Please be advised that contacting Ruder Ware by e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you contact the firm by e-mail with respect to a matter where the firm does not already represent you, any information which you disclose to us may not be regarded as privileged or confidential.


Accept   Cancel

Please be advised that contacting Ruder Ware by e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you contact the firm by e-mail with respect to a matter where the firm does not already represent you, any information which you disclose to us may not be regarded as privileged or confidential.


Accept   Cancel

PAL Login

linkedin.jpgyoutube.jpgvimeo.jpgtwitter_off.png View Ruder Ware

Search Results


Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Warning: substr_count(): Empty substring in /home/ruderw5/public_html/blocks/search/controller.php on line 263

Searching for Articles published in September 2014.
Found 17 Results.

Ambulatory Surgery Center Compliance Federal Settlement Raises Issues for Physician Owned Surgery Centers

Posted on September 30, 2014, Authored by John H. Fisher, II, Filed under Health Care

A Federal Whistleblower that was recently settled in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee illustrates the difficult issues involved in structuring ambulatory surgery center ("ASC") investments. Specifically, the case demonstrates how investment terms that are intended to assure compliance with the safe harbor regulations under the Medicare Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(a)-(b)) can create evidence of non-compliance if the initial terms of the offering relate, in whole or in part, to the volume or value of expected referrals from the investor in the ASC venture. The crux of the case alleged that Meridian offered referring physicians the opportunity to invest in the local ASC operating entities at less than fair market value. The end result was that the investing physicians were paid an extremely high rate of return on their investment. The complaint alleged that the low acquisition price, together with the high rate of investment return, amounted to remuneration that was intended to induce referrals in violation of the Federal Anti?Kickback Statute. We have prepared a Blue Paper Summary of this case and an analysis of what it might mean to ambulatory surgery center investment structures. You can access the complete analysis through the following link: ASC Investment Case Analysis

Using "Like" on Facebook may be Protected Speech

Posted on September 5, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Employment

A recent decision from the National Labor Relations Board (August 25, 2014) held that an employee using the "Like" feature on a Facebook page to show support for comments by another employee about the conduct of the company payroll system constituted protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act. The Board held that the termination of the employee for actions taken on the Facebook page was an unlawful termination and contrary to the right of the employee to engage in protected speech about working conditions at the employee's workplace. This is one of the first decisions regarding social media but seems consistent with past NLRB decisions that gave great deference to employee speech. In this decision, two employees were terminated for the actions they took to "Like" a comment by a former employee who complained about the tax-withholding calculations made by the company. The Board found that these expressions by the two employees should be considered protected speech and they were unlawfully terminated for exercising their right to protected speech. The Board also found that the policy of the company which prohibited inappropriate discussions about the company, management or other workers as part of the "Internet/Blogging" policy was unlawful and inappropriately restricted the protected speech of company employees. These decisions are Three D LLC d/b/a Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille v. Sanzone, case number 34-CA-12915; and Three D LLC d/b/a Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille v. Spinella, case number 34-CA-12926. Employers must be very careful about the use of "off duty" conduct as a basis for terminating an individual employee. Companies should be able to protect their reputation and prohibit employees from making derogatory statements about the company on Internet communications but this right is subject to significant review and challenge by the National Labor Relations Board. Caution is the appropriate word when considering terminating an employee for their words on the Internet or Facebook.

WDNR's Duty and Authority to Consider Cumulative Impacts in Groundwater Withdrawal

Posted on September 30, 2014, Authored by Russell W. Wilson,

Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey Boldt, Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, issued his September 3, 2014, decision holding that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has the legal authority and duty to consider cumulative impacts from groundwater withdrawal so as to prevent potential harm to the waters of the state. "It is scientifically unsupported, and impossible as a practical matter, to manage water resources if cumulative impacts are not considered." The decision explains that the withdrawal of groundwater, which is governed by the "modified reasonable use doctrine", is a privilege and not a property right. The decision further explains that the WDNR's authority and duty are conferred by statutes and the Public Trust Doctrine established in the Wisconsin Constitution, as noted in the unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court decision Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR, 2011 WI 54. The decision arose out of contested case hearing involving applications for high capacity wells sought by Richfield Dairy, LLC in Adams County. It is unknown at this time whether the decision will be appealed to Wisconsin Circuit Court.

The Women's Community Features Angela Gonzalez

Posted on September 30, 2014, Authored by , Filed under Community

Angela Gonzalez has been volunteering at The Women's Community since 2009. As an On-Call Volunteer Advocate, Angela goes to the local hospital emergency rooms, and provides immediate and valuable support to individuals that experienced a sexual assault. She has responded to over 20 cases during her time as a volunteer with the agency and spent almost 100 hours of her time helping others. Angela has maintained a professional and compassionate attitude with all those she has come in contact with, and during some of the challenging cases she has dealt with. We are very thankful for the support Angela has provided to those in need. Angela shares "for many years, I advocated for legislative and other political action with regard to domestic violence and sexual assault, working with various agencies and organizations to foster public awareness of these issues and have more protections in place for victims. However, a few years ago, I realized that this form of advocacy was not as fulfilling as it used to be. I heard about The Women's Community and looked up ways I could volunteer with the shelter. I read about the volunteer ER advocate program and SAVS and knew that was what I wanted to do. I knew the training would be intense and going on calls would be extremely difficult, but I had no idea how intense and difficult it would be. After doing this for several years however, I believe it is all worth it. My training told me I can't fix the victim and make things all better. The endless and amazing support I receive from TWC staff reinforces that for me and helps me cope. But with each call, I feel that giving the victim just a little smile of compassion and empathy, a listening ear, and a folder of information, I have made a difference to the victim - I helped to enforce the idea that he or she is not alone."

35th Annual Estate Planning Update

Posted on September 24, 2014, Authored by ,

Crowne Plaza Milwaukee West 10499 Innovation Dr Wauwatosa, WI 35th Annual Estate Planning Update Ruder Ware Attorneys Mark Bradley and Melissa Kampmann will present on the topic Borrowing Money When Collateral is Held in Trust About the Program View program schedule Assure clients their legacy will pass to the next generation as planned Sponsored by:       Who should attend: Estate planning practitioners Probate attorneys Elder law attorneys Family law attorneys How you'll benefit: Be current with case law and legislative matters Get sample language for trusts that will receive IRAs Learn about the process of trustee borrowing See how the new Wisconsin Trust Code impacts transactions Know how to prepare for adversarial proceedings Many clients will experience diminishment or loss of capacity in their later years. A good estate plan not only provides for the transfer of assets at death, but also ensures the proper management of the client's personal and financial affairs during the client's lifetime. With the new Wisconsin Trust Code in effect, the changes in the areas of estate planning and estate and trust administration this year are especially significant. The practical, relevant issues to be covered at the 35th Annual Estate Planning Update include: The most significant new Wisconsin Trust Code provisions, including sample provisions for wills and trusts and related documents How trustees can borrow money for the benefit of their beneficiaries Drafting tips and suggested language to include in durable powers of attorney, revocable trusts, and other documents to help protect your clients in the event of incapacity The unique issues that arise when a trust is beneficiary of an IRA or qualified plan, and recent developments that could affect your clients In addition, one session will provide clear-cut guidance on preparing for adversarial proceedings. Learn how to resolve disputes among beneficiaries and advise individuals serving in a fiduciary capacity to avoid potential pitfalls. As always, there will be a thorough case law and legislative update for both state and federal law. The materials will include tax and non-tax related recent developments, with a greater emphasis on non-tax issues impacting day-to-day estate planning practice. So be prepared to advise your clients on their estate plans by attending the Annual Update. Register today!

Bring Your Comfort Animal to Work  Everyday?

Posted on September 29, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Employment

I am familiar with the national movement of "bring your child to work," but now I am wondering if we will have a national movement to bring your "comfort animal" to work. A recent federal court decision in Hawaii held that an employer may have discriminated against an employee based upon his depression and adjustment disorder disabilities when the employer told the individual he could no longer bring his "comfort animal," a Shih Tzu dog named "Sugar Bear," to work. The employer insisted upon medical documentation establishing the need for the employee to bring the animal to work even though the animal was a licensed service animal that helped the employee control his emotions and reduce his stress. The federal district court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the company holding that there was a question of fact whether allowing the employee to bring the dog to work with him was a reasonable accommodation and whether the company had failed to engage in a sufficient interactive process with the employee before disallowing that from happening. The matter will now proceed to a full trial. When confronted with a request to bring an animal to work, the employer should ask for documentation of the need as well as the medical condition of the employee which establishes that need. The employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee, which means there must be face-to-face discussions with the employee about the request and the appropriateness of the request as well as the availability of other options. This interactive process and discussion is an absolute requirement based upon the many cases that have found discrimination because of a failure to engage in the interactive process. We can look forward to more requests for "bring your animal to work" today and forever.

EEOC Strikes Again

Posted on September 17, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Employment

I mentioned in a blog several weeks ago that summer was gone and the EEOC was embarking upon a renewed effort to "flex its muscles" and pursue claims designed to limit the rights of employers. The EEOC has acted again by bringing a lawsuit against a California company challenging the language in an employee information release form that gave the company the right to ask for medical information from physicians and other professionals after an employee completed a fitness for duty exam. In this litigation, the EEOC has alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act by suggesting that the scope of information that was requested by the company in the release form discriminated against certain employees because the company was asking for any and all medical information about the employee instead of only about the medical condition of the employee. The EEOC has said that the information release form is so broad that it violates the rights of an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act by inquiring about medical information that is not related to business necessity and to the need for information that would be used by the company to determine the ability of the employee to return to work. This is another example of the EEOC looking for cases to bring a challenge to company policies and practices in order to limit the right of a company to obtain information about its employees. Employers must be careful about what they are asking of their employees in situations where they are asking for medical information. The scrutiny of employer practices has been expanded thru these types of Agency enforcement actions.

Decision on "Like" Facebook Protection is Appealed

Posted on September 17, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Employment

I recently blogged about a decision from the National Labor Relations Board holding that an action by a worker to "Like" a comment on Facebook about the poor conduct of a company was considered protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB found that the termination of an employee for "liking" a comment on Facebook was a violation of the Act and called for reinstatement of the employee. That decision has now been appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals. The case involved Triple Play Sports Bar and Grill and inappropriate comments on Facebook by a former employee about the failure of the company to properly withhold state income taxes, which comment was "Liked" by two then current employees. The company terminated the two employees for their actions. The case has now been appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The company is looking for a review of the decision by the NLRB that has been identified as a very employee-friendly agency. The hope is that this review by the Court of Appeals will provide a check and balance to the number of decisions by the NLRB that have provided for broad protections to employees. In this case, the NLRB gave protection to employees who criticized their employer and, in theory, adopted the insulting language from the post by the former employee. The NLRB, in its ruling, also found that the "Internet/Blogging" policy adopted by the company was too broad and could be construed to restrict employees from their protected speech rights. That ruling will also be subject to argument before the Second Circuit. Employers should continue to monitor this case because it will give us some guidance regarding the nature and extent of protected speech rights for employees and how the protected rights will intersect with social media and internet usage.

Working from Home May Not be Automatic

Posted on September 18, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Employment

I wrote a blog a number of months ago about a federal Court of Appeals decision which strongly suggested that working from home would be a required reasonable accommodation in certain circumstances. A decision involving Ford Motor Company strongly suggested that the company would be required to allow an employee with irritable bowel syndrome to work from home because the company could not show that attendance at work was an essential requirement for the work of this employee. See blog entitled "Door Open to Working at Home". Much to everyones surprise, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals very recently issued an order withdrawing its decision and setting the matter up for argument again. This order came because of a Motion to Reconsider filed by Ford Motor Company and signals that the Court of Appeals may have come to realize that its rather striking decision requiring an accommodation of working at home is not necessarily authorized under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We understand that an occasional request to work at home may be part of a reasonable accommodation package for an employee, but an accommodation that the employee may work at home at all times does not appear reasonable. Apparently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has had second thoughts and will reconsider its decision on what is a reasonable accommodation for an employee who has difficulty coming to work or working at the place of employment. We will continue to monitor this case. It is should be very interesting.

NFL on the Defensive: What Your Organization Can Learn From the Rice Incident

Posted on September 11, 2014, Authored by Sara J. Ackermann, Filed under Employment

If you are one of the 150 million Americans that tunes in to weekly NFL games, you know that the NFL is now under fire for how it handled the original investigation into the Ray Rice domestic violence allegations. Regardless of whether you follow football, you should check out my recent article, "NFL on the Defensive: What Your Organization Can Learn From the Rice Incident" for insight on how critical it is for an organization to conduct a thorough investigation when addressing allegations of internal misconduct whether it be theft, harassment, or some other transgression. If the misconduct later leads to litigation, investigation by a government agency, or is leaked to the media, your investigation will be scrutinized. You need to be prepared to justify not only the investigation, but also every decision made based on that investigation. The scrutiny won't be fun. If you don't believe me, just ask Roger Goodell.

EEOC Challenges Wellness Program

Posted on September 16, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Local Governments and School Districts

In a recent complaint filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the EEOC has challenged a wellness program administered by a Wisconsin company. Under the wellness program employees were asked to complete a health risk assessment, including questions regarding medical history, and were required to complete certain blood work. In addition, the health risk assessment included a test on a range of motion machine in the physical fitness room at the work site. The legal challenge involved one employee who refused to complete the wellness program. Allegedly, when this employee refused to complete the program, the employee was charged a full premium for the health insurance coverage and ultimately was terminated from employment for making complaints about the wellness program. Importantly, one of the legal challenges also questioned whether the wellness program was truly voluntary and did not have any type of business justification for mandatory participation. Many local government employers have implemented wellness programs to address health care costs. Extra caution must be used to make sure the wellness program is voluntary and the local government employer does not compel participation by doing such things as imposing a requirement of paying 100% of the health insurance premium if the employee does not participate in the wellness program. Evidence has shown that wellness programs can address health care costs and assist an employer in regulating some of the cost of health care for its employees. Employers must be careful, however, they do not violate the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act by penalizing an individual who does not actively participate in a wellness program.

Aggressive Conduct Toward Subordinate Places Sheriff in Jeopardy of Civil Suit Under Wisconsin Law

Posted on September 2, 2014, Authored by Russell W. Wilson, Filed under Employment

Just how threatening and intimidating can a superior or co-employee act toward a subordinate or co-employee without incurring the risk of a civil lawsuit for damages under Wisconsin law? The federal district court in Madison faced that interesting question in a preliminary motion hearing. As a result, the lawsuit against the sheriff of Burnett County will proceed at least through the discovery phase, after which a motion for summary judgment might, or might not, be available. The "exclusive remedy" provision of the Worker's Compensation Act provides near immunity from suit against the employer. That protection from suit likewise applies to individuals (superiors or co-employees), except for a few exceptions. One of those exceptions is an assault with intent to cause bodily harm. Actual bodily harm is not required, but there must be intent to cause bodily harm coupled with an "assault." You might ask: "An assault is bodily harm, right?" Actually, not. Under Wisconsin law, the making and raising of the fist would be an example of an "assault," while the actual physical contact is a "battery." Hence, the term "assault and battery." Under Wisconsin tort law, verbally berating and hounding a co-employee or subordinate in the absence of some degree of aggressive physical behavior would not subject the offending party to suit even if the victim has a nervous breakdown as a result. It is another story if the aggressor strikes the victim. That would remove the protective shield of the worker's compensation exclusive remedy; the aggressor could be sued individually for all of the victim's damages, including emotional injury. What if the aggressor threw a punch, the victim ducked, and the aggressor missed? The law presumes that one intends the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. In that instance a suit against the aggressor would probably proceed to trial because a swing and a miss is strong evidence that the aggressor meant to hit the victim. In a motion to dismiss decided on August 1, 2014 in Nesvold v. Roland (2014 WL 3810899), the amended complaint alleged that the Burnett County Sheriff "rushed" the jail administrator, "pointed his finger" in the administrator's face, "pounded on the windows," "threw boxes at the wall," and "intended to restrain" the administrator so as to cause him to assume a defensive posture. The district judge ruled that these allegations at the pleading stage are enough to get past a motion to dismiss. Whether the sheriff is actually determined to have intended to cause bodily harm will play out in the discovery phase, and possibly, at trial. Not to lose sight of the big picture in this case, federal charges for alleged deprivation of civil rights were not part of the motion to dismiss and will go forward.

NFL on the Defensive: What Your Organization Can Learn From the Rice Incident.

Posted on September 11, 2014, Authored by Sara J. Ackermann,

Right now the National Football League is "on trial." We aren't talking about your typical trial before a judge and jury. This is a trial of the worst kind - a trial by media. With about half of Americans admitting they are fans of professional football, this is a trial that America is watching. Whether you are in the private sector, public sector, for profit or non-profit, you too should pay attention. Why? Because some day your organization will need to conduct an internal investigation. It may arise out of a sexual harassment claim, an allegation of employee theft, or an anonymous threat of violence. Regardless of the issue, the underlying investigation is critical. Why? Because if the underlying investigation is botched, then every single decision made based on that botched investigation will be tainted. This is the problem the NFL is facing today. Yes, I am talking about the Rice Incident (who isn't talking about the Rice Incident?) But for those of you who don't know, here is some background: On February 15, Ray Rice, a player for the Baltimore Ravens, and his then-fiancee, Janay Palmer, got into an altercation on an elevator in an Atlantic City casino. Shortly thereafter, a casino surveillance video was made public. The video did not show what happened inside the elevator, rather, it only showed Rice dragging Palmer's unconscious body from the elevator. The NFL, having viewed the video, issued Rice a two-game suspension for the incident. Fast forward to Monday, September 8, when a second casino surveillance video was posted on-line by a media organization. This video, taken from inside the elevator, clearly shows Rice punching Palmer in the head, knocking her out cold, and then dragging her body. The NFL immediately suspended Rice indefinitely. Now the NFL has some very tough questions to answer about its investigation and the decisions made based on that investigation. Did it know about a second video? Did it try to get the second video? Did it ever contact the casino for other videos or interview its staff? Did it contact the Atlantic City police department for information? Did it interview Rice or Palmer about the incident? Why did it now change its punishment from a two-game suspension to an indefinite suspension? Yesterday, the NFL announced it had engaged former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct a review of the League's "pursuit and handling of evidence" of the incident. There is no doubt that Mueller will scrutinize every part of the investigation and "Monday morning quarterback" every single decision made by NFL based on that investigation. Bottom line: A thorough investigation into allegations of misconduct within your organization is critical. Work with your legal counsel to ensure you have not disregarded what could be deemed later as important evidence. When a judge, jury, or the media is later scrutinizing your investigation, you want to be confident you can defend both the investigation and the decisions made based on that investigation. You only have one opportunity to do it right! As Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, would probably tell you, it is no fun being on the defensive end of an investigation.

Ruder Ware Paints Marathon County Orange

Posted on September 25, 2014, Authored by , Filed under Community

September is Hunger Action Month, a nationwide campaign mobilizing the public to take action on the issue of hunger. Organized by the Feeding America nationwide network of food banks, the campaign brings greater attention to the issue of hunger in America and promotes ways for individuals everywhere to get involved with the movement to solve it. Marathon County has chosen September 25 to make a statement. Several employees at Ruder Ware showed their support by helping "paint" Marathon County orange on Thursday. A thank you to The Neighbors' Place for getting the word out!

English-Only Policies Under Scrutiny

Posted on September 3, 2014, Authored by Dean R. Dietrich, Filed under Employment

Some companies have adopted an English-only policy which requires that employees use English as the only language allowed in the workplace. This type of policy is often adopted for safety reasons to ensure that everyone understands what is being said in an emergency situation. Unfortunately, the adoption of an English-only policy can create liability for a company. A recent statement by a regional attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) actually warns employers against adopting English-only policies. The suggestion is that requiring employees to be fluent in English and requiring only the English language be used in the workplace can be the basis for a claim of discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC recently sued a Wisconsin manufacturing company alleging the company engaged in national-origin discrimination by firing employees with poor English language skills. The EEOC is arguing that the English-only requirement is not necessary for employees to perform their duties and seeks reinstatement, lost wages and compensatory damages for deciding to terminate these employees. The argument is that the English-only requirement is a subtle way of discriminating against non-English-speaking employees and therefore discriminating on the basis of national origin. It is difficult for a company to argue that English-only is an absolute requirement for employment because certainly safety considerations can be addressed with training of employees regarding the use of certain language in an emergency. Companies should be very careful if they are contemplating the adoption of an English-only work policy. These types of policies will attract attention from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you really feel that English-only policies are necessary, they should be narrowly tailored to achieve the specific goals that you feel are necessary. The policy should specify when employees are required to communicate in English and clearly allow employees to use their native tongue when not performing that duty which required the English language. Companies should also publish the notice in English and other languages and make sure the policy is communicated to all employees before enforcing it.

Shoemaker: A Personal Experience

Posted on September 11, 2014, Authored by Daniel J. Rupar,

This is a tale of a shoemaker who was so busy making everyone else's shoes that he forgot about his own. We all have plenty of time to get the "paperwork" of our estate planning done, right? For most of us, it's just another thing to check off as far as being a responsible adult, spouse, and parent. But, on occasion, things happen and the unpredictability in life becomes clear. I am chair of Ruder Ware's Trusts and Estates Practice Group. I am a 51-year-old husband and father of two young women, ages 21 and 18. I am a fitness addict who stays in great shape. I had last done our estate plan in 2002 when we were just beginning to become responsible parents with young kids. Over the years, I had a nagging feeling it needed a good review and clean up, but I was always busy with other issues, so our estate plan stayed on the shelf. I convinced myself I had plenty of time to get it revised. Well, the unpredictability of life demanded a refocus. A few weeks back I found out I have brain cancer. It's treatable, but I realized as a shoemaker, I could walk barefoot no longer. I revisited my plan and quickly discovered that although it would have worked, it had grown deficient and would have cost my family not only taxes but would not have protected assets from creditors. My wife and kids would have had a harder time than necessary in resolving the estate and managing the assets going forward. Needless to say, I've updated my plan with the assistance of my colleagues (who, in my opinion, are the best estate planners in the state) and have resolved to review my plan on an annual basis to make sure it stays current. So, for all of you that have "get an estate plan" or "update estate plan" on your to-do list, remember the shoemaker needs a pair of shoes too.

Annual Employment, Benefits, & Labor Relations Law Conference - 2014

Posted on September 23, 2014, Authored by ,

Westwood Conference Center 1800 Westwood Center Blvd Wausau, WI 54401 Please contact: Shannon Jacobson at sjacobson@ruderware.com (715) 845.4336 Registration: 7:30 a.m. Welcome and Introductions: 8:00 a.m. 8:05 a.m. - 9:20 a.m. Affordable Care Act New Reporting Requirements and Update Attorney Mary Ellen Schill If it's Fall that means it's time for an Affordable Care Act update. We're one step closer to the pay or play mandate being effective. And, the IRS has issued draft forms and instructions for the Section 6055 and 6056 reporting requirements for applicable large employers, insurers, and self-funded health plan sponsors. Attorney Mary Ellen Schill will get you up to date with the ACA and the new reporting requirements. Break: 9:20 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Morning Workshops, Round 1 (Choose One) 9:30 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. NLRB on the Loose: Do Your Personnel Policies Pass Muster Under Recent Board Decisions? Attorney Dean Dietrich The National Labor Relations Board has a full complement of Board members and is engaging in a great deal of scrutiny over employer personnel policies and codes of conduct. A number of decisions by the Board have held that various types of employer policies designed to address employee conduct violate the protected speech rights of employees under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. This presentation will review the Section 7 Rights of employees and identify the various personnel policies that may be subject to further scrutiny by the NLRB. Social Media as a Tool in the Hiring Process Attorney Kevin Terry What is the first thing recruiters do when they receive an application? For many, it is to Google the applicant's name to get additional information about the person. Using tools like Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, and even Twitter is becoming commonplace in the search for employees. With these new tools, however, comes risks and rewards. The presenter will address the "Do's and Don'ts" of using social media in the hiring process. Break: 10:40 a.m. - 10:50 a.m. Morning Workshops, Round 2 (Choose One) 10:50 a.m. - Noon Now I Have a Migraine! How to Manage the Sick, Injured, and Disabled Workforce Attorney Sara Ackermann This session will cover the evolving world of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This session will address the statutory requirements of each law; examine some of the common management difficulties that are encountered, and suggest practical ways to address these concerns. Attorney Ackermann will address all of your questions including the following: When is each law triggered? What if more than one law applies? How can medical information be obtained? When can attendance issues be addressed? And, the million dollar question, when can employment be terminated? Union Rights for Non-union Employees Ruder Ware Alumni Attorney Labor laws are not just for unionized employers! In this hour-long, interactive session, attendees will learn about numerous, recent developments at the National Labor Relations Board level that impact non-union workplaces. These developments include the so-called "ambush" or "quickie" election rules, micro-unit organizing rights, workplace confidentiality protections [policies and unwritten directives], solicitation and distribution practices, employee access rights, employee use of company e-mail systems, Weingarten rights [whether an employee is entitled to representation at a disciplinary meeting], representation rights at OSHA inspections, so-called "inherently concerted activity," and more. The NLRB is flexing its muscles - find out what you need to know to be prepared. Lunch and Networking Noon - 1:00 p.m. During lunch, our panel of attorneys will invite you to ask questions. Feel free to bring your "hypothetical" questions and try to stump the experts! See our brochure for more details.