News Type: Blogs

Late last month, Delta Air Lines was on the receiving end of another class action lawsuit concerning a common workplace policy that most businesses face. In Garnett v. Delta Air Lines Inc., a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative suit, the plaintiff (Garnett) claims that the company failed to reimburse him and his colleagues for work-related use of their personal cellphones necessary to perform their job responsibilities.

Garnett’s action on behalf of all aggrieved Delta employees (estimated at more than 90,000 in 2022) alleges violations of California Labor Code § 2802, which requires that employees be reimbursed for expenditures necessary to carry out their job duties. By way of the lawsuit, it is alleged that Delta requires employees to use their personal cellphones and computers for business-related purposes without reimbursement.

The potential liability to Delta is significant. The litigation seeks statutory penalties ($100 for the initial breach and $200 for each subsequent breach thereafter per employee, per pay period), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, litigation costs, and attorney fees. Assuming Delta has an employee count north of 90,000, the case subjects the company to hundreds of millions of dollars of aggregate exposure (estimated at as much as $468,000,000 for every year this practice persisted).

Key Takeaway #1: Even small employers can face massive damages if found to be in violation of Section 2802. A company with only 10 employees that failed to reimburse them for the business use of personal cellphones would face upward of $52,000 in penalties (not counting prejudgment interest owed, the actual cost of reimbursement and attorneys’ fees) for each year the practice persisted.

Key Takeaway #2: With more businesses permitting remote work, attention to business expense reimbursement policies is critical. This is especially true in the wake of the decision in a case called Thai v. IBM, in which it was determined that an employer is required to reimburse an employee “for all necessary expenditures …incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.”

Key Takeaway #3: Lawsuits like the one initiated against Delta, which are entirely avoidable, illustrate how important it is for companies to have skilled employment counsel with particular experience in wage and hour compliance.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

Last month, Governor Kathy Hochul signed an amendment to New York law that adds restrictions on certain release agreements executed in the state. This move is of real importance to companies doing business in New York and impacts agreements entered into on or after November 17, 2023.

The law, as amended, makes a release based on a claim for unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation unenforceable when, as part of the agreement resolving such a claim:

(a) the complainant is required to pay liquidated damages for violation of a nondisclosure or non-disparagement clause;

(b) the complainant is required to forfeit all or part of the consideration for the agreement for violation of a nondisclosure or non-disparagement clause; or

(c) the release contains or requires any affirmative statement, assertion, or disclaimer by the complainant that the complainant was not, in fact, subject to unlawful discrimination, including discriminatory harassment or retaliation.

While existing restrictions (those in effect prior to the amendment) applied only to “any settlement, agreement or other resolution of any claim,” the new restrictions attach to a “release of any claim.” This is much broader language that courts, in the coming months, are sure to interpret and clarify. In the meantime, it is unclear whether the newly amended law is intended to apply to separation agreements in addition to settlement agreements.

It is important to understand that the new restrictions are in addition to the existing restrictions in place for releases in settlement agreement executed in New York; specifically, those that relate to claims of discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Pursuant to these prior restrictions, a release for any such claim cannot include a nondisclosure agreement unless the employee requests one.

Under the revised version of the law (Section 5-336 of the New York General Obligations Law), an employee must be given up to 21 days to consider a nondisclosure provision in pre-litigation matters. As otherwise stated, the amendment now allows an employee to sign prior to the end of the 21-day consideration period, should he/she/they choose. However, under Section 5003-B of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, which is unchanged, an employee must wait 21 days before signing an agreement containing a nondisclosure provision when a claim has been filed in court. In either scenario, the employee may also have 7 days after signing to revoke his/her/their agreement.

By virtue of the updated law, employers should immediately review their releases-including those set forth in separation and settlement agreements-to ensure compliance.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

During onboarding, new hires in the U.S. are required to complete Form I-9 and present proper documentation to allow employers to verify their identity and employment authorization. Beginning next month on November 1, a new version of Form I-9 must be used, which can be found on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website, here. Of note, although mandatory use of the new Form I-9 begins on November 1, employers may begin using it immediately or any time prior to that date.

Until now, I-9 verification documents (driver’s licenses, passports, social security cards, etc.) had to be reviewed in person. While employers may continue to inspect all I-9 documentation in person should they choose, the new Form I-9 allows for a remote verification option- for employers enrolled in and in good standing with E-Verify. To use remote verification, eligible employers must adhere to the following procedure:

1. Ensure enrollment in-and good standing with-E-Verify.

2. Engage via live video with the given employee to verify that the verification documentation presented “reasonably appears to be genuine and related to the individual.” More specifically, employers should examine all Form I-9 documents (including the front and back of any double-sided documents) to confirm authenticity and that they match the information entered by the given employee in Section 1 of Form I-9.

3. Complete Section 2 of Form I-9 and check the box indicating that an alternative procedure was used to examine I-9 documentation. The date of examination (i.e., the date an employer performed a live video interaction as required under the alternative procedure) should be added to the Section 2 Additional Information field on the Form I-9.

4. Retain a “clear and legible” copy of the verified documentation (including the front and back of any double-sided documents).

5. Create a case in E-Verify (for new hires).

It is important to understand that employers should use the alternative, remote procedure consistently for either all employees at a given worksite or use it only for remote employees. If the procedure is not applied consistently, discrimination claims may arise.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

In the aftermath of World War II, governments around the world signed onto the United Nations Charter, which codified the major principles of international relations: maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and supporting sustainable development.

These bedrock principles were originally stated in 1945. Seventy-eight years later, leaders from around the globe and their top diplomats have gathered in New York once again for the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly. Given the state of our world, there were continued calls for reform in the UN organization at the meetings, particularly with regard to the UN Security Council, which is dominated by five nations-China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States- all with veto powers.

No doubt about it, the cries for a reform of the Security Council have become much louder of late, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Invasion aside, this is not a new debate for the international community.

The world has changed significantly since 1945. Back then, the global population was around 2.3 billion and there were only 51 founding members of the UN. Today, our planet is home to nearly 8 billion people and the UN has over 190 member states. Beyond those numbers, there has been a major shift in the economic centers of gravity across the globe-so much so that it is no longer possible to maintain worldwide peace and prosperity under Security Council as currently configured.

The U.S. has been seeking an increase in the permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council for some time. Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, known as the G4 governments, are also advocating for equal permanent memberships, and another group-dubbed Uniting for Consensus and including Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Spain and Türkiye-are calling for an increase to the number of elected members of the Security Council as well. So too is the African Union, which wants additional permanent and elected seats on the Security Council for the African nations.

Of note, Security Council reform has been on the table ever since 1992, when a working group was put in place to review reform methods. Three decades later, the needle has yet to move, which is reflective of the size of the challenge.

Truth be told, the glaring lack of action in terms of reform is not surprising. The interests of many sovereigns are far from aligned. And even for those nations that are united in their call for change, a consensus as to methods of reform is hard to come by. Conflict regarding the addition of more permanent and elected seats, issues around dilution, whether to preserve or eliminate certain veto powers, and the criteria for new membership (economics, population, military might) remain.

By virtue of the current impasse, world leaders must seize upon a more practical solution to the problems associated with Security Council reform. As otherwise stated, a healthy international legal order is needed to ensure a peaceful global order.

The fastest path to reform could be forged by establishing a secretariat for the G-20 and involving its members in the issues before the Security Council. Indeed, this approach could gradually evolve into the delegation of duties from the Security Council to the G-20, which would make for a more fair and secure platform to achieve the goals of the UN Charter given the representation of the world populations and economies on the G-20.

In the wake of the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly, the time is now to harness the G-20 as a practical tool to achieve the UN Charters stated objectives, above all else, peace and security.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

The recent recommendation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance has sent ripples across multiple sectors, the real estate space included. The prospect of marijuana’s reclassification from its current Schedule I status could dramatically alter the legal landscape in which real estate professionals and investors operate. Here, the potential implications of this proposed change are addressed.

Zoning and Land Use Regulations

Presently, the Schedule I status of marijuana imposes strict limitations on where dispensaries, cultivation centers, and manufacturing facilities can be located. These federal restrictions often dovetail with state and local zoning rules, creating a highly complex matrix of laws that operators must navigate. Reclassification to Schedule III could potentially simplify zoning regulations, allowing investors greater flexibility when selecting locations for cannabis-related businesses.

Real Estate Financing

Currently, securing financial backing for a cannabis-related real estate deal can be an arduous process. Most major financial institutions are reluctant to engage in transactions involving Schedule I substances due to the inherent legal risks. However, moving marijuana to Schedule III could make banks and institutional investors more amenable to offering financing for cannabis-related real estate transactions. This would likely spur a wave of new developments and transactions in the sector.

Lease Agreements and Contract Law

Landlords and tenants in the cannabis industry often face unique challenges in contractual relationships due to the current federal classification of marijuana. Lease agreements often incorporate specific clauses that address the legal uncertainties surrounding cannabis-related businesses. Reclassification could result in a normalization of these relationships, allowing for more standard lease agreements and thereby reducing legal costs and complexities for both parties.

Federal Asset Forfeiture Risks

Under existing laws, properties involved in the production, storage, or sale of Schedule I substances are subject to federal asset forfeiture. This creates a significant risk for property owners and investors. A downgrade in marijuana’s classification would likely reduce these risks, making real estate investment in the sector a more secure proposition.

Public Sentiment and Market Demand

The reclassification of marijuana would send a strong signal to the market that the federal government recognizes the substance’s medical potential and lower abuse risk. This could further destigmatize marijuana use and increase market demand, driving up property values in zones earmarked for cannabis-related activities.

Lingering Challenges

While reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would address several existing obstacles, it would not eliminate them entirely. For instance, the conflict between federal and state laws would still exist. For their part, real estate stakeholders would still need to be vigilant about local ordinances that may place restrictions on cannabis-related businesses.

Without question, reclassification of marijuana would constitute a watershed moment in both the cannabis and real estate industries. Nonetheless, while it would resolve certain existing challenges, reclassification would not completely alleviate the legal complexities inherent when these two sectors intersect. Therefore, it is essential for real estate professionals to remain well-informed and consult legal expertise to navigate the evolving landscape successfully.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

The Implications of Marijuana’s Potential Reclassification for the Healthcare

As word spreads about the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ recent recommendation to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance, healthcare providers, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies are justifiably keen to understand the full scope of this proposed change. This article provides an overview of just how reclassification would reverberate throughout the healthcare industry.

Expanded Research Capabilities

Currently, marijuana’s Schedule I status severely curtails medical research by imposing rigorous regulatory hurdles, including stringent DEA approval requirements and a limited supply of research-grade cannabis. A reclassification to Schedule III would relax these constraints, permitting an acceleration in clinical trials and research. This could yield new cannabis-based medical treatments and significantly expand our understanding of marijuana’s therapeutic effects. Moreover, partnerships between academic research institutions and the private sector could flourish, advancing more rapid and diverse studies.

Prescribing Regulations

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would affect prescribing practices. Unlike Schedule I substances, Schedule III drugs can be prescribed by a healthcare provider, but with certain restrictions. Providers would need to familiarize themselves with these new rules and possibly undergo specific training to prescribe cannabis-based products legally, even opening up new specialized health insurance products.

Insurance Coverage

The Schedule I status of marijuana has long been a sticking point in the insurance industry, making it virtually impossible for patients to get coverage for medical cannabis treatments. A change in federal classification would likely lead to a re-evaluation of insurance policies concerning marijuana. While immediate universal coverage is improbable, incremental changes could result in more comprehensive insurance options for patients seeking cannabis-based therapies.

Drug Scheduling and Pharmacy Distribution

Currently, marijuana products are generally distributed through specialized dispensaries. A shift to Schedule III would open the possibility for mainstream pharmacies to dispense cannabis-based medications, under strict regulations. Pharmacies and healthcare facilities would need to adhere to new guidelines for the storage, prescription, and sale of these products, a change that would require legal oversight and compliance procedures. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies may compete for patents and FDA approval of specific cannabis-based drugs, changing the competitive landscape.

Risk Management and Liability

Healthcare providers prescribing or administering cannabis-based treatments would find themselves navigating a new landscape of potential risks and liabilities. Medical malpractice insurance policies may need to be updated to include cannabis-related treatments, and informed consent procedures would need to be revised to incorporate the specific risks and benefits associated with such therapies.

Regulatory Compliance

Should the proposed reclassification materialize, healthcare institutions would need to update their compliance programs to incorporate new federal and state regulations concerning the use and prescription of cannabis-based products. Failure to adhere to these evolving guidelines could result in legal penalties, including fines and potential revocation of medical licenses. Telemedicine protocols for prescribing cannabis could also come into play, requiring an update to existing telehealth regulations.

Ethical Considerations

Beyond the legal implications, healthcare providers would face ethical questions, particularly regarding the prescription of cannabis for certain patient demographics like minors or pregnant women. This would necessitate revising ethical guidelines and potentially require consultations with ethics committees to navigate complex scenarios. The potential for increased recreational use also raises public health concerns, especially among adolescents.

The possible reclassification of marijuana could serve as a transformative catalyst in the healthcare sector, presenting new opportunities, challenges, and legal complexities. Given the seismic shifts that would result should cannabis be classified as a Schedule III substance, which could happen as early as 2024, it is imperative for stakeholders in the healthcare industry to seek informed legal counsel to prepare for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and navigate the intricacies of this evolving landscape effectively.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ recent call to the Drug Enforcement Agency for the reclassification of marijuana to a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act has roused considerable attention across industries. For those in the burgeoning cannabis space, it represents a potential paradigm shift, though the potential move is not without its drawbacks. This analysis aims to dissect the prospective changes that reclassification could engender for marijuana-related businesses.

Corporate Governance and Compliance

The reclassification of marijuana to a Schedule III drug would necessitate an extensive review of existing compliance protocols for cannabis-related businesses. Regulatory frameworks would be expected to evolve, affecting licensing, distribution, and marketing strategies. Companies would be well-advised to anticipate such changes and adapt their compliance mechanisms accordingly. Moreover, the acknowledgment of marijuana’s medicinal benefits could open up avenues for more FDA-approved medical applications and pharmaceutical collaborations.

The Stock Market and Investment

Investors have already reacted positively to the news of the possible reclassification of marijuana, as evidenced by a spike in cannabis-related stocks. Reclassification could also pave the way for these cannabis companies to be listed on major stock exchanges, providing an infusion of investment capital that could catalyze further growth. Additionally, reclassification could open up the U.S. market for foreign cannabis companies, leading to a more globalized marketplace.

Taxation Ramifications

Currently, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, rendering it subject to severe federal restrictions and penalties. Critically for corporate interests, Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits businesses dealing with Schedule I substances from claiming standard tax deductions or credits. As a result, cannabis enterprises have been shouldering taxes on their total revenue without the ability to offset taxable income through standard business deductions. A transition to Schedule III would not only relieve this tax burden but also enable interstate commerce, adding a new dimension of business expansion opportunities.

Remaining Challenges and Criticisms

It is crucial to note, however, that mere reclassification of marijuana to a Schedule III substance would fall short of resolving some broader legal challenges, most notably the conflicts between state and federal law. While a Schedule III status would signify federal acquiescence to some extent, it would not end the disconnect between federal illegality and state legalization efforts. Nor would it necessarily mitigate ongoing social justice issues related to marijuana criminalization.

The prospective reclassification currently under the microscope is undoubtedly a watershed moment in federal drug policy and offers several benefits for marijuana-related enterprises. That being said, it is not an end-all solution and cannabis-related companies should remain agile, attentive to forthcoming regulatory changes, and prepared to navigate a landscape that remains fraught with legal intricacies and social implications. With the possibility of reclassification as early as 2024, ahead of the Presidential elections, companies should be prepared for rapid policy shifts and should adjust their corporate strategies accordingly.

No doubt about it, as we move closer to a potential reclassification, perhaps as early as 2024, proactive legal strategy will be paramount for corporate success in this complex and evolving sector.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

Effective April 1, 2023, the City of Los Angeles will impose a so-called “Mansion Tax” upon commercial and residential property sales exceeding $5 million (certain housing, non-profit, and public entities will be exempt).

The new tax rate of 4% will apply to qualifying properties sold for more than $5 million but less than $10 million. Commercial and residential real estate traded for $10 million or more will be subject to a 5.5% tax rate. The Mansion Tax will not replace or modify existing documentary transfer taxes in L.A. Instead, it is to be an additional documentary transfer tax calculated based on the gross sale amount of property-existing debt will not reduce the tax basis.

By way of example, after April 1, the seller of a $10 million multi-family property in L.A. will be hit with a Mansion Tax bill of $550,000 (5.5% of the sale price)-this in addition to ordinary city and county transfer taxes that can total ~$56,000. Proceeds generated by the Mansion Tax-estimated to be between approximately $600 million and $1.1 billion annually-are intended to address the city’s homeless problem by funding affordable housing and tenant assistance programs.

As the April 1 effective date fast approaches, those thinking about selling real property in L.A. may want to act now to avoid the imposition of the Mansion Tax. That being said, the real estate professionals at Michelman & Robinson, LLP stand ready to provide any counsel you may need.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

It looks as though retail businesses employing 300 or more workers globally will soon be subject to a new set of requirements related to their employees within the City of Los Angeles.

Last week (on November 29), the L.A. City Council passed the Fair Work Week Ordinance, intended to “promote the health, safety, and welfare of retail workers in the City by providing them with a more predictable work schedule that ensures stability for themselves and their families and the opportunity to work more hours.” The Ordinance now goes to Mayor Eric Garcetti for his signature and if signed into law, as expected, qualifying retailers in L.A. will be faced with even more burdens around employee scheduling and pay. In anticipation of this apparent inevitability, Michelman & Robinson, LLP provides this overview of the new law.

Affected Employers

As referenced, the Ordinance applies to retail businesses or establishments that employ 300 or more employees worldwide. This includes, but is not limited to, motor vehicle and parts dealers, building material and garden equipment dealers, food and beverage retailers, grocery retailers, and electronics and appliance retailers. For purposes of this alert, all references to employer(s) are intended to be limited to qualifying dealers and retailers.

Affected Employees

The Ordinance applies to any individual employed by an employer. To the extent an employer contends that the Ordinance does not apply in any given circumstance, it has the burden of showing that a worker is not an employee under the law.

Requirements Under the Ordinance

Good Faith Estimate: Before hiring, employers must provide a good faith estimate of their would-be employees’ work schedules. Employers that deviate too far from this estimate in actual scheduling will need to provide a legitimate business reason to explain the deviation.

Right to Request Change: Employees have the right to request preferences for work hours and location. Employers may accept or deny these requests but must provide a reason for any denials in writing.

Work Schedule: Employers must provide employees with written notice of their work schedules at least 14 days in advance. Further, employers must provide written notice of any change that occurs after the two-week notice requirement. Employees have the right to decline any schedule changes. If an employee accepts a proposed change, the acceptance must be in writing.

Predictable Pay: If an employee agrees to a schedule change that does not result in loss of time or results in 15 or more minutes of additional work, the employer shall give an extra hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate. For example, if an employee is scheduled to work four hours on a Monday and agrees instead to work four hours on the following Tuesday, the employee will be eligible to be paid for an extra hour. Further, if the employee’s hours are reduced 15 or more minutes from what was indicated on a schedule, the employee shall receive half time for any time not worked. These pay requirements will not apply in certain circumstances including, but not limited to, (1) where an employee requests a change or (2) extra hours require overtime pay.

Additional Work Offerings: Before hiring new employees or using outside workers, employers must first offer existing work to current employees if one or more is qualified to do the job and the additional work would not result in overtime pay. Employers must make this offer of employment 72 hours before hiring someone new and must give current employees at least 48 hours to accept in writing.

Coverage:Employers cannot require employees to find coverage if they miss a shift for a reason covered by law.

Rest Between Shifts:Employers cannot schedule any employee for two consecutive shifts with less than 10 hours of rest in between them without written consent of the employee. If the employee does consent, he/she/they will be paid time and a half for the second shift.

Retention of Records: Employers must retain records for at least three years demonstrating compliance with the Ordinance as it pertains to current and past employees. Upon request, the Designated Administrative Agency (DAA)- in this case, the Office of Wage Standards (OWS) of the Bureau of Contract Administration-must be given access to these records, which include work schedules, copies of written offers to employees for additional work, and other correspondence with employees regarding scheduling.

Posting Notice: Employers must post notices about the Ordinance to be provided by the DAA in English, Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Hindi, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Armenian, Russian and Farsi, and any other language spoken by at least five percent of employees at any given workplace.

Retaliation Prohibited: Employers may not retaliate against employees for exercising their rights under the Ordinance.

If approved, the Ordinance will take effect in April 2023. Assuming it becomes law, the Ordinance will not be subject to waiver and violations will result in civil penalties up to $500 per infraction. Not only that, employees will also have a private right of action in the event of an alleged infraction. Of course, we will continue to monitor the progression of the Ordinance and report back if and when the Mayor signs it into law. In the meantime (and given the potential for legal exposure), it is essential that employers prepare for the enactment of the Ordinance as soon as is practicable.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.

There is groundbreaking news to report in the fast-food industry, at least in California. This month, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill (AB 257, the Fast-Food Accountability and Standards (FAST) Recovery Act) that puts the power to set minimum wages and working conditions for fast-food workers into the hands of a new council of employees, employers and union activists.

Formerly the domain of state and federal lawmakers, governance of the fast-food employment landscape will now be tasked to a 10-member government-appointed council that will operate within the California Department of Industrial Relations. This group will set minimum standards on wages, maximum allowable hours of work, working conditions, and training for fast-food restaurant employees.

The new law is a big win for unions. Pursuant to the terms of the bill, the council can authorize an increase of the minimum wage earned by fast-food employees up to $22 an hour in 2023. For 2024, the council can raise the hourly minimum wage by another 3.5% or a figure pegged to the U.S. consumer price index. In addition, the law now provides employees with another direct pathway to sue employers. Specifically, it authorizes fast-food restaurant workers to bring causes of action for discharge, discrimination, or retaliation for exercising rights under the FAST Recovery Act.

While a boon for more than 550,000 fast-food workers operating in approximately 30,000 locations throughout the Golden State, franchise owners may be hit hard by the law giving workers a seat at the table in terms of compensation and workplace health and safety. Importantly, the bill’s requirements only apply to fast-food establishments consisting of 100 or more locations nationally-those that (1) share a common brand or are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services; and (2) provide food or beverage for immediate consumption on or off premises to customers who order and pay for food before eating, with items prepared in advance or with items prepared or heated quickly, and with limited or no table service.

Going forward, fast-food operators outside California may want to pay close attention to this development, as the law may well serve as a model in other jurisdictions throughout the country. Of course, if you have any questions about AB 257 or any other employment-related inquiries, the employment specialists at Michelman & Robinson, LLP are here with answers.

This blog post is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice in specific situations.