The Rule Of Law Matters: Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP supports the American Bar Association’s statement

April 17, 2025April 17, 2025 by SYK

The Rule Of Law Matters –

Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP supports the American Bar Association’s statement

“We endorse the sentiments expressed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, ‘[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.’

We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner.

We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession.

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation.”

Link to the full text of the ABA statement here.

Clause for Concern: How Consumers May Unknowingly Click Away Their Right to Sue

October 7, 2024 by Adriana G. Cunha

In today’s digital age, many of us have signed up for various online services without giving much thought to the fine print of the Terms and Conditions. If you have signed up for Uber Eats or Disney+, chances are you scrolled right past the binding arbitration provision which can limit your ability to sue Uber Technologies, Inc., or The Disney Company in Court. While many individuals struggle to envision a scenario where they would want to engage either of these corporate entities in litigation, some users of these apps have discovered that they unknowingly waived their right to a trial when they accepted the terms of service.

A recent case involving a married couple from New Jersey has once again brought attention to the powerful impact of arbitration clauses in “terms of service” agreements. A Husband and Wife were involved in a devastating car accident during an Uber ride in March 2022, which left them with significant physical and psychological injuries. Despite their efforts to sue Uber, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that they were bound by an arbitration agreement they had previously accepted when ordering food on Uber Eats, effectively blocking them from pursuing a trial, even though the meal delivery app is a service separate from the ride-sharing platform. This decision overturned a prior lower court ruling, which had argued that Uber’s pop-up notification did not adequately inform users about the arbitration clause. The appellate court, however, sided with Uber, and found that the terms were valid and enforceable.

A similar matter involving Disney made headlines this summer. In 2023, a Disney Parks guest died after suffering an allergic reaction from food served on the premises, and her widower later filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the corporation. Lawyers for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts tried to get the case thrown out of court and sent to arbitration, pointing to the binding arbitration clause embedded in the Terms and Conditions for Disney+, for which the widower had received a free trial years earlier. In August 2024, Disney reversed course and waived their right to arbitration, with their lawyers citing a desire to “put humanity above all other considerations.” The court ultimately did not make any determinations on the merits of Disney’s arguments.

Both cases underscore the growing trend of companies using arbitration clauses to shield themselves from public lawsuits. As arbitration clauses become more common, and more legal precedent supports their enforcement, individuals may find it increasingly difficult to take companies to court, even in severe cases involving personal injury or death. Consumers should be proactive and get informed before accepting the terms of service without first reading the fine print. If you have questions about the Terms and Conditions of a service you are contemplating signing up for, consider contacting an attorney before clicking “accept.”

– Adriana G. Cunha, Associate

Navigating Oregon’s Leave Updates: SB 1515 Explained

June 27, 2024June 5, 2024 by Brooke Eide

It is no secret that the implementation of Paid Leave Oregon (PLO) over the last year has created many questions for employers and employees alike. To clear up some of these questions, the Oregon State Legislature passed SB 1515. Here’s what you need to know about the changes SB 1515 brings to PLO and other leave policies.

First, SB 1515 caps the amount of leave an employee can take under PLO in a benefit year to 14 weeks. These 14 weeks can include 12 weeks of leave for family leave, medical leave, or safe leave and an additional two weeks of leave for pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. This cap is lowered from the 18-week cap previously issued under PLO.

Second, SB 1515 provides clarity on how PLO may be used in conjunction with other leave policies starting July 1, 2024. Employers may create an internal policy, or establish a policy via collective bargaining, that specifies the order in which employees may take different types of available leave. Under any policy, Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA) leave must be provided in addition to PLO, meaning that the two cannot be taken concurrently. However, SB 1515 does not allow recipients of worker’s compensation time loss benefits or unemployment benefits to also receive PLO benefits at the same time.

Third, SB 1515 expands the amount of wage replacement an employee can receive while on paid leave. At a minimum, employers must allow employees to receive benefits under PLO and any accrued but unused paid time off at the same time so employees can receive up to full wage replacement while taking leave under PLO. Alternatively, employers may choose to allow employees to receive PLO and employer provided benefits that exceed 100% of the employees’ regular wage.

Fourth, SB 1515 revises the protected reasons for taking leave under the OFLA. OFLA will no longer cover leave for a worker’s own serious health condition, leave to care for a family member, excluding a sick child, with a serious health condition, or leave to bond with a new child. Instead, each of these protected reasons for leave will be covered exclusively by PLO starting on July 1, 2024. If you have an employee who is already approved to take leave for one of these reasons under OFLA, or who has requested leave for one of these reasons, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) requires employers to provide that employee with notice that their leave will not be protected by OFLA as of July 1, 2024. In addition, the employer must inform the employee that their leave may be covered by PLO and provide applicable contact information to the employee. OFLA will continue to cover leave related to a child’s illness, bereavement leave, and leave for any pregnancy-related disability.

Fifth, SB 1515 adjusts time off allowed under OFLA. An additional two weeks of leave will be temporarily provided to employees engaging in the fostering or adoption process. These additional two weeks are only available to employees until December 31, 2024. Starting January 1, 2025, leave associated with the foster and adoption process will be considered as a protected reason for leave under PLO. SB 1515 also caps the amount of time employees can take off for bereavement leave under OFLA. Bereavement leave will be capped at two weeks per family member and four weeks total per year. Thus, if an employee has more than one family member pass in a 12-month period, they will be allowed to take two weeks of protected, unpaid leave per family member with up to four weeks in that 12-month period.

Looking forward, employers will want to review their current leave policies and HR practices to ensure they are compliant with the changes of SB 1515. Employers and employees can also anticipate updated regulations from BOLI that may provide further clarification to the changes outlined above. Should you have any questions about the changes of SB 1515 contact your employment attorney.

Wendy Williams: Planning to Avoid a Guardianship

March 4, 2024 by Victoria Blachly

TV host and personality, Wendy Williams, has been in the news recently for her challenging health issues, marital drama, and legal woes, after a bank froze her bank accounts due to concerns about whether she needed a protective proceeding/guardianship due to her mental and physical ailments.

Her team recently revealed Ms. Williams has dementia, and rumors abound that it may be alcohol related. A new Lifetime four-part docuseries, Where is Wendy Williams, chronicles the sad tale.

Note that Ms. Williams is only 59-years old, so she likely never expected to face such cognitive challenges that require legal planning and preparation. While she did have a Power of Attorney that identified who should manage her finances, were she to be incapacitated, the court got involved and made a determination that the nominated fiduciary was not the best person suited for that job, and appointed someone else to be her guardian for financial decision making.

Other options that could have been taken to protect herself and her assets include setting up a Trust, where a successor trustee would take over, once she became incapacitated. Naming a professional third-party professional trustee, trust company or bank may have been a better option for Ms. Williams, and may have resulted in a different ruling with the court in New York.

Nobody wants to think of the worst case scenario when discussing their future, but an excellent estate planner will help you talk through your options to bring peace of mind: Plan for the worst and hope for the best!

Your Employees’ Workday May Begin Sooner Than You Think

November 7, 2022 by Tim Resch

When a workday begins can depend on the type of work performed and necessary steps to start the work each day. But with the ever-growing presence of computer software use in the workforce, can starting up and shutting down a work computer add some extra time to a paycheck? The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says that it is possible.

While many may be quick to compare starting up computers to waiting in line to punch a timecard, the Ninth Circuit ruled that for the call service employees at Connexx, the two are entirely different. In Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC., decided October 24, 2022, call service employees claimed they should be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for the additional 18.9 minutes it takes for their computers to turn on and off each day. Relying on the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Ninth Circuit found that booting up work computers could be compensable time, but shutting the computers down should not.

In specific situations, turning on computers each day can now be likened to the donning and doffing of protective gear. Without the use of functioning computers, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Connexx employees could not access any of the programs necessary to answer customer calls and perform scheduling tasks, the employees’ principal duties. Thus, the time spent starting up their work computers is integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal duties and should be compensated.

This case is a good reminder to all employers that under the FLSA, you are required to pay employees starting at the time of the first principal activity of the day. However, time that passes while the employee is waiting to begin their first activity of the day is not always compensable. For activities to be principal, and thus compensable, they must be integral and indispensable to the employee’s work. In today’s world, it isn’t as easy to determine when compensable time begins as it once used to be. With the days of punching in a timecard and walking straight to a workstation mostly behind us, employers should be aware of what tasks are integral and indispensable to their employees’ job performance and ensure they are compensating them appropriately.

SYK Partner Victoria Blachly’s Work on the Uniform Law Commission

September 9, 2022 by Victoria Blachly

Happy 130th Birthday to the Uniform Law Commission (“ULC”)! Samuels Yoelin Kantor Fiduciary Litigation Partner Victoria Blachly is an Oregon Commissioner for the ULC. Read our interview with Victoria about her work on the ULC.

What does the ULC do?

The ULC “provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.” They do not have authority to enact legislation, rather they propose legislation to states to address legal issues that cross state lines and would benefit from uniformity. You may know them from some of their greatest hits, like the Uniform Commercial Code or the Uniform Trust Code.

How did you become involved with the ULC?

It’s a very long story, but let me see if I can fight my litigator’s tendency to go on forever and give you the highlights. After seeking to make the laws in Oregon better by chairing a committee with proposed legislation for access to digital assets by personal representatives, trustees and other fiduciaries, I learned the ULC was interested in the same project, on a national level. I became an “Observer” to the study committee and then the drafting committee, which resulted in the Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. I was impressed with the diligence of the volunteers, in striving to propose new laws to help so many. Then, when an opening became available in 2014, I submitted my name for consideration to the Governor of Oregon. Since then, it’s been nothing but sunshine and lollipops.

What are some highlights from your work as a Commissioner?

The first thing that comes to mind is that I am so very grateful for meeting and working with such a dedicated group of volunteers, including the rest of the Oregon delegation: Justice Martha Lee Walters, Lane Shetterly, Joe Willis and Carl Bjerre. Also, the annual ULC meetings are filled with other volunteer attorneys, professors and judges that take the work seriously, are very detail-oriented and raise and address complicated legal issues with the utmost of professionalism and respect for a variety of ideas and insights. The ULC, as a non-political group, is a refreshing contrast to how some currently opt to debate legal issues.

Tell us about some issues that the ULC is currently working on.

The number of active committees and projects is too voluminous to address here, but their website has a wealth of information available. Currently I am on a Committee for updates to the Uniform Determination of Death Act. There are a large number of medical professionals, patient advocates and lay people Observers with amazing and often heartbreaking stories, who all share their perspectives. As science has progressed and knowledge has changed, the convergence between law and science makes the topic a challenge to decipher in a way that provides good answers to often bad choices.

The Rule Of Law Matters –

Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP supports the American Bar Association’s statement

Subscribe to our blog