This year fourteen Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP attorneys have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America, 2009 edition, published by Woodward/White. Inclusion is widely considered a significant honor because lawyers are selected on the basis of peer evaluations.
Those named include Kevin F. McKeegan, the firm’s Managing Partner, Robert Mauro, W. Grant Scott and Richard G. Kotarba all for their practice of real estate law. Kevin F. McKeegan was also recognized for his work in land use & zoning law. Richard G. Kotarba and James R. Mall were both selected for their work in construction law. Also named were Dennis Unkovic, for his international trade and finance law practice, Joel Pfeffer for his work in immigration law, Joel M. Helmrich for his practice in creditor-debtor rights, Thomas A. Berret for his work in personal injury litigation, Laura A. Candris for her labor and employment law practice, John W. Powell for his work in trusts and estates, David G. Oberdick for his work in commercial litigation and intellectual property law, Patricia L. Dodge and Russell J. Ober for their work in commercial litigation. Patricia L. Dodge was also recognized for her product liability litigation practice.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Independent Contractor Relationship - Seminar
Please join us on Monday, October 6, 2008 from 11:45 am - 1:30 pm for a seminar on Independent Contractor Relationships: Independent Contractors versus Employees.
Please RSVP to rsvp@muslaw.com by October 1st if you would like to attend.
Additional Seminar Information:
In today’s workplace, there is an ever-increasing trend for employers to consider filling vacancies with independent contractors as opposed to committing to a full time employee. A maze of regulations exist that may or may not make this question easy to answer.
During this roundtable our attorneys will help you answer your questions about independent contractor relationships and discuss the advantages and disadvantages to these relationships. This important roundtable will also outline the pros and cons of completing your workforce with employees and independent contractors as well as the unforeseen circumstances involving benefits for improperly classifying independent contractors.
Please RSVP to rsvp@muslaw.com by October 1st if you would like to attend.
Additional Seminar Information:
In today’s workplace, there is an ever-increasing trend for employers to consider filling vacancies with independent contractors as opposed to committing to a full time employee. A maze of regulations exist that may or may not make this question easy to answer.
During this roundtable our attorneys will help you answer your questions about independent contractor relationships and discuss the advantages and disadvantages to these relationships. This important roundtable will also outline the pros and cons of completing your workforce with employees and independent contractors as well as the unforeseen circumstances involving benefits for improperly classifying independent contractors.
Religious Discrimination Complaints Up
By: Elaina Smiley, Esquire es@muslaw.com
The number of complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about workplace discrimination against employees because of their religion has doubled in the last 15 years. Filings complaining about religious discrimination jumped to a record 2,880 last year. On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a new compliance manual on religious discrimination, which offers a comprehensive review of the EEOC’s policies regarding religious discrimination, harassment and accommodation. The EEOC also offers a “Best Practices” book to assist employers.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing or conditions of employment. Employers cannot treat employees of one faith more or less fairly than other employees, nor can they force employees to participate in or not participate in any religious activity.
One of the most difficult issues for employees is the concept of “reasonable accommodation.” Employers must reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious practices of employees unless to do so would proved to be a hardship to the employer. For example, in a recent Pennsylvania lawsuit, a federal court found that asking an employee to find her own replacement for Sunday work may not be a reasonable accommodation if the reason the employee needed to switch shifts is religious.
Employers should make sure that their anti-discrimination policies specifically define and prohibit religious discrimination and harassment and provide an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting such acts. Employers should also establish policies in dealing with religious accommodation requests and train supervisors and managers on how to best handle religious issues in the workplace.
The number of complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about workplace discrimination against employees because of their religion has doubled in the last 15 years. Filings complaining about religious discrimination jumped to a record 2,880 last year. On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a new compliance manual on religious discrimination, which offers a comprehensive review of the EEOC’s policies regarding religious discrimination, harassment and accommodation. The EEOC also offers a “Best Practices” book to assist employers.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing or conditions of employment. Employers cannot treat employees of one faith more or less fairly than other employees, nor can they force employees to participate in or not participate in any religious activity.
One of the most difficult issues for employees is the concept of “reasonable accommodation.” Employers must reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious practices of employees unless to do so would proved to be a hardship to the employer. For example, in a recent Pennsylvania lawsuit, a federal court found that asking an employee to find her own replacement for Sunday work may not be a reasonable accommodation if the reason the employee needed to switch shifts is religious.
Employers should make sure that their anti-discrimination policies specifically define and prohibit religious discrimination and harassment and provide an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting such acts. Employers should also establish policies in dealing with religious accommodation requests and train supervisors and managers on how to best handle religious issues in the workplace.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Computer Sabotage
By: Jane Lewis Volk, Esquire jlv@muslaw.com
Most employers may not know that courts began applying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to civil cases a few years ago.
What that means is that employers can now collect damages in court when employees cause damage to a computer system.
Employers typically file civil lawsuits under the act when employees or former employees access computer data to gain a competitive edge at their new place of business.
But the law also enables employers to get restitution for a wide scope of other damages, including for destruction of proprietary information and for knowingly downloading a program that damages computers or computer networks.
To recover damages the employer may sue in federal court, and the damages must be at least $5,000.
Possible damages include:
Most employers may not know that courts began applying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to civil cases a few years ago.
What that means is that employers can now collect damages in court when employees cause damage to a computer system.
Employers typically file civil lawsuits under the act when employees or former employees access computer data to gain a competitive edge at their new place of business.
But the law also enables employers to get restitution for a wide scope of other damages, including for destruction of proprietary information and for knowingly downloading a program that damages computers or computer networks.
To recover damages the employer may sue in federal court, and the damages must be at least $5,000.
Possible damages include:
- Time and resources spent to hire a computer expert
- Cost of hiring the expert to determine and remedy the damage
- Cost of hiring the expert to create a method to prevent future damage
- Loss of confidential or trade secret information.
Employers cannot include loss of revenue and good will or interference with customer relations in its calculation of damages.
Friday, August 15, 2008
GINA May Prove Challenging to Employers
By: Elaina Smiley, Esquire es@muslaw.com
A new law that prevents employers from making employment decisions based on genetic information will place another burden of regulatory compliance on employers.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), recently signed into law by President Bush, makes it illegal for employers, unions and insurance providers to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s genetic information and prohibits disclosure of such information except in very limited circumstances.
Called by some “the first major civil rights act of the 21st,” GINA prohibits employers from using genetic information when making decisions regarding hiring, firing, compensation, promotions and other terms and conditions of employment.
GINA prohibits employers from requesting genetic information from employees and their families. GINA provides some limited exceptions, such as information employers obtain under the Family Medical Leave Act. However, GINA does not address genetic information that employers may inadvertently receive under other employment laws. For instance, an employer engaging in discussions with an employee who requests an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act could acquire genetic information covered by GINA.
The U.S. Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are in the process of developing the regulations that will tell employers what they must do to comply with GINA. The GINA provisions related to employers do not go into effect until November 2009.
A new law that prevents employers from making employment decisions based on genetic information will place another burden of regulatory compliance on employers.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), recently signed into law by President Bush, makes it illegal for employers, unions and insurance providers to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s genetic information and prohibits disclosure of such information except in very limited circumstances.
Called by some “the first major civil rights act of the 21st,” GINA prohibits employers from using genetic information when making decisions regarding hiring, firing, compensation, promotions and other terms and conditions of employment.
GINA prohibits employers from requesting genetic information from employees and their families. GINA provides some limited exceptions, such as information employers obtain under the Family Medical Leave Act. However, GINA does not address genetic information that employers may inadvertently receive under other employment laws. For instance, an employer engaging in discussions with an employee who requests an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act could acquire genetic information covered by GINA.
The U.S. Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are in the process of developing the regulations that will tell employers what they must do to comply with GINA. The GINA provisions related to employers do not go into effect until November 2009.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
More Employees Sue Over Pay
By: Elaina Smiley, Esquire es@muslaw.com
Lawsuits related to wage disputes have increased by 77% over the past four years, according to the National Employment Lawyers’ Association. (NELA), an organization of attorneys who help employees file lawsuits and other actions against employers.
It was about four years ago that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) toughened the overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and since that time, wage-related FLSA lawsuits have ballooned. Besides the dramatic increase in lawsuits, NELA found that DOL has amplified its wage enforcement actions by 11%.
Some common causes for wage-related lawsuits have been:
Lawsuits related to wage disputes have increased by 77% over the past four years, according to the National Employment Lawyers’ Association. (NELA), an organization of attorneys who help employees file lawsuits and other actions against employers.
It was about four years ago that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) toughened the overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and since that time, wage-related FLSA lawsuits have ballooned. Besides the dramatic increase in lawsuits, NELA found that DOL has amplified its wage enforcement actions by 11%.
Some common causes for wage-related lawsuits have been:
- Unpaid overtime when employers misclassify employees. Employers often incorrectly assume that paying employees a salary means they do not need to pay them overtime pay.
- Making employees use their own money to buy uniforms or equipment or for other company purposes.
- Not accurately recording time worked or requiring employees to work off the clock.
- Not paying employees for putting on (“donning”) and taking off (“doffing”) safety equipment.
The best thing that employers can do to avoid these costly lawsuits is to closely analyze how employees are being paid, confirm that those employees classified as exempt from overtime pay are actually performing job duties that qualify them as exempt under the FLSA. Employers should also conduct regular audits of their policies and procedures to make sure that they are following all FLSA regulations and ensure that all supervisors and managers routinely receive training in what is and is not allowed under FLSA.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Big Change in Employment Eligibility Verification
By: Joel Pfeffer, Esquire jp@muslaw.com
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has just made a change that affects every employer in western Pennsylvania and across the country.
In early November, the immigration service changed the list of documents that it will allow employers to accept as proof of legal residency for form I-9, which verifies employment eligibility. The change is noted on a brand new I-9 form. The new regulation removes five documents that were previously on the list as okay to accept as proof of identity and employment eligibility. The new form does add one document to the list of approved proofs of identity, the new form I-766, which is a card issued to aliens who are authorized to work temporarily in the United States. Other approved documents include an expired or unexpired U.S. passport and a permanent residence card, among others.
Every employer must have new employees fill our a I-9 form, and then keep it on file for three years after the employee starts or, if the employee leaves before three years is up, an additional year after employment ends. Failure to have completed I-9 forms on file can lead to stiff penalties.
The new form will become effective as soon as a notice is published in the Federal Register, but the immigration service wants employers to start using the new form and protocol right away.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has just made a change that affects every employer in western Pennsylvania and across the country.
In early November, the immigration service changed the list of documents that it will allow employers to accept as proof of legal residency for form I-9, which verifies employment eligibility. The change is noted on a brand new I-9 form. The new regulation removes five documents that were previously on the list as okay to accept as proof of identity and employment eligibility. The new form does add one document to the list of approved proofs of identity, the new form I-766, which is a card issued to aliens who are authorized to work temporarily in the United States. Other approved documents include an expired or unexpired U.S. passport and a permanent residence card, among others.
Every employer must have new employees fill our a I-9 form, and then keep it on file for three years after the employee starts or, if the employee leaves before three years is up, an additional year after employment ends. Failure to have completed I-9 forms on file can lead to stiff penalties.
The new form will become effective as soon as a notice is published in the Federal Register, but the immigration service wants employers to start using the new form and protocol right away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
