A Council Bluffs Iowa lost from a lawfirm in Jonesboro Arkansas
11.26.08 | Comments Off

Twenty-eight of those 31 employees sued under the ADEA claiming Knolls illegally fired them because of their age. Thirty of the 56 salaried employees the company laid off were at least 25 years old. In that case Meacham versus Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the ADEA that permits an employer to take an adverse employment action against an employee. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially affirmed the jurys findings but after the United States Supreme Court asked it to reconsider the Second Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of Knolls. As long as the adverse action is based on reasonable factors other than age. Knolls totaled those scores and gave the employees additional points based on their years of service. It then used those totals to decide who to lay off. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the jurys finding that Knolls policy unlawfully discriminated because of age. The BFOQ defense states that it is not unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment actions otherwise prohibited by the ADEA where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. In Meacham Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory was planning to lay off a number of employees. It has the burden to prove that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age. The company had its supervisors rate their subordinates based on their performance flexibility and critical skills. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employer seeks to rely on that defense. Even if the employment action is otherwise prohibited by the ADEA. Specifically the jury found that although the plaintiffs did not prove that Knolls intentionally discriminated against them they did prove that Knolls method of deciding who to lay off disproportionately harmed older workers. A lawyer from Amersfoort won from a advocate in Gardena California In reaching its conclusion that the employer has the burden to prove the reasonable factors other than age defense the Supreme Court looked at another provision of the ADEA the bona fide occupational qualification defense. In other words the ADEA permits employers to discriminate based on age considering age is legitimately necessary under the circumstances. At the trial a jury found Knolls had violated the ADEA because its layoff procedure had a disparate impact based on age. For example it would not be illegal to consider criteria for a particular role in a movie that has a disparate impact on age if the part calls for someone of a particular age. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the employer has the burden to establish the BFOQ affirmative defense.

Database Hacks - Are Banks Required To Notify You?
06.03.08 | Comments Off

Ever wonder if banks are required to tell customers when
their systems are hacked? You may be shocked to learn that
they are not. The only exception to this standard has been
database hacks that effect California residents. Companies
doing business in California are required to give such
notice under the California Security Breach Information Act.
The situation is changing quickly on the federal level.

Regulations have been issued by federal finance agencies
that now force banks to tell customers when their personal
data has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. The
regulations are issued pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act, which contains language requiring financial
institutions to prevent unauthorized access and use of
consumer information.

The new regulations appear to be a reaction to several
recent high-profile data leaks. They include incidents such
as Bank of America losing data tapes containing information
for over 1 million government employees and the breach of
databases for LexisNexis and ChoicePoint. It is well known
that numerous other banks have also been hacked over the
years, but the information has been hushed up.

The new regulations require financial institutions to notify
account holders if the institution becomes aware of
unauthorized access to sensitive customer information. The
directives apply to banks and savings and loan companies,
but not credit unions.

There are two serious loopholes in the regulations. First, a
financial institution that discovers a database breach must
only notify account holders if it is “reasonably possible”
that personal details will be misused. Second, the
regulations only apply to personal data, not business or
commercial accounts.

While these new regulations are a positive step, one could
drive a truck through the two loopholes. Determining whether
it is “reasonably possible” that your information will be
misused is a vague standard that many financial institutions
will use to withhold information. Put bluntly, the
notification regulations are gutless.

The best method for keeping an eye on database breaches is
to look for stories in the news. Under California law,
companies are required to give notice to California
residents when breaches occur. If you see a story about your
bank giving notice of a hack to California residents, your
personal information may have also been exposed. Hackers do
not restrict their attacks to California residents.

Richard Chapo is an attorney with
http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com - a law firm
providing legal advice to California businesses. This
article is for general education purposes and does not
address every facet of the subject matter. Nothing in this
article creates an attorney-client relationship.

Lemon Law - Mechanics Flat Rate Pay System
05.10.08 | Comments Off

There is a relationship between the auto repair technician Flat Rate pay system and the incidence of unrepaired Lemon Vehicles. It is more direct than one might think.

What is Flat Rate Pay System?

It’s old-fashioned piecework plain and simple. Imagine picking peaches. Instead of an hourly wage, you get paid a penny a peach.

The auto manufacturer establishes fixed times for every conceivable repair. This includes everything from a bulb replacement to installing a new engine. Most dealerships charge between $60 and $70 dollars an hour for warranty repairs. It’s in the dealership’s contract with the manufacturer that they may only charge for the repair hours provided by the manufacturer.

Here are some of the links in this chain of cause and effect:

- The modern automobile is computer controlled and complex.

- Vehicle computers fail and these software/computer hardware failures appear to be other non-computer components in the vehicle.

- Modern diagnostic tools don’t isolate faults; they suggest possibilities, areas of vehicle systems that might be at fault.

- The technician is rewarded for how fast he or she works, not how well.

- The dealership makes good money for warranty and non-warranty repairs.

- Quality and customer satisfaction are advertising slogans, not a way of life in the work place.

- Quite often poorly trained mechanics cause more trouble than existed in the vehicle before attempted repairs.

- The slow technician, whether excellent or not, will barely make a living and certainly receive hard talk from his supervisors.

Are all vehicles declared lemons at buyback unrepairable? Probably not.

Given these conditions, the chances a faulty vehicle will meet lemon vehicle legal definitions, i.e., four repair attempts during the warranty period, are significantly increased.

The Dealership Situation

Here’s an example of what dealerships consider a bad, bad thing.

1. A car that is still under warranty has a defective transmission. The manufacturer assigns transmission replacement a time to repair of 4.5 hours. At $65/hour for warranty repairs, the dealership gets paid $292.50 by the manufacturer for this warranty repair. (Remember, the manufacturer pays for warranty repairs.)

2. If it takes the dealership’s technician 6.75 hours to complete the repair. The dealership must eat 2.25 hours of technician repair time.

3. If the technician takes 3.9 hours to make the repair, the dealer will still charge the manufacturer 4.5 hours, and even though the technician only spent 3.9 actual hours on the job, he will be paid for 4.5 hours.

4. In the first case the service manager at the dealership complains to the technician, “sorry, Joe, the manufacturer reduced repair times again. You know those %^$%^$# aren’t part of the real world, they don’t know how long it takes to make orange juice!” He’s also going to strongly “encourage” the technician to make the repair in less time than that assigned by the manufacturer.

It is an unjust system with no redeeming value for the honest technician or the dealership. Who’s the big loser? You guessed it, the customer.

All the players in this game have very different viewpoints. Let’s review them.

Manufacturer

The manufacturer screams about being ripped off by the dealership for inflating warranty repair hours, and that the dealership is doing unnecessary warranty repairs. Both accusations are probably correct, but not necessarily for the reasons suggested by the manufacturer.

Dealership

The dealership moans and groans about how unfairly the manufacturer establishes and even reduces the hours allowed for each warranty repair. They also claim they have no say in how the hours were established in the first place. Both of these accusations are entirely correct. Manufacturers also have a policy of not paying for repeated warranty repairs to fix the same malfunction. How does the dealership respond to this? It’s not good. If the dealership sees a repeat problem, they must somehow make it appear to be different that the original malfunction. Charitably, this can lead to untruthfully describing a problem on the repair order. Remember, four repair attempts for the same problem is one of the criteria that defines what is and is not a lemon. Where’s the incentive to do honest, quality work?

Mechanic

The immediate effect of manufacturers cutting the flat rate (piece work) times is a reduction in the mechanics paycheck. In order to maintain the same pay rate the mechanic must work that much faster. Faster is not consistent with quality repairs, quite the contrary. At the same time the manufacturer is demanding higher quality repairs. It’s a Catch 22 wherein everyone loses. Add to this inadequate training at best and one has a recipe for the Lemon connection.

Consumer

The consumer has no idea about the complex business relationships that exist between manufacturers and dealers, nor do they have any interest. Why should they? The consumer’s needs are quite simple. Sell me a car for a decent price that does what the advertisements say it will. If it needs a repair, have someone competent and well trained do the work and for Pete’s sake get it right the first time.

Final Thoughts

There’s something seriously wrong with the system. It’s a system that rewards all the wrong things. Like many such systems in other parts of American business, this system rewards quantity, not quality.

There seems to be an inherent inability among business managers to draw a connection between quality and business success. The manufacturer sets up quality rewards systems, such as Ford’s Blue Oval, then turn around and cut the work/task hours arbitrarily, probably to allow a senior executive to look good by improving the bottom line of a quarterly report. The result is an immediate drop in quality work at the dealership. There are so many contentious viewpoints, and so little willingness among the players to correct the situation.

I wish I could offer some hope to consumers that efforts are being made to resolve this situation, but I haven’t seen any such evidence. Perhaps this essay will at least bring some sense to a nonsensical mess.

Donald Ladew, Staff Writer for Norman Taylor & Associates, is a professional writer and author of numerous articles on quality,customer service issues and many other subjects. This article approved by Norman F. Taylor Esq. For more information about this most important subject, please read Lemon Law - The Standard Reference Guide, Norman F. Taylor Esq. ISBN 0-9760058-0-8 http://www.lemonattorneys.com or http://www.normantaylor.com For further inquiries, Mr. Ladew may be reached at: donald@normantaylor.com Phone: 818-244-3905.

Finding Your Own Paralegal Program
04.17.08 | Comments Off

What do I need to do to become a paralegal?

So that you can accomplish your goal in beginning a career as a qualified paralegal, you will need to complete a paralegal program. Since there are so many options in paralegal education, deciding to take part in a certain type can be overwhelming.

The paralegal profession has seen very fast growth since it was first introduced in the 1960s. Today there are over 120,000 paralegals in the U.S. alone. Paralegals are required to do the complex legal work that crops up in law offices, government agencies, corporations, and public areas. Paralegals are greatly recognized among the community as professionals.

Earning an well-received education will allow you the skills, knowledge and confidence you need to be a success as a paralegal, as earning an education has become even more of a necessity. Careful in your selection of school, since your education will be very different at one school verses another. There are around 600 programs in the US alone related to paralegal training.

Your options in paralegal training vary in format as well as length, and are as follows:

  • Associate degree
  • Baccalaureate Degree
  • Certificate
  • Master’s Degree

Take the time to weigh your options, since each degree offers an extremely different outcome of skills and knowledge. Make sure your choice provides you the success you are seeking so that you can be satisfied in your exciting career choice.