Rogers & Tartaro Business Litigation Blog : New York and Connecticut Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Rogers & Tartaro Law Firm : Commercial Litigation : Westchester County NY, Fairfield County CT

Carol and Glenn* own a small business in Ridgefield with six employees. They’ve been watching the news carefully, and like most of America, are curious about the implications of the new health care bill. “In principle, I think it’s admirable to make sure Americans are receiving proper medical care,” Carol said. “But I’m concerned about how some of the aspects of bill are going to affect my business.”

Carol’s not alone. After all, we are a nation of more than 29.6 million small businesses with about 58 million employees (source: USA Today), and the new bill will change the way small-business owners purchase and provide health insurance for themselves and their employees.

In his Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Dan Schwartz reviewed some of the basic facts of the bill. Schwartz explains that employers are not, technically, required to provide health insurance to their workers under the bill. But, if employers with 50 or more employees do not provide health insurance, they will be required to pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.

Many of the provisions will not kick in until 2014. Within the next two years, a plan to provide a vehicle for small businesses to offer tax-free benefits will be created. According to CNN, this would ease the small employer's administrative burden of sponsoring a “cafeteria plan.”

As for employees, their good news is that they won't have to stay in a job they hate for fear of losing health insurance for themselves or their children.

It’s still very early, so we will keep posting as part of our employment law commentaries as more relevant information develops. In the meantime, CNN and The Washington Post offer some helpful information.

*names have been changed to protect privacy

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We often hear about the most dramatic court cases, or those involving high profile persons or extremely large amounts of money. But a colleague recently blogged about how transactional work from a conventional attorney can be high drama, too. It’s always refreshing to receive this sort of recognition (or redemption).

Those of you who are old enough may remember the popular television show, “Have Gun Will Travel.” The main character, known only as Paladin, was paid a hefty fee to settle problems without violence when possible, but excelled when forced to fight. "Trekkies" may be aware that most (if not all) episodes were written by Gene Roddenberry. the creator of “Star Trek.”

I recall one particular episode of the show about a woman who hired Paladin to represent her. She married a miner after spending only one evening with him. He left all his worldly possessions to her in a will in his own handwriting, and died. He had no other heirs. A partner challenged the will. Paladin, although not a lawyer, got the judge to agree to a jury of only three, who happened to be elderly miners themselves. He presented to them the story of how his client gave a lonely old man one wonderful evening of companionship and respect (no snickering here – this was the 1950’s). The jury agreed the will was valid.

The “attorney as hired gun” can be a pejorative, negative metaphor. It’s important to bear in mind that Paladin, who often exhibited his education and breadth of knowledge, only resorted to combat as a last resort. In that sense I like to think we are modern-day Paladins. We may not carry derringers under our belts, but we do consider ourselves well-read, highly prepared, and ready to take on the bad guys, armed with knowledge and experience – and resorting to ritualized combat (litigation) only as a last resort.

The paladins, sometimes known as the Twelve Peers, were the foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court.  photo courtesy Wikipedia

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, we posted about confidentiality agreements, referencing a recent case involving English muffins.

Now hot dogs are the hot topic.

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement this month, reporting that hot dogs cause about 17 percent of food-related asphyxiations in children. The Academy is proposing that hot dogs be redesigned to prevent choking.

For those caregivers who do not cut their children’s food into safe-sized pieces, or heed choking warnings, this is a life-saving solution. However, according to Eric Hummel of Hummel Brothers Meat Products in New Haven, Connecticut, “it would be virtually impossible to make [a hot dog] in really any other shape.” If it could have been done, it probably would have by now.

But if a food scientist did discover how to bypass the grinding-emulsifier-casing process, the new design would undoubtedly involve confidential, proprietary information. Yes, anyone can try to duplicate a new shape. But the process for producing the shape could be proprietary and subject to confidentiality agreements or to other protections for intellectual property.

In the meantime, Mr. Hummel recommends that families with young children purchase skinless hot dogs in the thinnest form.

There are other solutions for small children: alternative foods like eggs, sliced turkey, whole grains…. But, being lawyers and not dietitians, we have to leave the matter to individual adults to decide, including those who "relish" their hot dogs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks