Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Not sure if you’ve received anything yet, but NJ put out a guide recently. Apparently how you answer(ed) the questions when you apply matters a lot. And how you should answer them wasn’t exactly clear. The guide they put out gives more specific instruction and helps clear up the confusion.
Generally, the mortgage company just wants to make sure the work is done and repaired per code to protect their interest in the property. As long as that is the case the amount rarely will cause an issue.
Since my first Teams/telephonic hearing I have kept the mute button on by default. Wonder if the justice thought he had it on.
@bigbottom is the employment guy as I recall. I think that this is more than nothing, but I'm not sure if it's something.
California is a state that actually has some employment laws on the books regarding political activities. Here are a couple articles on the topic.
Thanks for these. I read over them—a lot of them don’t deal directly with my situation. I don’t think my boss is trying to. Influence the staff for political action (which is what some of those links mention)—-it’s more like I’ve told her that I don’t want to hear anything dismissive or political about the virus as I do not feel comfortable politicizing people dying of illness and it’s something that I am sensitive about in regards to my own health and my elderly mothers health condition. Even with that knowledge—she thinks it’s okay to group message and email us propoganda that is the very nature of what I told her that I am not comfortable with. If an employee tells a superior that they do not feel comfortable discussing a non-work related topic at the workplace—and that superior continues to bring that very topic up over and over again—does that qualify as a form of hostile work environment? By the way—thank you very much for your thoughts and for taking the time.bigbottom said:
I doubt that would rise to the level of being an actionable hostile work environment claim, even in California. First, to give rise to a legal claim, the unwelcome behavior must involve or be directed at a protected characteristic. In other words, the harassment has to be based on your gender, your race, your national origin, your religion, etc. Now, you mentioned you are immune compromised, so perhaps you have a recognized disability or medical condition. However, I don’t see how her general statements directed to a group regarding her personal beliefs about COVID-19 would be considered harassment based on purported disability. Moreover, to be actionable harassment, the unwelcome conduct has to be either severe or pervasive. A communication like the one you mentioned will not be deemed severe. Whether or not it is pervasive depends on how often she brings this up. Is it isolated and sporadic, or is it a regular occurrence? In any event, it sounds to me highly unlikely that you would get past the first prong unless her comments were directly related to your disability or immune-compromised status.
Just wanted to thank you very much for your time to explain things to me to in such a detailed but also understandable fashion. Your input went above and beyond what I was expecting. I suspected that by itself that there probably wasn't much that I could do--but I did "reply all" to her email and saved a copy of my reply in my archives. In the reply all I said that from this point on--I'd like any email or contact from my employer to be business related and that I find political emails/communications from my employer to be out of line and offensive. She replied that "she was not trying to influence or pressure anybody politically" to where I replied all again "that any employee inherently feels pressure to read emails from their employer and that this is exactly why this needs to stop"--and so far no response. Maybe she got the point--but I figure that I will continue to clearly document that those types of communications are not welcome and are offensive to me--and if she continues to do it--I do think that clear documentation of it can probalby help me somehow if I needed it. Thank you again for your time and efforts.
Plus if she fires you because you challenge her about this, then you probably have a pretty legit claim if you document it first.
laintiffguy:
Sorry I missed this post. Happy to offer my perspective, for whatever that’s worth. Best of luck and I hope things improve.
I don't hope that happens--but I honestly get the feeling that she's passive aggressively trying to make my life at work a living hell because my political beliefs are not in line with hers. I had told her in February that the coronavirus was a big deal and that I think it could effect the business--and she basically laughed me off. When the lockdown started--I took a paycut--and worked mainly from home--but did go into the office a few days a week to receive packages, return calls, and to take pictures of merchandise that I could use to contact clients about digitally. Even though I made enough sales and profit to more than cover the reduced salary that I was making (I also brought her much needed liquidity in an environment where basically no business was being conducted in our industry)--she would constantly send me texts/emails almost guilting me for the fact that I was not laid off--even though I took like a 40% paycut. Last year--she was going to hire an accountant to do our books--and every accountant that she interviewed said that our invoicing and pricing system is complex that it would cost $1200-1500/month to do it. I offered her an annual contract at the beginning of the year to do it for less than $700/month and that I'd do it outside of work hours--and I even volunteered to do 3 months of accounting for free because of the pandemic. I've basically single handedly ran and grew her buisness for like 15 years straight--and sevral years ago--she brought her ex husband (and father of her child) in to work at the shop. I caught him red handed stealing sales/commissions from other employees and myself several times with clear documentation--and he got nothing more than slap on the wrist. The dude is a good salesperson--but because of their past history--he knows exactly how to handle and manipulate her into getting his way. Ever since the pandemic--we've been doing staggered shifts to avoid cross contamination and cross exposure of the staff--and they are always working together. They share the same political beliefs and they both are dismissive of the lockdown and the virus-- but I don't have that luxury. I am immune compromised and I take care of my 80 year old diabetic mother.Plus if she fires you because you challenge her about this, then you probably have a pretty legit claim if you document it first.
I read it. I think you're a good dude, jvd, and I wish you the best. Politicizing the virus has become one of my pet peeves. Viruses know no politics. They just are, existing if the host is suitable. Anyway, that sounds awful. Like I said, best of luck.
It's pretty settled that prosecutors have broad discretion whether to prosecute. It's also pretty settled/common for prosecuting agencies to have a clear hierarchical structure so while the prosecutor of record may have general discretion on his or her case it isn't shocking to see a higher-up step in and that probably protects the attorney of record ethically (I once had a prosecutor, as we're walking in to pick the jury say to me, "I hope you win. I don't think your guy is guilty but my bosses won't let me drop it."). So, while this is certainly strange - as the prosecutors on the Flynn case have a lot of experience (and were probably rightfully pissed when their bosses stepped in) - it's, unfortunately, not the craziest thing ever and it may not even be unethical (frankly, I found it more questionable that the judge demanded to know motivations).
You take a PM on JAG? Don't want to clutter the thread but have toyed with this on and off and every year or so I do a little more research and get a little more serious about it.-OZ- said:
I know when I was getting a divorce, I started by looking for an attorney who was a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. I don't know how much that means, but I was looking for an attorney who focused on matrimonial law.
I do a lot of divorce work - albeit not in that jurisdiction (although I may have a referral - let me try to find it).
My wife went to law school with someone who practices family law in the Denver area. Happy to shoot name/firm over PM.
I've worked with some of the top estate people in the Seattle area on some fairly massive family trust and business issues. I've never known if any of them has an LLM. I just looked at a handful of their profiles and none seem to have one.
I like the litigation part and really like doing appeals. Dealing with clients is the part that sucks for me.
Begging for work is fun too. Love business development. Must have been nice in the old days when the clients just showed up.
Hearing “not guilty” across the board with a client facing natural life in prison ranks right up there with having sex for the first time, winning a major sporting event, getting married, adopting my kids, etc. That will never go away. But these moments are few and far between (3x so far and have another shot at it in September).
My clients just show up. We actually cut our marketing budget to 0 two years ago. Just living on reputation and referrals now.
Not a lawyer here and this may be off-topic, but i'm curious. Do you think the bold is something that's seen in most professions? In essence, the excitement wears off after a period of time? Or do you think the stress of the job and the wear and tear of the gig makes it more exclusive with law? Or perhaps found more often in law than in other fields?
after early hopes of a very solid settlement due to some very reasonable early moves, the defense decided to ignore the mediator's recommendation and make a series of stupid, if not offensive, offers in the afternoon. not a complete waste of a day but close.
It would have made it more difficult to just stop negotiating and walk away, since she would have had to fly here. But given her history, it seems like she comes to mediation sessions lacking settlement authority and engages in negotiations until she is able to determine a likely settlement range. Then she throws a fit about how unreasonable the demands are and goes home and gets settlement authority from actual decision makers.Zow said:
Ah.
