Category: Legal

Posted on

Parental Discrimination Claims Pose Big Risks for Employers

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The article is right — parental discrimination claims (which are really just sex discrimination claims brought by working parents) are very dangerous for employers.

What is parental discrimination? The article breaks this claim down into four different subsets.

    1. Pregnancy discrimination: Examples include firing someone because she is pregnant, refusing to hire someone because she’s pregnant, or denying an accommodation to a pregnant employee that you otherwise grant to other employees with similarly disabling limitations.
    2. Caregiver discrimination: Treating moms (or dads) differently than non-parents because of their parental responsibilities outside of the workplace.
    3. Breastfeeding discrimination: Denying accommodations, including unpaid break time and private lactation spaces, to new moms.
    4. Stereotyping discrimination: Denying employment or employment-related opportunities (i.e., promotions) to moms (and dads) based on stereotypes like, “You’re more dedicated to your family than your job.”
According to the article, the number of parental discrimination claims filed in federal courts rose an astounding 269 percent between 2006 and 2015, and continues to rise.

Moreover, not only are parents suing more, but they’re also more likely to win. A typical employee only wins a workplace discrimination case between 16 and 33 percent of the time. Parental discrimination claims, however, are two to four times more successful for employees, with plaintiffs winning 67 percent of cases that go to trial.

Why are these claims so dangerous for employers? Working Mother offers several theories.

1. The number of employees with family responsibilities has swelled.

2. #MeToo has affected a cultural shift towards the rights of women in the workplace.
3. There exists more awareness of sex and pregnancy discrimination laws.
4. Society can be more progressive than many employers, who are still operate from the stereotypical idea of one-working-parent households.

We no longer live in an Ozzie & Harriet world. Long gone are the days when the wife would be waiting at home to greet her husband with a pair of slippers and a martini while she put dinner on the table for the family. Women work. Moms work. And no one should be treated differently or punished as a result.

As the Working Mother article adroitly points out, there is only one unhappy ending to telling an employee that his wife, or she, belongs at home with the children. It starts with law- and ends with -suit. Women have the right to work, and neither they, nor their spouses, should be punished for exercising that right, regardless of their chosen profession. Employers, force a working parent to make that unlawful choice at your own risk.

Posted on

Employee Handbook: Lifesaver or Nightmare?

employee handbook

When done correctly, employee handbooks can be great tools for employers.

But often employers treat them like a meal simmering in a crockpot: set it and forget it. Creating a handbook, particularly for employers in multiple states, is a major undertaking.

Many employers do not give their employee handbooks the attention they need and deserve. Some cobble together a collection of policies borrowed from the internet or other businesses that may not only fail to reflect their actual business practices, but may also run afoul of state, federal or local laws.

Some businesses delegate the task of creating an employee handbook to someone with little or no experience in human resources, and the handbook turns into a glorified “how-to” manual for submitting expense reports and timesheets, with a few personnel policies thrown in.

Even when an employer puts the time and resources necessary into the creation of a good employee handbook, completion of a comprehensive handbook project often induces a sense of relief that quickly turns into complacency if the company does not have a plan to routinely revisit the handbook for periodic updates.

Also read: The Top 6 Employee Handbook Mistakes

A well-written and up-to-date employee handbook can be a litigation lifesaver, but an out-of-date handbook can be an employer’s nightmare. Recognizing and treating employee handbooks as important HR assets will pay off in the long run by providing consistency and guidance in day-to-day operations and legal protection in the event of a government agency action or lawsuit.

What Should an Employee Handbook Do?

Think of the employee handbook as a “best practices” guide that sets forth key expectations for employees, as well as any notices or policies that are required by law.  It should explain the personnel practices about which there is to be no confusion, so they can be applied consistently and fairly. Put yourself in the shoes of your employees; what would you want to know about company policies, practices and expectations?

A well-written and up-to-date employee handbook can be a litigation lifesaver, but an out-of-date handbook can be an employer’s nightmare.

Examples of some key policies include equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination; harassment; at-will employment; leaves of absence; reasonable accommodations for pregnancy or disability; drugs in the workplace/drug testing; an overview of company benefits (vacation, sick leave, holidays, health insurance, 401(k) plans, etc.); absenteeism and tardiness; safety rules; discipline; performance reviews; use of company email, voicemail, telephones and computers; an explanation of complaint-handling procedures; and an acknowledgment of receipt signed by the employee.

Additionally, many states have written policy requirements that are dictated by the size of the employer’s workforce in a particular state. Recently, there has also been a wave of paid sick leave laws being enacted by states and localities — many of which have written notice and policy requirements. Additionally, some states have written policy requirements for pregnancy accommodation, protection of social security numbers, family leave laws and more. It is incumbent upon the employer to keep track of these laws and the requirements that go with them.

Employers in multiple states need to be mindful that states do not all play by the same rules. Something that seems benign could land a company in hot water if the state law is not considered. For example, some states prohibit use-it-or-lose-it vacation policies, including California, while other states, such as Louisiana, require that all accrued vacation be paid out upon separation of employment, regardless of the reason. Many of these state laws have significant penalties associated with them that can be costly to businesses.

Also read: It’s Always the Right Time to Revisit Your Handbooks

Further, agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board have also weighed in on whether certain language in an employee handbook may chill employee rights to engage in concerted and protected activity, particularly in nonunion workplaces.

In sum, an employee handbook should balance educating employees with legal requirements developed through several legal channels, including statutes, court opinions, agency interpretations of laws and implementing regulations.

How Often Should a Handbook Be Updated?

Ideally, an employee handbook should be reviewed and updated at least once a year. Employment laws change frequently, especially at the state level, and policies that were perfectly fine several years ago may be incomplete or problematic today.

For employers operating in multiple states, particularly those with active legislatures that tend to make changes to the laws effecting employers each session, a review every six months is recommended.

Can It Be Made Available Online?

The short answer is yes. The cost and logistics of distributing paper copies of handbooks has led a number of employers to make their employee handbook available electronically (e.g., on the company’s intranet or through a third-party host site).

If your company opts for an online employee handbook, remind employees periodically that the information is available online and make sure that every employee has access to a company computer. If they don’t, make hard copy handbooks available as a supplement.

In the end, maintaining your employee handbook is akin to getting an oil change for your car or rebalancing your retirement portfolio — a small but necessary step to keep your company on track. Consulting an employment lawyer who routinely prepares employee handbooks is strongly recommended.

Posted on

A Handy FAQ for Service Animals in the Workplace

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A local Subway recently earned itself some bad publicity when an employee denied access to a customer with a service dog.

While this story involved a customer and not an employee, it did get me thinking about employee service dogs at work.

I created this handy FAQ on service dogs at work for your reference.

Q1:     What does the ADA say about service animals?

A1:     Believe it or not, Title I of the ADA (the part of the law that covers employers and employees) is completely silent on the issue of service dogs. Thus, because Title I does not specifically address service animals, an employer should consider a request from an employee to bring a service animal to work just like any other request for a reasonable accommodation. This means that employers must consider the request, but do not have to automatically allow employees to bring their service animals to work.

Q2:     What types of service animals does the ADA cover?

A2:     Only two species can ever qualify as service animals under the ADA—dogs and miniature horses. That’s it. Any other animal, even if trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, is not an animal for which the ADA requires the consideration of an accommodation.

Q3:     How should employers process requests for service animals by employees?

A3:     Because the ADA is silent on this issue, a request to bring a service animal to work is nothing more than a request by an employee for an employer to modify its no-animals-in-the-workplace policy. If you have such a policy, you must consider modifying the policy on a request-by-request, case-by-case basis. If you don’t have such a policy, and generally allow other employees to bring animals to work, then you should allow employees with disabilities to bring service animals.

Q4:     Must an employer allow service animals upon request, or can it offer other accommodations?

A4:     A disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not his or her preferred accommodation. Thus, if there exists another reasonable accommodation (other than an exception to your no-animals policy) that will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, then you can offer that accommodation in lieu of permitting a service animal. That said, because of the personal nature of a service animal, you should be prepared for the possibility that it might be the only reasonable accommodation in many instances.

Q5:     What kind of documentation can an employer seek from an employee in support of the request for a service animal at work?

A5:    When an employee with a disability requests the use of a service animal at work, the ADA grants the right to an employer to request medical documentation to support the need for the accommodation (if the need is not otherwise obvious; a blind employee should not need to prove the need for a seeing eye dog). Also, an employer has the right to request proof that the service animal is appropriately trained and will not disrupt the workplace.

Q6:     Can you require proof of certifications, vaccinations, or insurance coverage?

A6:     I would. Before being permitted to bring animals to work, owners (even those with disabilities and service animals) should verify that vaccinations are up to date, that the animal licensed and free of parasites and insects, and on regularly scheduled flea and tick preventatives. An employee should verify, in writing, sufficient homeowners’ or renters’ insurance to cover any damage to person or property caused by the animal. You could also consider indemnification in case your business gets sued, and a written paycheck deduction authorization for any damage caused (but I wonder if this could creep into the realm of discrimination or retaliation if you don’t require the same of other employees in similar circumstances.)

Q7:     Can I hold the animal to certain workplace standards?

A7:     Absolutely. I have no issues with requiring that all service animals be “office broken.” Animals with any bite history should not be permitted. Moreover, any aggressive behavior, such as growling, barking, chasing, or biting, should result in the animal’s expulsion on the first complaint. Animals should also be house broken, friendly towards people and other animals, and not protective of their owners or their owners’ spaces. Finally, you should define when animals must be leashed or otherwise restrained.

Q8:     Can an employer deny a request if certain areas are off limits, or to accommodation other employees with certain animal allergies or phobias?

A8:     No. If certain areas are off limits, for example, because of safety or other reasons, you just set rules and limits keeping the animal out of those areas. It’s not a reason to deny a request outright. Similarly, when you have When you have two people with disabilities, you don’t treat one as more important than the other. Instead, you work out a balance between each’s needs and accommodations.

Q9:     How you handle a service animal’s bathroom needs?

A9:     Designate a specific area outside for animals to go to the bathroom (preferably away from the entrances), and make sure pet owners understand that it is their responsibility (and only their responsibility) to clean up messes outside and accidents inside. You may, however, have to considering altering an employee’s break time(s), or providing additional breaks, to permit the disabled employee to care for the needs of his or her service animal.

Q10:     What about emotional support animals, and other animals not classified as “service” animals?

A10:     Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under the ADA. Thus, you have no duty to accommodate these requests.

These are not easy issues to work through. My recommendation is that you work with your employment counsel if you receive an accommodation request for a service animal from an employee.

Posted on

There’s No Such Thing as ‘Reverse’ Discrimination

According to the New York Post, a Caucasian 20-year veteran attorney for the Legal Aid Society is suing her former employer for race discrimination. Among other issues in her lawsuit, she claims that she was denied a lateral move “because of ‘diversity considerations.’”
Do you know that some courts impose a different, higher legal standard for discrimination against white employees than for discrimination against African-American employees?

According to these courts, a non-minority employee asserting a claim of race discrimination must demonstrate background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

This is nonsense. Last I checked, EEOC is the “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” not the “Minority Employment Opportunity Commission.” A minority manager is just as capable of committing discrimination as a white manager. The law should not treat “reverse” discrimination any differently.

Discrimination is discrimination, period.

Applying different proof standards depending on the perpetrator of the alleged discrimination re-enforces the very stereotypes that our EEO laws intend to eradicate. Can we please remove from the law this idea of “reverse” discrimination, and just agree that discrimination is wrong regardless of the races of those accused of perpetrating it?

Also in The Practical Employer

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … 

Does the Attorney-Client Privilege Protect Harassment Probes Conducted By a Lawyer?

Abortion Discrimination = Pregnancy Discrimination

Posted on

The FLSA Nightmare Behind Chipotle’s Bonus Program

Last week Chipotle announced a new bonus plan that could earn its employees up to an extra month of pay each year. Per the chain’s press release, the program is offered quarterly and can result in a bonus worth one week’s pay, calculated as an individual’s average weekly pay per quarter. To qualify for the quarterly bonus program, restaurant teams must meet certain sales and cash goals.

This bonus program has the potential to be a great way for the restaurant to break through in a tight labor market to attract talent. It also, however, has the potential to pose an FLSA nightmare. Bonus payments often count as part of a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay, thereby increasing the overtime premium owed to that employee.

Section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act requires the inclusion in the regular rate of pay all remuneration for employment—except seven specified types of payments). Non-discretionary bonuses do not full under one of those seven exempted categories. A bonus paid pursuant to an incentive program (like the program Chipotle just announced) is the definition of “non-discretionary,” and therefore must be accounted for in the calculation of an employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculation purposes.

For purposes of calculating the regular rate of pay, the bonus does not have to be included in its entirety in the week it is paid. Instead, an employer can apportion the bonus amount back over the workweeks of the period during which it was earned. The employee must then receive an additional amount of compensation for each workweek that he worked overtime during the period equal to one-half of the hourly rate of pay allocated to the bonus for that week multiplied by the number of statutory overtime hours worked during the week. If it is impossible to allocate the bonus, an employer can select some other reasonable and equitable method of allocation.

If a bonus payment already accounts for the overtime premium, then no additional payment is required. For example, a bonus plan may pay, as a bonus, a 10% premium of an employee’s total compensation, including overtime premiums. In this instance, the payment already covers overtime, and no additional overtime is required.

Like most wage and hour issues, the handling of bonus payments to non-exempt employees is complex, and presents a real trap for the unwary employer. If you are considering paying bonuses to hourly and salaried non-exempt employees, you should run it past employment counsel before making the payments to ensure you are not committing an FLSA violation in the mechanics of the bonus payment.

Also in The Practical Employer: 

The Customer Isn’t Always Right: The Museum of Sex(ual Harassment)

I Really Thought People Knew Better Not to Advertise Jobs ‘for Whites’

How to Fire an Employee

Posted on

Do Employers Have a Duty to Protect Employees’ Personal Information?

data analytics, data privacy

Employees trust their employers with a whole bunch of personal information. Social security numbers, medical documents, insurance records, birth dates, criminal records, credit reports, family information, etc. And it’s not like employees have a choice over whether to disclose and entrust this information to their employer. These documents are all necessary if employees want to get hired, get paid, and obtain health insurance and other benefits. Thus, an employer’s personnel records are a treasure trove of PII (personally identifiable information — any data that could potentially identify a specific individual, which can be used to distinguish one person from another and de-anonymizing otherwise anonymous data).

For this reason, cyber-criminals target myriad businesses in an attempt to steal (and then sell on the dark web) this data.

Also in Legal: Biometric Privacy Lawsuits Rising

If a company is hacked, and employees’ PII or other data is stolen, is their employer liable to its employees for any damages caused by the data breach?

I’ve covered this issue twice before (here and here), with different courts reaching opposite results (albeit the majority of them concluding that an employer can be held liable).

In AFGE v. OPM (In re United States OPM Data Sec. Breach Litig.), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed a similar issue, and concluded that employee-victims have standing to sue their employer following a data breach from which their personal information and data is stolen. A “substantial risk of future identity theft” is sufficient harm to give rise to a lawsuit, and the “their claimed data breach-related injuries are fairly traceable to [their employer’s] failure to secure its information systems.”

All of these cases are legally interesting, and, I submit, largely practically insignificant. Regardless of whether you, as an employer, have a legal duty to protect the personal information and data of your employees, you still have a significant financial and reputational incentive to take reasonable steps to maintain the privacy and security of the information.

Moreover, as data breaches continue to increase in quantity and quality, courts and legislatures will look for ways to shift the cost of harm to those who can both better afford it and better take measures to hedge against them. Thus, I predict that in five years or less we will have a legal consensus on liability.

The question, then, for you and your business to answer is what are you going to do about it now? The time to get your business’s cyber-house in order is now (actually, it was years ago, but let’s go with now if you’re late to the game). Don’t wait for a court to hold you liable to your employees (and others?) after a data breach.

Thus, what should you be doing?

  1. Implementing reasonable security measures, which includes encryption, firewalls, secure and updated passwords, and employee training on how to protect against data breaches (such as how not fall victim to phishing attacks).
  2. If (or more accurately when) you suffer a data breach, timely advising employees of the breach as required by all applicable state laws.
  3. Training employees on appropriate data security.
  4. Drafting policies that explain the scope of your duty as an organization to protect employee data.
  5. Maintaining an updated data breach response plan.

Remember, data breaches are not an if issue, but a when issue. Once you understand the fact that you will suffer a breach, you should also understand the importance of making the issue of data security a priority in your organization. The average cost to a company of a data breach in 2018 is $3.9 million (and increasing annually). While I generally don’t work in the business of guarantees, I will guarantee that any expenses you incur to mitigate the potential cost of a data breach is money well spent.

 

Posted on

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Norma Melgoza, a longtime employee of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, is suing her employer for sex discrimination and equal-pay violations stemming from a denied application for a promotion.

In support of her claim of glass ceiling gender bias, Melgoza points to certain misconduct of the interviewing physician. I’ll let the district court explain.

During an interview with one of Defendant’s doctors, she alleges the doctor wore “a Donald Trump mask” (the “Donald Trump Mask”), an act she described as “humiliating and offensive” to her, insofar as she inferred from this alleged act that the doctor (and, by extension, Defendant) “did not take her or her position seriously and thought nothing of impersonating a man who publicly antagonized Melgoza’s community [Mexican-American] and many members of her gender.”

For its part, the employer seized a Donald Trump mask from the physician’s office during its internal investigation of Melgoza’s allegations (although it claims that the actual look of the mask differs from Melgoza’s description of it).
Suffice it to say, if you wear a Donald Trump mask to conduct a job interview of a Mexican-American, female applicant, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Also, thanks to this case I think I’ve discovered the trophy to present to this year’s winner.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the ****y Supervisor

Posted on

How Long of a Leash Must You Give an Employee Before Firing?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

When a client calls me to ask for advice about firing an employee, the first question I always ask is, “What does the employee’s file look like?”

I want to know if there exists a documented history of performance issues to justify the termination, and whether said issues are known and understood by the employee.

I ask these questions for two reasons:

    1. Can the employer objectively prove the misconduct to a judge or jury? Fact-finders want to see documentation, and if it’s lacking, they are more likely to believe that the misconduct was not bad enough to warrant documentation, or worse, that it did not occur. In either case, a judge or jury reaching this conclusion is bad news for an employer defending the termination in a lawsuit.
    2. Surprises cause bad feelings, which lead to lawsuits. If an employee has notice of the reasons causing the discharge, the employee is much less likely to sue. Sandbagged employees become angry ex-employees. You do not want angry ex-employees going to lawyers, especially when you lack the documentation to support the termination.

So what does quality documentation to support a termination look like? Consider Anderson v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2019)

Jason Anderson, African-American, claimed that GCRTA discriminated against him because of his race by denying him a promotion, issuing excessive discipline and ultimately terminating him. He lost. Why? Because his employer had a long and documented history of his performance and discipline issues.

  • On April 17, 2012, Anderson received a coaching for being involved in a preventable motor vehicle accident in an unmarked RTA Transit Police Vehicle.
  • On March 5, 2013, Anderson received a coaching for making disrespectful and unprofessional comments about a fellow officer over the police radio.
  • On August 14, 2014, Anderson received a coaching for failing to report to work for an overtime shift that Anderson had volunteered to work.
  • On January 1, 2015, Anderson received a coaching for neglecting his responsibilities as a first responder after witnessing a motor vehicle accident involving an RTA coach. Anderson continued driving rather than stopping to provide assistance to injured passengers.
  • On August 5, 2016, Anderson received a coaching for allowing a person to ride without proof of payment purchase or validation of fare and failing to take any enforcement action.
  • On August 5, 2016, Anderson received a First Written Warning for a disruptive, disrespectful and unprofessional outburst directed at Anderson’s supervising officer during the Republican National Convention. He yelled, among other things, “You disgust me. The very thought of you is disgusting to me and your presence sickens me.”
  • On January 25, 2017, Anderson received a coaching for failing to address the resistive and disorderly behavior of a fare violater at the Tower City Rapid Station.
  • On April 12, 2017, Anderson received a coaching for failing to attend to scheduled court appearances.
  • On May 30, 2017, Anderson received another First Written Reminder for violation of Employee Performance Code for failing to maintain control of a suspect following an investigative detention.
  • On June 13, 2017, Anderson was charged with multiple misdemeanors following an off-duty incident with his girlfriend during which he allegedly assaulted her while he had his loaded service weapon unsecured in their hotel room.
Based on this history, the court had little difficulty dismissing Anderson’s claims:

Plaintiff was issued three (3) First Written Warnings and (2) two non-disciplinary coachings, each based on a particular circumstance of Plaintiff’s problematic or violative conduct. Plaintiff provides no direct evidence to support a finding that his discipline or termination were made because of his race. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate how any similarly situated employee received more favorable treatment. The record does however support a finding that GCRTA’s actions against Plaintiff were made for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons following Plaintiff’s unlawful conduct the morning of May 26, 2017 at the Double Tree Hotel.

This employer gave this employee a very long leash before ultimately terminating his employment. Your leash may not, and likely need not, be this long.
However, no matter the length of your leash, you must ensure it’s documented and communicated to the employee each step of the way. Otherwise, you are asking for a lawsuit and issues in said lawsuit post-termination.
Posted on

The DMV and Cybersecurity

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I spent way too much of a recent Saturday morning at the local department of motor vehicles. My plates were expiring and I had forgotten to take advantage of online registration.

So there I found myself at 10 a.m. waiting in line. To be fair, it was the “express” line, designated for registration renewals only. My experience, however, was less than express, thanks to the patron two spots ahead of me.

On her turn, the clerk asked for information stored in some account on her phone. She did not, however, remember the necessary password. She then removed an inch-thick flipbook of Post-it notes, each containing a login and password to a different account.

I watched her rifle through the stack. Ten minutes of life that I will never regain, with my frustration mirrored on the faces of everyone else in line.

One of the top cybersecurity tips is to maintain proper password security. Storing passwords on a notepad or stack of sticky notes does not qualify as secure. What does?

• Using passwords with differing types of characters.

• Avoiding the most common passwords (like “Pa$Sw0rD”).

• Setting a regular schedule to change passwords (although some research shows that most people use near identical passwords when forced to switch).

Four issues warrant additional discussion.

First, do not reuse the same passwords across multiple accounts. If one account is hacked, you’ve exposed every other account for which you’ve used the same password.

Recently, for example, Intuit disclosed that its TurboTax product had suffered just such an attack. The criminal accessed TurboTax user accounts by taking usernames and passwords it had stolen from a non-Intuit source to attempt TurboTax logins.

For those with which it was successful, the criminal was able to obtain sensitive tax return information. (If you want to know if one or more of your online accounts has been compromised, check out haveibeenpwned.com.)

If you are not going to reuse the same password across multiple accounts, how will you generate and remember hundreds of different and complex passwords? The answer brings us to point number two. Use a password manager.

A password manager is an online service that stores all of your passwords (encrypted on their end). All you need to do to unlock the password for any given account is to recall the lone master password you have chosen for your password manager of choice. Passwords are also synced across devices.

The top competitors offer variations on the same service. Compare and contrast pricing, what each offers and pick one. The money you spend on an annual subscription pales exponentially to what you will spend undoing the damage caused by an account compromised by a weak password.

The question I get most often regarding password managers? “Aren’t you worried about them being hacked?”

Technically yes, but functionally no. At least one has been hacked without the exposure of even a single user password because all of the stored data is highly encrypted.

If you are comparing the security of reusing passwords or using different password but storing them in a notebook or sticky-note flipbook versus a password manager, the security choice is clear.

Third, check your URLs and only input account information on sites that use HTTPS web encryption.

HTTPS provides an encrypted online session between you and whichever site you are visiting. With a non-HTTPS site, everything you send is visible to anyone on the same network. Even safer, use a Virtual Private Network, or VPN, to create a secure channel between your computer and the internet.

Finally, use two-factor authentication for any account that offers it.

Two-factor authentication, or 2FA, requires a user to input a unique code sent to a device of choice (usually by text message) any time they log in to an account from a new device. 2FA is not foolproof.

For example, it does not take much skill for even a low-level cybercriminal to steal a phone number and intercept the code. More complexly, criminals can use social engineering to ape one’s identity and trick a mobile company to send a new SIM card to the attacker, diverting all 2FA text messages to the criminal’s mobile device.

Thus, while one should not rely on 2FA as the only method to secure one’s account, it’s added layer of security certainly can’t hurt.

No one is immune from being hacked. However, taking a few simple (albeit mildly inconvenient) steps to secure your passwords and accounts will go a long way to mitigating against this very serious and costly risk.

Posted on

Will President Trump’s Merit-Based Immigration Proposal Provide H-1B Visa Relief?

Immigration reform and H1B visa programs

Last month President Donald Trump announced his desire to implement a new merit-based immigration system.

He did not put forward a detailed proposal, but instead described his proposal in broad strokes. The president emphasized that his goal is to change the make-up of U.S. immigrants, envisioning a points system that would provide more green cards to highly skilled, highly educated and younger immigrants, and reducing immigration based on family relationships.

While he did not mention many specifics, the president’s proposal bears a striking similarity to the RAISE Act, an immigration bill introduced into the Senate in 2017 by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, and David Perdue, R-Geaorgia. Trump praised the RAISE Act when it was initially introduced in the Senate, but the bill died in Congress.

The RAISE Act would have reduced total U.S. immigration by approximately half and included a points-based permanent immigration system which placed high numeric values on advanced education and extraordinary achievement.

According to the system proposed in the RAISE Act, although an immigrant would score more points with a U.S. job offer, U.S. employers would not be able to sponsor new hires or existing employees for green cards. The point value would be the ultimate determinant in whether a person would be able to secure permanent residence in the U.S.

In light of the president’s emphasis on increasing immigration of highly skilled workers, one might assume that his plan envisions higher numbers of temporary work visas for educated and highly skilled foreign nationals. However, neither the president’s recent proposal nor the RAISE Act included any discussion of temporary work visas such as H-1B or L-1 visas.

Further, the president laid out his proposal as just that: a proposal. The changes he would like to make are significant and such a radical departure from current law that most of them would have to be implemented in new immigration legislation. This is not likely to occur anytime soon as it would require bipartisan consensus.

In light of the fact that Congress would need to pass new immigration legislation to implement the president’s immigration vision, recruiters and hiring managers who rely on foreign talent to fill open requisitions should not expect to see increases to the H-1B visa numbers in the near term.

Further, since Trump has taken office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denials and requests for additional evidence in H-1B visa cases have risen significantly, reflecting the president’s desire to protect the American workforce, as spelled out in his April 2017 Executive Order, “Buy American, Hire American.”

Employers sponsoring H-1B visas should be prepared for the possibility of longer processing times between filing and ultimate approval of petitions, and should budget for potential additional legal fees.