Archive for the news Category

Vermont’s Universal Pre-K goes into effect

Posted in news, Uncategorized, vermont with tags , , on July 19, 2016 by tammyheff
act166-1

Photo: VT Department of Education

One of the hardest issues for working parents of young children is finding sufficient care for them while parents are working. In our state that problem has been greatly reduced thanks to a new law that just went into effect.

Vermont is the first state in the country to guarantee pre-kindergarten to all its three and four year old citizens. The law, Act 166 was signed into law in 2014 but became effective as of the first of July. Under the law, each town must provide at least 10 hours of high quality pre-kindergarten education to 3 and 4 year olds for 35 weeks per year. The pre-k can be through public school, communities, Head Start or private early education centers. Many communities in Vermont already provide this service, with about one-quarter of the communities putting the new law into effect one year earlier than required.

This is great news for working parents. Under the law, parents can place their 3 and 4 year olds in pre-k programs closer to their jobs making it easier all around for working parents who may have had to forego a pre-k program due to hours and distance from their jobs.

The ten free hours will be economically beneficial to a lot of young, working parents who could not otherwise afford care for their children for the full work day. Attendance in the 3 and 4 year old program is not mandatory although a lot of parents will most likely take advantage of the program. According to the National Institute for Early Education Research, Vermont has the highest attendance by 4 year olds in pre-school programs.

 

Advertisements

Vermont Birth Control Law Includes Men

Posted in laws, news with tags , , , , , , , on May 12, 2016 by tammyheff

The Vermont legislature passed a new law, H.620 which will ensure that the costs of birth control remain free as is presently the case under the Affordable Care Act. Under the law, insurance companies in Vermont are required to provide birth control at no cost to their insureds regardless of any changes that may take place concerning the Affordable Care Act, thereby preserving this benefit for Vermonters.

The bill however went one step further and includes men in the picture. The law also requires insurance companies to not only cover permanent birth control for women but to also cover permanent birth control for males in the form of vasectomies. This law, the first in the nation to address male contraception is expected to be signed by Governor Shumlin.

The thought process behind the inclusion of males is that men are a part of the contraception and family planning, providing gender parity.  Many women who no longer wish to have children may not be able to take contraceptive pills or use other methods of birth control and vasectomies provide the ability to have a permanent solution.

You can read more about this new law here and here.

Much More Than Bathrooms

Posted in laws, news with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 10, 2016 by tammyheff

Once again, we need to read between the lines and maybe, just maybe, read the lines themselves, rather than let the media do the reading and interpreting for us. The new law passed in North Carolina is more than just a law regulating the use of public bathrooms in the state.

At the time of the Boston marathon bombing, we had a very interesting discussion at our dining room table to explain to the boys why, as horrible as it might seem at that time, that the suspected bomber needed to have his rights protected. The basic reason, is because they are your rights and my rights too. It is a very slippery slope that we go down when we think it’s okay to take away one person’s rights or deny one his or her rights. While it might seem perfectly fine under one circumstance (think the marathon bomber), what happens when it’s your turn and your rights that are up for grabs? Not so okay now is it? Like it or not, the rights we have apply to all of us, not just the ones that we pick and choose under the circumstances. When folks were opening up their doors to allow police to search their homes, how many invoked that wonderful little right called the 4th Amendment and said, no. No, you cannot just come into my home police, without a warrant and search it. Not now, not ever, because my constitutional rights say so.

If you actually read the new law in North Carolina, it has two parts. One part regulates the use of public restroom facilities and limits their use to a single sex based upon a person’s biological sex. The second part, entitled the Wage and Hour Act prevents any local government (read: city or town) from passing any law, ordinance or regulation that regulates the minimum wage in the state. That means that any person in North Carolina, not just transgender folks are subject to North Carolina’s whim on whether or not to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage in North Carolina is presently $7.25 per hour. Unlike other places in the country where cities have chosen to raise the minimum wage because they recognize that living in a city may be more expensive, cities are now prohibited from any such actions.

The law addresses the minimum wage, and does not allow any local government to set a minimum wage.“The legislature took that power expressly away, so forbade any local government from raising the minimum wage beyond what federal and state law require,” Charlotte Law School Professor Brian Clarke said.

To give you an idea of why folks, all folks not just the transgender and LBGQ folks should be jumping up and down in protest, many places in the country have enacted $15 minimum wages. Realize this means that minimum wage workers in North Carolina are getting paid just about 1/2 of what other people working minimum wage jobs can get paid. Here in little tiny Vermont our minimum wage is $9.60 per hour and while that’s not great, it’s still way better than North Carolina. Do you see something wrong with what North Carolina did with this law? You should.

The law also prevents any person (read: ANY PERSON) from pursuing a state action under the law for the public policies expressed in the act which also governs employment discrimination. Guess what folks? Under the law and its line “This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein” seems that all persons in the state are affected. Got that? Everyone.

Have a discrimination claim based upon religion, race, color  that does not fall into one of the state’s already established laws, guess what, you have no civil right to file suit in the state  court according to this law. According to  Charlotte School of Law professor, Brian Clark (who knows way more than little ‘ol lawyer me does) “In a very hidden way, it eliminated the ability for employees in North Carolina to file claims under state law for employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color and age,” Clarke said, “And that’s a right that North Carolina employees have had since 1982… and it’s gone.” Poof. Gone. Folks should be rioting in the streets.

So, people, especially those who are peppering Facebook with their very prejudiced views of the rights of the transgender community under the North Carolina law and those that are speaking out against it, perhaps you should realize that when a particular group’s rights are affected, maybe, just maybe your rights are too. Under this law, rights were affected, not just for a particular segment of the North Carolina population but for all of the North Carolina population.

See, it’s really not an us v. them mentality. People are people and under the laws of this country we are all entitled to our rights, whether or not each of us personally stands for or against the person behind the right.  My kids understand this and have for some time. It’s about time that the adult population in this country realizes it too. One day, it could be your right that at stake. Remember that. Always.

Crowdfunding and the Law

Posted in news with tags , , , on January 12, 2016 by tammyheff

Here is an interesting blog post from a Vermont attorney about crowdfunding and the ethical implications of a lawyer crowdfunding representation costs for a client. It is an interesting read and the take away is great, the rules are the rules. We do not necessarily need new rules to adapt to technology and the challenges and opportunities that we face as attorneys, we just need to understand and follow the rules that exist.

Please read Michael’s post. Very interesting stuff.

 

Source: Crowdfunding: The More Things Change….

Bloggers Entitled to First Amendment Protection

Posted in laws, news with tags , , , , , on January 30, 2014 by tammyheff
Benq laptop

Benq laptop (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week, a California federal appeals court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that bloggers have constitutional First Amendment rights similar to journalists. Obsidian Financial Group sued blogger Cheryl Cox when she made claims of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering among other claims. They contended defamation and they won at the trial level with the blogger being slammed with a $2,500,000 damage award. Cox appealed and the federal appeals court determined that Cox, a blogger, was entitled to the same protections in her virtual arena that a paper media journalist is entitled to under the First Amendment.

According to the appellate court, statements of public concern on a blog such as those made by Cox are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment, the same as traditional print journalists enjoy.

 The protections of the
First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was
a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news
entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond
just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both
sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately
warned, a First Amendment distinction between the
institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With
the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and
broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others
who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes
far more blurred.” (Citation omitted). In
defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and
the public importance of the statement at issue—not the
identity of the speaker—provide the First Amendment
touchstones.
We therefore hold that the Gertz negligence requirement
for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with
institutional media defendants.

The court went on to reverse the trial court’s findings and remand the matter for a new trial.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some New Legal Terms

Posted in news with tags , , , , , , , on January 29, 2014 by tammyheff
Dictionary
Dictionary (Photo credit: greeblie)

Here are some new legal terms that are being used that you may or may not have heard of out there.

 

1. Benchslap – According to Urban dictionary

benchslap is when a judge humiliates an attorney, insults another judge, or reverses a lower court in a particularly demeaning manner. A judicial bitch slap, if you will. This term was popularized by David Lat of AboveTheLaw.com 


2. Litigatrix – Again, coined by David Lat of AboveTheLaw.com and defined by Urban dictionary as a hot female litigator – a combination of female litigator and dominatrix. 


David, you seem to be on a roll. Although I didn’t see a definition for the last neologism “judicial diva” I’m sure we can all just use our imagination.

 

 



Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta