Friday, July 31, 2015
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Thursday, July 30, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Monday, July 27, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Friday, July 24, 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
- What is the new salary test for exempt status?
- What do I do with my exempt employees who will not meet the new salary threshold?
- What is the duties test for white collar exemptions and how will changes affect the status of my currently exempt staff?
- What do I have to do to comply with new record keeping requirements for exempt employees?
- What is the best way for an employer to implement these new changes in the law?
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
I am still in court five years after Ms. Thomson represented me during my divorce proceedings. Her lack of basic business skills and detachment from her fiduciary responsibilities has cost me everything. She failed to show up for a nine hour mediation because she had vacation days. She failed to subpoena documents that are critical to the division of assets in any divorce proceeding. In fact, she did not subpoena any documents at all. My interests were simply not protected in any meaningful way.
The Washington court rejected both standards, however, in favor of a standard that requires the plaintiff to provide supporting evidence beyond the pleading standards before an anonymous speaker's identity is released. Applying this more stringent standard, the court held that Thompson was not entitled to disclosure of the Avvo.com poster's identity.
Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf
Monday, July 20, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
1. No Joke - April 1st Deadline to Post Elected Officials' Emails on Website
2. Government Emails on Private Devices and Accounts
3. Zoo Worker Fired for Social Media Post about the Public
4. Q&A About Email Posting Requirement
5. Political Signs and Municipal Regulation
6. Medical Marijuana Licenses Issued
7. New State Rules Approved for Records Retention
8. 2 Bills Would Establish New Website Posting Requirements
9. Executive Order 15-10 Affects Government Transparency
10. Supreme Court Sign Case May Require Sign Code Amendments
Government transparency, signs, and social media seem to be a theme of these favorite posts.
Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf
Friday, July 17, 2015
Friday, July 17, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
It's Friday, so what could be more appropriate than a "happy hour" blog post?
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Thursday, July 16, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
- The law extends funding for 9-1-1 centers through July 1, 2017. Currently, the Wireless Emergency Telephone Safety Act was scheduled to be repealed on July 1, 2015, but with this extension, 9-1-1 centers will continue to receive funding from the state.
- The law creates and implements a uniform statewide 9-1-1 system (except for Chicago) that, effective January 1, 2016, will be administered by the Office of the 9-1-1 Administrator within the Department of State Police. Until January 1, 2016, administration of emergency telephone systems and distribution of wireless surcharge funds will remain with the Illinois Commerce Commission, and a new Statewide 9-1-1 Advisory Board is created to assist with the transition to a statewide 9-1-1 system.
- Effective July 1, 2015, the law establishes a statewide monthly surcharge of $0.87 per network connection that applies to both landline and wireless connections and that will be distributed, in part to local 9-1-1 authorities, by the Department of State Police according to a formula set by the statute. Prior to July 1, 2015, a statewide surcharge was collected from wireless carriers by the ICC and distributed to local 9-1-1 authorities, while landline charges (and wireless charges set prior to July 1, 1998) at rates set by local jurisdictions were paid directly to local authorities by telephone service carriers. Local authorities will be permitted to collect locally-imposed surcharges through 2015, but, under the new law, local governments (with certain grandfathered exceptions and except for Chicago) will no longer be able to impose these surcharges after January 1, 2016.
- A portion of the statewide monthly surcharge will be allocated to the creation, by the 9-1-1 Administrator with the advice of the Statewide 9-1-1 Advisory Board, of a statewide Next Generation 9-1-1 network.
- After January 1, 2016, no municipality or county may create an emergency telephone system board unless it is a joint emergency telephone system board created by intergovernmental agreement.
- By July 1, 2017, a county with no 9-1-1 service (currently, there are nine such counties in Illinois) must provide such service by entering into an intergovernmental agreement with an existing joint emergency telephone system board or for the purpose of creating a new joint emergency telephone system board.
- By July 1, 2017, consolidation of existing public safety answering points (PSAPs) must take place. Consolidation depends on the population of the affected county and the number of PSAPs in the county. For example, the statute provides that, in a county with a population of at least 250,000 but less than 1,000,000 (a definition that includes all of the Chicago-area collar counties – DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kane, and Will) and that has more than one emergency telephone system board, joint emergency telephone system board, or qualified governmental entity, the number of PSAPs in the county must be reduced by 50% or 2 PSAPs, whichever is greater, by July 1, 2017. The statute also provides that any 9-1-1 authority serving a population of 25,000 must be consolidated into a new or existing joint emergency telephone system.
- To aid in the consolidation process, a consolidation grant program is established.
- In another part of the statute, the law limits the time period for a municipality to complete an initial finding of an audit on a cable television (CATV) operator to 90 days after the information is given to the municipality or third party. The time limit may be extended for an additional 90 days. A CATV operator will not be liable for any past service fees that were unknown to the CATV operator. The law provides that any contract between a municipality and a third party audit firm is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
- failing to include a summary of the proposed rules on the agenda;
- failing to give sufficient notice of the public hearings on the proposed rules;
- failing to respond to questions about the rules;
- denying some people the right to speak during the hearings by establishing a predetermined 2 hour period for the hearings;
- failing to disclose studies, reports, and other data used to draft the proposed rules;
- providing false statements in the first notice when it indicated that the proposed rules did not affect units of local government;
- not publishing the hearing transcripts in a timely manner;
- failing to submit a report to the General Assembly as required by the Act.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Monday, July 13, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf
Friday, July 10, 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Update on Planning, Land Use and Eminent Domain Decisions
Federal Laws, Regulations, and Programs Affectings Local Land Use Decision Making
Annual Richard F. Babcock Faculty Keynote Address: "From the Group Up: Unshared Assumptions in Law and Planning"
- Is Sharing Really Caring? The Laws of Transportation Sharing, Uber, Lyft, etc
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Thursday, July 09, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Wednesday, July 08, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
Monday, July 6, 2015
Monday, July 06, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Thursday, July 02, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
The circuit court upheld the board's findings that the officer violated the residency requirement but vacated the board's termination, and remanded the case back to the board to impose a lesser penalty. On appeal, the appellate court reviewed the Village's residency ordinance and analyzed various cases establishing standards for "residency."
First, the appellate court determined that the board was correct in determining that the officer violated the Village's residency requirement. The evidence produced during the hearing established that his actual residence was in St. Charles, and not in Chicago as the officer argued.
Second, the appellate court rejected the circuit court's decision to overturn the officer's termination. The court found that the officer had engaged in an ongoing violation of the residency ordinance for two years, and had been untruthful to the Village regarding his residency. In short, the court held that the board's decision to terminate was not unreasonable. Wheeler v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of Maywood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140453-U
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Wednesday, July 01, 2015 Julie Tappendorf
So, in a time where the trend is clearly to protect the speech of employees, including social media comments, what makes this employer think that this discharge will stick? Consider the following:
- The former employee was not criticizing either fellow workers or members of management. The NLRB has lately gone out of its way to find even offensive language by employees to be protected if it is about the workplace and/or management related to their duties in the workplace.
- The former employee did not make the comments in the context of protected concerted activity. This factual pattern differs markedly from the Cooper Tire case on which we reported last week where picketers yelled racially charged insults at temporary replacement workers. In the Cooper Tire case, the NLRB found the offensive language to be protected as part of the concerted action of picketing and that the language, while clearly offensive, was not threatening. The Brookfield Zoo employee just made a racially offensive remark.
- The former Zoo employee not only identified herself as an employee of the Zoo by wearing her uniform in the picture accompanying the remark, but tagged the location of her remark as the Brookfield Zoo. Had she made her remark without reference to her employment, she would probably still be employed there. As it was, her selfie in Zoo uniform with the comment clearly associated the remark to her employment and the location tag made it appear that she made the remark while at work.
- A strong Zoo policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination, including on social media, exists. The employer could find both that the ex-employee knew of the prohibited behavior and violated the policy.