Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

September 03, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
As it previously had warned, New York state on Aug. 21 filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seeking to reverse its certification that General Electric Co.'s removal of PCBs from the Hudson River was complete, despite the agency’s five-year review finding that the cleanup was not adequate to protect human health and the environment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

“Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

June 15, 2017 — Kevin J. O'Connor - Peckar & Abramson. P.C.
Attacks on employers for alleged misclassification of workers—particularly independent contractors—are continuing unabated, and the risk of liability for employers operating in New York City just increased. New York City has just adopted sweeping regulations requiring written contracts with certain freelancers and independent contractors. Anyone doing business in that jurisdiction should take notice and take action to comply with the law. New York City’s “Freelance Isn’t Free Act,” N.Y.C. Administrative Code §§ 20-927 et seq. (“FIFA”) went into effect on May 15, 2017. This new law substantially regulates the relationship between a business and an independent contractor or “freelancer” working in New York City. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O'Connor, Peckar & Abramson. P.C.
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com

United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

May 24, 2018 — Amy R. Patton, Jason I. Bluver, & Jeffrey K. Brown - Payne & Fears LLP
On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that arbitration agreements which mandate individualized resolution of claims (as opposed to class or collective resolution) are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that such "class action waivers" violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which generally protects employees' rights to act "in concert" with one another. The Court addressed a split created by decisions from three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal: Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (7th Circuit), Ernst & Young v. Morris (9th Circuit) and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA (5th Circuit). All three cases involved employees who sought to bring collective or class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and their respective employers who sought to enforce pre-dispute arbitration agreements which waived such collective actions and mandated "one-on-one" arbitration of wage disputes. In support of their position, the employees argued that the class and collective action waivers were illegal because they violated the NLRA's prohibition on barring employees from engaging in "concerted activities." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jason I. Bluver and Jeffrey K. Brown Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Bluver may be contacted at jib@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

September 17, 2014 — Nacha Cattan – Bloomberg
Mexico is sending federal officials to Sonora state to oversee Grupo Mexico SAB (GMEXICOB)’s $150 million cleanup of a copper mine spill that the government says contaminated the water supplies of at least 24,000 people. The special commission of environmental and agriculture ministry officials will monitor the company’s pledge to clean Mexico’s worst mining spill, which occurred Aug. 6 in the northern state that borders Arizona. Grupo Mexico said last week it would create a $150 million trust after its Buenavista del Cobre operation dumped 11 million gallons of copper sulfate solution into two Sonora rivers. Industrias Bachoco SAB de CV and Ford Motor Co. (F) operate plants in Hermosillo, south of the contaminated waterways. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nacha Cattan, Bloomberg
Ms. Cattan may be contacted at ncattan@bloomberg.net

South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

February 16, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin & H. Scott Williams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a decision rendered on January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reminded policyholders that they are entitled to an explanation of any and all grounds upon which their insurer may be contesting coverage in a reservation of rights letter. Specifically, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. et al., 1 the court found that an insurer’s reservation of rights, which included a verbatim recitation of numerous policy provisions that the court identified as the “cut-and-paste” method, was insufficient to reserve its rights to contest coverage. In 2003, Heritage Communities, Inc. (“Heritage”), a parent company of several corporate entities engaged in developing and constructing condominium complexes from 1997 to 2000, was sued by multiple property owners’ associations. The lawsuits sought actual and punitive damages against Heritage as a result of alleged construction defects, including building code violations, structural deficiencies, and significant water intrusion. During the period of construction, Heritage was insured by Harleysville Group Insurance (“Harleysville”) under several primary and excess general liability insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

March 29, 2021 — Peter Shapiro - Lewis Brisbois
As all employers should well know by now, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and many state and local counterparts may require employers to engage in an interactive process in response to a disabled employee’s request for a workplace accommodation. A recent ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates why employers have a very strong financial incentive to be proactive in adopting and rigorously enforcing their disability accommodation policies. In Burnett v. Ocean Properties, decided on February 2, 2021, a wheelchair user employed by a hotel chain call center complained internally that the office’s entrance was not accessible to him. It had heavy doors beyond which was a downward slope that caused the plaintiff’s wheelchair to roll backwards as the door closed on him, requiring him to exert greater force as he struggled to enter. He asked that push-button automatic doors be installed. The employer did not take any meaningful steps to address the complaint with the plaintiff. Eventually he was injured as he tried to open the door. Still, the employer did not follow up on his accommodation request. The plaintiff eventually filed an administrative charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission. The employer met with the plaintiff at that time, but claimed lack of familiarity with ADA compliance requirements and took no action to address the complaint. The plaintiff eventually resigned and filed suit in federal court when the administrative process was completed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com

A Construction Stitch in Time

October 28, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
It’s a cliche for a reason that “A Stitch in Time Saves Nine.” Why? Because it is almost always cheaper and more efficient in the long run to get something right the first time than to fix it later. This old adage is true in life, and particularly true in the world of construction. Whether it’s measuring twice before making your bid, checking with your subcontractors and suppliers to be sure they haven’t missed anything when giving you a price, or yes (and you knew this was coming), being sure that your contracts are written as they should be and cover the bases. To use another construction related analogy, these types of basic practices create a great foundation for your construction project(s) that will (hopefully) see you through to a successful and profitable construction project. Aside from the last of my examples, how can adding a knowledgeable construction attorney help with laying this foundation? We construction lawyers spend our days either dealing with problems that have occurred (not ideal), anticipating risks that could occur (better, though can lead to a relatively cynical world view), and advising clients before the fact of the potential risks and how to best avoid them (best). Speaking from experience, I would much rather spend my time keeping my construction clients making money and avoiding the pitfalls of the “Murphy’s Law” governed world of construction than spend time with them in court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES