New Dallas Law Is Bad for Business

New Dallas Law Is Bad for Business, Bars Say

By BONNIE BARRON 

     DALLAS (CN) - Determined to shut down certain bars in an area of Dallas known as Lowest Lower Greenville, city council members passed an unconstitutional law that restricts businesses operating after midnight, the busiest hours for bars, two such establishments claim.
     Dallas city councilwomen Angela Hunt and Pauline Medrano have spent the last two years trying to hold down Greenville Avenue Service Bar dba Service Bar and Mylonas Investment Corporation dba Yucatan, according to the complaint in the District Court of Dallas County.
     Hunt and Medrano shirked the authority of the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission and pushed for a city ordinance that "targets alcohol-related businesses," the bars say.
     Passed in January, the law requires businesses in a section of the Greenville Avenue area to obtain a specific-use permit if they want to stay open between midnight and 2 a.m. Any business that fails to do so cannot operate past midnight as of Sept. 23, 2011 - the same day that the bars filed suit against the city of Dallas.
     "There is no shortage of evidence from the city's agents that the purpose and aim of the ordinance was to regulate and close down bars in the Lowest Lower Greenville area so the city could install businesses it favors," the bars claim.
     "According to Councilwoman Hunt, once the area has been removed of the businesses the city has blacklisted, she will make an effort to work toward investing millions into the streets and trash cans to make it a nice place," the bars say.
     "If this ordinance stands, it will effectively close plaintiffs' establishments, as 98% of their revenue and therefore all of their profits will be lost, along with their investment-backed expectations from their history of operating as a bar at their current respective locations," the bars say.
     "Generally, on the limited nights of the week when the establishments are open, patrons do not arrive at these establishments until midnight, the very hour these businesses are now required to close," the bars argue. "Effectively, the hours that the city has chosen to shut down businesses are the only profitable hours for these businesses."
     Even though Dallas is a home-rule city, it does not have the authority to contradict the regulations of the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission, according to the complaint. The bars describe the special-use-permit process as costly and "ever-changing." Since they have been unsuccessful in obtaining their permits, this negates the licenses granted to them by the commission, according to the complaint.
     The bars sued the city for violating multiple rights granted by the Texas Constitution, breach of contract and tortious interference with existing contracts. They seek a ruling that the ordinance is unconstitutional.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Jobs Sputter as Laws and Regulators Go Wild

John Boehner will never match President Obama's rhetorical ability, but that doesn't mean the House Speaker can't deliver a good speech. What Boehner lacks in style he makes up for in genuineness and common sense shaped by his small business background. A case in point was the Speaker's address to the Washington Economic Club this month, during which he advised Obama to fire his Cabinet members if they continue to stymie job creation through regulatory overreach.

The line struck a chord with the audience of business leaders, who erupted in applause – and for good reason. This is good advice for the President, who has no idea how devastating the Washington regulatory machine has been to American job creation. From theEnvironmental Protection Agency to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Obama officials have been regulating U.S. businesses out of business and it needs to stop.

The fact is that the President and his agency heads have unleashed breathtaking new laws and an army of government bureaucrats to enforce them. These bureaucrats have a dangerous combination of legal savvy, little business experience, and a passionate desire to punish, restrict and regulate business without regard to economic consequences.

Of course, the bureaucrats are trying to do what they perceive as the right thing. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And there is probably no American industry that has not been scarred, scared or stymied by what has come out of Washington since Obama was inaugurated.

In his remarks, Speaker Boehner singled out the administration's well-publicized attacks on Gibson Guitars and Boeing. But he also described less well-known proposals to regulate concrete and farm dust. In conclusion, Boehner said, "At this moment, the Executive Branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million."

Imagine trying to make a payroll – much less add jobs – while coping with the uncertainty of the hundreds of new rules and proposals pouring out from government agencies. Companies and industries now need compliance officers and an army of lawyers just to do business.

Also imagine what compliance with these regulations is doing to our legal system, which used to be a competitive advantage for U.S. businesses worldwide. Somewhere along the way – long before the Obama Administration – we became a nation of obscure, ambiguous and overreaching laws seeking to regulate almost every area of business. The United States is the most over-lawyered country in the world, and the last two-and-a-half years have only made matters worse.

I challenge any business executive to prove that their business is in compliance with every federal law. The laws are too many, too ambiguous and often too complex to understand. And increasingly they are too burdensome to follow when they are understandable. As Boehner indicated, efforts to comply with laws are a huge hidden tax on every American business.

Just in the last few months our own government has launched attacks on some of our most iconic companies. In addition to the NLRB's attempt to close down a Boeing plant in South Carolina, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after Google using ambiguous antitrust laws. Our government has now become the enemy of those who create jobs.

This is not just my opinion. A recent poll from The Tarrance Group found that 74 percent of Americans believe we are over regulated, including a majority of Democrats (58 percent) and Independents (75 percent). Seven of ten likely voters believe that increasing regulation on businesses will result in more jobs moving overseas. Almost two-thirds understand that the increasing number of regulations have created uncertainty for large and small businesses.

Given where the American people stand, President Obama would be wise to take the advice of Speaker Boehner. He must redirect the bureaucratic armies to reconsider their costly and damaging crusades against U.S. businesses, which are the real job creators. Every time they create a new rule, they drive another nail in our economic coffin.

If our leadership does not reverse course, we will never reduce our chronically high unemployment rate nor raise our chronically low economic growth. Our economy has been a Golden Goose and the federal bureaucrats are stealing every last egg.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream."

By Gary Shapiro

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Health care law expected to jump to Supreme Court

The Obama administration set the stage Monday for the Supreme Court to rule early next year on the constitutionality of the president's health care law by declining to press for a full appeal in a lower court.

The Justice Department announced it will forego an appeal to the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Such an appeal to the 10-member court could have taken months and delayed a final decision from the high court until at least 2013.

In August, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit in a 2-1 vote became the first appellate court to declare unconstitutional the new requirement that all Americans have health insurance.

Now, the administration can appeal directly to the Supreme Court and ask the justices to schedule the case to be heard and decided during the term that begins next week and ends in June. If the court follows that schedule, the justices will hand down a ruling on President Obama's signature legislation just as the election campaign moves into high gear.

At issue for the court is whether Congress can use its power to "regulate commerce" to require that all Americans who have taxable income certify by 2014 that they have health insurance. If not, they must pay a tax penalty that begins at $95.

The two judges based in Atlanta concluded Congress had overstepped its power by regulating the behavior of people who do not wish to buy insurance. This refusal to buy is not commerce, the judges said.

The administration's lawyers say this requirement is a reasonable and necessary regulation to prevent freeloaders from taking advantage of the taxpayers. Under current law, hospitals must spend tens of billions of dollars each year to provide emergency care to people who lack insurance or the ability to pay. The new health care law also requires insurers to offer coverage to those who have pre-existing medical conditions.

The ruling in Atlanta grew out of a lawsuit filed by Republican officials of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. They also balked at the law's requirement that states expand their Medicaid program of providing health care for low-income people.

The business federation said it was pleased with Monday's decision foregoing the drawn-out appeal in the lower court.

"NFIB is excited that all indications point to the government going directly to the Supreme Court to hear our case and commends the administration on their decision," said Karen Harned, executive director of the group's legal center.

The justices may also want to consider a new issue that could delay a final ruling. Earlier this month, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, threw out a challenge to the health care law by citing a federal law that forbids disgruntled taxpayers from going to court until they have paid the disputed tax and filed for refund. Applying that rule, the judges said no court can rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act until after 2014 when the first taxpayer pays the penalty.

However, several other courts, including the 11th Circuit, said the penalty is not a tax and therefore, is subject to challenge before it takes effect.

By David G. Savage.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Google Places merges may be hazardous to your business

By Matt Weinberger 

Summary: An automatic merge of two Google Places listings almost killed a small Florida-based law firm.

Google Places, the local business listing service behind Google Maps, has its share of fans amongst small business owners. After all, if you've done your homework as far as search engine optimization (SEO), Google Places has the demonstrable power to connect potential customers with the goods and services they're looking for.

But what happens if you wake up one day to find that Google Places automatically changed your listing, giving customers a competitor's phone number? And worse - what if you were told that it would take up to six months for Google to fix the problem?

That's what happened to Morris Law Firm, P.A., a St. Petersburg, Florida-based law firm with only one practicing attorney. Melinda Morris, the attorney in question, and Seth Shapiro, Morris' husband and the firm's operations manager, rely heavily on Google Places to drive new business.

But out of nowhere, the Place page for the firm changed to have the phone number and picture for Jason Mayberry, another attorney who recently moved into the same office building. The phone went silent. Naturally, Shapiro says he suspected foul play immediately, but upon discussion with the other law firm, it was revealed that both businesses were affected.

There was no phone number to call, and using the "Report a Problem" link Google Places provides garnered no immediate response. Some things put themselves right over the course of a few days, but the critical phone number remained incorrect.

After much research on the official help forums, Shapiro turned up the culprit: Google Places automatically merges what it figures to be duplicate listings. Multiple attorneys in one building were deemed to be the same business and combined.

The Google Places forums are full of people reporting the same issue, and many find themselves getting frustrated with the lack of support from Google. And some users reported that it took up to six months for Google to respond to their problems.

"Because Google Places is a free service, there is no customer support.  No one to call.  No human being to interact with as your small business is punished because of Google's inaccurate algorithms.  Just a silent phone to remind you that Google can very quickly and with no remorse kill your small business," Shapiro wrote to me.

And it only takes a quick Google search to see that this kind of merging is only one of the problems that businesses face when dealing with Google Places: the New York Times recently ran a much-cited report on the service mistakenly listing businesses as "permanently closed," thoughGoogle claims to have addressed that specific issue.

When made aware of the Morris Law Firm's difficulties with Google Places, a Google spokesperson promised to look into it, and issued the following statement:

"The business listings in Google Maps, part of our local search offering, come from a combination of sources. We work with third-party & publicly available Yellow Page directories, and we also look for business information from our web search results. Users are able to edit and contribute business information to help keep Google Maps up-to-date, and business owners can use Google Places to verify and maintain their own listing. Google Maps is a very popular source for local data, but we recognize that with millions of listings, there will be an occasional error. We encourage users to update listings themselves if they know the correct information - more on that processhere - or flag something as incorrect using our 'Report a Problem' button, found at the bottom right corner of the map. A business owner can use Google Places, found atwww.google.com/places, to oversee the information in his/her listing."

At the time of writing, the Morris Law Firm's entry is still at least partially conflated with Jason Mayberry's, and at least two user reviews are expressing confusion about which attorney it belongs to. And Shapiro indicates that the business is seriously ailing as a result, as the issue enters its second week.

This issue is especially troublesome because a business doesn't really choose to be on Google Places - the search giant's mission to organize all of the world's information means that you're on there whether you want it or not.

But if you're not wary, your business profile can lead potential customers to a competitor, and you may never know it. The only way to be sure is constant vigilance over your Google Places page. And even then, a problem may take months to address, thanks to Google's limited support structure for Places.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Business: Pregnant women protected by law

Q. I work in sales and my supervisor did not take the news that I was pregnant very well. In fact, he was a jerk, commenting on how my career was ruined and how the business would suffer as a result. He did let me take maternity leave, but I'm nervous about returning to work. How can I know if, or when, my supervisor's conduct crosses the line and becomes pregnancy discrimination?

A. Employers must balance their treatment of employees temporarily affected by pregnancy or childbirth with their treatment of other temporarily disabled employees. This, like parenting, is an art. Unfortunately, it is one employers frequently fall far short of mastering.

Pregnancy discrimination frequently occurs in the financial activities and leisure and hospitality sectors. These two sectors accounted for nearly 62,000, or 18 percent, of the Capital Region's private sector work force as of July, according to New York State Department of Labor statistics. Therefore, it is not surprising that pregnancy discrimination lawsuits are common in the area.

You should be on the lookout for signs of pregnancy discrimination given your supervisor's negative pre-maternity leave comments. Disparaging sex-based comments could create a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 2001 ruling in Gregory v. Daly, for a work environment to be hostile, the hostility must be "objectively severe or pervasive." A "reasonable person" would also have to be able to find someone's conduct "hostile or abusive" because of a plaintiff's sex.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended Title VII, prohibits employers from discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. This law also requires employers to treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same way they treat other similarly ability-impaired employees "for all employment-related purposes," including health care coverage, leave and promotion.

Additionally, under the Family Medical Leave Act, your employer must grant you "reasonable break time" to pump breast milk for a newborn up to 1 year old. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance, mothers should be allowed to express breast milk as frequently as needed in a bathroom or other designated space.

These protections, however, do not give mothers or fathers the right to fall behind on their work duties because of their care-giving responsibilities to a newborn. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York drove this point home last August when it dismissed a pregnancy discrimination class action lawsuit brought by the EEOC against Bloomberg L.P. The court said, "[t]he law does not mandate 'work-life balance'… it does not require that companies treat pregnant women and mothers better or more leniently than others. … The law simply requires fair treatment for all employees."

It is the employee's responsibility to strike a work-family balance. If their employer attempts to tip the scale by discriminating against them, then they should contact an employment law attorney. Posted by Mathew B. Tully

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

New law to regulate economic activity in Dubai

The Department of Economic Development building, which also houses the Dubai Land Department and the Real Estate Regulatory Agency. The body has been tasked with issuing licences to businesses under a new law.

Dubai: A new law regulating economic activity in Dubai was issued yesterday by His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai.

The 37 articles of Law No 13 of 2011 aim to regulate "economic activities in the emirate to create an environment conducive to boosting investment in Dubai", according to a statement on Shaikh Mohammad's official website.

The Department of Economic Development (DED) will be the body responsible for the regulation of economic activity for all businesses outside the freezones, according to the law.

The DED's responsibilities will include licensing, classification of economic activity permitted within Dubai, issuing trade permits for marketing activities and setting business work hours.

Single portal

The law will establish a single portal through which various government bodies can co-ordinate the regulation of economic activity in Dubai.

Under Article 20 of the new law, a single-window facility will be established for issuing licences to businesses and deal with investors.

"What's new in the law is the single window that makes it easier to finish the processes for investors. The new facilities will help [attract] new investors to Dubai," said Dr Mohammad Al Asoomi, a Dubai-based economist.

"In countries where this single-window system is established, it had a major impact on facilitating procedures for investors. It will attract investors and stimulate economic growth in the emirate," Dr Al Asoomi said.

The new law aims to enhance co-ordination between the relevant authorities in Dubai to "facilitate business interests", according to Shaikh Mohammad's website. The new law also seeks to develop the economic environment by making use of accurate and transparent information obtained using the latest technology, according to WAM.

"Such a move is intended to allow businesses to benefit from the latest technological systems when drafting marketing plans, while publicising investment opportunities in the emirate," according to the website.

Parameters for licences

The law has also set parameters for issuing licenses. The DED is the only body responsible for issuing licences. No one is allowed to participate in economic activities in Dubai except through a business licensed by the department.

According to Article 8 of the law, the licence will be be valid for only one year and is renewable on an annual basis. Any business may request a licence for up to four years with the DED's approval.

Article 13 stipulates that a business owner has the right to request the suspension of a licence to temporarily halt its activities.

The law also states that no one is allowed to practice economic activities except through a business that takes certain legal forms.

These include a single proprietary firm, a civil work company, or a trading company. A national or a branch of a foreign firm can operate in Dubai as well as a branch of a freezone company. Anyone caught violating the provisions of the law can be fined up to Dh100,000.

By, Deena Kamel Yousef

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com

Government to bring in temp worker law unchanged

A spokesman at the Department for Business (BIS) told The Telegraphthat the new agency workers legislation, which entitles temps to the same pay and benefits as permanent staff after just 12 weeks in a job, will definitely come into force unchanged from when it was laid before Parliament last year.

This is despite the Prime Minister's office secretly commissioning its own legal advice to see whether the law could be moderated to reduce its impact on UK employers.

Downing Street was told by lawyers that the regulations were "gold-plated" with additional unnecessary rules, making the law burdensome and costly to implement.

A recent survey suggested almost 500,000 agency workers could lose their jobs just before Christmas as businesses moved to sack temps to avoid the new rules. The law is expected to cost employers £1.8bn a year to abide by.

Employers' groups have become increasingly confused over whether the Government plans to dilute the regulations to make it easier for companies to employ people.

By Louisa Peacock

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Secrecy law bad for business

Security, or state secrecy, legislation such as the Protection of State Information Bill could see businesses placed at a disadvantage should they come into competition with a state-owned enterprise, says Mail & Guardian editor Nic Dawes.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Pan African Conference on Information Access on Sunday, Dawes said: "Information is the lifeblood of markets and nowadays all businesses are information businesses. Broadly speaking the business environment is badly damaged by law that restricts the flow of information.

More narrowly the potential that exists to classify information on government tenders and the activities of para-statals on security grounds could very well see the information asymmetry between the government and the private sector increase."

Dawes said one could easily imagine an electricity tender, or a roads tender or a water tender being captured under the heading of state security and if that is the case it would become very difficult for companies to get their rights to equal treatment vindicated.

"I think potentially it would give state-owned enterprises but also politically well-connected business players an advantage. Anything that decreases the possibility of scrutiny increases the possibility of unfair treatment and corruption," Dawes said.

During the conference Dawes was asked by SA National Editors Forum chairperson Raymond Louw about some of the difficulties, apart from the raft of secrecy laws, which hamper publication.

Dawes said there had been a recent tradition to delay, frustrate and increase the price of publication of a weekly newspaper such as the M&G to try and interdict it on a Thursday in order to stop its appearance on a Friday.

"There has been a strategy to bring them (an interdict application) late on a Thursday. However, the courts are generally rejecting them and they (the complainants) have to fight pretty hard to get a last minute injunction against us," he said.

Dawes bemoaned the lack of an information commissioner in SA saying that there was no specialised capacity for information dissemination.

"Which is an amazing problem as there is no institutional locus to make that happen," he said.

Dawes cited a ruling by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo who said that because of the media's role in the democratic process government has a duty to provide information access that was crucial to accurate reporting.

The controversial Protection of State Information Bill is scheduled to come before the National Assembly on Tuesday, September 20. - I-Net Bridge   Posted By BusinessReports

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

BUSINESS LAW: Employers must be careful with pre–employment activities

Often, reported cases present two important lessons. Consider the facts of this case:

In order to obtain a new start, a man filed personal bankruptcy in February 2008. As part of the new start, he moved to a different state and obtained a new job.

Within months, he applied for a job with a different employer. The new job would have been a big step upward. The interview went well and the prospective employer paid for the man to attend a two–day, on–the–job evaluation program.

The evaluation also went well. The man was told that the new employer would conduct a credit history check, and he consented.

After the evaluation, the man was offered a job and was scheduled to begin work in three weeks. He was not told that his employment was conditioned on a favorable credit history report.

In reliance on the offer of the new job, the man quit his old one. Immediately thereafter, based on the results of the credit report, the new employer notified him that he would not be hired due to the bankruptcy he had filed.

There is a federal statute that addresses this issue. The statute distinguishes between a "governmental" employer and a private sector employer. A governmental employer may not deny employment to, terminate the employment of or discriminate against any person who has filed bankruptcy. Note that his protection relates to "hiring" a person. The statute treats private sector employers differently. It prohibits the termination of an employee or discrimination against an employee, who files or has filed bankruptcy. Note, that as to private employers, it doesn't protect applicants for employment.

Since the employer was in private sector, the employer did not violate the statute when it refused to hire the man due to his bankruptcy filing. The different treatment of governmental versus private sector employers is lesson No. 1.

Lesson No. 2 relates to how close the employer came to losing the case. The man argued (unsuccessfully) that he had been hired before the credit report results came back. He received two days of paid training (or was it "evaluation"?). He was told he had a job, without mention that it was contingent on the credit check results. He quit his job in reliance on this assumption.

The court held that even with these facts, the man had not been hired. Employers must be careful with their pre–employment activities. The more they appear to be more like post–employment activities (like paid on–site training), the more likely it will be that a court will hold that the applicant had been hired, and was an employee.

By James Jorgensen

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"