NLRB's Acting GC, ERISA-Exempt Church Plans, FCA Seal Requirements
Labor Relations columnists David E. Schwartz and Risa M. Salins review U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding whether the former acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board properly served in that role after his nomination to serve as its general counsel on a permanent basis; whether pension plans maintained by certain church-affiliated employers, but not established by a church, qualify for the church plan exemption under the ERISA; and whether qui tam whistleblower suits brought under the False Claims Act are subject to mandatory dismissal when the FCA's requirement to keep such complaints under seal is violated.
August 03, 2017 at 02:05 PM
9 minute read
This is the second of two columns discussing U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2016-17 term impacting employers. This month we review decisions regarding whether the former acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) properly served in that role after his nomination to serve as the NLRB's general counsel on a permanent basis; whether pension plans maintained by certain church-affiliated employers, but not established by a church, qualify for the church plan exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and whether qui tam whistleblower suits brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) are subject to mandatory dismissal when the FCA's requirement to keep such complaints under seal is violated. These cases have far-reaching implications.
Acting Officials
In N.L.R.B. v. SW General, 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017), the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the NLRB's prior acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, improperly served in that role from January 2011 through October 2013 while awaiting Senate confirmation to serve as the NLRB's general counsel on a permanent basis. The court concluded, based on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), that any person nominated to serve in an acting office could not also serve as the permanent nominee. However, it left open the possibility that not all of Solomon's actions as acting general counsel are void.
The FVRA permits three categories of government officials to perform acting service in a vacant office that requires Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation (a PAS office): the first assistant to that office, a person already serving in another PAS office, or a senior employee in the relevant agency. In June 2010, when the NLRB general counsel office became vacant, President Barack Obama directed Solomon, who spent the previous 10 years as director of the NLRB's Office of Representation Appeals, to serve as acting general counsel. In January 2011, President Obama nominated Solomon to fill the general counsel position on a permanent basis. However, the Senate never took action on the nomination. President Obama ultimately withdrew Solomon's nomination and a new nominee, Richard F. Griffin Jr., was confirmed by the Senate in October 2013. Solomon continued to serve as acting general counsel until that time.
In January 2013, an NLRB Regional Director, exercising authority on Solomon's behalf, issued an unfair labor practice complaint against an ambulance service company. The NLRB affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision that the company committed an unfair labor practice by failing to pay certain bonuses to long-term employees. The company appealed to the D.C. Circuit, arguing the unfair labor practice complaint was invalid under FVRA subsection (b)(1), which prohibits a person who the president nominates to permanently fill a vacant PAS office from temporarily carrying out the duties of that office as an acting officer. The NLRB countered that FVRA subsection (b)(1) applies only to an individual who previously served as first assistant to the applicable office, not to a senior employee in the agency like Solomon. The D.C. Circuit rejected the NLRB's argument and held Solomon became ineligible to perform the duties of general counsel in an acting capacity once the president nominated him to fill that post.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Trip-Wire for Financial Executives
9 minute readJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Managing New Employee Paid Leave Laws in Conjunction With ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 2UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 3Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 46th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 5On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250