The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations
August 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThis summer the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued proposed changes to the white-collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white collar exemptions include the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employee exemptions. The focus of the proposed regulations is to increase the salary level required to qualify for the exemption from $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. The DOL predicts this will cause employers to change the exempt status of nearly 5 million workers who are currently exempt from overtime requirements to non-exempt status – requiring the payment of overtime.
Current Regulations
Under today’s regulations, the white collar exemption applies to employees who are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) and who customarily and regularly perform any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee.
Proposed Changes
The most significant change is the sizeable increase in the minimum salary requirements for the exemptions. The proposed regulations more than double the current minimum salary of $455 per week to $921. This corresponds to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings projected for the first quarter of 2016, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The DOL also proposes annual adjustments to the minimum salary requirements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Newmeyer Dillion Named 2023 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers
November 07, 2022 —
Newmeyer DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – November 3, 2022 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that U.S. News-Best Lawyers® has recognized the firm in its 2023 "Best Law Firms" rankings, in seven practice areas earning the highest ranking possible - Tier 1 in the Orange County Metro area. The practices recognized include:
Commercial Litigation
Construction Law
Insurance Law
Litigation - Construction
Litigation - Insurance
Litigation - Real Estate
Real Estate Law
Additionally, the firm has been recognized as Tier 2 in Employment Law - Management and Tier 3 in Litigation - Labor & Employment.
"Newmeyer Dillion prides itself on genuinely partnering with our clients to offer business-oriented solutions for their legal issues," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "Receiving this honor shows that our clients appreciate the quality of our work and our team's dedication to their organization's success."
Firms included in the 2023 "Best Law Firms" list have been recognized by their clients and peers for their professional excellence. Firms achieving a Tier 1 ranking have consistently demonstrated a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.
To be eligible for the "Best Law Firms" ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney recognized in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America for a specific practice area. Best Lawyers recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S., selected through exhaustive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”
In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”
In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”
In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”
In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”
Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?
April 10, 2023 —
Rebecca S. Glos - ConsensusDocsElectronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant
As companies move to work-from-home situations in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of whether electronic signatures are legally recognized becomes more relevant. For many platforms, an electronic signature merely requires logging in, clicking a button, or typing your name. This process, which replaces the mighty pen and quill, is so effortless that oftentimes an electronic signature may feel like it does not carry the same weight as a handwritten signature. Thus, the question that we should be asking ourselves is whether the law recognizes this type of signature as being valid? Additionally, if electronic signatures are, indeed, valid, are there exceptions on whether they can be used?
Difference Between “Electronic” And “Digital” Signatures
Before delving into this issue, an understanding of some related terms may be helpful. In basic terms, an electronic signature (or “e-signature”) is any signature created or captured through a computer or other electronic device. Electronic signatures can include touch-sensitive screens where you use your finger or a stylus to sign your name as you would on a paper document. Electronic signatures can also include forms where you merely type in your name and perhaps other identifying information, then check a box stating that you intend to sign the document. They cover the full range of technologies and solutions to create signatures electronically such as:
- Clicking “I Agree” on a website;
- Signing with your finger on a mobile device;
- Typing your name or PIN into an online form; or
- Using e-signature software
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rebecca S. Glos, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Glos may be contacted at
rglos@watttieder.com
Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town
June 13, 2022 —
Shruti Singh - BloombergSeveral Chicago aldermen on Monday sent gaming companies that are bidding on building the city’s first casino a message: this is a union town.
During a special casino committee of the city council hearing on Monday, the aldermen expressed concerns that the three bidders -- Bally’s Corp., Hard Rock International and Rush Street Gaming -- that are seeking to construct and operate a gaming and entertainment complex don’t have a deal with local labor groups. Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jennie Bennett said during the hearing that a deal with labor was part of the requirements laid out in the city’s request for proposals.
None of the three bidders have committed to labor standards, and moving forward without an agreement on items such as a living wage “is a slap in the face,” Robert Reiter Jr., president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, said during the public testimony portion of the meeting. The federation represents 300 affiliated unions and their half a million members.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shruti Singh, Bloomberg
Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects
June 15, 2011 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPOn June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.
Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.
A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.
The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN
October 21, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Pierce Atwood LLP
Office Location: Boston, MA
Licensed in: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California (inactive)
Email: rtdunn@pierceatwood.com
Website: https://www.pierceatwood.com/people/r-thomas-dunn
Law School: McGeorge School of Law (2004 JD)
Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration
Affiliated ADR organizations: American Arbitration Association
Geographic area served: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New England
Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.
A: Arbitration and alternative forms to avoid and resolve disputes has interested me since law school. Serving as an arbitrator is rewarding both as a neutral helping people close out disputes, but also as an advocate as it reminds me about how best to communicate with the fact finder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term
July 28, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Amy L. Pierce - Gravel2GavelUnlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.
- On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule.
The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and
Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
