provision with the employee’s union. Incorporation of the employer’s vaccination policy into the CBA will help ensure compliance and could avoid disputes.

May an Employer Terminate an Employee Who Refuses the Vaccine?

In order to terminate an employee who refuses the COVID-19 vaccine, an employer must have a uniformly applied policy regarding its mandate of the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment. Thus, under a uniformly applied policy, employers may lawfully terminate an employee who has not requested a reasonable accommodation on the basis of a disability, refused on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief or who is not subject to a collective bargaining agreement for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.  But as discussed above, even termination of an employee who requests accommodation because of a disability or religious belief may be lawful depending on the circumstances.  Employers should remember the importance of individually analyzing each situation.

Who Pays for a Mandated COVID-19 Vaccine?

If an employer mandates that its employees take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment, it is a best practice, and in the employer’s best interest, for the employer to pay the cost of the vaccine.

As always, it is imperative that employers uniformly apply policies to all employees. This information is subject to change based on further guidance regarding the COVID-19 vaccine in the workplace. Employers should consult with their employment counsel for additional guidance on addressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine in the workplace. Phillips Murrah’s labor and employment attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide up-to-date advice to our clients.


Phoebe Mitchell portrait

Click to visit Phoebe Mitchell’s profile page.

For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.606.4711 or email me.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Law360’s 2020 Glass Ceiling Report: Phillips Murrah ranked for gender diversity

Phillips Murrah is proud to announce that our Firm is ranked in Law360’s 2020 Glass Ceiling Report.

Phillips Murrah Glass Ceiling Report visual

Click to enlarge.

Each year, Law360 surveys participating law firms in various size categories and ranks their percentage of female attorneys and female equity partners. They publish their findings in the Glass Ceiling Report. For the 2020 GCR, Phillips Murrah is ranked 12th in the nation for firms of 100 attorneys or less.

Click on the graphic on this page to examine details of Law360’s findings about Phillips Murrah. The full story and an interactive data graphic is HERE. The numbers used by Law360 were collected on their survey in April 2020.

“We’re pleased to receive this recognition for Phillips Murrah and its culture, which rewards talent, skill, and work ethic, and affords equal opportunities to all,” said Candace Williams Lisle, Phillips Murrah Director and Chair of our Firm’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee. “Not only is Phillips Murrah a leader in the percentage of women attorneys, but more importantly, in women who have a seat at the table as equity partners and firm leaders. Our goal is not simply diversity – but equity and inclusion as well. We’re fortunate that the pool of legal talent in our region includes so many accomplished women, and that so many practice law with us at Phillips Murrah.”

Law360 Ceiling Smashers 2020 graphic

Click to enlarge.

Phillips Murrah is also featured in a Law360 article titled “These Firms Have The Most Women In Equity Partnerships,” which names our Firm among those that have the highest representation of women equity partners.

“Here are this year’s Ceiling Smashers — the top 10 firms in each law firm size category that are outpacing their peers as the legal industry works towards closing the gender gap in its top ranks.” – Law360

Phillips Murrah has a long history of elevating attorneys based on skill and talent, and we continue to lead, both locally and nationally, in our number of women attorneys and equity partners.

However, according to Law360, progress has not been easy in the overall legal industry.

“While law firms continue to tout efforts to close the gender gap in their ranks, parity is still a distant goal, our annual survey shows. Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report indicates only incremental growth in the number of female lawyers in private practice. Female attorneys remain underrepresented at U.S. law firms, particularly at the highest levels.” – Law360

Law 360 wrote that they see the Glass Ceiling Report as the beginning of a conversation that they hope will expand as they develop new ways of examining gender diversity in the profession and evaluate the data that is the most relevant to answering the difficult questions. As they continue to collect and analyze data, they also welcome your comments here.


facebook iconFollow our Firm on FACEBOOK

Phillips Murrah recognized as Champion of Justice Law Firm by Texas Access to Justice Commission

The Texas Access to Justice Commission announced Phillips Murrah is among the recipients of their Champion of Justice Law Firm Award. The Commission presents the awards to attorneys and law firms who champion and support the important work of Texas legal aid and pro bono providers.

Phillips Murrah is recognized via our Texas office, located in Dallas.

Texas Access to Justice Champion of Justice Law Firm

Click to enlarge.

About The Texas Access to Justice Commission:

The Supreme Court of Texas created the Texas Access to Justice Commission in 2001 with the mandate of expanding access to justice for low-income Texans. Because there are a variety of challenges to access to justice in Texas, the Commission’s work is necessarily multi-faceted. These are our primary areas of focus:

  • Policy Initiatives: By promoting policies that remove barriers to our judicial system, the Commission works to create a framework for equitable access to justice.

  • Resource Development: Through ongoing fundraising efforts and a strong partnership with the State Legislature, the Commission works to secure funding and other resources for legal aid across Texas.

  • Awareness and Education: By educating the legal community about access to justice issues and the importance of pro bono work, and by training legal aid lawyers to effectively advocate for their clients, the Commission seeks to expand and enhance the delivery of legal aid and pro bono services across Texas.

To contact Phillips Murrah’s Dallas office, email or call:

Janet A. Hendrick photoJanet A. Hendrick
Shareholder
jahendrick@phillipsmurrah.com
214.615.6391
3710 Rawlins Street
Suite 1420
Dallas, TX 75219


facebook icon

Follow Phillips Murrah on FACEBOOK

Employee or independent contractor? Department of Labor issues new proposed “Five-Factor Test”

By Phoebe B. Mitchell

In the past several years, employers have struggled to determine whether some workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors. The difference is significant, as employees are entitled to many benefits that independent contractors are not, including overtime for those not exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As a result, worker misclassification is a costly mistake employers want to avoid.

DOL proposal contracting

U.S. Department of Labor proposes new rules on who is considered an employee and who is considered an independent contractor.

This week, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued its anticipated proposed rule regarding classification of workers as independent contractors. According to Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, the proposed rule will “make it easier to identify employees covered by the [FLSA], while respecting the decision other workers make to pursue the freedom and entrepreneurialism associated with being an independent contractor.” DOL is accepting comments on the proposed rule for 30 days.

The new rule includes a five-factor test that considers the “economic reality” of the relationship between workers and their employers.

Among the five factors, the DOL made clear that two “core” factors are key:

  1. Control a worker has over their work
  2. The worker’s potential for profit or loss

Both factors help determine if a worker is economically dependent on someone else’s business, or alternatively, if the worker is in business for him or herself.

The nature and degree of the individual’s control over the work

This first core factor examines a worker’s ability to personally control his or her work. For example, a worker is an independent contractor if the worker, as opposed to the company, exercises substantial control over key aspects of performance of work.  A worker exercises substantial control over performance of work by setting his or her own schedule or selecting his or her own projects. Further, the worker exercises substantial control over key aspects of performance of work if the worker has the ability to do work for other employers, including the employer’s competitors.

On the other hand, a worker is properly classified as an employee if the employer, as opposed to the worker, exercises substantial control over key aspects of the performance of the work. For example, if the employer controls the worker’s schedule or workload, or directly or indirectly requires the worker to work exclusively for the employer, the worker should be classified as an employee.

The individual’s opportunity for profit or loss

This second core factor examines a worker’s personal opportunity for profit or loss. If the worker’s profit or loss opportunity is closely tethered to the work he or she performs, the worker is likely an independent contractor. In other words, a worker is a true independent contractor if the individual has the opportunity to earn profits or incur losses based on his or her own exercise of initiative, or management of his or her investment in helpers, equipment, or material to further the work.

Alternatively, an employee does not have as much personal opportunity for profit or loss. A worker who is unable to affect his or her earnings or is only able to do so by working more hours or more efficiently is properly classified as an employee.

Three other factors

The proposed rule includes three other factors:

  1. The amount of skill required for the work
  2. The degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer
  3. Whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.

For example, if a worker has specialized training that the employer does not provide, and the work relationship is by design definite in duration, the worker should be classified as an independent contractor. On the other hand, an employee depends on the employer to equip him or her with the skills or training necessary to perform the job, the work relationship is, by design, indefinite in duration or continuous, and the worker’s work is a component of the employer’s integrated production process for a good or a service. Lastly, the actual practice of an employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible in determining a worker’s classification as either an independent contractor or employee.

While these three factors are important, according to DOL, if the two “core” factors point to the same finding, “their combined weight is substantially likely to outweigh the combined weight of the other factors that may point toward the opposite classification.”

The complete proposed rule is available at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/IC_NPRM_092220.pdf.

Phillips Murrah’s labor and employment attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide up-to-date advice to our clients regarding the DOL’s new rules.


Phoebe Mitchell portrait

Click to visit Phoebe Mitchell’s profile page.

For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.606.4711 or email me.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Phillips Murrah attorneys remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg at OKC candlelight vigil

Phillips Murrah attorneys attend RBG vigil in OKC

From left: Nikki Jones Edwards, Cathy L. Campbell, Charlotte Hanna, Rev. Lori Walke and Lauren Barghols Hanna.

Tuesday night, Oklahomans gathered at the state capitol to mourn the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an American legal, cultural and feminist icon and, as described by Chief Justice John Roberts, a justice of historic stature and a cherished colleague.

Among those who gathered were Phillips Murrah attorneys Nikki Jones Edwards, Cathy L. Campbell and Lauren Barghols Hanna, joined by (see photo) Cathy’s granddaughter and Lauren’s daughter, Charlotte, and Rev. Lori Walke, Associate Minister at Mayflower Congregational United Church of Christ.

“Justice Ginsburg famously declared that ‘Women belong in all places where decisions are being made,’” said Hanna, who practices employment law at Phillips Murrah. “In 1956, she was one of only nine women in her 500-person law school class. Today, thanks to the tireless efforts of Justice Ginsburg and other fierce advocates for equality, almost half of Phillips Murrah partners and two-thirds of our Executive Committee are women. We owe a great debt to Justice Ginsburg and the other women attorneys who paved the road, and we must now continue her efforts to ensure ‘justice for all.’”

The event, A Candlelight Vigil in Remembrance of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was organized by The Oklahoma Women’s Coalition to honor and remember Justice Ginsburg, who died Friday at the age of 87. Video of the speakers at the vigil are available here.

“We deeply mourn the loss of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Our country has lost a champion of women’s rights and progress for all Americans. Our thoughts are with her loved ones and all whose lives were shaped and touched by her unwavering commitment to justice,” OWC posted to their Facebook page.

After 13 years on the U.S Court of Appeals, President Bill Clinton appointed Justice Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993. Over the following 27 years, she earned a reputation for being the High Court’s liberal leader and a steadfast advocate for equality. As stated in an achievement.org profile called “Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Pioneer of Gender Equality”:

“On the high court, Justice Ginsburg was often called on to rule in cases regarding the rights of women and issues of gender equality. In 1996, she joined the majority in United States v. Virginia, ruling that the state could not continue to operate an all-male educational institution (the Virginia Military Institute) with taxpayer dollars. She also joined in the majority opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), striking down a Nebraska law banning so-called ‘partial birth’ abortions. She dissented vehemently in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire (2007), in which an Alabama woman sued unsuccessfully for back pay to compensate for the years in which she had been paid substantially less than junior male colleagues performing the same job. The U.S. Congress would later address the issue of pay equity through legislation known as the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.”

Late in Ginsburg’s life, she also became a cultural and social media icon. According to the New York Times, “a law student, Shana Knizhnik, anointed her the Notorious R.B.G., a play on the name of the Notorious B.I.G., a famous rapper who was Brooklyn-born, like the justice. Soon the name, and Justice Ginsburg’s image — her expression serene yet severe, a frilly lace collar adorning her black judicial robe, her eyes framed by oversize glasses and a gold crown perched at a rakish angle on her head — became an internet sensation.”

In a 2015 television interview, Ginsburg was asked how she would like to be remembered, to which she replied: “Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability, and to help repair tears in her society – to make things a little better through the use of whatever ability she has. To do something, as my colleague David Souter would say, outside myself, because I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done for which I was not paid.”


facebook iconPlease follow us on FACEBOOK!

Clients seek lower costs for legal services

[VALUE] Clients, including in-house legal departments, are understandably focusing on lowering their legal expenses. They are looking to mid-market law firms like Phillips Murrah to achieve it.

Phillips Murrah presents Blocks for Bucks donation to Thunder Cares Foundation for 2020 season

As with the previous three years, the end of the season coincides with Phillips Murrah’s Blocks for Bucks donation to the Thunder Cares Foundation. This season, Phillips Murrah is donating $18,700.

Breaking News: IRS issues guidance on Trump’s payroll tax deferral order

On Friday, August 28, 2020, the IRS and Treasury issued guidance implementing President Trump’s order to defer collection of some payroll taxes amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Phillips Murrah attorney Jessica Cory

Jessica N. Cory represents businesses and individuals in a wide range of transactional matters, with an emphasis on tax planning.

On August 8, 2020, President Trump issued a Presidential Memoranda, commonly known as an Executive Order (the “Order”), to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of certain payroll taxes on wages paid from September 1, 2020 through the end of the calendar year.   The Order applies to any employee whose pretax compensation is less than $4,000 per biweekly pay period (or $104,000 per year, on an annualized basis).  The Order permits the employers of these eligible employees to temporarily suspend the 6.2% Social Security tax typically withheld from employees’ paychecks.

The Order has raised a number of questions for employers and payroll companies considering whether to implement the deferral.  For example, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium (“NPRC”) recently raised concerns about whether sufficient time is available to implement a deferral option by September 1, given the substantial programming changes that such an option would require. Because payroll systems are typically designed to use a single Social Security tax rate for the full year, for all employees, it may be challenging to change a reporting system to apply a different tax rate for part of the year, beginning mid-quarter, for only certain employees of certain employers.

In addition to practical challenges relating to implementation, the Order also raises liability concerns for both employees and employers, who are dually liable for unpaid payroll taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. Under Code Section 7508A, the Secretary of the Treasury can delay tax payments for up to a year during a presidentially-declared disaster, but no authority exists to authorize forgiveness of those deferred amounts. Accordingly, employees, employers, or both could be held liable for any deferred payroll taxes after the deferral period ends. This could represent a substantial burden. For example, for an employee earning $50,000 per year, the deferral would allow the employee to take home an additional $119 per paycheck during the deferral period. But, without Congressional action to authorize forgiveness of the deferred taxes, that employee—or his or her employer—would be facing a $1,073 tax liability in January.

Based on guidance released today from the Treasury Department in Notice 2020-65, employers who opt into the deferral program will be required to collect the deferred taxes ratably from their employees during a four month repayment period beginning on January 1, 2021, through increased withholding. Accordingly, during the repayment period, employers will be required to withhold 12.4% from their employees’ paychecks, rather than the normal 6.2%, to repay the payroll tax liability accumulated from September to December. The guidance does not indicate how an employer should collect the deferred taxes from an employee who terminates his or her employment prior to the end of the repayment period but indicates that employers may make other “arrangements … to collect the total [deferred tax amount] from the employee,” if necessary.

The guidance offered on Friday indicates that the Treasury intends to put the onus of repayment on the employer, with the employer potentially subject to interest, penalties, and additions to tax beginning on May 1, 2021, if the employer is unable to collect the accrued tax liability from its employees. Accordingly, given the voluntary nature of the deferral, the potential liability involved, and the costs and complexity associated with upgrading their payroll systems to accommodate the deferral, employers have a strong incentive to opt out and continue withholding for now.

To the extent an employer does want to participate in the tax deferral, the employer should consider establishing a procedure to allow eligible employees to opt in to the deferral. This procedure should require any employee opting in to provide the employer with a written and signed statement that:

  1. Acknowledges that any deferred taxes will come due in 2021.
  2. Authorizes the employer to withhold tax at a double rate, consistent with the guidance provided in Treasury Notice 2020-65, for those pay periods falling in the four-month repayment period.
  3. Agrees that in the event the employee’s employment is terminated prior to the end of the repayment period, for any reason, the employer can set off any remaining amount owed to the employee by the amount of outstanding deferred taxes, that the employee will be liable for any remaining amount, and the employee will reimburse the employer for any associated liability, including penalties and interest, as necessary.

Employers who decide to establish such an opt-in procedure should consult with counsel to ensure compliance with state labor laws.


For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.552.2472 or email me.

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Teleworking and an Employer’s Woes of Record Keeping

Portrait of Byrona J. Maule

Click to visit Byrona J. Maule’s profile page.

In this era of Covid-19, many employees who have never had the opportunity to telework are now, out of necessity, teleworking.  This creates many challenges for employers – and none is more important than the employer’s obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in tracking teleworking employees’ hours of work.

The Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (WHD) issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2020-5 (FAB 2020-5) today on the employer’s obligation to track a teleworking employee’s hours of work pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

FAB 2020-5 acknowledges the employers’ obligation to pay its employees for all hours worked – even if the work was not requested, if the employer “suffered or permitted” the employee to work.  This includes work performed at home.  If an employer knows or has reason to believe that an employee is performing work, the employer must count those hours as hours worked.  An employers’ knowledge may be either actual or constructive.

Employers may exercise reasonable diligence in tracking an employee’s teleworking hours by having a reasonable reporting procedure for unscheduled time and then compensating employees’ for all reported hours.  An employer may not prevent or discourage employees to accurately report all hours the employee works. If the employee fails to use the reasonable procedure “the employer is not required to undergo impractical efforts to investigate further to uncover unreported hours of work and provide compensation for those hours.”  If an employee fails to report unscheduled hours worked through the employer’s established procedure, the employer is generally not required to investigate further to uncover unreported hours worked.

FAB 2020-5 explores when an employer has “reason to believe that an employee is performing work.”  An employer has actual knowledge of the employees’ regularly scheduled hours, and an employer may have actual knowledge of hours worked, through employee reports or other notifications.  An employer has constructive knowledge if the employer should have acquired knowledge of such hours through reasonable diligence.  Reasonable diligence is defined as what the employer should have known – NOT what the employer could have known.  “Though an employer may have access to non-payroll records of employees’ activities, such as records showing employees accessing their work-issued electronic devices outside of reported hours, reasonable diligence generally does not require the employer to undertake impractical efforts such as sorting through this information to determine whether its employees worked hours beyond what they reported.”  Examples given of impractical efforts included in FAB 2020-5 included sifting through CAD records and phone records to determine if an employee was working unreported hours. However, Bulletin 2020-5 does not give a definitive rule that an employer never has to consult records outside of timekeeping records, noting it depends on the circumstances, and there may be instances where an employer’s non-timekeeping records may be relevant to issue of constructive knowledge of an employee’s unreported work hours.

In order for an employer to leverage the most protection from an employee seeking wages for unreported hours, an employer should:

  1. Have a reasonable policy/procedure setting forth clearly that an employee is to report all hours worked, whether scheduled or unscheduled.
  2. The employer should not discourage an employee from utilizing the procedure.
  3. The employer should train on the policy, or otherwise assure that employees are aware of the procedure, and when to use the procedure.

If an employer undertakes these steps, and an employee fails to utilize the procedure to report unscheduled hours worked, the employer’s failure to pay for the unreported hours worked should not be a violation of the FLSA.


For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.552.2453 or email me.

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

New York Federal Court invalidates department of labor FFCRA regulations creating potential nationwide ramifications

Courthouse in lower ManhattanBy Phoebe B. Mitchell

On August 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York invalidated multiple Department of Labor (DOL) regulations interpreting the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), Congress’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The FFCRA provides paid leave to employees unable to work during the coronavirus crisis. Congress charged the DOL with issuing FFCRA regulations, with the final regulations being published on April 1, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 19,326) (“Final Rule”). Shortly after, the State of New York sued the DOL, claiming it exceeded its statutory authority and unlawfully denied leave to eligible employees.  The Southern District of New York agreed with the State of New York, voiding four FFRCA regulations:

1) “Work-availability” requirement

2) Definition of “health care provider”

3) Intermittent leave

4) Documentation requirements

“Work-Availability” Requirement

The two major provisions of the FFCRA, the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA), apply to employees who are unable to work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the DOL’s final rule implementing the FFCRA excludes employees who are unable to work because their employers do not have work for them.

The court stated that this limitation is “hugely consequential” for employees whose employers have temporarily shut down due to the pandemic, and thus, have no work for their employees. By invalidating this DOL regulation, the court held the DOL cannot require that employees actually be working in order to take FFCRA leave. In turn, this could subject employers, including employers who were forced to temporarily cease operations due to state or local orders, to claims by furloughed or laid-off employees.

Definition of “Health Care Provider”

Under the FFCRA, an employer may elect to exclude “health care providers” from leave benefits. Thus, the DOL’s definition of “health care provider” could have large ramification for many employers. In its final rule, the DOL defined “health care provider” as:

“anyone employed at any doctor’s office, hospital, health care center, clinic, post-secondary educational institution offering health care instruction, medical school, local health department or agency, nursing facility, retirement facility, nursing home, home health care provider, any facility that performs laboratory or medical testing, pharmacy, or any similar institution, Employer, or entity. This includes any permanent or temporary institution, facility, location, or site where medical services are provided that are similar to such institutions”

and

“any individual employed by an entity that contracts with any of these institutions described above to provide services or to maintain the operation of the facility  where that individual’s services support the operation of the facility, [and] anyone employed by any entity that provides medical services, produces medical products, or is otherwise involved in the making of COVID-19 related medical equipment, tests, drugs, vaccines, diagnostic vehicles, or treatments.”

Final Rule at 19,351 (§ 826.25).

The court noted, and the DOL conceded, that this expansive definition, in practice, could include even an English professor, librarian or cafeteria manager at a university with a medical school. Thus, the court held that this definition could not stand. In so deciding, the court reasoned that even employees with “no nexus whatsoever” to healthcare services would be exempt from FFCRA leave.

Intermittent Leave

The DOL’s Final Rule significantly limited intermittent leave under the FFCRA. Intermittent leave means leave taken in separate periods of time, rather than one continuous period. Under the rule, an employee could only use intermittent leave if: (1) the employee and employer agree to the use of intermittent leave; and (2) the use is limited to the employee’s need to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed, or where child care is unavailable.

The court agreed that intermittent leave should not be allowed in situations where the employee is at high risk for spreading the virus to other employees. For example, if an employee is showing symptoms of COVID-19, or caring for a family member showing symptoms of COVID-19, the employee should not be allowed to take intermittent leave, but rather must take continuous paid sick leave until that leave is exhausted or the employee no longer has a reason to be on leave.

However, the court disagreed with the DOL’s interpretation that the employer and employee must agree to the use of intermittent leave. The court held that the regulation “utterly fails to explain why employer consent is required” for an employee to take intermittent leave. Thus, the court ruled that an employer’s consent is not required for an employee to take intermittent leave under the FFCRA.

Documentation Requirement

The DOL’s Final Rule requires employees to submit documentation to their employer prior to taking leave indicating the reason for leave, the duration of the requested leave, and, when applicable, the authority for the isolation or quarantine order qualifying them for leave.

In contrast, the FFCRA states that an employer may require an employee taking leave under the EPSLA to provide reasonable documentation after the employee’s first day of leave. Further, the statute provides that an employee taking leave under EFMLA must provide the employer with notice of leave as is practicable under the circumstances.

The New York court held that, due to the specific notice requirements set out in the statute, the DOL exceeded its authority in requiring that an employee provide documentation before taking leave. Striking down this regulation, however, did not affect the FFCRA’s original notice requirements mandating documentation after an employee takes leave under the statute.

While this decision came from a federal New York court, it could have nationwide ramifications. The decision could prompt the DOL to issue new regulations, which, of course, would be implemented across the United States. Alternatively, the DOL could choose to appeal the decision. Currently, it is unclear if this decision will be applied retroactively. As always, but especially In light of this decision, employers must be vigilant when making decisions regarding employee leave under the FFCRA.

Phillips Murrah’s labor and employment attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide up-to-date advice to our clients during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.


Phoebe Mitchell portrait

Click to visit Phoebe Mitchell’s profile page.

For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.606.4711 or email me.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Blocks for Bucks continues with NBA Bubble Season Restart

Phillips Murrah Blocks for Bucks 2020

It was here, then it was gone. Now, it’s back again! On Saturday, Aug. 1, 2020, the Oklahoma City Thunder basketball season resumes in Orlando. FL. The Thunder are paired against the team we were supposed to play twenty weeks ago, when the season was abruptly, unceremoniously shut down due to the COVID-19 virus.

OKC Thunder cancelled seasonWith the tip-off against the Utah Jazz at 2:30 p.m., so resumes Phillips Murrah’s Blocks for Bucks partnership with the Thunder Cares Foundation. The rest of the season will be played in what is being characterized as “The Bubble,” which is an isolation zone set up for the NBA in Orlando’s Disney property with strict protocols designed to keep players and the teams’ supporting staff safe from exposure to coronavirus.

What is Blocks for Bucks?

Starting in 2017, Phillips Murrah first partnered with the Thunder to recognize our home team’s on-court accomplishments in blocking shots and turn our Firm’s support into dollars that will help make our community a better place. Through Blocks for Bucks, Phillips Murrah has been donating $100 to The Thunder Cares Foundation for each blocked shot that the Thunder forces at home games during the regular season.

Phillips Murrah 2018-2019 Oklahoma City Thunder Blocks for Bucks donation check

Phillips Murrah Directors G. Calvin Sharpe, Marc Edwards and Nikki Edwards present the 2018-2019 season Blocks for Bucks donation check for $20,600 to Christine Berney, OKC Thunder Vice President, Community Relations

As the 2019-2020 season resumes, the Phillips Murrah Blocks for Bucks count is at 160, which equates to $16,000 raised so far for Thunder Cares. The current blocks count and video highlights can be found at the Oklahoma City Thunder website.

Typically, Phillips Murrah presents a check at half-court in the Chesapeake Arena during the final home game of the season. Last year’s final amount totaled $20,600.

Thunder Cares helps support the team’s community outreach projects, including Thunder-themed basketball courts in parks, schools and community centers across Oklahoma, as well as learning labs and activity rooms at organizations like the Boys and Girls Club of Oklahoma CountyCity Rescue Mission and Positive Tomorrows.

Phillips Murrah is proud of our partnership with the Thunder Organization, and we – like all Thunder fans – are more than ready for the season to continue. Good luck, stay safe and Thunder Up!

ALERT: Supreme Court ruling impacts property and title rights across large portion of Oklahoma

SCOTUS Ruling graphicToday, the Supreme Court ruled nearly half of the State of Oklahoma is an Indian Reservation.

From a New York Times article:

  • The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could have far-reaching implications for the 1.8 million people who live across what is now deemed “Indian Country” by the high court.
  • Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said that Congress had granted the Creek a reservation, and that the United States needed to abide by its promises.

The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the State of Oklahoma and its citizens as it relates to property rights and land titles, taxation, and other matters involving tribal affairs.


To discuss how this may affect your business, contact Zac Bradt at the contact information below:

Zachary K. Bradt, Director
Phillips Murrah P.C.
EMAIL: zkbradt@phillipsmurrah.com
PHONE: 405.552.2447

Phillips Murrah

Texas Lawyer: Mid-Market Strategy to Achieve Cost Reductions that Clients Seek

On June 14, 2020, Mark E. Golman a Director in Phillips Murrah’s Dallas office, wrote the following article that was published in the Analysis section of ALM/Law.com’s publication, Texas Lawyer:

Mid-Market Strategy to Achieve Cost Reductions that Clients Seek

Legal industry surveys demonstrate the complexity of defining “value” in the legal industry. The exact meaning depends on who you ask, when you ask, and the nature of the circumstances. Fundamentally, the quality of provided services represents one significant indicator of value. However, clients view the cost of those services as an important component of value, which has specific and increasing importance during our current challenging economic times.

Mark Golman portrait image

Mark E. Golman helps clients achieve their strategic objectives and reduce risk in the areas of corporate law, finance and bankruptcy. Mark represents clients in the purchase and sale of businesses and assets, including purchases out of bankruptcy proceedings, financings and contract negotiations.

Informed by strategies that date back to the Great Recession of the previous decade, clients are understandably focusing on lowering their legal expenses and looking to mid-market law firms to achieve it. Simply put, it is a win-win – clients find more attractive billing rates by shifting Big Law work to mid-market firms, and mid-market firms are increasingly in a strong competitive position.

Prior to the pandemic crisis, our firm devised a strategy whereby major-market clients can achieve desired cost reductions while retaining the quality of a top-tier firm: location, location, location. Phillips Murrah is a 34-year-old firm headquartered in Oklahoma City. Two years ago, the firm opened its Dallas office to not only expand its footprint, but to also pass along substantial cost savings opportunities to clients as a result of lower comparative overhead costs.

As a result of this model, clients in Texas and across the country receive services from experienced shareholders whose billing rates are usually lower than those of first-year associates at large firms. Providing more experience at a lower billing rate improves efficiency and enhances value for our clients.

Of our more than 75 attorneys, six practice full-time from the Dallas office. Additionally, several of our Oklahoma City attorneys who previously practiced in Texas bring additional relationships and synergies to the firm. With Dallas as a prime example, we deliver a breadth and depth of service offerings as well as experienced attorneys at what amounts to bargain rates.

Since Phillips Murrah opened our Dallas office, more than half of our Oklahoma lawyers have worked on relationships managed by a Texas lawyer while each member of our Dallas office has worked on relationships managed from Oklahoma City. The collaborative opportunities provided by this low-overhead geography is accentuated by Oklahoma City being as close or closer to Dallas as Austin and Houston.

This strategy allows us to offer the best of both worlds to clients in Texas and beyond: top-tier legal services at a reasonable cost.

Mark E. Golman, a Phillips Murrah Shareholder, helps clients achieve their strategic objectives and reduce risk in the areas of corporate law, finance and bankruptcy. Mark represents clients in the purchase and sale of businesses and assets, including purchases out of bankruptcy proceedings, financings and contract negotiations.


Learn more HERE.

To contact Mark E. Golman, you can EMAIL or call 214.434.1919.

facebook icon

Follow Phillips Murrah on FACEBOOK

Reprinted with permission from the June 14, 2020 edition of the Texas Lawyer © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.

Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects Gay and Transgender Employees

By Lauren Barghols Hanna

Phillips Murrah attorney Lauren Hanna

Lauren Barghols Hanna

Earlier this morning, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that an employer who fires or otherwise discriminates against an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court heard three cases in which employers had fired long-term employees simply for being gay or transgender.  A Georgia county employee was fired for “conduct unbecoming” an employee after he joined a gay recreational softball league.  A funeral home terminated an employee who presented as a male when she was hired, after the employee advised her manager that she planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.”  A skydiving company fired a skydiving instructor days after he advised a customer that he was gay.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination “because of sex” prevents an employer from taking any adverse actions against employees on the basis of gender, sexual identity, or sexual expression.  Justice Gorsuch, author of the majority opinion, unequivocally declared that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The Bostock opinion considers an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men.  The employees are materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other is a woman.  If the employer fires the male employee because he is attracted to men, the employer necessarily is discriminating against him for the traits or actions it tolerates in the female employee.  Similarly, if an employer fires a transgender person because she was identified as male at birth but now identifies as a female, the employer is firing the individual for displaying traits or actions it would otherwise tolerate in an employee identified as female at birth.  Employers cannot discipline employees for being “insufficiently feminine” or “insufficiently masculine” without violating Title VII.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  The Supreme Court noted that the legislators who adopted the Act in 1964 may not have anticipated this particular outcome, but that those same legislators may also not have anticipated that the Act would ultimately prohibit discrimination on the basis of motherhood, prohibit sexual harassment of female employees, and—eventually–prohibit sexual harassment of male employees to the same extent as female employees.  But, as Justice Gorsuch noted, the phrase “because of…sex” is clear and unambiguous; thus, the “limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

Today, the Supreme Court clarified that “[a]n individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions” and that “[a]n employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

See the United States Supreme Court opinion HERE.


Phillips Murrah stands ready to assist employers in ensuring that employee handbooks and hiring and disciplinary practices are fully compliant with Title VII and all relevant employment laws.

Contact us by EMAIL or call 405.235.4100.

facebook icon

Follow Phillips Murrah on FACEBOOK

Phillips Murrah PPE donation to OU Medicine follow-up

As part of Phillips Murrah’s efforts to assist in the Oklahoma City community’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, our Firm once again partnered with NPR radio station KGOU. In addition to supporting KGOU’s ongoing work, Phillips Murrah raised $3000 for OU Medicine to assist in acquiring personal protective equipment (PPE) for front-line medical workers, as part of May’s #GivingTuesdayNow pledge drive.

On Wednesday, our Firm presented the donation to Anne Clouse, Chief Development Officer for OU Medicine. Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, Phillips Murrah Director Catherine L. Campbell and Healthcare practice leader Mary Holloway Richard presented a six-foot-wide check, designed with appropriate social distancing in mind.

Phillips Murrah OU Medicine PPF Check Presentation

Phillips Murrah Director Catherine L. Campbell (l) and Healthcare practice leader Mary Holloway Richard (r) presented a six-foot check to OU Medicine, designed with appropriate social distancing in mind.

“We are deeply grateful to Phillips Murrah for their generous gift to support OU Medicine’s COVID-19 response,” said Clouse. “Their donation will help support our healthcare workers taking care of patients on the frontline. What a kind a thoughtful gesture.”

“Phillips Murrah has long had a strong relationship with healthcare facilities and providers throughout our state,” said Richard, who represents institutional and non-institutional providers of health services. “We are proud to support the heroic efforts of OU Medicine and those on the front line ministering to all Oklahomans.”

“There is a certain element of good humor related to this giant, social-distancing presentation check, which Cathy and Mary safely presented to Anne in a parking lot on the downtown OU Medicine complex.” said Dave Rhea, Phillips Murrah Marketing Director. “However, supporting OU Medicine as they battle this virus is a very serious matter, and we are grateful to be able to help.”

#GivingTuesdayNow was a global day of giving and unity as an emergency response to the unprecedented need caused by COVID-19.

Promotional graphic for KGOU GivingTuesNow 2

RELATED LINKS:

#GivingTuesdayNow: Phillips Murrah partners with KGOU to support OU Medicine PPE
Phillips Murrah partners with KGOU and Regional Food Bank to provide 20,000 meals

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

SB 1928: Key changes to ABLE laws make curbside sales and delivery of alcohol permanent

By Phillips Murrah Attorneys Ellen K. Spiropoulos and Justin G. Bates

In response to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, and in keeping with the sweeping changes to modernize Oklahoma’s liquor laws effective in October 2018, the ABLE Commission temporarily authorized curbside and delivery of beer, wine and spirits by liquor stores, beer and wine by grocery and convenience stores, and by restaurants holding the appropriate licenses.

Phillips Murrah attorney Ellen SpiropoulosLauren Hanna

Ellen assists local and national businesses in the restaurant, entertainment and hospitality industries with obtaining applicable operating licenses and permits for food and alcoholic beverage service, as well as any related compliance or enforcement issues.

The passage of Senate Bill 1928 in the last days of the session, which became law this week, effectively made the ABLE Commission’s previous directives about curbside sales and delivery of alcohol permanent. The key changes to the alcohol laws now expand sales for ABLE licensees effective immediately under the following conditions:

  • Liquor stores can sell beer, wine and spirits in sealed, original containers via curbside and delivery.
  • Grocery and convenience stores can sell beer and wine (up to 15% alcohol by volume) in sealed, original containers via curbside and delivery.
  • Restaurants, bars and clubs can sell beer and wine in closed packages via curbside and delivery.
  • Small brewers and small farm wineries may sell curbside-only alcoholic beverages produced by the brewery or winery in sealed, original containers.
  • Payment can be made by cash, check, transportable credit card devices and advance online payment methods.
  • Curbside sales and all deliveries must be made by ABLE-licensed and trained employees of the business.
  • No third-party services can be used for any deliveries.

Some states already permit third-party delivery sales from liquor stores, as well as drive-thru and to-go sales of alcoholic beverages from restaurants. As a result of restaurant dining closures and the need for social distancing, several more states are, at least temporarily, expanding alcohol delivery options and sales of cocktails to-go. The Oklahoma legislature was not willing to go that far.

Nevertheless, the actions taken by the ABLE Commission since March, and the bills passed with overwhelming majorities by the Oklahoma House and Senate this session, are continuing advances in the modernization of Oklahoma’s liquor laws.

It is hard to believe that less than two years ago, Oklahoma still had dry counties and only 3.2 beer in grocery and convenience stores. We have come a long way and there is no telling where the trail will end. Cheers!


For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please contact:

Ellen Keough Spiropoulos is an Of Counsel attorney at Phillips Murrah who assists local and national businesses in the restaurant, entertainment and hospitality industries with obtaining applicable operating licenses and permits for food and alcoholic beverage service, as well as any related compliance or enforcement issues. Contact her by phone, 405.552.2422 or by email.

Justin G. Bates is a litigation attorney who represents individuals and both privately-held and public companies in a wide range of civil litigation matters. Contact him by phone, 405.552.2471 or by email.

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Returning to Work – A Post-Pandemic Workplace Safety Guide

By Phillips Murrah Attorneys Janet Hendrick and Phoebe Mitchell

As stay-at-home orders have begun to expire in recent weeks, more than half of the states – including Oklahoma and Texas – have lifted restrictions on businesses. With many Americans returning to work after months at home due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic, employers should be aware of claims relating to workplace reentry. Employers can anticipate novel causes of action, including lawsuits alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace.

Phillips Murrah Director Janet Hendrick portrait

Janet Hendrick is an experienced employment litigator who tackles each of her client’s problems with a tailored, results-oriented approach.

For example, in New York, nurses’ unions have filed multiple lawsuits against the state, claiming “grossly inadequate” protections against the virus in the workplace. These suits likely mark a trend, as employees may attempt to hold their employers liable for lost work, hospitalizations, and even deaths caused by COVID-19, especially where employees may have contracted the virus in the workplace.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency charged with regulating workplace safety, has not issued new guidance relating to airborne diseases in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the agency has relied on its “general duty” clause, which mandates that employers provide a place of employment “free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm” to their employees.  This simply means that employers have a general duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees.

On April 10, 2020, OSHA did issue new guidance regarding recording cases of COVID-19 in the workplace. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers must record instances of illnesses contracted in the workplace, or “occupational illnesses.” OSHA’s new guidance provides that COVID-19 is a recordable illness, and employers will be responsible for recording cases of COVID-19 in the workplace if three criteria are met:  (1) the case is a “confirmed case” of COVID-19 as defined by the CDC; (2) the case is “work-related” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1904.5; and (3) the case involves one or more of the general recording criteria set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1904.7.

Phillips Murrah attorney Phoebe B. Mitchell portrait

Phoebe B. Mitchell is a litigation attorney who represents individuals and both privately-held and public companies in a wide range of civil litigation matters.

(1) “Confirmed case”

The CDC defines a confirmed case of COVID-19 as “an individual with at least one respiratory specimen that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.”

(2) “Work-related”

As defined by OSHA regulations, a case is “work-related” if “an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness.”

(3) General recording criteria

As defined by OSHA regulations, a case meets one or more of the general recording criteria if it results in any of the following: “death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.” Further, the case also meets the general recording criteria if it “involves a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional, even if it does not result in death, days away from work, restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.”

Because of community transmission of COVID-19, the guidance states that the only employers who must make the above work-relatedness determinations with relation to cases of COVID-19 in the workplace are the healthcare industry, emergency response organizations (which includes emergency medical, firefighting and law enforcement services), and correctional institutions. OSHA will not require other employers to make these same work-relatedness determinations, unless there is objective evidence that a COVID-19 case may be work-related, and the evidence was readily available to the employer. The guidance is intended to help employers focus on implementation of good hygiene practices and mitigation of COVID-19’s effects in the workplace, rather than forcing employers to make difficult work-relatedness decisions where there has been community spread.

Based on this OSHA guidance and the inevitable surge of litigation in the post-pandemic US, employers should act now to both protect their employees and minimize potential liability.

Before employees return to the workplace, employers should:

1) Create and implement concrete polices and guidelines regarding workplace hygiene, social distancing, face covering usage and reporting of symptoms

2) Monitor employees to ensure compliance with new COVID-19 policies

3) Encourage employees to stay home if they are sick

4) Allow at-risk employees to work from home where possible

5) Allow employees to return to work in phases where possible

6) Close off common areas in the workplace, such as break rooms, in an effort to encourage social distancing

 


For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call:

Janet Hendrick is a Shareholder in the Dallas office of Phillips Murrah who specializes in advising and representing employers. (click name for profile page) Contact her by phone, 214.615.6391 or by email.

Phoebe Mitchell is an Associate in the Oklahoma City office of the firm. (click name for profile page) Contact her by phone, 405.606.4711, or by email.

Phillips Murrah’s labor and employment attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide up-to-date advice to our clients during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

Affidavit of Support Implications in Divorce in Marriage-Based Immigration

By Cassity B. Gies &  Sajani “Ann” Zachariah
This article originally appeared in the FEB 2020 Oklahoma Bar Journal.

Being the spouse of a United States citizen is the most common way to attain lawful permanent resident status, informally referred to as “getting a green card.” Each year, the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) admits more lawful permanent resident statuses through marriage than any other major type of admission. (1) In a country where nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, (2) couples using marriage as grounds for obtaining a green card face special issues during their divorce and even after. Because Oklahoma has one of the highest divorce rates in the country, with as many as two out of every three marriages ending in dissolution, (3) family lawyers should be especially aware of the implications that come through marriage-based immigration.

Phillips Murrah family law attorney Cassity Giles

Cassity practices family law including divorce and separation, custody, and child support issues.

When a principal applicant for lawful permanent resident status seeks to immigrate using their spouse as a sponsor, the sponsoring spouse must submit, amongst a host of other things, an Affidavit of Support. (4) The affidavit is required to show that the immigrant will have adequate means of financial support and will not become a public charge. (5) Form I-864, an Affidavit of Support, is a legally enforceable contract between the federal government and the sponsoring spouse. (6) A sponsoring spouse accepts legal responsibility for financially supporting their alien spouse until they either become a United States citizen, die or are credited with 40 quarters of work (approximately 10 years). Divorce does not end that financial obligation. (7)

Three obligations arise for an I-864 sponsor:

1) the sponsor must reimburse the government for means-tested benefits received by the beneficiary over the obligatory 10-year period;

2) the sponsor must maintain the immigrant spouse at 125% above the federal poverty or at 100% of the federal poverty level for the household if the sponsor is an active military member; and

3) the sponsor must report any change in address to the attorney general and the state in which the sponsored alien lives during the period that the affidavit is enforceable. (8)

Signing an Affidavit of Support puts a sponsor in privity with both the beneficiary spouse and also with the federal government. If at any point before citizenship is granted or the 10 years pass, the beneficiary spouse receives means-tested public assistance from a federal, state or local agency, that agency can legally sue the sponsor and require him to repay the money that the agency provided to the beneficiary. (9) The term “means-tested public benefits” include food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the State Child Health Insurance Program. (10) This area of immigration practice has seen a lot of discussion lately, with recent memorandums released by the Trump Administration criticizing governmental agencies for not properly enforcing reimbursement. (11)

In addition to the privity between the United States and the sponsor, the signor of an Affidavit of Support also obliges themself to the beneficiary and pledges to maintain the spouse at 125% above the federal poverty line. The current federal poverty line for a single household is $12,490, (12) and 125% of that amount results in a promise to maintain the beneficiary at an annual income of $15,612.50.

Several interesting arguments can be crafted by an attorney who is aware of the implications of an Affidavit of Support. Oklahoma courts, albeit in unreported case law, recognize the Affidavit of Support as a cause of action, independent of divorce that can be brought by the beneficiary ex-spouse. (13) Oklahoma case law presently offers no precedent utilizing the Affidavit of Support as a consideration for spousal support awards in divorce proceedings, how-ever, divorce attorneys in other states successfully argue it as both grounds for spousal support or, alternatively, as a separate support obligation apart from the divorce itself.

In Erler v. Erler, a California court order granted separate enforcement of the I-864 pledge of support despite the divorce judgment not recognizing it due to a premarital contract. There, the Turkish ex-wife succeeded in an appellate action to enforce the I-864 obligation. (14)

Thus, under federal law, neither a divorce judgment nor a premarital agreement may terminate an obligation of support. Rather, as the Seventh Circuit has recognized, “[t] he right of support conferred by federal law exists apart from what-ever rights [a sponsored immigrant] might or might not have under [state] divorce law.” We therefore hold that the district court correctly determined that Yashar has a continuing obligation to support Ayla. (15)

Enforcing the obligation as part of an award for spousal support was recognized in Motlagh v. Motlagh. (16) During a divorce, initiated by the sponsoring spouse, the lower court concluded that the I-864 affidavit was not an obligation to pay defendant 125% of the federal poverty line and that the husband was only obliged to act as a “safety net.” This decision was reversed by the court of appeals, holding that the husband was required to satisfy his support obligation by paying whatever amount was necessary for the beneficiary spouse to reach the 125% mark, permitting consideration of all income sources that the beneficiary receives. The court explained that this could be achieved either through a spousal support order arising from the divorce proceedings or a separate I-864 support obligation enforcement action.

Other courts, however, go the opposite direction, finding the I-864 inadequate as grounds for spousal support. In 2014, an Intermediate Washington State Appeals Court shot down the Motlagh argument reasoning that the state’s statutory factors listed for consideration in awards of spousal support do not include an I-864 obligation. (17)

Creative lawyering in this area could help forge a new argument for Oklahoma clients seeking spousal support as more attorneys become aware of the ongoing obligations that the I-864 creates. The argument could also be used to defend against spousal support by pointing out that the obliging spouse will continue to face liability from federal agencies on behalf of any assistance his ex-spouse receives during whatever time remains under the 10-year pledge.

As the Oklahoma immigrant community continues growing, these family law arguments are likely to develop and grow as well, highlighting how many hats a divorce lawyer wears every day as we answer questions ranging from immigration policies to tax concerns. Knowing all these legal issues while balancing a client’s emotional stress during one of the hardest times of their lives makes for a well-rounded and well-in-formed family law practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Cassity B. Gies, associate attorney at Phillips Murrah, is passionate about family law. Her practice focuses on family law including divorce and separation, custody and child support issues. Her experience in immigration, domestic abuse, and employment law provide a comprehensive understanding of collateral matters relating to family law. She graduated summa cum laude from the OCU School of Law in 2019 as a Hatton W. Sumners scholar and represented her graduating class as the William Conger Distinguished Student.

Sajani “Ann” Zachariah immigrated to the United States in 1984 at 5 years old. She graduated from the OCU School of Law in 2011, joining Mazaheri Law Firm in 2012. She practices family law and immigration law, two areas in which she has personal experience.

 


ENDNOTES

    1. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status By Type And Major Class Of Admission: Fiscal Year, U.S. Dept. Homeland Sec., 2014 to 2016, www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table6, (last visited Sept. 16, 2019).
    2. Joshua A Krisch, “Mapping Americans’ Divorce Risk By State Paints an Unnerving Picture,” Fatherly, (June 7, 2018), www.fatherly. com/health-science/american-divorce-rate-state/.
    3. Id.
    4. I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., www.uscis.gov/i-485, (last visited Sept. 16, 2019).
    5. Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., www.uscis.gov/greencard/affidavit-support (last visited Sept. 16, 2019).
    6. Id.
    7. Id.
    8. 8 U.S.C. §1183(a) (2009).
    9. Form I-864P, 2019 HHS Poverty Guidelines for Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., www.uscis.gov/i-864p (last visited Sept. 17, 2019).
    10. Id.
    11. Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens, 2019 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc 201900334 (May 23, 2019).
    12. Poverty Guidelines, U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Serv., aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited Sept. 18, 2019).
    13. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, No. 04-CV-00770, 2005 WL 1242171.
    14. Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016).
    15. Id.
    16. 100 N.E. 3d 937, 944 (Ohio App. 2d Dist.2017).
    17. In re Marriage of Khan, 332 P.3d 1016,

 

 

 

 

 

 

[UPDATE] SBA, Treasury extended the safe harbor repayment date for PPP loans

In its most recent update to the list of frequently asked questions (FAQs), the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Treasury Department extended the safe harbor repayment date for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).

The PPP application form requires borrowers to certify that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” In an effort to address this vague requirement, the SBA and Treasury issued guidance on April 23, 2020 specifying that, while the CARES Act suspends the requirement that borrowers be unable to obtain credit elsewhere, applicants must still certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, FAQ 31 directs borrowers to consider current business activity and the ability to access other sources of liquidity.

The guidance initially provided a safe harbor provision that a borrower who applied for a loan prior to April 24, 2020 and repays the loan in full by May 7, 2020 will be deemed to have made the certification in good faith. The update issued on May 5, 2020 extends the repayment date for the safe harbor to May 14, 2020. According to FAQ 43, borrowers are not required to apply for the extension. FAQ 43 also states that the SBA will provide additional guidance on how it will review the certification.

Link to FAQs:  https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Paycheck-Protection-Program-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf


For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.235.4100.

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK