The selection of “Super Lawyers” is based on a survey of thousands of fellow lawyers in the state of Michigan.  Michigan Super Lawyers identifies the top 5 percent of attorneys in the state, as chosen by their peers and through independent research.

Mark Demorest was named as a Super Lawyer for business law, and has been for every year since 2007.

Dave Nykanen has been selected as a Super Lawyer for real estate law again. He has been selected each year since 2008.

John Holmquist has been named a Super Lawyer for labor and employment law once again.  He has received this honor every year since 2006.

Melissa Demorest was named as a “Rising Star” in the area of business law for the second consecutive year.  This category is for lawyers who have been practicing less than ten years.  No more than 2.5% of the lawyers in a state may be named to the Rising Stars list.

In order for an oral complaint to be effective under the FLSA, the complaint must be “sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for protection.” While the Court declined to elaborate on the standard further, the impact on employers is that they need to be mindful and responsive to their employee’s complaints. Careful consideration of these complaints is essential.

This decision may also affect the interpretation of other statutes such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and the Clean Air Act, which all include similar language in their anti-retaliation provisions.

For more on this decision please check out this article by the New York Times.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, President & Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

The court’s ruling turned on the fact that the woman’s employer had warned her that emails sent via her work email account were not confidential. In other words, the employer had the right to look at all email traffic. Under the evidence rules in most jurisdictions, the presence of a third party during attorney client communications will destroy privilege. The court treated the fact that any email might be viewed by the employer as analogous to a third party being present.

In order to ensure that attorney client privilege is maintained, clients need to be careful as to how they transmit information. If clients communicate privileged information via email, make sure that the client is the only one with access to the email account. Even the ability for a spouse or child to use the account may destroy the privilege.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

Most people are familiar with direct deposit, which allows employers to deposit their employees’ wages or salary directly into a bank account. A payroll debit card allows employers to pay employees through a debit card. Through this method, employees may receive their cash at an ATM or by getting cash back from a purchase at the store.  They can also use the debit card to make purchases.

Payroll debit cards have the potential to benefit both employers and employees. For employers it decreases the cost of payroll by eliminating the cost of paper checks, which can cost upwards of two dollars a piece. Payroll debit cards benefit employees without bank accounts (about 17% of all workers).

If your business is looking to decrease payroll costs here are some key aspects of the new law. Your business may elect to pay its employees using only direct deposit or a payroll debit card so long as the you provide your employees with a form to choose either direct deposit or a payroll debit card; all information regarding fees, terms and conditions, determining balance of card, and the way to change method of payment.

Additionally, in order to use a payroll debit card, the card must meet the following requirements: (1) allow one withdrawal per pay period without charge; (2) no changes in fees without 21 days notice to employees; and (3) provide a method for employees to check their balances an unlimited amount of times either by phone or electronically.

One of the most important changes to the Act is to allow a corporation to be converted into a limited liability company, or the conversion of a limited liability corporation into a corporation. Until now, it was necessary to go through a formal merger of a corporation and an LLC to accomplish this result. Now all that will need to be done to convert the form of the entity is to file a form with the State of Michigan.

Tax, corporate governance or other considerations may make it desirable to change the form of an existing entity from a corporation into an LLC, or  from an LLC into a corporation. The new conversion process will make this much simpler and less expensive.

The amendments to the Limited Liability Company Act became law on December 16, 2010. The conversion forms have not yet been developed by the State’s Corporation Division.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

The State of Michigan has recently created an exception to the requirement that a minor must have a work permit from the minor’s school in order to be employed. Effective immediately, a work permit is not required for a minor who is working as an unpaid volunteer for a charitable organization that is recognized as tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The law also seems to cover organizations that do not have a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS, as long as the organization’s “purposes, structure, or activities are exclusively those that are described in Section 501(c)(3).” A copy of the amended law is attached.

The exception does not apply to a non-profit organization that is outside the scope of Section 501(c)(3), such as a Chamber of Commerce, trade association or real estate board. These other organizations would need to get work permits for volunteers who are minors.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

In Kyser v Kasson Township, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that the “no very serious consequences rule” was not required by the Michigan Constitution.  See a complete copy of the Court’s July 15, 2010 decision by clicking here.

From this point forward, local government regulation of mineral resources will be governed by the Zoning Enabling Act.  The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s decision is to give more authority to local governments to regulate the manner in which mineral extraction is conducted.  While a zoning ordinance must be reasonable, “an ordinance is presumed to be reasonable, and the burden is upon the party challenging the ordinance to overcome this presumption by demonstrating that there is no reasonable governmental interest being advanced.”

It will still be difficult for a city or township to completely prohibit mineral extraction Under the Zoning Enabling Act, a zoning ordinance may not have the effect of totally prohibiting a land use “in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local unit of government area within the state, unless a location within the local unit of government does not exist where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.”

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

The arena had a rule against slide tackles, which the defendant violated, causing the plaintiff’s injury. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no basis for a lawsuit. A participant in a sporting event accepts the risk of injuries that are inherent in the activity. Violation of a rule of the sport does not by itself create liability.

A player is liable for injuring another player during a game only if the defendant engaged in “reckless misconduct.” The defendant’s conduct must “exceed the normal bounds of conduct associated with the activity,” and “demonstrate a willingness or indifference to the injury” of the other player.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

In order to avoid situations similar to the one above, employers should do one of the following: (1) Allow the employee to work through the resignation date; (2) Continue to pay the employee through the resignation date, but tell them that they do not need to actively work during this period; or (3) Add provisions to employment contracts or the employee handbook stating that after receiving an employee’s notice of resignation with a future effective date, the employer may  accept that resignation effective immediately.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

There are several exceptions to this general rule. Specifically, an insurance agent can form a “special relationship” with the insured when the agent does one or more of the following:

(1) the agent misrepresents the nature or extent of the coverage offered or provided;

(2) an ambiguous request is made that requires a clarification;

(3) an inquiry is made that may require advice and the agent, though he need not, gives advice that is inaccurate; or

(4) the agent assumes an additional duty by either express agreement or promise to the insured.

In the above-mentioned case, the insured claimed that the insurance premiums they were charged were too high and that the insurance agent did not seek enough competitive bids. The insured claimed that the insurance agent had “represented that it would work diligently to obtain the best appropriate insurance coverage for the best premium reasonably available in the market.” The Court of Appeals ruled that this was insufficient to warrant a legal action against the agent by the insured. The Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling on this issue in favor of the insurance agent without a trial.

This case shows the importance of researching insurance rates and premiums on your own, or seeking competitive bids from more than one insurance agent. The agent’s first goal is to sell the insurance and it is not necessarily a top priority to find the best or least expensive insurance coverage for the insured. Furthermore, the insured will have no recourse if it later decides that it got a bad deal on the insurance coverage.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.