Monday, May 13, 2013

Staying Sustainable - Presentation on Tuesday, May 14th

Staying Sustainable
High Performance Building Codes, Energy Benchmarking and Green Leasing - a focus on national trends coming to the region.

Chad Michaelson of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP and Billy Grayson of WESCO Distribution, Inc. will present Staying Sustainable on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at the Duquesne Club.  Following the presentation Chad and Billy will host a panel discussion on this topic that will be moderated by Kevin McKeegan of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP. 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 from 11:30 pm - 1:15 pm

$45 members; $65 non-members

Duquesne Club, 325 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 | 412-391-1500

For additional information about this program or to register please contact Melodee Bright.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

ABA Intellectual Property Roundtable - Thursday, May 16, 2013 @ Noon

David G. Oberdick, Esquire
dgo@muslaw.com
Meyer, Unkovic & Scott is proud to sponsor 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.

Who Should Attend:  Practicing attorneys interested in intellectual property matters.  Need not be members of the ABA IP Litigation Section.

Lunch will be provided by Meyer, Unkovic & Scott.

Topic:  Addressing Willful Patent Infringement in a Post-C.R. Bard World

Host: David G. Oberdick, Esquire

Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013 | 12:00 noon


Location: Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP
Henry W. Oliver Building, 12th Floor
535 Smithfield Street
Pittsburgh, PA  15222-2304
412.456.2800


Please RSVP by May 14, 2013 to: rsvp@muslaw.com

Click here for a printable invitation.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Business Basics 101

Attorney Beth Slagle was interviewed on Business Basics 101 by Rebecca Harris the Director of the Center for Women’s Entrepreneurship at Chatham University on Radio 90.5 WESA.  In the interview Beth discusses the process for creating a roadmap for business success by going through the basics of starting your business.  Please click on the following link to hear Beth’s interview in its entirety:  http://wesa.fm/post/business-basics-101


Beth Slagle (left) and Rebecca Harris (right)

For More information on starting your business please contact Beth Slagle at bas@muslaw.com.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Business Workshop: New Place For State Contract Disputes

 
Chad I. Michaelson, Esquire
cim@muslaw.com
A recent Commonwealth Court decision enables contractors to take their disputes with Pennsylvania's state government before a venue other than the Pennsylvania Board of Claims -- but only if no money is at stake.

For years, the precedent was that the Board of Claims served as the exclusive venue for contractual claims against the commonwealth.

In the case in question, a company responded to a state request for proposal -- or RFP -- won the competition, and signed a contract with the Department of General Services.

The incumbent contractor filed a protest based on the fact that a minor math mistake had been made in scoring the RFP responses. Although the mistake did not change the results of the RFP process, the Department of General Services cancelled the RFP and the contract.

The company that lost the contract through the cancelation filed a complaint with the Commonwealth Court. Department of General Services and the incumbent contractor argued that the matter could only be heard before the Board of Claims, and that the contract cancellation could not be challenged until the disgruntled contractor had filed a claim with DGS.

The Commonwealth Court disagreed, citing an obscure 2002 amendment to the Board of Claims Act which allows parties to seek nonmonetary relief "in another forum as provided by law." The court held that because the contractor was seeking to prevent DGS from cancelling the contract and not a payment of money, the court had the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.

The decision means that contractors are not necessarily required to go before the Board of Claims in disputes related to Pennsylvania state contracts, but may be able to go directly to a court. The catch is that the claim cannot ask for monetary relief. If asking for money, the contractor will still have to take its case before the Board of Claims.

For more information on this topic, please contact Chad Michaelson at cim@muslaw.com.

This article originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Business Workshop section.  Business workshop is a weekly feature from local experts offering tidbits on matters affecting business.  Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/business-workshop-new-place-for-state-contract-disputes-667672/#ixzz2PIakABHq

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Business Workshop: Second Buyers Can Sue Homebuilders

Kevin F. McKeegan, Esquire
kfm@muslaw.com
A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision has increased the risk of lawsuits by homebuyers against builders -- not only can the first buyer of a new home bring a lawsuit against a builder, but now any subsequent buyer within 12 years of the home's construction can file a claim.

In the case in question, a builder constructed a home in Jamison, Bucks County. After living in the home a few years, the first buyers sold it to a family who discovered water infiltration around the windows in the master bedroom.

The second buyers filed a complaint against the builder alleging only one count: breach of the "implied warranty of habitability," which is the guarantee that the home is habitable.

The Superior Court held that the implied warranty of habitability should not end when the first buyer sells the property, and held that the risk of a hidden defect should continue with the builder for the full 12 years stipulated under Pennsylvania law.

The plaintiffs were thus permitted to continue their lawsuit against the builder.

The court explained that liability is still limited by two factors. First, homeowners must file the claim within 12 years from the time of the completion of the construction. Second, the breach of the implied warranty must still be proven. The homeowner must show that a defect is hidden and non-obvious, that it is a result of the builder's design or construction, and that it affects the habitability of the residence.

Builders should be aware of this change in the law and realize that latent defects may now subject them to liability up to 12 years after the construction is complete, no matter how many times the house is sold.

For more information on this topic, please contact Kevin McKeegan at kfm@muslaw.com.

This article originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Business Workshop section. Business workshop is a weekly feature from local experts offering tidbits on matters affecting business. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/business-workshop-second-buyers-can-sue-homebuilders-670282/#ixzz2PIX0OBxn.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Business Workshop: Noncompetes and Fired Employees

Brian J. Sommer, Esquire
bjs@muslaw.com
For decades the conventional wisdom has been that if you fire an employee, you can't enforce any noncompete agreement that the employee signed with the company.
 
The argument goes that by firing an employee, the company deems that employee's contribution worthless to the business. The employer therefore has little or no need to protect itself from the possibility of the fired employee taking business away or otherwise harming the company.
 
But recent court decisions are changing that view. Nowadays the fact that an employee was fired without reason may not, in and of itself, invalidate a noncompete covenant. The fact of the firing is one of several factors courts will consider in determining if the noncompete clause is valid.
 
Other factors include:
 
  • The fired employee's access to the company's confidential and proprietary information.
  • The fired employee's past agreement to terms that prevent him from soliciting the business of the company's clients.
  • If the employee has revealed any confidential information or trade secrets.
  • If the employee received a consideration such as a promotion or payment for signing the noncompete agreement.
  • The impact of the noncompete covenant on the former employee's ability to earn a living.
  • The question of enforcing the noncompete contract of a fired employee is moot, however, if the company has not constructed the contract terms properly. The restrictions imposed by a noncompete clause must be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer. Moreover, the noncompete restrictions must also have reasonable limitations in both how long they last and geographic scope.


For more information on this topic, please contact Brian J. Sommer at bjs@muslaw.com.

This article originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Business Workshop section. Business workshop is a weekly feature from local experts offering tidbits on matters affecting business. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/business-workshop-noncompetes-and-fired-employees-676783/#ixzz2MZuT1K6l

Monday, April 15, 2013

Inappropriate Interview Questions Can Lead to Discrimination Lawsuits

Elaina Smiley, Esquire
es@muslaw.com
Rejected job applicants often want to know the reason why they don’t get a position for which they interviewed.  If an interviewer asked inappropriate questions during the interview, it may lead an applicant to believe that illegal discrimination played a part in the interviewer’s decision not to hire him or her.

Certain subjects can be a minefield for discrimination lawsuits, so interviewers must be trained to walk a fine line when discussing these subjects and only ask questions as they pertain directly to the job.

Please click here to read Elaina's full article and to learn some of the most problematic questions for employers.

This article originally appeared in the February 2013 issue of Western Pennsylvania Healthcare News.

For more information on this topic, please contact Elaina Smiley at es@muslaw.com.