HQ-Law Blog

Barbara Zack Quindel Honored with Arvid Anderson Award

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — November 12, 2014

The American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law has selected Barbara Zack Quindel as the recipient of the 2014 Arvid Anderson Public Sector Labor and Employment Attorney of the Year Award. She accepted the award at the ABA Section meeting in Los Angeles on November 7th, dedicating it to Wisconsin's public workers and their unions in her remarks which appear below.

I am deeply honored and thank the Section for this award.

Just as the labor movement represents collective action, labor law is best practiced as a collective endeavor. I have been so fortunate to have worked as part of a labor team and thank my partners and my colleagues throughout the country from whom I've learned so much.

In 2005, the National Academy of Arbitrators published remarks from a fireside chat with Arvid Anderson. In the chat he reflected on his career in public sector labor-management relations, including his 20 years of service on Wisconsin's Employment Relations Commission starting in 1948.

When asked how he got into the business, Arvid Anderson related how in 1937, when he was 15 years old, he took a streetcar from his home in Hammond, Indiana to the Republic Steel's South Works in Chicago. He was there the day before and the day after the Memorial Day Massacre when Chicago police killed 10 strikers. And he heard union leaders vow to picket the plant forever.

He said, "I was convinced there had to be a better way to resolve labor disputes."

In this chat, Arvid Anderson talks about Wisconsin's pioneering role in worker protection legislation:

" first state to enact a workers compensation law in 1911,
" first state to have an unemployment compensation statute,
" and the first state to enact a comprehensive bargaining law for public employees in 1962.

Over the subsequent years all but 14 states passed some form of bargaining legislation for public employees. These laws survived constitutional challenges and (Arvid Anderson says in this 2005 chat) none had been repealed.

While not repealed, Wisconsin's public sector bargaining law that Arvid Anderson contributed so much to build has been dismantled. In the process, public sector employees and government itself have been attacked and scapegoated, leaving Wisconsin a bitterly divided state.

While Arvid Anderson may not have foreseen the virtual repeal of collective bargaining in Wisconsin, he offered some cautionary words that ring so true today:

"I still think it is a good thing to serve the public," he said.

"I hope our political leaders at all levels of government will recognize the importance of saying good things about the value of public service, rather than contributing to the decline of public employee morale by demeaning the role of government and trampling on the dignity of public service. That somehow the people who serve the public, whether by teaching school, or fighting fires, or providing police protection or collecting the garbage, or healing the sick or yes, even collecting taxes, are somehow less worthy or less efficient than those who work in the private sector, in offices, factories, businesses, and professions, is a myth that needs to be dispelled."

I want to echo those sentiments today.

The quality of services in our communities is absolutely dependent on the working conditions and fair treatment of our public employees.

So I dedicate this award to those Wisconsin public employees, their unions and to our elected officials who recognize we need to restore a framework that gives a meaningful voice to public workers and a fair way to resolve disputes.

As Arvid Anderson recognized back in 1937, there must be a better way.

I'm confident that we'll keep working in Wisconsin to recreate one.

NLRB Rejects No Class Action Arbitration Agreements, Again

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 31, 2014

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is not backing down on its position that employees have a right to bring claims against their employers collectively, which cannot be waived.

The Board's decision comes at time when employers are more and more frequently forcing their employees to sign arbitration agreements which forfeit many of the legal rights they would have in court, including the right to bring class actions.

Why is the right to collective action so important for workers

Over the last decade or so, the vast majority of multimillion-dollar judgments and settlements against employers have been in class action cases. In these cases, typically, the harm to individual employees may be relatively small. As such, given that the typical employment claim is handled on a contingent fee (meaning the attorney is paid from a percentage of the recovery), a claim worth only a few hundred or a few thousand dollars will not justify attorney representation, and will not be pursued. However, if claims are brought collectively, the hundreds or thousands of small claims grouped together creates a claim large enough for an attorney to take a on a contingent fee and the aggrieved employees are able to enjoy legal representation without having to pay out-of-pocket legal fees.

Put more simply: If an employer is failing to pay its employees all of their wages, and is saving millions of dollars a year doing so, the company's employees can join together as a class and recover their wages. If the employer forces them all to sign an arbitration agreement stating they cannot proceed together, but must do so individually, few if any employees will ever seek to recover their wages and it is a near certainty the employee with have to do so without the help of an attorney.

Putting the Board's Decision in Context

On October 28th, the majority of the Board struck down an employer's arbitration agreement which would have precluded the employees from pursuing claims jointly, collectively, or as a class against the employer. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Sheila M. Hobson, Case No. 10""CA""038804 (October 28, 2014). In essence, the NLRB finds that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of both unionized and non-unionized employees to act in concert in support of improving their work conditions.

The Boards decision follows its 2012 decision in D. R. Horton, Inc., rejecting a similar agreement and finding a substantive right to proceed collectively. 357 NLRB No. 184, slip op. at 1 (2012). Since that decision, the Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th, and 8th Circuits have rejected the Boards approach, and the 9th Circuit has expressed its disagreement, but in dicta.

All of this raises the question of what the future of D. R. Horton and "no class action" forced arbitration agreements will be. Murphy Oil will likely be appealed and if the weight of federal authority rejecting D. R. Horton, Inc. can be used to predict the outcome, it will be reversed. The Supreme Court could choose to weigh in on the topic, which it has not already. In 2013 in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion the Supreme Court, to the dismay of many consumer advocates, upheld similar agreements imposed on consumers. However, there are important differences between consumer and employment arbitration agreements the Supreme Court will have to consider.

If you have been presented with an arbitration agreement by your employer or if you believe you have a claim but have signed an arbitration agreement, a Hawks Quindel attorney can work with you to evaluate if the agreement is enforceable or to evaluate whether you should enter into the agreement. A Madison Hawks Quindel attorney can be reached at (608) 257-0040, a Milwaukee Hawks Quindel attorney can be reached at (414) 271-8650.

Retirement and Your Workers Compensation Rights

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 27, 2014

The workers compensation system is designed in part to help workers who have been hurt on the job and will not be able to return to the same kind of work because of their injury. Some injured workers in this situation may be thinking about retiring; for some, this may be the best option. However, injured workers should know how retirement affects their workers compensation rights before making this important decision.

Retirement Does Not End Payment of Medical Bills Related to a Work Injury

Retiring does not mean an employee gives up all of his or her workers compensation rights. Even if an employee retires, the workers compensation insurance carrier is required to pay all medical bills related to the employee's work injury (as well as mileage for driving to and from these medical appointments). Employees who want to protect this right to coverage of medical bills should take the steps any employee should take following a work injury:

1. Immediately report the injury to the employer.
2. Take care to report the injury accurately and consistently
when speaking with the employer and with medical
professionals.

Retirement Does Not End Compensation for Lost Wages and Permanent Disability

In addition to providing coverage for medical bills, workers compensation also provides benefits to compensate an injured worker for lost wages and permanent disability resulting from an injury. These benefits can be broken down into two categories: temporary disability benefits (paid while the worker is healing), and permanent disability benefits. As a gen,eral rule, if the worker's injury caused her to retire, the retirement should not affect the worker's eligibility for these benefits. However, in practice a retirement can greatly complicate a claim for these workers compensation benefits.

The Ideal Retirement Decision Timeline

In deciding whether to retire, an injured employee ideally waits to decide about retirement until after he has healed from the injury and undergone assessment by doctors regarding whether he should have any permanent work restrictions, and whether he sustained any kind of permanent disability. The employee then contacts his employer and the employer determines if the employee can still do the same job, or whether the employer has other work the employee could perform despite restrictions. If the employer does not have work within the employee's restrictions, the employee would then have a strong claim that the work injury forced his retirement.

When the Ideal Decision Timeline is Impossible...

Financial necessity, however, may make this "ideal" waiting very difficult, especially if the worker's compensation claim has been denied. If an injured employee is off work because of the injury, and retires before he or she has healed, the employee may still be able to make a claim for benefits. Claims for temporary total disability benefits in this situation are very difficult. Claims for permanent disability, however, may still be possible. Employees can receive permanent disability benefits based on the level of physical disability resulting from a work injury (permanent partial disability benefits or permanent total disability benefits) and benefits based on the how the injury reduces future earnings ability (loss of earning capacity). It is essential that an employee who has retired before she has healed can show she retired because of the work injury and would not have been able to return to work for the employer. The only exception to this is permanent partial disability benefits, which are based only on the level of physical disability to the worker.

Job Retraining May Be a Viable Alternative to Retirement

Injured workers who cannot return to their job but are also not ready or able to retire should know about another workers compensation benefit potentially available to them. These individuals may be able to qualify for a vocational retraining program through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Eligible individuals may be able to receive retraining assistance, with the goal of returning them to their previous earning capacity. This includes receiving temporary total disability benefits while in school, possible financial assistance paying for school or training, and reimbursement for meals and mileage. This benefit requires the injured employee receive permanent restrictions, notify the employer of the restrictions, and give the employer 60 days to determine if it has suitable employment.

Injured workers facing the prospect of no longer being able to work and thinking about retirement have many things to consider: the retirement benefits available to them, what other benefits may be available (including workers compensation, short or long-term disability, and social security benefits), and offsets that might apply. Hawks Quindel has a team of attorneys experienced in not only workers compensation, but in all areas of employment law. If your workers compensation claim has been denied, please contact the experienced workers compensation attorneys at Hawks Quindel for a free consultation.

La Fuente Restaurant Class Action Settlement On Behalf Of Waiters and Waitresses Approved By Court

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 16, 2014

Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted final approval of a $235,000 class action settlement on behalf of waiters and waitresses against La Fuente's three Milwaukee area restaurants. Case No. 13-cv-366. Hawks Quindel, S.C. brought the lawsuit on behalf of the waiters and waitresses in 2013 alleging La Fuente violated b oth state and federal wage laws by:

Failing to provide the waiters and waitresses notice of the FLSA's tip credit provisions which explain how the tip credit works and why they can be paid less than minimum wage;
Operating a tip pool in which a non-tipped employees, parking lot attendants, received some of the waiters and waitresses tips;
Requiring its waiters and waitresses to pay for customer walk-outs, or returned food and drink orders; and/or
Failing to maintain records establishing that La Fuente withheld the required taxes on all tips the Servers reported to La Fuente.

Settlement funds will be sent to Class Members on or around December 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015. If you are a class member with questions regarding this matter, or if you have moved and you need to update your contact information, please contact our offices at (414) 271-8650.

Attorneys Larry Johnson, Tim Maynard, and Summer Murshid represented the waiters and waitresses in this matter. If you work in a restaurant and you feel you are not being paid properly, please call our unpaid wage and hour experts at Hawks Quindel, S.C. More information can be found on our blog at:

Attorney Zoeller Quoted in Washington Post Article on Reform of Rules Regarding Who is Considered Exempt From Overtime

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 10, 2014

Attorney David Zoeller quoted in Washington Post story on low pay for retail store managers. The story highlights the need for DOL reform in who is considered exempt from overtime. Information on proposed DOL rule making can be found in this blog post by Attorney Zoeller.

Court Grants Final Approval For Settlement On Behalf Of Security Officers Required To Attend Unpaid Training

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 09, 2014

Judge William Conley has granted final approval to a $150,000 settlement on behalf of security officers working for Total Security Management in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona. Hawks Quindel, S.C. brought this case in 2012 on behalf of workers who provide security services. These security officers were required to attend training without compensation.

Settlement funds will be sent to participating class members on or about October 20. If you are a class member and have recently moved, please call (608) 257-0040 and give us your current address.

Attorneys William Parsons, David Zoeller, Danielle Schroder, and Caitlin Madden represented the security officers. If you are an employee who attends mandatory training without compensation, please call the wage and hour attorneys at Hawks Quindel, S.C.

Class Actions Can Challenge Discriminatory Job Practices

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 07, 2014

Sometimes workplace discrimination is not obvious or intentional. In some cases, discrimination results from a seemingly neutral policy that, in fact, serves to discriminate a class of people based on their race, gender, or other characteristics. Because such policies can harm all members of a protected class, employees can turn to class actions to challenge discriminatory policies together.

Class actions are invaluable legal tools because when a group of employees join together to protest a common policy, it can force an employer to take notice. In addition, employees trying to show a policy affects members of a certain group differently can show this effect best with information about the entire group. Finally, employees often fear retaliation when they are the only person speaking up about discrimination; class actions harness the strength in numbers, making them a powerful way to challenge discriminatory policies.

A recent class of African-American employees fighting back against unfair policies at Merrill Lynch points the way for employees seeking to challenge discrimination in court. These employees successfully showed some of Merrill Lynch's seemingly neutral policies could have a harmful impact on all African-American brokers.

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch "" An Example of a Class Action Discrimination Lawsuit

In McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, a group of African-American brokers brought a class action lawsuit alleging Merrill Lynch's policy for forming internal teams was racially discriminatory. At Merrill Lynch, brokers were allowed to form "teams" to share clients. Merrill Lynch's policy let individual brokers form these teams on their own; once a team was formed, the team could decide whether they wanted to admit a new member. Membership on a team could affect a broker's performance, pay, and promotions.

The problem with this policy Plaintiffs said it aggravated racial discrimination. Since there were no criteria for how team members were selected, brokers tended to select team members of the same racial group. So even though there was no intentional discrimination by management, allowing the brokers to choose their own teams enabled racial discrimination by individuals.

The Seventh Circuit allowed the African-American brokers to bring this lawsuit as a class. The court observed how this teaming policy could result in racial discrimination that harmed the brokers:

If as a result of racial preference at the team level black brokers employed by Merrill Lynch find it hard to join teams, or at least good teams, and as a result don't generate as much revenue or attract and retain as many clients as white brokers do, then they will not do well in the competition for account[s]"either; and a kind of vicious cycle will set in.

The court decided that whether the "incremental causal effect" of the company's teaming policy had a discriminatory impact could best be decided on a class-wide basis. Judge Posner made clear even though there was no evidence Merrill Lynch purposefully discriminated against African American brokers, if the teaming policy had a discriminatory impact, it may still be a violation of the law, and one that could be considered on a class-wide basis.

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch settled in 2013. Merrill Lynch agreed to make some policy changes to address these issues, and to pay out settlement awards to the class of African-American brokers.

Recent Cases Challenging Discriminatory Policies in the Workplace

There are other groups of employees challenging discriminatory policies who have sued as a class since the McReynolds decision. In Ellis v. Costco, a group of female employees claimed Costco's promotions procedures had a discriminatory impact on women. Costco's policy was to promote from within, and to have regional and corporate officers involved closely in the selection process for General and Assistant General Manager positions. The court determined class certification was appropriate in this case because the class showed both a uniform policy and evidence of class-wide gender disparities in promotions. This case was settled as of May 2014. Costco agreed to make changes to its promotion practices as part of the settlement.

Class Actions Allow Employees to Challenge Discrimination Together

Why do these cases matter Policies like the ones at Merrill Lynch and Costco may seem harmless, but they can have the effect of discriminating against employees based on race, gender, family status, sexuality, or other characteristics. Class actions are one way to force employers to change discriminatory policies by allowing employees to band together. By sharing the burden of fighting back against an employer's policies, and joining forces to present evidence together, a group of employees can make a difference through class actions.

If you believe your employer's policies are discriminatory, contact the attorneys at Hawks Quindel S.C. for a free consultation at (608) 257-0040.

Kathy Charlton to Present at Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic Brown Bag CLE Series Lunch

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — October 01, 2014

Kathy Charlton will present "Same-Sex Marriage and Domestic Partnership in Wisconsin" on April 9, 2015 as part of the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic (MFLC) and Legal Action of Wisconsin (Legal Action) "Brown Bag" CLE lunch series. MVLC and Legal Action host a year-long series of lunch presentations to enhance the skills of MVLC volunteer lawyers and students. Charlton is a long-time volunteer for Legal Action and at the pro se clinic at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, and is a periodic speaker in the "Brown Bag" series.

Beware of CIGNAs Disability Claims Handling Practices

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — September 30, 2014

We have recently seen an increase in clients denied long term disability insurance ("LTDI") benefits by CIGNA Group Insurance, also known as Life Insurance Company of North America. Not only are CIGNA's denials erroneous (our clients are unable to work and entitled to benefits under their insurance plans), but compared to other insurers, CIGNA's review procedures are particularly egregious. Often, CIGNA's denials blatantly disregard significant medical evidence supporting our clients' restrictions. In many instances, CIGNA acts with complete irreverence to the deadlines required both by ERISA and their plans. If you have a disability claim with CIGNA, here are some things you should know.

CIGNA Paid Millions to Settle State Challenges to its Claims Handling Practices

In May 2013, CIGNA entered into a settlement with five states, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, over improper disability claims handling practices. CIGNA agreed to pay fines and fees totaling $1,675,000 and allegedly set aside more than $70 million for claimants whose claims were denied as a result of CIGNA's practices. The settlement resulted from state insurance regulators reviewing CIGNA's practices, noting that, among other things, CIGNA was discounting medical information and social security decisions supporting claimants' disabilities. Of note, CIGNA agreed to enhance its claim procedures by gathering Social Security Administration records, giving significant weight to Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") decisions, diligently gathering medical information, and clarifying vague or incomplete information with claimant's treating providers. A copy of the settlement agreement may be found here.

Despite CIGNA's multi-state settlement, Wisconsin disabled employees continue to fall victim to wrongful LTDI benefit denials as a result of biased claims handling practices. Two unfair practices our firm has observed recently are (1) CIGNA's neglect of disabled employees' SSDI award and (2) CIGNA's noncompliance with deadlines.

CIGNA Must Consider Your Social Security Disability Insurance Award

CIGNA has been a repeat offender in its neglect of Social Security Administration findings. Insurance regulators recognized this when they required CIGNA to implement lengthy procedures concerning the review of SSDI awards. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has also chastised CIGNA for mishandling an SSDI claim related to an individual's claim for LTDI benefits. See Raybourne v. CIGNA Life Ins. Co. of New York, 700 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2012).

LTDI insurers, such as CIGNA, must take the SSA's disability finding into account. Usually, these insurers require you to apply for SSDI benefits. They may even assist in the process by hiring third party vendors, such as Allsup, Advantage Consultants, or Social Security Law Group, to represent you. If CIGNA has not explained why it has discounted an SSA decision supporting your disability, we may be able to help.

CIGNA Must Make a Decision on Your Appeal Within 90 Days

CIGNA has also frequently failed to comply with appeal review deadlines. According to federal regulations, CIGNA should decide your appeal within 45 days of its receipt of your request for review. 29 C.F.R. 2560.503-1(I). CIGNA may obtain a 45-day extension to this time period, but assuming you have provided all necessary information for review, CIGNA must make its decision within 90 days. If the review drags on beyond the allowable time period, you may be better off pursuing your claim aggressively in court rather than continuing to wait for a decision. If CIGNA is taking an unreasonable amount of time to decide your claim, we may be able to help.

The preceding commentary is by no means an exhaustive list of the ways CIGNA or other disability insurers may have improperly handled your LTDI claim. If you believe you have been wrongfully denied disability benefits, please contact the disability benefit attorneys at Hawks Quindel, S.C.

Hawks Quindel Sponsoring and Participating in 2014 NAMI Dane County

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — September 16, 2014

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) strives to improve the lives of people living with mental health issues in the United States by advocating and supporting access to treatment and community through grassroots organizing. At noon on Sunday, October 5, 2014, Hawks Quindel team members will proudly walk 5 kilometers to help raise awareness and erase the stigma of mental illness by participating in the 2014 NAMIWalk Dane County, held at the beautiful Olin-Turville Park. We are excited to join and support NAMI in its efforts to prioritize mental health in the Dane County community and would like you to take a moment to find out more about how you can change and save lives by donating or participating in a NAMIWalk near you. Please visit NAMI's national website and NAMI's Walk website for more information about NAMI and to sign up for the NAMIWalk today.

Workplace Rights for Employees Suffering from Mental Health Illness

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — September 16, 2014

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has found about 1 in 4 Americans experience mental health issues each year. About one in 17 Americans lives with a "serious mental illness" such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression. The effects of mental health issues on a worker's employment are often substantial and can be disastrous when employers fail or refuse to properly analyze employee rights. Workers and their loved ones can familiarize themselves with basic workplace mental health rights below; for further information, or to discuss specifics of an individual's situation, please consult with a knowledgeable attorney.

WHAT WORKPLACE RIGHTS DO EMPLOYEES WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES HAVE

An employee has legal rights under both the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 if he:

1. Suffers from a "serious health condition" and an impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual's major life activities;

OR

2. Suffers from a "serious health condition" and has a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of the employee's major life activities;

OR

3. Suffers from a "serious health condition" and is regarded as having an impairment that substantially limits one or more of the employee's major life activities.

In this situation, an employer believes that an employee is disabled but the employee does not actually suffer from an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities, yet still suffers from a "serious health condition."

Qualified employees with mental health conditions are entitled to work leave under the FMLA.

It is likely a diagnosed mental health issue will be a "serious health condition" covered by the Wisconsin and federal Family and Medical Leave Acts. As with any qualifying serious health condition, an employee has the right to medical leave "because of a serious health condition" rendering the employee "unable to perform the functions of the employee's position." Courts have found many mental health conditions to be serious health conditions but this determination is made on a case-by-case basis. In addition, even if the illness is a "serious health condition," it must still render the employee unable to perform the functions of his position before the employee is entitled to 12 weeks of leave under the FMLA.

An employee's mental health issue may qualify as a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby extending employee protections under that law.

Whether a mental health issue is an "impairment" as required to gain protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act is a factual issue assessed on a case-by-case basis. An individual is disabled if he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Mental health conditions may be "disabilities" under the ADA, depending on the severity of the impairment.

An employer may not take an "adverse action," such as demotion or termination of employment, against an employee because of the employee's disability. Employers are also required to reasonably accommodate employee disabilities.

An employer's duty to accommodate employees with mental health issues can present unique and significant challenges. The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) recommends considering the following questions to assist employers and employees with the interactive process:

1. What limitations is the employee with a mental health impairment experiencing

2. How do these limitations affect the employee and the employee's job performance

3. What specific job tasks are problematic as a result of these limitations

4. What accommodations are available to reduce or eliminate these problems Are all possible resources being used to determine possible accommodations

5. Has the employee with a mental health impairment been consulted regarding possible accommodations

6. Once accommodations are in place, would it be useful to meet with the employee with a mental health impairment to evaluate the effectiveness of the accommodations and to determine whether additional accommodations are needed

7. Do supervisory personnel and employees need training regarding mental health impairments

Workplace accommodations include, but are not limited to, flexible work schedules, telecommuting, private offices or work spaces, and job restructuring. This list is by no means exhaustive as the appropriate reasonable accommodation must be determined as a result of an extensive, interactive process between the employer, employee, and mental health care professionals. No potential accommodation is included or excluded as per se reasonable or unreasonable. It is important for employees to enlist the support of their mental health care professionals when crafting an accommodation proposal.

Hawks Quindel is committed to the protection of employees with mental health issues. Please join us in participating in the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI) Walk on October 5, 2014 at noon at Olin-Turville Park. NAMI strives to improve the lives of people living with mental health issues in the United States by advocating and supporting access to treatment and community through grassroots organizing. We are excited to join and support NAMI in its efforts to prioritize mental health in the Dane County community. Please visit NAMI's national website and NAMI's Walk website for more information about NAMI and to sign up for the NAMIWalk today.

Employment Protections for Victims of Domestic Abuse in Wisconsin

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — September 15, 2014

In the wake of the high profile case regarding football player Ray Rice and a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control indicating that 1 in 5 women experience sexual violence sometime in their lives, it is important for victims of domestic abuse and their allies to understand protections which prevent further harm from befalling them in an employment context. This article briefly discusses what local, state, and federal protections may apply to victims of domestic abuse in Wisconsin.

PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST APPLICANTS OR EMPLOYEES WHO EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC OR DATING VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT OR STALKING

Federal and Wisconsin Employment Laws Related to Domestic Abuse

Generally speaking, employers are required to adopt an equal opportunity policy which states it does not discriminate on the basis of a number of protected classes, for example, sex, race, disability or age. Although federal anti-discrimination acts, such as Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") or the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and state acts like the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act ("WFEA"), do not explicitly prohibit discrimination against applicants or employees who experience domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, employers must understand those Acts nevertheless prohibit employment discrimination against those individuals in certain circumstances.

For instance, Title VII and the WFEA prohibit disparate treatment based on sex, which may include mistreatment based on sex-based stereotypes.¹ These types of stereotypes extend to hiring and firing decisions, such as a case where an employer terminates an employee after learning she has been subjected to domestic violence, saying he fears the potential "drama battered women bring to the workplace." Or, for example, a hiring manager, believing only women can be true victims of domestic violence because men should be able to protect themselves, does not select a male applicant when he learns the applicant obtained a restraining order against a male domestic partner.

Title VII and the WFEA also prohibit sexual or sex-based harassment if it is sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or if it results in a tangible employment action, such as a refusal to hire or promote an employee. For instance, a seasonal farmworker's supervisor learns she has recently been subject to domestic abuse, and is not living in a shelter. Viewing her as vulnerable, he makes sexual advances, and when she refuses, he terminates her.

Similarly, the ADA and WFEA prohibit different treatment of harassment based on an actual or perceived impairment, which could include impairments resulting from domestic or dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. For example, an employer searches an applicant's name online and learns she was the complaining witness in a rape prosecution and received counseling for depression. The employer decides not to hire her based on a concern that she may require further time-off for continuing symptoms of depression.

The ADA and WFEA also require employers to provide employees and applicants reasonable accommodations for an actual disability or a "record of" a disability. A reasonable accommodation is a change in the workplace or in the way things are usually done that an individual needs because of a disability and may include time-off for treatment, modified work schedules, and reassignment to a vacant position. For example, an employee who has no accrued sick leave and whose employer is not covered by either the federal or state Family Medical Leave Act requests a schedule change or unpaid leave to get treatment for depression and anxiety following a sexual assault by an intruder in her home. The employer denies the request because it "applies leave and attendance policies the same way to all employees."

City of Madison Laws Employment Laws Related to Domestic Abuse

The City of Madison has extended its employment laws not only to include protected classes such as sex and disability, but also to victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking as well. This means victims of domestic abuse do not have to prove adverse employment action they suffered was taken because of a gender-based stereotype or because of disparate treatment based on gender or disability, but for being a victim, regardless of other categories. The Madison General Ordinances thus seek to extend equal opportunity to gainful employment without regard to an individual's status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.

CONCLUSION

The information provided above presents general information on Wisconsin employee rights and is not intended to provide legal advice. If you believe an employer has violated your rights relating to your victimhood or other rights, contact one of the employment attorneys at Hawks Quindel, S.C.

¹ The following examples are provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Q&A on this topic.

Schroder to Present at the WAJ Womens Caucus Seminar

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — September 02, 2014

Attorney Danielle Schroder will speak at the Wisconsin Association for Justice Women's Caucus Seminar in Wisconsin Dells on September 19, 2014. In her presentation entitled "Oh Baby! Pregnancy, Maternity Leave and the Practice of law," Ms. Schroder will address both the legal protections for pregnant women in the workforce and practical implications for lawyers as they transition to and from maternity leave. For more information on this topic, see Attorney Fairweather's recent post discussing the EEOC's guidance on pregnancy discrimination.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Decides Injured Worker Can Be Forced to Accept Settlement from Third Party Who Caused His Injuries

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 27, 2014

In one of the last opinions issued during its most recent term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a circuit court can allow a worker's compensation insurance carrier to accept a settlement of a plaintiff's tort (personal injury) lawsuit against a third party who caused the plaintiff's injury, during the course of his employment, over the protest of the injured plaintiff-employee. In Adams v. Northland Equipment Co., Inc., the Court reviewed the appeal of Russell Adams, who was injured in a snowplow accident during the course his employment with the Village of Fontana, in Rock County. Adams' lawsuit alleged that defendant Northland Equipment negligently repaired the blade of the Village's snowplow and this negligence caused serious injuries to Adams' spine.

Before trial, Northland offered $200,000 to Adams and the Village's worker's comp insurer, the League of Wisconsin Municipal Mutual Insurance Companies ("the League"), to release Adams' tort claims against Northland. The League wanted to accept the offer but Adams refused. The League then asked the Rock County Circuit Court to compel Adams to accept the offer. After reviewing all of the evidence presented by the parties relevant to Adams' damages and, most centrally, the relative strength/weakness of the proof of alleged negligence, the circuit court granted The League's motion and forced Adams to accept the $200,000, part of which was to reimburse Liberty Mutual for its worker's compensation payments to Adams.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision, as did the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The supreme court held that Adams' right to file a claim against the allegedly negligent defendant was purely a product of Wisconsin's worker's compensation statute "" not a right that arose at common law (the source of nearly all other rights to sue for personal injuries) "" and, therefore, that the circuit court had the authority and obligation under that statute to decide whether to approve Northland's settlement offer. The statute dictates that the injured employee and his worker's compensation insurer have "an equal voice" in the prosecution of a personal injury claim arising out of a work accident and, the supreme court said, when they cannot agree on whether to accept a settlement offer, the circuit court has the discretion to decide whether the amount of that offer is proper under all of the circumstances. For more detailed information, please read the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision.

Listen to the WORT 89.9 FM "Labor Radio" show interview with Aaron Halstead (around 18:15-21:44).

Court allows sales representatives in Wyndhams Wisconsin Dells location to pursue off the clock claims collectively

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 14, 2014

The attorneys at Hawks Quindel and Nichols Kaster announce a significant development in an unpaid wage class action brought on behalf of sales representatives employed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts (Wyndham), after a federal district court in Madison granted the plaintiffs' request for conditional class status.

The case was initially filed in June 2013 by two former sales representatives who had worked for the Orlando, Florida-based company at its location in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin "" the Waterpark Capital of the World "" as In-House Sales Representatives and Discovery Sales Representatives. The two employees alleged that Wyndham violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin law by requiring them to work "off the clock" without minimum wage and overtime pay.

In his July 25, 2014 Order, Judge William M. Conley held that the plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence at this stage of the litigation to suggest that Wyndham maintained a common policy requiring sales representatives in the In-House and Discovery positions to perform off the clock work, making the case appropriate for collective action treatment. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to mail a notice of the lawsuit to all In-House and Discovery sales representatives who worked for Wyndham in the Wisconsin Dells between July 25, 2011 and July 25, 2014, giving them the opportunity to learn about the case and to join. The Court also ordered Wyndham to post the notice in its Wisconsin Dells location.

The case is titled Bitner, et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00451-wmc (W.D. Wis.). The Plaintiffs are represented by William E. Parsons, David C. Zoeller and Caitlin M. Madden of Hawks Quindel, S.C. in Madison, Wisconsin, and Paul J. Lukas, Tim C. Selander, and G. Tony Atwal of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Hawks Quindel has offices in Milwaukee and Madison and represents workers in Wisconsin and across the nation. Nichols Kaster, with more than thirty lawyers in offices in Minneapolis and San Francisco, represents employees and consumers in individual, class, and collective action lawsuits throughout the country.

Wisconsin Jury Rejects Former Employers Breach of Duty of Loyalty Claim

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 13, 2014

While an employer may terminate an employee for a variety of reasons, those reasons may not justify withholding wages owed the employee. In a recent Wisconsin case, American Concrete Leveling Corp. (ACL) withheld wages owed an employee because it claimed the employee had breached his "duty of loyalty" to the company, which requires employees to act in the best interest of their employer. The court disagreed with ACL, awarding the employee not only his back wages but also ordering ACL to pay a civil fine and his attorney fees.

Case Summary

Blaine Goldner (Goldner) successfully challenged his former employer's failure to pay him wages earned when they retaliated against him for helping his employer's brother who operated a competing business. In Goldner v. American Concrete Leveling Corp., Appeal No. 2013AP2077, Goldner sued his former employer for failing to pay him $31,000 in unpaid wages. ACL withheld his wages because they alleged he breached his duty of loyalty to them when he helped a competitor by going to five or six customers' homes to give basement repair estimates because the competitor had a foot injury preventing the competitor from doing the estimates. ACL fired Goldner after they learned he helped the competitor. Complicating the situation was the identity of the competitor, the brother of the ACL's owner, with whom the owner had previously had a falling out after operating a business together.

Case Details

Goldner was not subject to a noncompetition agreement. It was not unusual for ACL to wait to pay Goldner his commissions until he asked for them. When Goldner did request his commissions due in January 2011, they refused, citing a cash-flow problem. In February 2011, the owner's brother, who knew Goldner because ACL used the brother's business to help with a particular kind of basement repair, asked Goldner for help with five or six customer calls to give basement-repair estimates while the brother could not give the estimates because of a foot injury. There was no allegation that Goldner neglected his ACL duties while doing the work for the competitor, revealed any confidences about either brother's business to the other, or diverted any business from ACL to the other brother. Goldner did not seek payment for simply "helping out."

Following his termination, Goldner asked ACL to pay him his unpaid wages, but ACL refused. Goldner filed a lawsuit in circuit court for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and Chapter 109 wage claim violations. A jury awarded Goldner $31,000 in lost wages and rejected ACL's claim that Goldner breached his common-law duty of loyalty.

After the trial, Goldner asked the trial court to award him his attorney's fees sought by his attorney, and the maximum penalty under Chapter 109, namely a $15,500 penalty. The court awarded a $5,000 penalty. ACL challenged on appeal the award of attorney's fees of $85,000, and the $5,000 penalty asserting they had a legitimate reason to withhold Goldner's wages, namely, his work on behalf of the competitor.

The trial judge rejected ACL's claim that Goldner's attorney "overtried" the case, finding the pre-trial disputes resulted from the animosity between the brothers, not the work of Goldner's attorney. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of attorney's fees, and rejected ACL's challenge to the $5,000 penalty, saying the jury rejected ACL's claim that they had a legitimate reason to withhold the wages.

Although Goldner had no legal basis to challenge his termination, his wage claim was successful, a reflection of how rights to employment and rights to owed wages are separate issues. Employers who fail to adhere to the provisions of Chapter 109 can be ordered to pay significantly more than the wages originally due.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Denies Marinette Countys Petition for Review of Decision in Favor of AFSCME Union

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 12, 2014

On August 5, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a Petition for Review, filed by Marinette County, which sought review of a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in favor of AFSCME. The Court of Appeals had held that an Arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement was reasonable, and her award properly extended the terms of that agreement by one year. The Court of Appeals also had rejected the County's claim that the Arbitrator had exceeded her authority by manifestly disregarding the law in fashioning the Award. Union leaders estimate that the Court's decision preserved well in excess of $100,000.00 in retirement benefits for its members, which the County sought to escape paying by its multiple appeals of the Arbitrator's Award.

Attorneys Aaron Halstead and Colin Good represented AFSCME and its member in briefs filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Does A Mental Health Limitation Apply To Your Claim For LongTerm Disability Insurance Benefits?

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 11, 2014

As we have written about previously, mental health issues can be as debilitating as those affecting a worker's physical health. When a suffering worker files a mental health disability claim, however, he or she often finds his/her long term disability (LTDI) plan has special rules for such claims. Most long term disability insurance (LTDI) policies have a 24-month mental health limitation. These plans limit the payment of benefits to two years for individuals whose disability is the result of mental illness. If you are unable to work due to cognitive decline, including memory issues, difficulty concentrating, loss of attention or decreased problem-solving skills, the mental health limitation may apply to your LTDI claim.

Mental illness and physical illness are often related, however, and often occur in tandem. Before conceding future benefits to a mental health limitation, consider the following questions:

1. Are Your Mental Health Issues Secondary to a Physical Condition

If you experience mental health problems as a result of a physical condition, such as a back injury or fibromyalgia, chances are the mental health limitation does not apply. Often people on strong pain medication regimens have difficulties concentrating. Further, the burden of dealing with a debilitating illness can cause depression. If your physical condition alone prevents you from working, the long term disability insurance company should not limit your benefits on the basis of your mental health issues.

2. Can Doctors Identify Structural Brain Damage

If your disability primarily is due to mental impairment, the question then becomes what is the cause of your cognitive decline. Generally, LTDI policies exclude physical diseases and injuries to the brain from the mental health limitation. Insurance companies usually require evidence of structural brain damage or degeneration. Thus, if your disability is caused by a condition such as Alzheimer's disease, dementia, stroke, coma or traumatic brain injury, benefits should continue beyond 24 months.

3. Is Your Illness Primarily Psychological / Behavioral

The mental health limitation usually applies to conditions such as anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, which can be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). If the primary treatment for your illness involves a psychologist, psychiatrist or behavioral therapist, you may be subject to the limitation. As always is the case, before drawing any conclusions, you should read your LTDI plan carefully to make sure you understand its specific terms.

If you have been denied long term disability insurance benefits on the basis of a mental health limitation, Hawks Quindel's disability attorneys may be able to help. Contact us to discuss your case.

Schroder Featured In The Summer Issue Of The Verdict

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 08, 2014

Attorney Danielle Schroder's article "The Scope of Discovery in ERISA Wrongful Denial of Benefit Cases" has been published in the Women's Caucus section of the The Verdict, a quarterly publication of the Wisconsin Association for Justice. To view the article, click here.

Attorneys Halstead and Zoeller to Present at Health, Labor, and Employment Law Institute

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 07, 2014

Attorneys Aaron Halstead and David Zoeller will be among the presenters at the Health, Labor, and Employment Law Institute in Wisconsin Dells on August 21 and 22. The third annual Institute from State Bar of Wisconsin provides comprehensive information for judges, lawyers, legal staff, and other legal professionals to stay current on new developments for their health, labor, or employment law practices. The day-and-a-half Institute includes 15 breakout sessions.

Halstead will co-present the Wisconsin Case Law Update and Legislative Year-in-Review session. Zoeller will co-present the Recent Trends in Wage and Hour Litigation in the Health Care Industry and Beyond session. Hawks Quindel Attorney Larry Johnson is on the Institute Planning Committee.

M Magazine Recognizes Shapiro, Johnson, and Murshid

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 06, 2014

M Magazine recognizes three Hawks Quindel attorneys as 2014 Leading Lawyers. Amy Shapiro was recognized as a leading Family Law attorney, and Summer Murshid and Larry Johnson were recognized as leading Employment attorneys.

The full listing can be found here.

Fair Credit Reporting Act Protects Applicant Rights On Credit Checks

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 05, 2014

In the current economy, job-seekers often must jump through multiple hoops to get hired. One way employers may weed out job candidates is by subjecting applicants to credit checks. This growing practice can hurt job applicants who have inaccurate or outdated information on their credit reports. To protect individuals from being harmed by incorrect credit reports, Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in 1970. The law has specific requirements for employers who conduct credit checks on current or potential employees.

Many employers, however, fail to follow the clear requirements of the FCRA. In 2014 alone, lawsuits were filed against Home Depot, Panera, Whole Foods, O'Reilly Auto Parts, and other employers for alleged FCRA violations in job applications.

Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Under the FCRA, every individual has the right:

- To be informed if someone uses your credit report to take any
adverse action
- To know what is in their credit check file
- To have incorrect information changed
- To prevent agencies from reporting outdated information
" Negative information more than 7 years old may not be
reported
" Bankruptcies more than 10 years old may not be reported
- To limit access to their credit reports to people with a valid
need to see them

Every individual has these rights, and there are requirements that must be followed by anyone trying to obtain someone's credit report. The requirements for employers getting the reports of potential or current employees are very specific. Violating these rules can result in a monetary penalty.

Employers Must Give You Notice Before Running a Credit Check

Under the FCRA, an employer who wants to run a credit check must comply with the following requirements:

(1) Make a "Clear and Conspicuous" Disclosure

In order to comply with this requirement, an employer must make a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure that they will be seeking a credit check. This disclosure must be written and presented so a "reasonable person" would notice it. In the Seventh Circuit, "clear and conspicuous" has been interpreted to require that the information is presented such that the reader's attention will be drawn to it. Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc., 389 F.3d 719, 730-31 (7th Cir. 2004).

(2) Stand-Alone Document

The employer's disclosure that a credit check will be run must be made "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure." The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which administered the FCRA prior to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has interpreted this requirement to mean information about the credit check must be on its own page. Simply including the disclosure as part of a larger application does not meet this requirement. Advisory Opinion to Hawkey (12-18-97).

(3) Written Authorization

Individuals must consent in writing to allow an employer to obtain a credit report. This consent can be on the same form as the disclosure form.

Employers Must Inform You and Provide the Report if they Take an Adverse Action

If an employer decides, based on the results of a credit check, to take any adverse action against an individual, the FCRA requires they make certain disclosures to that person. In the employment context, this means if an employer decides on the basis of a credit check not to hire or promote someone, that person must be told the reason why and given an opportunity to correct any errors in the credit report.

The employer must provide the following if they make an adverse decision based on the credit report:

- A notice stating the decision was made because of the report
- A copy of the report used to make the decision
- An explanation of an individual's rights under the FCRA
- The name, address, and phone number of the agency that
supplied the report
- A notice of the person's right to dispute the accuracy of the
report and to get another free report within 60 days

In several lawsuits filed against employers for violations of the FCRA, job applicants alleged they were turned down for positions based on their background checks, but were never provided with copies of the reports used to make those decisions. See Henderson v. The Home Depot, Inc., 14-cv-2123 (N.D. Ga.).

This is an important part of the law, because otherwise a person who is turned down for a job based on an incorrect credit report may never realize the report needs to be corrected. A 2012 study released by the Federal Trade Commission found that 21% of American consumers had an error on their credit reports. The New York Times recently reported on a job applicant who spent two years looking for work without success, until she discovered that her credit report wrongly stated she had $75,000 in debt.

Damages Are Available for Willful FCRA Violations

Individuals can get damages for either willful or negligent violations of the FCRA. A "willful" violation exists where an employer is aware of the requirements under the FCRA but fails to comply. For a willful violation, the statute allows for statutory damages of between $100 and $1000, actual damages, punitive damages, and the payment of attorney fees and costs. A "willful" violation requires that the employer "knowingly and intentionally" violate the FCRA. Bagby v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 162 Fed. Appx. 600, 605 (7th Cir. 2006). In the case of a "negligent" violation, individuals can be awarded actual damages, costs, and attorney's fees. A "negligent" violation occurs when the employer failed to comply with the FCRA's requirements in a situation where the employer knew or should have known the requirements applied. Ippolito v. WNS, Inc., 864 F.2d 440, 449 (7th Cir. 1988).

The Fair Credit Reporting Act is an important protection for workers. It makes sure individuals are judged on their merits, not an inaccurate credit score. If you believe an employer has violated your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, contact one of the consumer attorneys at Hawks Quindel, S.C. for a free consultation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — August 04, 2014

For the first time since 1983, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has issued guidance on the interpretation and enforcement of federal laws that prohibit pregnancy discrimination. The guidance document focuses on the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Background on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act

In 1978, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on "the whole range of matters concerning the childbearing process..." Like other claims available to employees under Title VII, employees may file complaints based on "disparate treatment" or "disparate impact." In other words, employer actions motivated in whole or in part by an employee's pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition will violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act as will "neutral" employment policies adversely affecting employees based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.

Background on Pregnancy and the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Disabilities are impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment or being regarded as having a disability. Prior to the 2008 amendments to the ADA, many courts held that pregnancy-related medical conditions did not meet the definition of "disability" under the ADA. The EEOC has noted federal regulations that allow conditions lasting less than 6 months to be "disabilities." Accordingly, pregnancy-related medical conditions can meet the definition of disability and extend coverage of the ADA to affected employees.

Workplace Accommodations May Be Appropriate for Pregnant Women

The recent pregnancy discrimination guidance issued by the EEOC presents a scenario in which employees affected by pregnancy-related conditions may need an accommodation from their employer. The agency opined the following accommodations may be appropriate for employees affected by such conditions:

Redistributing marginal functions the employee is unable to perform due to the disability;
Altering how an essential or marginal job function is performed;
Modification of workplace policies;
Purchasing or modifying equipment or devices;
Modified work schedules;
Granting leave; and
Temporary assignment to a light duty position

The EEOC also discussed light-duty assignments in the context of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Employers have expressed concern about whether the agency is impermissibly requiring accommodations for pregnant employees who do not exhibit pregnancy-related conditions that would otherwise afford them protections and accommodation rights under the ADA. In fact, the agency is simply restating that pregnant employees may be entitled to light duty assignments if such assignments are offered to other workers "similar in their ability or inability to work..."

Hawks Quindel's employment attorneys are able to assist employees with any workplace issues arising out of an employee's pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.

Charlton Listed in Inaugural Wisconsin Pro Bono Society

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — July 24, 2014

Hawks Quindel lawyer Katherine Charlton is one of 121 lawyers listed in the inaugural Wisconsin Pro Bono Society, recently established by the Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission. The Commission recognized lawyers who performed at least 50 hours of pro bono work in the last calendar year. Charlton represents pro bono clients in family law matters and is a volunteer at the Milwaukee Justice Center's Self Help Family Law Clinic at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

Attorney Charlton to Present Keynote Address on Whistleblowing for the Association of Fundraising Professionals Local Chapter

contact@hq-law.com (HQ-Law) — July 18, 2014

Attorney Katherine Charlton will present "Legal and Ethical Implications of Whistleblowing" to the Southeastern Chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals at the Italian Community Center on October 23, 2014. AFP is a professional organization of individuals and organizations who generate philanthropic support for a wide variety of charitable organizations, with 30,000 members and 233 chapters across the world. Charlton will be the Wisconsin Chapter's keynote speaker for their October 23, 2014 meeting.