BACK TO THE FIFTIES

Recently a fellow lawyer sent me a joke comparing how much simpler life and the law was in the 1950’s. Some might also argue that the music was also better. The joke is self-explanatory and compares problem behavior of students in the late 1950’s and how that behavior was handled, versus the way such behavior is handled these days. Obviously, the social mores and punishment for behavior has changed, and while some of these changes are favorable, others seem not to be.  As life has become more complicated, the law has followed suit.  As a disclaimer, I did not author the joke, I don’t agree or disagree with its contents, it isn’t meant to offend anyone, and my repeating it isn’t meant to endorse any political party or philosophy. The fact that I even have to make a disclaimer indicates how humor has also changed. I addressed a related topic in my prior blog titled “Why is the Law so Complicated?” The joke is food for thought and reflection as to why life has become so stressful.

 

Scenario                 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.

1957 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2012 – School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

 

Scenario                 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 – Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2012 – Police called and SWAT team arrives — they arrest both Johnny and Mark.  They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

 

Scenario                 3:

Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.

1957 – Jeffrey sent to the Principal’s office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2012 – Jeffrey is diagnosed as having ADD. He is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. The family gets extra money (SSI disability benefits) from the government because Jeffrey has a disability.

 

Scenario                 4:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1957 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up without any problems, goes to college and

becomes a successful businessman.

2012 – Billy’s Dad is arrested for child abuse., Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself after meeting with a psychologist and learning she has repressed this abuse, and their Dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom

has an affair with the psychologist.

 

Scenario                 5:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 – Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.

2010 – The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

 

Scenario                 6:

Pedro fails high school English.

1957 – Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2010 – Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear

nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is

racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and

Pedro’s English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro

is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because

he cannot speak English.

 

Scenario                 7:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts

them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.

1957 – Ants die.

2010 – ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged

with domestic terrorism.  The FBI investigates his parents – and all siblings are

removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny’s dad is

placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

 

 

Scenario                 8:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee.  He is

found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1957 – In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2010 – Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She

faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

EMPLOYEES BEWARE OF COMPLAINING

I am frequently contacted by persons who are astonished that they have lost their jobs for what they allege is retaliation for complaining about their supervisors, complaining about some company policy or complaining about their work conditions.  What they have in common is that they all believe that their right to complain in general is somehow legally protected. That is certainly not the case for the most part, unless there is some type of law which provides this protection, usually known as a whistleblower law, or there is some legal protection for reporting waste or fraud to a government agency, like the IRS, or an oversight agency in the security industry. Those laws have very specific requirements, and still cannot protect an employee’s job, but they may provide, often many years down the road, a financial award for the reporting person. Workers may be protected if they discuss terms and conditions of employment with one another, but once again, a government agency, such as the National Labor Relations Board, would have to agree to accept their complaint, and the process involved would generally be lengthy and usually not altogether satisfying.

Aside from these limited protections, most employees should be careful about what they complain about, as it may cost them their job. Unless there is some type of discrimination involved, in which case an employee is able to file a complaint with a government agency, an employee has no protection from being terminated. Filing a complaint of discrimination with a government agency also does not protect one’s job, and although employers are not supposed to retaliate against the employee filing the complaint, they often do. Also, even if the employee thinks it isn’t fair that he was terminated and the person he complained about was retained, there is no law that prevents this selection process unless there is discrimination involved. There is not a national workplace anti-harassment law as many employees think there is, and harassment must usually be tied to some protection available under the civil rights laws. Although an employer may have an anti-harassment policy in place, that policy may not have any “teeth” under the law.

I tell these persons that if they had contacted me during the time frame in which they were making the complaint I would have suggested that unless the complaint was extremely important, I may have suggested they not make it at all, or tell them they should have stopped the process if their employer asked them not to pursue it or made an attempt to resolve it, even if the employee wasn’t happy with the attempt. In some cases, I suggest that a lawyer should make the complaint as a buffer between the employee and the employer, and I have been able to save many jobs in this manner, as employers are often reluctant to retaliate against employees if a lawyer is already involved.

Employees are also frequently astonished when they learn that their job is not theirs for life. Pennsylvania is an employment at will state, which means that an employee can usually leave a job at his discretion, unless it violates a contract he has signed, with the converse being that an employer has broad discretion to terminate an employee.  The usual response I receive when I ask the employee why, if their situation is so difficult at work, they don’t look for another job, besides the responses that it is a difficult economy, is that they don’t see why they are the one who should leave.

However, a side effect of continuing to complain when an employer asks you to stop, or feels the situation has already been resolved, is that the employer, in addition to terminating the employee, opposes their claim for unemployment compensation and alleges that the employee has committed some willful misconduct which prohibits them from receiving unemployment compensation. This process often results in delay in receipt of compensation, and possibly loss of compensation if the hearing referee rules in the employer’s favor.

Therefore, before one decides they are going to raise issues based on principle, one had better determine the possibility of being terminated, losing unemployment compensation benefits, and receiving a negative reference from their former employer.

WHY IS THE LAW SO COMPLICATED?

I suspect what has happened to make the law so complicated is that more and more laws, rules, regulations, etc. (referred to in this article as “laws”) have been, and continue to be, added daily by every governmental entity, as it is easier to create new laws then thoroughly examine or repeal existing laws. This is much like the process when Presidential candidates pledge on the campaign trail that if elected, they will eliminate or consolidate government departments and cabinet positions. This rarely happens because of the enormity of the task, the power struggles between the various departments, and because the Federal government not good at laying off personnel (or balancing budgets).

The severe downside of our layered system of laws is that it is nearly impossible for the average person and the small business owner to navigate the legal process.  It is also a problem for large business entities, but they have the resources to seek assistance.

I am constantly surprised to read about the existence of laws I never heard of, and I learn about these laws by reading various legal publications, or hearing about them in legal seminars. Recently I read about a class action which had been brought against an amusement park because when credit cards were used to purchase entry tickets, the expiration date was also printed out. This apparently violated some law.  The end result of the class action was that the amusement park was to give out free tickets to previous customers, and also to the community, if enough previous customers did not avail themselves of the free ticket offer. The only ones who received any money out of the lawsuit were the lawyers. The lawyers were doing a public service by protecting the privacy of the amusement park customers, but one wonders whether every amusement park operator is aware of this law, and if not, are they required to have their lawyers scour the law for such types of law? The answer is yes, they are so required.

The law has become so complex so that even a small matter, such as a buyer discovering a defect in a house he bought, faces some complex laws. In researching the remedies for a client in a similar situation recently, these were the issues we encountered:

• State law exempts an estate (the house was sold by an estate) from responsibility in selling real estate unless the administrator/executor knew about the condition.
• If the buyer complains of a problem, mediation, rather than a court hearing is required by the sales agreement.  The mediator has to be paid by each party involved.
• The buyer had an inspector inspect the property. If the buyer feels the inspector did not do a good job, the inspector’s agreement requires that the matter first be arbitrated, and the buyer cannot take the matter to court, at least initially.

As we were uncertain whether the buyer could prove the seller knew about the defect, or whether the inspector should have told them about the leak, which means each party would point a finger at each other, and because we could not initiate a claim even in a small claims court, where it probably would have been resolved quickly, we advised the clients just to absorb the expense of repairing the problem, which was not large, and certainly far less expensive than paying for a mediator, an arbitrator, or a lawyer.

Upcoming Social Security Seminar on 2/14/12!

Faye Riva Cohen, Esquire will be among the presenters at the NBI Social Security Bootcamp seminar scheduled for February 14, 2012.  You can learn more about it here.

A Second January 2012 article from my office!

Theodore Y. Choi, Esquire from my office, Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., has had an article published today in Upon Further Review.  His article, entitled “Social Media Sites ‘Likes’ New Law’s Status” can be found on my site or here at Upon Further Review‘s website.

January 2012 article from my office!

James W. Cushing, Esquire from my office, Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., has had an article published today January 10, 2012 in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly section of The Legal Intelligencer.  His article, entitled “Land Use Matter Taxing for Church” can be found on my site or here at The Legal Intelligencer’s website.

Happy Holidays!

The Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., Legal Research, Inc., and I wish you all a very happy holiday season and a wonderful New Year!  Thank you very much for following us and reading our blog entries and articles and we hope to bring you more great information and insights in the next year!  As always, if you have any legal issues, questions, cases, or problems, please contact me as soon as possible and we would be happy to discuss it!