Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C. - Iowa Immigration Blog

Dickinson Attorneys Named to All Three Best Lawyers® Recognition Lists for 2021

noreply@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:13:52 +0000

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. is pleased to announce that 24 attorneys of the firm have been named by Best Lawyers^® to its 2021 recognition lists for professional legal excellence, including:

21 attorneys with extensive experience were included in The Best Lawyers in America;

Three distinguished attorneys were honored as “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective areas of law in Des Moines, and:

Three rising lawyers were recognized in the inaugural edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

2021 Best Lawyers in America

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. The organization has published their list for over three decades, earning the respect of the profession, the media, and the public as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals.

Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America list are divided by geographic region and practice areas, and are reviewed by their peers for their professional expertise.

Attorneys Jeff Baxter and Melissa Schilling were honored for the first time on this year’s list. Attorneys Howard Hagen and Tom Hanson are also both celebrating a milestone anniversary, with 25 consecutive years of inclusion on the list.

**Dickinson attorneys recognized for The Best Lawyers in America 2021 include:**

Jeffrey G. Baxter - Business Organizations including LLCs and Partnerships

Benjamin Bruner - Land Use and Zoning Law and Real Estate Law (3 years)

Joan M. Fletcher - Litigation - Labor and Employment (5 years)

Howard O. Hagen - Banking and Finance Law and Financial Services Regulation Law (25 years)

Thomas D. Hanson - Bet-the-Company Litigation and Commercial Litigation (25 years)

Jill R. Jensen-Welch - Employment Law - Management and Litigation - Labor and Employment (5 years)

Jeffrey A. Krausman - Education Law, Employment Law - Management, Labor Law - Management, and Litigation - Labor and Employment (10 years)

John E. Lande - Commercial Litigation and Privacy and Data Security Law (2 years)

F. Richard Lyford - Appellate Practice, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Land Use and Zoning, Litigation - Real Estate, and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (10 years)

Richard A. Malm - Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Corporate Governance Law, Corporate Law, Derivatives and Futures Law, Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law, and Litigation – Construction (10 years)

Ronald L. Mountsier - Tax Law (5 years)

Bryan P. O'Neill - Employment Law - Management and Litigation - Labor and Employment (2 years)

Mollie M. Pawlosky - Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Commercial Litigation (5 years)

Amy Plummer - Banking and Finance Law, Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships), Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law, and Corporate Law (3 years)

David M. Repp - Nonprofit / Charities Law, Tax Law, and Trusts and Estates (15 years)

Russell L. Samson - Employment Law - Management and Labor Law – Management (15 years)

Melissa A. Schilling - Employment Law - Management and Litigation - Labor and Employment

William B. Serangeli - Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Land Use and Zoning, Litigation - Real Estate, and Real Estate Law (5 years)

William R. Stiles - Commercial Transactions / UCC Law, Corporate Law, Land Use and Zoning Law, and Real Estate Law (5 years)

Paul R. Tyler - Land Use and Zoning Law and Real Estate Law (15 years)

Mary A. Zambreno - Family Law (5 years)

Lawyers of the Year

Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the "Lawyer of the Year," making this accolade particularly significant. These lawyers are selected based on particularly impressive voting averages received during the peer review assessments. Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, their professionalism, and their integrity.

Three attorneys from Dickinson Law were named “Lawyer of the Year” for 2021 in their respective areas, including:

Jeffrey A. Krausman - Education Law
David M. Repp - Nonprofit / Charities Law
Paul R. Tyler - Land Use and Zoning Law

Ones To Watch

The Ones to Watch list recognizes associates and other lawyers who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice. Lawyers recognized are divided by geographic region and practice areas, and are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise, and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

The following Dickinson lawyers were recognized in the 2021 Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch:

Cody J. Edwards - Litigation and Controversy - Tax and Tax Law
Andrea E. Rastelli - Banking and Finance Law and Financial Services Regulation Law
Regan Wilson - Family Law

About Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C.

Experience You Need. Results You Want.

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. is a general practice law firm in Des Moines, Iowa. Our attorneys provide a full range of legal and business counseling services to a client base that includes large corporations, small businesses, governmental entities and not-for-profit organizations with interests in Iowa. From a $60-per-month rental office with one attorney over 80 years ago, Dickinson Law has grown into a leading general practice firm that proudly serves clients in all of Iowa's 99 counties. We consider ourselves teammates in the interest of our clients' success. Ultimately, our goal is to provide legal services and counseling which enhance the reputation of both the client and the attorney involved.

Department of Homeland Security Addresses Ongoing COVID-19 Issues with Temporary Policies

dgonzales@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Wed, 20 May 2020 15:12:50 +0000

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued several announcements regarding changes in enforcement of Form I-9 regulations and the E-Verify system. Most of the announcements were made by news release with the exception of one temporary final rule relating to temporary agricultural workers with H2-A visas. The announcements have not replaced existing regulations which remain in effect, but have altered how Form I-9 may be completed due to effects of COVID-19 on both employers and government functions.

Extended Timeframe for Resolving E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations

Employers utilizing E-Verify still must create a case in the E-Verify system within three (3) business days from the date of hire. Employers must use the hire date from the employee’s Form I-9 when creating the E-Verify case. If case creation is delayed due to COVID-19 precautions, select “Other” from the drop-down list and enter “COVID-19” as the specific reason. Employers may not take any adverse action against an employee because the E-Verify case is in an interim case status, including while the employee’s case is in an extended interim case status.

Temporary Flexibility of Form I-9 Requirements Related to COVID-19 for Remote Workplaces

DHS announced in a news release relaxation of enforcement rules for employers with employees taking physical proximity precautions due to COVID-19. The release noted, “If there are employees physically present at a work location, no exceptions are being implemented at this time for in-person verification of identity and employment eligibility documentation for Form I-9.” The discretion was due to expire on May 19, but was extended for an additional 30 days.

In the release DHS stated that employers meeting the criteria will not be required to physically inspect documents provided by incoming employees to verify identity in person as long as precautions remain in place. Employers will have to review the documents previously reviewed remotely within three days of the first day of work. Employers should enter “COVID-19” as the reason for inspection delay in the additional information portion of Section 2 of Form I-9.

Once normal DHS operations resume, which will be announced on the DHS website, all new employees will be required to report to the employer within three business days to allow the previously provided documents to be reviewed. The news release cautioned, “Employers who avail themselves of this option must provide written documentation of their remote onboarding and telework policy for each employee. This burden rests solely with the employers.”

Temporary Acceptance of Expired List B Documents for Form I-9

Due to stay-at-home orders across the country interfering with renewal of driver’s licenses and other documents commonly used to verify identity of employees on Form I-9, DHS announced that if an employee provides a List B document that expired on or after March 1, 2020may be used to temporarily document the identity of the employee. The employee will have to provide a non-expired List B document within ninety (90) days of the termination of the temporary policy.

Employers temporarily accepting an expired List B document are instructed to list “COVID-19 EXT” in the additional information field. E-Verify employers should also use the expired document to submit the E-Verify case within three (3) days of the date of hire. When the employee later presents an unexpired document the employer should (1) record the number and other required document information from the actual document presented and (2) initial and date the change.

Temporary Final Rule Provides Extension of Stay for Some Non-Immigrant Agricultural Workers

DHS issued a temporary final rule to amend certain H-2A requirements to help U.S. agricultural employers avoid disruptions in lawful agricultural-related employment during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The temporary final rule expires on August 18, 2020. The rule only applies if USCIS received the new employer’s extension of stay H-2A petition on or after March 1, and it remains pending as of April 20, or USCIS receives the H-2A petition between April 20 and August 18.

Under the temporary final rule, a new, non-E-Verify employer may employ the H-2A worker while the extension of petition is pending, (1) for up to forty-five (45) days from the date on the employee’s receipt notice, (2) until the USCIS denies the petition, or (3) when the petition is withdrawn, whichever occurs first. To complete Form I-9 Section 2 in this instance the employer should enter under List A:

The unexpired foreign passport information;
Unexpired Form I-94 information; and
“45-Day Ext.” and the date Form I-129 was submitted to USCIS in the Additional Information field

More information for employers using H-2A employees can be found on the USCIS H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers webpage.

COVID-19: Tax Filing Date & Payment Extension, Tax Credits for Paid Leave, and NEW Stimulus Payments

estaudacher@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:06 +0000

Tax Filing Date and Payment Extension

Pursuant to IRS Notice 2020-18, the tax filing deadline and deadline for making individual federal income tax payments has been automatically postponed to July 15, 2020. This means that there is no penalty or interest for tax payments that are made by July 15, 2020. This is an automatic change and taxpayers do not need to file requests for extension. The State of Iowa has also extended the deadline for filing and payment of individual income taxes to July 31, 2020.

Businesses also have until July 15, 2020 to file their tax returns and make any necessary payments without interest or penalties. There is no cap on the deferred payments.

Tax Credits for Paid Sick Leave and Paid Family Leave

Pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Act (“FFCA”), employers with under 500 employees are required to provide up to 10 business days of paid sick leave. The FFCA provides qualifying employers a refundable payroll tax credit equal to 100% of the total wages paid on these additional sick leave days. Generally, these credits will apply to the employer’s portion of it Social Security taxes and the credit is limited to $511 per day if the employee is taking time off to care for themselves, or $200 per day if the employee is taking time off to care for others who are quarantined, showing symptoms of the Coronavirus, or is taking care of a minor child whose school is closed. Similarly, self-employed individuals will receive a similar credit with the credits being taken against the taxpayer’s income tax.

The FFCA also requires most employers with under 500 employees to provide public health emergency leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when an employee is unable to work due to taking care of a minor whose school or daycare is closed due to the Coronavirus. The FFCA requires employers to provide at least ⅔ of the employee’s pay up to $200 per day. Employers will receive a refundable credit that is equal to the amount of these family leave payments to be used against its share of payroll taxes for each employee.

Stimulus Payments

Although the final bill has not been released, it appears that that taxpayers will receive significant direct payments from the government.

Single filers will get $1,200, with qualifying children to add $500 to the total. Phaseouts begin at $75,000 adjusted gross income with payments being completely phased out at $99,000.

Taxpayers filing jointly will get $2,400, with qualifying children to add $500 to the total. Phaseouts begin at $150,000 adjusted gross income with the payments being completely phased out at $198,000.

As the bill stands right now, even low income taxpayers with no tax liability are eligible for these payments.

At this point, it is unclear whether the adjusted gross income will be based upon the 2018 or 2019 tax year. Likely, it will be based upon the 2018 tax year unless the tax payer did not file, in which case it will be based upon the 2019 tax year. As details become clearer, it would be prudent for taxpayers to determine which tax year would be better for their situation and evaluate either filing as soon as possible or waiting to file until stimulus payments have been made.

Identification of Essential Critical Workforce During COVID-19 Response

rsamson@dickinsonbradshaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:05:07 +0000

On March 19, 2020, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued what it emphasized was an advisory list identifying essential critical infrastructure workers during the COVID-19 response. It specifically disclaimed that “is not, nor should it be considered to be, a federal directive or standard in and of itself.” Rather the list was to assist State, local, tribal, and territorial governments in implementing and executing response activities in communities under their jurisdiction.

The list is available here. Employers may be interested in seeing whether their employees or operations might be perceived as essential or critical during this pandemic.

On March 22, 2020, the Iowa Department of Public Health posted an “includes but is not limited to” list of Iowa’s Essential Services Personnel. The list is much shorter than the federal list—at least for now. The IDPH site also has posted “Isolation Guidance for Essential Services Personnel.”

Finally, the IDHP has issued a number of other publications about the COVID-19 pandemic, all accessible through this web page. On the landing page for Iowa businesses the following specifics can be found, among others:

General guidance for businesses in FAQ form
Guidance for the food industry

The Centers for Disease Control has also posted information helpful to business.

New information and new content is being posted constantly. If you can’t find what you need, keep googling and it will likely turn up soon.

Trump Signs Families First Coronavirus Response Act: How It Will Impact Employers*

jjensen@dickinsonbradshaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Thu, 19 Mar 2020 11:15:59 +0000

* With Contributions by Attorney Melissa Schilling

After the U.S. House of Representatives made a number of changes to the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” the Senate passed H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, by a vote of 90 to 8 on March 18, 2020. President Trump signed the bill on the same day and the law will become effective within 15 days of President Trump’s signature, on April 2, 2020. Primarily, the law requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide paid family leave to employees who are caring for a child due to a school or daycare closure, and requires private employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide two weeks of paid sick leave to full-time employees for six COVID-19 related absences. The Act sunsets on December 31, 2020.

The following is a summary of the key provisions private sector employers need to be aware of:

Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for COVID-19 Absences

For the sake of differentiating regular FMLA from emergency FMLA, we’ll call this new type of FMLA “EFMLA.”

The law amends and expands the FMLA to provide 12 weeks of job-protected paid leave for eligible employees of employers with fewer than 500 employees for a new qualifying reason (see the third bullet point below).

Yes, you read that right. Smaller employers are the target of this law. Employers with more than 500 employees do not have to provide paid EFMLA. There is no guidance as to when, or over what period of time, an employer must use to count the 500 employees. Those employers who hover around the 500 employee mark should seek guidance from legal counsel versed in the FMLA to determine if they are covered by this Act.

There is no indication in the Act as to whether EFMLA provides employees with an additional 12 weeks of leave on top of any other regular FMLA leave the employee may use or may have used. To the extent the Act amends the FMLA, it would seem EFMLA is not an additional 12 weeks of leave. If you have employees requesting or needing EFMLA who also are using regular FMLA, you should seek guidance from legal counsel versed in the FMLA.

Eligible employees include employees who have worked at least 30 calendar days for the employer.

This is a drastically reduced eligibility criteria for EFMLA when compared with the eligibility requirements for regular FMLA.

Employees can take EFMLA when they are unable to work or telework because they must care for a child due to their son’s or daughter’s school being closed due to a public health emergency, or due to their child care provider being unavailable due to a public health emergency.

A “public health emergency,” is a COVID-19 emergency declared by federal, state, or local authority.“School” is an elementary or secondary school. “Child care provider” is one who receives compensation for providing child care services on a regular basis. (Sorry, grandpa and grandma, but you probably do not qualify as a child care provider for EFMLA purposes.) There is no explanation for what being “unavailable” means. EMFLA is only available to care for children under age 18.

Most importantly, employers and employees, alike, should note that this is a very narrow qualifying reason for EFMLA. Employees who do not have children under 18 in their households will not be able to take EFMLA.
The first 10 days of EFMLA leave may be unpaid; however, an employee may choose to use accrued personal or sick leave during this time.

This is different from the employer’s ability to require use or paid leave before going unpaid for regular FMLA. Here, the employee is in control and can conserve paid leaves to use at a later time. Only some employees on EFMLA will also qualify for emergency paid sick leave (see below).
After the first 10 days of EFMLA, employers must compensate employees in an amount not less than two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay multiplied by the number of hours the employee would have been scheduled to work; however, “in no event shall such paid leave exceed $200 a day and $10,000 in the aggregate.” Special rules apply for determining the number of hours to use for employees who work varying schedules, and when the employer is unable to determine with certainty the number of hours the employee would have worked.

The regular rate of pay, per the Act, defaults to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s definitions and rules. Unfortunately, the FLSA regular rate rules only apply to non-exempt employees. Exempt employees do not usually track their work hours and are not usually scheduled for a certain number of hours, making it difficult for employers to apply the formula for calculating EFMLA pay. Assuming the employee requesting EFMLA is normally scheduled for, or normally works, 40 hours per week, they could receive up to 480 hours of EFMLA under this Act. The caps of $200/day or $10,000 in the aggregate mean a 40-hour per week employee can be no more than $25 per hour. If their pay is higher than that, they will take a haircut, and many FLSA-exempt employees make more than this cap.

This begs some questions: How should employers calculate EFMLA pay for employees who are exempt from the FLSA when the hours part of the formula is difficult to determine and the regular rate part of the formula does not apply? Is EFMLA intended for FLSA-exempt employees at all?
At the end of EFMLA use, employees are entitled to restoration to their previous job or an equivalent job, as with regular FMLA – with one exception. Employees of employers with less than 25 employees are not entitled to be restored to their job if four conditions are met. First, the employee was using EFMLA, not regular FMLA. Second, the employee’s position no longer exists because of economic conditions or other changes in operations that affect employment and were caused by the public health emergency occurring during the period of EMFLA. Third, the employer made reasonable efforts to restore the employee to an equivalent position. Finally, if those efforts failed, the employer made reasonable efforts during a post-leave period to contact the employee when an equivalent position becomes available. The contact period is the one-year period beginning on the earlier of either the date when the EFMLA qualifying reason ended, or the one-year period beginning 12 weeks after the date when the employee’s EFMLA began.

Talk about complicated. Sadly, some of the smallest employers may need to take advantage of this carve-out, no matter how complicated it may be. Again, seek the assistance of legal counsel versed in the FMLA.
The Department of Labor has the authority to exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the paid family leave requirements, for good cause, and when such requirements would “jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.” In addition, employers with less than 50 employees on each day of 20 or more calendar weeks in the preceding or current calendar year are not subject to civil suit if they violate the EFMLA amendments to the FMLA.

These provisions of the Act provide some relief to smaller employers, and, at first blush, appear to dis-incent smaller employers from providing EFMLA. However, the Act does not exempt smaller employers from action by the Department of Labor for violations. Also, the process for the DOL’s small business exemption is not provided in the Act, and will require further guidance or regulation from the DOL. That guidance will not likely arrive before small employers have to make a compliance decision. Again, seeking the assistance of legal counsel versed in the FMLA is recommended.
Employers of health care providers or emergency responders can exclude these employees from EFMLA. The DOL will issue regulations for good cause on this provision of the Act.

Until the DOL issues those regulations, employers of health care workers should keep in mind that “health care provider” (“HCP”) is a defined term under FMLA regulations and that definition has been adopted and incorporated within the Act’s amendments for EFMLA. HCP’s include: doctors of medicine or osteopathy, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, clinical social workers, physician’s assistants, and Christian Science Practitioners listed with the First Church of Christ. If your health care workers are not on this list, then it appears they cannot be exempted from the EFMLA provisions of this Act.
Tax credits are available for employers who provide EFMLA for employees, including credits against FICA and adjustments to gross income.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave (“EPSL”) for COVID-19 Absences

For the sake of differentiating regular sick leave employers might have from emergency paid sick leave, we’ll call this new type of sick leave “EPSL.”

Private sector employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide 80 hours of paid sick leave to full-time employees who are unable to work or telework because of one or more qualifying reasons:

(1) The employee is under a government quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19.

(2) The employee is self-quarantined due to COVID-19 concerns, per the advice of a health care provider (the definition of HCP to be used is the one in the FMLA).

(3) The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis.

(4) The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to #1 or #2, above.Note that there is no limitation on who the individual may be for qualifying reason #4.

(5) The employee is caring for a son or daughter (as defined in the FMLA; under 18 years of age) if their school has been closed due to COVID-19 precautions, or if their child care provider is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions. Note that COVID-19 precautions for this #5 is a lesser burden that required under #1.

(6) The employee is experiencing “any other substantially similar condition” specified by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor. This catch-all qualifying reason for using EPSL is vague and confusing. Does the “condition” refer to #1-#5? Does “condition” mean the employee must be experiencing flu-like symptoms but does not have COVID-19?

EPSL is available for immediate use by the employee regardless of how long the employee has been employed by the employer. An employee who has only worked for one day is eligible for EPSL.

The rate at which full-time employees are paid for EPSL depends on the specific reasons triggering the leave.

Employees taking EPSL for reasons #1-#3 are paid for the number of hours they would otherwise have been normally scheduled to work multiplied by the greater of their regular rate of pay under the FLSA, the FLSA’s minimum wage, or the minimum wage applicable under state or local law. Pay for EPSL taken for reasons #1-#3 is capped at no more than $511 per day or $5,110 in the aggregate. Note that these caps are significantly higher than the EFMLA caps and the EPSL caps for reasons #4-#6. For a 40-hour per week employee, these caps work out to more than $63 per hour (or $132,860 per year).
Employees taking EPSL for reasons #4-#6 only receive two-thirds of the calculation provided in the bullet point just above this one. Pay for EPSL taken for reasons #1-#3 is capped at no more than $200 per day or $2,000 in the aggregate. Note that these caps are lower than EPSL taken for reasons #1-#3, but match the EFMLA caps.

This is complicated, but help is on the way. The Act requires the DOL to provide guidance on these pay calculations within 15 days after enactment, or by the effective date of April 2, 2020.

Employers must provide part-time employees with EPSL on a pro-rata basis, equal to the number of hours they work, on average, over two weeks. There is no explanation as to what two-week period the employer should use to determine the average house. Special rules apply to part-time employees who work a varying schedule and when the employer is unable to determine with certainty the number of hours the part-time employee would have worked over the two week period.
The availability of EPSL ends with the next scheduled work shift immediately following the termination of the need for EPSL. In other words, once the trigger reason(s) for using EPSL ends, the employee must return to work for their next regularly scheduled shift. This and other provisions of the Act suggest, but do not expressly state, that EPSL can only be used for one period of absence, and cannot be used intermittently or in more than one block of time. Employers with employees who wish to use EPSL intermittently should consult with legal counsel versed in employment law.

EPSL sunsets on December 31, 2020, it cannot be carried over into 2021 and any unused portion of EPSL cannot be cashed out upon termination for any reason.
An employer may not require an employee to use other paid leave provided by the employer before the employee uses EPSL. Any leave your company provides to employees can be saved while the employee uses EPSL.
Employers may require employees to follow reasonable notice procedures to continue to receive EPSL.
Nothing in the EPSL provisions of the Act reduce the rights or benefits due to employees under a collective bargaining agreement, other laws (federal, state, or local), or existing employer policies. Employers who adopted emergency paid leave policies ahead of the Act cannot apply those toward the EPSL obligations. EPSL must be provided in addition to any “existing” employer policies. Conservatively, existing policies include those in effect on the Act’s date of enactment (3/18/2020). Less conservatively, and for employers willing to take on more risk or who are willing to argue this in a legal proceeding, existing policies includes only those in effect on the Act’s effective date (4/2/2020). If you fall into the latter camp, you can try to rescind or reduce additional leave policies adopted before March 18.
Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who take EPSL, who file a complaint or initiate a proceeding about EPSL violations, or who testify in any such action. The prohibition includes, specifically, discipline, discharge, and other discrimination.
Employers must post a notice informing employees of their rights to leave. The DOL is to provide this poster within seven days after enactment, or by March 24, 2020.
As with EMFLA, Employers of health care providers or emergency responders can exclude these employees from EPSL. The DOL will issue regulations for good cause on this provision of the Act.

Until the DOL issues those regulations, employers of health care workers should keep in mind that “health care provider” (“HCP”) is a defined term under FMLA regulations and that definition appears to have been adopted and incorporated within the Act’s EPSL provisions. HCP’s include: doctors of medicine or osteopathy, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, clinical social workers, physician’s assistants, and Christian Science Practitioners listed with the First Church of Christ. If your health care workers are not on this list, then they cannot be exempted from the EFMLA provisions of this Act.
As with the EFMLA, the Department of Labor has the authority to exempt small business with fewer than 50 employees from the paid family leave requirements, for good cause, and when such requirements would “jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.”

This provision of the Act provides some relief to smaller employers. The process for this small business exemption is not provided in the Act, and will require further guidance or regulation from the DOL. That guidance will not likely arrive before small employers have to make a compliance decision. Again, seeking the assistance of legal counsel versed in the FMLA is recommended.
Violations of the EPSL provisions of the Act are a failure to pay minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and will subject employers to the penalties provided under the FLSA.
As with the EFMLA, tax credits are available for employers who provide EFMLA for employees, including credits against FICA and adjustments to gross income.
Tax credits against personal income tax are also available for employees.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is complex, tricky, and must be understood quickly. Dickinson Law can help employers apply the Act to their workforces.

Update: House Makes Significant Changes to Families First Coronavirus Response Act

mschilling@dickinsonbradshaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Tue, 17 Mar 2020 12:47:25 +0000

On Monday, March 16, 2020, the House passed major changes to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, before the bill even made it to the Senate. The latest version of the bill can be found here. The revised legislation no longer requires paid family leave. In addition, it does not require companies to provide employees with the two weeks of mandatory paid sick leave if the employer’s paid sick leave policy is sufficient to meet the requirements of the law. As of right now, the bill requires employers to provide each employee with not less than 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but employers are not required to permit an employee to earn more than 56 hours of paid sick leave in a year.

We will continue to provide an update of these requirements as new developments emerge.

Building a Winning Cybersecurity Program: Where Does Leadership Start?

noreply@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 13:02:05 +0000

Cybersecurity threats are everywhere and impact every business and organization, no matter how large or small.

The threat landscape continues to evolve as bad actors become more sophisticated at taking advantage of weak cybersecurity defenses. Business risks include compromised customer data, devastating financial recovery expenses, tarnished company reputation, substantial direct financial losses, and weakened client trust. The question is not whether cyber-fraudsters will target your organization, but when. Where does leadership start?

Join Dickinson Law, Holmes Murphy, & Eide Bailly on April 9th for a series of afternoon panel discussions focusing on how to develop a cybersecurity program from the ground up.

Topics include:

Discussion with experienced cybersecurity professionals who have developed and implemented cybersecurity programs. The discussion will focus on the challenge of tailoring a program to an organization’s specific needs, and ensuring that the program complies with applicable cybersecurity regulations.
Discussion about developing a cybersecurity program that complies with the ever changing legal landscape. New laws like CCPA, GDPR, and a host of potential other state laws are all changing the priorities for cybersecurity compliance.
Discussion about developing a cybersecurity program that complies with some of the leading cybersecurity protocols, including NIST, FFIEC, and ISO standards.
Discussion about training employees to implement the cybersecurity plan, and how to provide incentives and consequences for employees to comply with the plan.
The questions you should ask your CISO about the development of your cybersecurity program, and issues you should look out for.

Attendees will leave with a greater understanding of the tools needed to assure business security, protect customer data, and stay compliant with the law, and
the questions to ask of their cybersecurity teams.

Panelists will include:

Bob Hickok, Senior Manager, Risk Advisory Services, Eide Bailly LLP
Miles Weis, AVP, Executive Risk & Cyber Practice Leader, Holmes Murphy
Ross Ingersoll, Executive Risk & Cyber Account Executive
Bryan Thompson, Information Security Director, Holmes Murphy
John Lande, Attorney & Cybersecurity Chair, Dickinson Law Firm
Emily McGovern, Attorney, Dickinson Law Firm
Bryan O'Neill, Attorney, Dickinson Law Firm
Andrea Rastelli, Attorney, Dickinson Law Firm
Melissa Schilling, Attorney, Dickinson Law Firm

Event Schedule:

12-4 p.m. CT - Seminar

Complimentary lunch will be provided at noon.

Happy hour directly following the panels.

New Dickinson Law Leadership Elected

noreply@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:01:19 +0000

Pictured L-R: Attorneys Ben Bruner, Melissa Schilling, John Lande, Ron Mountsier, Amy Plummer, and Brad Kruse.

Dickinson Law is pleased to announce its newly-elected Board of Directors.

Ron Mountsier was elected as President of the firm, replacing labor and employment attorney Jeff Krausman who served in the role since 2014. Mountsier is engaged in general practice and focuses on taxation, business and corporate law, as well as estate planning and probate matters.

Amy Plummer was elected Treasurer. Plummer practices primarily in the area of corporate and banking law, mergers and acquisitions, business formation, e-commerce, intellectual property, and software licensing agreements.

John Lande was elected Secretary. Lande’s practice includes a variety of civil litigation matters, bank regulatory issues, and cybersecurity.

Ben Bruner and Melissa Schilling were both elected Vice President. Bruner has a business-focused practice including banking and financial services, commercial finance, real estate and corporate law. Schilling primarily represents and counsels public and private sector employers in labor and employment matters.

Brad Kruse has also become a shareholder at Dickinson Law on January 1. His practice focuses on bankruptcy and creditor’s rights matters, business and corporate law, and banking and financial services.

Newest I-9 Form “Update” Includes a Reminder of Responsibility

dgonzales@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 14:02:59 +0000

At the end of January the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule establishing the newest version of Form I-9 for employment eligibility verification. While two new countries were added to the online version of the form, the only changes of any significance were made in the instructions. The changes to the form itself affected only the online version of the form and are exclusively the result of two countries recently renaming themselves (Eswatini and North Macedonia).

Two changes were made to the instructions that are worth noting for employers. First, in Section 2 employers are instructed to leave blank any lines not used to record information from identification provided by the employee rather than writing “N/A” in those sections. It is worth reminding the person in the organization responsible for I-9s to stop writing “N/A” as it could potentially lead to a small fine in an audit.

Second, and most significantly, the language in the instructions addressing how Section 2 is completed. Section 2 is completed by the “employer or authorized representative” and the press release from DHS claims a clarification of who may be an “authorized representative.” A review of the actual changes on the form reveal no such clarification, but do show a reminder to the ultimate responsible party:

“An authorized representative can be any person you designate to complete and sign Form I-9 on your behalf. You are liable for any violations in connection with the form or the verification process, including any violations of the employer sanctions laws committed by the person designated on your behalf.”

In other words, an employer can designate anyone they like to complete their section of the form, but remain ultimately liable for ANY violation whether technical or substantive. None of these changes institute new policy, but do serve as a not-so-gentle reminder for employers.

The new forms are available now at https://www.uscis.gov/i-9. Employers may continue to use the current form until April 30, 2020. Regardless of the forms used, employers should take great care in designating a third party to complete these forms as DHS has made clear where the ultimate responsibility flows.

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen ranked in 2020 "Best Law Firms"

noreply@dickinsonlaw.com (Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.) — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:45:39 +0000

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen has been ranked in the 2020 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" list regionally in 26 practice areas.

This list recognizes firms who exhibit professional excellence with impressive ratings from their clients and peers. Ranked firms are presented in tiers on a national and/or metropolitan scale.

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen received the following rankings in the 2020 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms":

Metropolitan Tier 1

Des Moines

Banking and Finance Law

Commercial Litigation

Construction Law

Corporate Governance Law

Corporate Law

Education Law

Employment Law - Management

Family Law

Financial Services Regulation Law

Labor Law - Management

Land Use & Zoning Law

Litigation - Labor & Employment

Litigation - Land Use & Zoning

Litigation - Real Estate

Real Estate Law

Trusts & Estates Law

Metropolitan Tier 2

Des Moines

Appellate Practice

Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law

Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)

Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law

Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law

Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Tax Law

Metropolitan Tier 3

Des Moines

Bet-the-Company Litigation

Litigation - Construction

Nonprofit / Charities Law

The announcement comes on the heels of U.S. News’ 2020 Best Lawyers in America® rankings, in which 19 of the firms’ attorneys were recently selected. The complete listing can be found here.

Each year only one lawyer in a given practice area and metropolitan region is chosen as Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers®. Dickinson Attorney F. Richard Lyford was also recognized by Best Lawyers® as the 2020 Litigation – Real Estate “Lawyer of the Year” in Des Moines.

Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C. - Iowa Immigration Blog

Dickinson Attorneys Named to All Three Best Lawyers® Recognition Lists for 2021

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. is pleased to announce that 24 attorneys of the firm have been named by Best Lawyers® to its 2021 recognition lists for professional legal excellence, including:

2021 Best Lawyers in America

Dickinson attorneys recognized for The Best Lawyers in America 2021 include:

Lawyers of the Year

Three attorneys from Dickinson Law were named “Lawyer of the Year” for 2021 in their respective areas, including:

Ones To Watch

The following Dickinson lawyers were recognized in the 2021 Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch:

About Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C.

Experience You Need. Results You Want.

Department of Homeland Security Addresses Ongoing COVID-19 Issues with Temporary Policies

COVID-19: Tax Filing Date & Payment Extension, Tax Credits for Paid Leave, and NEW Stimulus Payments

Identification of Essential Critical Workforce During COVID-19 Response

Trump Signs Families First Coronavirus Response Act: How It Will Impact Employers*

Update: House Makes Significant Changes to Families First Coronavirus Response Act

Building a Winning Cybersecurity Program: Where Does Leadership Start?

New Dickinson Law Leadership Elected

Newest I-9 Form “Update” Includes a Reminder of Responsibility

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen ranked in 2020 "Best Law Firms"

Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. is pleased to announce that 24 attorneys of the firm have been named by Best Lawyers^® to its 2021 recognition lists for professional legal excellence, including:

**Dickinson attorneys recognized for The Best Lawyers in America 2021 include:**