Form990
Click to see attachment
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except black lung benefit trust or private foundation)

MediumBullet The organization may have to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting requirements.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Open to Public Inspection
A For the calendar year, or tax year beginning 01-01-2010 and ending 12-31-2010
BCheck if applicable:
CName of organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Doing Business As
 
 
Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address)
53 CENTURY BOULEVARD SUITE 250
 
Room/suite
City or town, state or country, and ZIP + 4
NASHVILLE, TN372143682
D Employer identification number

62-1570449
E Telephone number

G Gross receipts $ 2,159,105
F Name and address of principal officer:
DONALD A DANNER
1201 F ST NW SUITE 200
WASHINGTON,DC20004
I
Tax-exempt status: (   ) LeftBullet (insert no.) or
J
Website:MediumBullet
WWW.NFIB.COM/LEGAL
H(a)
Is this a group return for
affiliates?
H(b)
Are all affiliates included?
If "No," attach a list. (see instructions)
H(c)
Group exemption number MediumBullet  
K Form of organization:
 
L Year of formation: 1994
M State of legal domicile: TN
Part I
Summary
Activities & Governance 1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S MISSION IS TO BE THE VOICE FOR SMALL BUSINESS IN THE NATION'S COURTS AND THE LEGAL RESOURCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS NATIONWIDE.
2 Check this box MediumBullet
3 Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) .... 3 12
4 Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) .... 4 11
5 Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2010 (Part V, line 2a) ... 5 4
6 Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) .... 6 51
7a Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 .. 7a 0
b Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 34 .. 7b 0
Revenues; Prior Year Current Year
8 Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) ......... 986,633 2,158,440
9 Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) ......... 0 0
10 Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) .... 388 665
11 Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e) 0 0
12 Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12)................... 987,021 2,159,105
Expenses; 13 Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )... 0 0
14 Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4) .... 0 0
15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 525,404 533,426
16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e).... 0 0
b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) MediumBullet212,189    
17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24f).... 442,399 1,669,566
18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 967,803 2,202,992
19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12...... 19,218 -43,887
Net Assets or Fund Balances; Beginning of Current Year End of Year
20 Total assets (Part X, line 16)............ 346,872 409,551
21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26)............ 132,646 239,212
22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20 ..... 214,226 170,339
Part II
Signature Block
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.
Sign Here
JumboBullet
Signature of officer Date
JumboBullet
Type or print name and title.
Paid Preparer's Use Only Preparer's
signatureBig Right Arrow 		Date
right pointing bullet image Preparer’s taxpayer identification number
(see instructions)
Firm’s name (or yours
if self-employed),
address, and ZIP + 4Big Right Arrow




 		EIN right pointing bullet image
Phone no. right pointing bullet image
May the IRS discuss this return with the preparer shown above? (see instructions) .........
For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions.
Cat. No. 11282Y
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 2
Part III
Statement of Program Service Accomplishments
Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part III . . . . . . . . . .
1
Briefly describe the organization’s mission: THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION CREATED UNDER THE TENNESSEE NONPROFIT CORPORATION ACT. IT IS ORGANIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES AS PERMITTED BY SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED (THE "CODE"), INCLUDING, FOR SUCH PURPOSES, MAKING DISTRIBUTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT QUALIFY AS EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE CODE. THE LEGAL CENTER IS A SUPPORTING ORGANZIATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 509(A)(3) OF THE CODE AND IS ORGANIZED AND OPERATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ("NFIB"), WHICH IS A 501(C)(6) ORGANIZATION. THE LEGAL CENTER IS ORGANIZED TO CARRY ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING LEGAL EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION ON ISSUES OF BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST.
2
Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on
the prior Form 990 or 990-EZ? ....................
If “Yes,” describe these new services on Schedule O.
3
Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program services? ..........................
If “Yes,” describe these changes on Schedule O.
4
Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the organization’s three largest program services by expenses.
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations and section 4947(a)(1) trusts are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses, and revenue, if any, for each program service reported.
4a (Code:   ) (Expenses $ 1,963,591 including grants of $ 0 ) (Revenue $ 0 )
SEE ATTACHMENT 1 FOR SUMMARY OF 2010 CASES
4b (Code:   ) (Expenses $   including grants of $   ) (Revenue $   )
4c (Code:   ) (Expenses $   including grants of $   ) (Revenue $   )
4d Other program services. (Describe in Schedule O.)
(Expenses $   including grants of $   ) (Revenue $   )
4e Total program service expensesMediumBullet$ 1,963,591
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 3
Part IV
Checklist of Required Schedules
Yes
No
1
Is the organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 4947(a)(1) (other than a private foundation)? If “Yes,” complete Schedule AClick to see attachment.....................
1
Yes
 
2
Is the organization required to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors? Click to see attachment........
2
Yes
 
3
Did the organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office? If “Yes,” complete Schedule C, Part I..........
3
 
No
4
Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization engage in lobbying activities? If “Yes,” complete Schedule C,
Part II.........................
4
 
No
5
Is the organization a section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organization that receives membership dues, assessments, or similar amounts as defined in Revenue Procedure 98-19? If “Yes,” complete Schedule C, Part III........................
5
 
 
6
Did the organization maintain any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts where donors have the right to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts? If “Yes,” complete
Schedule D, Part IClick to see attachment.......................
6
 
No
7
Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space,
the environment, historic land areas or historic structures? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part IIClick to see attachment...
7
 
No
8
Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part III Click to see attachment....................
8
 
No
9
Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21; serve as a custodian for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation services? If “Yes,”
complete Schedule D, Part IVClick to see attachment...................
9
 
No
10
Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in term, permanent,or quasi-endowments? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part VClick to see attachment
10
 
No
11
If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is ‘Yes,’ then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX, or X as applicable:
a
Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line10? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part VI.Click to see attachment
11a
 
No
b
Did the organization report an amount for investments—other securities in Part X, line 12 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part VII.Click to see attachment
11b
 
No
c
Did the organization report an amount for investments—program related in Part X, line 13 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part VIII.Click to see attachment
11c
 
No
d
Did the organization report an amount for other assets in Part X, line 15 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part IX.Click to see attachment
11d
Yes
 
e
Did the organization report an amount for other liabilities in Part X, line 25? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part X.Click to see attachment
11e
Yes
 
f
Did the organization’s separate or consolidated financial statements for the tax year include a footnote that addresses the organization’s liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740)? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Part X.Click to see attachment
11f
Yes
 
12a
Did the organization obtain separate, independent audited financial statements for the tax year? If “Yes,” complete Schedule D, Parts XI, XII, and XIII Click to see attachment
12a
Yes
 
b
Was the organization included in consolidated, independent audited financial statements for the tax year? If “Yes,” and if the organization answered ‘No’ to line 12a, then completing Schedule D, Parts XI, XII, and XIII is optional Click to see attachment
12b
Yes
 
13
Is the organization a school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)? If “Yes,” complete Schedule E
13
 
No
14a
Did the organization maintain an office, employees, or agents outside of the United States?....
14a
 
No
b
Did the organization have aggregate revenues or expenses of more than $10,000 from grantmaking, fundraising, business, and program service activities outside the United States? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Part I.........
14b
 
No
15
Did the organization report on Part IX, column (A), line 3, more than $5,000 of grants or assistance to any organization or entity located outside the U.S.? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Part II..
15
 
No
16
Did the organization report on Part IX, column (A), line 3, more than $5,000 of aggregate grants or assistance to individuals located outside the U.S.? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Part III..
16
 
No
17
Did the organization report a total of more than $15,000, of expenses for professional fundraising services on Part IX, column (A), lines 6 and 11e? If “Yes,” complete Schedule G, Part I
17
 
No
18
Did the organization report more than $15,000 total of fundraising event gross income and contributions on Part VIII, lines 1c and 8a? If “Yes,” complete Schedule G, Part II..........
18
 
No
19
Did the organization report more than $15,000 of gross income from gaming activities on Part VIII, line 9a? If “Yes,” complete Schedule G, Part III...................
19
 
No
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 4
Part IV
Checklist of Required Schedules (continued)
20a
Did the organization operate one or more hospitals? If “Yes,” complete Schedule H.....
20a
 
No
b
Did the organization attach its audited financial statement to this return? Note: All Form 990 filers that operate one or more hospitals must attach audited financial statements. .....
20b
 
No
21
Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants and other assistance to governments and organizations in the United States on Part IX, column (A), line 1? If “Yes,” complete Schedule I, Parts I and II..
21
 
No
22
Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants and other assistance to individuals in the United States on Part IX, column (A), line 2? If “Yes,” complete Schedule I, Parts I and III.....
22
 
No
23
Did the organization answer “Yes” to Part VII, Section A, questions 3, 4, or 5, about compensation of the organization’s current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees? If “Yes,” complete Schedule J................ Click to see attachment
23
Yes
 
24a
Did the organization have a tax-exempt bond issue with an outstanding principal amount of more than $100,000 as of the last day of the year, that was issued after December 31, 2002? If “Yes,” answer questions 24b–24d and complete Schedule K. If “No,” go to line 25................
24a
 
No
b
Did the organization invest any proceeds of tax-exempt bonds beyond a temporary period exception?...
24b
 
 
c
Did the organization maintain an escrow account other than a refunding escrow at any time during the year
to defease any tax-exempt bonds?......................
24c
 
 
d
Did the organization act as an “on behalf of” issuer for bonds outstanding at any time during the year?...
24d
 
 
25a
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations. Did the organization engage in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person during the year? If “Yes,” complete Schedule L, Part I......
25a
 
No
b
Is the organization aware that it engaged in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person in a prior year, and that the transaction has not been reported on any of the organization’s prior Forms 990 or 990-EZ? If “Yes,” complete Schedule L, Part I................
25b
 
No
26
Was a loan to or by a current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, highly compensated employee, or disqualified person outstanding as of the end of the organization’s tax year? If “Yes,” complete Schedule L,
Part II...........................
26
 
No
27
Did the organization provide a grant or other assistance to an officer, director, trustee, key employee, substantial contributor, or a grant selection committee member, or to a person related to such an individual? If “Yes,” complete Schedule L, Part III...............
27
 
No
28
Was the organization a party to a business transaction with one of the following parties? (see Schedule L, Part IV instructions for applicable filing thresholds, conditions, and exceptions):
a
A current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee? If “Yes,” complete Schedule L, Part IV .........................
28a
 
No
b
A family member of a current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee? If “Yes,”
complete Schedule L, Part IV...................
28b
 
No
c
An entity of which a current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee (or a family member thereof) was an officer, director, trustee, or owner? If “Yes,” complete Schedule L, Part IV..
28c
 
No
29
Did the organization receive more than $25,000 in non-cash contributions? If “Yes,” complete Schedule M
29
 
No
30
Did the organization receive contributions of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets, or qualified conservation contributions? If “Yes,” complete Schedule M............
30
 
No
31
Did the organization liquidate, terminate, or dissolve and cease operations? If “Yes,” complete Schedule N,
Part I...........................
31
 
No
32
Did the organization sell, exchange, dispose of, or transfer more than 25% of its net assets? If “Yes,” complete Schedule N, Part II.......................
32
 
No
33
Did the organization own 100% of an entity disregarded as separate from the organization under Regulations sections 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3? If “Yes,” complete Schedule R, Part I........ Click to see attachment
33
 
No
34
Was the organization related to any tax-exempt or taxable entity? If “Yes,” complete Schedule R, Parts II, III, IV, and V, line 1..................... Click to see attachment
34
Yes
 
35
Is any related organization a controlled entity within the meaning of section 512(b)(13)? .....
35
Yes
 
a
Did the organization receive any payment from or engage in any transaction with a controlled entity within the meaning of section 512(b)(13)? If “Yes,” complete Schedule R, Part V, line 2... Click to see attachment
36
Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization make any transfers to an exempt non-charitable related organization? If “Yes,” complete Schedule R, Part V, line 2........... Click to see attachment
36
Yes
 
37
Did the organization conduct more than 5% of its activities through an entity that is not a related organization and that is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes? If “Yes,” complete Schedule R, Part VIClick to see attachment
37
 
No
38
Did the organization complete Schedule O and provide explanations in Schedule O for Part VI, lines 11 and 19? Note. All Form 990 filers are required to complete Schedule O. ............
38
Yes
 
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 5
Part V
Statements Regarding Other IRS Filings and Tax Compliance
Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part V . . . . . . . . . .
Yes
No
1a
Enter the number reported in Box 3 of Form 1096. Enter -0- if not applicable. .......
1a
14
b
Enter the number of Forms W-2G included in line 1a. Enter -0- if not applicable.
1b
0
c
Did the organization comply with backup withholding rules for reportable payments to vendors and reportable gaming (gambling) winnings to prize winners? ..................
1c
Yes
 
2a
Enter the number of employees reported on Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements filed for the calendar year ending with or within the year covered by this return .....................
2a
4
b
If at least one is reported on line 2a, did the organization file all required federal employment tax returns?

Note. If the sum of lines 1a and 2a is greater than 250, you may be required to e-file. (see instructions)
2b
Yes
 
3a
Did the organization have unrelated business gross income of $1,000 or more during the year?.............................
3a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” has it filed a Form 990-T for this year? If “No,” provide an explanation in Schedule O.....
3b
 
 
4a
At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account or securities account)?.......................
4a
 
No
b
If "Yes," enter the name of the foreign country: MediumBullet
See instructions for filing requirements for Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.
5a
Was the organization a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction at any time during the tax year?..
5a
 
No
b
Did any taxable party notify the organization that it was or is a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction?
5b
 
No
c
If “Yes” to line 5a or 5b, did the organization file Form 8886-T? ........
5c
 
 
6a
Does the organization have annual gross receipts that are normally greater than $100,000, and did the organization solicit any contributions that were not tax deductible?..........
6a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” did the organization include with every solicitation an express statement that such contributions or gifts were not tax deductible?........................
6b
 
 
7
Organizations that may receive deductible contributions under section 170(c).
a
Did the organization receive a payment in excess of $75 made partly as a contribution and partly for goods and services provided to the payor?....................
7a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” did the organization notify the donor of the value of the goods or services provided?.....
7b
 
 
c
Did the organization sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of tangible personal property for which it was required to file Form 8282?...........................
7c
 
No
d
If “Yes,” indicate the number of Forms 8282 filed during the year ....
7d
 
e
Did the organization receive any funds, directly or indirectly, to pay premiums on a personal benefit contract?..........................
7e
 
No
f
Did the organization, during the year, pay premiums, directly or indirectly, on a personal benefit contract?..
7f
 
No
g
If the organization received a contribution of qualified intellectual property, did the organization file Form 8899 as required?...................
7g
 
 
h
If the organization received a contribution of cars, boats, airplanes, or other vehicles, did the organization file a Form 1098-C?...............
7h
 
 
8
Sponsoring organizations maintaining donor advised funds and section 509(a)(3) supporting organizations. Did the supporting organization, or a donor advised fund maintained by a sponsoring organization, have excess business holdings at any time during the year?................
8
 
 
9
Sponsoring organizations maintaining donor advised funds.
a
Did the organization make any taxable distributions under section 4966?.........
9a
 
 
b
Did the organization make a distribution to a donor, donor advisor, or related person?......
9b
 
 
10
Section 501(c)(7) organizations. Enter:
a
Initiation fees and capital contributions included on Part VIII, line 12 ...
10a
 
b
Gross receipts, included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, for public use of club facilities
10b
 
11
Section 501(c)(12) organizations. Enter:
a
Gross income from members or shareholders .........
11a
 
b
Gross income from other sources (Do not net amounts due or paid to other sources against amounts due or received from them.) ........
11b
 
12a
Section 4947(a)(1) non-exempt charitable trusts. Is the organization filing Form 990 in lieu of Form 1041?
12a
 
 
b
If “Yes,” enter the amount of tax-exempt interest received or accrued during the year.
12b
 
13
Section 501(c)(29) qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers.
a
Is the organization licensed to issue qualified health plans in more than one state?
Note. All 501(c)(29) organizations must list in Schedule O each state in which they are licensed to issue qualified health plans, the amount of reserves required by each state, and the amount of reserves the organization allocated to each state.
13a
 
 
b
Enter the aggregate amount of reserves the organization is required to maintain by the states in which the organization is licensed to issue qualified health plans.
13b
 
c
Enter the aggregate amount of reserves on hand.
13c
 
14a
Did the organization receive any payments for indoor tanning services during the tax year?.....
14a
 
 
b
If "Yes," has it filed a Form 720 to report these payments? If “No,” provide an explanation in Schedule O..
14b
 
 
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 6
Part VI
Governance, Management, and Disclosure For each “Yes” response to lines 2 through 7b below, and for a “No” response to lines 8a, 8b, or 10b below, describe the circumstances, processes, or changes in Schedule O. See instructions.
Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part VI . . . . . . . . . .
Section A. Governing Body and Management
Yes
No
1a
Enter the number of voting members of the governing body at the end of the tax year ..............
1a
12
b
Enter the number of voting members included in line 1a, above, who are independent .................
1b
11
2
Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee? .................
2
 
No
3
Did the organization delegate control over management duties customarily performed by or under the direct supervision of officers, directors or trustees, or key employees to a management company or other person? ..
3
 
No
4
Did the organization make any significant changes to its governing documents since the prior Form 990 was filed?
4
 
No
5
Did the organization become aware during the year of a significant diversion of the organization’s assets? .
5
 
No
6
Does the organization have members or stockholders? ................
6
 
No
7a
Does the organization have members, stockholders, or other persons who may elect one or more members of the governing body? .........................
7a
 
No
b
Are any decisions of the governing body subject to approval by members, stockholders, or other persons? ..
7b
 
No
8
Did the organization contemporaneously document the meetings held or written actions undertaken during the year by the following:
a
The governing body? .........................
8a
Yes
 
b
Each committee with authority to act on behalf of the governing body? ............
8b
Yes
 
9
Is there any officer, director, trustee, or key employee listed in Part VII, Section A, who cannot be reached at the organization’s mailing address? If “Yes,” provide the names and addresses in Schedule O .....
9
 
No
Section B. Policies (This Section B requests information about policies not required by the Internal
Revenue Code.)
Yes
No
10a
Does the organization have local chapters, branches, or affiliates? ............
10a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” does the organization have written policies and procedures governing the activities of such chapters, affiliates, and branches to ensure their operations are consistent with those of the organization? ....
10b
 
 
11a
Has the organization provided a copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the form?
11a
 
No
b
Describe in Schedule O the process, if any, used by the organization to review the Form 990. .....
12a
Does the organization have a written conflict of interest policy? If “No,” go to line 13.......
12a
Yes
 
b
Are officers, directors or trustees, and key employees required to disclose annually interests that could give rise to conflicts? ...........................
12b
Yes
 
c
Does the organization regularly and consistently monitor and enforce compliance with the policy? If “Yes,” describe in Schedule O how this is done ....................
12c
Yes
 
13
Does the organization have a written whistleblower policy? ...............
13
Yes
 
14
Does the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy? .........
14
Yes
 
15
Did the process for determining compensation of the following persons include a review and approval by independent persons, comparability data, and contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and decision?
a
The organization’s CEO, Executive Director, or top management official ...........
15a
Yes
 
b
Other officers or key employees of the organization ................
15b
Yes
 
If "Yes" to line a or b, describe the process in Schedule O. (See instructions.)
16a
Did the organization invest in, contribute assets to, or participate in a joint venture or similar arrangement with a taxable entity during the year? ......................
16a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” has the organization adopted a written policy or procedure requiring the organization to evaluate its participation in joint venture arrangements under applicable federal tax law, and taken steps to safeguard the organization’s exempt status with respect to such arrangements? ............
16b
 
 
Section C. Disclosure
17
List the States with which a copy of this Form 990 is required to be filedMediumBullet
AL , AK , AZ , AR , CA , CO , CT , DC , FL , GA , HI , IL , KS , KY , ME , MD , MA , MI , MN , MS , NH , NJ , NM , NY , NC , ND , OH , OK , OR , PA , RI , SC , TN , UT , VA , WA , WV , WI
18
Section 6104 requires an organization to make its Form 1023 (or 1024 if applicable), 990, and 990-T (501(c)(3)s only) available for public inspection. Indicate how you make these available. Check all that apply.
19
Describe in Schedule O whether (and if so, how), the organization makes its governing documents, conflict of interest policy, and financial statements available to the public.
20
State the name, physical address, and telephone number of the person who possesses the books and records of the organization: MediumBullet
JEFF SMITH
53 CENTURY BLVD SUITE 250
NASHVILLE,TN372143682
(615) 872-5800
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 7
Part VII
Compensation of Officers, Directors,Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part VII . . . . . . . . . .
Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
1a Complete this table for all persons required to be listed. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization’s tax year.
RoundBullet List all of the organization’s current officers, directors, trustees (whether individuals or organizations), regardless of amount
of compensation, and current key employees. Enter -0- in columns (D), (E), and (F) if no compensation was paid.

RoundBullet List all of the organization’s current key employees, if any. See instructions for definition of "key employee."
RoundBullet List the organization’s five current highest compensated employees (other than an officer, director, trustee or key employee)
who received reportable compensation (Box 5 of Form W-2 and/or Box 7 of Form 1099-MISC) of more than $100,000 from the
organization and any related organizations.

RoundBullet List all of the organization’s former officers, key employees, or highest compensated employees who received more than $100,000
of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.

RoundBullet List all of the organization’s former directors or trustees that received, in the capacity as a former director or trustee of the
organization, more than $10,000 of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.

List persons in the following order: individual trustees or directors; institutional trustees; officers; key employees; highest
compensated employees; and former such persons.
Check this box if neither the organization nor any related organizations compensated any current or former officer, director, or trustee.
(A)
Name and Title 		(B)
Average hours per week (describe hours for related organizations in Schedule O) 		(C)
Position (check all that apply) 		(D)
Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC) 		(E)
Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC) 		(F)
Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
Individual Trustee or Director; Institutional Trustee; Officer; Key Employee; Highest compensated employee; Former;
(1) BRADLEY EIFFERT
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 16,000 203
(2) DON COGMAN
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 15,695 203
(3) SUNDER RAMANI
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 16,000 203
(4) TIMOTHY CLAYTON
CHAIRMAN
 1.0 X           0 38,000 203
(5) RUTH LOPEZ NOVODOR
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 7,500 203
(6) A JUNE LENNON
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 16,000 135
(7) THOMAS MICHAEL NOBIS
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 8,000 203
(8) MARIA COAKLEY DAVID
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 7,500 203
(9) DAVID M GUERNSEY
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 16,000 203
(10) NEVIN GROCE
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 5,500 203
(11) BETTY NEIGHBORS
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 8,000 203
(12) DONALD A DANNER
PRESIDENT/CEO
 1.0 X   X       0 637,883 41,889
(13) KURT SUMMERS
DIRECTOR
 1.0 X           0 5,500 203
(14) MARY BLASINSKY
SVP/SECRETARY
 1.0     X       0 262,005 37,462
(15) TAMMY S BOEHMS
SVP/CFO
 1.0     X       0 337,022 24,971
(16) JEFF SMITH
TREASURER
 1.0     X       0 146,138 18,895
(17) KAREN R HARNED
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
 40.0       X     181,572 0 18,399
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 8
Part VII
Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees (continued)
(A)
Name and Title 		(B)
Average hours per week (describe hours for related organizations in Schedule O) 		(C)
Position (check all that apply) 		(D)
Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC) 		(E)
Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC) 		(F)
Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
Individual Trustee or Director; Institutional Trustee; Officer; Key Employee; Highest compensated employee; Former;
(18) SUSAN M ECKERLY
SVP
 5.0       X     0 281,123 29,427
(19) BETH MILITO
EXECUTIVE SENIOR COUNSEL
 40.0         X   156,975 0 6,145






















1b Sub-Total................MediumBullet
c Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....MediumBullet
d Total (add lines 1b and 1c)............MediumBullet 338,547 1,823,866 179,556
2
Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 in reportable compensation from the organizationMediumBullet2
Yes
No
3
Did the organization list any former officer, director or trustee, key employee, or highest compensated employee on line 1a? If “Yes,” complete Schedule J for such individual .............
3
 
No
4
For any individual listed on line 1a, is the sum of reportable compensation and other compensation from the organization and related organizations greater than $150,000? If “Yes,” complete Schedule J for such individual...........................
4
Yes
 
5
Did any person listed on line 1a receive or accrue compensation from any unrelated organization or individual for services rendered to the organization? If “Yes,” complete Schedule J for such person .....
5
 
No
Section B. Independent Contractors
1
Complete this table for your five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization.
(A)
Name and business address 		(B)
Description of services 		(C)
Compensation
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
PO BOX 70189
CLEVELAND,OH44190 		LEGAL SERVICES 1,073,242
2
Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 in compensation from the organization MediumBullet1
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 9
Part VIII
Statement of Revenue
(A)
Total revenue 		(B)
Related or
exempt
function
revenue 		(C)
Unrelated
business
revenue 		(D)
Revenue
excluded from
tax under sections
512, 513, or 514
Contributions, gifts, grants and other similar amounts 1a Federated campaigns..1a  
b Membership dues....1b  
c Fundraising events....1c  
d Related organizations...1d 282,548
e Government grants (contributions)1e  
f All other contributions, gifts, grants, and
similar amounts not included above1f 		1,875,892
g Noncash contributions included in lines 1a-1f:$  
h Total. Add lines 1a-1f.......MediumBullet 2,158,440
Program Service Revenue Business Code
2a
b
c
d
e
f All other program service revenue .        
g Total. Add lines 2a–2f........MediumBullet 0
Other Revenue 3 Investment income (including dividends, interest
and other similar amounts).....MediumBullet 665     665
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds..MediumBullet 0      
5 Royalties............MediumBullet 0      
(i) Real (ii) Personal
6a Gross Rents    
b Less: rental expenses    
c Rental income or (loss)    
d Net rental income or (loss).......MediumBullet        
(i) Securities (ii) Other
7a Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory    
b Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses    
c Gain or (loss)    
d Net gain or (loss)..........MediumBullet 0      
8a Gross income from fundraising events (not including
$  
of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ...
a  
b Less: direct expenses ...b  
c Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..MediumBullet 0    
9a Gross income from gaming activities.
See Part IV, line 19 ...
a  
b Less: direct expenses ...b  
c Net income or (loss) from gaming activities...MediumBullet 0      
10a Gross sales of inventory, less
returns and allowances .
a  
b Less: cost of goods sold ..b  
c Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..MediumBullet 0      
Miscellaneous Revenue Business Code
11a            
b            
c            
d All other revenue ....        
e Total. Add lines 11a–11d ......MediumBullet 0
12 Total revenue. See Instructions....MediumBullet 2,159,105 0 0 665
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 10
Part IX
Statement of Functional Expenses
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations must complete all columns. All other organizations must complete column (A) but are not required to complete columns (B), (C), and (D).
Do not include amounts reported on lines 6b,
7b, 8b, 9b, and 10b of Part VIII. 		(A)
Total expenses 		(B)
Program service expenses 		(C)
Management and general expenses 		(D)
Fundraising expenses
1 Grants and other assistance to governments and organizations in the U.S. See Part IV, line 21 0  
2 Grants and other assistance to individuals in the U.S. See Part IV, line 22 0  
3 Grants and other assistance to governments, organizations, and individuals outside the U.S. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16 0  
4 Benefits paid to or for members 0  
5 Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees .... 199,971 199,971    
6 Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) .... 0      
7 Other salaries and wages 244,176 244,176    
8 Pension plan contributions (include section 401(k) and section 403(b) employer contributions) .... 0      
9 Other employee benefits ....... 64,273 64,273    
10 Payroll taxes ........... 25,006 25,006    
11 Fees for services (non-employees):        
a Management ...... 0      
b Legal ......... 1,367,539 1,363,939   3,600
c Accounting ........... 11,584   11,584  
d Lobbying ........... 0      
e Professional fundraising. See Part IV, line 17.. 0  
f Investment management fees ...... 0      
g Other .......... 95,583 20,301   75,282
12 Advertising and promotion .... 2,934 2,934    
13 Office expenses ....... 171,529 26,282 11,940 133,307
14 Information technology ...... 0      
15 Royalties .. 0      
16 Occupancy ........... 0      
17 Travel ............ 19,222 15,534 3,688  
18 Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials ...... 0      
19 Conferences, conventions, and meetings .... 1,175 1,175    
20 Interest ........... 0      
21 Payments to affiliates ....... 0      
22 Depreciation, depletion, and amortization ..... 0      
23 Insurance .............. 0      
24 Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above. (Expenses grouped together and labeled miscellaneous may not exceed 5% of total expenses shown on line 25 below.)
a
b
c
d
e
f All other expenses        
25 Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24f 2,202,992 1,963,591 27,212 212,189
26 Joint costs. Check here MediumBullet if following
SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720). Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation 		       
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 11
Part X Balance Sheet
(A)
Beginning of year 		(B)
End of year
Assets 1 Cash—non-interest-bearing .......... 158,360 1 0
2 Savings and temporary cash investments .......   2 204,041
3 Pledges and grants receivable, net .........   3  
4 Accounts receivable, net ......... 9,860 4 157,257
5 Receivables from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete Part II of
Schedule L ..........   5  
6 Receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B). Complete Part II of
Schedule L ..........   6  
7 Notes and loans receivable, net .............   7  
8 Inventories for sale or use ..............   8  
9 Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ............   9  
10a Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D 10a  
b Less: accumulated depreciation. ..... 10b     10c  
11 Investments—publicly traded securities ..........   11  
12 Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 ......   12  
13 Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 ..   13  
14 Intangible assets .........   14  
15 Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ........... 178,652 15 48,253
16 Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34)... 346,872 16 409,551
Liabilities 17 Accounts payable and accrued expenses . 33,950 17 199,051
18 Grants payable ..........   18  
19 Deferred revenue ..........   19  
20 Tax-exempt bond liabilities ..........   20  
21 Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D..   21  
22 Payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key
employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L..........   22  
23 Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..   23  
24 Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ....   24  
25 Other liabilities. Complete Part X of Schedule D..... 98,696 25 40,161
26 Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25..... 132,646 26 239,212
Net Assets or Fund Balance Organizations that follow SFAS 117, check here MediumBullet and complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27 Unrestricted net assets ..... 214,226 27 155,339
28 Temporarily restricted net assets .....   28 15,000
29 Permanently restricted net assets .....   29  
Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117, check here MediumBullet and complete lines 30 through 34.
30 Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds .....   30  
31 Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund .....   31  
32 Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds   32  
33 Total net assets or fund balances ..... 214,226 33 170,339
34 Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ..... 346,872 34 409,551
Form 990 (2010)
Form 990 (2010)
Page 12
Part XI
Reconcilliation of Net Assets
Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part XI . . . . . . . . . .
1
Total revenue (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) . . .
1
2,159,105
2
Total expenses (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) . . . . .
2
2,202,992
3
Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 2 from line 1 . . . .
3
-43,887
4
Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (must equal Part X, line 33, column (A)) . .
4
214,226
5
Other changes in net assets or fund balances (explain in Schedule O) . . . .
5
 
6
Net assets or fund balances at end of year. Combine lines 3, 4, and 5 (must equal Part X, line 33, column (B)) . . . . . .
6
170,339
Part XII
Financial Statements and Reporting
Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part XII . . . . . . . . . .
Yes
No
1
Accounting method used to prepare the Form 990:  
If the organization changed its method of accounting from a prior year or checked "Other," explain in
Schedule O.
2a
Were the organization’s financial statements compiled or reviewed by an independent accountant?..
2a
 
No
b
Were the organization’s financial statements audited by an independent accountant?........
2b
Yes
 
c
If “Yes,” to 2a or 2b, does the organization have a committee that assumes responsibility for oversight of the audit, review, or compilation of its financial statements and selection of an independent accountant?
If the organization changed either its oversight process or selection process during the tax year, explain in Schedule O............................
2c
 
No
d
If “Yes” to line 2a or 2b, check a box below to indicate whether the financial statements for the year were issued on a separate basis, consolidated basis, or both:
3a
As a result of a federal award, was the organization required to undergo an audit or audits as set forth in the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133? ................
3a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” did the organization undergo the required audit or audits? If the organization did not undergo the required audit or audits, explain why in Schedule O and describe any steps taken to undergo such audits. ..
3b
 
 
Form 990 (2010)
Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
Form 990, Special Condition Description:
Special Condition Description
SCHEDULE A
(Form 990 or 990EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section
4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. right arrow See separate instructions.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Open to Public
Inspection
Name of the organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part I
Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions
The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 11, check only one box.)
1
2
3
4
5
section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)
6
7
8
9
receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of
its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses
acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)
10
11
e
f
g
(i) a person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (ii)
Yes
No
and (iii) below, the governing body of the the supported organization? ................
11g(i)
 
No
(ii) a family member of a person described in (i) above? ......................
11g(ii)
 
No
(iii) a 35% controlled entity of a person described in (i) or (ii) above? ................
11g(iii)
 
No
h
(i)
Name of supported organization 		(ii)
EIN 		(iii)
Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions)) 		(iv)
Is the organization in col. (i) listed in your governing document? 		(v)
Did you notify the organization in col. (i) of your support? 		(vi)
Is the organization in col. (i) organized in the U.S.? 		(vii)
Amount of support?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
(1) NFIB INC
  		940707299 0 Yes           0
Total                 0

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
Cat. No. 11285F
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010
Page 2
Part II
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in IRC 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in) (a) 2006 (b) 2007 (c) 2008 (d) 2009 (e) 2010 (f) Total
1 Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") ....            
2 Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.......            
3 The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..            
4 Total. Add lines 1 through 3..            
5 The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..            
6 Public Support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.            
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in) (a) 2006 (b) 2007 (c) 2008 (d) 2009 (e) 2010 (f) Total
7 Amounts from line 4..            
8 Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..            
9 Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..            
10 Other income. (Explain in Part IV.) Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets..            
11 Total support (Add lines 7 through 10).            
12
12
 
13
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
14
14
 
15
15
 
16a
b
17a
b
18
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010
Page 3
Part III
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in IRC 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 9 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in) (a) 2006 (b) 2007 (c) 2008 (d) 2009 (e) 2010 (f) Total
1 Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .            
2 Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose......            
3 Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513..            
4 Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...            
5 The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..            
6 Total. Add lines 1 through 5.            
7a Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons...            
b Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.            
c Add lines 7a and 7b..            
8 Public Support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)            
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) (a) 2006 (b) 2007 (c) 2008 (d) 2009 (e) 2010 (f) Total
9 Amounts from line 6...            
10a Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..            
b Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.            
c Add lines 10a and 10b.            
11 Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.            
12 Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.)            
13 Total support (Add lines 9, 10c, 11 and 12.).            
14
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
15
15
 
16
16
 
Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage
17
17
 
18
18
 
19a
b
20
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010
Page 4
Part IV
Supplemental Information. Supplemental Information. Complete this part to provide the explanation required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; or Part III, line 12. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).
Facts And Circumstances Test
 
Explanation
 
 
 
 
Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
Schedule B
(Form 990, 990-EZ,
or 990-PF)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Schedule of Contributors
Arrow Bullet Attach to Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Name of organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Employer identification number

62-1570449
Organization type (check one):
Filers of:
Section:
Form 990 or 990-EZ





Form 990-PF




Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.  
Note. Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.
General Rule—
Special Rules
......................... Arrow Bullet   $    
Caution. An Organization that is not covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules does not file Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF), but it must answer “No” on Part IV, line 2 of its Form 990, or check the box in the heading of its
Form 990-EZ, or on line 2 of its Form 990-PF, to certify that it does not meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF).
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions
for Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.
Cat. No. 30613XSchedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)
Page 1 of 1 of Part I
Name of organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
  		Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part I
Contributors (see Instructions)
     
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Aggregate contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
 

     
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED  
RESTRICTED, RESTRICTED   RESTRICTED

$RESTRICTED




(Complete Part II if there is
a noncash contribution.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Aggregate contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 

     
 
   

$  




(Complete Part II if there is
a noncash contribution.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Aggregate contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 

     
 
   

$  




(Complete Part II if there is
a noncash contribution.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Aggregate contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 

     
 
   

$  




(Complete Part II if there is
a noncash contribution.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Aggregate contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 

     
 
   

$  




(Complete Part II if there is
a noncash contribution.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Aggregate contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 

     
 
   

$  




(Complete Part II if there is
a noncash contribution.)
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)
Page 1 of 1 of Part II
Name of organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
  		Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part II
Noncash Property (see Instructions)
     
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(see instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(see instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(see instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(see instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(see instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(see instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)
Page 1 of 1 of Part III
Name of organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
  		Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part III
Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., individual contributions to section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organizations
aggregating more than $1,000 for the year. (Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry.)
For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc.,
contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) Arrow Bullet $  
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Purpose of gift		 (c)
Use of gift		 (d)
Description of how gift is held
 
(e)
Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
       
 
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Purpose of gift		 (c)
Use of gift		 (d)
Description of how gift is held
 
(e)
Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
       
 
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Purpose of gift		 (c)
Use of gift		 (d)
Description of how gift is held
 
(e)
Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
       
 
(a) No.
from
Part I		 (b)
Purpose of gift		 (c)
Use of gift		 (d)
Description of how gift is held
 
(e)
Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
       
 
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2010)

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
SCHEDULE D
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Supplemental Financial Statements
SchDMd Bullet Complete if the organization answered "Yes," to Form 990,
Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12.
SchDMd Bullet Attach to Form 990. SchDMd Bullet See separate instructions.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part I
Organizations Maintaining Donor Advised Funds or Other Similar Funds or Accounts. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 6.
(a) Donor advised funds (b) Funds and other accounts
1 Total number at end of year .......    
2 Aggregate contributions to (during year) ...    
3 Aggregate grants from (during year) ...    
4 Aggregate value at end of year .......    
5
Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised
funds are the organization's property, subject to the organization's exclusive legal control? ............
6
Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds may be
used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring impermissible private benefit. ...................................
Part II
Conservation Easements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 7.
1
Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).
2
Complete lines 2a–2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.
Held at the End of the Year
a Total number of conservation easements ....................... 2a  
b Total acreage restricted by conservation easements .................. 2b  
c Number of conservation easements on a certified historic structure included in (a) ..... 2c  
d Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 8/17/06 ........ 2d  
3
Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during
the taxable year SchDMd Bullet  
4
Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located SchDMd Bullet  
5
Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations, and
enforcement of the conservation easements it holds? .............................
6
Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting and enforcing conservation easements during the year SchDMd Bullet  
7
Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, and enforcing conservation easements during the year SchDMd Bullet $  
8
Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section
170(h)(4)(B)(i) and 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)? ....................................
9
In Part XIV, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement, and
balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization’s financial statements that describes
the organization’s accounting for conservation easements.
Part III
Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 8.
1a
If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116, not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of
art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education or research in furtherance of public service,
provide, in Part XIV, the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.
b
If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116, to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art,
historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service,
provide the following amounts relating to these items:
(i)
Revenues included in Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ........................SchDMd Bullet $  
(ii)
Assets included in Form 990, Part X ..............................SchDMd Bullet $  
2
If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the
following amounts required to be reported under SFAS 116 relating to these items:
a
Revenues included in Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ..........................SchDMd Bullet $  
b
Assets included in Form 990, Part X ...............................SchDMd Bullet $  
For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Intructions for Form 990
Cat. No. 52283D
Schedule D (Form 990) 2010

Schedule D (Form 990) 2010
Page 2
Part III
Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets (continued)
3
Using the organization’s accession and other records, check any of the following that are a significant use of its collection
items (check all that apply):
a
d
b
e
 
c
4
Provide a description of the organization’s collections and explain how they further the organization’s exempt purpose in
Part XIV.
5
During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures or other similar
assets to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization’s collection?........
Part IV
Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990,
Part IV, line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.
1a
Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not
included on Form 990, Part X? ....................................
b
If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIV and complete the following table:
Amount
c Beginning balance ................................. 1c  
d Additions during the year .............................. 1d  
e Distributions during the year ............................. 1e  
f Ending balance ................................... 1f  
2a
Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21? .....................
b
If “Yes,” explain the arrangement in Part XIV.
Part V
Endowment Funds. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 10.
(a)Current Year (b)Prior Year (c)Two Years Back (d)Three Years Back (e)Four Years Back
1a Beginning of year balance ....      
b Contributions ........      
c Investment earnings or losses ...      
d Grants or scholarships .....      
e Other expenditures for facilities
and programs ........ 		     
f Administrative expenses ....      
g End of year balance ......      
2
Provide the estimated percentage of the year end balance held as:
a
Board designated or quasi-endowment: SchDMd Bullet  
b
Permanent endowment: SchDMd Bullet  
c
Term endowment: SchDMd Bullet  
3a
Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
organization by:

Yes
No
(i) unrelated organizations ........................
3a(i)
 
 
(ii) related organizations ........................
3a(ii)
 
 
b
If "Yes" to 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R? .........
3b
 
 
4
Describe in Part XIV the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.
Part VI
Investments—Land, Buildings, and Equipment. See Form 990, Part X, line 10.
Description of investment (a) Cost or other basis (investment) (b)Cost or other basis (other) (c) Accumulated depreciation (d) Book value
1a Land .................      
b Buildings ................        
c Leasehold improvements ............        
d Equipment ................        
e Other .................        
Total. Add lines 1a-1e. (Column (d) should equal Form 990, Part X, column (B), line 10(c).)........SchDMdBullet  
Schedule D (Form 990) 2010

Schedule D (Form 990) 2010
Page 3
Part VII
Investments—Other Securities. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.
(a) Description of security or category
(including name of security)		 (b)Book value (c) Method of valuation:
Cost or end-of-year market value
(1)Financial derivatives    
(2)Closely-held equity interests    
Other








Total. (Column (b) should equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 12.)Small Bullet  
Part VIII
Investments—Program Related. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.
(a) Description of investment type (b) Book value (c) Method of valuation:
Cost or end-of-year market value








Total. (Column (b) should equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 13.)Small Bullet  
Part IX
Other Assets. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.
(a) Description (b) Book value
(1) DUE FROM AFFILIATES 48,253








Total. (Column (b) should equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 15.)...........Small Bullet 48,253
Part X
Other Liabilities. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.
1.(a) Description of Liability (b) Amount
Federal Income Taxes 0
DUE TO AFFILIATES 17,538
PAYROLL TAX LIABILITY 5,070
VACATION ACCRUAL 17,553






Total. (Column (b) should equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 25.)Small Bullet 40,161
2. Fin 48 (ASC 740) Footnote. In Part XIV, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC740).
Schedule D (Form 990) 2010

Schedule D (Form 990) 2010
Page 4
Part XI Reconciliation of Change in Net Assets from Form 990 to Financial Statements
1 Total revenue (Form 990, Part VIII, column (A), line 12) .................... 1 2,159,105
2 Total expenses (Form 990, Part IX, column (A), line 25) ..................... 2 2,202,992
3 Excess or (deficit) for the year. Subtract line 2 from line 1 ............. 3 -43,887
4 Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments .......................... 4  
5 Donated services and use of facilities ............................. 5  
6 Investment expenses ................................... 6  
7 Prior period adjustments .................................. 7  
8 Other (Describe in Part XIV) ................................. 8  
9 Total adjustments (net). Add lines 4 - 8 ............................. 9  
10 Excess or (deficit) for the year per financial statements. Combine lines 3 and 9 ......... 10 -43,887
Part XII Reconciliation of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return
1 Total revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements ....... 1 3,794,841
2 Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12:
a Net unrealized gains on investments .......... 2a  
b Donated services and use of facilities ......... 2b 1,635,736
c Recoveries of prior year grants ........... 2c  
d Other (Describe in Part XIV): ............ 2d  
e Add lines 2a through 2d ..................... 2e 1,635,736
3 Subtract line 2e from line 1..................... 3 2,159,105
4 Amounts included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, but not on line 1:
a Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b . 4a  
b Other (Describe in Part XIV): ........... 4b  
c Add lines 4a and 4b....................... 4c  
5 Total Revenue. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This should equal Form 990, Part I, line 12.) ...... 5 2,159,105
Part XIII Reconciliation of Expenses per Audited Financial Statements With Expenses per Return
1 Total expenses and losses per audited financial statements ............. 1 3,838,727
2 Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part IX, line 25:
a Donated services and use of facilities .......... 2a 1,635,735
b Prior year adjustments .............. 2b  
c Other losses ................ 2c  
d Other (Describe in Part XIV): ............ 2d  
e Add lines 2a through 2d...................... 2e 1,635,735
3 Subtract line 2e from line 1..................... 3 2,202,992
4 Amounts included on Form 990, Part IX, line 25, but not on line 1:
a Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b .. 4a  
b Other (Describe in Part XIV): ............ 4b  
c Add lines 4a and 4b....................... 4c  
5 Total expenses. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This should equal Form 990, Part I, line 18.) ...... 5 2,202,992
Part XIV
Supplemental Information
Complete this part to provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part lV, lines 1b and 2b;
Part V, line 4; Part X; Part XI, line 8; Part XII, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XIII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.
Identifier Return Reference Explanation
FIN 48 (ASC TOPIC 740) FOOTNOTE SCHEDULE D, XIV THE LEGAL CENTER IS EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES ON RELATED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 501(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS AN ENTITY DESCRIBED UNDER 501(C)(3). ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR INCOME TAX. THE LEGAL CENTER IS, HOWEVER, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX ON UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME. THE LEGAL CENTER DID NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009; NOR DID THE LEGAL CENTER HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS FOR THE TAX YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009.
Schedule D (Form 990) 2010

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  




Schedule J
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Compensation Information
For certain Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest
Compensated Employees
SchJMediumBullet Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990,
Part IV, question 23.
SchJMediumBullet Attach to Form 990. SchJMediumBullet See separate instructions.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part I
Questions Regarding Compensation
Yes
No
1a
Check the appropiate box(es) if the organization provided any of the following to or for a person listed in Form
990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a. Complete Part III to provide any relevant information regarding these items.
b
If any of the boxes in line 1a are checked, did the organization follow a written policy regarding payment or reimbursement orprovision of all the expenses described above? If "No," complete Part III to explain....
1b
 
 
2
Did the organization require substantiation prior to reimbursing or allowing expenses incurred by all
officers, directors, trustees, and the CEO/Executive Director, regarding the items checked in line 1a? ....
2
 
 
3
Indicate which, if any, of the following the organization uses to establish the compensation of the
organization's CEO/Executive Director. Check all that apply.
4
During the year, did any person listed in Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a with respect to the filing organization or a related organization:
a
Receive a severance payment or change-of-control payment? ...............
4a
 
No
b
Participate in, or receive payment from, a supplemental nonqualified retirement plan? ........
4b
Yes
 
c
Participate in, or receive payment from, an equity-based compensation arrangement? ........
4c
 
No
If "Yes" to any of lines 4a-c, list the persons and provide the applicable amounts for each item in Part III.
Only 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations only must complete lines 5-9.
5
For persons listed in form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the revenues of:
a
The organization? ...........................
5a
 
No
b
Any related organization? .........................
5b
 
No
If "Yes," to line 5a or 5b, describe in Part III.
6
For persons listed in form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the net earnings of:
a
The organization? ...........................
6a
 
No
b
Any related organization? .........................
6b
 
No
If "Yes," to line 6a or 6b, describe in Part III.
7
For persons listed in Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization provide any non-fixed
payments not described in lines 5 and 6? If "Yes," describe in Part III ............
7
Yes
 
8
Were any amounts reported in Form 990, Part VII, paid or accured pursuant to a contract that was
subject to the initial contract exception described in Regs. section 53.4958-4(a)(3)? If "Yes," describe
in Part III .............................
8
 
No
9
If "Yes" to line 8, did the organization also follow the rebuttable presumption procedure described in Regulations section 53.4958-6(c)? .........................
9
 
 
For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Intructions for Form 990
Cat. No. 50053T
Schedule J (Form 990) 2010

Schedule J (Form 990) 2010
Page 2
Part II
Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees. Use Schedule J-1 if additional space needed.
For each individual whose compensation must be reported in Schedule J, report compensation from the organization on row (i) and from related organizations, described in the
instructions on row (ii). Do not list any individuals that are not listed on Form 990, Part VII.

Note. The sum of columns (B)(i)-(iii) must equal the applicable column (D) or column (E) amounts on Form 990, Part VII, line 1a.
(A) Name (B) Breakdown of W-2 and/or 1099-MISC compensation (C) Retirement and other deferred compensation (D) Nontaxable
benefits		 (E) Total of columns
(B)(i)-(D) 		(F) Compensation
reported in prior
Form 990 or
Form 990-EZ
(i) Base compensation (ii) Bonus & incentive compensation (iii) Other reportable compensation
(1) DONALD A DANNER (i)
(ii)		 0
494,424 		0
125,073 		0
18,386 		0
16,218 		0
25,671 		0
679,772 		 
 
(2) MARY BLASINSKY (i)
(ii)		 0
207,171 		0
49,211 		0
5,623 		0
13,468 		0
23,994 		0
299,467 		 
 
(3) TAMMY S BOEHMS (i)
(ii)		 0
269,474 		0
64,106 		0
3,442 		0
10,504 		0
14,467 		0
361,993 		 
 
(4) KAREN R HARNED (i)
(ii)		 171,456
0 		8,136
0 		1,980
0 		3,991
0 		14,408
0 		199,971
0 		 
 
(5) BETH MILITO (i)
(ii)		 148,542
0 		6,753
0 		1,680
0 		5,474
0 		671
0 		163,120
0 		 
 
(6) JEFF SMITH (i)
(ii)		 0
136,250 		0
8,538 		0
1,350 		0
6,818 		0
12,077 		0
165,033 		 
 
(7) SUSAN M ECKERLY (i)
(ii)		 0
224,435 		0
53,241 		0
3,447 		0
10,270 		0
19,157 		0
310,550 		 
 









Schedule J (Form 990) 2010

Schedule J (Form 990) 2010
Page 3
Part III
Supplemental Information
Complete this part to provide the information, explanation, or descriptions required for Part I, lines 1a, 1b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8. Also complete this part for any additional information.
Identifier Return Reference Explanation
COMPENSATION ESTABLISHED BY RELATED ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE J, PART I, LINE 3 NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER RELIES ON A RELATED ORGANIZATION TO ESTABLISH THE COMPENSATION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC. USES ONE OR MORE OF THE METHODS DESCRIBED TO ESTABLISH NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMPENSATION.
SUPPLEMENTAL NONQUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLAN SCHEDULE J, LINE 4B THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC. PROVIDES SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLANS (SERPS). THESE NONQUALIFIED PLANS COVER CERTAIN KEY MANAGMENT AND EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL. PARTICIPATION IN ALL SERPS HAS BEEN FROZEN AND FUTURE ACCRUALS FOR THE PLANS HAVE CEASED. NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO ANY SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN IN 2010.
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN SCHEDULE J, LINE 7 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SENIOR EXECUTIVE COUNSEL OF NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER PARTICIPATE IN AN INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN WITH A PORTION OF THE INCENTIVE BASED ON MANAGEMENT'S REVIEW OF THEIR PERFORMANCE DURING THE YEAR.
Schedule J (Form 990) 2010

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Open to Public
Inspection
Name of the organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Employer identification number

62-1570449
Identifier Return Reference Explanation
VOLUNTEERS FORM 990, PART I, LINE 6 In 2010, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER USED THE SERVICES OF 51 VOLUNTEERS. THE LEGAL CENTER HAS A 14 MEMBER ADVISORY BOARD CONSISTING OF PRO BONO ATTORNEYS ADVISING THE LEGAL CENTER OF WHICH CASES TO GET INVOLVED IN HELPING SMALL BUSINESSES. THE LEGAL CENTER ALSO HAD ONE PRO BONO ATTORNEY WRITE A LEGAL BRIEF FOR THE CENTER. SEVEN ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS ACTED IN PRESENTING WEBINARS TO NFIB MEMBERS REGARDING SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL ISSUES. THE LEGAL CENTER HAD 29 ATTORNEYS VOLUNTEER SERVICES REGARDING HEALTHCARE LITIGATION.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4a 480.00 V. U.S. - EMINENT DOMAIN U.S. SUPREME COURT (CERT PETITION) PETITION TO THE COURT TO HEAR A CASE INVOLVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S MANIPULATION OF THE RULES CONTROLLING FEDERAL EMINENT DOMAIN PROJECTS, IN ORDER TO ARTIFICIALLY DEPRESS THE COMPENSATION IT MUST PAY FOR PROPERTY IT HAS TAKEN. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF LAND OWNERS ON 11/23/09. ADAMS V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. - ASBESTOS LITIGATION OHIO SUPREME COURT VICTORY! THE OHIO SUPREME COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER TAKE HOME ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CLAIMS ARE BARRED UNDER THE PREMISES LIABILITY SECTION OF OHIO'S ASBESTOS MEDICAL CRITERIA LAW AND ALSO FAIL UNDER A NEGLIGENCE THEORY BECAUSE NO DUTY IS OWED TO PERSONS EXPOSED OFF-SITE. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT RULED THAT THE STATUTE BARRED THE CLAIMS. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 09/21/09. COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYER ON 6/10/10. ADCOCK V. FREIGHTLINER - LABOR CHALLENGE U.S. SUPREME COURT THE FOURTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION TO EXEMPT CERTAIN EMPLOYER CONCESSIONS FROM THE NLRA'S PROHIBITION AGAINST EMPLOYER ASSISTANCE CREATES A MASSIVE HOLE IN THE STATUTE FOR THE THINGS THAT UNIONS VALUE MOST FROM EMPLOYERS. THIS LOOPHOLE ENDANGERS THE INTEGRITY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AS UNION OFFICIALS HAVE A STRONG INCENTIVE TO COMPROMISE EMPLOYEE INTERESTS AT THE BARGAINING TABLE AS A QUID PRO QUO FOR ORGANIZING ASSISTANCE FROM THEIR EMPLOYER. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 05/28/09 IN SUPPORT OF CERT PETITION. AMERICAN ELECT. POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT - CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION U.S. SUPREME COURT THE SPECIFIC ISSUE IN THE CASE IS WHETHER THE PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIMS SEEKING TO SUBJECT AMERICAN BUSINESSES THAT EMIT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO LIABILITY FOR WEATHER-RELATED EVENTS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. THIS CASE WAS THE FIRST OF FOUR SUCH CASES FILED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. TWO OTHERS ARE ON APPEAL (5TH AND 9TH CIRCUITS) AND THE FOURTH WAS VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN. IN ALL FOUR CASES, THE TRIAL COURTS DISMISSED THE CLAIMS AS PRESENTING NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY WOULD REQUIRE COURTS TO EFFECTIVELY SET EMISSIONS LEVELS. THE SECOND CIRCUIT, IN FALL 2009, OVERTURNED THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION IN AEP AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM TO PROCEED UNDER SOME FEDERAL COMMON LAW PUBLIC NUISANCE THEORY. DEFENDANTS ARE FILING A PETITION FOR CERT. IN HOPES THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL OVERTURN THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S RULING. STATUS: SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI DEC 2010. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 2/7/11. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 4/19/11. AOI V. AVAKIAN - LABOR LAW VIOLATES EMPLOYERS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR OREGON OREGON SB 519 DIRECTLY PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM HOLDING MANDATORY WORKPLACE MEETINGS IN PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO DISCUSS THE EFFECTS OF UNIONIZATION ON THEIR BUSINESS. NFIB ARGUED THAT THIS VIOLATES BUSINESS OWNERS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF UNIONIZATION. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/1/10. COURT GRANTED STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT 5/7/10. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OREGON V. AVAKIAN - LABOR SPEECH PROHIBITIONS U.S. DISTRICT COURT NFIB CHALLENGED OREGON'S LAW, SB 519, THAT DIRECTLY PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM HOLDING MANDATORY WORKPLACE MEETINGS IN PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO DISCUSS THE EFFECTS OF UNIONIZATION ON THEIR BUSINESS. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/1/10. COURT GRANTED STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 5/7/10. BAHENA V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. - INCREASING EXCULPATORY DEFENSES NEVADA SUPREME COURT AFTER THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK ALL OF GOODYEAR'S DEFENSES AND FOUND THE COMPANY LIABLE, IT HELD A JURY TRIAL ON DAMAGES ONLY, WHICH RESULTED IN A $30 MILLION COMPENSATORY DAMAGES VERDICT. THE JURY DID NOT FIND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST GOODYEAR, AS THE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO PUT FORTH SOME EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE DURING THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES PHASE. THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT ISSUED A 6-1 DECISION UPHOLDING THE CIVIL DEATH PENALTY SANCTION UNDER A FAIRLY LOW STANDARD FOR REVIEW, AS THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE STRIKING OF THE DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO BE A "CASE-ENDING" SANCTION. FROM A SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, IT SUGGESTS THAT IF A BUSINESS MAKES AN ERROR IN FULLY COMPLYING WITH DISCOVERY REQUEST IN A LAWSUIT, IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO THE EQUIVALENT OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. STATUS: DECIDED. COURT UPHELD THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD FOR NON-CASE CONCLUDING DISCOVERY SANCTIONS. BRINKER V. SUPERIOR COURT - EXPANSION OF MANDATORY MEAL AND REST BREAK CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT VOIDING A TRIAL COURT'S 2006 DECISION THAT AN ESTIMATED 59,000 TO 63,000 CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES COULD JOIN A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DALLAS-BASED COMPANY, THE CALIFORNIA 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL RULED THAT EMPLOYER BRINKER ONLY HAD TO "MAKE AVAILABLE" MEAL AND REST BREAKS TO ITS WORKERS, NOT TO "ENSURE" THE BREAKS WERE TAKEN. THE APPELLATE COURT RULED THAT EMPLOYERS NEED ONLY MAKE MEAL BREAKS AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES; IF THE EMPLOYEE FOR SOME REASON DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE IT OR VOLUNTARILY WORKS THROUGH IT, THE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE PENALIZED. THE EMPLOYEES HAVE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 8/19/09. BUSINESS FOR A BETTER NY V. NY DEPT. OF LABOR - URGING REPEAL OF STRICT LIABILITY U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PLAINTIFFS HAVE CHALLENGED NEW YORK'S INFAMOUS LABOR LAW 240-241, A.K.A. "LADDER LAW" OR "SCAFFOLD LAW", WHICH PROVIDES THAT CONTRACTORS ASSUME TOTAL LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEE INJURIES REGARDLESS OF FAULT OR WORK CONDITIONS. NEW YORK IS THE ONLY STATE THAT STILL HAS SUCH A LAW ON THE BOOKS; MOST OTHERS HAVE A "COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE" STATUTE, WHICH PARTITIONS LAWSUITS ACCORDING TO BLAME. A BUSINESS ALLIANCE HAS CHALLENGED THE LAW ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AND ALSO ARGUED THAT FEDERAL OSHA PREEMPTS. STATUS: PENDING. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF BBNY FILED ON 07/31/07. DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED CHALLENGE AND APPEAL FILED IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF BBNY FILED WITH APPELLATE COURT ON 12/21/07. ORAL ARGUMENTS HEARD IN U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ON MAY 21, 2009. CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU V. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER BOARD - LAWFUL REGULATORY FEE OR INVALID TAX? CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE MAY ORDER A STATE AGENCY TO FUND THE BUDGET OF ONE OF ITS DIVISIONS BY "FEES" IMPOSED ON A DISCRETE SUBSET OF PERSONS, EVEN THOUGH MANY OF THE DIVISION'S ACTIVITIES DON'T RELATE TO THEM; FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE ADMITTED THAT 30 PERCENT OF THE DIVISION'S ACTIVITIES BENEFIT THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. COURT APPROVAL OF THIS LEGISLATIVE SCHEME WOULD GIVE THE LEGISLATURE FREE REIN TO DO THE SAME FOR A MYRIAD OF OTHER AGENCIES, INCLUDING FUNDING EVER-LARGER AGENCY BUDGETS ON THE BACKS OF SMALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY, SUCH AS BUSINESSES, THROUGH THE IMPOSITION ON THEM OF UNFAIR "FEES." STATUS: DECIDED. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CA FARM BUREAU ON 08/29/07. ORAL ARGUMENT HELD: DECEMBER 8, 2010. COURT REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. CLEAR CHANNEL V. DALLAS COUNTY - PROPERTY RIGHTS DEFENDED TEXAS SUPREME COURT NFIB IS ASKING THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION'S TAKINGS CLAUSE ALLOWS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY TO NEGOTIATE A DIRECT PURCHASE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM ONE OF SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEN CLAIM THAT, BECAUSE OF THE PURCHASE, THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS NOW A PRIVATE PARTY NOT REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE OWNERS OF REMAINING INTERESTS. LETTING THIS RULING STAND WILL ALSO HAVE PARTICULARLY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 04/27/09.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 (CONT.)   COLE V. HARVEYLAND - STATE EMPLOYMENT LAW EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESS WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS THE ISSUE IS WHETHER WASHINGTON COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUITS AGAINST EMPLOYERS WITH FEWER THAN EIGHT EMPLOYEES. THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION SAYS THAT SMALL EMPLOYERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW. THE COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE EXEMPTION OPERATES AS A JURISDICTIONAL BAR. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF EMPLOYER ON 11/1/10. COMER V. MURPHY OIL USA - LIABILITY FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT MISSISSIPPI RESIDENT NED COMER IS THE LEAD PLAINTIFF IN THIS CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT DEMANDING MAJOR DAMAGE PAYMENTS FROM A HOST OF ENERGY COMPANIES ON THE THEORY THAT THE COMPANIES' CARBON EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTED TO GLOBAL WARMING, WHICH IN TURN SUPPOSEDLY CAUSED A STRENGTHENING OF HURRICANE KATRINA, WHICH DAMAGED THEIR PROPERTIES IN 2005. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 5/7/10. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED BECAUSE ANOTHER JUDGE RECUSED HIMSELF, DEPRIVING THE EN BANC COURT OF THE QUORUM TO HEAR THE CASE. DOJI, INC. D/B/A DEMOS STEAKHOUSE V. TENNESSEE - UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS THE LEGAL CENTER WEIGHED IN BEFORE THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS IN AN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE INVOLVING AN NFIB MEMBER. THE ISSUE CONCERNS WHETHER AN EMPLOYER DISPUTING AN UNEMPLOYMENT (UI) CLAIM NEEDS TO PRESENT LIVE TESTIMONY FROM CUSTOMERS AND CO-WORKERS TO PROVE THAT A TERMINATION WAS BASED ON MISCONDUCT. PREVIOUSLY, DOCUMENTS LIKE CUSTOMER COMPLAINT CARDS AND EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RECORDS WERE ADMITTED WITHOUT TESTIMONY. UI HEARINGS ARE GENERALLY VERY INFORMAL, SO REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO SUBPOENA AND MARCH IN WITNESSES WILL GREATLY INCREASE THE TIME AND MONEY REQUIRED TO FIGHT MERITLESS UI CLAIMS. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 8/4/09. COURT RULED EMPLOYEE'S ACTIONS DID NOT AMOUNT TO MISCONDUCT AND AWARDED UI BENEFITS. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF SUPREME COURT REVIEW. ON 6/16/10, THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW. TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT THE TN SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW A DECISION BY THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS IN AN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE INVOLVING AN NFIB MEMBER. THE ISSUE CONCERNS WHETHER AN EMPLOYER DISPUTING AN UNEMPLOYMENT (UI) CLAIM NEEDS TO PRESENT LIVE TESTIMONY FROM CUSTOMERS AND CO-WORKERS TO PROVE THAT A TERMINATION WAS BASED ON MISCONDUCT. PREVIOUSLY, DOCUMENTS LIKE CUSTOMER COMPLAINT CARDS AND EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RECORDS WERE ADMITTED WITHOUT TESTIMONY. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 03/01/10. DOUBLE QUICK, INC. V. LYMAS - DAMAGES CAP SUPPORTED MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT IS CONSIDERING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE STATE'S $1 MILLION GENERAL CAP ON NONECONOMIC DAMAGES. LYMAS SUED DOUBLE QUICK INC. AFTER HE WAS SHOT IN 2007 WHILE LEAVING A STORE IN BELZONI, CLAIMING THE COMPANY DID NOT DO ENOUGH TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS CUSTOMERS. A JURY AWARDED LYMAS DAMAGES OF ABOUT $4 MILLION. THE JUDGE IN THE CASE, HOWEVER, LOWERED THE NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES TO $1 MILLION, WHICH IS THE CAP PASSED BY THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE IN 2004. LYMAS' ATTORNEYS ARE CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LIMIT. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PROPERTY OWNER ON 12/14/09. ARGUMENT SET FOR 6/8/10. COURT REVERSED AND RENDERED 9-0 ON LYMAS' FAILURE TO PROVE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND DISMISSED THE STATUTORY CAP ISSUE AS MOOT. DRD POOL SERVICES V. FREED MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS VICTORY! THE MARYLAND COURT WILL REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE'S GENERAL NONECONOMIC DAMAGES CAP, WHICH CURRENTLY IS SET AT $725,000, THAT APPLIES IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES. THE CASE INVOLVES A 5-YEAR OLD WHO DROWNED IN A SWIMMING POOL MADE BY THE DEFENDANT POOL SERVICES COMPANY. THE TRIAL COURT JURY AWARDED EACH OF THE CHILD'S PARENTS MORE THAN $2 MILLION, WHICH WOULD BE REDUCED BY THE CAP. THE PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE CAP. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ON 1/15/10. COURT RULED ON 09/24/10 THAT THE DAMAGES CAP WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. EEOC V. CRST VAN EXPEDITED - ATTORNEY FEES ASSESSED AGAINST EEOC U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 8TH CIRCUIT THE EEOC FILED A SERIES OF CLAIMS AGAINST TRUCKING COMPANY CRST VAN EXPEDITED, ALLEGING SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, FINDING THE EEOC HAD FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND CONSOLIDATE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS PRIOR TO BRINGING THE TITLE VII LAWSUIT. THE JUDGE DID NOT APPRECIATE THE EEOC'S LITIGATION STRATEGY OF 'SUE FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER' AND ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING THE EEOC TO PAY MORE THAN $4.5 MILLION DOLLARS IN COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE TRUCKING COMPANY. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ON 9/7/10. EEOC V. KRONOS - EEOC SUBPOENA POWER CHALLENGED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 3RD CIRCUIT VICKY SANDS APPLIED FOR A CASHIER AND BAGGER JOB AT A KROGER'S GROCERY STORE. SHE DIDN'T GET THE JOB AND FILED AN ADA COMPLAINT. THE EEOC ISSUED A BROAD SUBPOENA TO KRONOS, THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT TESTING COMPANY USED BY KROGER, DEMANDING ALL OF KROGER'S TESTING RESULTS FOR EVERY JOB CATEGORY. LATER, THE EEOC ISSUED A SECOND SUBPOENA DEMANDING NATIONWIDE RACE DATA FROM ALL EMPLOYERS KRONOS HAD TEST DATA FOR, PURPORTEDLY AS PART OF AN "EXPANDED" INVESTIGATION UNDER TITLE VII INTO SYSTEMIC, DISCRIMINATORY HIRING PRACTICES BY KROGER AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICANS. THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE SUBPOENA TO BE OVERBROAD. THE EEOC IS NOW APPEALING TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT ASKING TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL SUBPOENA ENFORCED. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF EMPLOYER ON 12/14/09. COURT RULED IN FAVOR EEOC. EMERALD STEEL FABRICATORS V. BLI - DRUG FREE WORKPLACE DEFENDED OREGON SUPREME COURT VICTORY! THE OREGON COURT IS BEING ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EMPLOYER SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE WHEN THE EMPLOYER CHOSE NOT TO HIRE A TEMPORARY WORKER AS A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE AFTER THE WORKER DISCLOSED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PASS A DRUG TEST BECAUSE HE USES MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO TREAT HIS ANXIETY, NAUSEA AND VOMITING PURSUANT TO THE OREGON MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT. LOWER COURTS HELD IN FAVOR OF THE WORKER AND FOUND THE EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR DISCHARGING THE TEMPORARY WORKER BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY AND FAILING TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE A DISABILITY. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF EMPLOYER ON 01/07/09. COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYER ON 05/15/10. GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOC. V. SAN FRANCISCO - HEALTH CARE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS PARTICIPATING IN A COURT CHALLENGE TO OVERTURN SAN FRANCISCO'S WORKER HEALTHCARE SECURITY ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN JULY OF 2006, REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES OR PAY A FINE TO THE CITY. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 03/27/08 IN SUPPORT OF GGRA'S CHALLENGE. ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED NFIB'S ARGUMENTS AND UPHELD THE SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE. GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOC. V. SAN FRANCISCO - HEALTH CARE U.S. SUPREME COURT NFIB ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN A NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION THAT UPHELD SAN FRANCISCO'S WORKER HEALTHCARE SECURITY ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN JULY OF 2006, REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES OR PAY A FINE TO THE CITY. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 07/08/09 IN SUPPORT OF GGRA'S CHALLENGE. HESS V. A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL - MEDICAL MONITORING U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 3RD CIRCUIT VICTORY! THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER DELAWARE RECOGNIZES A MEDICAL MONITORING CAUSE OF ACTION. THE CASE INVOLVES A PLAINTIFF WHO HAD A STENT IMPLANTED TO TREAT A CONGENITAL HEART DEFECT; THE STENT HAD NOT RECEIVED FDA PREMARKET APPROVAL AT THE TIME IT WAS IMPLANTED BY DOCTORS AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOSPITAL. THE CIRCUIT COURT WILL DECIDE: (1) WHETHER THE DELAWARE SUPREME COURT WOULD RECOGNIZE A MEDICAL MONITORING CAUSE OF ACTION IF PRESENTED WITH THE RECORD IN THE CASE, (2) WHETHER PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ABLE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR MEDICAL MONITORING IN DELAWARE, AND (3) WHETHER PLAINTIFF MET HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT FOR TRIAL REGARDING HIS MEDICAL MONITORING CLAIM. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 03/09/10. COURT RULED IN FAVOR THE DEFENDANT AND DISMISSED PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS. THE COURT REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DUTY TO MEDICALLY MONITOR A MINOR PLAINTIFF AND EVEN IF DELAWARE LAW WOULD ALLOW MEDICAL MONITORING, THE PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ELEMENTS NEED FOR MEDICAL MONITORING CLAIM.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 (CONT.)   INDUSTRIAL COMM'N OF ARIZONA V. MARTIN - WORKERS' COMPENSATION SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA VICTORY! NFIB HAS JOINED THE FIGHT AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF FUNDS FROM THE STATE'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND. ON JANUARY 31, 2009 ARIZONA GOVERNOR JAN BREWER SIGNED SB 1001, WHICH SWEEPS OVER $4 MILLION FROM THE STATE'S SPECIAL FUND OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, THE FUND ESTABLISHED BY ARIZONA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTE TO ENSURE INJURED WORKERS RECEIVE BENEFITS MAINLY IN CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYER IS UNINSURED OR THE INSURANCE CARRIER IS INSOLVENT. THESE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE USED TO BALANCE THE STATE'S BUDGET IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTE THAT CLEARLY STATE THAT MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL FUND MAY ONLY BE USED TO COVER WORKERS. STATUS: DECIDED. MOTION TO INTERVENE GRANTED 1/5/10. COURT RULED 6/21/10 IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS THAT FUNDS WERE HELD IN TRUST. JANKEY V. LEE - ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS IN ADA LAWSUITS CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT THE COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER CALIFORNIA'S MANDATORY "PREVAILING PARTY" ATTORNEY'S FEE PROVISION REQUIRES A PREVAILING DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM WAS FRIVOLOUS BEFORE AN ATTORNEY'S FEE AWARD CAN BE MADE. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FILED ON 1/7/11. KASTEN V. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE - RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER WAGE & HOUR LAW U.S. SUPREME COURT THE PLAINTIFF FILED SUIT AGAINST HIS FORMER EMPLOYER UNDER THE FLSA AFTER HE WAS TERMINATED FOR VIOLATING THE EMPLOYER'S TIME-CLOCK-PUNCHING POLICY. THE SUIT ALLEGED THAT HE WAS TERMINATED IN RETALIATION FOR HIS ORAL COMPLAINTS, TO SUPERVISORS AND HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL, THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE TIME CLOCK WAS ILLEGAL. THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE EMPLOYER, HOLDING THAT, ALTHOUGH INTRA-COMPANY WRITTEN COMPLAINTS COULD FORM THE BASIS FOR A RETALIATION CLAIM, ORAL COMPLAINTS COULD NOT. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED (585 F.3D 310). WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING A DIVISION OF AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE, THE COURT OF APPEALS REASONED THAT THE TERM "FILED" IMPLIES A WRITTEN COMPLAINT AND THAT ORAL COMPLAINTS THEREFORE COULD NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF EMPLOYER ON 08/23/10. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 10/13/10. COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON 3/1/11. KIVALINA V. EXXONMOBIL - LEGAL REFORM/CLIMATE CHANGE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE SUIT SEEKS MONETARY DAMAGES FROM VARIOUS ENERGY COMPANIES FOR THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF KIVALINA, ALASKA BY CLIMATE CHANGE. THE SPECIFIC ISSUE IN THE CASE IS WHETHER THE PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIMS SEEKING TO SUBJECT AMERICAN BUSINESS THAT EMIT CO2, METHANE AND OTHER SUCH GASSES TO LIABILITY FOR WEATHER-RELATED EVENTS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 07/07/10. KLOTZ V. ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL CENTER - MALPRACTICE AND LEGAL REFORM MISSOURI SUPREME COURT A JURY AWARDED $2.58 MILLION, INCLUDING $1 MILLION IN NONECONOMIC DAMAGES, IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A PRESIDING PHYSICIAN AND HOSPITAL FOR PLAINTIFFS CONTRACTION OF A STAPH INFECTION WHICH RESULTED IN MULTIPLE AMPUTATIONS. THE CIRCUIT COURT INITIALLY RULED THAT THE 2005 STATUTE, WHICH PLACED A NEW NONECONOMIC DAMAGES CAP AT $350,000 FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND APPLIED TO THOSE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE INCLUDED IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION AFTER THE LAW TOOK EFFECT. THE CASE WAS APPEALED TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH TRANSFERRED IT TO THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CAP. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 11/4/09. COURT RULED DAMAGE CAP DID NOT APPLY IN THIS MATTER. LAMONS GASKET CO. V. SWIU - NLRB OPENS DOOR TO MORE STEALTH CARD CHECK AGREEMENTS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN A 3-2 DECISION ON AUGUST 27, THE BOARD VOTED TO REVIEW A LANDMARK 2007 CASE, DANA CORPORATION, IN WHICH IT GRANTED DISSENTING WORKERS THE RIGHT TO UNDO A SUCCESSFUL (I.E., EMPLOYER-RECOGNIZED) UNION CARD CHECK CAMPAIGN AND DEMAND A SECRET BALLOT ELECTION. PRIOR TO THIS DECISION, EMPLOYEES HAD NO WAY TO DEMAND AN ELECTION IF THE EMPLOYER AGREED TO RECOGNIZE A UNION BASED ON AUTHORIZATION CARDS. WORKERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE ALREADY USED ELECTIONS TO KICK OUT UNWANTED UNIONS, DEMONSTRATING THE UNRELIABILITY OF CARD CHECK INSTANT ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS. WORKERS FREQUENTLY SIGN UNION AUTHORIZATION CARDS DUE TO UNION ORGANIZERS' INTIMIDATING TACTICS OR EVEN OUTRIGHT LIES ABOUT WHAT SIGNING A CARD MEANS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB FILED TWO AMICUS BRIEFS ON 11/1/10 IN SUPPORT OF PRESERVING DANA CORPORATION. LEWIS V. CITY OF CHICAGO - LIMITATIONS FOR TITLE VII DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS U.S. SUPREME COURT WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON A DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM BEGINS WHEN AN EMPLOYER ANNOUNCES A PRACTICE THAT MAY VIOLATE TITLE VII OR WHEN IT BEINGS PUTS THE PRACTICE INTO EFFECT. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT 300 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM WITH THE EEOC BEGINS ON THE DATE THE PRACTICE IS ANNOUNCED. STATUS: DECIDED. THE COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CASE. THE COURT HELD THAT THE GROUP OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOULD-BE FIREFIGHTERS HAD FILED A TIMELY CHARGE OF RACE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE CITY OF CHICAGO. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF CITY ON 1/22/10. ORAL ARGUMENT HELD 2/22/10. LOAR V. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - FORCED UNIONIZATION MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT NFIB HAS SUPPORTED HOME-BASED DAY CARE PROVIDERS WHO ARE PROTESTING AN EFFORT BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN TO UNILATERALLY UNIONIZE DAY CARE PROVIDERS WHO PROVIDE CARE TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES RECEIVING STATE SUBSIDIES. AS PART OF THIS UNION, THE PROVIDERS HAD DUES WITHHELD FROM STATE SUBSIDY PAYMENTS PROVIDED TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN APRIL 2010. ON SEPT. 16, 2010, THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED THE APPELLATE COURT TO EXPLAIN ITS SIX-WORD ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE. ON SEPT. 23, 2010, COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED DISMISSAL EXPLAINING THAT PROVIDERS ARE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. LOCKE V. KARASS - NONMEMBER UNION FEES U.S. SUPREME COURT IN LOCKE, THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER A NATIONAL UNION THAT FUNCTIONS AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES CAN CHARGE LOCAL NONMEMBERS FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES, EVEN WHERE THE LITIGATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE LOCAL UNION. THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT UNIONS CAN CHARGE NONMEMBERS A SERVICE FEE TO COVER EXPENSES RELATED TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, BUT CANNOT CHARGE NONMEMBERS TO SUPPORT POLITICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION. STATUS: DECIDED. COURT RULED THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES A LOCAL UNION MAY CHARGE A NONMEMBER AN APPROPRIATE SHARE OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO A NATIONAL UNION'S LITIGATION EXPENSES. LOCKE V. SHORE - REGULATORY RESTRICTION ON INTERIOR DESIGNER U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NFIB JOINED A LAWSUIT THAT CHALLENGED A FLORIDA LAW THAT PROHIBITS PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING INTERIOR DESIGN UNLESS THEY FIRST GET THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THEY SPEND SIX YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS JUMPING THROUGH THE ARBITRARY HOOPS OF FLORIDA'S INTERIOR DESIGN LICENSING LAW. IN MARCH 2011, THE APPELLATE COURT UPHELD A DISTRICT COURT RULING THAT FOUND THE REGULATION CONSTITUTIONAL. THE RULING COMES DESPITE ADMISSIONS BY THE STATE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF INTERIOR DESIGN POSES ANY THREAT TO THE PUBLIC. STATUS: DECIDED. COURT UPHELD THE REGULATION ON 3/2/11. AN APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS PLANNED.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 (CONT.)   LOCKSHIN V. SEMSKER - UPHOLDING MARYLAND'S DAMAGES CAP COURT OF APPEALS THIS CASE CONCERNS THE DEATH OF 47-YEAR-OLD ATTORNEY RICHARD SEMSKER WHO DIED FROM MALIGNANT MELANOMA. THE FAMILY OF SEMSKER FILED A MALPRACTICE CLAIM AGAINST SEMSKER'S DERMATOLOGIST FOR FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER, AND A JURY AWARDED $3 MILLION IN NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES. FOLLOWING TRIAL, THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT THE NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES CAP DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PARTIES HAD NOT GONE THROUGH PRE-SUIT ARBITRATION. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 8/26/09. LUNSFORD V. SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC. - STRICT LIABILITY OF SUCCESSIVE ASBESTOS MANUFACTURERS WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT (PETITION FOR REVIEW) THIS CASE CONCERNS WHETHER WASHINGTON STATE CASES ADOPTING STRICT LIABILITY CAN BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS IN LUNSFORD HELD THAT STRICT LIABILITY APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF ASBESTOS-RELATED MESOTHELIOMA FROM HOUSEHOLD EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS MANY YEARS BEFORE STRICT LIABILITY WAS RECOGNIZED IN WASHINGTON. IN REACHING ITS DECISION, THE APPELLATE COURT REFUSED TO APPLY THE THREE-PART TEST SET FORTH BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN CHEVRON OIL FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A NEW RULE, SUCH AS THE ADOPTION OF STRICT LIABILITY, SHOULD APPLY RETROACTIVELY. INSTEAD, THE APPELLATE COURT SAID THAT PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF STRICT LIABILITY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO SABERHAGEN. THE COURT BOLDLY CONCLUDED THAT CHEVRON OIL AND RECENT WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT CASES APPLYING THE CHEVRON OIL TEST WERE ERRONEOUS. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF CERT PETITION ON 11/20/07. COURT GRANTED REVIEW AND AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON MERITS ON 06/06/08. MCDONALD V. CITY HOSPITAL - CHALLENGE TO WEST VIRGINIA'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES CAP WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS NFIB JOINED A COALITION AMICUS BRIEF IN A CHALLENGE TO THE STATE'S CAP ON NONECONOMIC DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL LIABILITY ACTIONS. STATUS: PENDING. MERRILL V. OHIO - PROPERTY RIGHTS OHIO SUPREME COURT THE CASE INVOLVES A CHALLENGE TO SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHT TO EXCLUDE TRESPASSERS ON DRY BEACHES ABOVE THE WATER'S EDGE. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE NOT ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT FOR BUSINESSES ALONG LAKE ERIK WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO EXCLUDE TRESPASSERS. THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS FOUND LARGELY IN FAVOR OF THE LANDOWNERS. THE OHIO DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES HAS NOW APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 9/20/10. ORAL ARGUMENT HELD 2/1/11. METROPOLITAN MILWAUKEE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE - MANDATED SICK LEAVE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, MILWAUKEE BECAME THE THIRD CITY IN THE UNITED STATES, AFTER SAN FRANCISCO AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO REQUIRE THAT ALL CITY BUSINESSES PROVIDE THEIR EMPLOYEES WITH PAID SICK LEAVE THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF A BINDING REFERENDUM. THE BINDING REFERENDUM PROVIDES THAT ALL PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED WITHIN THE CITY WILL ACCRUE NINE PAID SICK DAYS PER YEAR. NFIB ARGUED THAT THE MEASURE INTERFERES WITH EMPLOYERS' RIGHTS TO NEGOTIATE MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL LABOR AGREEMENTS WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES AND IS AN ILLEGAL EXTENSION OF THE MILWAUKEE'S AUTHORITY INTO AREAS OF LAW RESERVED TO THE STATE. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 01/28/09. MUNSON V. DEL TACO - PROTECTING SMALL BIZ FROM UNSCRUPULOUS ADA LAWSUITS CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT NFIB IS URGING THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO FIND THAT DISCRIMINATORY INTENT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO BE LIABLE FOR MONETARY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS UNDER CALIFORNIA'S UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, WHICH INCORPORATES INTO THE STATE LAW THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA). STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEL TACO ON 12/11/08. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR MAY 6, 2009. ON JUNE 11, 2009, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ANSWERED A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE 9TH CIRCUIT: UNDER THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, DEFENDANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MONETARY DAMAGES FOR UNINTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION THROUGH ADA VIOLATIONS. NURSING CARE MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA, INC. V. OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM'N - PREGNANCY LEAVE OHIO SUPREME COURT VICTORY! TIFFANY MCFEE'S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED BY NURSING CARE MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA, D/B/A PATASKALA OAKS, WHEN SHE PRESENTED HER EMPLOYER A PHYSICIAN'S NOTE STATING THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO WORK DUE TO A PREGNANCY-RELATED MEDICAL CONDITION. BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY FOR LESS THAN ONE YEAR, MCFEE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR LEAVE UNDER THE COMPANY'S LEAVE POLICY. THE OCRC FOUND PATASKALA OAKS VIOLATED OHIO'S ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW. THE ALJ WHO HEARD THE COMPLAINT RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE OCRC REJECTED THE ALJ'S POSITION AND HELD THAT THE TERMINATION OF MCFEE'S EMPLOYMENT DUE TO HER NEED FOR MATERNITY LEAVE VIOLATED OHIO'S LAWS AGAINST PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION. THE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT REVERSED THE COMMISSION. THE CASE WAS THEN APPEALED TO THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WHICH FOUND THAT MCFEE HAD PRESENTED DIRECT EVIDENCE OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND UPHELD THE COMMISSION'S DECISION. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 9/28/09 AND REPLY AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 12/22/09. ARGUMENT SET FOR 1/13/10. COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYER ON 6/22/10. OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM'N V. NURSING CARE MANAGEMENT - MATERNITY LEAVE OHIO SUPREME COURT TIFFANY MCFEE'S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED BY NURSING CARE MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA, D/B/A PATASKALA OAKS, WHEN SHE PRESENTED HER EMPLOYER A PHYSICIAN'S NOTE STATING THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO WORK DUE TO A PREGNANCY-RELATED MEDICAL CONDITION. BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY FOR LESS THAN ONE YEAR (EIGHT MONTHS), MCFEE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR LEAVE UNDER THE COMPANY'S LEAVE POLICY. THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FOUND THAT MCFEE HAD PRESENTED DIRECT EVIDENCE OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND UPHELD THE COMMISSION'S DECISION. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 09/25/09. O'NEIL V. CRANE - ASBESTOS REFORM CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A DEFENDANT SUCH AS A PUMP AND VALVE MAKER CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASBESTOS PRODUCTS MADE BY ANOTHER COMPANY AND AFFIXED POST-SALE SUCH AS BY THE NAVY IS FREQUENTLY LITIGATED. THE FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT CHOSE TO FOLLOW WASHINGTON STATE, HOLDING THAT MANUFACTURERS ARE RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR THEIR OWN PRODUCTS. THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE APPEALED. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS LETTER BRIEF FILED 11/12/09. COURT GRANTED CERT PETITION 12/24/09. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 2/22/10. PANAG V. CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. - EXPANSION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT THIS CASE CONCERNS WHETHER THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (CPA) APPLIES TO A COLLECTION AGENCY'S ATTEMPTS TO COLLECT ON AN INSURANCE COMPANY'S SUBROGATION CLAIM AGAINST UNINSURED MOTORISTS. THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON REJECTED CCS'S ARGUMENT THAT THE CPA APPLIES ONLY TO CONSUMER-ORIENTED RELATIONSHIPS. AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, NEARLY ANY BUSINESS MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE CPA FOR ANY DISPUTE IT MAY ENTER INTO, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT DISPUTE INVOLVES A CUSTOMER, A CONTRACT, OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS-LIKE RELATIONSHIP. NFIB FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 04/29/09. PLENCO V. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. - CHALLENGING INSURER'S LIMITS ON ASBESTOS COVERAGE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE WHAT TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS AN INSURANCE COMPANY CAN PLACE ON ITS DUTY TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY AN INSURED IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION. PLENCO, A FAMILY-OWNED PLASTICS COMPANY LOCATED IN SHEBOYGAN, WI, HAS BEEN NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN HUNDREDS OF ASBESTOS LAWSUITS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO PLENCO PRODUCTS THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN 1950 AND 1983. FROM 1968 THROUGH 1989, PLENCO WAS INSURED (GENERAL LIABILITY AND UMBRELLA) WITH LIBERTY MUTUAL. UNTIL 2004, LIBERTY MUTUAL DUTIFULLY RESPONDED TO ALL LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST PLENCO. IN 2004, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSTITUTED A NEW COVERAGE POLICY THAT DRASTICALLY REDUCED PLENCO'S COVERAGE FROM OVER $70 MILLION (THE ENTIRE INSURED PERIOD) TO ABOUT $10 MILLION. PLENCO CHALLENGED LIBERTY MUTUAL'S NEW POLICY IN FEDERAL COURT. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLENCO ON 06/24/08. ON JANUARY 29, 2009, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DECIDED A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT HELD THAT EACH CLAIMANT'S EXPOSURE WAS ONE OCCURRENCE, WISC. STAT. 631.43(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SUCCESSIVE INSURANCE POLICIES, AND LIBERTY MUTUAL MUST DEFEND AND PAY UP TO THE POLICY LIMITS.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 (CONT.)   PRICELINE V. CITY OF ANAHEIM - PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFORM CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT MANY ONLINE TRAVEL SERVICES FORM PARTNERSHIPS WITH HOTELS SO THAT CONSUMERS CAN BUY BOTH DISCOUNTED PLANE TICKETS AND MAKE HOTEL RESERVATIONS IN A SINGLE TRANSACTION. BECAUSE THE ONLINE TRAVEL SERVICES BRING IN CUSTOMERS THAT THE HOTEL CHAINS MIGHT NOT ATTRACT, THE ONLINE TRAVEL SERVICES COMMONLY CHARGE THE HOTEL A SERVICE FEE. SOME PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS APPROACHED THE CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENTS AND NOTED THAT CALIFORNIA COULD TRY TO COLLECT HOTEL AND OCCUPANCY TAXES ON THE SERVICE FEES. THE PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS VOLUNTEERED TO SUE THE ONLINE COMPANIES IN EXCHANGE FOR A PERCENTAGE OF THE RECOVERED TAX. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PRICELINE ON JUNE 24, 2009. COURT UPHELD COUNSEL RETENTION AGREEMENT JAN.5, 2010. RITE AID - NLRB OPENS DOOR TO MORE STEALTH CARD CHECK AGREEMENTS THE OBAMA NLRB HAS COMMENCED THE PROCESS THAT WILL LIKELY LEAD TO THE REVERSAL OF A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS FOR WORKERS. IN A 3-2 DECISION ON AUGUST 27, THE BOARD VOTED TO REVIEW A LANDMARK 2007 CASE, DANA CORPORATION, IN WHICH IT GRANTED DISSENTING WORKERS THE RIGHT TO UNDO A SUCCESSFUL (I.E., EMPLOYER-RECOGNIZED) UNION CARD CHECK CAMPAIGN AND DEMAND A SECRET BALLOT ELECTION. PRIOR TO THIS DECISION, EMPLOYEES HAD NO WAY TO DEMAND AN ELECTION IF THE EMPLOYER AGREED TO RECOGNIZE A UNION BASED ON AUTHORIZATION CARDS. WORKERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE ALREADY USED ELECTIONS TO KICK OUT UNWANTED UNIONS, DEMONSTRATING THE UNRELIABILITY OF CARD CHECK INSTANT ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS. WORKERS FREQUENTLY SIGN UNION AUTHORIZATION CARDS DUE TO UNION ORGANIZERS' INTIMIDATING TACTICS OR EVEN OUTRIGHT LIES ABOUT WHAT SIGNING A CARD MEANS. IN VOTING TO REVISIT THE DANA CASE, THE OBAMA NLRB HAS SIGNALED ITS INTENT TO DENY WORKERS THE ABILITY TO VOTE ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE AND REMOVE AN UNWANTED UNION FROM THEIR WORKPLACE. NFIB HAS FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF WITH THE BOARD, URGING IT NOT TO REVOKE THE NEW PROTECTIONS ACCORDED TO WORKERS SWEPT INTO UNION RANKS THROUGH CARD CHECK FORCED UNIONISM. THE BOARD MUST RETURN TO ITS ORIGINAL INTENT OF PROTECTING WORKERS' BASIC FREEDOMS RATHER THAN INFRINGING UPON THEM. ROBINSON V. CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. - LIMITING ASBESTOS LITIGATION TEXAS SUPREME COURT THIS APPEAL INVOLVES A CHALLENGE TO THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF A TEXAS LAW LIMITING SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES FOR INNOCENT DEFENDANTS, SUCH AS CROWN CORK & SEAL (THE RESPONDENT IN THE CASE). THE DECISION IS ALSO LIKELY TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE RETROACTIVE ASBESTOS AND SILICA MEDICAL CRITERIA LAW ENACTED IN 2005. A DECISION OVERTURNING THAT LAW COULD SEND POTENTIALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CLAIMS BACK INTO THE TEXAS COURTS. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED 08/02/07. ORAL ARGUMENTS HEARD 02/07/08. COURT RULED IN OCTOBER 2010 THAT THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS A LAW SHIELDING CROWN CORK FROM SUCCESSOR LIABILITY IN PENDING CASES. ROUNDY'S - MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION" IN NONEMPLOYEE ACCESS CASES NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE NLRB SOLICITED AMICUS BRIEFS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF THE PROPER DEFINITION OF "DISCRIMINATION" IN CASES WHERE EMPLOYERS DENY NONEMPLOYEE UNION ORGANIZERS ACCESS TO THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY. THE NLRB'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CURRENT RULE FORCES BUSINESS OWNERS TO PERMIT UNION ORGANIZERS TO CONDUCT A BOYCOTT ON THE BUSINESS' PRIVATE PROPERTY. NFIB ARGUED THAT IT IS WRONG TO REQUIRE A BUSINESS OWNER TO ALLOW UNION ORGANIZERS ONTO THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARMING THE BUSINESS. SINCE BOYCOTTS ARE ESPECIALLY DEVASTATING TO SMALL BUSINESSES, THE BOARD'S CURRENT INTERPRETATION IMPERMISSIBLY INTRUDES ON BUSINESS OWNERS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. INSTEAD, NFIB ARGUED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD ADOPT A RULE THAT ONLY FINDS IT UNLAWFUL TO EXCLUDE UNIONS FROM THEIR PROPERTY IF THE BUSINESS ALLOWS OTHER GROUPS TO DO THE SAME ACTIVITY AS THE UNION. UNDER THIS MORE COMMONSENSE DEFINITION, A BUSINESS COULD RIGHTFULLY ALLOW CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS LIKE THOSE MADE BY THE RED CROSS, BUT PROHIBIT NON-CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS LIKE THOSE OF AVON OR UNION ORGANIZATION. STATUS: FILED AMICUS BRIEF ON 1/7/11. SACKETT V. EPA - REGULATORY TAKING U.S. SUPREME COURT - CERT PETITION THE CASE CONCERNS A CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ISSUED TO THE SACKETTS, LANDOWNERS IN IDAHO. EPA CLAIMS THE LAND IS SUBJECT TO THE CWA, AND WHEN THE SACKETTS PLACED FILL MATERIAL ON THE LOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME, EPA ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER DIRECTING THE SACKETTS TO REMOVE THE FILL AND RESTORE THE LOT TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE SACKETTS CONTEST EPA'S FINDINGS BUT BOTH THE AGENCY AND THE LOWER COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO GIVE THE SACKETTS A HEARING TO DETERMINE IF THE CWA APPLIES. A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED THEY CAN NOT GET JUDICIAL REVIEW UNLESS THEY FIRST GO THROUGH THE LIKELY FUTILE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR A FEDERAL WETLANDS PERMIT - A PROCESS THAT COULD TAKE YEARS AND COST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. STATUS: PENIDNG. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 3/25/11. SANTA CLARA LEAD PAINT LITIGATION - PUBLIC NUISANCE LEGAL REFORM CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA V. ARCO, THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HELD THAT GOVERNMENT PLAINTIFFS MAY RETAIN PRIVATE OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON A CONTINGENT FEE BASIS TO PURSUE PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIMS AGAINST PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS. THIS DECISION WILL ENABLE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE TO PROSECUTE PURELY PUBLIC CLAIMS UNDER THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE, AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA TO ASSERT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE THEORY AS A MEANS OF TRANSFERRING THE COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP AND REMEDIAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. NFIB SUBMITTED A LETTER BRIEF TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT REQUESTING THAT THE COURT REVIEW AND OVERTURN THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REVIEW ON 06/06/08. AMICUS BRIEF ON THE MERITS FILED 04/23/09. SAVAGLIO V. WAL-MART - FIGHTING PUNITIVE DAMAGES REMEDY FOR OVERTIME VIOLATION CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL THE CASE, ON APPEAL FROM A $200 MILLION VERDICT (THAT INCLUDES A $115 MILLION PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD), CONCERNS THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE THAT MANDATES THAT AN EMPLOYER SHALL COMPENSATE AN EMPLOYEE FOR AN ADDITIONAL HOUR'S WORTH OF PAY IF THE EMPLOYEE FAILS TO TAKE A HALF-HOUR BREAK FOR EVERY FIVE HOURS OF LABOR. IN DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE STATUTE PROVIDES A PUNITIVE DAMAGES REMEDY AND WHETHER EMPLOYERS MUST ENSURE THAT BREAKS ARE ACTUALLY TAKEN. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED 7/17/08. SCHLAUD V. SNYDER- FIGHTING THE FORCED UNIONIZATION OF HOME DAY-CARE WORKERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN THIS CASE CONCERNS THE COMPULSORY UNIONIZATION OF HOME DAY CARE PROVIDERS WHERE INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES WILL BE FORCED TO PAY UNION DUES AND SERVICE FEES TO NATIONAL UNIONS, BUT THEIR EMPLOYEES WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THE BENEFITS TRADITIONALLY SOUGHT BY EMPLOYEES WHO UNIONIZE. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED 3/17/11. SECRETARY OF LABOR V. AVCON, INC. - FIGHTING OSHA AGAINST INCREASED LIABILITY U.S. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER, ALONG WITH A COALITION OF LIKE-MINDED INDUSTRY GROUPS, FILED A BRIEF WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION (OSHRC) URGING OSHRC NOT TO PILE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY ON THE BACKS OF SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS. IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES PENDING IN FOUR CASES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, OSHRC INVITED FRIEND-OF-THE COURT BRIEFS ON TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES RAISED BY THOSE CASES, WHETHER, CONTRARY TO CURRENT LAW: (1) INDIVIDUALS CAN BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (OSH) ACT AND (2) OSHRC CAN AUTHORIZE SUCCESSOR LIABILITY FOR A REPEAT VIOLATION OF THE OSH ACT. FOR DECADES, A CORPORATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ITS OWNERS OR SHAREHOLDERS. LEGITIMATE CORPORATIONS PROVIDE SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS WITH PERSONAL LIABILITY PROTECTIONS THAT ARE VITAL TO ENCOURAGING ENTREPRENEURSHIP. IN ITS BRIEF, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER ARGUED THAT: (1) OSHRC SHOULD NOT CHANGE EXISTING LAW AND CREATE PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS; (2) SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS ONLY SHOULD BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE IN VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS FRAUD; AND (3) SUCCESSOR LIABILITY SHOULD ONLY BE IMPOSED WHEN THERE IS A FINAL ORDER AGAINST THE SAME EMPLOYER OR ITS ALTER EGO FOR A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR VIOLATION. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED 03/24/04.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 (CONT.)   SECRETARY OF LABOR V. VOLKS CONSTRUCTORS - FIGHTING TO UPHOLD OSHA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED A BRIEF ASKING OSHA'S REVIEW COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE SIX-MONTH TIME LIMIT FOR OSHA TO ISSUE A CITATION FOR A RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATION. IN THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970, CONGRESS PASSED LANGUAGE THAT "[N]O CITATION MAY BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE OCCURRENCE OF ANY VIOLATION." DESPITE THIS LAW, OSHA CONTINUES TO ISSUE CITATIONS FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY RECORD INJURIES IN ITS FORM 300 LOG FOR VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED UP TO FIVE YEARS AGO. THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER BELIEVES THAT MAKING SMALL BUSINESSES SPEND TIME AND MONEY TRYING TO RECALL THE FACTS AND FIND FORMER EMPLOYEES IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEND AGAINST STALE CLAIMS IS UNFAIR. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 11/27/07. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 11/2/10. SIMPKINS V. CSX TRANSPORTATION - WORKPLACE ASBESTOS EXPOSURE (PREMISES LIABILITY) SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS THE BRIEF ARGUES THAT PREMISES OWNERS, SUCH AS THE DEFENDANT RAILROAD, OWE NO LEGAL DUTY OF CARE TO REMOTE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGEDLY INJURED AS A RESULT OF SECONDHAND EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES EMITTED IN THE WORKPLACE. THE SUBJECT ACTION INVOLVES THE ESTATE OF A WOMAN WHO WAS ALLEGEDLY EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS CARRIED HOME ON THE PERSON AND CLOTHING OF HER FORMER HUSBAND, WHO WORKED FOR THE DEFENDANT'S PREDECESSOR RAILROAD FROM 1958 TO 1964. SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE - NLRB DECIDES WHETHER "MICRO UNIONS" PERMITTED NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE NLRB WILL SOON DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT LABOR UNIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BREAK OFF DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF WORKFORCES INTO SMALL GROUPS TO ORGANIZE FIVE OR 10 WORKERS AT A TIME INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE WORKPLACE AT ONCE - OR ORGANIZE USING "MICRO UNIONS." THE "MICRO UNIONS" WOULD ESSENTIALLY ALLOW LABOR ORGANIZERS TO SECTION OFF COMPANY EMPLOYEES BY SPECIFIC JOB DESCRIPTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A UNION WERE TRYING TO ORGANIZE A RESTAURANT STAFF, LEADERS WOULD TARGET SERVERS, BUSBOYS, DISHWASHERS, COOKS AND HOSTESSES SEPARATELY. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 3/7/11. STAPLETON V. CITIZENS NATIONAL - LEGAL REFORM KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT THE COURT IS REVIEWING WHETHER BUSINESS OWNERS OWE A DUTY TO CUSTOMERS TO WARN OR REMOVE NATURAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS SNOW AND ICE. THE CURRENT STANDARD, WHICH HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR DECADES, IMPOSES NO SUCH DUTY UNLESS ACTIONS BY THE BUSINESS OWNER HEIGHTEN OR CONCEAL THE HAZARD OF THE NATURAL CONDITION. OVERTURNING LONGTIME PRECEDENT ON THIS ISSUE WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN UPON BUSINESSES. ADDITIONALLY, THE "NO DUTY" RULE CURRENTLY DOES NOT ACT TO DISCOURAGE KENTUCKY BUSINESSES FROM REMOVING SNOW AND ICE, AS THEIR MAIN GOAL IS NOT TO AVOID LIABILITY BUT INSTEAD TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS THROUGH COMPETITION, QUALITY, AND SERVICE. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED JANUARY 2011. STATE OF FLORIDA V. HHS - NFIB SUES TO STOP HEALTH CARE LAW U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ON MAY 14, 2010, NFIB JOINED THE MULTI-STATE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. THE SUIT WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF NFIB BY THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LEGAL CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT, HOWEVER, NFIB IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. NFIB STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT CONGRESS LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO FORCE AMERICANS TO PURCHASE A PRIVATE PRODUCT, SUCH AS HEALTH INSURANCE, OR FACE PAYING A PENALTY. ON JANUARY 31, 2011, FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE ROGER VINSON RULED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IN THE HEALTHCARE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. JUDGE VINSON ALSO FOUND THAT THE MANDATE CAN NOT BE SEVERED FROM THE REST OF THE HEALTHCARE LAW, THE ENTIRE ACT MUST BE DECLARED VOID." THE GOVERNMENT HAS APPEALED JUDGE VINSON'S RULING TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT WHERE BRIEFING IS SCHEDULED TO CONCLUDE IN MAY 2011. STATUS: PENDING. STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL - EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR SUBORDINATE'S DISCRIMINATION U.S. SUPREME COURT THE ISSUE IS WHETHER AN EMPLOYER CAN BE HELD LIABLE BASED ON POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL INTENT OF OFFICIALS WHO CAUSED OR INFLUENCED BUT DID NOT MAKE THE ULTIMATE EMPLOYMENT DECISION. THE EMPLOYEE ASSERTED THAT HE WAS FIRED BASED ON HIS ASSOCIATION WITH THE MILITARY. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT NO REASONABLE JURY COULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY. THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE "CAT'S PAW" DOCTRINE. UNDER THIS THEORY, DISCRIMINATION CAN BE PROVEN EVEN WHEN THE DECISIONMAKER HERSELF IS ADMITTEDLY UNBIASED IF THE DISCRIMINATORY ANIMUS OF A NON-DECISIONMAKER IS IMPUTED TO THE DECISIONMAKER. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED 9/8/10. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 11/2/10. COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON 3/1/11. STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS V. SALAZAR - UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRASTATE AG WATER RESTRICTIONS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT ARE THE TWO WATER SYSTEMS THAT PUMP NECESSARY WATER FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH. IN 2008, THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS) LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT CAN BE PUMPED THROUGH THE SYSTEMS BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTALISTS' ARGUMENTS THAT PUMPING THREATENED THE SMELT POPULATION. AS A RESULT, THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES NO LONGER GET THE WATER THEY NEED TO SUSTAIN THEIR COMPANIES. CALIFORNIA'S WATER AGENCIES HAVE CALLED IT "THE MOST DRASTIC CUTS EVER TO CALIFORNIA WATER." THE NEW LAWSUIT SUPPORTED BY THE LEGAL CENTER HAS TWO MAIN ARGUMENTS. FIRST, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC CONNECTION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE FISH KILLED DURING PUMPING ACTUALLY THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF THE SMELT. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL WATER RESTRICTIONS ON 6/2/10. ORAL ARGUMENTS ON 2/15/11. IN MARCH 2011, THE COURT RULED THAT THE WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT V. FLA. DEPT. OF ENVIR. PROTECTION - GOVERNMENT TAKINGS U.S. SUPREME COURT THE SUPREME COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT VIOLATED THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT UPHELD THE FLORIDA BEACH AND SHORE PRESERVATION ACT. THE LAW AUTHORIZES THE STATE TO CONVERT PRIVATE WATERFRONT PROPERTY INTO A PUBLIC BEACH THUS DEPRIVING LAND OWNERS OF THEIR FULL LITTORAL RIGHTS WITHOUT COMPENSATION. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF LANDOWNERS ON 8/16/09. COURT RULED AGAINST THE LANDOWNERS IN JUNE 2010. THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS - DEFINING SCOPE OF TITLE VII ANTI-RETALIATION BAR U.S. SUPREME COURT THE COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER TITLE VII'S ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISION PROTECTS AN EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN RETALIATION FOR HIS THEN-FIANCE'S EEOC CLAIM ALLEGING SEX DISCRIMINATION. THOMPSON'S FIANCE, MIRIAM REGALADO, FILED AN EEOC CHARGE AGAINST NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION. THREE WEEKS LATER, THE COMPANY TERMINATED THOMPSON, CLAIMING IT WAS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED REASONS. THOMPSON ALLEGED UNLAWFUL RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII. THE COMPANY COUNTERED THAT HE WAS NOT RETALIATED AGAINST WITHIN THE MEANING OF TITLE VII BECAUSE THOMPSON DID NOT ACTIVELY OPPOSE ANY UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF EMPLOYER ON 10/29/10. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 12/7/10. DECIDED 1/24/11 IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF. TURKEN V. GORDON - CHALLENGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDIES ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS ARIZONA SUPREME COURT THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE CITY OF PHOENIX'S $97.4 MILLION SALES TAX INCENTIVE GIVEN TO AN OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPER VIOLATES THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION AGAINST TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES. THE MAJORITY OF NFIB MEMBERS IN ARIZONA DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES TO BUSINESSES TO LOCATE OR RELOCATE TO A PARTICULAR CITY OR TOWN. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF TAX PAYERS CHALLENGING THE SUBSIDY ON 1/07/08. COURT DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS' LAWSUIT ON 4/2/08. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS ON 7/23/08. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN ARIZONA SUPREME COURT 7/16/09.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2010 (CONT.)   VICKNAIR V. PHELPS DODGE - FORUM SHOPPING NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT VICTORY! IN A MOVE AIMED TO CURB FORUM-SHOPPING PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANT ARGUED THAT NORTH DAKOTA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY NONRESIDENTS WHO HAVE NO CONNECTION TO NORTH DAKOTA. STATUS: DECIDED. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ON 7/22/10. COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS. WEINSTAT V. DENTSPLY, INT'L - CONSUMER PROTECTION CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AFTER A CASE CALLED TOBACCO II, CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE BEEN SPLIT AS TO WHETHER THE COURT'S HOLDING MEANS THAT CLASS CERTIFICATION IS DIFFERENT (AND EASIER) IN CONSUMER CASES, OR NOT. THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT IN THE SUBJECT CASE DECIDED THE FORMER WAS TRUE. IT WENT FURTHER BY HOLDING THAT PROOF OF RELIANCE ON A WARRANTY PROMISE IS NOT IMPORTANT. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REVIEW ON 03/15/10. REVIEW DENIED 04/14/10. WILLIAMS V. AMERICAN OPTICAL CORP. - DEFENDING MEDICAL CRITERIA LAW IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA IN A SERIES OF ASBESTOS PENDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA, THE LEGAL CENTER FILED FOUR BRIEFS DEFENDING FLORIDA'S MEDICAL CRITERIA LAW. THIS STATUTE REQUIRES THAT CLAIMANTS IN ASBESTOS CASES MEET CERTAIN OBJECTIVE MEDICAL CRITERIA BEFORE FILING SUIT. THE LAW IS INTENDED TO HELP IMPEDE THE MASS FILINGS BY UNIMPAIRED CLAIMANTS THAT HAVE CREATED JUDICIAL BACKLOGS IN THE COURTS. STATUS: PENDING. AMICUS BRIEFS WERE FILED ON 09/07/07.
FORM 990 PROVIDED TO GOVERNING BODY PART VI, SECTION B: GOVERNING BODY AND MANAGEMENT, LINE 11 FOLLOWING AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, A DRAFT OF NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S FORM 990 IS PREPARED. THIS FORM 990 IS REVIEWED INTERNALLY BY NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S TAX ACCOUNTANT,CONTROLLER/TREASURER, AND SVP/CFO. ANY QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE INITIAL REVIEW ARE ADDRESSED TO ENSURE THE RETURN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. ANY NECESSARY CHANGES/CORRECTIONS ARE MADE ON THE FORM 990 AND THE RETURN AGAIN GOES THROUGH NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS. UPON APPROVAL OF THE SVP/CFO, THE FINAL RETURN IS FILED WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. THE FINAL FILED RETURN IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR REVIEW.
WRITTEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY PART VI, SECTION B: POLICIES, LINE 12 EACH BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE OF NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND SUBMIT A CODE OF CONDUCT & ETHICS CERTIFICATION FORM TO THE CFO'S OFFICE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. BY COMPLETING THIS FORM, HE/SHE CONFIRMS THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THE CODE AND AGREES TO CONDUCT HIMSELF/HERSELF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE AND APPLICABLE LAWS. HE/SHE ALSO MUST LIST ON THE FORM ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST HE/SHE MAY HAVE WITH NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AND ANY OTHER ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT WHICH HE/SHE FEELS NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER SHOULD BE MADE AWARE. THE CFO'S OFFICE WILL SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE FINANCE/AUDIT COMMITTEE REGARDING ANY MATERIAL ETHICAL OR LEGAL ISSUES DISCLOSED ON THE CERTIFICATION FORMS.
PROCESS OF DETERMINING COMPENSATION FOR OFFICERS AND OTHER KEY EMPLOYEES PART VI, SECTION B: POLICIES, LINE 15 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION FOR THE CEO, CFO, SECRETARY AND KEY EMPLOYEE OF THE ORGANIZATION. THE TREASURER'S AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMPENSATION IS REVIEWED AND SET BY THE CEO. IN 2008, AN OUTSIDE COMPENSATION CONSULTING FIRM WAS ENGAGED TO PROVIDE EXPERT INFORMATION REGARDING INDUSTRY-WIDE COMPENSATION NORMS AND AGAIN IN LATE 2010. RESULTS OF THE 2010 INDEPENDENT REVIEW ARE EXPECTED IN EARLY 2011 AND WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE RELIES ON THIS INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT REASONABLE COMPENSATION IS PAID TO THE CEO, CFO, SECRETARY AND KEY EMPLOYEE. THE COMMITTEE'S PHILOSOPHY IS TO ENSURE THAT THE COMPENSATION FOR THESE POSITIONS RELATIVE TO MARKET COMPARISONS IS COMPETITIVE IN ORDER TO ATTRACT, RETAIN AND MOTIVATE QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES WHILE NOT BEING AT THE TOP OF THE RANGE. THE COMMITTEE SETS THE COMPENSATION FOR THE CEO, CFO, SECRETARY AND KEY EMPLOYEE EACH YEAR DURING THEIR MEETING WHICH IS TYPICALLY HELD IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY. MINUTES FROM THESE ANNUAL MEETINGS ARE TAKEN BY THE CORPORATE SECRETARY DURING THE MEETING. WHEN THE MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED, THEY ARE RETAINED WITH ALL OTHER CORPORATE RECORDS.
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC PART VI, SECTION C: DISCLOSURE, LINE 19 IT IS NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S ("THE CENTER") POLICY TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION, UPON REQUEST, EITHER WRITTEN OR IN PERSON, ITS EXEMPTION APPLICATION, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND ANY LETTER OR DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE IRS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION. THE CENTER ALSO MAKES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AND COPYING, UPON REQUEST, EITHER WRITTEN OR IN PERSON, ITS FEDERAL FORM 990, RETURN OF ORGANIZATION EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX. THE FORM 990 IS AVAILABLE FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING WITH THE DUE DATE OF THE RETURN (INCLUDING ANY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING). THE FOUNDATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST, EITHER WRITTEN OR IN PERSON.
AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2 NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 WERE AUDITED ON A SEPARATE BASIS AS WELL AS PART OF NFIB, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. NFIB, INC. HAS AN AUDIT COMMITTEE WHICH ASSUMES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT.
HOURS DEVOTED FOR RELATED ORGANIZATION FORM 990 PART VII NAME:DONALD A DANNER TITLE:PRESIDENT/CEO HOURS:40
HOURS DEVOTED FOR RELATED ORGANIZATION FORM 990 PART VII NAME:MARY BLASINSKY TITLE:SVP/SECRETARY HOURS:40
HOURS DEVOTED FOR RELATED ORGANIZATION FORM 990 PART VII NAME:TAMMY S BOEHMS TITLE:SVP/CFO HOURS:40
HOURS DEVOTED FOR RELATED ORGANIZATION FORM 990 PART VII NAME:JEFF SMITH TITLE:TREASURER HOURS:40
HOURS DEVOTED FOR RELATED ORGANIZATION FORM 990 PART VII NAME:SUSAN M ECKERLY TITLE:SVP HOURS:35
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Cat. No. 51056K
Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2010

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
SCHEDULE R
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Related Organizations and Unrelated Partnerships
MediumBulletComplete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 33, 34, 35, 36, or 37.
MediumBulletAttach to Form 990. MediumBullet See separate instructions.

OMB No. 1545-0047
2010
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
 
Employer identification number

62-1570449
Part I
Identification of Disregarded Entities (Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 33.)
(a)
Name, address, and EIN of disregarded entity


(b)
Primary activity


 		(c)
Legal domicile (state
or foreign country)

 		(d)
Total income
(e)
End-of-year assets


 		(f)
Direct controlling
entity

















Part II
Identification of Related Tax-Exempt Organizations (Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 34 because it had one or more related tax-exempt organizations during the tax year.)
(a)
Name, address, and EIN of related organization


(b)
Primary activity


 		(c)
Legal domicile (state
or foreign country)

 		(d)
Exempt Code section
(e)
Public charity status
(if section 501(c)(3))

 		(f)
Direct controlling
entity

 		(g)
Section 512(b)(13) controlled organization
Yes No
(1) NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUS

53 CENTURY BLVD SUITE 250

NASHVILLE,TN37214
94-0707299 		MEM. REPRES. CA 501(C)(6) N/A NA
 
 
 
(2) NFIB RESEARCH FOUNDATION

53 CENTURY BLVD SUITE 250

NASHVILLE,TN37214
04-3592337 		RESEARCH TN 501(C)(3) SUP. ORG. I NFIB
 
 
 
(3) NFIB YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR FOUNDATION

53 CENTURY BLVD SUITE 250

NASHVILLE,TN37214
62-1557196 		EDUCATION TN 501(C)(3) SUP. ORG. I NFIB
 
 
 
(4) NFIB FEDERAL SAFE TRUST

53 CENTURY BLVD SUITE 250

NASHVILLE,TN37214
94-2532364 		PAC CA 527 N/A NFIB
 
 
 






For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
Cat. No. 50135Y
Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Page 2
Part III
Identification of Related Organizations Taxable as a Partnership (Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 34 because it had one or more related organizations treated as a partnership during the tax year.)
(a)
Name, address, and EIN of
related organization



 		(b)
Primary activity




 		(c)
Legal
domicile
(state or foreign
country)


 		(d)
Direct controlling
entity



 		(e)
Predominant income(related, unrelated, excluded from tax under sections 512-514)

(f)
Share of total income




 		(g)
Share of end-of-year
assets



 		(h)
Disproprtionate allocations?




 		(i)
Code V—UBI
amount in box 20 of
Schedule K-1
(Form 1065)
 		(j)
General or
managing
partner?



 		(k)
Percentage
ownership
Yes No Yes No












Part IV
Identification of Related Organizations Taxable as a Corporation or Trust (Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 34 because it had one or more related organizations treated as a corporation or trust during the tax year.)
(a)
Name, address, and EIN of related organization



 		(b)
Primary activity



 		(c)
Legal domicile
(state or
foreign
country)
 		(d)
Direct controlling
entity


 		(e)
Type of entity
(C corp, S corp,
or trust)

 		(f)
Share of total income



 		(g)
Share of
end-of-year
assets

 		(h)
Percentage
ownership
(1) NFIB MEMBER SERVICES CORPORATION
53 CENTURY BLVD SUITE 250
NASHVILLE,TN372143682
94-2899404 		MEMBER BENEFITS CA NA
  		C      












Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Page 3
Part V
Transactions With Related Organizations (Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 34, 35, 35A, or 36.)
Note. Complete line 1 if any entity is listed in Parts II, III or IV.
Yes
No
1 During the tax year, did the orgranization engage in any of the following transactions with one or more related organizations listed in Parts II-IV?
a Receipt of (i) interest (ii) annuities (iii) royalties (iv) rent from a controlled entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1a
 
No
b Gift, grant, or capital contribution to other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1b
 
No
c Gift, grant, or capital contribution from other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1c
Yes
 
d Loans or loan guarantees to or for other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1d
 
No
e Loans or loan guarantees by other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1e
 
No
f Sale of assets to other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1f
 
No
g Purchase of assets from other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1g
 
No
h Exchange of assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1h
 
No
i Lease of facilities, equipment, or other assets to other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1i
 
No
j Lease of facilities, equipment, or other assets from other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1j
 
No
k Performance of services or membership or fundraising solicitations for other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1k
 
No
l Performance of services or membership or fundraising solicitations by other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1l
 
No
m Sharing of facilities, equipment, mailing lists, or other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1m
Yes
 
n Sharing of paid employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1n
Yes
 
o Reimbursement paid to other organization for expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1o
Yes
 
p Reimbursement paid by other organization for expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1p
Yes
 
q Other transfer of cash or property to other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1q
 
No
r Other transfer of cash or property from other organization(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1r
 
No
2
If the answer to any of the above is "Yes," see the instructions for information on who must complete this line, including covered relationships and transaction thresholds.
(a)
Name of other organization 		(b)
Transaction
type(a-r) 		(c)
Amount involved 		(d)
Method of determining amount involved
(1) NFIB YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR FOUNDATION

 LINE 282,548  
(2) NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

 LINE 123,319  
(3) NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

 LINE 173,038  
(4) NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

 LINE 93,593  
(5)
(6)
Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Page 4
Part VI
Unrelated Organizations Taxable as a Partnership (Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 37.)
Provide the following information for each entity taxed as a partnership through which the organization conducted more than five percent of its activities (measured by total assets or gross revenue) that was not a related organization. See instructions regarding exclusion for certain investment partnerships.
(a)
Name, address, and EIN of entity 		(b)
Primary activity 		(c)
Legal domicile
(state or foreign
country) 		(d)
Are all
partners
section
501(c)(3)
organizations? 		(e)
Share of
end-of-year
assets 		(f)
Disproprtionate allocations? 		(g)
Code V—UBI
amount in box
20 of Schedule K-1
(Form 1065) 		(h)
General or
managing
partner?
Yes No Yes No Yes No






























Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Schedule R (Form 990) 2010
Page 5
Part VII
Supplemental Information
Complete this part to provide additional information for responses to questions on Schedule R (see instructions).
Identifier Return Reference Explanation
Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version: