|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Reminder to Update Company Policies: Hands-Free Cell Phones and DrivingBaker Hostetler LLP - July 01, 2008 Beginning July 1, 2008, drivers in California will be prohibited from using hand-held cell phones while driving. Hands-free devices, such as a Bluetooth or other earpiece, will be legal to use while driving as long as only one ear is covered. Report Link California Law Banning Cell Phone Use While Driving Takes Effect July 1.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 17, 2008 California’s law banning the use of cell phones while driving goes into effect July 1, 2008. The California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act imposes a minimum $20 fine for anyone caught driving and using a cell phone unless the driver uses a headset, ear bud or other technology that frees both hands. The fine increases to $50 for subsequent violations. Drivers under 18 are prohibited from using cell phones while driving even if a hands-free device is used, and are also prohibited from using “mobile service devices” such as Blackberries, pagers and laptops. Report Link Put Down That Cell Phone!Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 12, 2008 A new California statute that prohibits motorists from using a hand-held cellular telephone while driving becomes effective July 1, 2008. Motorists who are 18 years of age or older may use a "hands-free" device while driving. Motorists under age 18 are not permitted to talk on a cell phone at all while driving, whether via a hands-free device or otherwise. This prohibition only applies to drivers, not to passengers. There will be a $20 fine for the first violation and $50 per violation for subsequent offenses. The only exception in the law is for calls made during emergencies to 911 or a health-care provider. Report Link Keep Your Hands Off the Cell Phone!Jackson Lewis LLP - May 21, 2008 Just as the summer driving season takes off, California drivers will need to take their hands off of their cell phones. Effective July 1, 2008, under the California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act, California drivers will be prohibited from using handheld wireless telephones while driving unless the devices are configured to allow hands-free listening and talking. Drivers under the age of 18 are prohibited from using wireless telephones while operating a motor vehicle, even if equipped with a hands-free device, and from using “mobile service devices,” such as Blackberries, pagers, and laptops. Violations of the Act are infractions, and violators will be subject to a fine of $20 for the first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense. Although a violation is a reportable offense to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, no violation point will be assigned to the driver’s license. Report Link Rulings on California Arbitration Agreements Stiffen Challenges Facing Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 16, 2008 Reflecting what appears to be an abiding hostility toward private arbitration agreements, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that “no meeting of the minds” occurred between the employer and employee regarding the employer’s dispute resolution procedures, and hence, no valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. G038380 (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 1, 2008). Report Link Political Activity at Work: What are the Limits?Shaw Valenza LLP - April 14, 2008 Whether the subject matter is a large sporting event or upcoming presidential election, employees naturally bring their opinions, passions, loyalties and arguments into the workplace. As the November 2008 presidential election approaches, the candidates, the political parties, and the various media will continue to stir thought and debate among the nation’s voters, most of whom report to a job site. Report Link Employers May Fire Employees for Marijuana Use Despite California’s Compassionate Use Act.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - February 22, 2008 A recent ruling by the California Supreme Court in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. makes clear that California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, a passed voter initiative which provides a person using marijuana for medicinal purposes with a defense to certain state criminal charges, does not prohibit an employer from firing an employee for marijuana use. McCoy v. Superior Court of Orange County (Kimco Staffing Services, Inc.), No. G038589 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2007)Report Link One Toke Over The Line.Shaw Valenza LLP - February 19, 2008 The California electorate approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, in 1996. The initiative expressly protects certain users of marijuana for medical reasons from prosecution under two specific criminal laws. The initiative did not address a number of issues, however, including what happens when marijuana metabolites are revealed by a pre-employment drug test. Twelve years passed before the California Supreme Court weighed in on that question. In Ross v. RagingWire Telecomm. Inc., 2008 DJDAR 1217 (Cal. Jan. 24, 2008), the court held that Proposition 215 provides no employment law protection to medical-marijuana users. As a result, unless there is legislative action by the electorate or the Legislature, disability-discrimination and drug-testing laws are not affected by Proposition 215. Report Link California Employers No Longer Holding Their Breath: Applicants Using Medical Marijuana May Be Denied Employment.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 25, 2008 Must a California employer hire a job applicant who tests positive on a pre-hire drug test, but claims to be using marijuana for "medical reasons?" - " No," according to the California Supreme Court. On January 24, 2008, the court held that employers may decline to hire applicants who use marijuana in violation of federal law, even if that use would not be a violation of state criminal law. The court declared: "Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act [Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5] suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees. Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions." The decision, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., No. S138130 (Jan. 24, 2007), is noteworthy for all employers who conduct, or are considering conducting, preemployment drug tests. Report Link Broad Release Does Not Bar Military Leave Claims, California Appellate Court Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 03, 2008 A California appellate court has ruled that a broad employment severance agreement, including a release of claims under "any other federal or state law," was unenforceable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") to the extent the release sought to cover claims for wrongful termination based on the plaintiff's military service. Perez v. Unline, Inc., No. G036939 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2007). The release was enforceable, however, as to the plaintiff's claims for overtime and defamation. Report Link California's New Leave for Military Spouses.Shaw Valenza LLP - November 26, 2007 On October 9, 2007, the Governor signed a bill allowing spouses of military personnel to take unpaid time off during the other spouse’s leave from deployment. California Military and Veterans Code section 395.10 was passed as “emergency legislation” and went into effect immediately. The stated intent of the new law is to “serve the families of those troops currently serving in military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to assure that these families are able to spend time together during the qualified [spouse’s] leave from deployment. Report Link Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Not Enforceable .Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 15, 2007 In another important case affecting the use and application of arbitration agreements in the employment setting, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a provision in an employment arbitration agreement waiving the employee’s right to pursue a class action was unenforceable. Report Link California Pre-Employment Arbitration Agreement Ruled Unconscionable.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 30, 2007 Continuing the assault on private arbitration agreements in California, the Court of Appeal ruled that a pre-employment arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver was unconscionable and unenforceable. Murphy v. Check n' Go of Cal., Inc., No. A114442 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2007). The court further ruled that a provision allowing an arbitrator to determine unconscionability was unenforceable because the overall arbitration agreement was a "contract of adhesion." In analyzing the case, the Court of Appeal relied on the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (Cal. 2007), in which the Court struck down another pre-employment arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver. Report Link Employers Need to Take Reasonable Measures to Maintain Secrecy of Information They Want to Protect (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - October 30, 2007 In San Jose Construction, Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc. the California Court of Appeal looked at the issue of whether information taken by an employee upon his departure from a construction company constituted trade secrets. Report Link California Court of Appeals Holds that Employer’s Arbitration Agreement with a Class Action Waiver Is Invalid.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 24, 2007 A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal emphasizes the importance of a valid arbitration agreement between employers and employees. In Murphy v. Check ‘N Go (10/17/2007), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny an employer’s motion to compel arbitration based upon an unconscionable arbitration agreement. Importantly, the Court of Appeal determined that the class action waiver provision of the agreement was unconscionable. Report Link California's New Leave Law for the Spouses of Military Members.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 18, 2007 Despite vetoing proposed bills that would have extended California leave laws in other respects, on October 9, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 392. The new law requires public and private employers who employ over 25 employees to provide up to 10 days of unpaid leave for a "qualified" employee if the employee's military spouse is on a leave period from deployment in a combat zone with the active duty, reserve military or National Guard during a period of military conflict. The law also makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a qualified employee for requesting or taking leave permitted by the new law. Report Link California Adopts Military Spouse Leave LawFord & Harrison LLP - October 17, 2007 Effective immediately, California employers must, under certain circumstances, provide up to ten days of unpaid leave to employees who have spouses in the military. Report Link California Supreme Court Restricts Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - October 01, 2007 In Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate court’s denial of a writ of mandate upholding a class arbitration waiver, and held that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are unenforceable if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating employees’ rights than individual arbitration. Report Link Undermining Arbitration.Shaw Valenza LLP - September 24, 2007 The California Supreme Court's Aug. 30 decision in Gentry v. Superior Court tightens the courts' reins on "pre-dispute" agreements to arbitrate employment law claims. A pre-dispute arbitration agreement, by definition, is one to which the parties agree before any dispute between them has arisen. Report Link Class Waivers May Be Unenforceable in Pre-Employment Arbitration Agreements in California.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 06, 2007 Adding to the woes of California employers, compared to many of their counterparts elsewhere, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that pre-employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are not enforceable where, as in the case of certain claims for unpaid overtime, it is found that class arbitration would be a "significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of affected employees than individual arbitration." Gentry v. Superior Court, No. S141502 (Cal. Aug. 30, 2007). The Supreme Court also concluded that the agreement in issue had an "element" of procedural unconscionability, notwithstanding the presence of a clause allowing employees to opt out of the arbitration agreement within 30 days after signing it. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the class arbitration waiver and its finding that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. Report Link California Supreme Court Restricts Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 15, 2007 In Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate court’s denial of a writ of mandate upholding a class arbitration waiver, and held that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are unenforceable if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating employees’ rights than individual arbitration. Report Link Employers Are Required To Provide A Safe And Secure Workplace Against Threats Of Violence.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Franklin v. The Monadnock Co., the California Court of Appeal found that an employee’s allegations that public policies require employers to provide a safe and secure workplace and encourage employees to report credible threats of violence in the workplace were sufficient to state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Report Link Law Firm’s Own Arbitration Policy Found Unconscionable (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a law firm’s arbitration program covering all employees of the firm is unenforceable under California law because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Report Link California Court of Appeal Expands Common Law Control Test in Tax Case: Use of Borello Economic Reality Test Upheld.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 23, 2007 On May 14, 2007, the California Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District certified for publication its previous April 12, 2007, decision in Air Couriers International v. Employment Development Department. This case involves the issue of whether drivers that worked for a delivery company were properly classified as employees or independent contractors for state tax purposes. The taxpayer had treated the workers as independent contractors, while the Employment Development Department (EDD) reclassified the workers as employees, resulting in an assessment for unpaid personal income taxes and payroll taxes. Report Link California Court of Appeal Validates Arbitration Agreement Covering Claims for Unpaid Bonus and Severance.Ogletree Deakins - April 24, 2007 Does the Federal Arbitration Act preempt claims for unpaid wages under California law? Report Link Employers Gain Immunity From Employees' Misues of Company's Internet Access.Shaw Valenza LLP - January 30, 2007 Advances in technology, particularly the Internet, continue to influence employment law. The new ways in which employees obtain information and communicate with others have revolutionized the workplace. Change has come so fast that employers, legislators, and the courts are playing an increasingly challenging game of catch-up. The desire to manage risk via control of employees’ activities not only is hampered by the ingenuity of new technology, but also by the desire not to impair the free flow of ideas and information that have made these advances possible. Report Link Can Employees Waive Class-Action Arbitration Agreements.Shaw Valenza LLP - January 29, 2007 Employers understand employment litigation in court entails expense, delay, and uncertainty. Seeking to avoid a jury’s evaluation of workplace decisions, some employers have turned to alternative dispute resolution programs (called “ADR”). ADR can involve internal complaint procedures, mediation, and arbitration. In principle, both employers and employees can benefit from the faster and less formal procedures associated with ADR.
Report Link Agreements to Submit Disputes to a Judicial Referee May Allow Employers to Avoid the Pitfalls of Jury Trials and ArbitrationLittler Mendelson, P.C. - September 01, 2006 The United States Supreme Court endorsed the use of binding arbitration to resolve employment disputes in 1991. Since that time, many employers have implemented policies of binding arbitration as a way to avoid the vagaries of a jury trial. Over the years, however, the pitfalls of binding arbitration have become evident - primary among them being that there is no ground to appeal an arbitrator's decision, even when the decision is contrary to applicable law.1 As a result, employers have been searching for alternative means of dispute resolution. Report Link New Decision Regarding Pre-dispute Jury Trial Waivers May Have Employment Law Implications.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 29, 2006 Contractual pre-dispute jury trial waivers were nullified by the Supreme Court of California in 2005 in the case, Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court, Cal. Sup. Ct. No. S123344 (August 4, 2005). Now, the California Court of Appeal has decided that the Grafton decision does not apply to invalidate a contract for reference that similarly waives a jury trial prior to a dispute between the contracting parties. Report Link California Court of Appeal rules that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is valid in an employment case.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 24, 2006 On January 19, 2006, California's Second District Court of Appeal published its opinion in Gentry v. Superior Court (Case No. B169805). Gentry potentially is of major significance to all employers in California, as it upheld a clause contained in a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that precluded class arbitrations. The clause, as applied, required all employees bound by the arbitration agreement to (a) bring their covered disputes to arbitration instead of court and (b) bring those disputes only as individuals and not as part of or representing a class. Effectively, therefore, the impact of the clause was to eliminate class actions entirely. Report Link California Employer Protections Regarding Job References.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 10, 2004 Employers are reluctant to provide job references. Report Link Mandatory Arbitration Again Available to Employers in California and Other 9th Circuit States.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 06, 2003 Reversing a 1998 decision, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that federal anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit employers from requiring employees to agree to mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, (9th Cir., No. 00-57222, Sept. 30, 2003) (en banc). Report Link California Supreme Court Limits Legal Protections for Employer's E-Mail System.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 12, 2003 The California Supreme Court refused to extend state trespass law to protect an employer’s electronic communication system from unauthorized access by a disgruntled former employee. Report Link Arbitration Agreements in California: Where Are We Now?Jackson Lewis LLP - September 03, 2003 California employers considering whether they should require their employees to participate in a mandatory arbitration program do not have an easy task. Report Link Arrest and Conviction Information: Does Your Application Conform To Labor Code Requirements? [PDF File].Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP - May 01, 2003 Does your application form ask for improper arrest or conviction information? If so, you need to be
aware of a class action recently filed against more than 100 employers in a California state court
alleging violations of Labor Code Sections 432.7 and 432.8. Report Link California Supreme Court Issues Opinion Underscoring Importance that Employers Review and Update Their Arbitration Agreements.Thelen Reid & Priest LLP - March 06, 2003 The California Supreme Court just issued a ruling that could jeopardize California arbitration agreements between employers and their employees, underscoring the importance of reviewing such agreements to ensure that they comply with standards of due process. Report Link FCRA Disclosure Authorization Forms AB 1068 [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - February 28, 2003 Consent and disclosure regarding procurement of consumer credit report, consumer report and/or investigative consumer report for employment purposes. Report Link Ongoing Military Build-Up Means That More Employers Have Obligations to Employees on Military Leave.Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP - February 04, 2003 In California, employers have obligations under both the California Military and Veterans Code and the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights of Act of 1994 ("USERRA"). Report Link California Enacts Clean-Up Legislation Reducing the Burdens on Employers Who Order Background Investigations.Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP - December 12, 2002 The California Legislature has passed and the Governor signed two bills, AB 1068 and AB 2868, making background investigations a little less onerous for California employers. Click Here For Article. Report Link Emergency Legislation "Cleans Up" California Law On Background Checks [PDF File].Bingham McCutchen LLP - October 31, 2002 The Legislature passed emergency legislation, Assembly Bill 1068, effective immediately, which “cleans up” certain requirements of the Act, lessening the burden on employers and clarifying the intent of the Act. Report Link Recent Developments in California: Employee Arbitration Agreements.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP - October 29, 2002 We want to bring to your attention two recent developments concerning arbitration. Report Link Broad Pre-Employment Medical Inquiries May Generate Class Action Lawsuits [PDF File].Foley & Lardner - October 28, 2002 The 2000 amendments to California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA") limiting the permissible scope of pre-employment health questionnaires has gone mostly unnoticed but has generated significant potential risks for California employers. Report Link Proposed California Legislation Would Restrict Arbitration of Employment-Related Disputes.Kauff, McClain & McGuire LLP - June 27, 2002 The California Legislature is considering several bills that would drastically change the manner in which employment disputes are resolved in the state. Report Link Section 96(k) of the California Labor Code: Implications for Employers Who Attempt to Regulate Lawful Employee Conduct During Non-Working Hours.Thelen Reid & Priest LLP - June 18, 2002 Section 96(k) of the California Labor Code is of interest to employers who attempt to regulate the lawful off-site conduct of their employees during non-working hours. Report Link Arbitration Agreement Which Employer Coerced Employee Into Signing Is Unenforceable [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - May 01, 2002 The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable,
the Court held, because of the employer’s oppressive tactics to secure the employee’s signature. Report Link California Court Of Appeal Holds That Parties Cannot Contractually Provide That An Arbitration Award Is Subject To Judicial Review [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - May 01, 2002 In a case of first impression, a California Court of Appeal held that parties to an arbitration agreement cannot validly agree that an arbitration award is subject to judicial review to determine whether the award is supported by law and substantial evidence. Report Link Yet More Paperwork? New Obligations for California Employers Performing Employee Background Checks.Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP - April 15, 2002 The new law increases the number of individuals who are obligated to provide copies of information obtained through credit or other background checks. Report Link California Imposes New Rules and Restrictions on Employer Investigations.Thelen Reid & Priest LLP - April 01, 2002 California recently enacted amendments to its Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act , Civil Code Section 1786 et seq. ("ICRA") which impose significant new obligations on employers while at the same time limiting in important ways their ability to investigate workplace misconduct, such as sex harassment. Report Link California Employers Should Ensure Compliance With Recent Amendments When Obtaining Consumer Reports.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 31, 2002 Employers obtaining consumer credit reports on applicants or employees in California should review their procedures and forms in light of recent amendments to the state's fair credit reporting law. Report Link Blocking Incoming E-Mails and Internet Postings-The Empire Strikes Back [PDF File].Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP - January 01, 2002 Discusses two California state court decisions regarding employee misuse of electronic communications. Report Link Initiation of Pre-Arbitration Procedures Do Not Satisfy Exhaustion Requirement.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 28, 2001 Discusses Swiderski v. Milberg, Wise, Bershad, Hines & Lerach, LLP, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13047 (Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div 1, Dec. 18, 2001), in which the court dismissed a wrongful termination based on an arbitration agreement. Report Link California Law Prohibits Restrictions on Language Use in the Workplace [PDF File].Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP - October 01, 2001 Discusses amendments to California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act prohibiting employers from adopting or enforcing policies that limit the use of any language in the workplace, except in very limited circumstances. Report Link California employers must register independent contractors.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 01, 2001 Discusses California Unemployment Insurance Code § 1088.8, effective January 1, 2001, which requires reporting use of independent contractors with the Employment Development Department ("EDD") in order to aid in locating parents delinquent in child support obligations.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 54SUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds