We are looking forward to presenting a training webinar titled, “Nuts and Bolts of Teaming Agreements” for the Maryland Procurement Technical Assistance Center (Maryland PTAC). In this one-hour webinar, you will get answers to questions such as:
Over the past year, the Biden administration has issued a number of labor and employment executive orders applicable to government contractors. Some of those requirements are updates to Obama-era executive orders, while others are new. Together, these obligations, which include an almost 50% increase to the applicable minimum wage, can have a significant impact on contractors.
For any government contractors that have questions about these labor and employment changes, we hope you can join us for an overview of these recent developments.Continue Reading [WEBINAR] What Was Old is New Again – Government Contractor Labor & Employment Updates
On February 4, President Biden signed the Executive Order on Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects, which mandates, with limited exceptions, that contractors and subcontractors working on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more agree that for that project, the companies will “become a party to a project labor agreement [PLA] with one or more appropriate labor organizations.” A prior EO issued by President Obama, which the recent EO drew liberally from, encouraged the use of labor agreements on large construction projects, but we are not aware of any prior EO mandating their use.
Continue Reading Union Labor or Bust! Project Labor Agreements Now Required for Large Federal Construction Projects
Last week, the District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of a False Claims Act (FCA) count against Aerojet Rocketdyne (Aerojet) for allegedly fraudulently inducing the government to enter into federal contracts when the company knew it was not compliant with cybersecurity requirements.
The order contains important lessons for government contractors in the emerging area of FCA liability based on noncompliance with cybersecurity obligations. While the litigation is ongoing and may ultimately be resolved in Aerojet’s favor, the order demonstrates the growing importance of cybersecurity compliance.Continue Reading Government Contractors Face False Claims Act Liability for Cybersecurity Non-Compliance
After we published our article last week about the status of the four federal vaccine mandates, we learned that a seventh district court had enjoined the federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate, continuing a remarkable string of losses for the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their attempts to defend President Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 14042. While the District Court for the District of Arizona has not yet finalized all of the details of its injunction that only applies in Arizona (the parties will be briefing that issue over the next week), this is yet another indication that the contractor mandate is unlikely ever to be fully implemented in its current form.
On September 14, the state of Arizona, along with several other entities and individuals, filed suit challenging both the contractor vaccine mandate and the federal employee vaccine mandate ordered in EO 14043. The Order issued on January 27 held the challenge to the federal employee mandate was not yet ripe, but it enjoined the contractor mandate.
As an initial matter, the court agreed with DOJ that the plaintiff challenging the employee mandate did not have standing because he had a medical exemption request pending and was, therefore, not required to be vaccinated or subject to discipline at that time and may never be if the request is granted. Because his alleged injury – have the vaccine or be terminated – may never occur, any opinion issued in response to his claim would be “merely advisory,” and therefore, his claim was unripe. The court similarly held that Arizona did not have standing to challenge the employee mandate because its employees were not subject to it, and the mandate did not infringe on Arizona’s sovereignty.Continue Reading DOJ’s Run of Bad Luck Continues – A Seventh District Court Enjoins the Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate
The vaccine mandates President Biden announced on September 9 have not aged well. Two are enjoined nationwide and a skeptical Supreme Court so undermined one that the government withdrew it, at least for the immediate future. Only one, an interim final rule applicable to employees at healthcare facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds, is still
I am looking forward to participating in the Labor & Employment panel as part of the Pub K Annual Review 2022. I will be presenting with Nichole Atallah (PilieroMazza PLLC), Howard Wolf-Rodda (Abrahams Wolf-Rodda) and Michael Schrier (Husch Blackwell). Our panel will take place on Monday, January 24, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. EST and highlights
As the legal battles over the Biden administrations vaccine mandate for federal contractors continue, I authored an article for Law360 published on December 22, 2021 discussing significant rulings limiting the mandate’s enforcement in matters brought by multiple states.
After the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled on November 30 to prohibit enforcement of the mandate against contractors and subcontractors in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued an injunction on December 7 prohibiting such enforcement nationwide. On December 16, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a third injunction prohibiting enforcement of the mandate, which was limited to the plaintiff states.
In addition to detailing the arguments and legal considerations weighed by the court in each case, I offered insight on what contractors can do now as additional cases are heard around the country, particularly as related matters head for January 7 oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court (announced shortly after Law360 published my article).Continue Reading Injunctions May Only Pause the Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate
UPDATE: On the evening of December 22, the Supreme Court announced that Justice Kavanaugh has referred the applications for an emergency stay of the OSHA ETS to the full court, those applications have been consolidated, and consideration of those applications has been deferred pending oral argument scheduled for January 7, 2022.
On January 7, the Supreme Court will also hear the oral argument regarding the application by the Department of Justice for a stay of the injunction issued by the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana of the CMS vaccine mandate. That application, which was submitted to Justice Alito, who is responsible for emergency applications from the Fifth Circuit, was also referred to the full Court.
In addition, on December 22, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Florida’s request for a preliminary injunction of the government contractor mandate. This is the fifth injunction of that mandate, with four of the five courts finding that the president exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. The parties have been given until December 29 to propose a preliminary injunction consistent with the order.
Finally, as of December 23, it does not appear that DOJ has sought an emergency stay of the injunctions of the government contractor vaccine mandate from the Supreme Court.Continue Reading If the Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate Doesn’t Get You, the OSHA ETS Might
On December 16, in the challenge filed by Louisiana, Mississippi, and Indiana to the federal contractor vaccine mandate, the Western District of Louisiana (WD of LA) granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) with respect to “contracts, grants, or any other like agreement by any other name between the Plaintiff States and the national government.” However, the ruling denied the motion for a PI to the extent it sought to enjoin the application of EO 14042 against contracts between private contractors and the government.
Interestingly, unlike the Eastern District of Kentucky (ED of KY) and Southern District of Georgia (SD of GA), the WD of LA concluded that “a reasonably sufficient nexus can exist between EO 14042 and the government’s policy under [the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act] to procure and manage properties and services in an economical and efficient manner.” Instead, the WD of LA concluded that the EO is unlawful because it conflicts with the Tenth Amendment.Continue Reading A Third Court Enjoins the Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate