The vote comes after the Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement saying that the CLASS Act could not be implemented and the Congressional Budget Office issued a ruling that allowed the repeal of the act.

Republicans argued that the Act needed to be repealed, stating that if left on the books it would allow the Obama Administration to try and revive the Act and even open the White House up to lawsuits.  A Congressional Research Service report states that by not implementing the CLASS Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is violating the healthcare law.

On February 1, 2012, the House of Representatives repealed the Act.  It is expected that the Senate will not vote to repeal the CLASS Act as it doesn’t appear that there is enough support for the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act.

Highlights of the new laws include:

• The definition of “interested person” has been revised to increase the number of persons/entities monitoring the actions of a guardian or conservator.
• A court may enter an ex parte order upon application of an interested person filing an affidavit showing the court that the safety, health or financial welfare of the ward or protected person is at issue.
• A guardian or conservator may not move a ward outside of Nebraska without first obtaining permission from the court.
• Copies of all essential reports must be mailed to all listed interested parties which increases oversight and monitoring of the guardian or conservator.
• A guardian or conservator must notify the court regarding changes in the ward’s address or demise.

These new laws should permit nursing home facilities to bring concerns or problems about a guardian or conservator to the court’s attention, as well as keeping facilities informed about the financial status of the ward through receipt of most documents the guardian or conservator files with the court. Ultimately, having a larger safety net monitoring the lives and finances of these vulnerable individuals should ensure that they are properly protected.

Therefore, in any case in which a prior running TTD Award has been entered, a stipulation approved by the court or a petition for modification must be filed before the TTD can be stopped.  Otherwise, there will be a 50% penalty added on to the amount of TTD that was not paid.

In the instant case, Lovelace suffered an injury in the course and scope of her employment on March 21, 2006.  Lovelace continued to work for the same employer after her injury until June 22, 2006, when she had surgery on her left knee.  She returned to work on October 2, 2006 and continued working until November 6, 2007, when she fell and sustained an additional injury to her right leg.  Lovelace had another surgery on her left knee on December 19, 2007 and did not return to work.  Her position was terminated in June 2008.

The Supreme Court affirmed the review panel’s decision, which held that no benefits were to be paid prior to June 22, 2006 because Lovelace worked full time between the first accident, which occurred on March 21, 2006, through June 22, 2006.  Further, the Supreme Court held that Lovelace was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits for the period of October 2, 2006 through December 18, 2007, when she was working either part time or full time and receiving temporary partial disability payments.  A worker cannot be considered permanently and totally disabled for a period of time when he or she was working part time or full time at the same job he or she had prior to his or her injury.  Lovelace was not an odd-lot worker and entitled to permanent total disability payments until December 19, 2007.

The Supreme Court’s opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2012/january/jan13/s10-1241.pdf.

Perich was employed as a “called” teacher, as opposed to a “lay” teacher, at Hosana-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School (“School”).  Perich mostly taught secular courses, however, she taught a religion class and led students in other religious activities. Perich developed narcolepsy and took disability leave.  She attempted to return to work in February 2005 but was told that the school filled her position.  Perich filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The EEOC brought suit against the School alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA suit.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that there is a “ministerial exception” to the ADA because requiring a church to accept an unwanted minister interferes with the internal governance of the church thus infringing on the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.  The Court also held that Perich qualified as a “minister” despite the fact that the majority of her time was spent teaching secular courses.

The Supreme Court’s opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

For the entire decision click on the following: Wright v. GGNSC Holdings et al.

This revision applies to all adjoining landowners with division fences, including circumstances where one landowner has livestock and the other does not.  In other words, if neighbor A grows corn on his or her land and neighbor B keeps livestock on his or her land and neighbor B wants to put up a fence, neighbor A must pay for one half of the cost of building and maintaining that fence.

LB 667 also provides that unless the neighbors pick a different type of fence, the default division fence shall be a four wire fence.

Employers should mark their calendar, and stay attentive to the continuing legal challenges.

• Background

What is your age, educational background, and employment history? Do you have a criminal record?

• Basic info about your (current or former) employer

What type of business is it? Number of employees? Has the employer been sued previously?

• Hiring process

When were you hired? For what position? Who made the hiring decision? Did s/he make any promises or representations? Did you sign anything?

• Employment history with this employer

Employment history with regard to: raises, promotions, bonuses, performance evaluations, awards, transfers,  suspensions, demotions and disciplinary action?

• Events that led you to this point

If you were fired (or demoted or suffered some other adverse employment action), 1) why you think you were fired; and 2) the reason your employer gave or will give for firing you.  If your case involves harassment, we will discuss the nature of the harassment (e.g., was it unwelcome; was it severe and pervasive) & your reaction to the harassment (e.g., did you complain to your employer?).

• Corroborating evidence

Were there any witnesses to the employer’s unlawful conduct? Do you have any documents to support your claims?

• Post-termination events

Have you initiated any other claims or proceedings related to your employment (e.g., unemployment, disability, workers’ compensation, or other governmental agency proceedings, or bankruptcy)?

• Potentially negative facts

Are you aware of any facts that might negatively affect litigation against the employer? These may be facts directly related to the workplace incidents or entirely unrelated (e.g., have you ever been arrested or fired from another job? Have you ever been sued or sued someone?). If you have a business and/or personal website; if you write a blog; if you use any form of social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook), you will have to volunteer that information.

• Mitigation of damages

The law requires you to mitigate your damages by diligently seeking substantially similar employment.

• The end-game and the litigation process

What do you hope to gain from pursuing legal action against your (former) employer: a private apology; a public apology; a quick settlement; a jury verdict? What are your concerns?  Settlement and litigation processes, including the time involved, the potential cost (monetary and emotional), and potential negative outcomes.