Legislative & Judicial Updates

Earlier this week the Supreme Court issued its decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, affirming the Eight Circuit’s decision to not disturb a jury verdict against Tyson where the district court permitted the jury to draw an inference of class-wide liability based on representative or statistical evidence.

On March 9, 2016, the Senate introduced the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (S. 2658), and it contains the following provisions related to unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) regulation and consumer protection:

  • Directs the FAA to develop an online knowledge and safety test which operators of UAS must pass before flying.
  • Directs the FAA and NASA to develop a pilot program for a UAS traffic management system, with 6 test sites.
  • Directs both the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Comptroller General to develop a report on UAS privacy best-practices.
  • Creates a new commercial and governmental UAS registration database.
  • Creates a civil penalty of up to $20,000 to operate UAS in a way which interferes with firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response activities.

What is “Ban the Box?” Generally speaking, it is an international campaign seeking to eliminate the question—“Have you ever been convicted of a crime?”—from employment applications.  “Ban the box” laws usually provide that an employer must wait to ask applicants about their criminal histories until after a conditional offer of employment is made AND that an employer must consider how the individual criminal history is job-related for the position in question.

There currently are 21 states and over 100 cities and counties that have a “ban the box” law.  Further, 7 states have statewide “ban the box” laws that apply to private employers—Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

On February 3, 2016, Husch Blackwell Labor and Employment attorneys Terry Potter and Robert Rojas presented a webinar on Workplace Safety vs. Workplace Gun Rights. The webinar focused on the legal landscape of current gun legislation, how certain legislation affects employers and the workplace, and how to minimize any risks associated with that legislation. Specifically, the presentation covered state-specific parking lot laws and posting requirements, both of which regulate where and how an employer may prohibit weapons on its property. Parking lot laws make it illegal for employers to prohibit the possession of firearms in personal vehicles on employer-owned property while posting laws require employers to use certain signage to notify employees, customers, and others that firearms are prohibited inside an employer’s buildings or worksite.

On February 11, 2016, H.R. 4441 – the Aircraft Innovation Reform and Reauthorization Act (“AIRR Act”) passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (“T&I Committee”). According to T&I Committee chairman, Representative Bill Shuster, “[t]he committee considered approximately 75 amendments during today’s meeting and more than half of them were approved.” Of the amendments…

On February 3, 2016, Representatives Bill Schuster of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2016 (“AIRR Act”).  The AIRR Act is a six year re-authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and addresses, for example, reforms to air traffic control, FAA’s certification processes, and funding for airport infrastructure.  The full text of the AIRR Act can be found here, and a summary prepared by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee can be found here.  Importantly, the AIRR Act also contains a number of proposed reforms to facilitate the greater introduction of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) into the national air-space system. 

House and White House negotiators have agreed to two provisions of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, which may provide an incentive for business aircraft owners. Under the act, which is expected to pass Congress and be signed by the President, “bonus deprecation” is extended and the “expensing” provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are made permanent.

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed legislation authorizing the federal government to revoke, deny, or limit passports for individuals with a “seriously delinquent tax debt.” The law defines “seriously delinquent tax debt” as owing the IRS more than $50,000 in tax, penalties, and interest. The measure, slipped into the enormous–more than 1,300 pages–highway funding bill [Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“Fast Act”)], gives the State Department the authority to revoke, deny or limit passports for anyone the IRS certifies as owing more than $50,000 in tax debt. Taxpayers with current installment agreements with the IRS, whereby they have agreed to pay their tax debt over time, are exempted from the law.

On November 30, 2015 the DOT issued its final rule prohibiting coercion of commercial drivers, which expands the current whistle-blowing provisions jointly administered by the Department of Labor and the Department of Transportation via a Memo of Understanding issued last year. The main point of expansion is that now a covered driver is protected not only from discharge, discipline or discrimination for engaging in certain protected activities (focusing on safety regulations issued for this industry), but it now includes “coercion” of such drivers not only as to safety violations, but also as to any violations of commercial regulations that would apply to “motor carriers, shippers, receivers or transportation intermediaries.” The regulations are quite vague regarding what “coercion” shall consist of, stating the DOT will investigate any “non-frivolous” claim that a motor carrier, shipper, receiver or transportation intermediary, or their respective agents, officers, or representatives, have threatened to or actually withheld business, employment or work opportunities from, or taken any adverse employment action against, a driver in order to induce the driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle under conditions in which the driver would be required to violate one or more of the regulations that are codified within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.