Archive | Law/Courts

Valley Bar Beats Unfair Competition Suit

A state appellate court has affirmed the dismissal of a disbarred attorney’s claim against the San Fernando Valley Bar Association for not letting him buy a list it sells to members.

Joel Drum sought to use the state’s unfair Competition law to reverse a lower court’s decision against his claim that the bar association had used his disbarment as an excuse to not allow him to purchase its list of mediators.

The real reason, said Drum, who is himself a mediator, was to conceal his competitors’ prices. He believes his prices are lower than bar members’ prices for mediation services.

The Division Five Court of Appeals for the 2nd Appellate District was unconvinced by Drum’s argument, and upheld last year’s ruling and the bar’s right to withhold lists it sells to members from non-members.

Posted in Law/Courts2 Comments

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Congress has done it again. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), which became effective last year, prohibits discrimination against employees and job applicants on the basis of “genetic information”. This FAQ will familiarize you with the many obligations GINA imposes on employers.

Q. Which Employers/Employing Entities Are Subject To GINA?

A. Any private employer who has 15+ employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current (or preceding) calendar year is covered by GINA. Also, state and local government employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management training and apprenticeship programs.

Q. What Is “Genetic Information:?

A. Genetic information is information about: (1) the genetic tests of an individual, (2) the genetic tests of an individual’s family member, and/or (3) information about any disease, disorder, or condition of an individual’s family members (i.e. an individual’s family medical history).

Notably, GINA excludes from the definition of “genetic information” the manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition of an individual (as opposed to the individual’s family member). Genetic information also does not include an individual’s sex or age.

GINA defines a “family member” as any person who is within a fourth-degree relation of the individual. The EEOC’s proposed regulations further define “family member” as a person who is or becomes related through marriage, birth, adoption, or placement for adoption.

Q. What Discriminatory Acts Are Prohibited?

A. Genetic information cannot be the basis for any of the following actions by an employer:

• decisions not to hire an individual;

• decisions to terminate an employee;

• decisions that affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of an employee’s employment (e.g. anything that affects the employee’s position, wages, benefits);

• limiting, segregating, or classifying an employee in any way that would deprive the employee of employment opportunities or benefits or otherwise adversely affect the employee’s status in the workplace; and/or

• harassment of an employee or job applicant on the basis of genetic information or genetic status. This includes behavior by the employer, supervisor, co-worker, or someone with whom the employee or applicant interacts in the workplace.

Q. What Other Acts Are Covered?

A. GINA also prohibits employers from firing, demoting, harassing, or otherwise retaliating against an applicant or employee for: (i) complaining of discrimination; (ii) participating in an official discrimination proceeding; or (iii) otherwise opposing discrimination based on genetic information.

Q. Are There Prohibitions Against An Employer Acquiring An Employee’s Genetic Information?

A. Yes. An employer cannot request, require, or purchase genetic information about an applicant, employee or a family member of an employee, except under the following exceptions. The exceptions are:

• Inadvertent acquisitions of genetic information, such as when a manager or supervisor incidentally overhears someone talking about a family member’s illness;

• Genetic information obtained as part of health or genetic services, including wellness programs, offered by the employer where: (1) the employee provides prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization; (2) only the employee and health care professional receives individually identifiable information about the results of service; (3) the genetic information is available only for the purpose of the service; and (4) no identifying information is disclosed to the employer;

• Genetic information acquired as part of the certification process for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or similar state or local laws, where an employee is asking for leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition;

• Acquisition through commercially and publicly available documents (e.g., newspapers, books, magazines) is permitted, as long as the employer is not searching those sources with the intent of finding genetic information;

• Acquisition through a genetic monitoring program that monitors the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace is permitted where the monitoring is required by law or, under carefully defined conditions, where the program is voluntary; and/or

• Acquisition of genetic information of employees by employers who engage in DNA testing for law enforcement purposes, such as a forensic lab or for purposes of human remains identification.

Q. Does GINA Have Privacy Requirements Regarding Maintenance of Employee Genetic Information?

A. Yes. Employers must treat any records containing an employee’s genetic information just as you would confidential medical records. Employers may not disclose genetic information except as follows:

• to the employee (or family member if the family member is receiving the genetic service) at the written request of the employee;

• to an occupational or other health researcher for certain research projects;

• in response to an order of a court;

• to government officials who are investigating compliance with GINA if such information is relevant;

• to the extent such disclosure relates to an employee’s certification process for FMLA leave (or leave under similar state or local laws), where an employee is asking for leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition; and/or

• to a federal, state, or local public health agency as it concerns a contagious disease that presents an imminent hazard of death or life-threatening illness.

Q. Does GINA Contain Any Restrictions About Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Plans?

A. Yes. GINA prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by employer-sponsored group health plans. Health insurers may not adjust premium or contribution amounts based on genetic information. Also, health insurers may not request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except: (1) for the purpose of making payment determinations and the request seeks the minimum amount of information, and (2) for research purposes under certain circumstances. Lastly, health insurers cannot request, require, or purchase an individual’s genetic information prior to his or her enrollment under the plan or coverage. However, incidental collection will not be considered a violation.

Q. What Federal Agency Is Responsible For Enforcing GINA?

A. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) will enforce GINA. EEOC was expected to issue implementing regulations by now, but that process has been delayed.

Q. Does the GINA Law Make Changes To Any Other Employment Laws?

A. Yes. In typical Washington, D.C. fashion, the GINA law had some strings attached which had absolutely nothing to do with genetic information. GINA amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the penalty for child labor violations to $1,000 per violation and raises potential employer liability to $50,000 in cases of a minor’s death or serious injury. Such amounts may be doubled for willful violations.

 Recommendations: Employers should review and update their employment policies, practices, and procedures with labor counsel to ensure compliance with GINA. Management training on GINA is also important. Employers should be sure that the entire management team understands that they must refrain from requesting, requiring, or otherwise obtaining genetic information about any job applicant or employee. If you currently possess genetic information about an employee or applicant, ensure that the information is maintained in confidence on a separate form and in a separate medical file.

Posted in Government/Politics, Law/Courts, Small Business1 Comment

L.A.’s Unfair Tax Structure Sends Wrong Message

For some reason, the City of Los Angeles doesn’t like my kind. I know this is hard for many readers to understand, and the reason has nothing to do with my charming personality.

After some reflection, I have reached this conclusion based on the fact that the city charges me a far higher rate on my gross receipts taxes than most types of companies.

For the pleasure of operating a small public affairs firm (categorized as “professions and occupations”) in the City of Los Angeles, I am asked to pay a 5.7% tax on each $1,000 of my business grosses. In comparison, this category pays far higher tax rates than nearly every business imaginable.

Tugboat operators, who are known for their risqué tattoos and tobacco stained shirts, pay only 1.01% on every $1,000. Phone companies get the same low rate, along with child care providers and multimedia companies.

Antique show promoters, swap meet operators and landlords are taxed at 1.27%. So are shoe repairers, retailers and radio shock jocks.

Even those annoying telemarketers are taxed at nearly half the rate of my category. And for some reason, HMOs are taxed at the same rate as me, which begs the question what exactly did members of the professions and occupations category do to upset city lawmakers so much?

I raise this issue because the L.A. City Council reportedly is moving toward re-establishing the Business Tax Advisory Committee (BTAC) to help develop policy recommendations to attract businesses back to L.A.

Considering that the city has hardly added a single job since 1985 while adding 1 million residents, one has to wonder what took so long!

Nonetheless, I welcome City Hall’s renewed interest in creating jobs through policies that attract businesses as opposed to the many policies that have eroded L.A.’s competitiveness over the years.

However, I don’t think City Hall needs to wait several months for BTAC to make new recommendations — there are plenty of recommendations awaiting legislative action.

As a member for the last two years of BTAC’s five-year existence, I became quite familiar with L.A.’s tax structure and how unfavorable it continues to be compared to neighboring cities such as Glendale and Burbank, neither of which even has gross receipts taxes.

After a lot of hard work under the admirable leadership of co-chairs Mel Kohn and Jack Walker, BTAC was only able to convince the city council to adopt a modest 15% cut spread out over five years. Thanks to the efforts of City Councilmembers Tony Cardenas, Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel (and others), the city council also simplified the tax structure by reducing the categories from approximately 65 to just seven. In addition, most businesses were exempted from having to pay the tax if their annual gross receipts were under $100,000. Startups were also exempted.

Five years later, revenues from the gross receipts tax is higher even though the tax rates are lower, much to the surprise of skeptical council members who dragged their feet on tax reform for years. At the same time, L.A.’s ranking on the annual Rose-Kosmont Cost of Doing Business Survey has fallen.
In hindsight, VICA had it right when it called on the city to simply “axe the tax.” Obviously, the city council never would have gone along with eliminating the tax entirely, so all I am saying is that I wish my fellow BTAC members and I had been more aggressive in pursuing a more significant tax reduction for all businesses.
While serving on BTAC, several policymakers inquired why the city couldn’t just split the difference between the lowest tax categories and the highest tax categories so that every business owner paid a simple flat tax. From the perspective of a small business owner who is placed in the highest tax category, I like that idea! Then again, those in the lowest rates would complain that their taxes had increased, and rightfully so. The whole question is moot , however, when one explains that any tax hike proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the voters, something that is not going to happen.

Since BTAC disbanded, two “blue ribbon” committees studied business climate issues and made a series of recommendations on how to improve L.A.’s poor image and to create new jobs often while saving the city money. One such committee was the mayor’s economy & Jobs Committee, which two years ago this month, made 100 recommendations. The other committee, Business Retention and Recruitment Advisory Task Force (BRRAT), was chaired by me and released a similar set of recommendations a few weeks before the Jobs Committee.

With the exception of some minor progress at LAX and the recent creation of the City Council Jobs & Economy Committee, none of the recommendations from either group has been taken seriously in the last two years.

To its credit, the city council seems to be moving ahead on making L.A. more “film-friendly.” Acting upon recommendations from the CAO’s “Ugly Betty” report, Councilman Richard Alarcon is pursuing a series of reforms geared to filmmakers. These include making city facilities easier for filmmakers to access and placing “Energy nodes” at popular shoot locations.

While the CAO’s recommendations are helpful, they miss out on addressing the most important factor in explaining why entertainment-related businesses and all the others (except for pot dispensaries) find other cities less costly. They are less costly because their tax rates are significantly lower — some don’t even have a gross receipts tax for businesses.

For the next generation of BTAC members, please don’t dance around the primary reason businesses leave Los Angeles.

Instead, please seek further reductions in the gross receipts tax rates and get L.A. on the path to eventually being on par with neighboring cities without business taxes. If “axing the tax” is not feasible, then please pursue getting all businesses into the lowest category of 1.01%.

Short of that, I’d feel better about myself if my taxes could be lowered at least to the tax rates that include telemarketers. And I’ll promise not to call anyone during dinner.

Brendan Huffman is the owner of Huffman Public Affairs, a policy consulting firm in Studio City, and is the host of “Off The Presses,” an internet talk radio show broadcast via www.LATalkRadio.com.

Posted in Law/Courts5 Comments