Suttons Bay Law

Amendments to Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (”NDAA”). Although the NDAA is a defense appropriations law, it includes amendments to the family military leave provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (”FMLA”). These recent changes to FMLA deal primarily with qualifying exigency leave and military caregiver leave.

Qualifying Exigency Leave
The NDAA expands the exigency leave available under the FMLA to eligible family members of active-duty service members, and also amends the FMLA to provide eligible employees with up to 12 workweeks of leave during the designated 12-month FMLA leave year when the employee’s son, daughter or parent (who is a “covered military member”) is on active duty or call-to-active-duty status for one or more qualifying exigencies. Prior to these amendments, FMLA qualified exigency leave applied to Reserve and National Guard members only, and not members of the regular Armed Forces. Qualifying exigency leave includes: short-notice deployment; military events and related activities; child care and school activities; financial and legal arrangements; counseling, rest and recuperation; post-deployment activities; and any other event the employer and employee agree is a qualifying exigency.

Military Caregiver Leave
Additionally, the NDAA extends eligibility for military caregiver leave to the families of veterans, not just current members of the Armed Forces. Caregiver leave provides eligible employees, who are the spouse, son, daughter, parent or next of kin of covered military members of the Armed Forces, including members of the National Guard or Reserves, 26 workweeks of leave during a 12-month period to care for that military member, who because of a serious injury or illness, is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list. The law extends the 26 weeks of leave to family members of veterans who are undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy for a serious injury or illness at any time during the period of five years preceding the date on which the veteran undergoes that treatment. Therefore, the caregiver would be able to take up to 26 weeks of leave to care for a veteran for up to five years after the military member leaves military service.

These changes, presumed to be effective immediately, will once again require employers to update their FMLA policies and inform proper personnel accordingly.

Dan A. Penning

Tags: Employment Law, Know it Now by Dan Penning
No Comments »

You write a check, but, by the time it’s presented to your bank for payment, there’s not enough money in your account to cover it. You go to the ATM and make a withdrawal, or, use a debit card to make a purchase, but, unknown to you, there is not enough money in your account to cover the transaction. What happens? One would think that the check would be returned for nonsufficient funds and the ATM and debit card transactions would simply be denied. Not necessarily so. To the contrary, most banks will automatically advance the funds to cover the check, the ATM withdrawal and the debit card purchase. Then, the next time you make a deposit, they will pay themselves back, along with an overdraft fee.

With check writing going the way of the rotary dial telephone (industry sources estimate that 75% of financial transactions today are electronic), banks and credit unions are increasingly turning to overdraft fees on electronic transactions to bolster their bottom lines in these tough economic times. In fact, it is anticipated that the financial services industry will make $38 billion in income in 2009 from overdraft fees alone, which typically run about $35 per transaction.

While the idea that your bank will cover your overdraft transaction may sound like a good thing, the problem is that the $3 latte at your favorite coffee house that you paid for with your debit card may end up costing you as much as $40 once the overdraft fee is added. And, in many cases, due to the timing of transactions, you may have no idea that your account is overdrawn in the first place, which leads to even more fees. What began as a good idea for bank customers has led to consumer outrage, increasing government scrutiny and class action lawsuits across the country against the nation’s largest banks. While the US Congress considers legislation to reign in what it believes to be abusive and unfair practices involving overdraft fees, the Federal Reserve Board, on November 12, 2009, announced sweeping new rules regulating overdraft fees on ATM and one-time debit card transactions. Those rules, intended to enable consumers to limit their exposure to overdraft fees, include the following provisions:

1. Consumers must affirmatively consent to being enrolled in the institution’s overdraft protection service for ATM and one-time debit transactions (”opt-in”) before overdraft fees can be assessed. This is a marked change from the current policy of many institutions whereby the mere issuance of an ATM or debit card includes automatic enrollment in the institution’s overdraft protection program. The rule also affords the ongoing right to revoke such consent at any time;

2. The opt-in requirement applies to all consumers, including existing account holders;

3. The rules do not apply to overdraft protection for written checks and automatic on-line bill pay; banks may continue to enroll customers in those programs automatically. However, the new rules prohibit banks from tying overdraft protection for checks and automatic bill pay to a requirement that consumers also opt-in to overdraft protection for ATM and debit card transactions;

4. The rules require institutions to provide consumers who do not opt-in with the same account terms, conditions, features and prices, as those provided to consumers who do opt-in; and

5. Compliance by July 1, 2010 is mandatory.

Irrespective of this action by the Federal Reserve, Congress continues to draft and debate its own legislative response to this situation. Much can, and undoubtedly will, happen between now and July 1, 2010 as financial institutions react to these new mandates. (For more information, please visit the website for the Federal Reserve at: www.federalreserve.gov, or, simply keyword search “overdraft fees” using your internet browser.)

Dan A. Penning

Tags: Know it Now, Personal Management by Dan Penning
No Comments »

With only seven weeks left in the year, it’s certainly time to think about year-end tax planning!

If you’re considering buying a new car, you’ll want to do it before December 31 in order to take advantage of a special sales tax deduction on up to $49,500 of the cost of a new vehicle bought before 2010. If you don’t itemize, you can add the sales tax on to your standard deduction.
On the other hand, if you’re planning to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth, you may want to wait until next year as the tax on 2010 conversions can be spread out over two years instead of one. 2010 is also the year that the ban on IRA conversions by high-income earners disappears. Taxpayers in the highest tax bracket, however, may want to pay all the tax on conversion in 2010 as many are predicting that the top income tax rate will jump from 35% to 39.6% in 2011.

Most investors suffered big losses last year, a portion of which may have carried over into 2009. If you fit into that category and you now have appreciated stock that you would like to sell, consider doing it before year end in order to take advantage of the opportunity to offset your gain on the sale against your loss carryover.

Some analysts are warning that an inordinate number of Americans may be facing underpayment income tax penalties in April. Now is the time to assess how much tax you are having taken out of your paycheck and to adjust your withholding for December as necessary. As long as you prepay 90% of the year’s tax bill, you will avoid any underpayment penalty.

If charitable giving is part of your year-end routine, please remember that your checks to charitable organizations must be postmarked by December 31 in order for the gifts to be deductible this year. Gift checks to individuals, on the other hand, must be cashed by the 31st.

Tags: Asset Protection, Know it Now by Dan Penning
No Comments »

Criminals use many methods to steal personal information from taxpayers. They can use your information to steal your identity and file a tax return in order to receive a refund. Here are ten things the IRS wants individuals to know about identity theft so you can avoid becoming the victim of a scam artist.

1. Identity thieves get your personal information by many different means, including stealing a wallet or purse or accessing information you provide to an unsecured Internet site. They even look for personal information in your trash. They also pose as someone who needs information through a phone call or e-mail.
2. The IRS does not initiate contact with a taxpayer by e-mail.
3. If you receive an e-mail scam, forward it to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov.
4. If you receive a letter from the IRS leading you to believe your identity has been stolen, respond immediately to the name, address or phone number on the IRS notice.
5. Your identity may be stolen if a letter from the IRS indicates more than one tax return was flied for you or the letter states you received wages from an employer you don’t know.
6. If your Social Security number is stolen, it may be used by another individual to get a job. That person’s employer would report income earned to the IRS using your Social Security number, making it appear that you did not report all of your income on your tax return.
7. If your tax records are not currently affected by identity theft, but you believe you may be at risk due to a lost wallet, questionable credit card activity, or credit report, you need to provide the IRS with proof of your identity. You should submit a copy of your valid government - issued identification - such as a Social Security card, driver’s license, or passport - along with a copy of a police report and/or a completed Form 14039, IRS Identity Theft Affidavit.
8. Show your Social Security card to your employer when you start a job or to your financial institution for tax reporting purposes. Do not routinely carry your card or other documents that display your SSN.
9. If you have previously been in contact with the IRS and have not achieved a resolution, please contact the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit, toll-free at 1-800-908-4490.

For more information about identity theft - including information about how to report identity theft, phishing and related fraudulent activity - visit the IRS Identity Theft Resource Page, which you can find by typing Identity Theft in the search box on the IRS.gov home page.

Dan A. Penning

Tags: Asset Protection, Know it Now by Dan Penning
No Comments »

From an article quoting Wright Penning & Beamer partner Dirk A. Beamer which appeared in The News Herald:

Saturday, October 31, 2009

By Jason Alley

DETROIT — The city of Ecorse has filed a lawsuit against a former mayor who is seeking re-election Tuesday, alleging that he owes the city more than $90,000 for a legal battle he lost in 2007.

A neighbor of former Mayor Larry Salisbury sued him years ago in both his official capacity as mayor and as an individual, claiming that Salisbury harassed him and denied him the city approval needed to sell his house.

A federal jury heard the case and sided with the neighbor, Joseph Door. The jury ordered the city to pay Door $11,000 and for Salisbury to individually pay him $66,000.

Nearly four months later, the federal court also ordered the city and Salisbury to jointly pay Door’s attorney fees and costs totaling nearly $30,000.

While mayor, Salisbury had the city put up a bond with taxpayer money to satisfy the judgment against him while he appealed the verdict, according to the latest lawsuit.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the jury’s decision Dec. 29, 2008, and ordered the city and Salisbury to pay Door the money he was owed.

Since that time, the latest lawsuit alleges, Salisbury has never reimbursed the city for the amount that was fronted to cover his part of the judgment.

“Salisbury owed a duty of loyalty and a duty of good faith to (the) city,” the lawsuit says. “It was Salisbury’s duty to promote and protect the financial interests of the city, and it was his duty not to exploit the financial interests of the city for his personal gain or benefit.”

Attorney Dirk Beamer, who filed the suit on behalf of the city, said he isn’t sure Salisbury was authorized to use “cash out of the city’s coffers” to pay for a judgment against him individually.

“We question the propriety of him in the first place allowing the bond to be placed on his behalf with city funds,” Beamer said. “The city has effectively been forced to cover what is his own personal liability. … The city, obviously, is in need of funds and should be reimbursed by Mr. Salisbury.”

While the case was filed days before the election, Beamer said the timing is coincidental at best.

“People can infer what they choose to … but it’s a straightforward fact that there is money advanced or paid and arguably should not have been,” he said.

Salisbury declined to comment on the allegations of the suit, but through a spokesman said he intends to file a grievance with the State Bar of Michigan against the city’s attorney for abuse of process by bringing the case against him.

The lawsuit was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court and has been assigned to Judge Jeanne Stempien.

Contact Staff Writer Jason Alley at jalley@heritage.com or at 1-734-246-0867.

Read the entire article and comments posted on The News Herald website.

Tags: Disputes & Litigation by Dan Penning
No Comments »

Statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) confirm what many of us lawyers defending businesses already knew: the number of discrimination charges filed against employers continues to grow each year. In the current economic climate, employers are more vulnerable than ever as terminated employees look for any recourse that might soften the economic blow of losing a job.

Before pursuing a lawsuit under state or federal anti-discrimination laws, employees must first pursue administrative relief with the State Department of Civil Rights or the EEOC. Once a claim or “charge” is filed, the employer will be notified and given the opportunity to file a written response. An investigation then ensues, which results in a written determination on whether discrimination occurred.

Many employers fail to appreciate the potential implications of a poorly handled EEOC investigation. They tend to process the initial request for information and response in the same way they might handle an application for unemployment or worker’s compensation benefits. Consequently, the response is often relegated to, and drafted by, a bookkeeper or office manager who lacks training in this area. Not infrequently, the same manager who mishandled the termination process in the first place is assigned the job of addressing the EEOC charge.

This lack of attention can needlessly extend what should be a straightforward investigation. Worse, it may generate a paper trail of careless, potentially harmful statements that will be attributed to the employer if the employee ultimately files a lawsuit. Worse still, a poorly handled investigation may convince the EEOC that discrimination did occur and that the EEOC should step in itself to bring a lawsuit against the employer on the employee’s behalf. What started as an irritating bit of “paperwork” has become a two-headed monster well beyond the employer’s ability to control.

Now more than ever, it is imperative that employers be cautious, informed and proactive when dealing with employee discipline and termination. Seek counsel before you act. And if you do receive notice that a charge of discrimination has been filed, give it undivided and immediate attention. If you fail to do so, it most certainly will demand that much more time and attention in the days and weeks to come.

Dan A. Penning

Tags: Employment Law, Know it Now by Dan Penning
No Comments »