The Impending Deadline: A corporation may take advantage of the exemption and forego paying unemployment taxes for the final two quarters of 2011, but only if it registers each elected exempt officer with the Department of Labor by December 15, 2011.  The form must be signed and dated by each exempted officer.  Registration Forms and instructions for filing are available by clicking here.

The Factors A Corporation Must Consider when Choosing Whether to Opt Out:  Of course, opting out of the unemployment insurance program and its associated taxes means any corporate officer opting out will not be eligible for unemployment benefits.  There are other factors corporations must consider when choosing whether to opt out.  For instance, corporations who opt out are still liable for the federal unemployment insurance tax.  Also, by opting out, corporate officers will lose the annual federal tax credit, which, assuming the officer makes at least $7,000.00 a year, means a federal tax liability increase from $42.00 to $434.00 a year.    

On the other hand, corporations choosing to remain covered by the unemployment program will be subject to more stringent benefit collection rules. For example, officers may no longer collect benefits simply because they did not take a salary for a period of time.  Rather, corporate officers seeking benefits must show they are no longer legally associated with the business through proof of sale of the corporation, dismissal by the board of directors, formal dissolution, a sworn affidavit that the corporation has been administratively dissolved or some other means.  Also, if an officer who collects benefits returns to work for the same corporation within a year of qualifying for benefits, the officer will be required to repay all benefits received. 

How We Can Help:  The “opt out” or “stay in” options should be reviewed carefully before making a decision.  We can assist in determining the net benefit to your company and develop a strategic compensation plan in alignment with officer/owner and company objectives.

Rent for the old county quarters would have been due August 1 and the county was interested in saving money, so the move would occur even if the building wasn’t completely finished. The installation of landscaping and concrete walkways outside and the placement of some furniture inside remained to complete the new courthouse and county offices building.

The county’s offices had existed as a vagabond, moving from one “make shift quarters” to another since the old courthouse burned down almost twenty years before. The new courthouse, though, had fresh walls that were “finished in beautiful shades of light brown and ivory and concrete steps . . . covered with hard composition board and trimmed with metal.” Plumbing, heating, and lighting were “of the most modern order.” The outside was constructed in concrete, which was scored to resemble blocks, and then sandblasted to give it its appearance. It didn’t matter that this building was a smaller replica of the Weiser Courthouse in Washington County; Gem County now had a permanent place for its offices. FOR MORE PLEASE CLICK HERE

As seen in the November/December 2011 Advocate

Title VII’s Anti-Retaliation Provision:
Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision protects employees who oppose unlawful employment practices, complain about discrimination in the workplace or assist in an investigation or proceeding relating to allegations of unlawful employment practice. Until Thompson, only claimants who had specifically opposed or complained about an unlawful employment action could bring claims for retaliation under Title VII.

The Court’s Broad and Seemingly Boundless Interpretation of Retaliation:
In determining whether Thompson could bring suit, the Court determined that the key issue is whether the employer’s actions “might well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” The Court stated it was “obvious” that a reasonable worker would be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew her fiancé would be fired.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not provide clear-cut guidance as to what types of relationships trigger the retaliation statute. Nor did the Court limit its holding to those with romantic or familial relationships. Thus an employer is in a precarious position in determining whether an adverse employment action could lead to a viable claim for retaliation.

How to Avoid Retaliation Claims under the Newly Expansive Definition of Retaliation:
Now that the door to third-party retaliation claims is open, an employer must be even more careful when terminating, disciplining, transferring or taking any action against an employee that may be perceived as adverse. The following steps may help ward off potential claims:

• Make sure the employee handbook establishes clear guidelines for employee discipline and clearly sets forth the criteria for employee performance and behavior.
• Provide training to supervisors and managers regarding the newly expanded scope of retaliation. Ensure they enforce all disciplinary policies consistently and document all discipline in writing.
• Be able to articulate a legitimate business reason for any adverse employment action.
• Pay attention to relationships in the work place and consider revisiting or prohibiting romantic relationships.
• Take extra care if you are considering an adverse employment action against an employee who is in any way “close to” an employee who engaged in a protected activity.
• Consult with HR or an attorney before terminating any employee.

This article is for general informational purposes only, it is neither legal advice, nor is it intended to be legal advice; and it is not an exclusive statement of statutory or regulatory provisions or case law. Any questions should be submitted to an attorney for his/her analysis.

One such statutory exception under Idaho Code Section 12-120(3) provides that a prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees in any case involving a “commercial transaction.”

What happens then, when a plaintiff claims at trial that there was a commercial transaction, but the jury concludes there was no commercial transaction and thus the defendant prevails?

A recent Idaho Supreme Court case, Garner v. Povey, held that because plaintiff claimed the parties entered into a commercial transaction, even though the defendant ultimately prevailed based on the jury’s finding that no commercial transaction existed, the plaintiff must still pay the defendant’s attorney fees under I.C.§ 12-120(3).

The Court reasoned that the alleged commercial transaction was integral to plaintiff’s claims, was the basis on which plaintiff attempted to recover and was specifically pleaded as the gravamen of plaintiff’s lawsuit. Therefore, plaintiff’s allegations triggered application of the statute, regardless of the ultimate finding that no commercial transaction existed.

This article is for general informational purposes only, it is neither legal advice, nor is it intended to be legal advice; and it is not an exclusive statement of statutory or regulatory provisions or case law. Any questions should be submitted to an attorney for his/her analysis.

While this is a positive step, it is important for immigrants to know that the Obama administration announcement is not an amnesty, it does not grant legal status, and it is not something you can sign up for.

The announcement does not provide any way to “apply” for a work permit or Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). Nor does the announcement provide a new way to apply to remain in the United States. The change announced is not about giving people work permits or legal status. The announcement applies only to cases already in the system, ensuring that low priority cases do not continue to clog up an already overburdened immigration court system.

It is therefore important not to believe anyone who claims they can sign you up for a work permit or EAD or get you legal status based on this announcement. Anyone who says this should not be trusted.

There is no “safe” way to turn yourself in to immigration and there is no guarantee that your case will be considered “low priority.” Any person who comes into contact with immigration authorities may be arrested, detained or even removed.

Even if a friend, neighbor or coworker encourages you to act, do not try to contact immigration authorities or fall for a scam. At this time, there is no application to fill out, no form that can be filed, no filing fee that can be paid and no guidance from immigration authorities at all as to how the review of cases will happen.

Remember: Only a qualified immigration attorney can evaluate your case and advise you regarding your rights.

Do not seek legal advice from an immigration consultant or notario.

This article is for general informational purposes only, it is neither legal advice, nor is it intended to be legal advice; and it is not an exclusive statement of statutory or regulatory provisions or case law. Any questions should be submitted to an attorney for his/her analysis.

Who can represent you: By law, the ONLY people who can give you legal advice or represent you before the USCIS are licensed attorneys or non-attorney representatives who are accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Who cannot represent you: “Notarios,” notary publics, and immigration consultants may NOT provide legal advice or represent you before the USCIS. While in some countries “notarios” are attorneys, this is not true in the United States. Notary Publics in the United States are not attorneys and do not have the same authority to give legal advice as “notarios” in other countries.

Watch out for common immigration scams: Immigration scammers often make promises that sound too good to be true. They may tell you they have a special relationship with the government, or can get you a green card or work permit very quickly, or can help you get benefits for which you do not qualify.

Scammers may have websites that look very professional. They may also advertise in phone books, signs on stores, radio stations or newspapers. They might even be recommended by someone you know. The best way to avoid scammers is to find out if the person offering immigration advice is a licensed attorney. You can contact the Idaho State Bar at (208) 334-4500 or www.isb.idaho.gov to determine whether someone is a licensed attorney.

Tips to Remember:

• DO verify that the person giving you legal advice or representing you before the USCIS is an attorney or BIA accredited representative.
• DO get a receipt when you pay someone to help you complete your immigration forms.
• DO keep all letters from USCIS in a safe place. Always get copies of all documents that were prepared or submitted for you and keep a copy of your USCIS receipt notice. This receipt is proof that your application or petition has been received by USCIS.
• DO check USCIS form instructions for filing fees and other requirements.
• DO report unlawful activity or immigration scams to your state bar association or attorney general’s office.
• DO NOT pay for blank USCIS forms. All USCIS forms are free.
• DO NOT sign blank forms. Be sure all forms are complete before you sign them.
• DO NOT sign forms that contain false information. Be sure that all information is true and accurate before you sign the form.
• DO NOT let anyone keep your original documents.
• DO NOT sign anything you do not understand. Before you sign any immigration forms, read them carefully and be sure you understand them.

This article is for general informational purposes only, it is neither legal advice, nor is it intended to be legal advice; and it is not an exclusive statement of statutory or regulatory provisions or case law. Any questions should be submitted to an attorney for his/her analysis.

In the case of Lawson v Safeway, 119 Cal Rptr 3d 366 (Ct App 1st Dist CA 2010), the court upheld a jury’s verdict that the truck driver was partially at fault, 35%, for a collision between a car entering an intersection and a motorcycle. The tractor trailer was parked legally on the side of the highway; however, the position of the trailer blocked the view of oncoming traffic for a driver attempting to cross and turn onto the highway.

Liability for an accident may arise for a carrier any time a driver fails to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured as the result of his/her conduct. More than just following the law should be considered. In addition to the traffic laws, drivers should also take into account weather conditions, traffic conditions, and general public safety.

In this situation, the Court reasoned that it is readily foreseeable that parking a large, commercial truck near an intersection may obstruct the views of passing motorists and cause them to collide. Such conduct involves an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm.

Stated otherwise, a legally parked truck may still create an unnecessary hazard. From the Court’s perspective, the drivers of commercial vehicles are or should be professionally trained to be aware of the risk of blocking other drivers’ sight lines when parking.

Five other jurisdictions have rulings similar to this recent California case. Only two other states have accepted legal parking as a defense.

This article is for general informational purposes only, it is neither legal advice nor is it intended to be legal advice; and it is not an exclusive statement of statutory or regulatory provisions or case law. Any questions should be submitted to your attorney for his/her analysis.

For entities conducting business with motor carriers, this change is complicated by the fact that under a change in the federal regulations, effective March 21, 2011, regulated motor carriers, except for household goods movers and freight forwarders, are no longer required to file proof of cargo insurance. Thus, in those transactions involving the non-excepted motor carriers, one is no longer able to obtain information about cargo coverage from the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) website.

The effect of these changes may be further compounded in those situations when an insured may choose to cancel an insurance policy immediately. In addition to requesting a certificate of insurance, two options that may be available to a certificate holder are to require contractually that it either receive advance notice of cancellation or that the motor carrier will provide prior notice of cancellation.

This article is for general informational purposes only, it is neither legal advice, nor is it intended to be legal advice; and it is not an exclusive statement of statutory or regulatory provisions or case law. Any questions should be submitted to an attorney for his/her analysis.