Sunday, May 31, 2009

Does the Ledbetter Act Extend Failure to Promote Claims?

A May 21, 2009 Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision has held that the recently enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not apply to failure to promote claims.  Rowland v. Certainteed Corp., 2009 WL 1444413 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

The Ledbetter Act essentially removes the statute of limitations for employment discrimination claims in limited circumstances:
with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.
29 U.S.C. sec. 626(d)(3).  In plain English: If you're still getting paid less as a result of a "past discriminatory compensation decision or other practice" then you may file suit even after the ordinary  statute of limitations has run.
In Rowland v. Certainteed, the Court differentiated Ms. Rowland's claim from Ms. Ledbetter's claim (the basis for the Ledbetter Act):
Ledbetter's claim was based on allegations of discriminatory pay . . . . Here, Rowland's failure to promote claim is not based on a discriminatory compensation claim. Furthermore, her argument would eliminate any statute of limitations with respect to reporting discrimination to the appropriate agency, a change in law not found in the Ledbetter Act.
This holding underscores an emerging split among district courts over whether the Ledbetter Act applies to failure to promote claims... or does it? An earlier case from the Southern District of Mississippi applied the Ledbetter Act to a denial of tenure claim. Gentry v. Jackson State University, 2009 WL 1097818 (S.D. Miss. 2009).  The cases can be reconciled, however, upon closer examination of the language used by the Court in Gentry:
[P]laintiff has asserted that the denial of tenure also denied her a salary increase and hence was a compensation decision. Accordingly, the court concludes that it cannot grant summary judgment on the limitations basis urged by [Jackson State University].
The distinction emerges as a pure failure to promote claim (not extended) versus a failure to promote which would affect compensation (extended). This distinction would be consistent with the language of the statute ("discriminatory compensation decision"). As a promotion almost necessarily includes a compensation adjustment, however, this distinction may be illusory. As Pennsylvania Law Weekly reports (subscription required), in Rowland:
[P]laintiffs attorney Ayesha Hamilton of Lansdale, Pa., argued that the language of the Ledbetter Act, and its revision of the term "unlawful employment practice," should be read broadly to apply to failure-to-promote claims because the denial of a promotion also directly affects compensation.
It's therefore not really clear whether there is a distinction or a split.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the Circuits get involved.  Will they resolve this potential split or just widen the gap?  We'll see, but for now plead carefully!

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Covington and Burling Discrimination Suit Dismissed

Practice tip #1: Show up! A high profile racial discrimination case came to an abrupt end yesterday when the Plaintiff, Yolanda Young, and her attorney failed to show up for the first status conference. Judge Walton of the D.C. District Court dismissed the case against Covington and Burling. The Blog of LegalTimes (The BLT) reports that Judge Walton also cited the Plaintiff's,
"failure to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules by not responding to motions and other deadlines, and conducting herself in a manner that has impeded the defendants’ ability to defend against this action.”
Yolanda Young sued Covington and Burling, a global powerhouse law firm, alleging the firm discriminated against its black attorneys. In March 2008, Ms. Young wrote a scathing review of Covington's staff attorney program in a Huffington Post article, Law Firm Segregation Reminiscent of Jim Crow.

Judge Walton dismissed the case without prejudice. This means Ms. Young may have an opportunity to re-file her case in the future. In other words, we may not have heard the last of this one.

UPDATE (7/27/2009): Hate to say "I told you so" but when I said "we may not have heard the last of this one"... well, guess who's back? The Blog of Legal Times reports that Young's Suit Against Covington is Back on Track.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor Employment Law Blawgdown

President Barack Obama nominated Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today. This is a great pick for legal bloggers because she was: (1) a front runner whom bloggers had already been researching; and (2) an experienced judge with 6+ years in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) and 10+ years in the Second Circuit (meaning she has tons of opinions to dig through!). It should therefore come as no surprise that the blawgosphere was locked and loaded!
  • This morning (at 8:53 am!), Michael Fox posted the results of a "quick search of the BNA labor and employment library." The entry provides a quick summary of 16 Second Circuit employment law opinions authored by Sotomayor. Mr. Fox additionally provides 30 S.D.N.Y. decisions.

  • Business Management Daily published a post praising Judge Sotomayor's "balanced employment law perspective." It includes a run-down of some of her notable decisions broken down by area of employment law.

  • SCOTUS Blog provided an extensive examination of Judge Sotomayor's "Appellate Decisions in Civil Cases." It goes well beyond employment law. If you're only interested in that topic, however, they have a lengthy section on "Civil Rights" that sticks to employment law matters.
If you don't want to dig through all of this for the "good parts" then I'm sure you can just wait and see which decisions draw the most criticism. It's a method I often employ on reading the 1-star reviews!

I'm sure this is just the beginning. If you have any recommendations for additional blog entries addressing Sotomayor and employment law then please drop a comment!

UPDATE: Nixon Peabody summarizes a few of Sotomayor's labor and employment cases. "A review of Judge Sotomayor’s decisions reveals numerous summary judgment decisions in favor of both employees and employers."

UPDATE (6/8/2009): The Employment Law Post: Sonia Sotomayor's Labor and Employment Law Record as a District Court Judge by John Phillips (thanks to @RossRunkel for the link).

UPDATE (6/12/2009): John Gallagher summarizes Judge Sotomayor's Employment Law Decisions. His summary is broken down by decisions in favor of employers and then decisions in favor of employees.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

What You're Searching For! 5/24/09

What is this?

Today, I roll out what will become a recurring entry on my blog... "What You're Searching For!" Google Analytics lets me know which search terms and phrases most frequently lead to hits on Lawffice Space.  If I see something trending that is not actually addressed in my blog currently, I will try to address it.  For example, I wrote an entry on the retroactivity of the ADAAA (or lack thereof).  The entry included a "handy cite" for the proposition that the ADAAA is not retroactive.  As a result, I saw a lot of traffic coming my way from people searching for how to cite to the ADAAA.  And so we begin...

How to Cite the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)

The ADAAA itself may be cited as:

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008). 

If you're going to refer to it more than once, go ahead and add an ("ADAAA") after that to indicate that you will refer to it as such.  Also, if you've already discussed the ADA, your cite may be "ADA Amendments Act of 2008." Remember, however, that it is an amendments act.  If you want to refer specifically to the ADAAA and the changes it made then use the cite above.  If, however, you just want to use the ADAAA's expanded definition of disability then you may just cite to the U.S. code the ADAAA modified (here, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12102).

Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) Mail-In Ballots

Wow, EFCA is basically search engine gold.  Quite a few people came here trying to find more info on the mail-in ballots after my post on Sen. Specter floating the idea.  A great way to keep up on the latest news is to check Twitter for the following hashtags:

#EFCAfail(Some of these are quite obviously advocating a certain viewpoint)

For now though, all I'm seeing are sporadic reports of politicians sitting around talking about compromises (like mail in ballots) to get EFCA up and running again.  When details emerge, or if legislation is introduced, then I will be sure to post it here.

How to Shoot Half Court

Really!?  Ummm, try to shoot head-on, get some arc on the shot, and as with any shot put some back spin on the ball!  You may want to try another web site though... I usually drive to the hole for the monster dunk (just kidding, in case that wasn't completely obvious).

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act Passes House

The Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act breezed through the House on Tuesday with a roll call vote of 423-0 (with 10 not voting).  

It will allow veterans employed by federal agencies to pursue employment and unemployment rights through the Office of Special Counsel. Specifically, rights afforded under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Currently they must file complaints with the Secretary of Veterans affairs. As Rep. Sandlin explained:
"By granting the Office of Special Counsel initial jurisdiction over all of these Federal USERRA claims, we give claimants a single agency to investigate and resolve their complaint. This will be more efficient than the current circumstance where first the Department of Labor investigates the claim, and then the claim is then transferred to OSC at the veteran's request if the Department of Labor fails to find a resolution, which then prompts a second investigation."
The bill was received in the Senate yesterday where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

What About the Split on McDonnell Douglas in Mixed Motive Cases?

Yesterday was a big day for employment law in the Supreme Court.  While AT& T v. Hulteen drew mainstream media attention, the Supreme Court also dashed the hopes for resolving an ongoing employment law Circuit-split with eight simple words:

"The petition for writ of certiorari is denied."

The petition for certiorari (that is the request for the Supreme Court to hear and decide the case) came following the decision in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008).  The Sixth Circuit issued its opinion last summer becoming the first circuit to abandon the familiar McDonnell Douglas/Burdine burden-shifting framework in mixed-motive discrimination cases.  The burden-shifting framework is used in discrimination cases where the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence.  As laid out by the Sixth Circuit:
I.  To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate that:

(1) he is a member of a protected class;
(2) he was qualified for his job;
(3) he suffered an adverse employment decision; and
(4) he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or treated differently than similarly situated non-protected employees.

II.  Once the plaintiff establishes this prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.

III. Finally, if the defendant succeeds in this task, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s proffered reason was not its true reason, but merely a pretext for discrimination.

(Internal citations omitted; Formatting added).
In Baxter Healthcare, the Sixth Circuit abandoned this framework in mixed-motive cases. A mixed-motive case is where the plaintiff alleges unlawful discrimination was a "motivating factor" for an employment practice though other legitimate motivating factors existed.  The Court articulated the new test:
The only question that a court need ask in determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to submit his claim to a jury in such cases is whether the plaintiff has presented “sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ‘race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for’” the defendant's adverse employment decision.
Though the Sixth Circuit was the first to abandon McDonnell Douglas altogether in mixed-motive cases, the opinion recognized that other circuits varied in their application of the old familiar framework.  In brief: the 8th and 11th still apply McDonnell Douglas; the 5th has a hybrid approach allowing both a showing of pretext and a showing that defendants' proffered reason is only one of the reasons for their conduct (in the third prong); and the 4th and 9th Circuits fall somewhere in between.

If you're keeping score, that's four different approaches.  It appears, however, the split will continue.  The issue is clearly not going away, so sooner or later the Supreme Court will have to address the problem (perhaps if the 3rd Circuit devises a fifth model?).  Until then we're left with nothing but their eight words from yesterday.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

EFCA Mail-in Ballots?

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), aka "Card Check", is stalled but far from dead.  What should be clear at this point is that hard-liners will vote against just about anything that makes it easier to form a union.  There also remain many senators that will vote for EFCA as-is.  The votes just don't seem to add up for EFCA as-is though.  Enter the compromise.

New-dem Arlen Specter is looking to tweak EFCA to get it moving again.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Specter is floating the idea of mail-in ballots.  The idea "would theoretically preserve privacy and reduce opportunities for coercion by union organizers and employers."

Employers concerns extend beyond the card check provisions, however.  They also oppose the imposition of mandatory arbitration after 120 days.  Specter proposes a change that would "restrict the use of arbitrators in contract negotiations to situations in which the two sides fail to reach agreement on their last and best offer."

The EFCA debate rages on.  Will the mail-in ballot be the compromise that gets the necessary votes to pass?  We shall see...

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Caregiver Best Practices, not just for Caregivers

Earlier this month, the EEOC issued guidance for Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.  This latest document supplements the EEOC's Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities guidance issued in 2007.  While the new guidance purports to provide caregiver best practices, the advice actually goes well beyond the stated scope.  

The new guidance includes broad advice for employers, including increased awareness of legal obligations relating to caregivers, and maintenance of a strong EEO policy.  Generally (and this is probably stating the obvious), do not make assumptions about employees based on gender roles and obligations to care for kids.  One footnote provides a glaring example of misconduct where 
"[D]efendant terminated plaintiff because 'she was no longer dependable since she had delivered a child . . . babies get sick sometimes and [plaintiff] would have to miss work to care for her child . . . [Defendant] needed someone more dependable'."
Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc. 480 S.E.2d 502, 503(Va. 1997).  The guidance also addresses pregnancy issues, including the employers' duty to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant women.

The guidance provides a particularly interesting section on flexible work arrangements.  Recommendations include "General Flexible Options":
  • "Flextime Programs. Flextime policies generally permit employees to vary their work day start and stop times within a certain range, such as allowing an employee to arrive at work at any time between 8:00 and 9:30 a.m. and then work for 8 hours."
  • "Flexible Week Opportunities. Flexible week opportunities may include compressed work weeks, such as a workweek consisting of four ten-hour work days."
  • "Telecommuting, Work-at-Home, or Flexplace Programs. These options enable employees to work from home or alternate office locations."
The guidance also details part-time options, such as job sharing or reduced hours.  

In the closing paragraph, the EEOC states that the policies may, "benefit all workers, regardless of caregiver-status." And it's not just the employees, but the employers as well.  In advocating the flexible work options, the EEOC relied on studies showing that flexible work policies "have a positive impact on employee engagement and organizational productivity and profitability."    

For that reason, the new document is more than just guidance on caregiver issues, it's a source for flexible work options that could benefit everyone.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

GINA Prepares for November Debut

GINA is starting to take shape.  President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) on May 21st of last year.  Effective November 21, 2009, Title II of GINA:
"prohibits the use of genetic information in employment, prohibits the intentional acquisition of genetic information about applicants and employees, and imposes strict confidentiality requirements."
The text of the Act is available on GovTrack. On March 2, 2009, the EEOC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The public comment period ended on May 1, 2009 and the comments are published on  Additionally, the EEOC has published background information in the form of a brief Q & A.  This document provides a great, plain English overview of the new Act.  So what's up next?  A Final Rule, which the EEOC believes will be published "well in advance" of GINA's November 21st premiere.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Transgender Title VII Claim Worth Half-a-million

The price tag for a recent U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia transgender Title VII case:
  • Back Pay and Benefits: $183,653
  • Nonpecuniary Losses: $300,000
  • Past Pecuniary Losses: $7,537.80
Total judgment: $491,190.80! Schroer v. Billington, 1:05-cv-01090-JR (D.D.C. April 28, 2009). So how did it get there, and since when did Title VII cover transgenders?

David Schroer interviewed for a job with the Library of Congress. They offered him the job. He accepted and then notified his future employer that he would be reporting for duty as Diane Schroer; Ms. Schroer is a transgender. The Library of Congress subsequently rescinded the offer kicking off Ms. Schroer's Title VII claim.

The finding of discrimination actually occurred in September of last year. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F.Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008). The Court recognized that:
“[N]early all federal courts have said [transsexuality] is unprotected by Title VII. See Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, 742 F.2d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir.1984); Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 667 F.2d 748, 750 (8th Cir.1982); Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659, 662-63 (9th Cir.1977); Doe v. U.S. Postal Service, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18959, 1985 WL 9446, *2 (D.D.C.1985).”
The D.C. District Court declined to follow this precedent based on two different rationales.

First, the Court found that Schroer was entitled to judgment on the basis of "sex stereotyping":
“Ultimately, I do not think that it matters [whether the Library] perceived Schroer to be an insufficiently masculine man, an insufficiently feminine woman, or an inherently gender-nonconforming transsexual.”
Second, the Court held that discrimination against transgenders was "based on sex." The previous cases had held that "sex" under Title VII meant nothing more than "male and female." In this case, however, the Court reasoned:
“Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only 'converts.' That would be a clear case of discrimination 'because of religion.' No court would take seriously the notion that 'converts' are not covered by the statute. Discrimination 'because of religion' easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion.”
Judgment for the Plaintiff.

So, are transgenders protected under Title VII? This latest decision comes from but one federal district court of many. Whether additional federal courts (district or appellate) will follow suit remains to be seen. Furthermore, wildcards abound. Will Congress legislate in this area? What about state legislation? The D.C. Human Rights Act, for example, already recognizes "gender identity". Ultimately, only time will tell.

UPDATE (6/28/2009) - Barney Frank introduces ENDA in the house - would essentially afford Title VII-like protection from discrimination based on "Gender Identity."

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The Magic of Twitter

Late last night I was lucky enough to experience the magic of Twitter first-hand.  I wanted to get the word out about my new blog (or blawg as the trendy attorneys call’em) so I broadcast a Tweet to my followers... all 17 of them. 

Then something amazing happened: Prof. Runkel picked up my Tweet and proceeded to Re-Tweet (“RT”) my announcement.  That is, he broadcast my blog announcement to all of his followers.  Prof. Runkel runs LawMemo and has 1509 followers!  Then other Tweeters (presumably seeing Runkel’s RT) started to broadcast RTs of their own:

- Leonid Knyshov (wiseleo) – 1000 followers;

- Kristina Duncan (Krislegalista) – 341 followers; Law School Bound

- Daniel Alexander (dja2law) – 508 followers; Out-House General Counsel

Ignoring the inevitable overlap, that’s over 3350 people!  Employers, employees, and attorneys alike are drooling over the networking potential of Web 2.0. 

As with anything new, employers (and especially attorneys!) have some concerns.  I’m not trying to scare anyone but have you seen HR 1966?  This new piece of legislation will make it a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison for:

“using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior,” “with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”

Wow, watch what ya post I guess.  To assuage these concerns, Gruntled Employees has graciously provided a Twitter policy (and other web policies) for employers.  I see this as a growth area for lawyers (and employee handbooks) but generally agree with their minimalist approach.  A bit of caution is justified, but the results are undeniable.  See above, Twitter worked for me!

[Follow me on Twitter]

Saturday, May 9, 2009

How to Fail Out of Law School and Still go to Court

New England Law School expelled Seva Brodsky after he failed two courses in the Spring of 2005. That's generally how school works... you fail and you're out.

What makes Brodsky's case unique is that he subsequently sued the school under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other statutes. Brodsky suffers from "memory and organizational deficits." Uh, that would make law school kinda tough I guess, but surely the school can fail people who can't do the work and pass the tests right?

The National Law Journal reports that a Massachusetts District Court Judge denied a motion to dismiss Brodsky's claims. Brodsky v. New England School of Law, No. 1:09-cv-10007 (D. Mass.). The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA 2008) played a role in the Judge's reasoning:
"Congress recently amended the ADA, in response to what it perceived to be an inappropriately narrow definition of 'substantially limited' being applied in the federal courts."
So the case will proceed and the school must continue to litigate the matter. This could make law school admissions very interesting...

UPDATE (6/20/2009): I have written a separate entry with advice for those Failing Out of Law School.

Friday, May 8, 2009

ADAAA 2008 Retroactivity? Not a Chance.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (text of ADAAA 2008) went into effect on January 1, 2009.  The ADAAA 2008 so greatly expanded the definition of "disability" that some observers have opined that "Everyone is Disabled".  While employers cannot escape the effects of the ADAAA 2008 in the future, what about pending cases and past acts of alleged discrimination?  Can employees in such circumstances take advantage of the new, broader definition of disability?  Let's go to the scoreboard.

The District of Connecticut was kind enough to provide us with a string cite for the proposition that the ADAAA 2008 is not retroactive:

Moreover, it appears that every court that has addressed this issue, which includes a number of federal district courts and at least one federal appeals court, has concluded that the 2008 Amendments cannot be applied retroactively to conduct that preceded its effective date. See Kiesewetter v. Caterpillar, Inc., 295 Fed.Appx. 850, 851 (7th Cir.2008); Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 3:CV-06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *5 n. 6 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 16, 2009); Walstrom v. City of Altoona, No. 3:2006-81, 2008 WL 5411091, at *5 n. 3 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 29, 2008); Hays v. Clark Prods., Inc., No. 1:07-CV-328, 2008 WL 5384300, at *6 n. 3 (S.D.Ind. Dec. 18, 2008); Levy ex rel. Levy v. Hustedt Chevrolet, No. 05-4832(DRH)(MLO), 2008 WL 5273927, at *3 n. 2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008); Knox v. City of Monroe, No. 07-606, 2008 WL 5157913, at *5 n. 10 (W.D.La. Dec. 9, 2008); Gibbon v. City of New York, No. 07-Civ-6698, 2008 WL 5068966, at *5 n. 47 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008).
Moran v. Premier Educ. Group, LP, 599 F.Supp. 2d 263 (D.Conn 2009).  That's a handy cite if you ever need to make the case.  The Fifth Circuit has also held that the ADAAA 2008 is not retroactive.  EEOC v. Agro Distrib., LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 469 n. 8 (5th Cir. 2009).  Just last week, the 10th Cir. did not reach the issue but did note that "courts consistently have held that the ADAAA does not apply to conduct occuring before its enactment."  Durham v. McDonald's Restaurants of Okla., Inc., 2009 WL 1132362 (10th Cir. 2009)(citing Moran and Agro Distrib.).

That's three circuits (admittedly dicta in one) and seven district courts!  Still not enough?  The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (DOL OFCCP) has some FAQs including: "Is the ADAAA 2008 retroactive?"  Their response? "We do not believe so."

In law (employment law in particular) there are few certainties.  The decisions seem pretty one-sided in this area, however.  ADAAA 2008 retroactivity?  Not a chance.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Statement of Purpose and Disclaimer

Statement of Purpose
Lawffice Space, a not so subtle allusion to the movie Office Space, will provide the latest (not necessarily greatest) case law, statutory law, and current events from the world of employment law. This blog will contain a healthy mix of "blurbs" with excerpts and links along with more substantive posts similar to articles in mainstream media outlets. No agenda here, just the facts... OK, I have opinions and on occasion they may infiltrate my posts but I will try to maintain some semblance of journalistic integrity (unlike, ya know, journalists).

The intended audience will be: management who must confront these issues daily; lawyers who need to keep current; employees who want background on their rights under the law; and anyone with an interest in employment law issues. So if you are an employer, an employee, a lawyer, or anyone... check back often!

On the right (It moved! Look below the logo up top) you will find a space to subscribe via email. This way you don't need to come to Lawffice Space every day (though you should!), you can just get the posts in your "in" box daily. You will also see my latest tweets from (philipmiles; Follow me!). Also, under each post there will be an option to "Share" the post through services such as Digg. If you see something you like, pass it on!

I guess that's it for now. I suppose I should go find something to write about to get this blog started.

In short: Nothing on this blog is legal advice, and I am not your lawyer. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in the blog entries are solely those of me, Philip Miles. Though I am an attorney at a law firm, said firm is in no way affiliated with this blog. As I am not your attorney, I owe you no duty and you have no privilege. If you post a comment here, it's publicly available. The entries on this blog are meant only for informational, educational, and occasionally even entertainment(ational) purposes.

If you need legal advice, contact an attorney.