November 19, 2014
I have been dealing with the Department of Labor, which selected an immigrant-owned small business to audit for compliance with minimum wage and overtime laws. After the audit these unfortunate people were told that they were subject to a fine of over $100,000. The Department of Labor refused to disclose the basis of this finding but the responsible agent did give us a brief summary of the conclusions. Great pressure was then put on the owners to respond within a couple of days. This of course would give no meaningful opportunity to go over the daily time records for the 16 month period of the audit, in order to verify the Department’s conclusions.
The reason for this demand of a hasty response seems to have been that the Department of Labor’s accusations and conclusions were not supported the records of the little business. The time records, many of which the Department of Labor had not even looked at, refuted the claims against the small business. We scoured the time records to see how they might have been interpreted to support the allegations of the Department and could not imagine how it justified its claims.
I sent a letter explaining what the time records said. I couple of weeks later I got an email from the agent who made the assessment, saying she’d get back to me next week with a response. That was over two months ago. Still waiting.
At first blush it looks like the agent was trying to make her bones at the Department by abusing a vulnerable business in which the owners, because of language and culture issues, were unlikely to be able to defend themselves and might be daunted by the possibility of this the affecting their immigration status. My guess though is that the agent was relying on accusations of disgruntled former employees, putting greater reliance on that than a careful examination of the records.
Small businesses have enough difficulties in the roiling seas of commerce without being subject to this kind of abuse. The risks here are best limited by accurate and well organized record keeping and by having the employees sign a form at the time of their departure from the job that includes reference to such matters.
November 17, 2014
Every business owner must be aware of the Department of Labor’s method of computing overtime. Some businesses are paying the correct amount of money and being assessed substantial penalties. A common example of this is an employer who employs someone six days a week. The employer give a fixed amount for the six days. This amount may include time and a half for the hours worked over forty hours each week. This meets the Washington State and federal requirements for payment of overtime, but not the recordkeeping requirements of the federal enforcement agency, the Department of Labor. The DOL will take the position that the pay check does not include overtime and treat the check as payment for six days at the regular hourly rate, then make as assessment equal to the number of overtime hours times fifty percent of the hourly rate which it has computed. This amounts to a payment for overtime more than twice the amount due the employee. The DOL can assess double the amount that it deems underpaid and is authorized to recommend criminal action.
There is no legitimate argument that businesses should not be paying overtime but the means of enforcing the law creates a trap for vulnerable businesses which are paying overtime.
November 17, 2014
What is more complicated than the law? Answer: family. I recently got a call from a woman living with her aunt, who had given her a room for the past five years. The reason for the call was that she had received from her aunt a written demand that she leave or start paying rent. My enraged caller demanded to know whether this notice complied with landlord-tenant law and whether she had recourse against her aunt for failure to recognize her rights as a tenant. This caused me to wonder how many “legal matters” could be better resolved with good counseling. A high percentage I suspect.
Contracts sometimes have mediation clauses in them. This does not often lead to resolution of a heated dispute because neither side is bound by an outcome and it is easy to dispense with a mediator’s recommendations as being biased or ignorant. I suppose a mandatory counseling clause would suffer the same fate.
November 6, 2014
Want your day in court and want to avoid exposure to lawyers? When a person represents himself or herself that person is said to be appearing before the court pro se. People appearing pro se are not usually successful when they are matched against a lawyer on the other side but that unfortunate situation is entirely avoided in small claims court where lawyers are barred from appearing for others.
In Washington claims up to $5000 can be heard in small claims court. Each side can present its version of the case, call witnesses, and present evidence, all without the involvement of lawyers. The rules of evidence are very loosely applied, as the litigants customarily are unfamiliar with the rules.
I’ve sat in on small claims cases. Most of the judges acted as facilitators, helping the participants through the procedural confusion; a few act like bejeweled potentates, but that is certainly not the norm. The average case that I saw lasted ten to twenty minutes, maybe a little more.
If your claim is more than $5000 but for one reason or another you feel that it is not worth hiring a lawyer, you can bring the action for $5000 in small claims court, waiving your right to the excess amount. The outcome of small claims cases is not entirely predictable but the price is right. If you do go there, it’s a good idea to have lawyer look at your complaint and discuss it with you for an hour or so.
November 5, 2014
A common document for which I have not see a standard form is the water easement. The laws of the various states different in the treatment of these easements but nonetheless there are some common technical issues that the drafter should consider. The term “water easement” commonly means one of two things. First, it might transfer the right to draw water from a site. The phrase is also used to describe the right to convey water by pipe or trough across or beneath the land of another. A water easement of either sort should also contain an access easement and auxiliary rights related to the maintenance, repair, replacement and possibly construction of improvements.
The easement may either be given to the owner of land so that the easement rights pass automatically with the transfer of title to the land or given to a person or entity. The first type of easement is called an appurtenant easement, even though in Washington the two parcels are not necessarily required to have a common boundary. The second mentioned type of easement is somewhat awkwardly called an easement in gross. (American law is derived from English law but easements in gross are not recognized in England. This concept is derived from Roman law.) It should be clear which of these alternatives is intended and if the easement is intended to benefit a person or entity, then the drafter has to be concerned that the easement is valid under state law.
If the intention is merely to give a person permission to draw water or convey it across land, then consideration should be given to calling the right a license, rather than an easement. Licenses are less formal and less likely to impact title. They are also usually revocable. An irrevocable license requires consideration and is best treated with the formality of a commercial easement in gross.
In any case the instrument should always contain all intended conditions on the use. For example, there might a set duration, a limit on amount of water, limitations on access, size of pipe, licensing, type of use, who may use the easement, a condition related to the land owner’s use of the property. From the land owner’s perspective rather than having a long list of conditions, it might be best to use a nonassignable, revocable license.
Easements should contain the legal description of the land that is subject to the easement and should in most cases be recorded. Easements appurtenant should also describe the benefitted land. It is prudent to specify the amount of water that is authorized to be taken from the source, permitted use and sometimes the depth of a well. Remember that in Washington the land owner will be required to sign a covenant that prohibits use within one hundred feet of a well used for drinking water.
If the easement is given for future development it is best to make it immediately effective, not effective whenever the development occurs to avoid creating a voidable future interest.