Friday, August 31, 2012

City's Failure to Properly Identify Owner

City of Philadelphia v. Urban Market, Inc., 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 179 (2012)
Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire
This matter addressed the issue of whether a city’s failure to properly identify the owner of a dilapidated property in a complaint seeking injunctive relief to repair the property denied that property owner of its due process rights where the property owner was aware of the complaint, and appeared in court to oppose the requested relief.  In February of 2010, the City of Philadelphia (“City”) commenced an injunction action seeking the immediate repair of a building (“Building”) titled in Urban Market Developers, Inc. (“UMD”) and situated at 5930 Walnut Street in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Although the City’s Complaint correctly identified UMD’s address, the address of the Building, and UMD’s President, Napoleon Vaughn (“Vaughn”), the Complaint incorrectly identified the property owner as “Urban Market Development, Inc.”  Despite this error, UMD defended against the action, and Vaughn appeared at three separate hearings challenging the City’s allegations that the Building was in a state of disrepair. The trial court entered judgment for the City, and ordered the immediate demolition of the Building.  UMD appealed asserting inter alia, that, as the City’s Complaint had incorrectly identified the property owner, UMD had been denied due process, and was entitled to another hearing on the matter.
On appeal, our Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling the court concluded that, in order for a party to be afforded due process, it must be provided with notice of the matter, as well as an opportunity to be heard.  In this instance, the record established that UMD not only had notice of the filing of the City’s Complaint, but that it had appeared at three separate hearings on the matter and offered evidence and expert testimony in opposition to the City’s claims.  As such, the fact that the City’s Complaint incorrectly identified the property owner did not prejudice UMD, nor deny it of its due process rights.  

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Union Trustees Now Have Lien Rights in Pennsylvania

James R. Mall, Esquire

An article by Jim Mall about union trustees’ lien rights was featured in The Legal Intelligencer.  Please click here to read “Union Trustees Now Have Lien Rights in Pennsylvania.”

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Certificate of Nonconforming Use A Property Right?

DoMiJo, et. al v. McClain, et. al, 41 A.3d 967, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 118 (2012)
Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire

This matter addressed the issue of whether a property owner who fails to re-register a non-conforming, preexisting use following its purchase of the real property on which that use is made loses the right to continue making that non-conforming, preexisting use.  In 2007, DoMiJo, Inc. purchased certain real property (“Property”) located at 1138 State Route 502 in Spring Brook Township (“Township”), Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania from Marlyn Benjamin (“Benjamin”).  Prior to the sale, Benjamin obtained a certificate of non-conforming use from the Township Zoning Officer confirming her use of the Property, situated in an R-1 Low Density Residential zoning district, for commercial purposes.  After taking title, DoMiJo continued to make similar use of the Property although it failed to re-register the non-conforming use within sixty (60) days of its purchase, as required by Township’s Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”).
In 2009, DoMiJo applied for a certificate of non-conforming use, and was denied due to its failure to re-register the use in accordance with the Ordinance.  DoMiJo did not appeal this denial, instead resubmitting its request to the Zoning Officer in 2010.  The Zoning Officer denied this request on the same basis, and the Township Zoning Hearing Board affirmed.  DoMiJo then appealed to the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas which reversed, concluding that DoMiJo’s mere failure to re-register the non-conforming use was insufficient for it to lose its right to continue using the Property for commercial purposes.
On appeal, our Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling the court noted that a certificate of nonconforming use is not a property right but, rather, is merely a document that evidences the existence of the nonconforming use.  In this instance, the certificate of non-conforming use that Benjamin had obtained, together with other evidence in the record, plainly established that the Property had been used for commercial purposes prior to the enactment of the Ordinance.  Therefore, DoMiJo had the right to continue this non-conforming use, and its failure to re-register the use was insufficient for it to lose its rights.  The court further noted that there is no provision in the Ordinance advising that a property owner’s failure to re-register a non-conforming use would result in its losing the right to continue that use, and that such a provision would almost certainly not survive a constitutional challenge.
For additional information please contact Frank Kosir at

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Jason Yarbrough Selected for Future Leader Program

Jason M. Yarbrough, Esquire
Congratulations to Jason Yarbrough, who has been selected by the Associated Builders and Contractors to participate in their Future Leader Program.   This program is designed to develop the industry’s future leadership and for emerging new leaders who want to take the next step in their career.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Gas Production and Ordinance Permits

In re: Appeal of New Century Pipeline, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 139 (2012)

Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire

This matter addressed the issue of whether an on-site gas stripper and compressor station constitutes equipment necessary for the completion of natural gas drilling and pumping operations.  New Century Pipeline (“New Century”) is a natural gas exploration company specializing in shallow gas exploration.  It explores for shallow natural gas by drilling wells and pumping natural gas from these wells for transfer to a transmission pipeline.  As part of its exploration process, New Century locates adjacent to each of its well pumps a small stripper and compressor station, which serves to purify the extracted natural gas before it is transferred to the pipeline.

New Century operates a shallow well in the Forest/Slope Residence District (“District”) in Bradford Township (“Township”), McKean County, Pennsylvania.  Pursuant to the Township’s Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) oil and gas production are permitted in the District, as is the installation of equipment necessary to drilling and pumping operations. In August of 2009, the Township Zoning Officer issued an enforcement notice to New Century asserting that the station was processing gas, and was not permitted within the District.  A hearing on the enforcement notice was held before the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board, which upheld the enforcement notice, and ordered New Century to remove the station.  The trial court affirmed, concluding that the preparation of natural gas for transfer to market constitutes processing under the Ordinance and was therefore not permitted in the District.

On appeal, our Commonwealth Court reversed.  In issuing its ruling, the court noted that the natural gas collected cannot be placed into pipelines and sent to market without the compression and stripping processes performed by the station.  As the Ordinance permits gas production within the District, any entity seeking to explore for natural gas must be permitted to utilize the equipment necessary for it to produce natural gas suitable for transport to market.  Therefore, the compression and stripper station constitutes equipment necessary to drilling and pumping operations and, as such, is permitted by the Ordinance. 

For additional information please contact Frank Kosir at

Thursday, August 23, 2012

ABA Intellectual Property Roundtable - September 13th @ noon

September Topic:  Is copyright infringement a necessary step for patent prosecution?
David G. Oberdick, Esquire
David Oberdick will host the Pittsburgh Roundtable for the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Litigation Section.  These quarterly meetings allow IP litigation practitioners to network with other attorneys and discuss topics of interest.  All practicing attorneys interested in intellectual property matters are invited to attend - you need not be members of the ABA IP Litigation Section.
Click here to view invitation.

RSVP by September 11, 2012 -

Location: Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP | 535 Smithfield Street, 12th Floor | Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Buy Assets at Section 363 Sale

Robert E. Dauer, Esquire
An article by Rob Dauer was featured in the Business Workshop section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
When a company enters bankruptcy, its equipment and real estate often go on sale for below market prices. But buying assets from a bankrupt company can be a tricky process.

Most companies buying assets from a bankrupt company do so through a Section 363 sale, which generally occurs before the approval of a reorganization plan.

For buyers, the main advantages of a Section 363 sale include the relative speed of the transaction and the transfer of assets free and clear of encumbrances and interests.

Click here to read Rob’s full article, “Buy assets at Section 363 sale.”

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Supervisors Can Have FMLA Liability

Amanda Gerstnecker, Esquire

Amanda Gerstnecker’s article “Supervisors can have FMLA liability,” appeared in the Business Workshop section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Please click here to read Amanda's full article.

Monday, August 20, 2012

MUS Running Team - Lawyers With Sole

Back Row: Brian Sommers, Amanda Gerstnecker, Nick Bell, Kevin McKeegan,
Joe Bartoszewicz and Beth Slagle
Front Row:  Lauraine Samuels, Sybil McKeegan, Patti Dodge and Beth Ansell
Meyer, Unkovic & Scott's running team ran its first race on Friday, August 17th - The GNC Liberty Mile.  The team did well finishing 5th overall in the corporate division.  Great Job!!!

Friday, August 17, 2012

MUS HR Manager Wins Human Resources Leadership Award

Angela Piermani Comas
Human Resources Manager
Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP
Please join us in congratulating Angela!
Angela Piermani Comas, has been selected by the Pittsburgh Business Times as one of 12 winners of this year’s Human Resources Leadership Awards.  Angie will receive her award at a luncheon on September 19, 2012.  The event sponsors are the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh, SurgePoint HR Talent LLC and the Pittsburgh Human Resources Association.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Tony Thompson selected as one of 35 "Lawyers on the Fast Track"

Tony J. Thompson, Esquire
Congratulations Tony!  

Tony Thompson, is one of only 35 Pennsylvania attorneys who have been selected by the Legal Intelligencer as this year's "Lawyers on the Fast Track."

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Seminar - Partner Violence in the Workplace…An Eye-opening Discussion About Workplace Safety, Employee Productivity and Liability

Jane Lewis Volk, Esquire
Jane Volk is a featured speaker for the Project for Freedom Professional Advisory Committee (PAC) on Tuesday, September 25th. Jane's topic will be “Partner Violence in the Workplace…an eye-opening discussion about workplace safety, employee productivity and liability."

Jane Lewis Volk has been practicing employment and labor law in Pittsburgh since her 1976 graduation from Dickinson School of Law. She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Ms. Volk’s practice includes the representation of business in a variety of industries. She regularly advises clients on topics including EEO matters, OSHA, labor-management relations issues and employment contracts including non-compete agreements. She has been a presenter on employment law matters before the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, the National Business Institute and the Constructors Association of Western Pennsylvania.

Please feel free to bring co-workers who would benefit from this seminar.  Please contact Barbara Lehman to register for this event.  Be sure to let us know of any accommodations needed.  Space is limited, so be sure to RSVP early.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Are Non-profit Religious Corporations Qualified for Real Estate Tax Exempt Status?

Mesivtah Eitz Chaim of Bobov, Inc. v. Pike County Board of Assessment Appeals, et. al, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 964 (2012)

Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire

This matter addressed the issue of whether a religious camp qualified for real estate tax exempt status as a “purely public charity.”  Mesivtah Eitz Chaim of Bobov, Inc. (“Applicant”) is a non-profit religious corporation associated with the Bobov Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn.  The Applicant owns certain real property (“Property”) situated in Delaware Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania, on which Property it operates a summer camp comprised primarily of lectures and classes on its faith.  This camp supplies its campers with food and recreational activities, and is financed through tuition, donations, and rental income from property owned in New York City.  The camp, which is also open to members of the public, provides financial aid to some of its campers, some of who come from as far away as Europe and Israel.

In 2009, the Applicant applied for a real estate tax exemption for the Property on the basis that it was a purely public charity and was entitled to such an exemption pursuant to the five prong test established in HUP v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1, 487 A.2d 1306 (1985) (“The HUP Test”), which provides that an entity qualifies as a purely public charity if it (a) Advances a charitable purpose; (b) Donates or renders gratuitously a substantial portion of its services; (c) Benefits a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity; (d) Relieves the government of some of its burden; and (e) Operates entirely free from private profit motive.  The Applicant’s application was denied by the Pike County Board of Assessment (“Board”), which concluded that the Applicant did not satisfy the HUP Test.  On appeal, the trial court affirmed.  The Applicant then appealed to our Commonwealth Court arguing inter alia that, as the Institutions of Purely Public Charity Act, (10 P.S. §§ 371-385) (“Act 55”) was enacted subsequent to the establishment of the HUP Test, the Applicant was not required to meet the elements of the HUP Test, but was entitled to a real estate tax exemption if it satisfied the broader requirements set forth in Act 55. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, and our Supreme Court allowed appeal on the sole issue of whether Pennsylvania courts must defer to the broader definition of “institution of a purely public charity” set forth in Act 55.

On appeal, Our Supreme Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling, the court noted that the General Assembly is not permitted to alter or amend the phrase “purely public charity” as it sees fit.  Rather, the ultimate authority to interpret statutes and the Pennsylvania Constitution lies with the courts and, as Pennsylvania courts have established the HUP Test as the basis for determining whether an entity qualifies as a “purely public charity,” the legislature is not permitted to alter the standard through a broadening of the definition of “institution of a purely public charity,” as it attempted to do through its enactment of Act 55.  For these reasons, the HUP Test continues to be viable despite the enactment of Act 55, and any entity applying for a real estate tax exemption must first satisfy the HUP Test before its application can be reviewed under Act 55.

For additional information please contact Frank Kosir at

Monday, August 13, 2012

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott Wins One of the "Top Decisions" of 2011

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s On the Docket section featured a write-up of MUS winning one of the “top decisions” of 2011 for the Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC v. Wolf Run Mining Co. case. Click here to read more.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Variance Grant Amendment Ruling

German v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 41 A.3d 947, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 110 (2012)
Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire

This matter addressed the issue of whether a restaurant/bar was entitled to an amendment of a condition placed upon an earlier variance grant in order to permit an extension of its daily hours of operation.  Mixto, Inc. (“Mixto”) owns and operates a restaurant/bar at 1141-43 Pine Street (“Property”) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In April 2001, Mixto applied for and was granted a variance by the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (“Board”) to construct a two story addition at the Property and to operate a restaurant, the variance being specifically conditioned upon the restaurant being opened no later than 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 12:30 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.  In April 2008, Mixto submitted an application to the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections (“Department”) seeking a Zoning/Use Registration Permit to remain opened daily until 2:00 a.m. The Department denied the application, and Mixto appealed to the Board, which reversed, concluding that the significant number of restaurants in the area open until 2:00 a.m. constituted a changed circumstance that warranted an amendment of the conditions of the 2001 variance to permit Mixto to remain opened until 2:00 a.m. only on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.  Thereafter Carol German, a property owner in the area, appealed the Board’s determinations to the trial court, which affirmed.

On appeal, our Commonwealth Court reversed.  In issuing its ruling, the court noted that, in order to obtain a modification of a condition placed upon a previous grant of variance, an applicant must establish: (1) an entitlement to a traditional variance, or a change in circumstances that render the condition ineffective or inappropriate, and (2) an absence of injury to the public interest.  In this instance, the record was void of any evidence to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant the modification of the 2001 variance.  Specifically, at the Board hearing, Mixto offered into evidence little more than its owner’s own testimony that many of its competitors are opened until 2:00 a.m., and failed to produce any evidence regarding the proximity of these competitors or their hours of operation at the time that the 2001 variance was granted.  Therefore, Mixto had failed to establish a change of circumstances sufficient to justify the amendment of the variance condition, and the Board had erred in granting the application. 

For additional information please contact Frank Kosir at

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Keep Info Confidential

David G. Oberdick, Esquire
“Keep Info Confidential,” an article by Dave Oberdick appeared in the Pittsburgh Business Times.

Read the tips Dave has to offer about keeping information confidential at:

Friday, August 10, 2012

Landlord Responsible for Third Party Injury?

Rosenberry v. Evans, 2012 PA Super 91, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 175 (2012)

Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire

This matter addressed the issue of whether a landlord was liable for personal injuries suffered by a third party at the hands of a dog residing at property leased to a tenant.  Robert Miller (“Miller”) leased certain real property (“Property”) situated in Fayette County, Pennsylvania to Mitchell King (“King.”) On June 15, 2008, ten-year-old Alexander Prince (“Alexander”) and his grandparents Dale and Linda Cannon visited the Property to choose a puppy from a litter born to a pit bull owned by King’s girlfriend, Tanya Evans (“Evans”).  During the visit, Alexander was bitten by the mother pit bull and suffered serious facial injuries.  Thereafter, Rhonda Rosenberry (Alexander’s mother) commenced an action in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas against Miller, King and Evans alleging, inter alia, that Miller was in control of the Property at the time of the injury, was aware or should have been aware of the mother pit bull’s dangerous propensities, and was negligent for permitting the dog to remain on the Property and failing to advise others of its temperament.  Miller denied the allegations and, upon the completion of discovery, moved for summary judgment. The trial court, concluding that there was no evidence that Miller had been aware of the mother pit bulls’ dangerous propensities, granted Miller’s Motion, and dismissed the claims against him with prejudice.

On appeal, our Superior Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling, the court noted that a landlord cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s animal unless that landlord owes a duty of care, breaches that duty, and the injuries sustained are the proximate result of that breach of duty.  In this instance, there was no evidence that Miller had any knowledge whatsoever regarding the mother pit bull’s dangerous propensities, or that Miller had any reason to believe that the dog posed any danger to guests or invitees.  Rather, the record established that, prior to its biting Alexander, the mother pit bull had routinely played with different individuals without incident, and had never acted in a threatening manner.  Therefore, there was no reason for Miller to believe that the dog was dangerous and, hence, no duty on his part to warn third parties of any potential danger.

For additional information please contact Frank Kosir at

Thursday, August 9, 2012

State Leaders Move Swiftly to Appeal Court Decision Striking Parts of New Gas Drilling Law

Joshua R. Lorenz, Esquire
Josh Lorenz was quoted in an article, "State Leaders Move Swiftly to Appeal Court Decision Striking Parts of New Gas Drilling Law," that appeared in the Politics section of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

*     *     *     *     *

A legal fight over local control of gas drilling operations has landed in the state Supreme Court’s lap, with two state Cabinet officials filing an appeal on the day after a state and industry defeat in Commonwealth Court.

State leaders, as expected, appealed on Friday a decision that struck down parts of Act 13, the sweeping overhaul of oil and gas laws that lawmakers passed in February to address the shale drilling boom.

A decision from the state Supreme Court will settle how much the state can limit municipal rights to control when and where drilling can happen, experts and officials said.

Please click here to read the full article.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Attorney Mary McGinley Named 2012 ATHENA Young Professional Award Finalist

Mary C. McGinley
Congratulations to Mary McGinley, who has been named one of three 2012 ATHENA Young Professional Award (AYPA) finalists. The Pittsburgh ATHENA Young Professional Leadership Award® honors emerging leaders, 35 and under, who demonstrate excellence, creativity, and initiative in their business or profession; provide valuable service by contributing time and energy to improve the quality of life for others in the community; and clearly serve as a role model for young women personally and professionally.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Dimensional Variance Denied for the Construction of Communication Antennas

In re: Appeal of Towamencin Township, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 105, 55 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 909 (2012), petition for reargument denied, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 152 (2012).

By: Frank Kosir, Jr.

This matter addressed the issue of whether a property owner and cellular service provider were entitled to a dimensional variance for the construction of a silo onto which communication antennas were to be placed.  The Bechtel family (“Owners”) has held title to an 81.43-acre tract of farmland (“Property”) situated in Towamencin Township (“Township,”) Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, for more than two hundred years.  The Property is situated in the Township’s R-200 Residential Agricultural Zoning District (“District”) and is used as a residence and working dairy farm, one of only two remaining working dairy farms within the Township.  Along with a farmhouse, barn and other outbuildings, constructed on the Property are two grain silos, fifty-five feet and eighty feet in height.  These silos are insufficient to store all of the crops that the Owners need to feed their farm animals, resulting in their having to store additional crops in large temporary containers that occupy approximately two acres of tillable land.  In order to provide adequate space for crop storage, and to permit the modernization of their farm operations, the Owners sought to construct a new one hundred and thirty feet tall silo, a silo whose proposed height would far exceeded the sixty-five feet maximum height for structures in the District.

At the same time that the Owners sought to construct their new silo, AT & T, whose cellular service in the area was suffering from coverage gaps, was in search of existing tall structures in the Township upon which it could place antennas to improve coverage.  AT & T contacted the Owners, and proposed that they agree to construct a silo one hundred and twenty feet in height, which would then enable AT & T to place antennas less than ten feet in height on the roof of the silo, thereby remaining within the one hundred and thirty feet dimensional restriction for wireless telecommunication facilities set forth in the Township’s Zoning Code (“Code.”) The Owners agreed and the Owners and AT & T (“Applicants) applied for a variance to construct the one hundred and twenty feet high silo with antenna above.  The Township Zoning Hearing Board (“Board”) held a hearing at which several adjacent landowners appeared in support of the request.  The Board granted the Applicants’ requested relief and the Township appealed to the Montgomery County Court of Common Peas, contending that the granted relief constituted a use variance rather than a dimensional variance, and that the Applicants had failed to establish a hardship sufficient to warrant the granting of any variance.  The trial court, concluding that the Applicants sought nothing more than a variance from the height restrictions set forth in the Code, concluded that the Board’s decision constituted a reasonable use variance, and affirmed.

On appeal, our Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling, the court noted that a variance request is properly granted where the requested relief is not contrary to the public interest and its denial would result in an unreasonable hardship upon the applicant.  In this instance, the proposed silo would not encroach into any set backs, and was in fact supported by numerous adjoining property owners.  Furthermore, the Code itself provides for communication antennas in the District and directs that, whenever possible, such antennas be placed on other facilities, whether new or existing.  For these reasons, the variance sought by the Applicants constituted nothing more than a dimensional variance and, as the requested variance would result in nothing more than the use of additional air space, the granting of the variance was not contrary to the public interest.  Furthermore, as the proposed silo would enable the Owners to modernize their farming operations, thereby enabling the dairy farm to remain economically competitive, their economic need for a new silo constituted a sufficient hardship to warrant the granting of the requested dimensional variance. 

For additional information on dimensional variance please contact Frank Kosir at

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Selecting The Right Dispute Resolution Provision

There are a number of terms negotiated in every construction contract.  One of the most important and oftentimes overlooked provisions in a contract is the dispute resolution provision.  It is not uncommon for an owner or contractor to try to use boilerplate contract terms from project to project.  We counsel our clients to revisit the dispute resolution paragraph on each job to make sure that these terms are appropriate for the current project.  Not only do these provisions typically set forth where a dispute will be heard, who will pay the costs for dispute resolution and whether or not a claim will be litigated in court or arbitration, dispute resolution provisions also address whether the parties must mediate their claims prior to filing suit.

Please click here to read Jason's full article that was published in the July/August 2012 issue of Breaking Ground Magazine.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Litigation: 8 Tips for Dealing With A Rambo Lawyer

How to handle personal attacks or underhanded litigation tactics from opposing counsel.

This is part four of a series written by Ron Hicks. Click here to read the full article (part 4).

Addressing Complex Trusts and Estates Situations

This article written by John Powell and Amanda Gerstnecker was published in he Legal Intelligencer on July 17, 2012. Please click here to read the full article.

Litigation: The 3 Steps Of Responding To A Subpoena

How to determine and present possible objections while ensuring compliance.

This is part three of a three-part series written by Ron Hicks. Part three addresses steps of responding to a subpoena.

Click here to read the full article (part 3).

Litigation: The 5 risks of responding to a subpoena

While cost alone won’t get you out of responding, in certain circumstances you may be able to quash or modify a subpoena.

This is part two of a three-part series written by Ron Hicks. Part two addresses risks that go along with responding to a subpoena.

Click here to read the full article (part 2).

Individual Supervisors can be Sued for FMLA Violations

Supervisors beware: A recent court ruling established that supervisors who violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) can be held individually liable, putting the supervisor’s personal assets on the line.

The FMLA requires employers with 50 or more employees to permit its employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical reasons or to care for a loved one. The law forbids employers from retaliating in any way against employees who take or request FMLA leave.

Please click here to read Amanda's full article.

Litigation: The Dos and Don’ts of Responding to A Subpoena

Learn as much as possible about the underlying lawsuit as soon as your company is served with a subpoena.

This is part one of a three-part series written by Ron Hicks. Part one will provide you with a greater understanding of the subpoena process and best practices. Parts two and three will address risks and procedures that go along with responding to a subpoena.

Click here to read the full article (part 1).