Blog Post

Important information regarding recent overtime litigation in the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Texas

nat rosasco • Dec 06, 2016

On November 22, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant granted an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and thereby enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing the Overtime Final Rule on December 1, 2016. The case was heard in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division (State of Nevada […] The post Important information regarding recent overtime litigation in the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Texas appeared first on GGHH Law.



On November 22, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant granted an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and thereby enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing the Overtime Final Rule on December 1, 2016. The case was heard in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division (State of Nevada ET AL v. United States Department of Labor ET AL No: 4:16-CV-00731). The rule updated the standard salary level and provided a method to keep the salary level current to better effectuate Congress’s intent to exempt bona fide white collar workers from overtime protections.


On December 1, 2016, the Department of Justice on behalf of the Department of Labor filed a notice to appeal the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


Since 1940, the Department’s regulations have generally required each of three tests to be met for the FLSA’s executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemption to apply: (1) the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed (“salary basis test”); (2) the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount (“salary level test”); and (3) the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the regulations (“duties test”). The Department has always recognized that the salary level test works in tandem with the duties tests to identify bona fide EAP employees. The Department has updated the salary level requirements seven times since 1938.


The Department strongly disagrees with the decision by the court. The Department’s Overtime Final Rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rule-making process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule.


Source: US Department of Labor

https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/final2016/litigation.htm


The post Important information regarding recent overtime litigation in the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Texas appeared first on GGHH Law.

Options for Addressing Title Encumbrances in Loan Transactions

By Jordan Uditsky • 04 Jan, 2022
An amendment to the Mechanics Lien Act (the "Act') permits the bonding over of mechanic's liens in the State of Illinois. The bill was signed into law ( 770 ILCS 60/38.1 ) on July 28, 2015, and went into effect on January 1, 2016. This statute is significant because it allows parties to "clear title" to real property that would otherwise be subject to a mechanic's lien. An eligible applicant will be permitted to substitute a bond for the real property subject to the underlying mechanic's lien so that the lien attaches to the bond instead of the real property. Who is Eligible? To take advantage of 770 ILCS 60/38.1 , the party desiring to bond over the lien must be an eligible applicant. The statute defines applicant relatively broadly to include the following parties: An owner; Other lien claimant; A party that has an interest in the property subject to the lien claim; An association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies; or Any person who may be liable for the payment of the lien claim, including an owner, former owner, association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies, or the contractor or subcontractor. Process for Filing a Petition To effectively substitute the bond for the real property, the applicant must file a petition with the clerk of the circuit court in the county where the property subject to the underlying lien claim is located. The petition must include the following: The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's attorney, if any; The name and address of the lien claimant; If there is a pending action to enforce the claim, the name of the attorney of record, or if there is no pending claim, but the claim has been recorded, the name of the preparer of the lien claim; The name and address of the owner of record of any real estate subject to the claim or the name and address of the homeowners association or the condominium association; A legal description of the property; A copy of the lien claim; A copy of the proposed eligible surety bond; A certified copy of the surety's certificate of authority from the Department of Insurance or the state agency charged with the duty to issue the certificate; and An undertaking by the applicant to replace the bond with another eligible surety bond in the event that the proposed eligible surety bond ceases to be an eligible bond. After filing a proper petition, the applicant must provide notice and a copy of the petition, either by personal service or certified mail, to every party whose name and address is stated in the petition and the lien party's attorney of record. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise business owners in the Chicago area.

On the Move: Legal Issues Affecting Motor Vehicle Manufacturer and Dealer Law

By Lou Chronowski • 10 Nov, 2021
“Pandemic Impact? - New York Federal Court Allows Termination Dispute to Proceed” 

On the Move: The Future is Now!

By Lou Chronowski • 19 Oct, 2021
Welcome to GHU’s newest blog – On the Move: The Future is Now! This blog focuses on legal and policy issues facing the vehicle industry. The future is now for the vehicle industry. Some states (CA and MA) have issued mandates requiring that vehicle manufacturers stop selling new ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles by 2035. Most legacy vehicle manufacturers have made various announcements stating that their respective product portfolios will move from ICE to zero emission vehicles (EVs) over the next 10-14 years. Another significant issue facing the issue relates to how vehicles are purchased. Over the past several years, Tesla has charted a distribution model that rejects traditional dealerships and uses direct sales and service. Other EV manufacturers like Rivian and Lucid appear to be headed in a similar direction. It is well known that Apple and Amazon have plans to enter the vehicle space as well. Consumers will have a large role in determining how they want to purchase vehicles and vehicle services (much the same as they did with respect to on-demand transportation with the likes of Uber and Lyft). The question is whether traditional manufacturers will be kept on an uneven playing field with these newer market entrants. Finally, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are right around the corner as well. In addition to consumer adoption and acceptance of EVs, it is still unknown how consumers will react to AVs and whether AVs have a large role in America. The future is now. The changes in the industry are happening now and happening at fast pace. This blog will continue to explore issues facing the vehicle industry. For 20 years, Lou Chronowski has represented motor vehicle manufacturers helping them navigate complex laws and regulations and litigating disputes against dealers. If you have any questions, please contact Lou at lchronowski@ghulaw.com .
Show More
Share by: