DL&G Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C.
   
   
  Our Blog    

Posts Tagged ‘concord nh lawyer’


YOU’RE FIRED – TOO ATTRACTIVE SO EMPLOYEE CAN BE FIRED

Friday, December 28th, 2012
By C. Kevin Leonard – New Hampshire Employment Attorney

How would you answer if you were asked is it illegal for an employer to fire a female employee who has engaged in no wrongdoing but the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction? Well, most of you are probably wrong but the Iowa Supreme Court recently upheld the legality of terminating a female employee because he found her too attractive.

In Nelson v. Knight, Iowa dentist James Knight fired his dental assistant, Melissa Nelson, after 10 years of employment. He stated she was his best employee. Nelson was fired not because she did anything wrong but because Knight’s wife viewed her as a threat to her marriage. While the Court stated Nelson’s firing was “unfair” and raises concerns about a “slippery slope,” it ruled that Knight did not terminate Nelson based upon her protected status – gender.

The Iowa Court stated that Title VII is not a general fairness law. In other words, a termination may be unfair but not illegal unless the employer engages in discrimination based upon an employee’s protected status.

It was undisputed that the employer’s wife requested him to terminate his assistant and the employer feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her. The case is disturbing because it seems that the female employee was viewed as a threat because she was a woman.

If you believe you are the subject of employment discrimination or other adverse employment action, you should consult an experienced employment attorney such as one of the attorneys at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. Call us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online contact form.


NO TEXTING WHILE DRIVING

Thursday, December 13th, 2012
By Stephen A. Duggan – New Hampshire Personal Injury Attorney

Texting while driving in New Hampshire is against the law and for good reason. Texting involves manual, visual, and a thinking distraction all at the same time. The New Hampshire law against texting – RSA 265:105-a Prohibited Text Messages and Device Usage While Operating a Motor Vehicle – provides as follows:

I. A person operation a moving motor vehicle who writes a text message or uses 2 hands to type on or operate an electronic or telecommunications device, is guilty of a violation. A person does not write a text message when he or she reads, selects or enters a phone number or name in a wireless communications device for the purpose of making a phone call.

II. The fine for a violation of this section shall be $100.

According to the U.S. Government, sending or reading a text on your phone takes your eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road for 4.6 seconds. At 55 mph, that’s like driving the length of an entire football field, blindfolded.

If you have been the victim of a motor vehicle accident, you need an experienced personal injury attorney to help you. You should consult one of the personal injury lawyers at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. by calling us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online contact form.


SELF-HELP CENTER FOR FAMILY COURT

Sunday, November 18th, 2012
By C. Kevin Leonard - New Hampshire Family Law Attorney

The N.H. Judicial Branch Self Help Center provides basic, practical information about the New Hampshire court system, how it works, and what the procedures are for bringing a case to court. Find links to forms, fees, court rules, alternatives to court and many other links to useful information for anyone representing themselves in Family Court.

For more information go to: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/selfhelp/index.htm

Going through a divorce, separation or their family legal battle is emotionally upsetting and will leave a long-lasting impact on you and your family. Our family law lawyers have the experience to guide you through this difficult process to ensure your best interests are protected. You should consult one of the experienced divorce attorneys at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online contact form.


FATAL CRASHES RAISE QUESTIONS OVER TESTING OLDER DRIVERS

Friday, November 16th, 2012
By Charles G. Douglas, III – New Hampshire Personal Injury Attorney

Several deadly motor vehicle accidents in New Hampshire in 2012 have raised questions about testing older drivers. For almost 50 years, New Hampshire required drivers 75 years old or older to pass a road-test before renewing their driver’s license. But in 2011, the law changed to remove the age-based requirement.

Based on statistics, drivers who are 75 and older are some of the safest drivers on the road, according to AAA. Older drivers have fatal crash rates the same as drivers in their late 20’s. Although New Hampshire no longer requires on-road testing for older drivers, there is an effort by some legislators to reinstate annual road tests for aging drivers. While this debate may continue, it is necessary for all drivers to drive responsibly so as not to cause injury to other drivers.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the other driver, you need an experienced New Hampshire car accident lawyer. Please call one of the accident attorneys at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online contact form.
Charles G. Douglas, III, Partner

Contact Charles G. Douglas, III for a free case evaluation:
1-800-240-1988 or mail@nhlawoffice.com

FEDERAL COURT FINDS VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDING OF POLICE OFFICERS PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

In the recent case, Glik v. Cunnifee, 665 F.3d 78 (2011), the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston recently held that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to make video and audio recordings of police officers arresting people on the street. The federal court decision was particularly relevant in New Hampshire, where police officers in Manchester, Nashua, Weare, Portsmouth and Keene, have recently charged citizens with violating the New Hampshire wiretap statute for recording police officers performing their pubic duties.

Mr. Glik observed and recorded Boston police officers arresting a citizen on Boston Common. Believing that the police were using excessive force, Glik advised the police that he was capturing their actions on video. The police arrested Mr. Glik and charged him with violating the Massachusetts wiretap statute. His criminal charges were ultimately dismissed and Mr. Glik then sued the officers involved and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights. The police and the city asked the court to dismiss the civil rights claim, but the court denied their request.

The court held that the protections of the First Amendment are not limited to the mere act of speaking or publishing words that the government may not like. “It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, the First Amendment goes beyond protection for the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit the government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”

The Court continued, writing that “the filing of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about public officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs. The court concluded by stating that, “the freedom of individually verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

Police officers do not have easy jobs. However, the mere fact that performing their day to day activities may require them to endure certain unpleasantries does not change the fact that they perform their public duties in the name of the public, using equipment provided by the public, and to serve a public purpose. Monitoring and even criticizing the use of public authority and funding goes to the very heart of citizen activism that the First Amendment was specifically written to protect. The First Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case correctly and protected the public’s right to know.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – YOU NEED A MEDICAL FORM

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011
When you treat with your doctor for a work-related injury, make sure your doctor completes the New Hampshire Workers’ Compensation Medical Form! The Workers’ Compensation Medical Form is a New Hampshire Department of Labor form that asks the doctor to describe the employee’s injury, state whether the injury is work-related, and state what restrictions the injury imposes on the employee’s physical functioning. The form further requires the doctor to state whether the employee can work or whether the injury has disabled the employee from working.

Your doctor must complete the Workers’ Compensation Medical Form in order for you to receive the benefits that you should. You will not receive any workers’ compensation benefits without a form from your doctor certifying that the doctor believes you have suffered a work injury. You will not receive disability benefits without forms from your doctor stating the time periods during which your injury disabled you from work.

Even in cases where it is clear that an employee has suffered a disabling work-related injury, the doctor sometimes forgets to complete the New Hampshire Workers’ Compensation Medical Form. This omission can disqualify injured employees from receiving the benefits they should. If you are an injured employee, make sure your doctor completes the form so your entitlement to benefits is not jeopardized. If you have a work-related injury, give us a call at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out on online contact form to see if we can be of assistance.

GUESS WHO IS LOOKING AT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES — EMPLOYERS!

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

Facebook, Twitter, etc. are fast becoming a popular tool for employers looking for information about future employees. The social networking sites, according to one source, are used by 45% of employers to screen potential job candidates. At least a third of those employers have rejected an applicant because of information they discovered from social networking sites where the future employee talked about drug and alcohol use, nudity, bad mouthed a former employer, bragged about misconduct or made discriminatory remarks.

This is another reminder that postings on the internet are available for many people to see – even those you don’t intend to read it or use the information. All of those folks who are having fun on the internet should realize that it may cost them a future job because for employers it’s fast, free and easy and there is a treasure trove of ridiculous information posted by people. Young people especially enjoy putting their wild and crazy times on the internet for the rest of eternity. Social networking sites, including profiles, will tell an employer most information they might want to do know but are afraid to ask such as, gender, marital status, religion, age, and even a photograph to help show ethnicity, race, etc.

For future employees, beware of what you decide to post on the internet because it may come back in many ways.

“BIG BROTHER” IS STILL WATCHING – ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE RECORDS BECOMING EVER MORE IMPORTANT IN LITIGATION

Sunday, February 6th, 2011

Electronic surveillance has become a nearly unavoidable fact of life.  When you consider an average person’s average day, it is likely that he or she has their activities recorded electronically several times per hour between the time they leave for work and the time they return home.  Chances are, their activities are subjected to being recorded even after they are in the “privacy” of their own dwelling.

When you stopped at the gas station to fuel your car, or a fast food drive-through to pick a breakfast on the go, there is a record kept.  You are likely video-taped, and if you use a credit card, there will a receipt with an electronic record.  It is not uncommon to hear on the evening news that a crook was tracked down because he used his credit card at a gas station or ATM card at a bank.

When you log onto your computer at work, it is likely that your employer has the ability to review your activities.  If you think you snuck in that game of solitaire without anyone knowing, you are probably wrong!  Your E-mail also leaves an electronic record, both on your machine, and of course with whoever you send it to.  E-mails have become a staple of employment and divorce cases, and factor heavily in many other forms of civil litigation as well.

Many people seem to forget that E-mails (as well as text messages and other forms of electronic communication), are preserved for posterity, and simply type out their stream of consciousness.  Doing so is a terrible mistake, and it is not uncommon for such mistakes to decide the outcome of a civil case.

It is just as common for people to forget that their physical actions are often video-recorded when in public, at the workplace, or even in certain private situations.  Keep an eye on Douglas, Leonard & Garvey’s website for cases involving video surveillance right here in New Hampshire.  They are sure to drive home the point of how important and damning video evidence can be.  Douglas, Leonard & Garvey has also been involved in cases where phone recordings (usually in the form of 911 calls, but also voice mail messages) have played decisive roles in the outcome of litigation.

During your commute to and from work, your comings and goings are recorded by electronic toll devices like EZ-Pass, and even your car keeps a record of how you drive, which can be downloaded if you get in an accident.  Even your home computer keeps a record of your web searches and other activities, which can be subjected to a forensic search if necessary in a civil or criminal case.

The moral of the story is to ask yourself this question on a regular basis:  “How would my next decision look, sound, or read on a video, audio, or other electronic record?”  If the answer is “not good,” then reconsider doing it, because it is just as likely as not that whatever it is you are doing, there will be an electronic record.

 
TOP
Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. attorneys represent clients in courts throughout New Hampshire, including Concord, Manchester, Nashua, Salem, Rochester, Portsmouth, Laconia, Plymouth, Franklin, Keene, Lebanon, Littleton, Hampton, Hooksett, Derry, Claremont, Goffstown, North Conway, Exeter, Durham, Plaistow, Henniker, Newport, Milford, Merrimack, Hillsborough, Bow, Hopkinton. We also represent clients in all counties, including Merrimack County, Belknap County, Carroll County, Cheshire County, Coos County, Grafton County, Hillsborough County, Rockingham County, Strafford County and Sullivan County.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.