Here at the offices of Abogado Aly, our attorneys take care of our clients and make sure they get the honesty and truth that they deserve. Visit Our Immigration Law site here!
I remember a number of years having terrible experiences with New Year’s Eve and drihttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/StateBarOfTexasBlog/~3/0zftFnfn_ZQ/nking too much, doing something that was humiliating or that caused a problem in my marriage and then swearing I’d quit drinking for the new year.
As a lawyer, I had the idea that working hard and playing hard was expected and understandable, and the stresses of practicing law would always guide me back to the bar or at least to the bottle within a few days. I always felt so ashamed of myself for the failure to keep my resolution. I actually hated myself for not putting those I loved before my desire to get relief from drinking. I couldn’t see at the time that I was actually powerless to quit on my own. I needed help.
After several years of feeling ashamed of my weakness with alcohol, I finally saw a friend that I knew was a hard drinker like me and an attorney I also greatly respected. He appeared so happy and healthy, and I asked him what he was up to that made him seem so much better. He told me that he quit drinking and, because I knew that he drank to excess like I did for years, I was curious about what he did. A few days later, after I had a particularly rough weekend of drinking, I asked him for help, and he took me to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where several lawyers were in attendance.
I got a sponsor and began working the steps of the program and attending meetings as well as attending Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers meetings. When I got my 30-day chip, I cried in disbelief. I was doing so much better with the healthier tools that the program offered me to get the relief I was seeking from alcohol.
I realize now that all of those times that I tried to quit drinking for New Year’s were futile because I was not providing myself any new tools to replace the unworkable relief that alcohol once provided. I needed the new way of life and the connection. I needed the honesty and selflessness of helping others.
After being sober for a few months, I became able to help others do the same and I continued to work the program. Being an attorney became so much easier without being enslaved to alcohol. I had so much more time in my life to do work and take care of myself. I was so much healthier physically and mentally, and I had a purpose beyond me.
Now when each new year begins, I reflect on the pain that I was in each year and I have tremendous gratitude for the world of recovery and to be a lawyer that has the history I do so that I can be of service to so many others. It is indeed a happy new year every year now.
Editor’s Note: The following message was sent to all members on January 5.
Dear Member,
This message includes updated information related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other State Bar of Texas information. We hope this message finds you and your loved ones safe and healthy.
Supreme Court of Texas Emergency Orders
The Texas Supreme Court recently issued two emergency orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic and evictions in Texas. The 31st Emergency Order renews the Texas Eviction Diversion Program, a statewide housing-assistance program designed to help tenants behind on rent avoid evictions. Learn more about the program at txcourts.gov/eviction-diversion.
The court’s 32nd Emergency Order extends deadlines for eviction procedures to reflect recent actions taken by Congress to continue certain eviction protections afforded in the CARES Act.
MCLE Deadlines Extended
We understand that the pandemic has made it difficult for some attorneys to complete their MCLE requirements on time. In response, the State Bar of Texas MCLE Department granted several extensions. Below are the current extensions offered. Attorneys with the following birth months:
October—granted a 90-day extension with a final deadline of January 31.
November—granted a 60-day extension with a final deadline of January 31.
December—granted a 60-day extension with a final deadline of February 28.
January—granted a 60-day extension with a final deadline of March 31.
The MCLE department continues to review compliance deadlines due to the pandemic. Please contact the MCLE department at 800-204-2222, ext. 1806, or mcle@texasbar.com if you have questions about the extensions or MCLE compliance requirements.
Register Now for Rules Vote Informational Forums
Texas lawyers have been called upon to exercise their right of self-governance by voting on proposed amendments to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Voting will take place from February 2 to March 4 by paper and electronic ballot.
Public forums for the 2021 rules vote will take place via webinar on the following dates:
Each event will include a one-hour CLE presentation on the proposed disciplinary rule amendments (approved for one hour of MCLE ethics credit) featuring members of the Committee on Disciplinary Rules and Referenda, followed by a live forum where attendees can ask questions and provide comments regarding the proposed amendments.
Registration is free and open now. Register early to ensure you have a spot. If you can’t make it to a live event, a recorded version will be available on demand. Go to texasbar.com/rulesvote to learn more.
Stay Up to Date on State Legislation
The 87th Texas Legislature will meet from January 12 to May 31. During each legislative session, the State Bar of Texas offers the Friday Update email newsletter to keep members up to date on legislation of interest to the legal profession. The newsletter includes links to relevant bills with status information. Subscribe at texasbar.com/fridayupdate.
Take Care of Yourselves
In this challenging time, it’s important to take care of yourselves. We invite you to take advantage of the well-being resources for remote living collected by the Texas Lawyers’ Assistance Program and to attend TLAP’s monthly Remote Well-Being Wednesday program that will be held at noon CST on January 27. The topic is Making Healthy Habits Happen. The panelists are:
Vance Hinds, Texas attorney
Erica Grigg, TLAP attorney
Chris Ritter, TLAP director
Sincerely,
State Bar of Texas
Resources to Keep You Informed: The State Bar of Texas continues to updatetexasbar.com/coronavirus with the latest resources and information to help you stay informed of the changes affecting our profession. You can also sign up for the State Bar’s Daily News Briefing attexasbar.com/dailynews to receive the latest legal news updates in your inbox every weekday.
Many lawyers write memos, trial and appellate briefs, or briefs in administrative matters, and those documents contain a section called the Statement of Facts. Naturally, a Statement of Facts should be credible, ethical, and persuasive, but it should also flow—guiding the reader through the events in an easy-to-follow, coherent way. To accomplish those goals, legal writers can use two basic yet effective tools: topic sentences and headings.
Dates aren’t topics. I’ve seen Statements of Facts in which the first sentences of a series of paragraphs all begin with a date. The practice sometimes continues for three, four, or five paragraphs in a row. For example, three consecutive paragraphs might begin like this:
On September 30, 2019, …
On December 17, 2019, …
On February 22, 2020, …
Two problems: First, it’s common advice to omit a flurry of dates. “Avoid over-chronicling—most dates are clutter,” says Judge Mark Painter. “We don’t know what … if any, dates we should remember.”[1] Second, even when dates are relevant, they’re usually not important enough to justify giving them primary placement. When you begin a paragraph with a date, you’re implying that the date is important—topical. That’s usually not true.
So write a topic sentence that encapsulates the main idea of the paragraph. If you need chronology, work the date in later or use relative-time references:
BK Events catered a successful party for Mesa, Inc. in September 2019….
Three months later, Mesa contracted with BK to cater another party in May 2020….
Ultimately, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, Mesa sought to cancel the contract on February 22, 2020….
Witnesses aren’t topics. I’ve seen Statements of Facts in which the first sentences of a series of paragraphs all begin with a name—often that of a witness. In a brief responding to a claim for benefits, three consecutive paragraphs might begin like this:
Cynthia Rao examined the claimant and testified that …
Robert Eaton, a psychiatrist, examined the claimant on …
Chris Serna, a vocational expert, interviewed the claimant …
Again, two problems: It’s good advice to avoid presenting the facts by witness. “Never include the deadly witness-by-witness summaries of testimony that some brief-writers favor,” says Judge William Whitbeck.[2] More to the point, the witnesses are rarely the topics you’re writing about, and if they aren’t, they don’t deserve primary placement.
Rather than giving witness names prominence in the opening sentence, create true topic sentences. Here, you could use the impairments that the claimant alleges, and other topics as appropriate. It might look like this:
The claimant asserted a physical impairment based on lumbar spinal stenosis….
A second alleged impairment, based a depressive disorder, relied on the testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Robert Eaton….
Yet a vocational expert testified that reasonable opportunities for work existed in the national economy….
For readability and flow, topic sentences often work better than focusing on dates and names.
Try headings. If the Statement of Facts is long or complex, you can aid the reader and improve the flow with headings. After all, few of us want to read long, unbroken blocks of text. You can use short topic headings with boldface text, initial capitals, and no punctuation:
Background
Previous Claims
Alleged Impairments
You can use point headings, too—typically boldface assertions using sentence case and ending with a period:
The psychiatrist’s testimony rebuts the claimant’s asserted impairment based on a depressive disorder.
Both techniques, topic sentences and headings, require thought and effort by the writer, but they pay off with a more readable and persuasive Statement of Facts.
The El Paso Court of Appeals tangled with the accommodation doctrine in Lyle v. Midway Solar, LLC, No. 08-19-00216-CV, and the mineral owner lost.
The Lyles own a 27.5% mineral interest in 315 acres in Pecos County. Gary Drgac owns the surface. Drgac leased the 315 acres to Midway Solar for a solar farm. Midway constructed its solar array, leaving 17 acres on the south end and 80 acres on the north end for “Designated Drill Sites.” Midway did not get a surface waiver from the Lyles. The solar array covers 70% of the surface above the Lyles’ mineral estate.
The Lyles sued Midway for trespass and breach of contract. The breach of contract claim was based on the language in the deed that reserved the mineral interest owned by the Lyles. It provided that the Grantors reserve “the right to such use of the surface estate in the lands as may be usual, necessary or convenient in the use and enjoyment of the oil, gas and general mineral estate ….” It also provided that Grantors would never be liable to Grantees for any damage or injury to the surface estate by reason of such use. The trespass claim was based on the theory that Midway’s use deprived the Lyles of the right to use the land under its solar array and therefore trespassed on the Lyle’s right to use the surface estate of that land.
The evidence showed that the Lyles have not actively sought to develop their minerals and have no plans to do so. But the Lyles introduced affidavits of two petroleum engineers to the effect that directional drilling to develop the Lyles’ minerals would be “a significant deterrent to anyone developing the minerals under the solar operations” and does not allow reasonable access to their mineral estate.
Midway argued that, until the Lyles seek to develop their mineral estate, their claims are not ripe for review and should be dismissed.
The court agreed with Midway and ordered that the Lyles’ claims be dismissed without prejudice. The court provides an extended discussion of the accommodation doctrine and holds that the language in the Lyles’ deed does not preclude application of the doctrine, should a controversy arise about the Lyles’ right to use the surface estate.
If the Lyles exercise their right [to use the surface] as part of developing the minerals, Midway must yield to the degree mandated by the application of the accommodation doctrine. But if the Lyles are not exercising their right, there is nothing to be accommodated. Stated otherwise, until the Lyles seek to develop their minerals, Midway owes no duty to the Lyles respecting the surface usage. Were it otherwise a mineral owners who undertakes no efforts to develop the mineral estate could claim damages from any surface activities that might hinder—at some point in the future—the exploration for oil and gas.
In my experience solar developers generally do get surface waivers from mineral owners. It appears that Midway did seek to do so but apparently obtained waivers from mineral owners of other tracts, but not the Lyles, because of poor title work. I doubt that this opinion will give solar developers and their lenders much comfort to develop solar farms without surface waivers from mineral owners. If the Lyles had received any lease offer that was conditioned on obtaining drillsites within the solar array, the case might have turned out differently.
Nobody likes it when the other party to a confidential settlement communication spills the beans in public. Like they say, snitches get stitches.
Lawyers try to avoid this problem by putting something like this at the top of their letters and emails about settlement:
*CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION SUBJECT TO FRE 408*
Why do lawyers do this?
The answer is that if you put this at the top of your email or letter, then the party who receives it is not allowed to use your statements against you for any purpose. This is federal law.
I’m just kidding. That’s not what the law is. Cue the “Bad Legal Takes” account on Twitter.
But there are some common misconceptions about the settlement communications rule, even among lawyers.
Before I get to those, let’s take a look at the rule itself.
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 says this:
Most states have a similar rule. Texas, where I practice, has its own version of Rule 408, which is similar to—but not identical to—the Federal Rule:
For simplicity, let’s put aside for now the part of the federal rule about certain criminal cases. We can then see, based on the text alone, that both the Texas rule and the federal rule make a statement inadmissible if:
(1) there is a “disputed claim”
(2) the statements is “made during compromise negotiations about the claim”
(3) the statement is offered for the purpose of proving or disproving “the validity or amount of a disputed claim.”
The “exceptions” in part (b) are not exceptions per se; they really just clarify that the rule does not bar admission of a settlement communication offered for some other purpose.
Seems simple enough, but what does this really mean, and why do we have this rule?
Let’s take a very basic example. Suppose you get in a car accident with Dave Driver and there’s a lawsuit. During a discussion of settling the case, Dave says “ok, I ran the red light, but the damages you’re asking for are just too much.”
Under Rule 408, you can’t offer Dave’s statement “I ran the red light” as evidence in court. As the federal version of the rule makes clear, you can’t even offer the statement as impeachment evidence if Dave testifies in court “that light was green.”
At first, this doesn’t seem fair. How can Dave get away with admitting he ran the red light and then say the opposite in court?
But if you think about it, if you could use Dave’s statement against him in court, his lawyer might never let Dave say a word in settlement discussions. Why chance it?
No, we want to encourage people to speak candidly and freely in settlement negotiations. We don’t want them to think anything they say can and will be used against them. That would have a “chilling effect” on attempts to compromise disputed claims. That’s why we have Rule 408.
On the other hand, we don’t want people to use the rule to block admission of evidence that is relevant for some other purpose. Suppose Dave’s insurance company offers Pam Passenger money in exchange for an agreement not to testify that Dave ran the red light. Part (b) of the rule clarifies that evidence offered for some other relevant purpose—such as showing Pam’s bias—could still be admissible.
And keep in mind, the statement has to be part of a communication about a compromise. A statement that simply asserts a party’s position or makes a demand may not be a “compromise” communication.
Now that we understand the elements of the rule and its purpose, let’s look at some common misconceptions about the rule.
1. Thinking that labeling something a “Rule 408 settlement communication” makes it so
This one seems pretty obvious, but some lawyers still seem to think that if they put this kind of label at the top of a letter, the letter can never be offered as evidence. Some will even get bent out of shape and accuse you of being unprofessional if you try.
Whether this is unprofessional will of course depend on the circumstances, but of course, just because one lawyer labeled something a Rule 408 communication does not make it inadmissible. If you’re going to object to the admission of the statement in the courtroom, you will still have to meet each of the elements I outlined earlier.
On the other hand, putting the “Rule 408” label on your letter isn’t a total waste of time. It does at least provide some evidence that at least one party intended the communication as a “statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim,” and that doesn’t hurt.
Conversely, leaving out the Rule 408 label does not mean that Rule 408 does not apply, but again, it probably doesn’t hurt to use the label—if you’re concerned about the communication being used against your client later in court.
2. Thinking that Rule 408 bars admission of a settlement communication for any purpose
This one also seems fairly obvious if you read the rule. But it’s not uncommon for lawyers to object to any evidence of a statement made during a settlement negotiation, even when the evidence is offered for some other purpose. And if the judge doesn’t grasp the distinction, the objection may even be sustained.
But still, lawyers should not think that the rule will keep out evidence of settlement communications, regardless of the purpose. Several times in preparing for a trial I have pulled case law applying Rule 408 to support or respond to an anticipated objection, and I can tell you that most of the cases you run across say that Rule 408 did not bar admission of the evidence, because the evidence was offered for some other purpose.
3. Thinking that Rule 408 bars admission of evidence that a party to a dispute committed a crime in a settlement communication
This is really a corollary to misconception no. 2. If a party’s settlement communication itself is evidence of commission of a crime, then Rule 408 would not bar offering that communication for the “other purpose” of proving that the party committed a crime.
Suppose a mob boss is a party to a contentious civil lawsuit about a restaurant lease. During a conference call to discuss settlement, he says “this is really a reasonable offer, and if you don’t take it, bad things could happen to your nice restaurant.”
In that case, Rule 408 would not prevent the government from offering the mob boss’s statement as evidence in a prosecution for extortion. The statement would meet the first two elements of Rule 408—it was made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim—but it would not be offered for the purpose of proving or disproving the validity or amount of a disputed claim. Rather, the evidence would be offered for the purpose of proving that the mob boss committed a crime by making the statement.
4. Thinking that Rule 408 establishes a privilege
This is a somewhat subtle distinction, especially for non-lawyers, but it’s an important one.
Rule 408 on its face talks about whether evidence is “admissible.” It doesn’t say that the evidence is “privileged.”
This is an important distinction. To illustrate, let’s consider the attorney-client privilege rule in contrast. That rule governs both admissibility and privilege. If I have a confidential communication with my lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, that communication is generally privileged.
Privileged means both that I can’t be required to disclose the communication in a lawsuit, and that the opposing party cannot offer the statement as evidence in court.
Rule 408 doesn’t work like that. It says nothing about making the statement privileged from disclosure. Generally, if a settlement communication is relevant to disputed issue in a lawsuit, then Rule 408 doesn’t prevent a party to the lawsuit from demanding disclosure of the communication, such as in a pretrial deposition or in a request for production of documents.
So, while I can object to the opposing party attempting to offer the settlement communication as evidence, that doesn’t mean the statement is exempt from disclosure.
5. Thinking that Rule 408 bars disclosure to third parties
This one is similar to no. 4. Rule 408 is a rule of admissibility, not a rule of confidentiality. The rule says nothing about disclosing an opposing party’s settlement communication to a third party, or to the general public.
So if Dave Driver says “I ran the red light” during a settlement discussion, there is nothing to stop the other party from going to the press and saying “Driver admitted he ran the red light!”
That is, unless the parties agreed to keep the settlement communications confidential. But that would be a contract law issue, not a Rule 408 issue. Dave would have to prove the existence of an agreement to keep the settlement communications, a breach of the agreement, and damages resulting from the breach. Of course, in some cases there could be public policy issues with enforcement of the agreement.
Practice Tips
This leads to my settlement communication practice tips for lawyers:
1. If you’re concerned about sensitive statements your client might make during a settlement negotiation, consider entering into a written agreement up front providing that both sides will keep the settlement communications confidential and not offer them as evidence for any purpose. (This would be broader than Rule 408.)
2. Understand that, as a practical matter, your client’s only recourse in the event of public disclosure will be a claim for damages, which will probably be difficult to prove and won’t really undo the reputational damage.
3. Suggest your client try to avoid making any statements that could be considered a crime.
Like they say, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
_____________________________
Zach Wolfe (zwolfe@fleckman.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at his firm Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC. Thomson Reuters named him a 2020 Texas “Super Lawyer” for Business Litigation. He hereby designates this entire blog post confidential under FRE 408.
These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.
I want to thank all of you for reading this blog and supporting my program. I really enjoy the work I get to do, and I always appreciate your kind words about how the information we put out have been helpful to you and your family. I’m looking forward to continuing the blog and podcast in 2021! I hope you will continue to follow along and will share both of these resources with your friends. Happy New Year!
Top 5 Blog Posts
We are almost 8 years into the Texas Agriculture Law Blog and it remains a real joy for me to get to write these posts.
1. TX Supreme Court Sides with Bull Owner in Fence Law Case: This was far and away the most popular blog post of the year with over 41,000 page views. Learn about an important decision involving the standard applicable if livestock is hit on a State or US highway in a county with a local stock law.
3. 2020 Rural Land Value Trends Report: The Rural Land Value Trends publication is full of interesting and useful information for Texas landowners. From average sales prices to average lease rates to interesting articles on a variety of topics, this is a report all Texas landowners should take time to review.
5. Transferring Property Prior to Death: Pros, Cons, & Alternatives: I am not surprised to see this post on the list as it was the sheer number of questions on this topic that led me to write it in the first place. Learn about some considerations with regard to when might be the best time to transfer property.
Top 5 Podcast Episodes
It has been a big year for the Ag Law in the Field Podcast as we have seen download numbers greatly increase this year. Thank you all for sharing this with your friends and family! We are looking forward to 2021, where we will hit episode #100, and I have a special guest planned to celebrate that milestone.
2. Garrett Couts (Episode #73 – Transfer on Death Deeds v. Lady Bird Deeds): This topic ties into the Transferring Property blog post and it is one that I think a lot of Texas residents overlook. I think it is really important to take a moment to educate yourself on these types of deeds and consider whether they may be useful in your own situation.
3. Pat Dillon (Episode #71 – Capital Gains Taxes and Agriculture): One caveat here…the sound in this episode is not up to par. However, Pat Dillon is such a great guest, and the topic of capital gains tax is so important that clearly folks overlooked the technical issue.
5. Cassie Gresham (Episode #75 – Special Use Tax Valuation): Texas landowners have a lot of questions related to special use tax valuation and Cassie Gresham brought all the answers! This episode is great for any landowner or potential landowner to brush up on the basics of this extremely important topic.
It is that time of the year again! The time to review my 2020 labor and employment law predictions from last year to see how well they did or did not hold up. This year’s predictions are a special kind of train wreck with how COVID-19 totally changed the outcome of many of all of these predictions.
Below are my 2020 labor and employment law predictions and my review of them.
1. Minimum Wage Increases Will Occur in a Number of States and Ballot Initiatives Will Be Undertaken to Get Them on the Ballot in Additional States
Florida, as I predicted, passed the $15 minimum wage ballot initiative with 60.82% of voters voting to pass the measure and 39.18% voting to reject the measure. A 60% supermajority was needed for the bill to pass.
Virginia passed a minimum wage law and the increase is set to take effect on May 1, 2021. Originally, the increase was to occur on January 1.
The other ballot initiatives for minimum wage increases or minimum wage increase related issues in Arizona, Idaho, and Missouri did not make it on the ballot.
This is something that we could see expanded into the Biden administration as he supports a $15 minimum wage. It will depend on the outcome of the senate races.
2. Retail Closures and Other Layoffs Continue to Remain High or Accelerate
This prediction turned out to be true, but not for the reasons that I initially thought. The surge in bankruptcies and layoffs is due overwhelmingly to the coronavirus pandemic, the lockdowns, and individuals voluntarily cutting back on their shopping and outings.
According to Retail Dive, over 29 major retailers have declared bankruptcy this year compared to only 17 from last year. In 2019, over 9,500 stores closed. There is not a final count yet for this year, however, it seems likely that this will be one of the worst years since the Great Recession and maybe even the Depression.
3. Onboarding and Employee Retention Continues to Grow in Importance
Onboarding did become more important than in 2019, but not for the reasons that I initially stated. In 2019 unemployment was at record lows and median household income was up 6.8% from the prior year to $68,700. All of that changed this year as millions of people reported job losses. Onboarding is more important due to the remote nature of many workplaces, and the need to train new employees on practices regarding COVID-19 became crucial.
5. Candidates Push Their Election Agendas Which Will Give us a Peek into the Labor and Employment Landscape in 2021
This is obvious again. Rather than spending time on Trump’s agenda, which has advanced a lot over the last few years, let’s turn to Joe Biden since he will become the next president. He has outlined a lot of proposals on his campaign site:
○ ban employers’ mandatory meetings with their employees, including captive audience meetings in which employees are forced to listen to anti-union rhetoric; and
○ reinstate and codify into law the Obama-Biden Administration’s “persuader rule” requiring employers to report not only information communicated to employees, but also the activities of third-party consultants who work behind the scenes to manage employers’ anti-union campaigns.
“He will ensure federal contracts only go to employers who sign neutrality agreements committing not to run anti-union campaigns.”
He supports card check so that if a majority of employees sign an authorization card, then they can form a union without an election.
End right-to-work laws that allow workers that don’t want to join a union the right to not be forced to join one. (read more about these here)
Permit intermittent strikes
Allow independent contractors to bargain collectively
Increase the minimum wage to $15
Eliminate non-compete clauses
End mandatory arbitration clauses
There will be a seismic shift in labor and employment law under Biden.
6. Union Elections and Organizing Increases this Year Especially in the Tech Sector
The worker is free from control (they determine how to do the work),
The work is outside the usual business of the company, and
The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade occupation, or business.
It is difficult for many workers to meet all three elements.
8. Mental Health Issues in the Workplace Become More Important
This is the saddest prediction that came true. The coronavirus has affected everyone. It is probably one of the few events from the last 100 years that has affected practically every single person throughout the entire world.
There was a lot of controversy about politics in all aspects of life. In fact, according to a survey conducted for the American Psychological Association, 68% of adults indicated that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was a significant source of stress in their life.
10. The Cases Before the Supreme Court Put Increased Focus on Religion, Transgender Issues, and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace
There have been a few cases this year concerning religion, sexual orientation and the workplace (as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Bostock v. Clayton decision that made discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity illegal under Title VII), but most of them have been overshadowed by COVID. Virginia enacted a law this year to make discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation illegal.
There are three cases before the Supreme Court around religious issues this term (Tanzin v. Tanvir, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski) shows the tension and need for clarification around legal matters involving religion. None of these cases deal directly with labor and employment law, but they may shed light on how the court will rule on future cases that do.
11. States Continue to Implement Restrictions on Noncompetition Agreements
The law will prohibit non-competes for employees whose average weekly wages are less than the average weekly wages for employees in Virginia. It applies to independent contractors as well, but it does not apply to employees that earn the whole or a majority of their compensation through commissions, bonuses, or other incentives.
2020 was a year to remember but not in a good way. It will be remembered more in the way that many people remember the years of the Great Depression. The year was consumed by the coronavirus/COVID-19. Three of the top ten google searches in 2020 were related to the virus. Hopefully, 2021 will be a much better year. Wishing you and yours a safe and happy new year!
The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.
The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.
