Tag Archives: legal

Take this job and shove it

I received an interesting email from someone asking me to address an issue that often finds itself in the workplace. What happens when you are passed on being promoted within a company and the job is given to someone that you feel doesn’t have the appropriate skill set and received the promotion based on “connections” with upper management? My first inclination is to say I’m sorry because that is never a pleasant situation in the first place. However, time to put on the legal thinking cap to see if there is anything that can be done about it.

The first word that comes to mind is discrimination. Is there discrimination in this situation? Employers have a right to promote within a company but if there is actual discrimination in the way the person was chosen, there might be a claim there.   The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html) describe the different laws that are in place to protect against discrimination in the workplace.  These laws are increasingly growing and changing as clearly there is a need for employees to be protected these days. However, I know there are certain people who take the position that if you don’t get what you want, tough luck — just simply go out and get a new job. I find that mentality is in the minority as most people first think of how to get back at the employer rather than being proactive and looking for a new (and perhaps even better) job.

If there was an intentional act of discrimination on the employer’s part (ie: there is proof that the job was given to someone else because of a race or gender issue), then certainly you should explore all of your rights. In most states before you file a civil claim, you must first file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Most states have local agencies called “Fair Employment Practice Agencies” that regulate anti-discrimination laws.  Be sure to check your local state listing for this information but some helpful tips on filing a claim can be found here: http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/overview_charge_filing.html. Further, if you have an employment agreement where it was agreed that you would be promoted at a certain time, I would recommend taking a closer look at your agreement to see whether you have a breach of contract action.

Ultimately what you really have to decide is how much time and effort you want to spend fighting a battle against your employer. It is easy to understand the anger and frustration that might come along in this situation. However, getting angry only affects you and certainly not your employer. They don’t care; they have already made the decision regarding the promotion. I am a firm believer that everyone has a right to stand up for themselves, along with being able to work in an environment where they can grow, succeed and be encouraged to do their best. Don’t ever feel as if you have to stay “stuck” in a job. If someone at your company is getting promoted based on “connections” but that person can’t do the job, ultimately it is “too bad, so sad” for the employer. The key is even if you decide to file a claim, hopefully you have already made the decision to leave and are on a better path anyway. :)


I bet you didn’t know that….

CA Penal Code Section 299, Limitations on Disclosure (pursuant to the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act of 1998): The best way to have DNA that has been included in a data bank destroyed is if you have not committed a past or prior offense and there is no legal basis for retaining the DNA specimen or sample or searchable profile. Otherwise, unless you want to go through an entire process (see the rest of Section 299 for those of you who like reading the Penal Code), expect the DNA to stay where it is.

CA Penal Code Section 565, Crimes involving branded containers, cabinets or other dairy equipment: It is a misdemeanor (punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment in the county jail, not to exceed six months) to destroy the brand registration upon containers (including milk cases), cabinet or other dairy equipment which have a value of $400 or less and have a brand registered with the Department of Food and Agriculture. Thought I would shed some light on the topic in case someone feels the need to rip off a piece of dairy equipment.

CA Penal Code Section 142, Other Offenses Against Public Justice: Every public officer, or person pretending to be a public officer, who, under the pretense or color of any process or other legal authority, does any of the following, without a regular process or other lawful authority, is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(a) Arrests any person or detains that person against his or her will.

(b) Seizes or levies upon any property.

(c) Dispossesses any one of any lands or tenements.

Isn’t it interesting that ripping off a brand registration off some dairy equipment is considered the same offense as arresting or detaining someone against their will. Hmm.


Hold on, let me turn on my bluetooth

Something to take note of:

  • 5 states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington), the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands have enacted jurisdiction-wide cell phone laws prohibiting driving while talking on handheld cell phones.
    • With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place.
  • http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html - Governors Highway Safety Association (I wish I could find a t-shirt that says that on it)

    Ok so on an aside, does anyone remember the first time they heard the word “bluetooth”? I always remembered thinking that putting something in my ear seemed more difficult than actually holding up the phone.  I am looking forward to the enforcement of these laws as I have seen it so many times where I happen to see someone talking on the phone while they casually creep into my lane.

    However, I am not looking forward to the uncomfortable eye-to-eye contact I think will happen with members of our law enforcement while they try to determine if you have your bluetooth on. Don’t we all occasionally lean on one hand by our driver’s side window while we are waiting in traffic? I have a feeling that mere gesture could potentially be mistaken for using a cell phone instead of a bluetooth or some version of a voice-activated system. This summer sure is going to be a fun one. Hands-free talking for everyone but the possibility of a constant stare down by the police. What could be better? I guess I better find my bluetooth charger immediately.    


    Domain Scandal Part Two

    Thank you to John N. who posted a very insightful comment. I agree with you that it certainly takes time, money and foresight to figure out which  generic domain names to buy. However, there is still something about it that feels slimy. If someone buys a “generic” domain name for any other purpose than the fact that they want to use it, the only other reason they buy it is because they have the hope someone else will want it. My thought is, why not just let the person have the name instead of buying it yourself so you know you can make a quick buck off of the person who eventually will really need to buy it. I think I have a problem with the intent there. 

    Of course it isn’t really a legal issue, which is why this blog is called ”The Not So Legal Show” because I think it is important to examine the not so legal side of certain issues like this one. So of course, yes, it is legal for people to buy generic domain names and perhaps could be seen as a smart business move by some but the intent around this scenario feels quite different than someone buying real estate. When people buy real estate, there is certainly a thought there to sell it to someone else. However, when the “buyer” buys it from the seller, it isn’t because they “forgot” to buy it and now they are in a jam so they will offer up whatever they can. Buying real estate is a conscious choice all around and while some sellers are certainly out to gouge a buyer, there are also sellers who just want to sell their house and make a good deal.

    When it comes to domain names, I just think there is an intentional thought process behind the generic domain name buyer who knows he/she is going to catch someone in a bind and they can take advantage of that monetarily. I am not a fan of that type of thought process.   

    The comment was great and thought provoking so I thank you for that!


    The Domain Scandal

    Has anyone thought that they should go into business and just buy domains that sound like a good company name? Or, in the alternative and probably the more likely scenario, have you thought of the best name ever for your company, only to find out that some company in India owns the name until 2016?

    Ah, the frustrations that go along with wanting to buy a domain name. I wish it could be easier. It’s almost as if these people hold the names for ransom. I know this was a big issue awhile back and you would think it has gotten easier but it would not appear to be that way.

    What if someone who owns the domain name you want to buy asks you who you are buying it for? Are you legally obligated to tell them? The answer to that question is a definite no. The manner in which you want to use the name is none of their business. However, the flip side to that is there are situations where you might have additional rights to the name that supersede the current owners rights. In that instance, it might actually be beneficial to you to explain why you want the name and what actual rights you may have to it.

    A domain name is becoming an even more crucial part of someone’s intellectual property portfolio and I highly recommend purchasing any applicable domain names as soon as possible. I just checked godaddy.com and they have a special for $9.99* a year (note the asterisk and read the fine print on the website). Better to have the name than to not. Did anyone see Dirty Rotten Scoundrels? There is a hysterical scene where Steve Martin is on the train with this woman trying to get a free lunch out of her and he quotes something his grandmother told him (trying to use the ‘ol grandmother trick to have the woman feel sorry for him) – “It is better to be truthful and good…than to not”. It is so funny but it reminds me of this situation. Better to buy the domain name…than to not.  And fight for what is yours! Don’t let someone keep a domain name that you need to get!


    Batter, Batter, Batter, Swing Batter but don’t let your bat hit me in the face

    Who here loves baseball? Can’t say that I do but lately I have become a fan of the Atlanta Braves. Not sure if anyone saw the game tonight but in a Tivo re-play, I happened to see a guy swing at a pitch, make contact with the ball and I watched as the bat splintered into the sky, almost landing on Chipper Jones.

    A discussion started about what would happen if the bat had flown into the audience and hit someone? Would that person be allowed to sue? What should be considered in a claim like that? Are you assuming the risk as a spectator by simply stepping into the stands? In a negligence claim, there are four elements: 1.) Duty 2.) Breach 3.) Causation 4.) Damages. If someone or an entity is considered “negligent”, they are failing to meet a standard of due care that any “reasonable and prudent” person would follow, therefore causing damages. To that end, who is the cause of the negligence when the bat flies into the stands and causes an injury to someone? Is it the manufacturer of the bat because the bat should have been able to withhold a strong contact with a ball? Is it the baseball player for not holding the bat in a way to prevent it from breaking? Is it the stadium for not providing full face masks to all spectators who come into the stadium? Is anyone thinking right now that this is what lawyers do, think of strange ways to find liability in a seemingly simple situation?

    It isn’t clear cut, mainly because there isn’t anything stopping anyone from suing any of the people named above with this type of a claim. The court may decide it is a frivolous lawsuit but the suit could still be filed. On an aside, I have now learned that maple bats have the highest percentage of breaking. This is a very interesting article on that topic: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-maplebats050808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

    In a situation like this, the law and real life sometime get a bit too mixed up. The person that was hit by the bat wants something and technically the law seems to provide a method in getting that something (money) by using a negligence claim. However, real life needs to kick in. Everyone knows when you go to a baseball game, certainly you need to be aware of a lot of different events that might occur – the chance that a foul ball might fly into the stands, the guy with the glove next to you hits you in the face while reaching for the foul ball or maybe even the hot dog seller accidentally hits you in the face when he throws you the hot dog you ordered. Foreseeability is a strong factor in disproving a negligence claim and it certainly applies here.

    My final thought is that you shouldn’t go to a baseball game if you can’t handle what happens there (or at least can learn how to duck when you see a piece of splintered wood headed your way). I am all for creating new bats that don’t have such a high chance of breaking but this is one attorney who won’t go to bat for lawsuits like this.


    Classify what? Trademark who?

    What should I trademark? A common question asked by business owners. Now, before you feel compelled to make sure that the name of your company has a registered trademark in a classification like “egg incubator” when your company sells T-shirts but of course you “never know” what new business you might get into, think twice. I think that was a very long run-on sentence but that is sort of how it goes. People get overwhelmed by the trademark concept and understandably so. However, no need to file extra classifications when you don’t need them. 

    What is a classification? It is basically the “category” that your trademark will fall under. For example, let’s say you have a t-shirt company called Hal’s T-Shirts.  You will most likely want to trademark Hal’s T-Shirts under the category of “T-Shirts” to start.  As you type in the search term “T-Shirts”, the US Identification of Goods and Services Manual (http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html), will (hopefully – we will get to the story later where you type in a search term and absolutely nothing that is accurate will come up) turn up the results which will let you know which number is assigned to your classification of your trademark, (T-Shirts happens to be the number 25)

    Each trademark classification, if you are filing a regular application, costs $325.00. So, it’s probably not a good idea to pick as many classifications as you can. The goal is to accurately pick the classifications that truly fit your company.  As your company grows, you can add more.  No need to add “egg incubators” when your company has no intention of ever selling those services.  And yes, I did actually find “egg incubators” when I was doing a trademark search one day.

    I am going to do more posts on trademark but for now I just wanted to address the classification issue. Don’t feel pressured to file as many trademarks as possible so you can feel “protected”. The goal is to be strategic and really look at your lines of business, what you currently do and where your company will grow in the future. Build your trademark portfolio around those concepts and you are on your way to a successful trademark mission!  


    Cheerleading isn’t just about short skirts

    Not sure if anyone has noticed but they did a special on “Cheerleading” on E! over the weekend. Now you might be wondering what I have to say about cheerleading and even more, what cheerleading has to do with the legal world. Well, for starters, I have to admit why I happened to watch that show on E.  I was a cheerleader. I did the whole thing – the outfits, the glitter on the face…and I have to say that I really did love it. However, one thing I never thought of and also was never faced with was being subject to any rules or limitations about what was allowed and what wasn’t when performing stunts.

    Now, fortunately for me (and my parents more likely) the school I went to was not a big cheerleading school. I mean, of course we cheered at all of the games, went to cheerleading camp at SMU and sweated our butts off in the 100 degree Texas weather but the liklihood of seeing someone from our sqaud being tossed in the air was about 1 in a million. Maybe putting someone on top of a pyramid was a 1 in 10 chance but we certainly were not the basket-tossing type.

    After this weekend, I learned that there were not any rules at all for cheerleading for quite some time.  It took girls flying into the air, landing on their head, neck  and unfortunately suffering some serious injuries to finally get someone to take notice. The American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators was created in 1987 and there are additional courses that seem to be created for new programs on safety. Check out  http://www.cheerleadingsafety.com/ and www.aacca.org. Who knew one could learn so much from watching E!.

    In any event, an interesting legal situation is created if someone gets hurt as technically whose fault is it? Is the person who was responsible for catching the person? Is it the coach who should have been watching more closely? Is it the school who hired the coach who should have been watching more closely?

    I am really happy that some light has been shed on this topic as cheerleading is becoming more of an aggressive sport and there should be some rules governing this situation. Accidents do happen but the more knowledge and training we can give coaches, the better. Parents also need to pay attention to who is coaching their kids. You don’t want to have to be calling an attorney because your kid got hurt when you could have checked out the coaches credentials yourself. Rules for the short skirts!


    Getting caught

    Does anyone think that if someone escapes from jail and is found over 20 years later, that the person should go back to jail?  In the news the other day, I read about this woman who escaped from prison in 1976 and was recently caught. It’s like The Fugitive but kind of like if one of the housewives of Orange County was arrested. She claims the charges against her were drug related but that she wasn’t a dealer. Of course Michigan authorities are saying her story doesn’t add up. Shocker. I can imagine it would be difficult to go back to jail when you are 53 years old. I am sure she figured – what’s the harm? No one has caught me so I can just continue going on with my life but I just wonder how hard it was to keep a secret like that? Here is the article for anyone who is interested: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fugitive1-2008may01,1,2480068.story - hopefully you will be able to open it. If not, go to www.latimes.com and type in “woman going to prison for escaping jail time in 1976″.

    In any event, the people in Michigan are saying she didn’t serve the appropriate amount of time in jail so she has to go back. There are consequences to your actions. She should have just served the time when she was 19, gotten out and now she wouldn’t have to be dealing with this.

    Most people can’t stand lawyers but the truth is, who do you think the first person she called was after she told her husband? I am curious to see how it plays out but if Michigan goes by the letter of the law, she is going back to the slammer. 

    The law is a strange bird and truly, the people practicing it are even stranger sometimes so there is definitely some attorney out there representing her and saying things like “she’s a model citizen”. But, it’s like my dad says, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.

     

     


    Eliot Spitzer and being not so legal

    Eliot Spitzer. A name that perhaps a few years ago conjured up images of beating up the bad guys, fighting the good fight.  But what now? What happens now to a guy who has everything going for him and decided he wanted $4,000 (is that how much it was?) sex? Did he ever think “is this legal”? Was it a thought that crossed his mind and he decided to ignore it?

    What makes someone ignore that small little voice that says “this isn’t legal” when they know they are doing something wrong? Did Eliot Spitzer make that conscious decision and if so, how bizarre is that? The guy pursued organized crime! He spent time fighting the guys that don’t care what “legal” means and even “organize” plans around beating the system. Did he want to just see what he could get away with? Was he just a guy bored with his marriage and wanted to add some excitement? Regardless, before he found that prostitute, he HAD to have a moment where he thought to himself that what he was doing was wrong. Or worse, he never even thought about it and how sad is that.  

    This is a case where being not so legal really took a turn for the worse.  People try to get away with things and I’m here to say that being “not so legal” never works out. It just never does.


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.