Some USERRA facts:

• It applies to almost all employers regardless of size or interstate commerce;
• Individual liability may exist;
• May apply to temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees as well;
• Has no statute of limitations.

What USERRA does:

• Bans employment discrimination based on past, current, or future military service;
• Grants an employee the right to reemployment upon return from military service under certain conditions;
• Provides added protection for those with service-related disabilities;
• Provides a one-year period upon return in which the employee is protected from discharge under certain conditions;
• Provides protection regarding health insurance and other benefits;
• Prohibits retaliation in connection with asserting USERRA rights.

For more information on USERRA, click here.

The jury agreed that the actions of the Sheriff’s Office in this case were illegal and awarded Ms. Holland $80,000 in back pay and $10,000 in emotional distress.

Ms. Holland was represented by Ryan Barack and Michelle Nadeau of Kwall, Showers & Barack.

The Sheriff’s Office was defended by Tom Gonzalez and Christopher Bentley of Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing.

Here is a copy of the article.

Kwall, Showers & Barack is honored to have represented the officers in their fight to get their money back.

Click here for a link to the St. Petersburg Times Story.

The issue was that the City did not return the individual pension contributions of police officers who left the department prior to vesting in the pension plan.  The Second DCA affirmed the trial court’s determination that this failure to return the police officers’ money violated the police officer pension statute, chapter 185.

Now St Pete has to give the officers back their money.

Here is the link to the decision

Kwall, Showers & Barack is honored to have represented the officers in their quest to have their money returned.

In Fernandez v. Blue Sky/ Venecia Food Corp., the employee, who was seeking temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, and medical benefits for injuries allegedly stemming from a March 7, 2008, industrial accident, refused to answer questions during her deposition regarding her immigration status.

The Judge of Compensation Claims dismissed with prejudice all petitions and claims for benefits following the refusal to answer certain questions during her deposition related to her immigration status by invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The First District Court of Appeal concluded that the Judge abused his discretion in dismissing with prejudice all petitions and claims for benefits and reverse.  The Court held that the employer had failed to demonstrate meaningful prejudice resulting from Claimant’s refusal to answer.  Therefore, the Court reversed the Judge of Compensation Claims’ decision.

This was done under an interpretation of the FMLA.  No Congressional action was required.  Under the FMLA, employees can take upto 12 weeks of unpaid leave to deal with their own serious health condition or the serious health conditions of certain family members.

The regulation clarifies the definition of “son and daughter” under the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure that an employee who assumes the role of caring for a child receives parental rights to family leave regardless of the legal or biological relationship.

Here is the DOL press release on the issue.

While the federal government can sue states for violation of the FLSA, the Supreme Court has held that there is no private right of action against the state.  See Alden v. Maine.

So at least right now, the employees are likely to lose their case, unless they can get the Department of Labor to take their case or there is a change in how the Supreme Court views these cases.

I would like to see the actual language of the contract about what represents “cause” such that severance payments are not due to Pat Bean.  Without a close examination of the language it is very hard to determine what the County’s exposure will be in the lawsuit that is sure to follow.

JKAGBPABE3KT

The court held that the lawyer challenging the Bar Rules “has made a sufficiently credible showing that the rules are unconstitutionally vague on their face; if they are, we decline to let the Bar ‘hammer[] [them] out case by case and thereby ‘provide [them] with a patina’ of determinacy. Eaves, 601 F.2d at 822 (citation omitted).  The district court should hear these claims now.”

Harrell v. The Florida Bar