Last March, a federal judge ruled The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) was discriminating on the basis of race by only offering grants to minority-owned businesses. This ruling is one in a string of recent court decisions that have declared race-based preference systems illegal. As the crusade to gut affirmative action continues, challenges to employers’ DEI initiatives continue to rise. Activist groups, investors, state attorney generals, and employees are all attacking such programs on multiple fronts. As an employer, you must tread carefully. Background In Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency, the MBDA was sued by three white business owners (“Plaintiffs”) who sought grants. The Plaintiffs were deemed ineligible for the grants because they were not “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s].” While this phrase seems race-neutral, the term “socially or economically disadvantaged individual” was defined to mean “an individual who has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias.” Certain racial groups were automatically included in the MBDA’s definition, including: (i) Blacks or African Americans; (ii) Hispanics or Latinos; (iii) American Indians or Alaska Natives; (iv) Asians; and (v) Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders. Unlisted racial groups were presumptively ineligible. The judge focused on the presumption that the Plaintiffs were not disadvantaged merely because of their race. This presumption, the judge ruled, was race discrimination and, therefore, illegal. The judge barred the MBDA from continuing its racial classification system. The Ripple On its face, Nuziard has no legal impact on employers. But some players are pushing for affirmative action to be struck down everywhere — including in the workplace. The principal lawyer representing the Plaintiffs, Dan Lennington, said, “We hope this is a precedent to eliminate all [affirmative action] . . ..  Automatically labeling a group of people as disadvantaged is ridiculous.” And it seems Mr. Lennington may be on to something. Recently, Jonathan Bresser, a white, male, law student at DePaul University College of Law, filed a complaint against the Chicago Bears. Bresser applied to be the Chicago Bears’ “Legal Diversity Fellow”. Bresser was rejected from the program, which was only open to “people of color and/or female law students.” Bresser’s lawsuit is just an example of the many legal challenges by conservative groups to stop corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives following last year’s US Supreme Court decision curtailing the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Discrimination is Still Discrimination (but you may need to prove it) While affirmative action is on rocky footing, the law is clear about one thing: discrimination laws prohibit discriminating against “majority” identities, such as white males. In fact, reverse discrimination claims are on the rise. But that’s about all that is clear. Courts across the country are conflicted on how discrimination laws apply to “reverse discrimination” claims. In reverse discrimination claims, some courts apply heightened evidentiary burdens for plaintiffs from majority groups. In 1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the first court to adopt the “background circumstances” rule. This rule requires plaintiffs from majority groups to show background circumstances that substantiate that the defendant is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” In total, five Circuits have adopted the “background circumstances” rule. Two other circuits expressly rejected it. The remaining five never addressed the background circumstances rule and treat discrimination claims from majority groups the same as claims from plaintiffs in other groups. Weathering the Chaos As new cases on affirmative action and reverse discrimination muddy the waters, the risk of maintaining DEI programs has increased. Companies should internally assess their risk tolerance, assess their DEI programs, and develop a responsive strategy. Not all DEI programs are made equal. Your DEI program could be protecting your company or exposing it to substantial risk. You should work with skilled counsel to evaluate your situation.    

On February 21, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruled that Home Depot violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by terminating an employee who refused to remove the hand-drawn letters “BLM” (Black Lives Matter) from their work apron. This employee was one of several employees who concurrently drew BLM on their work aprons. Notably, the employees began drawing BLM on their aprons after complaining about racial discrimination at Home Depot. The NLRA protects employees’ right to partake in “concerted activities” aimed at “mutual aid or protection,” irrespective of union representation. In this case, the Board decided the employee’s refusal to remove BLM markings constituted a “concerted” action. The Board emphasized that the BLM markings were in response to allegations of racial discrimination at Home Depot. Because of this, the BLM markings were viewed as an effort to communicate collective grievances to Home Depot management. Given that racial discrimination affects all employees’ working conditions, the action was deemed “for mutual aid or protection.”   The Whole Foods Counterexample In contrast to this case, in May 2020, Whole Foods informed its employees that wearing BLM attire violated the company’s dress code and was not permitted. In this case, the Board ruled that wearing BLM attire did not constitute legally protected activity. Why? The BLM attire lacked a direct link to efforts aimed at enhancing employees’ working conditions. The judge highlighted, “There is no evidence indicating any employee concerns, complaints, or grievances regarding ‘racial inequality’ or racially-based discrimination at Whole Foods Market before or during the adoption of BLM messaging . . . . The evidence convinces me that the employer simply sought to avoid controversy and conflict within its stores, which it believed would arise from BLM messaging.”   Now what?          Employers aiming to uphold uniform or clothing regulations should exercise careful consideration. When employees unite behind a symbol to voice their workplace grievances, regardless of its broader political implications, that symbol is likely protected under the NLRA. Conversely, if employees wear a symbol entirely unrelated to the workplace that is merely social commentary, employers can prohibit such conduct.   Brody and Associates regularly advises management on all issues involving unions, staying union-free, complying with the newest decision issued by the NLRB, and training management on how to deal with all these challenges.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

Whistleblowers can blow their whistles a little louder tonight. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, decided that an employee may prove a whistleblower retaliation claim without showing that their employer acted with retaliatory intent. As a result, it is now easier for employees to succeed on whistleblower retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and probably beyond.   The Case In Murray, an employee, Trevor Murray, had worked for UBS as a research strategist. His role required him to certify his reports to UBS customers were independently produced. UBS terminated Murray shortly after he informed his supervisor that two leaders of the UBS trading desk were changing his reports thus undoing the “independent” nature of the reports. Murray filed a whistleblower case against UBS. After extensive legal maneuvering, the case boiled down to a singular issue: do whistleblowers need to prove that their employer had retaliatory intent?   The Outcome The Supreme Court decided that adding an intent requirement to whistleblower claims was imprudent: whistleblower’s need only prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the retaliation. Moreover, the Court said, “[the law’s] text does not reference or include a ‘retaliatory intent’ requirement, and the [law’s] framework cannot be squared with such a requirement.” This is another example of the Court following a strict interpretation of a statute, which is often a common theme for this Supreme Court.   The Takeaway The Murray decision clarifies that employees seeking whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are not required to prove any specific intent behind their employer’s decision to retaliate against them for protected activity. Instead, a whistleblower only needs to demonstrate their protected activity contributed to their termination, after which the burden shifts to the employer to prove they would have terminated the employee even without considering the protected activity. The heightened burden on employers is likely to raise the cost of defending these claims and makes winning that much harder. Also, while the case addresses the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it will likely spill over to many other whistleblower cases. As such, taking appropriate/legal action against whistleblowers will be that much harder. Using skilled counsel can help companies best avoid liability. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest state and federal employment laws. The subject matter of this post can be very technical. It is also very fact specific. Our goal is to alert you to some of the new laws and trends which may impact your business.  It is not intended to serve as legal advice. We encourage you to seek competent legal counsel before implementing any of the new policies or practices discussed above.  If we can be of assistance, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

Yesterday, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law The Clean Slate Act (S.7551A/A.1029C) with an effective date of November 16, 2024. The law will seal certain criminal records following an individual’s release from incarceration: eligible misdemeanor convictions will be sealed three years after release, and eligible felony convictions will be sealed eight years after release – on the condition that the individual convicted of the offense has not committed an additional crime in the intervening period. The Clean Slate Act will not seal the records of individuals convicted of sex crimes, murder, or other non-drug Class A felonies.  Law enforcement, prosecutors, the New York State Education Department, the courts, and certain other groups will continue to have access to all criminal records under the law. New York became the 12th state in the nation to sign Clean Slate legislation, joining New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and others. Statistics show that a criminal record makes finding new employment significantly more difficult. The Clean Slate Act is designed to provide a second chance to individuals who have paid their debt to society, enabling them to restart their lives and become positive contributors to their communities. Conviction information will remain available for law enforcement purposes, the hiring of police and peace officers, the hiring of teachers at public and private schools, and background checks for firearm purchases and/or licenses. A

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION REPORTING CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT SUMMARY One of the unique and often attractive features of a Limited Liability Company can be anonymity.  In most states, formation and registration of an LLC does not require disclosure of the owners or officers.  For various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate, the owners of a business may not want to broadcast their ownership.  Whether there are genuine concerns regarding privacy and nefarious desires to avoid civil and/or criminal liability, people have availed themselves of this feature.  As such, it can be difficult to identify assets to enforce judgements or confirm net worth in the civil context.  Additionally, it can be difficult to trace financial and criminal wrongdoing to the actual bad actors. The Federal Government has decided to make things a little easier for itself by creating the Financial Crimes-Enforcement Network or FinCEN.  Try saying that five times fast!  In summary, the U.S. Treasury Department will require the vast majority of LLCs along with C and S corporations to report specific information about the business.  This will include information identifying the ownership of the company.  This is not necessarily a new thing for the shareholders of S and C corporations, but this will be a big change for the members of LLCs.   THE RUNDOWN Authority               United States Department of the Treasury Corporate Transparency Act (31 USC 5336(b)) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Rule   Deadline                  January 1, 2024-January 1, 2025 for entities formed before January 1, 2024 Within 30 days of formation for  entities formed on or after January 1, 2024   Who Must Comply   Any entity that had to file a formation document with a state authority as part of its formation or registration as a foreign entity doing business in the United States.                    YES–Corporations (C, S, B[1] and P[2]), Limited Liability Companies, Limited Partnerships, Limited Liability Partnerships[3].                    NO—Sole Proprietors, General Partnerships. Exemptions                23 Categories of Exemptions and Exceptions to the rule, including inactive entities, nonprofits, entities that are already subject to federal reporting and regulations, financial institutions, and government entities. Corporate Information       Legal Name Trade Names or D/B/A Names Address Formation State TIN/EIN Ownership Information       Beneficial Owners. Owners with at least 25% ownership or who have substantial control the company directly or indirectly. Legal Name DOB Home Address Driver’s License, State ID, or Passport Number Picture of said ID   Duty to Update          Within 30 days of any change or need to correct information.   Failure to Comply     Civil liability $500/day Criminal penalty up to $10,000 and/or 2 years in jail   THE SOLUTION Resources              FinCEN

Attention New York employers: On November 17, 2023, Governor Hochul signed S4516 into law, amending Section 5-336 of the General Obligations Law (“GOL”), commonly known as New York’s #MeToo statute. The amendment significantly changes the terms permissible in settlement agreements for claims relating to discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. As of the effective date, November 17, any settlement agreements involving claims of discrimination, harassment or retaliation, cannot: Compel the complainant to forfeit consideration if they breach nondisclosure or nondisparagement clauses; Mandate the complainant to pay liquidated damages for violating nondisclosure or nondisparagement clauses; or Include or require an affirmative statement, assertion, or disclaimer stating the complainant was not subject to unlawful discrimination, including discriminatory harassment or retaliation. If these provisions are present in settlement agreements, the entire release becomes unenforceable. In other words, the employee can still sue you even after fully executing a release agreement (and receiving the money that typically follows)! Additional changes the amendment made include: Waiver of the 21-day consideration period: Previously, complainants had to wait 21 days before entering into a confidentiality agreement. Now, complainants can waive this consideration period, although the separate confidentiality preference agreement and 7-day revocation period still apply. Extension of protections to independent contractors: The recent amendment expands the #MeToo statute to cover independent contractors. Previously, the law only applied to agreements between employers and employees. In light of these changes, employers should ensure their settlement agreements for claims of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation do not include clauses related to liquidated damages, clawback provisions in case of a breach, or statements denying unlawful discrimination. Inclusion of such clauses will render the release of claims unenforceable, but the obligation to pay the settlement amount may persist. If you are executing a release and you are not sure if the underlying claims involve harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, seek skilled counsel for advice. Brody and Associates regularly defends employment litigation cases for management and advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in these areas, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560

Starting July 31, 2023, all employers with employees working in New Jersey are required to immediately and simultaneously report to the New Jersey Department of Labor (the “NJ DOL”) certain information relating to terminated employees.  Employers are to submit this information electronically at the same time they provide the terminated employee with his/her benefit instructions contained on

  In Rev. Proc. 2023-29, recently issued by the Internal Revenue Service, the affordability percentage for Affordable Care Act plans has been set at 8.39% beginning in 2024. This marks a significant decrease from the previous 9.12% applicable for 2023. This is the lowest percentage since the inception of the employer mandate which means these plans will cost employers more. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), large employers – those with fifty (50) or more full-time-equivalent employees- are required to provide affordable, minimum value group health plan coverage to their full-time employees. Affordability is gauged by the premium cost of the least expensive, minimum value plan available to employees relative to the employees pay. Every year, the affordability test is set at a percentage of employees’ earnings. In 2024, the new affordability test is 8.39%. Given that open enrollment for calendar year plans is imminent, applicable large employers should take prompt action to ensure their offerings for 2024 comply with the new affordability mandate.

Popular

What's Trending

As an advisor, your role is to help clients prepare to exit their business, yet many people resist thinking about the future because it involves so many unknowns, decisions, and choices.  And emotions typically complicate matters further, sometimes derailing the process altogether.  Here are some questions that can help you establish rapport with your clients, learn more about their concerns, and move the conversation forward. How are you feeling about your work/profession/business these days? Which aspects of work are you still enjoying, and which are you ready to leave behind? Do you envision retiring from work at some point, or are you contemplating an encore career? What part of planning for your future feels most challenging? How do you imagine your life in retirement will be different from how it is now? What process are you using to figure out what you’ll do next after you retire? What would you like to see happen with your business long term? What options have you considered for the transfer of your business? What steps have you taken to make your business more attractive to a potential buyer? What are your concerns about transitioning your firm to new ownership? What would be your ideal scenario for transitioning out of your company? What topic(s) have we touched on today that we should put on our agenda to revisit? So, what happens after you pose a few of these questions and your clients open up about emotional matters?  Remember, the most helpful thing you can do is to listen attentively.  You’ve created a valuable opportunity for them to talk about things they may not share with other advisors.   Here are some tips for managing the conversation when clients raise emotionally loaded topics: Don’t try to “fix things” by immediately offering suggestions. Doing so sends the message that you’re uncomfortable hearing their concern.  You can offer suggestions but do so later. Don’t say anything that conveys the message that their feeling or concern is unwarranted. “There’s really no need to feel that way” or “I’m sure it will be just fine” may sound reassuring to you but could be experienced as dismissive by your client. Don’t immediately offer a logical counterpoint to your client’s emotion. Remember, feelings don’t have to make sense; they’re “as is”.  Put another way, if feelings made sense, they would be thoughts. People report concerns and characterize their feelings differently from one another, so it’s in your best interest to seek amplification and clarification by inquiring as follows . . . “I want to make sure that I understand exactly what you mean by ___.  Can you tell me more?” “People sometimes mean slightly different things when they talk about ___.  What does ___ mean for you?” “Before I suggest anything, I’d like to learn more about it from your perspective.” It’s possible that during early conversations your client may hint at mixed feelings about exiting their business.  That’s perfectly normal, but you need to bring it out into the open.  You want to foster an atmosphere such that your client keeps you apprised about where they’re at.  If they keep their ambivalence to themselves, it has greater potential to blindside you and complicate the sale.  You can say: “In my experience, it’s normal to have some mixed emotions about selling.  Those thoughts may not always be top of mind, but when they do pop up let’s be sure to talk about them.  Believe it or not, they can help inform our process and alert us to aspects of the sale that are important to you.” You may also find that your client is overly risk averse.  If so, consider saying the following: “Our work together won’t be comprehensive if we only plan for what could go wrong.  That’s just half the equation.  It’s fine to be conservative and err on the side of caution, but to be truly realistic we should also consider a range of possibilities both good and bad.”   Author’s Note:  The concepts in this article are derived from Robert Leahy’s book, Overcoming Resistance in Cognitive Therapy.  New York:  Guilford

For five decades, the southern United States has been an attractive location for automakers to open plants thanks to generous tax breaks and cheaper, non-union labor. However, after decades of failing to unionize automakers in the South, the United Auto Workers dealt a serious blow to that model by winning a landslide union victory at Volkswagen. In an effort to fight back, three southern states have gotten creative: they passed laws barring companies from receiving state grants, loans and tax incentives if the company voluntarily recognizes a union or voluntarily provides unions with employee information. The laws also allow the government to claw back incentive payments after they were made. While these laws are very similar, each law has unique nuances. If you are in an impacted state, you should seek local counsel. In 2023, Tennessee was the first state to pass such a law. This year, Georgia and Alabama followed suit. So why this push? In 2023, the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”), a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments, adopted Tennessee’s law as model legislation. In fact, the primary sponsor of Tennessee’s bill was recognized as an ALEC Policy Champion in March 2023. ALEC’s push comes as voluntary recognition of unions gains popularity as an alternative to fighting unions. We recently saw this with the high-profile Ben & Jerry’s voluntary recognition. Will this Southern strategy work to push back against growing union successes? Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises its clients on all labor management issues, including union-related matters, and provides union-free training.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

I once had the thrill of interviewing Jerry West on management. He was “The Logo” for the NBA, although back then they didn’t advertise him as such. Only the Laker followers knew for sure. In 1989 the “Showtime” Lakers were coming off back-to-back championships.  Pat Riley was a year away from his first of three Coach of the Year awards. 

Can you Offer Too Many SKUs to Your Customers? The short answer is YES! A SKU, or Stock Keeping Unit, defines each different product version that you sell and keep inventory of.  There may be different SKUs of the same overall item based on size, color, capacity (think computer or cellphone memory), features, and many other parameters.  For build to forecast businesses, that number of variations can quickly explode and become difficult to manage. Your customers are busy and want ordering simplified. Of course, they may need (or want) more than one variation of a product. That is reasonable and a common aspect of business – one size does not fit all! But there is a point where too offering too many SKUs is not value added either for your customer or your business.  In his April 30, 2013 article “Successful Retailers Learn That Fewer Choices Trigger More Sales” in Forbes, Carmine Gallo discusses his experience and a study about “choice overload” by other authors. He writes about a retailer that “has discovered that giving a customer more than three choices at one time actually overwhelms customers and makes them frustrated…when the customer is faced with too many choices at once, it leaves the customer confused and less likely to buy from any of the choices!” Choice overload is well-documented in consumer studies but can apply in B2B as well. While customer satisfaction is important, another key concern is the often-hidden costs associated with a business offering and managing a large number of SKUs for a given product type. These costs include holding inventory, S&OP (Sales and Operations Planning) team time, small production runs, and scrapping inventory. Holding inventory takes up space, which may come with a cost or utilize racks that could be used for other products. Scheduled inventory counts take up employee time and may result in blackout periods when the warehouse is not shipping product.  The more SKUs there are, including extra SKUS, the greater the potential impact. The Sales team’s forecasting and the Operations team’s purchasing reviews that are part of the S&OP process can occupy more of their valuable time if they need to consider these times. If small orders or forecasts require a new production run, this could be costly and create excess inventory. Whether from this new production or past builds, eventually it will make sense to write off and scrap old inventory, another cost impact to the company. How do you know which SKUs to focus on if you wish to look at reducing your total number of SKUs? Start by examining SKUs that have: Low historic sales over a period of time Small variations between SKUs that customers do not value Older technology or model when newer option SKUs are available This requires a true partnership between Sales and Operations. It starts with educating both teams on the costs involved – neither group may be aware of the money and time impact to the company. Periodic (such as quarterly) reviews of SKUs that meet the above descriptions should become a fixed part of the calendar. A review of the data and other available for sale options should result in the identification of SKUs which may not be needed. At that point, it is helpful to have a customer friendly EOL (End of Life) Notice process by which you inform customers of last time buy requirements for this SKU and alternates available. It is usually best to provide some time for the last time buy in the interest of customer satisfaction, although that may not always be necessary. At a company that designed and sold electronics, a robust SKU rationalization process was implemented to help address these issues. A representative from the Operations team analyzed SKUs that met a version of the above criteria and suggested candidates for the EOL process. Next, a member of the Sales team reviewed them and, where appropriate, issued product change or EOL notices to customers, providing them time for last time buy orders when needed. These steps helped reduce the work involved in maintaining these SKUs while not leading to any customer complaints. A final note – sometimes it makes sense to continue offering low selling SKUs – to support customers buying other items (hopefully in larger quantities). It may be worthwhile to encourage them to keep coming back to you for all of their product needs and this may be a way to accomplish that. But it helps to understand that this is truly the case and not assume that this customer would not be equally happy with another, more popular, SKU.   Steven Lustig is founder and CEO of Lustig Global Consulting and an experienced Supply Chain Executive.  He is a recognized thought leader in supply chain and risk mitigation, and serves on the Boards of Directors for Loh Medical and Atlanta Technology Angels.

When it comes to careers, business owners are a minority of the population. In conversations this week, I mentioned the statistics several times, and each owner I was discussing it with was surprised that they had so few peers. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), there are over 33,000,000 businesses in the US. Let’s discount those with zero employees. Many are shell companies or real estate holding entities. Also, those with fewer than 5 employees, true “Mom and Pop” businesses, are hard to distinguish from a job. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Association, lists businesses with 5 to 99 employees at about 3,300,000, and 123,000 have 100 to 500 employees (the SBA’s largest “small business” classification.) Overall, that means about 1% of the country are private employers. Owners are a small minority, a very small minority, of the population. Even if we only count working adults (161,000,000) business owners represent only a little more than 2% of that population. So What? Where am I going with this, and how does it relate to our recent discussions of purpose in business exit planning? It’s an important issue to consider when discussing an owner’s identity after transition. Whether or not individual owners know the statistics of their “rare species” status in society, they instinctively understand that they are different. They are identified with their owner status in every aspect of their business and personal life. At a social event, when asked “What do you do?” they will often respond “I own a business.” It’s an immediate differentiator from describing a job. “I am a carpenter.” or “I work in systems engineering,” describes a function. “I am a business owner” describes a life role. When asked for further information, the owner frequently replies in the Imperial first person plural. “We build multi-family housing,” is never mistaken for a personal role in the company. No one takes that answer to mean that the speaker swings a hammer all day. Owners are a Minority We process much of our information subconsciously. If a man enters a business gathering, for example, and the others in the room are 75% female, he will know instinctively, without consciously counting, that this business meeting or organization is different from others he attends. Similarly, business owners accept their minority status without thinking about it. They expect that the vast majority of the people they meet socially, who attend their church, or who have kids that play sports with theirs, work for someone else. There are places where owners congregate, but otherwise, they don’t expect to meet many other owners in the normal course of daily activity. This can be an issue after they exit the business. You see, telling people “I’m retired” has no distinction. Roughly 98% of the other people who say that never built an organization. They didn’t take the same risks. Others didn’t deal with the same broad variety of issues and challenges. Most didn’t have to personally live with the impact of every daily decision they made, or watch others suffer the consequences of their bad calls. That is why so many former owners suffer from a lack of identity after they leave. Subconsciously, they expect to stand out from the other 98%. “I’m retired” carries no such distinction.       This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on

Previous
Next

Explore the Knowledge Exchange

Search