In a published opinion, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals confirmed that landlords who fail to provide timely statements explaining the basis for withholding funds from a residential tenant’s security deposit may be subject to criminal prosecution and potential jail time.

In State of Wisconsin v. Lasecki, 2020 WI App 36, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a circuit court judgment convicting Lasecki, a landlord, of two misdemeanor counts of engaging in unfair trade practices for failing to either return his tenants’ security deposits in full or provide statements to the tenants explaining why he was authorized to withhold funds.

Generally, the Wisconsin Statutes allow a landlord to withhold from a tenant’s security deposit amounts reasonably necessary to pay for certain authorized categories of costs or damages. A landlord that withholds such amounts from a security deposit is required to deliver to the tenant any remaining balance in the security deposit within 21 days.

Although the Wisconsin Statutes make no mention of any further requirement on the part of a landlord who elects to withhold amounts from a security deposit, the Wisconsin Administrative Code applicable to residential tenancies requires landlords that withhold any portion of a security deposit to deliver to the tenant a written statement accounting for all amounts withheld.

Lasecki’s troubles began when his tenants filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (ATCP) alleging that Lasecki withheld their security deposits but failed to provide them with a statement accounting for the withholding. After Lasecki failed to cooperate with ATCP’s investigation into the tenants’ complaint, the local district attorney’s office became involved, eventually charging Lasecki for his failure to comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin Statutes and Administrative Code pertaining to the return of tenant security deposits.

A jury eventually found Lasecki guilty of the criminal charges brought by the district attorney. The circuit court thereafter awarded the tenants double their respective security deposits (as allowed by statute) and ordered Lasecki to a stayed sentence of 60 days in the county jail—14 days of which Lasecki served.

Lasecki appealed the jury verdict and order of the circuit court claiming that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the crimes of which Lasecki was convicted were “not known to law” and that no ordinary person would have sufficient notice that such conduct was criminal.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Lasecki’s arguments and instead affirmed his conviction, finding that the following framework within the Wisconsin Statutes and Administrative Code does provide notice that would enable an individual like Lasecki to know that his conduct was criminal in nature:

• Section 704.28 of the Wisconsin Statutes allows a landlord to withhold from a tenant’s security deposit amounts reasonably necessary to pay for certain categories of authorized costs. This same section instructs landlords to deliver the full amount of any security deposit paid by tenant, less any authorized withholdings, within 21 days.
• While section 704.28 of the Wisconsin Statutes makes no mention of any requirement that a landlord provide a withholding statement to tenants, section ATCP 134.06(4)(a) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code provides that “[i]f any portion of a security deposit is withheld by a landlord, the landlord shall . . . deliver or mail to the tenant a written statement accounting for all amounts withheld.”
• Section ATCP 134.01 of the Wisconsin Administration Code, entitled “Scope and Application,” provides that chapter ATCP 134 “is adopted under authority of [Wis. Stat. §] 100.20.
• Accordingly, pursuant to section 100.26(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, any person who intentionally refuses, neglects or fails to obey a regulation or order made or issued under section 100.20, shall, for each offense, be fined not more than $5,000 and imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one year.

After providing the above roadmap of how a landlord arrives at criminal liability for failing to provide a residential tenant with a security deposit withholding statement, the court of appeals’ decision opines that an ordinary and reasonably prudent landlord would commonly consult with Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes (the landlord/tenant law chapter) and would also appreciate the need to understand landlord/tenant regulations set forth by the Wisconsin Administrative Code. The statutory and regulatory framework contained therein is, as the court put it, not beyond the comprehension of an ordinary landlord. As such, Lasecki had sufficient notice that his conduct could constitute a crime under Wisconsin law and the circuit court’s verdict and order was affirmed.

The author of this article knows of no other instance in which a Wisconsin residential landlord has been criminally charged for failing to provide a security deposit withholding statement to a tenant. While most violations of this administrative code requirement are dealt with in civil proceedings, the court of appeals confirmed that such violations may also lead to criminal charges. Here, charges may ultimately have been brought against Lasecki in response to his failure to cooperate with the state’s investigation into the consumer complaint filed by his tenants; however, the court’s decision should impress upon all residential landlords in Wisconsin the importance of providing tenants with a statement of all amounts withheld from their security deposit.

American law long has recognized the authority of government officials to address public health emergencies. Almost 200 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the power to address public health emergencies generally is held by the states rather than the federal government. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 205 (1824) (recognizing the “power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens”). And more than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the seminal case on the power of the states to respond to a public health crisis in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). There, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of a state statute authorizing local health boards to require that residents be vaccinated against smallpox or pay a five-dollar fine.

As the Court explained in Jacobson, the authority to respond to a public health crisis must be “lodged somewhere,” and it is “not an unusual, nor an unreasonable or arbitrary, requirement,” to vest that authority in officials “appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions.” Id. at 27. The Court intermittently emphasized the necessity of the state public health regulation, as well as the utilitarian aspect of rules protecting the many at the expense of the few, but ultimately seemed to rely on the basic police power of the state to regulate public health as the basis for its decision. Id. at 26, 28, 29, 31. Thus, while the Jacobson decision shows the high level of deference courts may give to the actions of states faced with a public health crisis, it does not set forth a clear framework for today’s courts or governmental officials, in part because the decision arose before the development of modern due process jurisprudence.

In its recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court may have begun to minimize the impact of Jacobson today. There, the Court enjoined an executive order by New York’s governor establishing certain occupancy limits to combat the spread of COVID-19. The Court noted that although “[m]embers of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area … even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Id. at *3.

In a concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch  distinguished  Jacobson from the case before the Court, stating it “hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic.” Id. at *5 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). He noted that people affected by the mandatory vaccination order at issue in Jacobson could avoid taking the smallpox vaccine by paying a small fine or identifying a basis for exemption and stated that Jacobson’s imposition on individual rights therefore was “avoidable and relatively modest” and “easily survived rational basis review, and might even have survived strict scrutiny, given the opt-outs available to certain objectors.” Id. at *6. He concluded by calling Jacobson a “modest decision.” Id.

On the other hand, Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a line from Jacobson in his dissent, stating that “[o]ur Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’“ Id. at *9 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 38). He concluded that “it is not clear which part of this … quotation today’s concurrence finds so discomforting.” Id.

Jacobson and the cases that followed it analyzing past public health emergencies continue to provide guidance today about how to administer public health measures to combat contagious diseases, including current COVID-19 programs. This established law has guided government officials, public health experts, physicians, the public, attorneys and the courts for over a century. But the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 (and the vaccines and treatments for it) are new. The novel nature of COVID-19, as well as the significant advances in medicine and science since the Jacobson decision was issued over a century ago, may lead to new and differing public health jurisprudence governing public health measures to combat the spread of disease. While the recent discussion of the limits of public health authority found in the Roman Catholic Diocese does not change established public health precedent, the comments made in the decision suggest the Court may be open to some sort of change in the law in the future.

Grant Killoran is a shareholder in O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing’s Milwaukee office with a practice focusing on complex business and health care disputes and is the immediate past Chair of its Litigation Practice Group. He can be reached at 414.291.4733 or at grant.killoran@wilaw.com.

Businesses can now claim a 100% deduction on restaurant meals through the end of 2022, the IRS announced. The IRS released guidance today, April 8, which temporarily allows businesses a full deduction for food and beverages purchased from restaurants, starting after December 31, 2020 and before January 1, 2023. Importantly, the full deduction only applies to food purchased from take-out and dine-in restaurants. The deduction does not apply to pre-packaged food or groceries. Additionally, food from third-party facilities operated by an employer isn’t eligible for the deduction.

O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing will continue to monitor federal and state law tax changes. For questions or further information relating to the tax filing deadline, please contact Attorney Britany E. Morrison.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law. Among a wide variety of other aims, the $1.9 trillion bill extended tax incentives for certain employers that chose to provide their employees with qualifying paid leave related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2020, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed into law. The FFCRA contained two leave components: the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”) and the Emergency and Family and Medical Leave Act (“EFMLA”). Under the EPSLA, employers with fewer than 500 employees were required to provide employees with up two weeks of leave sick leave for six COVID-related reasons; and under the EFMLA, employers with fewer than 500 employees were required to provide employees with up to 12 weeks of leave if their children’s school or child care facilities were closed due to COVID. Those employers could then offset the expense of such paid leave through tax credits. Mandated leave under the FFCRA ended on December 31, 2020, but in December 2020, the tax credits were extended through March 31, 2021 for employers with fewer than 500 employees that opted to continue to provide qualifying EPSLA and EFMLA leave.

The American Rescue Plan similarly gives employers with fewer than 500 employees the option, but not the obligation, to continue to provide EFMLA and EPSLA to employees through September 30, 2021 and provide employers with a 100% tax credit to offset the cost of such leave. The American Rescue Plan has also expanded the list of qualifying reasons for EPSLA leave to include time off to receive the COVID-19 vaccination and time off to recover from side effects of receiving the vaccination. Employers should be mindful to update their existing FFCRA leave forms to reflect these additional uses for leave. Finally, on April 1, 2021, for employers who opt to provide continued leave pursuant to EPSLA and EFMLA, employees are entitled to a renewed two-week bank of EPSLA leave, and if an employee’s bank of FMLA has not otherwise renewed pursuant to the employer’s FMLA policy, the 12-week EFMLA leave bank would also be replenished.

Therefore, while the American Rescue Plan does not add any new obligations for employers, it does continue to provide incentives in the event that employers with fewer than 500 employees choose to provide COVID-related paid time off. As always, O’Neil Cannon is here for you. We encourage you to reach out to our labor and employment law team with any questions, concerns, or legal issues you may have, including those regarding COVID and related issues.

On Saturday, President Biden signed into law the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021. This act extends the $7.5 million debt limitation under the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) for another year, until March 27, 2022.

Last year, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to provide emergency assistance for individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act temporarily increased the debt limitation under the SBRA from $2,725,625 to $7.5 million. The SBRA, which took effect on February 19, 2020, created Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a more streamlined and cost-effective reorganization option for small businesses. The $7.5 million debt limitation increase under the CARES Act was set to expire on March 27, 2021.

The COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021 extends the bankruptcy relief provisions of the CARES Act, which most notably includes the $7.5 million debt limitation under the SBRA, until March 27, 2022. As a result, small businesses with debts between $2,725,625 and $7.5 million will continue to be eligible for Subchapter V for another year.

For further information regarding the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021 or insolvency concerns relating to bankruptcy or receivership, please contact attorney Jessica K. Haskell.

Under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will provide financial assistance for COVID-19-related funeral expenses incurred after January 20, 2020.

FEMA estimates that qualifying families can expect reimbursements of $3,000 to $7,000 out of the program’s total budget of $2 billion.

To be eligible for funeral assistance, you must meet the following conditions:

• The death must have occurred in the United States;
• The death certificate must indicate the death was attributed to COVID-19; and
• The applicant must be a U.S. citizen, non-citizen national, or qualified alien who incurred funeral expenses after January 20, 2020.

There is no requirement for the deceased person to have been a U.S. citizen, noncitizen national, or qualified alien.

FEMA will begin accepting applications for funeral assistance in April 2021.  FEMA is still working out the details of this program, but encourages prospective applicants to start gathering the following documentation for the application:

• An official death certificate that attributes the death directly or indirectly to COVID-19 and shows that the death occurred in the United States;
• Funeral expense documents (receipts, funeral home contract, etc.) that include the applicant’s name, the deceased person’s name, the amount of funeral expenses, and the dates the funeral expenses happened; and
• Proof of funds received from other sources specifically for use toward funeral costs. FEMA will not duplicate benefits received from burial or funeral insurance, or financial assistance received from voluntary agencies, government agencies, or other sources.

If you have lost a loved one due to COVID-19 and have questions about the administration of your loved one’s affairs, please contact Kelly M. Spott.

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)  announced late yesterday that the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year will be automatically extended from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. The IRS will be providing formal guidance in the coming days.

The postponement applies to individual taxpayers, including individuals who pay self-employment tax. However, the postponement does not apply to estimated tax payments that are due on April 15, 2021. These payments are still due on April 15. Penalties, interest and additions to tax will begin to accrue on any remaining unpaid balances as of May 17, 2021.

In addition, earlier this year, the IRS announced relief for victims of the February winter storms in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. These states have until June 15, 2021, to file various individual and business tax returns and make tax payments. This extension to May 17 does not affect the June deadline.

The IRS noted that the new deadline does not apply to state tax returns, where the deadlines are set by each jurisdiction. Some states will automatically conform to the new federal deadline, but others will need to decide what to do. Maryland, for instance, recently extended its state filing deadline to July 15. It is expected that Wisconsin will conform to the new federal deadline but no official guidance documents have been released as of yet.

O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing will continue to monitor federal and state law tax changes. For questions or further information relating to the tax filing deadline, please contact Attorney Britany E. Morrison.

The Internal Revenue Service is planning to delay the April 15 tax filing deadline as it grapples with a massive backlog of 24 million returns it has yet to process since the 2019 tax year. The agency is considering setting the filing deadline for either May 15 or May 17, but a decision has not been finalized. May 15 is a Saturday and the IRS typically delays filing deadlines that fall on a weekend or holiday to the next business day, so the final deadline for filers may be the following Monday–May 17. The filing extension would give taxpayers additional time to meet their tax obligations in what many consider one of the most complicated tax seasons in decades.

O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing remains open and will continue to monitor federal and state law tax changes. For questions or further information relating to the tax filing deadline and the new relief bill, please contact Attorney Britany E. Morrison.

Attorney Greg Lyons was recently named a Fellow with the American Bar Foundation, a membership that is limited to one-third of one percent of the lawyers in America.

The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation is a global honorary society of attorneys, judges, law faculty, and legal scholars whose public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the highest principles of the legal profession and the welfare of their communities. Established in 1955, the Fellows support the research of the American Bar Foundation and currently has a membership totaling over 14,000 individuals across the globe. Membership in the Fellows is limited to one percent of lawyers licensed to practice in each jurisdiction.

The American Bar Foundation is among the world’s leading research institutes for the empirical and interdisciplinary study of law. An independent, nonprofit organization for more than 65 years, it seeks to advance the understanding and improvement of law through research projects on the most pressing issues facing the legal system in the United States and around the world today. It seeks to expand knowledge and advance justice through innovative, interdisciplinary, and rigorous empirical research on law, legal processes, and legal institutions. Its research findings are published in a wide range of forums, including leading academic journals, law reviews, and academic and commercial presses.

For more information on the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation and the American Bar Foundation, click here.

In this, the final installment in our series discussing the Biden Administration’s workplace initiatives, we will now discuss some of the potential changes forthcoming from the U.S. Department of Labor that employers should note, including changes to the independent contractor test under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a narrowing of the “joint employer” test under the National Labor Relations Act, an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide paid leave through passage of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, and a determined Congressional effort to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Independent Contractor Test Under FLSA

Back in September 2020, the Trump Administration proposed a new rule broadening the independent contractor test to make it easier for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the FLSA, only employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation. The new rule proposed by the Trump Administration was set to take effect on March 8, 2021. Now, however, the U.S. Department of Labor has delayed the effective date to May 7, 2021.

The Trump Administration’s proposed rule was intended to provide more clarity to the multifactor economic reality test that is presently used in determining independent contractor status under the FLSA. The Trump Administration believed that the economic reality test would benefit from additional clarity because of the way courts have evolved from the text and Supreme Court precedent. The existing economic realities test assesses workers’ economic dependence on a potential employer, and many supporters of the proposed independent contractor test argued that the new test was necessary to address concerns that: (1) the core concept of economic dependence remains vague and under-developed; (2) the test lacks guidance about how to balance the multiple factors; and (3) the lines between many of the factors are blurred. The shortcomings of the economic realities test have become more apparent in the new modern and gig economy.

On March 5, 2021, however, the Biden Administration’s Department of Labor sent to the White House of Office Information and Regulatory Affairs a new proposal entitled “Independent Contractor Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act”. It is expected that the Biden Administration will adopt new regulations upending the Trump Administration’s employer-friendly independent contractor test and will provide a more employee-friendly interpretation relative to whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the FLSA. The U.S. Department of Labor is nearing completion of a regulatory update to the Trump Administration’s proposed independent contractor rules and is simply waiting for White House of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ pending regulatory review before releasing the new proposal. Stay tuned for updates as they develop.

Joint Employer Test Under NLRA

In March 2020, the Trump Administration’s Department of Labor adopted a final rule narrowing the definition of “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) limiting the circumstances under which multiple entities could be deemed the employer of a single worker. The Trump-Era regulation provided that an entity may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees when it has direct control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.

The rule primarily impacts businesses that rely on franchisees or leased workers. The Trump Administration’s rule essentially reversed the Obama-Era standard set forth in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris. The NLRB’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris lowered the bar for proving an entity was a joint employer by holding that it was no longer necessary that an entity actually exercise authority and control over the terms and conditions of employment or that the control be exercised directly and immediately for a entity to be a joint employer. Fortunately, the NLRB had an opportunity to revisit its Browning-Ferris decision in 2020 on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In its 2020 decision, the NLRB reversed course from its 2015 decision, holding that an entity must exercise direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment of another entity’s employees in order to be held a joint employer under the NLRA.

Employers should expect the Biden Administration to attempt to override the new Trump-Era “joint employer” regulation and the NLRB’s 2020 decision in Browning-Ferris through passage of the controversial Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 2021 (H.R. 842), which codifies an expansive “joint employer” standard, which would result in businesses having liability for workplaces that they don’t control and workers they don’t employ. On March 9, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed 225-206 the PRO Act, again, along party lines. The 2021 version of the PRO Act, among other things, revises the definition of “joint employer” under the NLRA by requiring the NLRB and courts to consider not only an entity’s direct control, but to also consider an entity’s indirect control, over an individual’s terms and conditions of employment including any reserved authority to control such terms and conditions, which standing alone, can be sufficient to make a finding of a “joint employer” relationship.

The U.S House of Representatives previously passed the PRO Act in 2020, but it stalled out in the U.S. Senate. The recently passed Pro Act will continue to have a challenging time in the U.S. Senate unless the Democrats can get around the filibuster rules which will most likely again stall the bill in the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, employers should pay close attention to the PRO Act and the Biden Administration’s attempt to return to the Obama-Era “joint employer” test where an entity’s indirect or unexercised contractually reserved right to control could, alone, warrant finding of a joint-employer relationship.

Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act

The Biden Administration will attempt to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by supporting job-protected paid leave benefits. Currently, FMLA leave is unpaid unless the employee chooses, or the employer requires, substitution of paid leave (e.g., vacation or PTO).

The Biden Administration will attempt to obtain paid FMLA leave for employees working for private employers through the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (S. 248) which has been recently introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY). The FAMILY Act would allow employees to receive up to 12 weeks (60 days) of paid leave in a year for caring for a newborn or newly adopted fostered child, for employee’s or employee’s family member’s serious health condition, or dealing with qualifying exigencies arising from the deployment of a family member in the Armed Services.

However, unlike the FMLA, the FAMILY Act would apply to all employers across the country regardless of their size. That is, eligibility for FAMILY Act benefits would not be tied to FMLA employer coverage and would be available to every individual who has the earnings and work history necessary to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance. The benefits under the FAMILY Act would be paid through a national family and medical leave insurance fund which would be funded through a payroll tax contribution of 0.20%.

Increase in Federal Minimum Wage to $15

In this series, we previously addressed the Democrats’ efforts to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour through a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (i.e., the $1.9 Trillion coronavirus-relief package). Since the posting of our article, the U.S. Senate parliamentarian dealt a deadly blow to the Democrats’ efforts to increase the federal minimum wage when she ruled that the bill’s proposal did not meet the U.S. Senate’s guidelines for reconciliation, and, therefore, the proposal could not be included in the coronavirus-relief package which was passed by both chambers of Congress this week and signed into law by President Biden on March 11, 2021.

Congressional Democrats, however, did not give up without a fight when they attempted to circumvent the U.S. Senate’s reconciliation guidelines and the U.S. Senate’s parliamentarian ruling by proposing tax penalties for employers with $2.5 billion or more in gross revenue who do not pay their employees at least $15 an hour instead of having a provision in the bill that directly raised the federal minimum wage. Supporters of addressing a federal minimum wage increase through amendment of the tax code finally relented when the complexity of such a maneuver would delay quick passage of the relief bill which the Democrats wanted completed by March 14, 2021.

The Democrats big push to include a federal minimum wage increase in the corona-virus relief package was an attempt to avoid the U.S. Senate’s filibuster rules that a non-budgetary piece of legislation would be subject to under U.S. Senate rules. The Biden Administration, however, will now have to seek an increase in the federal minimum wage through a legislative bill and may have a difficult time getting the bill through the U.S. Senate given the U.S. Senate’s current cloture rule to end a filibuster—which requires 60 votes to cut off debate on most matters. We will keep you posted on the Biden Administration’s efforts to raise the federal minimum wage.

As always, O’Neil Cannon is here for you to protect your interests. We encourage you to reach out to our labor and employment law team with any questions, concerns, or legal issues you may have regarding any of the new workplace policies or proposed legislation that will be ushered in during the Biden Administration.