July 2011
Firm Logo 2010

Business Newsletter

Helping You Protect The Business You're Building 
In This Issue
Firm Update
Recent Legal News
Court Update
Click Here to Laugh
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links

JeffFanger EHC

        As summer buzzes along, we are excited to bring you another monthly newsletter to help keep you informed of current legal news, recent changes in legislation and new updates at our firm.

 

        I would like to congratulate Erin Thompkins on her promotion to Senior Paralegal at our law firm. Her strong work-ethic and dedication to our firm have earned her this promotion.  We look forward to her skillful management of our growing paralegal department.

 

        As always we look forward to serving our clients and welcome your input and opinions.  We have received a lot of complements over the past few years on our newsletter and hope that you continue to find it informative and enjoyable.  

Jeffrey J. Fanger

Firm Update

What's new at Fanger & Associates LLC 

 

New Promotion on Our Legal Team!

By: Larissa Martin

 

Erin T Pic

Erin Thompkins

        This month we are excited to announce that Erin Thompkins has been promoted to the position of Senior Paralegal.  She will manage our paralegal department as our firm continues to grow and provide ever-expanding resources to our clients.  Ms. Thompkins' hard work and dedication to our firm have earned her this exciting advancement in her legal career.

        Ms. Thompkins joined Fanger & Associates in 2010 as a legal assistant.  She earned her Associates of Applied Business in Paralegal Studies and graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Academy of Court Reporting in 2010.  Ms. Thompkins is also a Paralegal Associate member of the Ohio State Bar Association.  Growing up she always had a passion for the legal world, but was inspired to become a lawyer after being told by her elementary school principal that she possessed an "innate sense of fairness."

        As Senior Paralegal, Ms. Thompkins' excellent management skills and expertise will assist our firm in providing our clients with the best possible services to suit their legal needs.

          

Recent Legal NewsLegalnewsPic
New Legal News That May Affect You

"
Government Eases Foreclosure Rules for Unemployed"

            The Associated Press Reports this month that thanks to the Obama administration, it will now be easier than ever for out-of-work homeowners to stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. Starting August 1st, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will be extending the period for unemployed homeowners to enable them to miss mortgage payments up to a full year before the foreclosure process begins.  Currently, unemployed homeowners have had only a three or four month grace period before foreclosure goes into effect.  Last year, roughly 17,000 homeowners received a government-supported delay on their mortgage payments.  On average, 3,500 borrowers with FHA-insured loans fall behind on their mortgages each month due to unemployment. 
            Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan stated "The change will likely help tens of thousands of homeowners".  Recently adminstration officials have explained that housing and foreclosures have become a strong drain on the economy.  President Obama reported that the housing market has "been most stubborn to us trying to solve problems."  The grace period only applies to FHA-backed loans which are typically given to low and middle income borrowers.  To read the full article from the Associated Press, please click on the link below. 


Full Associated Press Article
 
Candice BradleyCourt Update
Recent Court Decisions That Impact Your Business 

8th District: Summary Judgement for employer in age discrimination action reversed 

 

Southworth v. Northern Trust Securities, Inc.

     

            This case, involving allegations of age discrimination, concluded on July 14, 2011, with the Court of Appeals of Ohio ruling in favor John D. Southworth, an employee who was terminated from Northern Trust Securities back in February of 2009.

            The issue arose after Northern Trust executed a 'rif', or reduction-in-force, upon it's portfolio managers as well as some general staff. With regards to the portfolio managers, Northern Trust was to rank their performance and terminate two of the six managers working at the Cleveland office. The company decided to implement the 'rif' after market meltdowns resulting in losses. Southworth (age 63 at time of dismissal) claimed that the decision to terminate him occurred months before the ranking of portfolio managers and that Northern Trust manipulated the results to justify their retention of a younger, less productive employee. He discovered that in November of 2008, Northern Trust's human resources department had produced a list of names to be considered for a possible 'rif'.   He claimed that his supervisor had already selected him to be let go from the company even before discussions of a 'rif' had begun. Additionally, a witness testified that Southworth's supervisor had once described him as "old-school", and "stuck in his ways". His age discrimination claim was brought under R.C. 4112.02(A), "which makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge an employee without just cause because of age." The Court of Common Pleas did not grant summary judgment in favor of Southworth on the grounds that he provided no direct evidence that age discrimination had affected the decision to dismiss him as an employee.

            Southworth then took the case to the Court of Appeals of Ohio where he attempted to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. In order to institute a prima facie case, four conditions must be met: (1) that he was a member of the statutorily-protected class, which includes employees over the age of 40, (2) that he was discharged, (3) that he was qualified for the position, and (4) that his discharge permitted the retention of a person not belonging to the protected class. Let it also be noted that the Supreme Court redefined the parameters of establishing a prima facie case with the McDonnell Douglas case of 1996, which implied that in order to meet the fourth requirement, the retained employee doesn't necessarily have to be younger than 40.

            It was determined that Southworth met the first three requirements to establish a prima facie case, but needed to provide sizable amounts of evidence to substantiate the fourth requirement. Southworth did just this. He supplied Northern Trust's employee reviews that not only verified his excellent performance as a portfolio manager, but also displayed his ranking of 15 out of 92 portfolio managers across the span of the company. Southworth compared himself to another portfolio manager, a 41 year old, who had been retained by Northern Trust during the 'rif'. In 2007 it became a top priority for the portfolio managers to begin 'moving assets off their desktop' for their clients. By the end of 2008, Southworth had only 42% remaining assets on his desk, while the younger employee had 45%. It was also determined that he managed a book of assets with a value of $100 million more than the other employee.

            In a 'rif' regarding prima facie cases, it is also required for plaintiffs to prove that their employers singled them out for impermissible reasons. "This may be established through circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff was treated less favorably than younger employees during the reduction-in-force." (Branson v. Price River Coal Co.) Southworth resubmitted the evidence showing that the email sent out by human resources in 2008 did in fact single him out for termination as it only included him and one other employee (not a portfolio manager) from the Cleveland office. Upon review, the Court of Appeals found it "highly suspicious that Southworth was the only Cleveland portfolio manager listed on a reduction in force list that had been compiled so far in advance of any official announcement."

            The Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled "Northern Trust's explanations lacked plausibility, thus showing pretext for age discrimination." The Court stated that Southworth did establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and the case was ordered to be reversed and remanded.

 

 A Moment Of LevityJudge drawing
 A little humor to brighten your day. . .  

By the Court:  Is there any reason why you couldn't serve as a juror in this case? 

By a Potential Juror:  I don't want to be away from my job that long.

The Court:  Can't they do without you at work?  

Potential Juror:  Yes, but I don't want them to know that.

 

Firm Logo 2010  
The opinions and views expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the author of the article and/or Fanger & Associates LLC. Articles appearing in this newsletter are intended to provide broad, general information about the law. This newsletter is sent to clients and friends of Fanger & Associates LLC, as well as Ohio businesses and Ohio non-profit corporations as identified through their registration with the Ohio Secretary of State, including organizations with which Fanger & Associates LLC has no prior contact. Before applying this information to any specific legal problem, readers are urged to seek advice from an attorney. If you have any questions regarding any topic in this publication and you already have a lawyer, please contact your lawyer. If you do not already have counsel, please feel free to contact Fanger & Associates LLC and we will be happy to assist you.
ADVERTISEMENT ONLY