Update on the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law and Attorney General Regulations

BY ANTHONY V. BOVA ON JULY 1, 2015POSTED IN HUMAN RESOURCES COMPLIANCE, LAWS AND REGULATIONS, WAGE & HOUR
In our blog post on May 22, 2015, we discussed traps that unwary employers must avoid when the Earned Sick Time law, or “EST law” for short, becomes effective on July 1.  Well, that day is today, meaning all employers must revisit their sick time policies to ensure compliance with the EST law.

On June 19, Attorney General Maura Healey released final regulations for the EST law, including a number of changes that astute employers must take note of.  While one should review the final regulations to capture every update, or consult with counsel about best practices, some of the trickier changes and clarifications follow.

• Interaction with State and Federal Leave Laws: The final regulations state that sick time may run concurrently with time off provided by the Family Medical Leave Act, the Massachusetts Parental Leave Act, the Massachusetts Domestic Violence Act, the Small Necessities Leave Act, and other applicable laws whereas the draft regulations stated that sick time could be used in addition to time off allowable under these laws business litigation attorney.

• Travel: The final regulations clarify that sick time may indeed be used for travel to and from an appointment, pharmacy, or other location related to the purpose for which the sick time was taken.

• Accrued Time Limits: Once an employee has accrued 40 hours of earned sick time in one benefit year, he or she does not continue to accrue additional hours regardless of additional hours worked.  Further, once an employee banks 40 hours by carrying them over from one year to the next, an employer may opt to delay further accrual until the employee reduces his or her bank of earned sick time below 40 hours.

• Notice Provisions – Employees have a number of notice constraints on their ability to use earned sick time.  They may not use earned sick time as an excuse for being late to work without an authorized purpose.  Nonetheless, the form of notice an employee must provide for unforeseeable absences will depend on what is reasonable under the circumstances (recognizing that in some situations advanced notice may be unfeasible), and an employer may require notification of the expected duration of multi-day absences when reasonable.  Employers would be wise to create a reasonable notification system for ease of use by both employees and management.

• Medical Documentation – Employers may request medical documentation for an employee’s use of earned sick time that: exceeds 24 consecutively scheduled work hours, exceeds 3 consecutive days on which the employee was scheduled to work, occurs within 2 weeks prior to an employee’s final day of work before termination (except in the case of temporary workers), or occurs after 4 unforeseeable/undocumented absences within a 3 month period (3 such absences for employees under aged 17).

• Breaks in Service – The final regulations have a comprehensive “break in service” section describing how employees who separate from their employees, either voluntarily or involuntarily, can use accrued sick time.  Following a break in service of up to 4 months, an employee maintains the right to use all unused but earned sick time accrued before the break, but if the break is between 4 – 12 months, the employee can only use such time if he or she has accrued 10 or more hours.

These clarifications to the EST law are but a few of the overall updates to the law’s final regulations.  There are many facets for employers to consider beyond the simple notion that employees must be afforded sick time.  Employers are encouraged to speak with counsel experienced with employment law and knowledgeable about the EST law’s parameters, especially when updating their employee handbooks or drafting new internal policies compliant with the EST law.

Earlier this year, I posted about whether a policyholder has a right to independent counsel when a possible conflict of interest appears between the carrier and the policyholder.  (You can read that post here.)  We’re frequently asked that question, because when insurance companies agree to defend a claim, they often send a reservation of rights letter that contains dozens of exclusions and limitations that the carrier says may lead to no coverage later. Such letters understandably cause angst to policyholders, who paid for, and depend upon, protection from liability. Related issue: Policyholders are sometimes unhappy with the defense lawyers that the carriers appoint. I have one claim right now involving a major personal injury claim, for example, in which appointed defense counsel didn’t bother to speak with the policyholder until the morning of a mediation. Not good. And though most defense lawyers are sensitive to their duty of loyalty to the policyholder, it’s just human nature to remember who butters your bread.

An interesting case recently came down in California involving the independent counsel issue. The case, Travelers v. Kaufman & Broad, involved a construction defect lawsuit, in which a general contractor (Kaufman) was named as additional insured under a subcontractor’s (Norcraft) policies.  Travelers appointed defense counsel for Kaufman, but Kaufman was unhappy because the law firm had represented parties adverse to Kaufman in other construction defect cases.  Kaufman argued that Travelers had failed to provide it with an “immediate, full, complete and conflict-free defense.”  (To me, the conflict claim doesn’t make much sense, because the fact that a law firm has represented parties against you in the past isn’t a conflict. If the law firm worked for you, and then represented parties against you, a conflict might exist.)

On the question of whether Travelers had provided an “immediate” defense, Kaufman argued that Travelers had improperly waited four months from the initial tender of claim to appoint defense counsel.  Travelers, however, had sent a letter of acknowledgment only two weeks after receiving the claim, requesting a copy of the subcontract between Norcraft and Kaufman.  Kaufman didn’t respond until three months later, and only after Travelers had sent a follow-up letter. After receiving the subcontract and confirming additional insured coverage, Travelers appointed defense counsel.  The Court wrote: “Since [Travelers] notified [Kaufman] that it had accepted the tender approximately one week after receiving a copy of the subcontract, [Kaufman] cannot demonstrate that [Travelers] failed to provide an immediate defense.”

The Court also rejected Kaufman’s argument as to whether Travelers had provided a “complete” defense. With respect to the reservation of rights, Travelers basically stated that it reserved the right to seek contribution from Kaufman for uncovered claims in connection with settlements or judgments. The Court wrote: “Kaufman does not explain…how these provisions violate Travelers’ duty to provide a complete defense, and the court does not find that they violate the duty on their face.”

Finally, Kaufman argued that Travelers had entered into a secretly negotiated settlement agreement with underlying plaintiffs’ counsel, to resolve the claims covered by the Norcraft subcontract, and then withdrew from the underlying case once those claims were settled. The Court disagreed that the settlement was a problem, writing: “It is undisputed that Travelers had the duty to defend [and] Travelers had the right to control settlement negotiations of the covered claims without Kaufman’s participation. That Travelers settled only the claims that arose out of the work of Norcraft does not make the settlement improper, nor does it indicate that Travelers furthered its own interests, and Kaufman has not shown that it experienced increased defense fees and costs – outside of what it would otherwise have incurred – due to Travelers’ withdrawal from the [underlying] action.”

Although the Court resolved some of the coverage issues, the case went to the jury last month on the question of whether Kaufman had breached the duty to cooperate.  (Not sure why the parties or the Court bothered, at this point.)   The jury found that Kaufman had failed to cooperate with Travelers, but that Travelers had suffered no damages as a result.  (What a waste of legal fees.)

Some takeaways:  While reservation of rights letters can be frustrating and unnerving to policyholders, they do not, in and of themselves, prove that the carrier is offering less than a proper defense. Of course, I’m not sure why carriers can’t simply cover themselves by writing: “This defense is provided subject to the limitation that, if facts are later developed showing that a policy exclusion applies, the defense may be withdrawn in whole or in part.” I think it’s the 35 numbered paragraphs of exclusions and limitations that create unease for the policyholder. I have a little more difficult time accepting the Court’s conclusion that the insurance company should be allowed to conclude settlements without at least keeping the policyholder in the loop; here, however, since Kaufman couldn’t show that the settlement of the covered claims unfairly increased its expenses, it was a matter of “no blood, no foul.”

In any event, if you’re a policyholder, I think that it’s in your best interest to keep in contact with the carrier from time to time (in writing) requesting status updates on your file.  And when the insurance company asks for information in the claims process, try to provide it without delay.Twe

Players: These Small Business Owners Have Big Hearts

It's fairly well known that many local business owners keep a pad of gift certificates in the top drawer to peel off and hand over to virtually any school group/team/charity that asks for help. Yet even within this generous community there are standouts. Here, we give thanks to five who go well beyond routine donations to make the world a better place.

Norman Dahl III, DDS, Branford

"I'm a giving junkie," says family dentist Dr. Norman Dahl. He's referring to the rush of joy, fueled by dopamine, which happens when acts of kindness are bestowed on others. He knows it well: In addition to a full schedule of fundraisers (Dancing With the Stars, Men of Branford calendar, lobster bake, etc.), he operates Dr. Dahl's Community Give-Back Program, offering free dental care to one Branford family each month small business attorney.

These are people without dental coverage; they apply via a form available at the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce. Along with wife, Janet, and his staff, Dahl says, "I kind of adopt a family and give them what they need — cleanings, fillings, maintenance." It's a relatively new program, and the good doc hopes that other professionals and businesses will follow.

Lucian Addario, Lucian's Florist, Hamden

"Lucian's Plants Clean the Air." It's not just a slogan; it's a promise, according to Lucian Addario, a florist with decades of horticultural history. Scenesters of the '70s might remember his work at Fitzwilly's and Chart House restaurants in New Haven, both of which he loaded with lush greenery, while newbies might know his "living wall" at Leon's in North Haven.

"Interior plantscaping is catching on again because people are realizing that plants filter out toxins," says Addario. In his 46 years in business, he has also cultivated goodwill; from digging a well in Haiti to supporting groups like Music Haven and Elm Shakespeare Co., Addario lives by the belief that "America's greatest natural resource is its children."

Chris Walsh, Duffy's Tavern, West Haven

It is possible that West Haven would shatter into pieces if it weren't for the centralizing presence of Duffy's Tavern. Much more than a cozy spot with yummy pub fare, Duffy's hosts and supports a steady stream of community groups and nonprofits, from school bands to the Special Olympics.

"I was born and raised in West Haven and I had an amazing childhood here," says publican Chris Walsh, who started at Duffy's at age 13 at the feet of his father, John. "It's important to me to give back to a city that gave me so much." Out of the 25-plus charities that Walsh names off the top of his head, one nearest to his heart is Toys for Tots. Says the father of two wee ones: "I know how happy those simple gifts make children who are less fortunate."

Attorney Debra Marino, Orange

If Debra Marino could be described in one word, it would be: dynamic. An attorney who practices family law, she deals with divorce and custody litigation, and fights for victims of domestic violence. Also, she serves on the Orange board of finance, sponsors Little League teams and charity golf tournaments, directs a charity she co-founded with her husband (attorney Vincent Marino) called Saving Orange Residents in Need, and more.

This summer, she launched the Orange Hot Moms Softball League. "It started out as fun, with moms from three elementary schools, kind of like a rumble," says the mother of two. "Then we decided, let's raise funds for breast cancer!" They passed a bra at the game and came back with $1,800; now the Hot Moms will play a charity game every August.

Matthew Bailey, B.C. Bailey Funeral Home, Wallingford

This summer, in a tragic act of filicide, siblings Daaron and Aleisha Moore of East Haven lost their lives. The news reports were horrible, yet, in all the darkness, there was a ray of light: From the far side of the county, a funeral director named Matt Bailey came forward and took care of the children's final arrangements at no charge.

It was a natural response on Bailey's part, a young father himself whose family business has provided light in the darkness for 136 years. Beyond the 24/7 demands of his job, Bailey's everyday life is dedicated to community service: He's an enthusiastic member of the Rotary Club — "The world would be a better place with more Rotarians!" — and supports United Way, the Elks, the Wallingford Foundation, veterans groups and more.

Bloomberg Targets Attorneys General With Ads on Carbon Emissions

By MAGGIE HABERMANNOV. 6, 2015

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More

Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City said this week that he would run millions of dollars in political television ads against four state attorneys general who are suing the Obama administration over regulations on power plant emissions.

The ads, which Mr. Bloomberg’s advisers said would cost more than $10 million across the four states, signify a new venture for the billionaire philanthropist, who has already spent heavily from his personal fortune to try to limit the number of coal-burning power plants nationally.

They amount to a defense of the White House over its Clean Power Plan, which has been met with opposition, primarily — but not only — from Republican officials. But Mr. Bloomberg’s goal, his aides insist, is to explain how the issue of clean energy affects people in major cities and living near power plants business attorneys.

Still, the ads will run in four states that have been presidential battlegrounds, and on an issue that has gained increasing attention from both political parties. The ads will run in Missouri, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, and target Republicans and Democrats. The lone Democrat in the group, Chris Koster of Missouri, is running for governor next year.

The ads will begin running over the coming days, with two of them describing the attorneys general as accepting donations from “polluters” and bowing to special interests. The ad targeting Mr. Koster portrays him as an opponent of President Obama’s environmental agenda and as someone who is not doing the right thing for Missouri’s families.

In Michigan, a similar commercial will accuse Attorney General Bill Schuette of “putting polluters and his campaign contributors ahead of protecting Michigan families.” In Florida, the spot describes Pam Bondi, a Republican, as “an attorney general for polluters, not for us.” The ads are being paid for through Mr. Bloomberg’s political arm, Independence USA PAC.

“These four attorneys general are trying to stop the president from doing something that I think is terribly important,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a telephone interview. “I want the public to know what they’re doing.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s political spending has focused primarily on gun control in recent years and has sometimes been to his detriment. The National Rifle Association and others have often lampooned him as an out-of-state billionaire in hopes of neutralizing the impact of his backing.

Andrew Whalen, a spokesman for Mr. Koster’s campaign for governor, used a similar approach to respond to the ads, saying that he “works for the people of Missouri, not a New York City billionaire.” He suggested that the cost of the Clean Power Plan in the state could reach several times what the state spends on education, adding, “While a double-digit electric bill jump might not affect someone with Michael Bloomberg’s bank account, it would devastate seniors on fixed incomes, working families and small businesses across the state.”

In emailed statements, Ms. Bondi and the Wisconsin attorney general, Brad D. Schimel, echoed those remarks, with Mr. Schimel describing Mr. Bloomberg as an “out-of-touch billionaire” and Ms. Bondi calling him a “billionaire bully.”

John Sellek, a spokesman for Mr. Schuette, also described the ads as evidence of a promoter of big government, saying, “Next, he’ll be coming after your trucks and S.U.V.s.”

The targets of the ads are members of a broad collection of attorneys general who are suing the Environmental Protection Agency to block the new regulations, which would limit carbon emissions from power plants and reduce the amount of coal used by states. The opposition to the regulations includes concerns about an overreach by the federal government, as well as fears that the new emissions standards will prove costly for states.

A rival lawsuit has been filed by officials in other states, led by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, seeking to support the Obama administration. The suits have become the latest battle in the policy wars during the Obama administration, in a fight that members of the coal industry often call the “war on coal.”

As the mayor of New York, Mr. Bloomberg worked on pollution reduction, limiting automobile traffic in central areas by putting pedestrian plazas in place and forcing building owners to abandon the dirtiest forms of heating oil.

Unlike with guns, an issue that Mr. Bloomberg has spent at least $50 million on through ads and the group he formed, Everytown, his advisers think there is less passion among voters for protecting coal-burning power plants. And unlike governors or senators, attorneys general are often lesser-known figures in their states, so Mr. Bloomberg’s advisers are hoping their ads can define these officials in the minds of voters as being anti-environment. Ms. Bondi and Mr. Schimel would be up for re-election in 2018. Mr. Schuette cannot be re-elected because of term limits but has been considering a run for Michigan governor in 2018.

Howard Wolfson, a political adviser to Mr. Bloomberg, said the ads were also intended to put attorneys general “on notice” that attention would be paid to their actions.

Mr. Bloomberg, who is the United Nations secretary general’s special envoy for climate change and cities, has since 2011 a spent $60 million on a campaign called Beyond Coal, founded by the Sierra Club in 2002 as a grass-roots effort. Their work has escalated in scope and in funding after the failure of the cap-and-trade bill in 2010 in the Senate.

The former mayor said he was not concerned about the possibility of political pushback in the form of rival ads from figures in the coal industry, which include the billionaire oil magnates Charles and David Koch.

People can’t “go through life afraid to say something,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “We do live in partisan times.”

Mr. Bloomberg would not offer a guess as to how many other attorneys general he might target, but said his goal is to “send a message.”

“I can’t run ads in favor of people I think are doing the right thing or opposed to everyone who isn’t,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Even I don’t have that kind of money.”

Doctors, lawyers concerned about Trudeau's small-business tax changes

Doctors and lawyers who run their own practices are anxiously waiting for more details on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to change tax rules for small businesses. At the moment, few details on the forthcoming changes are available, leaving these professionals wondering just how they will be affected.

The issue of tax avoidance arose during the fall federal election when the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP endorsed the proposal in the 2015 federal budget (passed into law in June) to reduce the small-business tax rate to 9 per cent from 11 per cent. The three parties said it was important to support small businesses because they are a major driver of jobs and economic growth small business lawyer.

However, the Liberals were concerned about handing out tax cuts to small businesses that are set up mainly to avoid taxes. As Mr. Trudeau said in a CBC broadcast on Sept. 8: “We have to know that a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs.”

The Conservatives and NDP disagreed during the election with the suggestion that the percentage of tax dodgers was large. Nonetheless, the Liberals pushed ahead, saying in their election campaign document that they wanted to ensure “Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) status is not used to reduce personal income tax obligations for high-income earners.”

Financial adviser Ross McShane of McLarty & Co. has an idea of what could be in store. He thinks the Liberals could reduce or eliminate the small-business tax deduction for these businesses and could also eliminate the ability to split income through dividend-paying shares issued to spouses and adult offspring.

For CCPCs that currently use these tax breaks, the changes could be significant. Gavin Miranda, a partner at accounting, tax and business consulting firm MNP LLP, has crunched the numbers for Ontario businesses and finds that if the small-business tax deduction is not available, “every $50,000 of taxable income would give rise to an additional $5,750 of corporate tax in 2016.” Also, if shares can no longer be issued to family members, small-business owners (in the highest tax bracket) now paying $40,000 in taxable dividends to a family shareholder could face as much as $17,000 more in taxes.

Not all CCPCs have access to these tax breaks, so the impact of the amendments won’t be as significant in some cases. For example, depending on the province, members of many professional groups are only permitted to issue shares in CCPCs to persons in their profession. And in Quebec, the eligibility for the small-business deduction was amended to exclude corporations employing less than four full-time persons year-round; companies that don’t qualify are subject to the 15-per-cent federal corporate rate.

Dr. Barry Dworkin belongs to one of the groups that could be among the hardest hit: Ontario physicians. He believes that the gross income figures often reported in the media may have created a misconception about how much physicians really earn. Like most self-employed persons, Dr. Dworkin says physicians bear a lot of expenses that salaried individual don’t have to deal with. As Mr. McShane says: “People have to understand that many doctors are not ‘swimming in money.’ ”

A 2012 study by Ontario Medical Association economist Boris Kralj provided estimates of take-home pay for Ontario doctors using data from PricewaterhouseCoopers. In fiscal 2009-10, they received an average $318,278 in gross payments but after deducting average overhead costs of $141,517 and 20 per cent for pension and benefits, their average disposable income netted out to about $145,000.

“I don’t make oodles and oodles of money or spend frivolously – in fact, my car is a five-year-old Hyundai Elantra,” Dr. Dworkin says. “And with the Ontario government asking doctors to do more while cutting back on fees, it’s getting to be discouraging. I’m beginning to ask, why bother? Maybe it’s time to slow down and retire.”

Tech start-up Lexoo, listed among the top 100 start-ups of 2015, has closed a $1.3m funding round led by Forward Partners to “disrupt” the legal market; taking its total investment to $1.7m.

High-profile names including Just Giving chairman Jonathan McKay, Vouchercodes founder Duncan Jennings, Lean Investments’ Tim Jackson and Boris Johnson’s London Co-Investment Fund also backed the round.

Launched in July 2014, Lexoo is a free on-demand marketplace which matches UK small and medium businesses such as YPlan and Hello Fresh with lawyers and claims to enable small firms to cut an average of 46% off of their legal bills.

After posting a job, businesses receive between three to four quotes (usually fixed fee) from screened lawyers with expertise in the relevant legal area. Having processed over $1.5m in legal work over the past year with a 25% month-on-month growth rate, the start-up plans to use the news funds to boost its sales and marketing activities.

On the investment, Lexoo CEO and co-founder, Daniel van Binsbergen (pictured centre), commented: “This funding round gives us the opportunity to further accelerate our growth and help thousands more businesses find the lawyer that’s right for them.”

Forward Partners managing partner, Nic Brisbourne, continued:

“Binsbergen and the team at Lexoo have achieved an amazing amount with what was a relatively small amount of seed funding. I’m confident this new funding round gives them the runway to pull the legal services industry into the 21st century.”

New U.S. Attorney: Corporations “commit crimes through flesh-and-blood people” that I will send to jail

September 12, 2015

Newly appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch says it is time for Wall Street fat cats to face jail time for their crimes. Gone, says the Department of Justice (DOJ), are the days when executives could destroy the economy through illegal means and escape unscathed while their corporations only paid fines.

A new memo from the Department of Justice outlines that the DOJ will pursue charges against individuals responsible for illegal activity.

“Corporations can only commit crimes through flesh-and-blood people,” said Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general and author of the policy memo. Ms. Yates further told the New York Times. “It’s only fair that the people who are responsible for committing those crimes be held accountable. The public needs to have confidence that there is one system of justice and it applies equally regardless of whether that crime occurs on a street corner or in a boardroom.”

“Even imposing unprecedented financial penalties on the institutions whose conduct led to the financial crisis is not a substitute for holding individuals within those institutions personally accountable,” Yates said said in February to a group of attorneys general business contracts.

“We’re not going to be accepting a company’s cooperation when they just offer up the vice president in charge of going to jail,” Yates told the Times.

Will this mark a change in the DOJ’s practices? Time will tell. We have heard it before, and nothing ever changes.

I am a proud graduate of a historically black college and university – North Carolina Central University.

I graduated in 1994 with honors with a major in public administration and a minor in political science. Upon graduation, I attended Indiana University at Bloomington and graduated with a Juris Doctorate in 1998.

Today, I am a senior vice president and assistant general counsel at CBS Corporation and the founder and CEO of Corporate Counsel Women of Color, a nonprofit that has galvanized close to 10,000 diverse attorneys (in-house attorneys, law firm attorneys, government lawyers, and judges) in the legal profession. Our mission is to advocate for diversity in the legal profession.

I found my way to North Carolina Central by way of my parents, Frances Privott Robinson and the late James Robinson.

My mother and father were both raised in North Carolina. They attended NCCU when it was the North Carolina College for Negroes.

They met there, fell in love, and married. When my parents graduated from NCCU, my father went on to attend law school at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

Upon graduation, my mother and he moved to the Washington, D.C. area.

I was born and raised in Prince George’s County in Maryland – one of the most affluent African-American counties in the United States.

Our community was filled with professionals, many of whom had attended HBCUs such as NCCU, Tuskegee, North Carolina A&T, Morehouse, Spelman, Howard and Tennessee State.

These people were role models to me. They were successful in business, the public school system, military, and in the government.

They had a strong sense of community, self, and pride as African-Americans.

As a child growing up, my parents were active in the NCCU Alumni Association and often quoted the school’s motto to me: “An Eagle is no ordinary barnyard fowl.”

My parents instilled in me the lessons they learned at NCCU and conveyed to me throughout my life that I could be anything I wanted to be.

My mother grew up as a tenant farmer in Cofield, N.C.

She repeatedly shared with me what her father, my grandfather, told her: “Each generation must do better than the generation before.”

My grandfather sent all three of his daughters to HBCUs.

After I graduated from high school, and it was time to select a college, there was only one choice for me – North Carolina Central University.

My entire time at NCCU was nothing but rewarding. Many of the tools and skills that I learned at NCCU have carried me through my 18 years as a lawyer in corporate America and through my 12 years of leadership of Corporate Counsel Women of Color.

One of the experiences at NCCU that stands out to me -- that helped to shape and mold me into the person I am today -- is the stringent curriculum.

I was in the NCCU University Honors Program, which required students to conduct qualitative and quantitative research. Through the Honors Program students were required to take 21 hours per semester and maintain a 3.0 GPA.

This experience was phenomenal. It gave me the foundation to be multi-functional and efficiently management my time. It also gave me the fundamentals in the law for research, writing and analytical skills. It helped springboard me to write a cutting-edge article while I was in law school for the "Indiana Law Journal" entitled “Professional Athletes - Held to a Higher Standard and Above the Law: A Comment on High-Profile Criminal Defendants and the Need for States to Establish High-Profile Courts.”

Furthermore, through the Honors Program, I earned a summer internship at the White House in First Lady Hillary Clinton’s office. It is exciting to see my former boss now running for the White House.

Another critical experience at NCCU was my ability to serve as Miss North Carolina Central University in 1994, where I was able to serve the community, serve as the University’s ambassador, and develop my leadership skills.

The best part of the experience was the ability to compete in pageants. Through this process, the campus administrators provided me with training in oratory, voice and diction, and presentation. The pageants pushed me out of my comfort zone. I learned the critical importance of following instructions, controlling oneself, graciously receiving feedback, criticism, and critique — all of these skills are important in the workplace and in life.

I remembered they would tell us that being on time is being late. To this day, I arrive 15 minutes early before an appointment so not to miss anything. I learned the most important lesson: My only competition is me. Don’t look to the left. Cut out the distractions. Don’t look to the right. Keep your eyes on Christ and look straight ahead.  This lesson carries me to this very day.

It should be noted also that at NCCU, the faculty took enormous interest in me. They nurtured me and shared their time and insights with me. I had an opportunity to be mentored by the late Chancellor Julius Chambers, the former executive director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

We stayed in contact even after I graduated. One of my proudest moments in my career was being invited to join the NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s Board of Directors in 2013. I am proud to carry on the work of Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley and Julius Chambers as we continue to keep our focus on equality in America.

EXCLUSIVE– Attorney For Displaced Disney Workers: Rubio A ‘Liar’ Appeasing ‘His Corporate Donors’

American workers laid off by Orlando Disney are preparing a lawsuit against their former employer. They allege they were replaced by lower-wage foreign workers on H-1B visas— and that they were forced to suffer the indignity of training their foreign replacements.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, the workers’ attorney, Sara Blackwell, provides details about the lawsuit, and slams the workers’ home state senator— Marco Rubio— for pushing to triple the H-1B visa to appease his “corporate donors.”

“I think Sen. Rubio is a liar,” Blackwell said:

When you tell America that there are not enough qualified American workers— whether you are Mark Zuckerberg, or [Disney CEO] Bob Iger, or Marco Rubio— when you say that there aren’t enough qualified Americans while hundreds of qualified Americans are being fired, and replaced by less qualified foreigners, that’s a straight lie. And I think Rubio lies. And the only motivation I can imagine he has to do so is the support he gets from his corporate donors.

Blackwell tells Breitbart that the Disney employees are filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is a prerequisite to bringing forth a discrimination lawsuit. Blackwell explained that by terminating the Americans and forcing them to train their foreign replacements, the employees will make discrimination claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act corporate attorney.

The claims include discrimination based on national origin (the displaced workers were American/non-Indian, while their replacements were reportedly Indian nationals); race (most of the employees terminated were non-Indian, while their replacements were reportedly Indian nationals); age (most of the displaced workers were over the age of forty while most of the foreign replacements were under forty); and gender (some of the employees who were terminated were women while nearly all of the foreign worker replacements were men).

Blackwell says that getting the American workers the legal protections to which they are entitled to has been difficult given the top-down pressure to silence the displaced workers. “Most of the American workers that were terminated are afraid to come forward,” Blackwell said. “They’re afraid to speak, afraid to file a complaint. The tech industry is very unstable and they don’t want to be blacklisted, which does happen. Most of them are worried and scared to come forward.”

Blackwell told Breitbart that she got involved in representing the tech workers after learning how American citizens are being discriminated against in their own country by virtue of their American nationality.

Indeed, groups promoting policies that would replace American workers frequently use the term “new America” as a euphemism. For instance, the Murdoch-Iger lobbying firm is called the “Partnership for A New American Economy;” the National Journal has launched “The Next America” project; and the White House’s immigration initiative is called the “New Americans Project.” Similarly, Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign theme is, “A New American Century.”

Rubio’s newest H-1B expansion bill is titled the Immigration Innovation Act, or I-Squared. Some of Rubio’s top financial boosters are big users of H-1B program.

For instance, Oracle is ranked 20th among the biggest users of the H-1B program, according to USCIS data analyzed by Computer World’s Patrick Thibodeau. Oracle has endorsed Rubio’s legislation and now its billionaire co-founder, Larry Ellison, is helping to fund Rubio’s campaign.

In July, the WSJ reported that Ellison gave $3 million to the pro-Rubio Super PAC. In June, Ellison hosted a  $2,700 per-person fundraiser for Rubio. In addition, the bill has also received the endorsement Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration expansion group, FWD.us. Most strikingly, the bill has been endorsed by the lobbying firm co-chaired by none other than Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, along with FOX’s Rupert Murdoch.

In recent weeks, the H-1B visa has become a central topic in the presidential election. Last month, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump called on Disney to hire back all of its American workers who had been replaced by low-wage foreign nationals. Trump declared:

I am calling TODAY on Disney to hire back every one of the workers they replaced, and I am calling on Rubio to immediately rescind his sponsorship of the I-Squared bill and apologize to every Floridian for endorsing it. I am further calling on Rubio to return the money he has received from Silicon Valley CEOs and to donate the money to a charity helping unemployed Americans whose jobs Rubio has helped to destroy.

Trump slammed Rubio for “dishonesty.” Trump said, “Senator Rubio is incapable of telling the truth,” and concluded, “he should be disqualified for dishonesty alone.”

In the recent CNBC presidential debate, moderator John Harwood pressed Rubio on his support for “dramatically increasing immigration visas… which Jeff Sessions of Alabama, says in reality, the tech industry uses this program to undercut hiring and wages for highly qualified Americans.”

In his lengthy response, Rubio suggested that there is a “gap” between the lesser talents of Americans and the superior talents of foreign workers.

Rubio suggested that Americans would need further training before they would be qualified to fill certain jobs in their own country: “We need to get back to training people in this country to do the jobs of the 21st century… The best way to close this gap is to modernize higher education so Americans have the skills for those jobs,” Rubio said. The “ideal scenario is to train Americans to do the work, so we don’t have to rely on people from abroad,” Rubio declared.

This response prompted swift rebuke from labor expert and Howard University professor Ron Hira. “It’s ironic that Rubio would basically blame American workers for not being skilled and trained [even though] American workers in his own state, who have the skills and were doing their job, were replaced by H-1B workers, who had less skills.”

Census data shows that there are currently 11 million U.S. workers with STEM certification that are not working in STEM employment positions.

When Rubio attempted to claim that he had sought “reforms” to the program to prevent abuses, Hira—like Blackwell— declared Rubio’s claim to be “an outright fabrication.”

Rubio’s I-Squared bill would triple H-1B visas while also essentially lifting green card caps for the foreign STEM workforce and their relatives.

In testimony submitted for the record in reply to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, H-1B expert and attorney John Miano was asked directly: “what protections exist for American workers in” Marco Rubio I-Squared bill? His blunt answer: “There are none.”

Rubio efforts to champion the H-1B program have been well-documented. In addition to his I-Squared bill, which he introduced earlier this year, the 2013 immigration bill Rubio wrote with Senator Schumer would have substantially increased the issuances of H-1B visas.

These increases would all be layered on top of America’s current record-breaking intake of foreign nationals which have hurtled the country to a milestone 42.4 million foreign-born residents. One-quarter of the country is now of foreign birth or has parents of foreign birth.

Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman explained in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year that corporations are filling roughly two-thirds of entry-level tech jobs with foreign workers. Salzman added that if the forerign worker expansions outlined in Rubio’s I-Squared bill or his Gang of Eight bill were enacted, “the increases… would supply guestworkers for more than 100 percent of the industry’s hiring needs.”

In 2013 when the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza asked why Rubio’s plan contained such large-scale guest worker provisions, a Rubio aide expressed more bluntly what Rubio implied during the CNBC debate.

The Rubio aide said:“One of the problems you have with this, ‘Oh there’s American workers who are unemployed.’ There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly because–.”

At which point another Rubio aide jumped in asserting, “But the same is true for the high-skilled worker.”

To which, the first Rubio aide replied, “Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.”

In 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Union President Chris Crane accused the Rubio of having “directly misled law enforcement officers.” Crane said “Sen. Rubio left unchanged legislative provisions that he himself admitted to us in private were detrimental, flawed and must be changed.”

When Rubio tried to claim his bill did not grant amnesty— even though Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) made clear that it bill would grant amnesty to the illegal population “on day one”—  Mark Krikorian wrote, “Unless [Rubio’s] an idiot, which I do not think to be the case, he’s trying to fool voters, not persuade them… First, [Rubio repeats] a familiar talking point: the bill doesn’t provide amnesty. For crisssake, of course it’s amnesty! Stop lying!”

Similarly, National Review documented Rubio’s repeated misrepresentations about the bill, writing in one editorial:

[Rubio] has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the ‘toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States’ (which is what his website still says). At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95–96 percent perfect.

Washington Examiner’s Byron York exposed how despite Rubio’s repeated assurances in 2013 that “stressed [the bill’s] enforcement provisions, saying that border security must come before immigrants are granted legal permanent resident status,” in a Spanish-language interview on Univision, Rubio admitted that the exact opposite was true.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

In an April 2015 interview, Sean Hannity asked Rubio a question that had been submitted by viewers via Facebook which read, “Are you prepared to…  stop illegal amnesty?”

Rubio replied, “I imagine what they’re asking about is the executive amnesty, in essence, absolutely that would be reversed. It needs to be reversed.” That same month, however, Rubio told Univision’s Jorge Ramos something that he failed to mention to Hannity, namely that Rubio hoped to keep DREAMer executive amnesty in place until some kind of “immigration reform” (i.e. legislative amnesty) has replaced it.

Rubio told Ramos in Spanish, “Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass.”

Rubio’s position on executive amnesty for DREAMers bears a striking similarity to the position articulated by President Obama—namely that he will leave the temporary executive amnesty measure for DREAMers in place while he pushes Congress to legislatively ratify amnesty, even though Congress and voters have rejected DREAM Act amnesty on multiple occasions.

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly has said that Rubio’s decision to pitch contradicting campaign agendas depending on what language he is speaking ought to be inherently disqualifying. “Rubio’s statement [on executive amnesty] was made in Spanish on the Spanish-language network Univision, which is reason enough to eliminate him from serious consideration,” Schlafly said. “When somebody is running for President of the United States, why should we have to get somebody to translate his remarks into English?”

Earlier this week, Rubio praised the refugee provisions in the Gang of Eight’s Obama-backed immigration plan. Rubio told The Guardian’s Sabrina Siddiqui that the Gang of Eight bill (S. 744) “did strengthen the refugee program,” however this claim has been debunked by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who explained in its analysis at the time that, “Title III Subtitle D of S.744 undermines current asylum and refugee law by eliminating preexisting requirements aliens apply for asylum within a certain time frame of entering the U.S., allowing asylum officers to bypass immigration judges before granting asylum to unlawful aliens, and giving broad authority to the Administration to create new categories of refugees and stateless persons to be admitted into the country.”

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz explained that Rubio’s “bill would have created endless avenues for this president to bring in an unlimited numbers of Islamic immigrants from the most volatile corners of the world.”

Earlier this month, Rubio told Hannity that he joined the Gang of Eight because he “was trying to produce the most conservative bill possible in a Senate controlled by Democrats and had hoped a more conservative House would make it even better.” Yet, unlike the McCain-Kennedy bill, which a number of Democrats opposed, Rubio’s bill was backed unanimously by Senate Democrats and championed by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Luis Gutierrez, La Raza, the Chamber of Commerce, and the immigration group co-chaired by Iger, Murdoch, Marriott and other CEOs.