Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For years, franchisors and franchisees alike have assumed that most of their 'managers' are exempt from federal (and parallel state) wage-and-hour 'overtime' rules requiring payment of wages calculated at the standard rate multiplied by 150% of the hours worked over 40 hours per week. But a recent flurry of class action lawsuits challenging the classification of certain categories of employees (for example, franchised restaurant or hotel unit managers or shift supervisors) as exempted 'management' employees who are not entitled to 'time-and-a-half' overtime pay has brought this issue under close scrutiny. Plaintiffs are winning many of these cases, sometimes with huge recoveries for employees who worked many hours of uncompensated, or compensated but at straight time, overtime. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) jumped into the arena with proposed revisions to long-standing federal rules under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that define who is and who is not entitled to overtime pay for hours over 40 per week.
The DOL introduced the proposed regulations on March 31, 2003, and it is currently seeking comments regarding the new rules. The comment period closes on June 30, 2003, after which the DOL will consider the comments and probably modify the proposed regulations before enacting them in their final form. (At this time, the proposed new regulations are not yet enacted, and the extent to which they may be changed before enactment is unknown.)
If enacted as proposed, the new regulations could bring about a widespread reappraisal by every employer, including most owners of franchised businesses, of the exempt versus nonexempt classification of employees in intermediate supervisory positions, such as a unit or shift manager in a restaurant, a department head in a hotel property, or an area manager in an automotive business.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?