Winkle-Daddy posted:

Finally, does the employee have to sue to get the extra day wages, or will asking for it normally result in them being paid? This company has been pretty weak on following laws and regulations in the past, so I was suggesting that my wife do whatever it takes to get any appropriate penalties or fines levied, however, she'll just take the extra money if they're supposed to just "add it on" otherwise, no lawyering up so long as they pay for worked hours and PTO.

sternstuff posted:

[quote="errol _flynn" post="407994379"]
I did talk to one, before and after the meeting at the school. The principal's eyebrows shot up a bit when I told him the kid my kid hit had left sixteen very specific threats on my phone over the weekend prior to their fight and quoted several of them to him

So a kid left a ton of threats on your phone threatening to beat up your son and you just sent him to school as usual Monday morning without contacting the school to let them know what was going on? Maybe I missed it and there's more explanation, but that's kinda hosed up. Imagine if your son had gotten seriously hurt. As a parent I think you have some responsibility to protect your son. I have worked with troubled juveniles for years, and if you're involved enough to worry about the punishment not fitting the crime, I can't figure out why you didn't do anything to prevent the crime in the first place (again, maybe I missed a detail where you did do that).

As for charges, the kid threatening your son is obviously in the wrong. But if your son threw the first punch that's assault. No judge is going to give a poo poo if the kid was threatening when your son escalated it to physical violence. A suspension is pretty standard for school fights, and a letter of apology isn't unheard of. But you may want to think about whether or not this is really the way you want your son to handle these situations. What you don't want for him to do is think "hey, that was cool" especially with other kids telling him hey great job for beating someone else up. You don't give his age, but again I have worked with juveniles long enough to see how a good kid can start going down the wrong path pretty easily. Hopefully this will be the end of it.

Illegibly Eligible posted:

I'm in the state of Wisconsin and after working for my (part time) employer for five months I'm now being told that if I don't wear a uniform to work I will be taken off the schedule. I was never provided with a uniform and it's not been an issue until now. My boss is telling me that I have to buy a few of their $9 shirts and a $45 jacket, which ends up being about a week's pay. A cursory online search indicates that forcing employees to purchase non-streetclothes uniforms may not be allowable under the FLSA but I'm unsure since it's just a local pub and grill.

Department of Labor posted:

Uniforms: The FLSA does not require that employees wear uniforms. However, if the wearing of a uniform is required by some other law, the nature of a business, or by an employer, the cost and maintenance of the uniform is considered to be a business expense of the employer. If the employer requires the employee to bear the cost, it may not reduce the employee's wage below the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.

Illegibly Eligible posted:

Additionally, same job...

Winkle-Daddy posted:

Hey legal goons. My wife quit her job a couple of weeks ago and her employer called her today telling her that if she wanted to claim her final check she had to drive back out to their headquarters (several hour drive, they're making her go into an office she never worked at).

Winkle-Daddy posted:

If the employee gives less than 72 hours notice the employer must pay the final check within 72 hours. Either way, once that period expires the employer is obligated to pay for each day of an employees wages for each day they haven't paid out. I'm just wondering if these laws are nationwide or not? I am in Oregon but most of the references I saw online were for California.

Winkle-Daddy posted:

Finally, does the employee have to sue to get the extra day wages, or will asking for it normally result in them being paid?

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries website posted:

Due to budget/staff reductions, BOLI is currently unable to accept wage claims for unpaid amounts other than unpaid minimum wages and overtime or claims in which the employer has gone out of business. If you are owed unpaid wages other than unpaid minimum wages or overtime and your employer has not gone out of business, you may file with small claims court in the county in which the employer is located (if the amount is $10,000 or less) or consult a private attorney.

SlayVus posted:

State of Georgia

I got into an accident today. The citation says I failed to yield after stopping at a stop sign. I'm not going to go into the specifics of the accident here because I will be meeting with an attorney Monday or Tuesday. I am meeting the attorney because one passenger in the other vehicle had a small cut on his mouth possibly from impact of his teeth with the seat in front of him. Another occupant neck discomfort. They hit the side of my truck with the front of their SUV.

Small fact about the intersection. There is a hill peek, higher than the intersection and impossible to see cars coming up, approximately 200-225 feet away from the intersection to the east. I was heading south to north, other vehicle east to west coming over this hill. Two-way stop north to south, posted speed limit 30 MPH.

So just a couple questions. 1) The officer made the remark,"I've seen a lot of accidents at this intersection." How helpful is this to me with myself and an observer on the scene hearing this? 2) Would it be better to pay the misdemeanor or go to court and see what a judge says about the citation? 3) Who's insurance do they check when there are passengers in the other vehicle? Everyone's or just the driver and/or vehicle owner? I ask this because I heard the dispatcher say my name and something like valid insurance then I heard another person's name followed by no valid insurance.

SlayVus posted:

Things

SlayVus posted:

I'm having trouble remembering specific stuff after I was asked by the officer to move the vehicle because I was getting extremely stressed as I thought the vehicle was totaled because the engine wouldn't stay cranked. The wreckers were coming at this point to get the vehicles. I remembered a lot of stuff before this though and I've written it all down. Is this going to be a problem?

SneakySnake posted:

Basically, am I going to be screwed out of the security deposit that I gave them because I moved out without giving notice, according to my leasing company?

woozle wuzzle posted:

The odd thing is that it looks like his month-to-month renewal ended 8/31/12. It's not clear from his paste, we'd have to see the full text of the lease, but it might have ended 8/31.

If it did naturally end on 8/31, then the landlord is just a moron and you're in the clear. Tell them to read their own lease.

If it didn't end 8/31, and there wasn't the certified mail notice sent: yer screwed.

woozle wuzzle posted:

The odd thing is that it looks like his month-to-month renewal ended 8/31/12. It's not clear from his paste, we'd have to see the full text of the lease, but it might have ended 8/31.

If it did naturally end on 8/31, then the landlord is just a moron and you're in the clear. Tell them to read their own lease.

If it didn't end 8/31, and there wasn't the certified mail notice sent: yer screwed.

cyberia posted:

In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate.

But I guess my question is what benefit there is for the defendant (if any) in continuing to plead not guilty in this situation. And also how the judge handles these situations; as in what they have to consider before rejecting the defendant's plea and how it affects the sentencing (if it does).

edit - to address NM's comment, the case has been heard and the witnesses have already testified. At the end of the hearing the defendant pleaded 'not guilty'. So what happens from there?

cyberia posted:

In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate.

But I guess my question is what benefit there is for the defendant (if any) in continuing to plead not guilty in this situation. And also how the judge handles these situations; as in what they have to consider before rejecting the defendant's plea and how it affects the sentencing (if it does).

edit - to address NM's comment, the case has been heard and the witnesses have already testified. At the end of the hearing the defendant pleaded 'not guilty'. So what happens from there?

cyberia posted:

I have a very general question about court proceedings. I could probably get the information from a website but I don't know what to look for.

(I am in Australia, fwiw).

cyberia posted:

...After some investigation I am summoned to my local magistrate's court as a defendant charged with assault and some other small charges. Witnesses are called into court who all allege that I was acting in an antisocial manner and attacked the stranger unprovoked. All witness accounts are roughly the same and they all show me as the 'bad guy' in the situation.

At the end of the hearing I plead 'not guilty' to all charges.

cyberia posted:

What happens from here? In my scenario I am clearly guilty and this is supported by witness statements.

cyberia posted:

What can the judge / prosecutor / police do in a case where the defendant continues to insist that they are not guilty of a crime that everyone knows they committed but lack concrete evidence (such as CCTV footage) showing the incident?

cyberia posted:

What if they do have something irrefutable like a recording of the incident?

cyberia posted:

(Note: I am not involved in a case like this, I just heard about it from a friend and am curious as to how courts handle these sorts of defendants.)

cyberia posted:

In this particular case it was held before a magistrate, not a jury so the verdict is up to the magistrate.

cyberia posted:

But I guess my question is what benefit there is for the defendant (if any) in continuing to plead not guilty in this situation.

cyberia posted:

And also how the judge handles these situations; as in what they have to consider before rejecting the defendant's plea and how it affects the sentencing (if it does).

cyberia posted:

edit - to address NM's comment, the case has been heard and the witnesses have already testified. At the end of the hearing the defendant pleaded 'not guilty'. So what happens from there?

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

I hoping this is the proper place to put this: I rent an apartment in California and, since I started living here (at this complex), the office has changed the rules on how they accept payment for monthly rent. It used to be that you could drop a check off at the office deposit box. Due to safety concerns (the possibility that somebody could break into the deposit box in the middle of the night, etc.) rent checks now have to be handed off to an office employee, in person. Not a problem, since most apartments are pretty flexible, with two or three people in the office and a 3 or 4 day "pay period."

There are a couple of issues with this:
1. There's usually only one employee in the office. If they leave to go do something, or take a lunch break, the office gets locked up. The "Time I Will Return" note is frequently inaccurate. I've had employees show up 45 or 60 minutes after they were supposed to, or even take off from lunch and never return that day.
2. The office is closed three days a week. The office is frequently closed on the single day rent is due.

My concern is that, if I cannot pay rent without an office employee present, and if those same office employees are frequently unavailable, even on the day rent is due, is the apartment in the wrong? Especially if they try to hit me with a $50 fee for failing to pay rent on time?

Even if the office is technically open on the day rent is due, the blinds are frequently closed and the door is locked. I can't just sit and lurk around the office until the single employee decides to show up. I'm having difficult finding laws regarding the availability of a landlord or his employees, or how restrictive they can be with how they accept payments, but it seems like they should be obligated to make themselves more available for payment, or keep the deposit box available as an option. Am I crazy here?

quote:

If a tenant leaves the premises before the end of the lease term in compliance with a landlord’s demand to vacate, the tenant may still be responsible under the terms of their lease to pay rent or other costs. However, Colorado courts view the election of the eviction remedy as terminating the lease, and costs owed by tenants may be limited accordingly.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

CDCA posted:

The rental agreement or lease must disclose:

• The name, address, and telephone number of the authorized manager of the rental property and an owner (or an agent of the owner) who is authorized to receive legal notices for the owner. (This information can be posted conspicuously in the building instead of being disclosed in the rental agreement or lease.)
  
• The name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity to whom rent payments must be made. If you may make your rent payment in person, the agreement or lease must state the usual days and hours that rent may be paid in person. Or, the document may state the name, street address, and account number of the financial institution where rent payments may be made (if it is within five miles of the unit) or information necessary to establish an electronic funds transfer for paying the rent.
  

...
As explained ... the rental agreement or lease must state the name and address of the person or entity to whom you must make rent payments. If this address does not accept personal deliveries, you can mail your rent payment to the owner at the stated name and address. If you can show proof that you mailed the rent to the stated name and address (for example, a receipt for certified mail), the law assumes that the rent is receivable by the owner on the date of postmark.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

I hoping this is the proper place to put this: I rent an apartment in California and, since I started living here (at this complex), the office has changed the rules on how they accept payment for monthly rent. It used to be that you could drop a check off at the office deposit box. Due to safety concerns (the possibility that somebody could break into the deposit box in the middle of the night, etc.) rent checks now have to be handed off to an office employee, in person. Not a problem, since most apartments are pretty flexible, with two or three people in the office and a 3 or 4 day "pay period."

There are a couple of issues with this:
1. There's usually only one employee in the office. If they leave to go do something, or take a lunch break, the office gets locked up. The "Time I Will Return" note is frequently inaccurate. I've had employees show up 45 or 60 minutes after they were supposed to, or even take off from lunch and never return that day.
2. The office is closed three days a week. The office is frequently closed on the single day rent is due.

FrozenVent posted:

Can't you just give them post-dated checks?

I just hand my landlord an envelope with 12 post dated checks at the beginning of the lease year, then forget all about him.

Emo Rodeo posted:

Have you tried talking to them about it? Sure it might be factored in if indeed you fail to get them the rent due to this situation, but you really don't want to get to that point. In these instances better communication is much better then legal action. Plus if the Apt complex's employees are banging out early and they shouldn't be, I'm sure they would want to know that, so just try shooting the office manager an email or something.

Choadmaster posted:

Emo Rodeo is right that you should try to contact them first, but here is what the California Department of Consumer Affairs has to say here and here:


IANAL, but it sounds to me like they MUST give you an address to which you can mail payments, and if they (in addition) give you the option of paying in person, the days/hours of availability need to be in the lease.

Arcturas posted:

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd assume that means that if the landlord asks you to evict, and kicks you out, and you comply, you are still liable for unpaid rent. Say I miss two months of rent, and the landlord tells me to get the hell out on day 61. I do. My lease is up on day 90. I am still obligated for rent from days 1 through 61. But, a court will probably not make me liable for rent for days 62 through 90.

Lay v. Bennett, 35 P. 748 (Colo.App. 1894) posted:

the third story of the building was occupied by lewd and disorderly female tenants of the [landlord], who were in the habit of receiving male visitors; that the occupants and their visitors indulged in boisterous and disorderly conduct, jumping upon the floor, screaming, singing, and using profane and obscene language, until a late hour in the night, breaking the sleep of defendant and his family, depriving them of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, and giving the building an unsavory reputation.