Providing in-depth discussions, thought, creative, and innovative insights on Business Law innovative insights
In a recent decision, Harvot v. Solo Cup Company, 2009 WI 85, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined there is no right to a jury trial under Wisconsin’s Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Court rejected the argument that a jury trial should be provided in Wisconsin because it is available under the Federal Act…
In a recent decision, Star Direct, Inc. v. Del Pra www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2007ap000617.htm the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that where an employment contract contains restrictive covenants which address separate specific interests of employers, the fact that one of those covenants is overbroad and therefore illegal does not necessarily render other covenants unenforceable.
The contract in that case contained provisions restricting the employee from engaging in business similar to that of the employer, restricting him from contacting past and present customers of the employer, and requiring the employee to hold certain information derived from the employer confidential. The court determined that the covenant restricting the employee from engaging in similar business was overbroad, but that the other covenants addressed separate legitimate concerns of the employer which would remain enforceable. Therefore, those covenants are divisible from the invalid covenant.
According to Section 19.36(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, the records of those entering into contracts with government constitute public records, and therefore open to public inspection upon request, subject to specific exemptions set forth in the law. As governments generally, and particularly local governments, look more and more to private contractors to perform or assist in performing public services, businesses that enter into such agreements must be aware of the ramifications of this statute.
This statute has not been construed to apply to any record of a public contractor, but rather to records which are specifically related to performance of the contract. As those records are deemed public records, they should not be destroyed except in accordance with the law (normally, public records are to be retained at least 7 years). Also, since such records are, in effect, presumptively open for inspection by the public, businesses which contract with government must understand that a public records request applicable to such records may be used as an informal discovery device by parties seeking to make a claim against the business or the government.Continue Reading Another Hazard of Doing Business with Government
The court battle between IBM and Dell over the employment of former IBM M&A chief David Johnson provides even more evidence that Noncompete Agreements are highly unique contracts that often lead to some highly unique arguments in litgation. It appears Mr. Johnson is arguing that because he “intentionally” signed the noncompete on the wrong line…
The current dispute involving the University of Kentucky and its former men’s basketball coach, Billy Gillispie, is an example of a not so uncommon problem with informal agreements. In general, “agreements to agree” (aka “letters of intent” or “agreements in principle) are not binding contracts under Wisconsin law. Instead, they are tools used to clarify…
Buried deep within Wisconsin’s massive 2009 Biennial Budget Bill, Assembly Bill 75, are proposed changes to the contributory negligence law which could create extensive liability for businesses which are only minimally involved in causing injury to a plaintiff.
Currently, the law provides that a plaintiff may recover from a defendant all of his damages only if the defendant is found to be more than 51% negligent. Such a defendant is jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Assembly Bill 75, however, would change the law so that a defendant would be jointly and severally liable for all injuries, and therefore all damages, if the defendant is found to have been as negligent or more negligent than the plaintiff.
The implications are obvious and potentially devastating. If an employee of a business participates in causing injury, and it is determined that his negligence represents, for example, only 5% of total causal negligence, his employer could be liable for all damages sustained by the plaintiff if it is determined that the plaintiff was 5% negligent or less than 5% negligent.Continue Reading Businesses Should Beware Proposed Changes to Wisconsin’s Contributory Negligence Law
Legislation allowing employees bringing successful discrimination claims against businesses to obtain compensatory and punitive damages along with reimbursement for back pay, reinstatement, costs and attorneys fees, has been adopted by the Wisconsin Legislature and sent to the Governor for signature. 2009 Senate Bill 20, www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB20-SSA1.pdf, previously commented on in this blog, will apply to acts…
Proposed legislation would dramatically increase damages available in Wisconsin in employment discrimination cases. Currently, Wisconsin law only allows a successful claimant the remedies of reinstatement (or front pay), back pay, attorneys fees and costs. 2009 Senate Bill 20, if enacted, would also permit a person discriminated against to bring a circuit court action to recover…
The 2009 Wisconsin Budget Bill contains proposed changes in condemnation law which may substantially impact on the ability of business property owners to successfully challenge condemnation or contest the amount of compensation awarded.
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is sponsoring the proposed modifications. Currently, an owner of land subject to condemnation may recover attorneys fees incurred…
In business litigation, the question often arises which person among the employees of a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or association should be deposed in order to most effectively discover what information a business entity which is a party to the litigation has regarding the dispute, and what kind of testimony the entity would present…