12/17/11
Capitol Law Group Announces Additions to Firm
BOISE, Idaho – Capitol Law Group, PLLC (CLG) is pleased to announce the addition of Robert T. Wetherell, J.D. as a partner of the firm beginning January 3, 2012. The firm also welcomed associate David H. Arkoosh, J.D this past November.
Mr. Wetherell brings extensive experience in general trial and appellate practice with an emphasis on insurance defense issues, alternative dispute resolution and mediation. Previously Mr. Wetherell was a member of Idaho’s largest insurance defense firm before founding a partnership with two other members of that firm whom he has practiced for over 19 years. He is an AV rated attorney, the highest rating an attorney can receive. Mr. Wetherell was elected by his peers to the Idaho State Bar Board of Commissioners in 2011.
Mr. Wetherell’s areas of trial and appellate practice include environmental defense and coverage issues, professional negligence, products liability, automobile negligence, wrongful termination and personnel matters, defense of governmental entities, real estate, construction law and commercial litigation. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the Idaho State Bar Association, the Boise Adjusters Association and the Idaho Association of Defense Counsel.
In his 29 years of practice, Mr. Wetherell has represented a variety of clients in trial courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and Seattle and the Idaho Supreme Court. Mr. Wetherell has tried cases throughout the state of Idaho, from Sandpoint to Idaho Falls. Mr. Wetherell is certified as a Special Attorney General for the State of Idaho and has represented the State of Idaho and over 15 of Idaho’s 44 counties.
A Mountain Home, Idaho native, Mr. Wetherell obtained his law degree from the University of Idaho, College of Law in 1982. Mr. Wetherell graduated from St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota, where he was a member of the Honors Program and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in government in 1980. He also attended the University of Salzburg in Salzburg, Austria, during his senior year.
In addition, Mr. Wetherell is involved in community activities which include his previous volunteer role as legal counsel for Idaho Special Olympics, President of Boise Vista Lions club, national board member of the Vandal Scholarship Fund and as a Board member and President of the Idaho Shakespeare Festival.
After successfully passing the Idaho State Bar, CLG welcomed David H. Arkoosh as an associate. A Boise native, Mr. Arkoosh’s practice areas include business, corporate, and employment law, with a focus on business formation.
Mr. Arkoosh also has a background in accounting and experience working with early-stage and start-up businesses. He understands the challenges founders face when starting a new business or raising capital. Therefore, his goal is to empower his clients to meet their objectives both personally and professionally.
Mr. Arkoosh graduated from Gonzaga University with a B.B.A. in accounting, finance and entrepreneurship. He earned his J.D. from the University of Idaho, College of Law.
In addition Ernest A. Hoidal has been serving “Of Counsel” to CLG since November 2010. A Boise native, Mr. Hoidal has counseled employer clients on I-9 audits, H-1B visa compliance issues and employer sanctions. He has successfully obtained nonimmigrant visas for professional workers, intra-company transferees, entrepreneurs, treaty traders and treaty investors and other such qualified individuals. He has represented clients seeking immigrant visas, lawful permanent residence, cancellation of removal, asylum, and United States citizenship.
Mr. Hoidal has experience in general and civil litigation, with an emphasis on immigration and nationality law. Since 1974, he has successfully helped Boise businesses involved in a wide variety of professional fields, including education, scientific research, high technology and manufacturing, as well as helping clients in restaurant businesses.
Mr. Hoidal’s prior legal appointments include assistant Boise City Attorney, Ada County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and General Counsel to the Association of Idaho Cities. He is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Bar Association, Idaho State Bar, State Bar of California, and the Boise Bar Association.
He was awarded his B.S. in international business from the University of San Francisco and earned his J.D. from the University Idaho, College of Law.
12/07/11
LEGAL ALERT: Corporate Officers Can Now Opt Out of State Unemployment Insurance Coverage—But the Deadline to Decide is Fast Approaching.
The New “Opt Out” Law: Under the recently passed House Bill 80, corporate officers in Idaho with an ownership interest in their company can now decline to participate in the state unemployment insurance program. The new “opt-out” law allows Idaho corporations to forego paying the unemployment insurance taxes on corporate officer wages.
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.
11/18/11
WPA Project Built a Home for Justice in Gem County
“With rooms and vaults built to order, modernistic furnishings and a beautiful building the [Gem] county officials will find themselves surrounded with a new dignity and a higher, more active prestige,” said the Emmett Messenger newspaper on July 27, 1939, just days before county officers made the move into the almost completed Gem County Courthouse.
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
10/20/11
Legal Alert: Retaliation claims extended to third-parties. Is it time to revise your employee handbook?
The Case
In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. North America Stainless, LP recently extended the reach of retaliation claims under Title VII to third parties. Specifically, the Court held that an employee, Thompson, who was fired after his fiancée filed a sex discrimination claim against their mutual employer, North American Stainless, was entitled to bring a Title VII retaliation claim.
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.
10/20/11
Legal Alert: Recovery of Attorney Fees in cases involving commercial transactions under Idaho Code Section 12-120(3)
The usual rule in the United States concerning recovery of attorney’s fees in litigation provides that each party pay for their own fees, whether they win or lose, unless the parties agree otherwise or a statute provides otherwise.
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.
