Articles & Publications

Resnick & Louis, P.C. – Attorneys at Law

Resnick & Louis, P.C. was founded in 2012 by Mitchell J. Resnick and Lena M. Louis, both of whom are highly respected attorneys in the legal and business communities, with over 40 years of collective experience. Together they have developed a team of diverse and experienced attorneys who are licensed to represent clients in various jurisdictions.

Browse articles and publications that are written by and featuring the attorneys of Resnick & Louis.

If you are interested in contacting an attorney for an interview or article, please contact Stacie O’Brien at sobrien@rlattorneys.com

 


What is Proposition 206-The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act?

QUESTION PRESENTED What is Proposition 206-The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act (the “Act”) generally? How does it impact non-hourly employees, specifically employers of motor carriers? BRIEF ANSWER The Act will take effect on July 1, 2017, and gives employees the right to accrue paid sick leave. Employers of truck drivers will also be subject to the act. To determine the amount non-hourly employees are to be compensated for paid sick leave, such as motor carriers, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (“ICA”) delineates their hourly rate is determined by one of four methods detailed below. DISCUSSION The Act applies to all employers. The ICA states they do not intend to apply the Act against employees who work outside of Arizona. The Act gives employees 1 hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. Employers with less than 15 employees must at minimum permit and allow the use of 24 hours of paid sick leave per year. Employers with more than 15 employees, must at minimum permit the use of 40 hours of paid sick leave a year. An employer also has the option to provide all earned paid leave time that an employee is expected to earn at the beginning of the year. Unused paid sick leave rolls over into the next year unless the employer decides to exercise its option and pay the employee for the time that is to be rolled over. An employee can only carry a maximum of 40 hours paid leave time into the next year and remains entitled to accrue an additional 40 hours paid leave (maximum of 80 hours) if there are 15 or more employees. If there are less than 15 employees, an employee can only carry a maximum of 24 hours paid leave time into the next year and remains […]


Medical marijuana laws present unique challenges to employers

Almost all states will soon have similar laws as to medical marijuana usage, and generally no employee can be fired just for having medical authorization to use marijuana. The Americans with Disabilities Act even prevents employers from asking about it because that would presume the employer is asking about an underlying disability. While it’s still illegal under federal law to possess or use it, there have been more than 60 peer-reviewed studies with an overwhelming majority finding marijuana helpful as palliative care in debilitating diseases or for those with chronic pain. What is an employer to do? Re-write your employee handbook; be vigilant and drug test under the defense of reasonable suspicion. Current Arizona law is typical of many states’ view: unless a failure to test would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under law, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, terminating, imposing a condition of employment, or otherwise penalizing a person for having medical marijuana privileges, or producing a positive test for marijuana. Safety-sensitive work in the transportation industry – or any industry – allows the employer to discipline/terminate employees with medical marijuana prescriptions if intoxicated on duty. Regardless of the industry, no employee with a medical marijuana card may use, possess, or be impaired at work. Why should you be concerned/have a policy/conduct reasonable suspicion testing? Because of exposure to the legal risk of negligent hiring or negligent retention claims brought by third persons; and because your medical card employee could challenge you for discrimination if you do not treat every employee the same. The Gig Economy Just Got Giggier On June 7, 2017, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta announced that the U.S. Department of Labor has withdrawn two informal guidance documents on independent contractor misclassification and joint employment, which had […]


PRESS RELEASE: Resnick & Louis Welcomes 5 New Attorneys To The Firm

Scottsdale, AZ., June 15, 2017: Resnick & Louis. P.C. is pleased to announce the addition of 5 new attorneys. The attorneys will be based in our NV, FL, AZ, and CA offices and include Caroline Molloy, Jordan Shidlofsky, Tracee L. Duthie, Alyssa A. Cina, and Kristi N. Davisson. “Our new attorneys have an excellent and established reputation in insurance defense, construction defect, professional liability, and premises,” says Mitchell Resnick, managing shareholder of Resnick & Louis. “They will expand our practice area providing services to clients, and broaden our expertise across all states.” The new attorneys include: Caroline Molloy has come to be known and respected as one of the top litigation attorneys in Southern California. Ms. Molloy is known for her powerful and aggressive interdisciplinary litigation practice, combining expert trial and courtroom advocacy skills with bold and decisive litigation strategies. Jordan Shidlofsky practice focused on construction defect litigation representing developers, general contractors, subcontractors, environmental consultants, product manufacturers and insurance carriers in a variety of contexts arising from the construction and use of real property. Tracee L. Duthie is admitted to practice law in both the State and Federal courts in Nevada. Her practice has been in general civil litigation, insurance defense litigation, additional insured litigation, construction defect litigation, personal injury, slip and fall, medical malpractice, product liability and HOA super priority lien. Ms. Duthie has successfully settled numerous multi-million-dollar litigation and has trial experience in district and justice court. She has advocated both in the defense bar and plaintiff arena. Alyssa A. Cina managed 10 staff personnel and supervised a caseload of 250 car accident and premise liability files from intake to negotiations. She has worked in the Fourth District Court of Appeals performing a variety of civil and criminal appeals. She has experience in personal injury and civil litigation. […]


Jennifer A. Boldi to speak at PLRB in June

Jennifer A. Boldi, Partner at Resnick & Louis, will be speaking at the June 14-15th western conference for PLRB. She will be covering recent property case law updates. Review current coverage and case law trends and improve your ability to forecast court decisions Identify current regional issues and concerns in the property insurance field Use reasoning skills to apply policy provisions to factual scenarios Compare notes involving coverage challenges with other claims professionals from your region To sign up for the PLRB conference please click here.


FLSA and Motor Carriers – California Comp still hurts – freight capacity

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that employers must pay non-exempt employees at “one and one-half times the regular rate” for time worked in excess of forty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The FLSA exempts “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service” under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA). 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1) (“the MCA Exemption”). Mr. Williams brought this action alleging that Central Transport LLC violated the FLSA’s overtime requirements when it employed him as a “switcher” at its St. Louis terminal. He tried to make the claim into a class action suit. The question of how Williams spent his time working for Central Transport is a question of fact; the ultimate issue of whether his work activities exempted Central Transport from paying FLSA overtime is one of law. In United States v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 310 U.S. 534, 553 (1940), the Supreme Court rejected the contention of that all employees of interstate motor carriers were exempt, concluding that the jurisdiction to regulate maximum hours “is limited to those employees whose activities affect the safety of [motor carrier] operation.” Later, the rule was expanded that motor carrier drivers, mechanics, loaders, and drivers helpers who “perform duties which affect the safety of operation… are therefore subject to the authority conferred [by the MCA] to prescribe qualifications and maximum hours of service.” MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 126 (1941). Mr. Williams was a “city loader” by title with Central Transport. However, he also did some minimal loading of trailers that affected the motor carrier’s safe interstate operation, including balancing loads and stacking cargo “high and tight.” The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision published July 28 2016 seems to have expanded a ruling from 1947 […]