HerringLaw: Civil Rights & Discrimination Law in Iowa

Mistakes were Made...but not by Me!

Actually, this is a review of a review of a review [my copy is on order!] but I thought this synopsis in BC Review and the excerpt in the June 2007 AARP Bulletin would be of particular interest to lawyers trying to deal with clients, counsel and juries:  "reading information that goes against your point of view can make you all the more convinced you are right.  So there is a neurological basis for the observation that once our minds are made up, it is hard to change them."  from Mistakes Were Made [But Not by Me], by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.  The review in BC Review is particularly helpful.

A helpful freebie from Findlaw for lawyers

I was reading one blog, then clicked and went to another and kept on moving and came across this 'tool' that might be of use and interest to lawyers dealing with e-Discovery issues, Wizard: The Electronic Discovery Rule Wizard at Findlaw.

e-Discovery a Trap for Lawyers and Clients

As many/most lawyers know, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended to provide for methods of handling the discovery of digital information. In the 'old' days [and at present, still] the main place discoverable information resided was in paper records filling a plethora of filecabinets. However, over the years companies and to a lesser extent, individuals, have begun storing information in a digital format on a computer, harddrive, tape system or some other such storage method. Now, if a lawsuit is filed in federal court [and even before that once the litigants are aware of possible litigation] both parties have to retain and be able to provide access to discoverable information in whatever form it is. An article which I read recently at ABANet.org discussed some of the pitfalls and steps that need to be taken in that case: Document Collection.

While this article at times does seem to be more marketing in nature, and perhaps oriented toward the concerns of a defendant, it is helpful in pointing out some of the issues that lawyers and parties in federal court litigation will face: Is there a data retention policy and is it followed? Where are all the versions and copies of the discoverable data stored? How do you pull out legitimately non-discoverable materials from a huge group of documents? How do you identify documents so they can be found down the road?

There are many more issues present under the new Rules and it will take some time to work them out, but starting to think about where all your digital data is would be a good idea for everyone. Both in case you become involved in litigation and because a rational back-up structure is required as well. Nothing lives forever, even digital data.

An interesting turn of fate

I saw this on a blog and found it interesting that Robert Bork, a leading conservative and proponent of tort reform, has sued Yale University for $1 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. Not that injuries shouldn't be fairly compensated, but as the ACS Blog points out, it's a rather hypocritical stance that he has taken in his lawsuit.

Three Tips: Wage Payment Collection Act

In the initial comment in the Three Tips topic area I noted: "2. One powerful protection for employees in Iowa is the Wage Payment Collection Act, Chapter 91A of the Code. Basically, the law was passed and has been interpreted in a favorable way for employees to facilitate their being able to collect the wages due them when they leave their employment. Of course, the Devil is around there too, but the statute is fairly clear in its requirements. The best way to deal with disputes over who owes what, how much and when is to deal directly with your [former] employer, since lawsuits are unpleasant and perhaps even unnecessary."

The law is found in the Iowa Code and has been construed favorably toward employees, for good reason. It is also a fairly clear and defined law so that both parties to an employment relationship can know what the expectations are. Basically, the employer cannot usually withhold amounts from wages due but must pay the wages which are due after an employee is terminated, for whatever reason. There are exceptions to that rule, as pointed out in the text of the law. So, an employer trying to decide how much to pay the soon-to-be former employee might be wise to figure that out ahead of time and make sure the employee knows what he or she will be getting ahead of time. Employers are protected from liquidated damages where the dispute over what is due is legitimate, but the fact that attorney fees may also result from litigation might lead an employer to try to work out a settlement ahead of time for a relatively small amount.

Tax Credits for doing the right thing.

I was reading a posting by another lawyer on a forum discussing the method for applying for a tax credit for using sign language interpreters and it spurred me to do a little digging into resources on the topic. Not only can lawyers, doctors and other service providers have assistance in paying for an interpreter when one is needed to provide services to a person covered by the ADA, it's the right thing to do. Helpful sites and information can be found at: WorkWorld.org, EEOC, Iowa Workforce Development. A discussion of the concept of tax credits to assist the disabled with gaining access [including construction assistance] can also be found at KatrinaNetworking Blog.

I figured this was helpful information no matter whether you are the person seeking the credit or a person who can use this information to open some doors that might otherwise be shut.

LAWpportunities Conference - continued

I'll be presenting along with some excellent speakers and resources at the upcoming LAWpportunities Conference.  More information about the conference can be found at LAWpportunities:  "New professionals have at their fingertips the tools and ability to make networking better, faster, cheaper and more effective than their predecessors ever could have imagined. LAWpportunities offers you the strategies, insights and secrets of successful professionals, showing you how to fill the gap left by businesses unwilling to adapt." "Network with the speakers and other business professionals including nationally renowned online business entrepreneur KEVIN O’KEEFE of LexBlog.com. Learn the secrets of taking your business and your career to the next level. "  Other Speakers will be:  Kevin O’Keefe Drew McLellan Mike Sansone Adam Steen Jim Goodman Shirley Poertner Tre Critelli Timothy Johnson Mitch Matthews

[the Conference has been rescheduled and when it's firm, I'll not it in this blog]

Three Tips: At Will Employment

In my earlier post I said, "1. Unless you have a contract of employment [oral or written or implied, subject to many circumstances special to a situation], a public policy recognized in Iowa or a statutory protection, you are an employee "at will" and either or both you and your employer can call a halt to your employment relationship for no reason at all. As is true in most situations in the law, "the Devil is in the details". A good general discussion of employment law, including this topic, is at Workplace Fairness "

This is evidently a topic of much discussion currently [swirling around the Alberto Gonzalez situation] , as several commentators have stated that the concept of 'at will employment' is a Myth [ Ed Morrissey], which has also been critiqued by others. Mr. Morrissey's point is well taken, that there are real-life expenses associated with firing people that prevent an easy decision, but he's wrong to think that the usual person will rush right out and hire a lawyer who will descend upon the employer with demands for documents and such. The reality is that most employers are in a more powerful position and most fired persons are more needy and the first thing they usually do is try to find another job or put a meal on the table. Even if they have a good reason to suspect foul play, most people don't just immediately think of litigation.

But the cost of defending against employment litigation will frequently mean that many employers will work out severance packages or take other steps to avoid litigation, if possible. And working out some sort of peaceful separation may well be in the best interests of both parties, saving the most eggregious cases for the minefield of lawsuits.