Before becoming an attorney, I spent several years intimately involved in running my family’s marketing and advertising business. On many occasions we found ourselves with upset clients, annoyed vendors, disgruntled employees and unsuccessful business relationships and some of these disputes led to lawsuits. There was no greater source of anxiety than carrying the weight of threatened or pending litigation.

In recent years, the number of sexual misconduct and abuse claims against colleges and universities, religious institutions and other organizations that regularly interact with minors, including summer camps and country clubs, have become more frequent and high-profile. In addition to the horrible impact on the victims of such abuse, the institution where the abuse occurred can have significant liability.

President Obama announced two executive orders which will have a significant impact on any employer who is a federal contractor. The first, which goes into effect on January 1, 2015, raised the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 per hour. The current federal minimum wage for all other employers is $7.25, unless the applicable state minimum wage is higher (the minimum set by individual states varies, with Illinois currently at $8.25 and the District of Columbia, the country’s highest, currently at $9.50).

Employers in Illinois will have to comply with a new law, starting January 1, 2015. The recently passed amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act provides that it is a civil rights violation for an employer to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee that are based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, if she so requests, with the advice of her health care provider. The term “reasonable accommodations” means actions which would enable an employee to perform the activities involved in her job and may include providing light duty work, acquisition or modification of equipment, job restructuring, more frequent breaks or a modified work schedule. The law provides an exception to the reasonable accommodations if the employer can show that it would impose an undue hardship on the business.

In two companion decisions, Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Heatlh Management System, Inc. and Octaine Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., SCOTUS decided that trial courts have discretion to determine attorney’s fees awarded to a successful party in patent litigation. The decisions eased previously rigorous standards and are considered a blow to “patent trolls.” A patent troll is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, even though he does not manufacture the products or supply the services in the patents in question.

• Lessons From A Family Business Owner
• Do We Have To Train Employees To Spot Potential Sexual Misconduct?
• Employers With Federal Contracts Must Follow New Executive Orders On Increased Minimum Wage And Anti-Discrimination
• Illinois Passes New Pregnancy Accommodation Law
• U.S. Supreme Court Decides Fee Shifting In Patent Cases
• Using Selfies For Business Promotion
• Fyretv Sues Amazon Claiming Trademark Infringement
• U.S. Supreme Court Puts Raging Bull Infringement Suit Back Into The Ring

Columbia Law School, Blue Sky Blog, featured in the Securities Mosaic® Blogwatch

In April 2012, Congress passed the JOBS Act, which included Title III that created a new securities offering exemption under Section 4(a)(6) that sets the framework for equity crowdfunding.

On January 1, 2014, the Illinois Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, 410 ILCS 130/1, et seq., (the “Act”) became effective, allowing registered marijuana users to purchase marijuana from a registered, licensed dispensary. The Act specifically prohibits employers from discriminating against registered users and caregivers solely on the basis of their status as a registered user or caregiver unless discrimination is necessary to comply with federal law or the employer will lose federal funding.

Even non-union employers can be liable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects certain comments by employees about their wages and working conditions. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency which enforces the NLRA, has ramped up its enforcement efforts and is targeting employers that have broad policies limiting employees’ protected speech. Specifically, the NLRB is scrutinizing employers’ social media, workplace investigation, confidentiality, media and anti-disparagement policies. For instance, the NLRB recently ruled that a blanket prohibition on employees discussing workplace investigations violated the NLRA because it bans protected speech. Employers should carefully review their policies with their attorneys in light of the NLRB’s heightened scrutiny.

Golan & Christie acts as Registered Agent with the Illinois Secretary of State for many of our corporate clients, receiving and preparing their entity’s annual reports each year. We recently received correspondence from a firm called Corporate Records Service targeting Illinois corporations in a scam to collect a fee for preparation of “Annual Minutes Record Form.”

• Is Your Business a Good Candidate for Crowdfunding?
• Illinois Employers Prohibited From Discriminating Against Registered Medical Marijuana Users
• The National Labor Relations Board Is Targeting Overly-Broad Employment Policies
• Golan & Christie Welcomes New Partner
• Statewide Corporate Scam

Northwest Herald

The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation

In our last newsletter we discussed the Supreme Court landmark decision in United States V. Windsor, in which the Court held the terms “marriage” and “spouse” cannot exclude same-sex partners. As a result of the Court’s decision, each state may determine whether or not to permit or prohibit same-sex marriages.

Beginning on January 5, 2014, individuals in Illinois can apply for permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons under the recently passed Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Business owners can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on company property if they post a sign indicating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited at the location.

As you’ve likely already heard, the Affordable Care Act’s mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees has been delayed one year. But did you remember to provide notice to your employees of the healthcare exchanges by October 1st? If not, the good news is that there’s currently no penalty for failing to issue the notice. However, that is likely to change, so you should issue the notice now to all existing employees and make sure to include it in the first day paperwork given to new employees in the future. A copy of the model notice is available on the U.S. Department of Labor’s website here: www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/.

Congratulations to partner Beverly A. Berneman on the 10 year anniversary of her position as an adjunct professor at the John Marshall School of Law. Ms. Berneman, who received her LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law from John Marshall School of Law in 2003, personally developed the two courses she teaches, Financing the Development of Intellectual Property and Bankruptcy. These courses were borne out of Ms. Berneman’s experience in the relevant areas of the law. The courses are unique and are part of the reason that John Marshall School of Law School is ranked as one of the top U.S. Intellectual Property Law programs by U.S. News and World Report.

In the Spring, 2013 issue of the Golan & Christie Newsletter, the article authored by Barry Siegal, “Estate Planning Across State Lines” noted that “…Illinois law requires two witnesses to a will and does not require that a living trust be witnessed, Florida law requires three witnesses to a will, as well as a living trust.”

• Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes
• Impact Of New Concealed Carry Gun Law
• Affordable Care Act Mandate For Employers Delayed, Notice To Employees Still Required

The United States Supreme Court recently handed down two landmark decisions relating to the treatment under the law of same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, may impact same-sex couples’ ability to file a joint petition for bankruptcy.

First, The Good: