Mediation Update

Last month, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire issued a decision titled “Lillie-Putz Trust v. Downeast Energy” in which the Court affirmed two superior court orders, dismissing the Trust’s writ with prejudice and denying a motion for reconsideration, based on the Trust’s refusal to appear for a scheduled mediation. The case provides a good reminder that Courts take the mediation process seriously, and participants should as well. That approach not only complies with Superior Court Rule 170 – it vastly increases the chances for resolution, and probably saves all participants from higher litigation costs and business disruption.

-Submitted By Christopher Pyles, Esq.
603-629-4725
cpyles@wiggin-nourie.com

Get Your Mandatory DOL Posters – for free!

For Employers – Remember, you are required to conspicuously post various Department of Labor notices. The Department has recently sent out reminders that those mandatory posters are available, for free. Go to:

http://www.labor.state.nh.us/mandatory_posters.asp for further details.

-Submitted By Christopher Pyles, Esq.
603-629-4725
cpyles@wiggin-nourie.com

Appearances at Hearings Can Matter

A September article in the Wall Street Journal highlights how judges and juries may take a person’s appearance into account during a trial. While common sense dictates that parties appearing in court, or before administrative agencies, should dress appropriately, the WSJ article from Thursday, September 2, 2010, written by Christina Binkley and entitled “Opening Statement: What to Wear to Court” provides a good reminder that proper attire shows respect for the tribunal, shows that the person is taking the proceeding seriously, and can even send a more subtle message about the party or witness. While the appearance of a person should not make or break a case, the article is a good reminder that a tribunal may look beyond objective facts, and may consider appearances when making judgments about credibility. The article focuses on the courtroom, but the message holds true for administrative hearings and even meetings with investigators or auditors.

-Submitted By Christopher Pyles, Esq.
603-629-4725
cpyles@wiggin-nourie.com

Employee Theft and Unemployment Benefits

An employer may terminate an employee for stealing, and the employee cannot collect unemployment benefits. Accordingly, the employer does not suffer any adverse impact on its unemployment tax rate. However, a recently passed law now allows employees who steal less than $500 from a previous employer to collect benefits, if they are laid off from their next job, and credits the employee for the time they worked at their previous job even though they were fired for stealing. According to a very helpful article in the New Hampshire Business Review for the week of August 27, 2010, the new law clarifies the term “gross misconduct” by removing the word “dishonesty” and replacing it with “theft of an amount greater than $500.” The NHBR article, written by Bob Sanders, provides a complete analysis of the change, and some interesting statistics on gross misconduct in the workplace.

-Submitted By Christopher Pyles, Employment Attorney
603-629-4725
cpyles@wiggin-nourie.com