The lead researchers believe that the findings indicate that microwave radiation from cell phones can affect the so-called blood-brain barrier. This is a barrier that protects the brain by preventing substances circulating in the blood from penetrating into the brain tissue and damaging nerve cells.  The bottom line is the rats in the experiments suffered brain damage  from the microwave radiation, and the brain damage caused memory problems.

The research team also found certain nerve damage in the form of damaged nerve cells in the cerebral cortex and in the hippocampus, the memory center of the brain.  Moreover, they have discovered alterations in the activity of a large number of genes, not in individual genes but in groups that are functionally related.

Henrietta Nittby, one of the researchers, has cell phone herself, but never holds it to her ear, using hands-free equipment instead.

Unfortunately, this type of “dispute resolution” process, known as arbitration, is becoming more commonplace among employers. Many employees who have claims for workplace discrimination, harrassment, or other violations are being required to resolve their disputes seeking the loss of their pay, benefits, and other damages, through this lopsided process. Moreover, many employers are even attempting to require employees to engage in this process without the employee’s agreement.  For instance, unwitting employees have had their employer’s put “small type” on timecards or complaint forms reading that any employee who punches the card in the time clock or completes and signs the form agrees to arbitrate all disputes with the employer.

Fortunately, help may be on the way. Congress is currently considering the Arbitration Fairness Act, which is aimed at curbing these abuses not only in the workplace, but also in consumer and franchise disputes, which also involve parties with great disparity in resources. The Act is aimed at returning arbitration to a fair process that can save time and resources to the parties and the court system when implemented fairly. You can find out more about the Act, and also send a letter to your representatives in congress supporting passage of the Act, by visiting the National Employment Lawyer’s Association website.

Under the current tax law, whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is determined by examining the level of control that the company exercises over the worker.  The IRS looks to three broad categories to make the determination: (1) Behavioral Control (e.g., Does the company determine what work the worker performs and how the worker performs it?); (2) Financial Control (e.g., How is the worker paid and are expenses reimbursed?); and (3) Type of Relationship (e.g., Is the relationship continuing or limited in time?).  The IRS examines each of these categories to evaluate the nature of the relationship as a whole. Other federal labor and employment laws use similar tests to determine whether a worker is an employee, and thus entitled to the rights these laws provide, such as minimum wages and overtime pay, family and medical leave, and protection against workplace discrimination. Accordingly, workers with the status of employee have significant rights and protections that are not shared by those who are deemed to be independent contractors. Workers who believe they have been misclassified as independent contractors can seek a determination by the IRS as to the proper classification of their work status by filing a Form SS-8. Misclassified workers can often also seek to recover for unpaid employment benefits, overtime compensation, as well as their overpayment of taxes. Combined with the protections afforded to employees by federal employment and labor laws, the reward to a misclassified worker who becomes properly classified as an employee is substantial.

Corporate legal department officials say fees to outside law firms have risen faster than energy costs, salaries and other expenditures. Hourly billing has been the subject of criticism by clients and debates by legal experts, who say they give lawyers incentive to work inefficiently. Most law firms have been slow to embrace alternative billing.

The current crisis may force those firms to change.

New efforts to jettison hourly billing are being driven by in-house corporate lawyers, who say they have grown frustrated seeing fees to outside firms soar even as they slash their own costs. They said they want more certainty in their legal budgets and worry that outside firms are spending unnecessary amounts of time on their matters.

In a recent survey conducted by the Arlington-based Corporate Executive Board, a for-profit organization that does research on best practices, 800 in-house lawyers said they spent 50 percent more last year on large outside law firms than in 2002. They said the hourly rates they paid jumped 70 percent between 1996 and 2005.  Those increases obviously cannot continue in the current market.

The Association of Corporate Counsel, which represents 23,000 in-house corporate lawyers, last month launched the "Value Challenge," an initiative aimed at spurring corporate lawyers and outside law firms to develop alternative pricing plans, including fixed rates, volume discounts and lower hourly rates blended with performance bonuses or a contingency fee component.

Most people who purchase a service want to know, "how much is this going to cost?"  In the past, the answer from those selling a legal service has been "x dollars an hour for how ever many hours we work on your case, regardless of whether the result is favorable to you."  This paradigm is no longer acceptable to many clients.  They would prefer their lawyer to either quote a fixed rate or take some of the risk, when appropriate, by taking as their fee a percentage of the recovery.  

In the past, parties to a construction lawsuit could typically assume a settlement would be reached prior to trial, but the economic downturn has drastically altered the equation.  When the prospect of settlement no longer represents a realistic or profitable option, litigation necessarily emerges.  A recent article published in the Virginia Lawyers Weekly describes several construction lawsuit scenarios which in the past would likely have settled.  Such situations include;

            -Defective Construction

            -Construction Delays

            -Foreclosure

Certainly, there are other reasons for a construction lawsuit, especially breach of contract for nonpayment.  However, that type of suit might find its way into court even under the best economic conditions. 

In 2008, Subsection C was added to Va. Code. § 8.01-417.  The addition deals with motor vehicle accidents and the responsibilities of insurers.  It represents a significant shift.  Insurers are now required to inform injured motorists of applicable policy limits upon written request.

The Subsection allows an injured person or their attorney to make a written request for policy information, specifically policy limits, prior to filing their personal injury suit.  In order to make such a request, the injured party must first disclose pertinent information relating to the accident.  In addition to the accident’s factual details, such information includes medical bills, medical records, and wage loss information.  Provided the injured party has complied with the statute and has suffered wage losses and/or medical bills of a combined $12,500.00, the insurer “shall disclose” the policy limits. 

The Subsection does not presume that an insurer’s compelled disclosure of policy limits means the insurer has conceded the “alleged injury or damage is subject to the policy.”  Moreover, policy information learned as a result of Va. Code. 8.01-417(C) is inadmissible at trial.   

            Dudley-Perkins Co., reportedly one of the oldest Harley dealers in the country, hired Bowen Dean as a mechanic in June 2003.  Instead of honoring the contract and assigning her mechanic duties, the suit alleges Dudley-Perkins installed her into customer service and bookkeeping roles.  Ms. Dean complained to her management, but nothing was done.  Two and half years later, Ms. Dean filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging gender discrimination.  Two months later, Ms. Dean was fired.  Ms. Dean said she has been working on Harleys since she was 9 years old and dreamed of being a Harley mechanic.  Ms. Dean pointed out that 12% of all Harleys are bought by women, and she argued that if women can buy and ride them, they should be allowed to fix them. 

            The suit was filed in Federal District Court only after a conciliation process failed.  In other words, the EEOC tried to reach a settlement with Dudley-Perkins prior to the suit, but no settlement was reached. 

            Women have historically faced strong sex discrimination when attempting to break into traditionally male fields.  Unfortunately, Ms. Dean’s situation is not unique or unexpected, nor is Dudley-Perkins alleged reaction unique.  As the article stated, two months after Ms. Dean complained of discrimination she was fired.  This kind of timing strongly suggests retaliation.  Employees hesitate to assert their rights precisely because they fear this type of adverse employment action.  And it occurred in a well-known culturally liberal city.  If this type of discrimination exists in a progressive enclave, it is evidence of how much progress women still have to make to achieve equality of opportunity.