Posts Tagged ‘settlement’

Help Me . . . Help You

by HDlawblog Posted: Wednesday, 9/21/2016

Most people probably think that “Show me the money!” is the Jerry McGuire quote that best describes lawyers. But that’s not true. The quote that best describes lawyers is “help me . . . help you.” And there are many things that a client can do to help his or her lawyer in a litigation case. Here are some simple, but effective, considerations for a win-win situation. Doing these four things will make your case more efficient, and success more probable.

1. Preserve Evidence. Your lawyer can only defend and prosecute your case with evidence. Also, the failure to preserve evidence can be used against you. Thus, Rule #1: Preserve Evidence. Start by identifying all the potential locations of evidence: Paper format; electronic devices; servers; cloud/online storage; and third party sources. These should be saved to ensure that evidence is preserved. After identifying the sources of documents, help your lawyer by culling and gathering the documents. It is also useful to specifically identify the documents that you think are most relevant to the case. Likewise, identify all potential witnesses and provide your attorney with the last known contact information.

2. Know you’re objective, and what you’re willing to settle for.  At the beginning of the lawsuit, clarify your objectives. Consider the best-case outcomes; consider the worst-case outcomes. And consider the outcomes that you want to achieve. It is also best to consider what you’re willing to concede (or spend), in order to achieve the desired outcome.

3. Understand Risks. Nothing is certain. Nothing is promised. Nothing is guaranteed. Litigation is unpredictable. At least one major fact or witness will turn out completely different than anticipated. The law can be murky, too. An analogy: Imagine that you own a 2007 Honda CRV with a book value of $10,000. Now, imagine that you park the 2007 Honda CRV on the street with a “For Sale Best Offer” sign. What type of offer might you get? Would it matter if your CRV is sold in Lancaster, or Camp Hill, or Gettysburg, or West Chester? The book value might be $10,000; but the reality is that it will be sold on a specific day, at a specific location, with a specific buyer. You might get $10,000 exactly, but probably not. Likewise, the legal books might say that your dispute should be determined one way or another. But the reality is that it will depend on the specific facts of your case, with a specific judge or jury, in a specific location. Just like the sale of the CRV – litigation is not an exact formula.

4. Understand Negotiated Settlement. To avoid unpredictability, and to achieve finality, settlements are wise. But, to get something, you need to give something.

What’s Happening Now . . .

7.5 % Increase

  • Through July 2016, spending on private construction is up 7.5%, compared to 2015.
  • Spending on public construction is up 0.2%.
  • Total construction spending is up 5.6%.
  • Residential construction spending is up 6.5%.
  • Non-residential private construction spending is up 5.1%.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, July 2016 Construction at $1,153.2 Billion Annual Rate (Sep. 1, 2016).

This article is authored by attorney Jeffrey C. Bright and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice.  Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Litigation | Comments Off on Help Me . . . Help You

Construction Law Newsletter January 2016

by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 1/29/2016

What’s Happening Now . . .

       5%

  • Unemployment rate for December 2015.
  • Construction gained 45,000 jobs in December; a third straight month of job gains.
  • 263,000 construction jobs were gained in 2015.

Source: U.S. BLS, News Release: The Employment Situation – December 2015 (Jan. 8, 2016).

 

So You Want to Litigate – What Happens Next?

Going into a lawsuit, it is important to understand the process. Some clients think that once a lawsuit is filed, it is only a matter of time—perhaps days, or weeks—before the claim is resolved.

That happens sometimes. But not always.

Lawsuits generally have three phases: Pleadings; Discovery; and Trial. Each phase is distinct, but the timing of Pleadings and Discovery sometimes overlap.

In the Pleadings phase, the parties file written statements setting forth their narratives of the case. Each side files with the court a signed statement setting forth the facts upon which they claim to be entitled to a remedy (or defense).

In the Discovery phase of the lawsuit, parties develop the evidence to support their case. Parties can send written questions (interrogatories) and may request documents to be produced. Parties can also depose witnesses. While objections can be lodged to the discovery requests, parties should know that, generally, any documents, including emails, letters of correspondence, internal communications, and notes are likely to be discoverable and will be produced in the lawsuit. Communications between client and attorney, however, are confidential and privileged.

Once the parties have gathered sufficient evidence, the case is listed for trial. Leading up to trial, parties will identify the exhibits they intend to use and the witnesses they intend to call. The attorneys will write briefs setting forth summaries of their client’s positions. At trial, the parties use the written discovery responses, deposition transcripts, and documents to argue their case to the judge or jury. Cases usually take at least one year to resolve, and they often take several years

During each phase of the suit, there are natural points for settlement discussions. It is common to raise settlement negotiation after the close of Pleadings, or after an important deposition. Sometimes, an upcoming, expensive aspect of the lawsuit—such as a motion, or trial itself—will cause parties to negotiate a settlement in order to avoid the expense of the upcoming task.

As a general rule of thumb, settlements are most efficient early. The purpose of settlement is to avoid the costs of litigation and to limit the exposure to a potentially bad verdict. If the lawsuit has already been litigated through Pleadings and Discovery, many of the litigation costs have already been incurred; thus, settling the matter at that point cannot avoid the costs. When a lawsuit is pending, it is important to seek legal advice immediately to determine the best legal arguments and proper management of the case.

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Employment          Construction           Business

2306 Columbia Ave. | Lancaster, PA 17603

T: 717.291.2236 | www.h-dlaw.com

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, Litigation | Comments Off on Construction Law Newsletter January 2016

A Construction Law Newsletter Provided by Harmon & Davies, P.C.

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 12/21/2015
Legal Punchlist
What’s Happening Now . . .

       10.7%

·         Increase in construction spending, year-to-date.

·         The first 10 months of 2015 have seen $888.1 billion in construction spending.

·         The first 10 months of 2014 were $802.3 billion.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, October 2015 Construction at $1,107.4 Billion Annual Rate, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (Dec. 1, 2015).

Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation

Construction contracts often reference either mediation, arbitration, or litigation. But what’s the difference between these three?

Mediation is the use of a third-party to conduct an informal meeting for the purpose of resolving the dispute. There is no judge or jury. It is merely a mechanism to get all the parties in the same room.

Typically, but not always, the mediator is selected and hired by the parties to lead the settlement discussions. It’s also common for mediation conferences to start with all parties in a single room, discussing their grievances and desired outcomes. After the initial group discussion, it is common for each party to relocate to separate rooms, and the mediator will meet with each party individually, to facilitate points for discussion. Generally, a mediator is hoping to bring each party towards middle ground in search of a negotiated resolution.

 

It is important to ensure that mediation is conducted under the confines of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5949. This statute provides that the communications made in mediation are inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. This protection allows the parties to speak freely, in an effort to resolve the dispute. Settlement discussions are also inadmissible in a court of law, under Pa.R.E. 408. Best practice is for all parties to agree in advance, as a ground-rule of mediation, as to whether the statements are fair game for use in court at a later point.

Mediation does not result in a binding decision. It is merely an attempt to facilitate a negotiated settlement. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a formal procedure that results in a binding decision. Arbitration does not use a judge or jury. Instead, an arbitrator presides over the arbitration and acts as the “judge and factfinder.” Arbitrators are usually practicing attorneys who likely have a concentration or level of expertise in the specific area of applicable law. Arbitration is less formal than a trial in court; it is often held in a private office, or a conference room. Although less formal than a trial, the litigants must still present testimony and evidence, in a similar manner as if presenting their case in court.

Sometimes, people use the terms “binding” or “non-binding” arbitration. These are misnomers. By definition, all arbitration is binding. If it is “non-binding arbitration” then, it is better defined as mediation. When agreeing to participate in mediation or arbitration, make sure that it is fully understood and agreed that the process is either binding or non-binding. The best way to make this clear is to use the proper terms: mediation is a non-binding; arbitration results in a binding decision. This should be clarified in writing, between the parties, as a ground-rule for participating in the process.

Litigation, in contrast, is the use of the court process. At the time of entering the contract, and at the time of any dispute arising, it is important to know whether the contract requires mediation, arbitration, or litigation.

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Employment          Construction           Business

2306 Columbia Ave. | Lancaster, PA 17603

T: 717.291.2236 | www.h-dlaw.com

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on A Construction Law Newsletter Provided by Harmon & Davies, P.C.

FedEx Makes Economic Decision to Settle Charges of Hiring Discrimination for $3 Million Dollars

by HDlawblog Posted: Tuesday, 4/3/2012

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) proudly announced on March 22, 2012 that it entered into a conciliation agreement to resolve allegations of hiring discrimination by two subsidiaries of FedEx Corp. with federal contracts.  These subsidiaries, like most companies that are awarded federal contracts, must comply with OFCCP requirements and regulations.

By way of background, federal contractors of a certain size or with federal contracts of a certain amount must file annual affirmative action plans (“AAPs”).  AAPs are generated using computer software.  The computer software creates an overview of the federal contractor’s workforce based on the overall workforce and the number of applicants, hires, promotions, and terminations that occurred during the previous year.  Such computer programs specifically look at the number of female and minority applicants, hires, promotions, and terminations to determine whether the federal contractor’s decisions with respect to hiring, promoting, and terminating indicates any statistically disparate impact on females and minorities.

In the case of the two FedEx subsidiaries, the OFCCP’s allegations against the FedEx subsidiaries were based on computer statistical analysis that presumably indicated a disparity in the subsidiaries’ hiring process and sparked the OFCCP’s investigation.  In other words, the OFCCP’s allegations against FedEx did not step from individual complaints of discrimination.  Even though no one apparently complained that FedEx’s subsidiaries discriminated against them during the hiring process, according to Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis, that is okay because findings of discrimination can rest on disparate impact statistical analysis alone.  In the FedEx case, according to Solis, the OFCCP saw statistical “trends of discrimination, not only against one group, but against many groups across the country.”

More specifically, according to the OFCCP News Release, during a series of regularly scheduled reviews, OFCCP compliance officers found evidence that FedEx’s hiring processes and selection procedures violated Executive Order 11246 by discriminating on the bases of sex, race, and/or national origin against specific groups identified at 23 facilities in 15 states.  The reviews also allegedly uncovered extensive violations of the executive order’s record-keeping requirements.

The FedEx subsidiaries admitted no wrongdoing, but rather than engage in a prolonged and expensive resolution process with the Department of Labor, the subsidiaries entered into a conciliation agreement with the OFCCP under which the companies agreed to pay a total of $3 million in back wages and interest to 21,635 applicants who were rejected for entry-level package handler and parcel assistant positions and agreed to extend job offers to 1,703 of the affected workers as positions become available.

The FedEx subsidiaries also committed to wide-ranging reforms including: (1) the company promising to correct any discriminatory hiring practices and implement equal employment opportunity training; (2) launching extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law; (3) agreeing to engage an outside consultant to perform an extensive review of the company’s hiring practice and provide recommendations to change and improve those practices; (4) agreeing to train incumbent and future supervisors and employees to monitor compliance with the equal opportunity laws enforced by the OFCCP; and (5) taking necessary steps to comply with all record keeping requirements.

The conciliation agreement entered into by the FedEx subsidiaries appears to have been an economic decision made by the company.  It will forever remain unknown whether FedEx actually engaged in discriminatory hiring decisions.

What’s clear from the FedEx ordeal is that federal contractors should be particularly attentive when it comes to OFCCP compliance. In addition to Executive Order 11246, the OFCCP enforces certain other acts aimed at protecting the disabled and veterans.  Those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, must not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.

For assistance with creating your Affirmative Action Plan or other OFCCP compliance issues, please contact Harmon & Davies, P.C.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice.  Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Affirmative Action Plans and OFCCP Compliance, FedEx SmarkPost Inc. | No Comments »