|
VivaNova posted:Can she really demand back separation pay? Probably. There's no state requirement for separation pay, it's usually done as part of an agreement like you seem to have. Does the separation letter say that the separation pay is in exchange for signing the waiver? (I would expect so) You sign waivers, they give you money. If you think you can come out ahead on a lawsuit, don't take the money, don't sign. If the letter is jargonjargonjargon to you, you need to get an attorney who can tell you what it means so you can decide whether you should sign it. I am not an employment law attoreny I am not an NJ attorney I am not your attorney I am not giving you legal advice I did not say this I am not here.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
OK, I reread the separation letter and the first part is saying that the separation pay they gave me was contingent on my signing the letter. Although they say "as negotiated and agreed upon or about the termination date" which I am fairly confident it was not. So I guess I'll sign to keep the money. My understanding of the letter is that I am signing away my right to sue or demand more $ from them, which I am not intending to do. Am I leaving the door open for them to do something evil to me if I sign? I hereby understand and acknowledge your disclaimer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
VivaNova posted:OK, I reread the separation letter and the first part is saying that the separation pay they gave me was contingent on my signing the letter. Although they say "as negotiated and agreed upon or about the termination date" which I am fairly confident it was not. Just to be clear. You were fired. On that same day they gave you money that was not owed to you because of your employment. That amount of money was equal to two weeks pay, which is being called separation pay. Six weeks later they send you a separation letter saying the separation money you received was in exchange for you giving up your right to sue or seek additional money. Did you sign anything or was anything said to you at the time the separation money was given to you? That gap of time is a little concerning to me. But in the end if you have no plans to sue or pursue them, then there is little harm in signing it and being done with the situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Were you thinking that the lawyer would pop into court, say "abracadabra alakazam, please let my client be a free man", and hand you a bill for one hour as the judge dropped all the charges and threw the arresting officers in jail for contempt? To be fair that would be a great system, and I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because the temptation to do this would be pretty strong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Just to be clear It was actually 5 weeks and I don't specifically remember mention of separation pay at all when I was fired (which was via telephone). She might have mentioned it but I certainly didn't negotiate or agree to anything. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw an extra two weeks deposited in my account from her and thought she was displaying a modicum of humanity!  I think I'm going suggest making some changes to the letter and see if she's receptive. Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
VivaNova posted:Am I leaving the door open for them to do something evil to me if I sign? Some of them may have agreements not to ask for unemployment compensation (which may be moot in your case) and/or non-complete clauses. Read the letter, and if something doesn't make sense, ask what it is/means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Some of them may have agreements not to ask for unemployment compensation (which may be moot in your case) and/or non-complete clauses. Waiving unemployment was the first potential red flag that jumped out at me. The letter probably also includes language about waiving any wage or discrimination claims, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
VivaNova posted:Can she really demand back separation pay? Hahahahahahahahah... They can demand it. Anyone can demand anything. But will they get it? That's an entirely different matter. MUhahahahah... "I have received your demand letter, and I respectfully decline".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Unjust enrichment claim springs up maybe. Is it worth their time to pursue who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Unless there are provisions for attorney's fees, what's there to lose? (besides gentlemanly honor or whatever) Especially now that they have plenty of free time what with being recently laid off. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I said our job was to give moral advice from the perspective of the client, not to reject morality. A lawyer can feel that X is deeply wrong and have a client guilty of X. Their moral compass should guide them on a thousand internal calls. But their moral and ethical obligation is zealous advocacy that may well lead to their client's acquittal to society's severe detriment. If the lawyer can't reconcile that conflict and they let their client down by a hair, then they should get the gently caress out. Total disagreement, zealous advocacy on behalf of a client seems kind of dirty and low class, and I think your sort of attorney should get the gently caress out. There's a place for good advocacy, but it lies in being a gentleman and performing our duties by bringing out a complete and powerful picture for the Court to consider. Then, in the due course of time, we ourselves shall be ennobled and preside over humanity until the next generation takes our place. But you're right, this a joke thread for non-advice where we get to go  at the commoners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Is Entrapment subjectable? I feel like its really can't by something thats just Black and white, But I've never really known.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Jizznastics posted:Is Entrapment subjectable? I feel like its really can't by something thats just Black and white, But I've never really known. Although I understand each individual word that you have written* I have no idea what meaning you hoped that collection of words would convey. *'Subjectable' is subjectable to discussion whether it is a word at all, particularly in the manner that you have appeared to use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
^^ I had the same reaction. It already appears to be a subject.Agesilaus posted:faaaaaaaaaart Yeah well that's just like your opinion, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Although I understand each individual word that you have written* I have no idea what meaning you hoped that collection of words would convey. Mabye some posters with an amble supply of braincells can answer this? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Total disagreement, zealous advocacy on behalf of a client seems kind of dirty and low class, and I think your sort of attorney should get the gently caress out. Um...huh. You're lucky you work for the state. Jizznastics posted:Mabye some posters with an amble supply of braincells can answer this? Maybe you could get some "braincells" and rephrase what you wrote so it's comprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Jizznastics posted:Is Entrapment subjective? I feel like its really can't be something that is just Black and white, but I've never really known. ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Jizznastics posted:Mabye some posters with an amble supply of braincells can answer this? I think you mean "ample," but maybe butchering the English language is a hobby of yours?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Guys.... it's a trap.................. that we've subjected ourselves to........
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Jizznastics posted:Mabye some posters with an amble supply of braincells can answer this? Sorrious. Entrainments are sectionable, lake in Ebonics and Irony, but Mir lurgid micturations frobble mouse. Agesilaus posted:Then, in the due course of time, we ourselves shall be ennobled and preside over humanity until the next generation takes our place. Zorm froogle bloviatorinessing twath when Izur scumption buggering gruntbuggly. Venganceableness! Mr. half funnitation!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Sorrious. Entrainments are sectionable, lake in Ebonics and Irony, but Mir lurgid micturations frobble mouse. I don't really follow. I just wanna know if its like Black and white, or more of a grey area, in terms of it is looked at. Edit: ohh its a Witty dis on my Apparent terrible grammar. Can't wait for more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
/\/\/\/\/\ e: In addition to grammar, it's also spelling, vocabulary, word choice, capitalization and your refusal even to attempt to help others to understand what you are failing to say. And the word is actual, not apparent. They're opposites. And it's not capitalized, even in German. Are you talking about entrapment? The test can be either subjective or objective, depending on your jurisdiction. Does either test result in a binary, 'yes, entrapment' or 'no, not entrapment' answer that everyone will agree on? No. Read the link. If you have any questions after that, first think about how to ask the question so that we can understand what you are trying to ask. Then write a question. Run it through spellcheck and grammarcheck. Read it out loud to yourself to see if it sounds like a sentence. Look at each word; look up each word to be sure it's really the word you want to use. Turning every question into a bizarro game of verbal Charades and substituting insults for "I know that's what I wrote, but it's not what I meant" is not helpful to getting the question answered and kinda defeats the purpose of having language. (Which may well be your intent as woozle wuzzle has pointed out) /\/\/\/\/\/\ woozle wuzzle posted:Guys.... it's a trap.................. that we've subjected ourselves to........ The love child of James Joyce and Mrs. Malaprop? joat mon fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
Guys can we lay off him? He's just using Simple Presidents English. Stop misusunderestimating him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
Jizznastics posted:I just wanna know if its like Black and white, or more of a grey area, in terms of it is looked at. You deserve a direct answer, and I have pondered your question at length. It struck me this morning that "entrapment" is black in terms of how it is looked at. So there's your solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:zealous advocacy on behalf of a client seems kind of dirty and low class, What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What the gently caress? Grumblefish. And me bruv seemed to be doing so much better lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
Jizznastics posted:Mabye some posters with an amble supply of braincells can answer this? If you tell us what "subjectable" and "amble" means I will answer both your questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
I live in the state of Virginia and I got pulled over doing 47 in a 25 (actually a 45 but when indicated a school zone drops it down to 25). The indicators at the exit of my community commonly malfunction, turning on during weekends or sometimes off when they should be on. In addition the day I was cited was a county-wide teacher work day, so school was not in session. The section on the ticket is 13-294 / 46.2-873, which I was able to find on the internet. VA TRAFFIC CODE § 46.2-873. MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS AT SCHOOL CROSSINGS IN VIRGINIA; PENALTY (TOP) A. The maximum speed limit shall be twenty-five miles per hour between portable signs, tilt-over signs, or fixed blinking signs placed in or along any highway and bearing the word “school” or “school crossing.” Any signs erected under this section shall be placed not more than 600 feet from the limits of the school property or crossing in the vicinity of the school. However, “school crossing” signs may be placed in any location if the Department of Transportation or the council of the city or town or the board of supervisors of a county maintaining its own system of secondary roads approves the crossing for such signs. If the portion of the highway to be posted is within the limits of a city or town, such portable signs shall be furnished and delivered by such city or town. If the portion of highway to be posted is outside the limits of a city or town, such portable signs shall be furnished and delivered by the Department of Transportation. The principal or chief administrative officer of each school or a school board designee, preferably not a classroom teacher, shall place such portable signs in the highway at a point not more than 600 feet from the limits of the school property and remove such signs when their presence is no longer required by this section. Such portable signs, tilt-over signs, or fixed blinking signs shall be placed in a position plainly visible to vehicular traffic approaching from either direction, but shall not be placed so as to obstruct the roadway. B. Such portable signs, tilt-over signs, or blinking signs shall be in a position, or be turned on, for thirty minutes preceding regular school hours, for thirty minutes thereafter, and during such other times as the presence of children on such school property or going to and from school reasonably requires a special warning to motorists. The governing body of any county, city, or town may, however, decrease the period of time preceding and following regular school hours during which such portable signs, tilt-over signs, or blinking signs shall be in position or lit if it determines that no children will be going to or from school during the period of time that it subtracts from the thirty-minute period. C. The governing body of any city or town may, if the portion of the highway to be posted is within the limits of such city or town, increase or decrease the speed limit provided in this section only after justification for such increase or decrease has been shown by an engineering and traffic investigation, and no such increase or decrease in speed limit shall be effective unless such increased or decreased speed limit is conspicuously posted on the portable signs, tilt-over signs, or fixed blinking signs required by this section. D. Any city having a population of 390,000 or more may establish school zones as provided in this section and mark such zones with flashing warning lights as provided in this section on and along all highways adjacent to Route 58. E. Any person operating any motor vehicle in excess of a maximum speed limit established specifically for a school crossing zone, when such school crossing zone is (i) indicated by appropriately placed signs displaying the maximum speed limit and (ii) in operation pursuant to subsection B of this section shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $250, in addition to other penalties provided by law. For the purposes of this section, “school crossing zone” means an area located within the vicinity of a school at or near a highway where the presence of children on such school property or going to and from school reasonably requires a special warning to motorists. Such zones are marked and operated in accordance with the requirements of this section with appropriate warning signs or other traffic control devices indicating that a school crossing is in progress. F. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit in school zones in residential areas may be decreased to fifteen miles per hour if (i) the school board having jurisdiction over the school nearest to the affected school zone passes a resolution requesting the reduction of the maximum speed limit for such school zone from twenty-five miles per hour to fifteen miles per hour and (ii) the local governing body of the jurisdiction in which such school is located enacts an ordinance establishing the speed-limit reduction requested by the school board. Looks to me if the signs were lit up then it doesn't matter if school was in session or not. Is that how you would interpret this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Daggerpants posted:Looks to me if the signs were lit up then it doesn't matter if school was in session or not. Is that how you would interpret this? I'm not a lawyer, but there's nothing there that seems to say the school must be in session. It just seems to say the signs must be lit during normal school hours and before/after. It also wouldn't surprise me (because it was the case where I was growing up in VA) if during non-school days, kids in elementary school went to the schools to play on the swings outside/etc, and they would keep the signs lit for that. I'm assuming you got a reckless driving ticket?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Zauper posted:I'm assuming you got a reckless driving ticket? No it's just a speeding ticket. He said since my speed would have been acceptable if the sign wasn't lit he wasn't going to give me a reckless - although I think that just saves me on the fine, it will still be 6 points. I get what you're saying about the playgrounds. The indicators are regularly malfunctioning but I'm not going to be able to prove they were on that day, just that they do from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Why not go to court with a printout of the calendar to show that you knew school was not in session, thought the lights were malfunctioning because you see them on often when they shouldn't be, and ask for dismissal? You aren't in one of those jurisdictions where it will cost you more to show up, are you? What do you have to lose? You may get lucky and be offered a deal. If you don't, try to offer the the traffic prosecutor to pay the full fine in return for pleading to a non moving violation with no points. If your traffic court is all about the revenue generation like most courts are, they'll jump on your offer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Sounds like you got nabbed by a "speed trap". Tough luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Sounds like you were subjected to a "speed trap". Tough luck. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
In regards to the attorney who bills a little creatively for office supplies and overtime, is that really ethical? I assume lawyers have their own codes beyond industry standards, but is that type of billing pretty common or accepted? By no means do I think he shouldn't be paid for his time and expertise, please don't get me wrong. If he's working overtime, obviously that time should be paid at a premium above a professional fee. Looking in from the outside, though, it really seems like a case of working more slowly or choosing the most expensive option since it's someone else's dime. I'm thinking of it in the context of other professionals where you're billing (or paying) for expertise and time, not a specific outcome. I think your average lay person is going to expect the overhead (loosely defined here as any costs that are not specifically those of your mental ability, education, experience, etc. but concrete costs like staples and paper and fuel) to be worked into the fee, and not just because the average lay person doesn't know how to think. Does an attorney have any obligation to a client to a certain standard or level of efficiency? For that matter, does he have any obligation of transparency in how he bills ahead of time or is it simply buyer beware? Just as an example, I would wonder if I'd been cheated if my attorney had a lot of technology at his disposal for which I'm ostensibly paying worked into his fee, and then I'm charged for the three reams of paper it took him to print research, the staples to keep it together, and the 10 minutes it took to itemize the supplies, then the paper my billing statement goes on, then the time to bill for the paper my statement went on... I'd expect him to meet me in the middle at least, maybe charge me 1.5 reams or have it worked into his fee to start. Is that unreasonable? Is that seen as scummy within the industry or is there really that much of a "got mine!" attitude? Is it not that attitude at all and I'm misreading it? If it seems like I'm criticizing, I don't mean to. I'm genuinely curious. Insurance companies have providers by the balls, even a doctor has a hard time billing that way unless they're totally self pay providers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Dude that change is totally subjectable. Lawyers dont charge overtime, they just sometimes charge the expenses of working overtime, like a late night cab or dinner. They will sometimes charge more for extraordinary or emergency service, but that is always explained in advance. For example, I once got a call at 5:00 Monday to handle a hearing on 9:00 AM Tuesday. That guy got billed a little more because of the emergency nature of it. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Stuff The thing that stood out to me wasn't charging for office supplies, but rather billing the client for dinner and rides home from work. That seems pretty far fetched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:The thing that stood out to me wasn't charging for office supplies, but rather billing the client for dinner and rides home from work. That seems pretty far fetched. They are expenses incurred while working on the clients behalf and are a totally legitimate expense to be billed to the client.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:The thing that stood out to me wasn't charging for office supplies, but rather billing the client for dinner and rides home from work. That seems pretty far fetched. I can see some amount for meals and a ride. Working past when the train stops and eating at the office when you hadn't planned it objectively costs more. I'd expect to split the difference or pay only the difference, though, because the guy was going to have to eat and get home anyway. I'm playing a hunch here but I'm going to guess Thursday isn't always lobster night at the JD's's's if you're picking up what I'm putting down E: thank you euphronius BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Hahahahahahahahah... You missed the crucial "...on the advice of my attorney, Leonard J. Crabs".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
It makes perfect sense to me if they need to work late because of crunch time. The way it was worded made it seem like they wanted to stay late some night to get extra work done on a lark, in which case the charges are bogus because the work could have been done during regular business hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:12
|
|