BREAKS FOR NURSING MOTHERS

Many of the provisions of the health care reform legislation do not take effect for years to come, but a new breastfeeding break requirement took effect on March 23, 2010 with very little media attention. Employers now are required to provide reasonable break times for female employees for lactation purposes for one year after the child's birth. Employers are required to provide a reasonable amount of break time to express milk as frequently as needed by the nursing mother, but an employer is not required to compensate an employee for this break unless the employer already provides compensated breaks and the employee uses that time for nursing. Employers must provide a location for breastfeeding, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the pubic. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to the break time requirement if compliance would impose an undue hardship, determined by looking at the difficulty or expense of compliance for a specific employer in comparison to the size, financial resources, nature, and structure of the employer's business.


-Submitted By Meredith Cook, Esq.
603-629-4511
mcook@wiggin-nourie.com

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

Bullying in the Workplace

Over the last several months, school bullying has received increasing attention. From the cases of Phoebe Prince and Carl Walker-Hoover in Massachusetts, to the New Hampshire case involving older children bullying a younger child to get a tattoo, the heightened concern over school bullying has led to legislation. Several months ago, Governor Lynch signed a Bill into law that revised the People’s Safety and Violence Prevention Act, to protect children from physical, emotional and psychological violence caused by bullying and cyber-bullying.

New Hampshire, New York, and at least fourteen other states have explored expanding anti-bullying legislation from the school to the workplace. New Hampshire’s proposal was tabled without further action in February 2010, and none of the other states have passed their bills into law. The growing legislative interest in prohibiting workplace conduct that may be insulting, threatening, intimidating, or humiliating is worth tracking. Legislative materials filed in New York suggest that bullying claims are four times more prevalent than sexual harassment claims, so the passage of any workplace bullying law could very likely lead to an increase in claims. While every employer should take reasonable precautions to make sure that employees act professionally, the potential for anti-bullying laws impacting the workplace is a possible expansion in law that bears monitoring.

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

Tax-Free Death of a Billionaire?

George Steinbrenner's death in July of 2010 is likely to result in a federal estate tax savings of an estimated $500 million dollars for his heirs. The federal estate tax has lapsed this year and, if no further Congressional action is taken, it will resurface in 2011 with a mere $1 million per-person exemption. Had Steinbrenner died in 2009, when the federal estate tax was 45 percent, with a $3.5 million per-person exemption, his estimated $1.1 billion estate could have paid federal estate taxes of almost $500 million, depending on how the estate was structured.

Steinbrenner's estate will still be liable for any applicable state level estate taxes, but New York's State's estate tax is 16%. Neither will his heirs completely escape taxes as they will still have to ultimately pay a capital gains tax if and when assets are sold. And due to a change in tax law this year, the tax would be applied to the amount by which the assets have appreciated since Steinbrenner acquired them. There also continues to be the lingering threat made by some members of Congress that they will seek to impose the 2009 federal estate tax retroactive to the beginning of 2010. As the year progresses, it appears increasingly unlikely that the estate tax will be retroactively imposed. Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that the constitutionality of such a decision would be litigated for years to come, and that the retroactive imposition of the tax would be fraught with practical complications, Steinbrenner's estate has not alluded the estate tax entirely quite yet.

- Jaime Gillis, Estate Planning Attorney