Hit a Grand Slam Sale, And Thrown a Lowball Commission? Don’t Get Beaned.

ImageAs an attorney who practices in contractor rights and worker rights issues, I encounter many different underpayment scenarios.  While all income theft is troubling, it’s particularly tough to encounter those folks who are made victims of their own success.  Namely, it’s hard to see a commissioned worker or contractor make a huge sale — earning them a fixed (and large) commission under a contract or commission plan– and at that point, the benefiting company tries to change the deal.  It’s as if you can see the wheels turning in the company rep’s mind right after the sale: “I didn’t know you’d make that kind of sale, and a 10% commission could be that much.  I think I’ll throw the company’s weight around, and get you to accept something less so I get more.”

If you find yourself in this situation, you’ll certainly feel great pressure.  The pressure of wanting to keep what you rightfully earned, versus the pressure of not wanting to lose your entire job or contract if the company you’re dealing with is willing to go to serious lengths in throwing its weight around.  This article proposes factors to consider if you find yourself in this situation.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Should You Get a Local Attorney?

Local Article PhotoIf you’re looking for an attorney to help with a legal dispute, you may have asked yourself: “Should I get an attorney located near me?” Or you may have assumed that you should get a local attorney, without even considering it an option to retain an attorney outside your city or state. While it’s good to ask questions, and good to review whether or not a local attorney is the best option, you should not assume a local attorney is the only option.

In actuality, lawyers (including employee rights attorneys) can and do represent clients in different states, in many circumstances and cases.  Lawyers in the U.S. are generally licensed to handle Federal-law matters all across the U.S. Many employment-law claims are Federal claims, including many important claims relating to job terminations and pay.

I personally handle Federal- law matters in numerous states. I commonly represent clients located in states other than my mine (Wisconsin) and even in other countries.  Those clients retained me because I have experience with legal issues at hand.  For most clients and cases, the quality of legal work– wherever it is performed– is the most important issue.

Of note, nearly all legal work is remote: the vast majority of legal work is done via a computer, phone, and mailed or electronically- transmitted documents.  Even clients who live very close to my office will only occasionally (at most) meet in person with me, with some clients– near and far– choosing not to meet with me at all.  I definitely understand people who are more comfortable meeting in person, and I have meetings on request whenever feasible. But that is because a given client and I decide to meet in person, not because we must do so.

With that said, there are some types of matters where an attorney’s location and/or licensure can be very important to a matter.  For example, some issues are highly focused within a particular state’s law or legal proceedings, in which case it may be important to work with an attorney licensed and/or physically located in that state.  Some of my Federal cases involve secondary state- law issues and I work along with co-counsel attorneys located or licensed in the pertinent states.  However, many cases do not require or need this type of work-sharing. Also, some state courts and state forums readily accept out-of-state attorneys to work within those forums.

Any employee rights attorney who you contact, wherever he or she is located, should be able to tell you whether he or she can assist with your matter or not.  The key is to contact the attorney you most want to contact (wherever he or she is located), and to ask all the questions you want answered, including whether local counsel is necessary for your particular issues.  If you feel a particular attorney can help you with your specific issues, don’t assume location is a barrier, at least for your first call.

In my view, there are three better questions than “Should I get a local attorney?”  Those are:

(1) Does a particular lawyer you’ve learned about appear to be able to help you with your concerns?

(2) If you’ve called that lawyer, has the lawyer explained to your satisfaction whether his or her location could present any limitations to representing you?

(3) If the lawyer explained how and why he or she could help you, do the potential benefits of representation outweigh any potential limitations?

Asking these questions should give you the information you need to choose an attorney and weigh the pros and cons (if any) of a non-local attorney representing you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What’s the Value of Your Employee Rights Case?

If you’re a worker who is pursuing (or thinking about pursuing) an employment-law complaint, you may have ideas about the monetary value your case is worth.  Unfortunately, workers’ own case valuations are usually wrong.  Very wrong, in fact.

Workers often come up with wrong valuations because they rely on factors that are important to the workers– such as the obviousness of a particular lie an employer told– but that are often unimportant within legal forums.  For example, an employer is legally allowed to tell many kinds of lies and make many kinds of wrong decisions.  Only certain lies and wrongs are legally actionable.  You’re unlikely to know which is which unless you’re an employment attorney or repeatedly deal with the laws and legal forums at issue.  Otherwise, you have no true framework or basis for assessing your own case’s value.

As an employee rights attorney, my sense of a case’s value is influenced by many factors, both legal and practical.  These factors include:

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Considering Legal Action - Employee

Playing the Wrong Cards in Severance Negotiations

It is common for employees (including professional and executive employees) to play the wrong cards, so to speak, during severance negotiations.  That is, employees negotiating severance agreements often raise issues to their employers that they believe, incorrectly, provide strong leverage or potential legal claims.  Don’t get me wrong.  Many employees who are fired and/or approached with a severance agreement do in actuality have potential legal claims that could provide strong leverage in severance negotiations or litigation.  Sometimes it takes me a few hours of discussion to identify such material legal issues and evidence, but they’re often there.  The problem is, most employees who have winning issues fail to recognize what those winning issues are.  And in their negotiations with employers, they commonly focus on issues that seem to be winners from a common-sense perspective (or workplace-observation – or Google-search- perspectives), but are in fact issues the employer’s employment lawyer or HR rep would quickly deem useless in the legal world.

Most employers involved in severance negotiations get the assistance of representatives who have repeat experience with scenarios and litigation relating to job terminations and severance agreements.  They are adept at diagnosing issues that could present legal exposure to the employer.   Are you?  If you think you’re playing a winning hand, but the employer sees the hand is in fact a dud, you may want to have an employee rights attorney review the hand before you set it down.  If a proposed severance agreement’s terms are acceptable, of course, there is no need to show anyone any cards.  In the end, it’s better to show an employer no cards than bad cards.  Bad cards do not leverage better severance terms and may invite negative reactions from the employer that make you worse off.  If you think you may have good cards (i.e. potential legal claims with strong merits), consider checking if an experienced legal representative agrees before you share those views with the employer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Considering Legal Action - Employee, Employee Tip - Considering a Legal Action, Employee Tip - Severance & Settlement

Statistics, WI Equal Rights Division Discrimination Claims

I recently received statistical information from the agency that handles Wisconsin-law employment discrimination complaints, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Equal Rights Division (ERD).

The numbers reveal difficult odds, but not impossible odds, for employee-complainants who have filed discrimination complaints at ERD.  I should note that each case is unique, and if you are a worker with a potential or actual discrimination complaint, you should not assume your case is bad (or good) based on the general numbers in this article.  For an assessment of your odds, you should talk to an experienced employee rights attorney– and no, it doesn’t have to be me!  If you want to review some general numbers, read on.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Employee Tip - Problems at Job, Resources for WI Workers

Reporter Looking for H-1B Workers to Comment About Bodyshops for Major News Story

If any of our H-1B worker readers are interested in speaking with the media about unfair treatment by an H-1B bodyshop, please submit a comment to attorney-blog author Michael Brown below or email me at mbrown@dvglawpartner.com.  With your permission, I could put you in contact with a reporter who is planning a major news story about H-1B bodyshops mistreating workers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Pay an Attorney Consult Fee?

In the employee-rights legal field, it is common for attorneys to charge initial consultation fees in the hundreds of dollars. Some attorneys offer free consultations, although that depends on the attorney, their availability, the type of matter, etc. Such an attorney may set conditions on a free consult, e.g. it can only be by phone, or be under a certain time limit, etc.

My own practice at present is to not charge a fee for initial email or phone communications.  During those initial communications, I try to give a worker a sense of whether there are potential legal claims or issues I could assist with, and if so, whether it is the type of matter for which I could represent the worker on a contingency-fee basis, on another basis involving out-of-pocket fees.  But after the free initial communications, there are some matters for which I provide hours of advice, and charge hundreds of dollars for that advice.

Say an employee rights attorney wants to charge you by the hour for an initial office meeting, which may total several hours and, per market rates, may cost $150 to $500 or more.

Is such a fee worth it? My answer is yes. But I come from the biased perspective of an attorney who is paid fees. (Incidentally, most of my fees do not come from my worker-clients; the majority of earned fees come from via long-term litigation and contingency payments from opponents).  What matters about a consult fee is YOUR sense of value, and what YOU think of an attorneys’ reasons for that fee.  My reasons as to why a consult fee is worth it are listed below.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Employee Info/Tips, Employee Info/Tips - Litigation - Mediation, Employee Info/Tips - Pre-Litigation - Considering Compl, Employee Info/Tips - Pre-Litigation - Hiring an Attorne

Former Infosys Employees Allege Discrimination Against U.S. Workers, Join Class Action Lawsuit

As posted here, the attorney-author and co-counsel filed a federal class action lawsuit against Infosys Limited Inc. (“Infosys”), filed on behalf of a proposed class of job applicants denied employment by Infosys. That original lawsuit alleged Infosys’ hiring policies and conduct discriminate against workers of American or non-South Asian national origin, in violation of Title VII law.

Recently, an amended complaint was filed, in which former Infosys employees joined the case.  These former employees allege they were hired to work for Infosys, and then faced various forms of discrimination because they are not Indian, Bangladeshi, or Nepalese.

Infosys has recently laid off numerous employees within the US, according to this article.

Any former Infosys employee who signs a severance agreement may waive legal rights to address discrimination claims.

Our amended complaint seeks to include, within the proposed class, former and existing Infosys employees who faced discrimination because they are not of Indian, Bangladeshi, or Nepalese national origin and are not of South Asian race.

The attorney-author of this website article, Michael Brown, is among the attorneys representing the workers who filed the lawsuit, along with attorneys Daniel Kotchen and Robert Klinck of Kotchen & Low LLP and Vonda K. Vandaveer of V.K. Vandaveer, PLLC.

Please contact attorney Michael Brown at 920-757-2488 or mbrown@dvglawpartner.com if you have any information or questions about the case.

Click the link below to review the Amended Complaint, which details the case’s updated allegations that Infosys discriminated against US-based job applicants and employees in violation of discrimination law:

Amended Complaint, Infosys

Leave a comment

Filed under Litigation

Proposed Class Action Complaint Filed Against Infosys for Failure to Hire, National Origin Discrimination

The attorney-author and co-counsel have filed a federal class action lawsuit against Infosys Technologies Limited Inc. (“Infosys”), filed on behalf of a proposed class of job applicants denied employment by Infosys. The lawsuit alleges Infosys’s hiring policies and conduct discriminate against workers of American or non-South Asian national origin, in violation of Title VII law.

The attorney-author of this website article, Michael Brown, is among the attorneys representing the worker who filed the lawsuit, along with attorneys Daniel Kotchen and Robert Klinck of Kotchen & Low LLP and Vonda K. Vandaveer of V.K. Vandaveer, PLLC.

Please contact attorney Michael Brown at 920-757-2488 if you have any information or questions about the case.

Scroll below to review the Complaint, which details the case’s allegations that job applicants are being denied employment by Infosys in violation of discrimination law:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Were You a Shareholder Who Was Removed or Financially Harmed By Majority Shareholders or Board of Directors? You May Have Strong WI Law Rights (Even Without a Contract)

In some instances, a shareholder of a company is also employed by that company, and compensated via salary, bonuses, dividends or other financial benefits.  If you were a shareholder of a Wisconsin company and were removed from duties or suffered financial loss due to actions of majority shareholders or board of directors, you may have strong legal rights.  These rights may exist even if you did not have a contract, and even if you were labeled an “at will” employee.

Below I give an overview of what at-will employment is.  Then I explain why a Wisconsin at-will employee– if he or she is a shareholder deprived of employment or income– may have strong legal rights notwithstanding an “at-will” label or a lack of a contract.  Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Employee Info/Tips - Pre-Litigation - Considering Compl, Employee Tip - Considering a Legal Action