Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (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 listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| (A)
NFIB INC |
940707299 | 09 | Yes | 0 | 0 | |
Total 1
|
0 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (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. | ||||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (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. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | ||||||
| 11 | Total support Add lines 7 through 10. | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (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.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (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 VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e | Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): | |||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions) | |||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2014 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2014 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2014 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2014: | ||||
| a From 2009.......X | ||||
| b From 2010.......X | ||||
| c From 2011.......X | ||||
| d From 2012.......X | ||||
| e From 2013....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2009 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2014 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2014, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2014. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2015. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a From 2010.......X | ||||
| b From 2011.......X | ||||
| c From 2012.......X | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| PART I, LINE 11G(A)(VI): | NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER PROVIDES A VOICE FOR SMALL BUSINESS IN |
| PART IV, LINE 3C: | DURING 2014, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER DID NOT PROVIDE ANY |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| VOLUNTEERS | FORM 990, PART I, LINE 6 IN 2014, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER USED THE SERVICES OF eighteen VOLUNTEERS. THE LEGAL CENTER HAS A twelve 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 SIX PRO BONO ATTORNEYS WRITE LEGAL BRIEFS FOR THE CENTER. |
| SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2014 | ARRANT V. GRAPHIC PACKAGING - WORKERS' COMPENSATION LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER TORT SUITS ARE PERMITTED FOR HEARING LOSS SUFFERED ON THE JOB. THE TRIAL COURT AWARDED EACH EMPLOYEE $50,000 IN DAMAGES, BUT THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED AND DISMISSED THE CASE. THE APPELLATE COURT FOUND THAT THE HEARING LOSS WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE EMPLOYERS WERE IMMUNE FROM TORT LIABILITY. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEFS FILED ON 6/11/14 AND 7/1/14. BCI COCA-COLA OF LOS ANGELES V. JOSUE - EMPLOYMENT LAW HAWAII FIRST CIRCUIT COURT THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF EXPLAINING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS IF THE COURTS SHOULD ACCEPT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE SO AS TO REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO RETURN AN EMPLOYEE TO THE SAME POSITION HE OR SHE HELD BEFORE AN INJURY WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW LONG THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN OUT OF COMMISSION. THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER ARGUED THAT THE EMPLOYER SHOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON 07/02/14. BRADKEN V. NLRB - LABOR NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS WHETHER A SETTLEMENT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE, WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING BY THE EMPLOYER, AUTOMATICALLY SCUTTLES SCHEDULED ELECTION TO DECERTIFY THE UNION. UNDER THE 2007 DECISION IN TRUSERVE CORP, A FINDING THAT AN EMPLOYER COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WOULD SCUTTLED THE ELECTION, BUT IF THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION SETTLED THE ULP, THE DECERTIFICATION ELECTION CAN PROCEED. THE UNION IS SEEKING TO OVERTURN TRUSERVE. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN SUPPORT OF EMPLOYER ON 11/7/14. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB V. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LEGAL REFORM CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER SUPPORTED BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB IN ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT. WE URGED REVERSAL OF A COURT OF APPEAL DECISION PERMITTING CALIFORNIA COURTS TO EXERCISE SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE COMPANIES IN PRODUCT LIABILITY LAWSUITS ALLEGING NO CONNECTION TO CALIFORNIA. THE APPELLATE COURT HELD THAT DUE PROCESS WAS SATISFIED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMPANY SELLS THE PRODUCT NATIONWIDE AND OTHER CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS HAVE ALLEGED SIMILAR PRODUCT-RELATED INJURIES IN CALIFORNIA COURTS. THE DECISION HAS WIDE-RANGING IMPLICATIONS FOR BOTH LARGE AND SMALLER BUSINESSES WHO SELL PRODUCTS IN SEVERAL STATES. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS LETTER FILED 9/26/14. BROWNING-FERRIS V. NLRB - LABOR NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE UNION IN THIS MATTER SEEKS TO OVERTURN BOARD PRECEDENT REGARDING JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS OF AN EMPLOYER AND A TEMPORARY STAFFING COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF UNION REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 6/27/14. CITY OF PERRIS V. STAMPER - PROPERTY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER JOINED WITH PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IN ARGUING-AS AMICUS IN THIS CASE-THAT THE CITY OF PERRIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEVALUE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT IT IS TAKING FOR A ROAD ON THE THEORY THAT IT WOULD HAVE DENIED A BUILDING PERMIT UNLESS THE OWNER HAD AGREED TO DEDICATE THE ROAD IN QUESTION. THE JOINT AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT THE "PROJECT INFLUENCE RULE" PRECLUDES A CITY FROM DEVALUING A PROPERTY IN THIS WAY, AND ARGUES FURTHER THAT THE CITY'S ARGUMENT RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/11/14. CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES LLC V. ISKANIAN - EMPLOYMENT U.S. SUPREME COURT - CERT PETITION THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE A CASE THAT WOULD AFFIRM WHETHER EMPLOYERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESOLVE LEGAL DISPUTES THROUGH ARBITRATION RATHER THAN THROUGH COSTLY COURT BATTLES. THE CASE ASKS WHETHER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTS STATE LAWS THAT WOULD INHIBIT EMPLOYERS FROM ENTERING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYEES ON TERMS THAT MAY REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL PENALTIES-ON TOP OF A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 10/20/14. PETITION DENIED. DART CHEROKEE V. OWENS - LEGAL REFORM U.S. SUPREME COURT THE CASE CONCERNS WHETHER A DEFENDANT SEEKING TO REMOVE A CASE TO FEDERAL COURT MUST SUPPORT A MOTION FOR REMOVAL WITH EVIDENCE PROVING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. THE AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT A DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO COME FORTH WITH SUCH EVIDENCE UPON FILING A MOTION BECAUSE THIS WOULD GIVE PLAINTIFFS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER DEFENDANTS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 5/29/14. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES V. WHITETAIL BLUFF - REGULATORY INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS INDIANA IS HOME TO HUNDREDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE DEER AND ELK HUNTING PRESERVES. ACTIVISTS HAVE PRESSURED THE STATE FOR YEARS TO SHUT THEM DOWN. SEVERAL YEARS AGO OFFICIALS FROM THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) PASSED A RULE BANNING THE CLOSED HUNTING PRESERVES. A CIRCUIT COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF NFIB MEMBER RODNEY STONE FINDING THAT DNR OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY BY TRYING TO CLOSE THE BUSINESSES. THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS SUPPORTING MR. STONE IN THE STATE'S APPEAL. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 8/14/14. COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF MR. STONE AND STATE REQUESTED REVIEW BY SUPREME COURT. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED OPPOSING REVIEW ON 3/27/15. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS - REGULATORY U.S. SUPREME COURT THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED AMTRAK REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER ITS PRIORITY OF SERVICE AMONG RAILROADS. SUCH A DELEGATION, ACCORDING TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT, VIOLATES A "COUSIN" OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL NON-DELEGATION DOCTRINE. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 9/29/14. DECIDED 3/9/15 - HELD AMTRAK IS A GOVERNMENT BODY. DIRECT MARKETING ASSOC. V. BROHL - TAX U.S. SUPREME COURT THE CASE STEMS FROM A CHALLENGE OF A COLORADO NOTICE AND REPORTING LAW REQUIRING OUT-OF-STATE MERCHANTS TO DISCLOSE CONFIDENTIAL PURCHASE HISTORY INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR COLORADO CUSTOMERS TO THE STATE'S REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS MAY HEAR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE REGULATIONS THAT ONLY INDIRECTLY RELATE TO STATE TAX LAWS DURING ITS UPCOMING TERM. STATUS: NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 9/16/14. DECIDED 3/3/15. DUMMIT V. CRANE CO. - LEGAL REFORM NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT WILL CONSIDER WHETHER A MANUFACTURER OF A PRODUCT SUCH AS A PUMP OR VALVE HAS A DUTY TO WARN ABOUT ASBESTOS-CONTAINING REPLACEMENT PARTS (GASKETS AND PACKING) OR EXTERNALLY APPLIED THERMAL INSULATION MADE BY OTHERS AND USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCTS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 9/30/14. EEOC V. FREEMAN - EMPLOYMENT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN 2013, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN MARYLAND DISMISSED THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION'S (EEOC) CASE AGAINST FREEMAN COMPANIES FOR WHAT THE COMMISSION ALLEGED AS DISCRIMINATORY HIRING PRACTICES RELATED TO FREEMAN'S USE OF CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS AND CREDIT REPORTS. THE EEOC HAS APPEALED. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/9/14. COURT AFFIRMED JUDGMENT FOR FREEMAN ON 2/20/15. EEOC V. STERLING JEWELERS - EMPLOYMENT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN ITS SUIT, THE EEOC ACCUSED STERLING OF HAVING A NATIONWIDE PATTERN OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WOMEN WHEN IT CAME TO PAY AND PROMOTION. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE FINDING THAT THE EEOC FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT IT CONDUCTED A THOROUGH, NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION OF STERLING'S EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES PRIOR TO FILING THE LAWSUIT. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 12/17/14. EXXONMOBIL V. NYC - LEGAL REFORM U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT EXXON HAS APPEALED ITS $100 MILLION JURY VERDICT REGARDING MTBE. THE AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF EXXON MAINTAINS THAT THE ENTIRE AWARD WAS BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL DAMAGE THAT MIGHT OCCUR. THE BRIEF ARGUES THAT AN AWARD BASED ON A "IF THIS THEN THAT" FUTURE INJURY VIOLATES BASIC TORT PRINCIPLES OF CAUSATION AND COULD BE VERY PROBLEMATIC IN THE PRODUCT LIABILITY ARENA. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/28/11. NY APPELLATE COURT RULED AGAINST EXXON. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED CERT PETITION 2/12/14. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. WYNDHAM - REGULATORY U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF N |
| SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2014 (CONT.) | FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4a Kentner v. City of Sanibel - Property Rights U.S. Supreme Court - cert petition THE CITY OF SANIBEL, FLORIDA ENACTED AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING NEW DOCKS ALONG THE COAST. THE STATED PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT SEA GRASS, BUT THERE IS NO EXCEPTION THAT MIGHT ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS ON PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT CONTAIN SEA GRASS, NOR ANY ALLOWANCE FOR DESIGNS THAT MIGHT AVOID DAMAGE TO SEA GRASS. THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE CITY'S ORDINANCE AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE. THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING ASKED TO OVERTURN THE ORDINANCE AND REAFFIRM THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PROTECTED FROM ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE CONFISCATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF PROPERTY. STATUS: DENIED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ON 11/03/14. COURT DENIED REVIEW. Kent Recycling v. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Reform U.S. Supreme Court - cert petition THIS CASE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL HELD THAT A LANDOWNER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO PURSUE A CHALLENGE ARMY CORPS OR EPA'S ASSERTION OF CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION OVER THEIR PROPERTY. SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT HELD THAT THE ONLY WAY TO BRING SUCH A CHALLENGE A CWA JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION IS TO EITHER (A) APPLY FOR A PERMIT THAT THE OWNER DOES NOT BELIEVE IS NEEDED, AND TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF THAT APPLICATION; OR (B) PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITHOUT A PERMIT, AT WHICH POINT THE OWNER COULD RAISE A JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. IN OUR AMICUS BRIEF, WE URGE THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE BECAUSE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ANY FINAL AGENCY ACTION THAT HAS AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON THE BUSINESS' RIGHTS. AS WE ARGUE, A DECISION TO ASSERT CWA JURISDICTION OVER A SPECIFIC PROPERTY HAS IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE IT MEANS THE OWNER CANNOT MAKE ANY USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING A COSTLY PERMIT. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ON 12/01/14. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED 3/23/15. Kerr v. Hickenlooper - Tax U.S. Supreme Court - cert petition THE TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS, KNOWN BY THE ACRONYM TABOR, REQUIRES A PUBLIC REFERENDUM ON TAX INCREASES AND TIGHTLY LIMITS SPENDING. PLAINTIFFS ARE CHALLENGING THE MEASURE ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT UNFAIRLY RESTRICTS THE LEGISLATURE FROM DOING ITS JOB. THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER ASSERTS THAT OVERTURNING TABOR WOULD OPEN THE FLOODGATES FOR LITIGATION AGAINST VOTER-ENACTED SPENDING CONTROLS AROUND THE COUNTRY, AND UNDERMINE COLORADO VOTERS' DECISION TO KEEP GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN CHECK. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 2/12/13. COURT UPHELD DISMISSAL OF CASE 2/14/14. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED IN SUPPORT OF CERT PETITION TO SUPREME COURT FILED 11/20/14. Kurtz v. Verizon - Property Rights U.S. Supreme Court - cert petition IN THIS CASE PROPERTY OWNERS IN NEW YORK ADVANCED A DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN CHALLENGE TO VERIZON'S PLAN TO INSTALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON THEIR BUILDINGS. THEY SOUGHT TO BRING THE CLAIM IN FEDERAL COURT, BUT THE SECOND CIRCUIT HELD THAT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS MUST BE BROUGHT IN STATE COURT, IF THE OWNER COULD POTENTIALLY ADVANCE A TAKINGS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED A BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THIS CASE TO ENSURE THAT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VINDICATE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN FEDERAL COURT. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED 9/13/14. CERTIORARI DENIED 1/20/15. Mach Mining v. EEOC - Employment U.S. Supreme Court (cert petition and merits) THE COURT WILL CONSIDER WHETHER THE EEOC'S COMPLIANCE WITH PRE-SUIT ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING CONCILIATION, IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND, IF SO, WHAT LEVEL OF REVIEW IS WARRANTED. EEOC SUED MACH MINING ALLEGING THAT IT ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL DISPARATE IMPACT AND PATTERN-OR-PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN ITS HIRING FOR NON-OFFICE POSITIONS. IN ITS ANSWER, MACH ASSERTED THAT THE EEOC FAILED TO SATISFY ITS STATUTORY DUTY TO CONCILIATE PRIOR TO FILING SUIT. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED 8/28/13. COURT ADOPTED EEOC'S POSITION 12/20/13. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED AMICUS SUPPORTING CERT PETITION 3/27/14. COURT ACCEPTED REVIEW. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED MERITS BRIEF 9/11/14. Maryland v. Wynne - Tax U.S. Supreme Court IN THIS CASE THE COURT WILL DECIDE THE SCOPE OF A STATE'S POWER TO TAX RESIDENTS' INCOME WHEN THOSE EARNINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED BY ANOTHER STATE. THE CASE INVOLVES TAX RULES IN MARYLAND REQUIRING THE STATE TO COLLECT TAXES ON RESIDENTS' INCOME FOR USE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, NO MATTER IF THAT INCOME HAS BEEN TAXED BY ANOTHER STATE. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 9/29/14. Mobil Corporation v. Johnson - Legal Reform Florida Court of Appeal THIS APPEAL INVOLVES THE INTERSECTION OF SCIENCE AND LAW WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS BELIEVED TO BE THE FIRST CASE TO BE TRIED OF THE THOUSANDS OF ASBESTOS CASES THAT HAVE BEEN PENDING IN THE FLORIDA COURTS FOR OVER A DECADE AND THAT INVOLVE PLAINTIFFS WITH LITTLE OR NO PRESENT PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT. IF FLORIDA COURTS PERMIT LIABILITY TO BE IMPOSED WITHOUT REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED A SUFFICIENT DOSE OF A DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT TO DEVELOP THE CONDITION ALLEGED, THEN THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT DEFENDANTS IN THE COUNTLESS PENDING FLORIDA ASBESTOS CASES - AS WELL AS DEFENDANTS IN OTHER LATENT INJURY CASES - COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR HARMS THAT ARE THE FAULT OF OTHERS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 10/17/14. Murray v. Motorola, Inc. - Legal Reform D.C. Court of Appeals THE D.C. COURT IS BEING ASKED TO REJECT THE FRYE STANDARD AND ADOPT THE MORE RELIABLE AND MODERN DAUBERT STANDARD FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 10/24/14. COURT GRANTED REVIEW AND AMICUS BRIEF ON MERITS FILED 2/25/15. Murray Energy v. EPA - Regulatory D.C. Court of Appeals THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER INTERVENED IN A CASE CHALLENGING EPA'S AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE GREENHOUSE GAS RULES FOR EXISTING STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER SECTION 111(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION FILED 2 CASES AND A GROUP OF 12 STATES (LED BY WEST VIRGINIA) FILED A THIRD CHALLENGE TO EPA'S AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE SECTION 111(D) EXISTING SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD. THE THREE CASES PRESENT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME LEGAL ARGUMENT-THAT EPA IS PRECLUDED FROM PROCEEDING TO REGULATE SOURCES UNDER SECTION 111(D) THAT ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER SECTION 112. THE COURT HAS AGREED TO HEAR ALL THREE CASES ON THE SAME DAY. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED A MOTION TO INTERVENE AND IT WAS GRANTED IN NOVEMBER 2014. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED A MERITS BRIEF 12/30/14. NFIB v. Gessler - Tax and Regulatory District Court for City and County of Denver SEEKING ENFORCEMENT OF THE TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER SUED SECRETARY OF STATE SCOTT GESSLER. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE STATE COLLECTS APPROXIMATELY $20 MILLION PER YEAR FROM BUSINESSES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH THE STATE. HOWEVER, THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE DOESN'T JUST REGULATE BUSINESSES, IT RUNS THE STATE'S ELECTIONS OPERATIONS, REGULATES BINGOS AND RAFFLES, AND CONDUCTS OTHER FUNCTIONS NOT RELATED TO BUSINESSES, ALL OF WHICH IS FUNDED BY THE MONEY COLLECTED FROM BUSINESSES SMALL AND LARGE. THE OFFICE RECEIVES NO MONEY FROM THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND. BECAUSE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BUSINESS LICENSING CHARGES ARE APPROPRIATED TO DEFRAY THE DEPARTMENT'S AND THE STATE'S GENERAL EXPENSES, THE BUSINESS LICENSING CHARGES ARE A TAX AND NOT A FEE." THUS, THE STATE IS IMPOSING AN ILLEGAL TAX ON SMALL BUSINESSES TO FUND OBLIGATIONS THAT SHOULD BE A COST SHARED BY EVERYONE. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER COMPLAINT FILED 12/22/14. Nestle-Dreyer v. NLRB - Micro union challenge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ON DECEMBER 28, 2011, THE NLRB UPHELD A REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S UNIT DETERMINATION OF MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AT NESTLE DREYER'S ICE CREAM PLANT. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION WAS BASED ON THE MICRO-UNION STANDARD FROM SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE. NESTLE-DREYER LOST THE ELECTION AND REFUSED TO BARGAIN. ON MAY 18, THE BOARD ISSUED A DECISION FINDING THE COMPANY COMMITTED A ULP BY DOING SO. NESTLE DRYER HAS APPEALED THE ULP DECISION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CHALLENGING THE MICRO UNION STANDARD. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED AMICUS BRIEF ON 7/11/12. AGAIN CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND FOURTH CIRCUIT (POST-NOEL CANNING). BRIEF FILED 1/13/15. Nissan Company v. Maddox - Legal Reform Kentucky Supreme Court THE STATE COURT WILL DECIDE THE TYPE |
| SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2014 (CONT.) | FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4a Sisson v. RadioShack - Wage and Hour U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit THE APPEAL CONCERNS THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S DETERMINATION THAT EMPLOYERS WHO PAY BONUS, PREMIUM PAY, OR COMMISSION IN ADDITION TO A FIXED SALARY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO USE THE FLUCTUATING WORKWEEK METHOD OF CALCULATING OVERTIME COMPENSATION. DOL'S INTERPRETATION IS A REVERSAL FROM PREVIOUS HOLDINGS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/29/14. Smith v. Capital Region Medical Center - Workers' Compensation Missouri Court of Appeals THE COURT IS REVIEWING A RULING THAT EXPANDS EMPLOYEES' CAPACITY TO RECEIVE WORKERS' COMPENSATION PAYMENTS BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXPOSURE TO DISEASE. THE LOWER COURT DECISION EXPOSES EMPLOYERS TO FAR GREATER EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS BASED ON A MORE LAX STANDARD FOR ESTABLISHING A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT AND A WORKER'S DISEASE. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 6/26/14. Snyder v. CIGA - Regulatory California Supreme Court - Letter Brief THIS CASE RAISES AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT MAY AFFECT BUSINESSES DEALING WITH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CLAIMS. UNLESS THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TAKES THE CASE, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS MAY BE FORCED TO PAY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CLAIMS OUT-OF-POCKET IN THE EVENT THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY SHOULD BECOME INSOLVENT. BECAUSE THIS MAY DISRUPT THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SYSTEM, AND MAY HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS PAYING INTO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS ASKING THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE NOW. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 12/01/14. Stewart Jasper Orchards v. Jewell - Regulatory Supreme Court - cert petition 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, LEADING TO NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S DECISION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWSUIT. THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT FWS HAD NO OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR. ACCORDINGLY, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS NOW URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THE CASE AGAIN. SPECIFICALLY, WE ARGUE THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO OVERTURN TVA V. HILL, A CASE FROM 1970S, WHICH HELD THAT ENDANGERED SPECIES MUST BE PROTECTED "WHATEVER THE COST." STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER 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 FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT RULED THAT THE WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF CERT PETITION TO U.S. SUPREME COURT 7/25/11. COURT DENIED CERT ON 10/31/11. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF A SECOND PETITION TO SUPREME COURT ON 11/03/14. COURT DENIED REVIEW. Texas v. Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. - Property Rights Texas Supreme Court THE STATE OF TEXAS APPEALS A DECISION AWARDING COMPENSATION TO A BILLBOARD OWNER. HERE THE STATE REQUIRED THE BILLBOARD REMOVED FOR A HIGHWAY EXPANSION PROJECT. THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT BILLBOARD OWNERS DESERVE COMPENSATION WHENEVER GOVERNMENT REQUIRES REMOVAL, AND THAT THE COMPENSATION AWARD SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE POTENTIAL REVENUE THAT THE BILLBOARD COULD BRING FOR A PROSPECTIVE BUYER. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 07/25/14. Thyssenkrup Waupaca Foundries v. DeKeyser - Employment U.S. Supreme Court - cert petition THIS CASE CONCERNS WHETHER DONNING AND DOFFING IS COMPENSABLE IF THE EMPLOYER ENCOURAGED, BUT DID NOT REQUIRE, ITS IRON FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES TO SHOWER AND CHANGE CLOTHES BEFORE AND AFTER THEIR SHIFTS. EMPLOYEES SUED FOR UNPAID OVERTIME, AND THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CONCLUDING THAT "THE FACT THAT OSHA HAS PROMULGATED A STANDARD FOR [HAZARDOUS MATERIAL] EXPOSURE THAT DOES NOT MANDATE CHANGING CLOTHES AND SHOWERING AFTER WORK REQUIRES THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE NATURE OF THE WORK." NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED AN AMICUS IN SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYER'S CERT PETITION. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 8/26/14. REVIEW DENIED ON 11/3/14. T-Mobile v. City of Roswell - Regulatory U.S. Supreme Court THE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS WHETHER A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 THAT ANY DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO INSTALL A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY BE "IN WRITING AND SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" IF IT FAILS TO SPECIFY ANY REASONS FOR ITS DENIAL. PRIOR TO THE 1996 ACT, LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITIES OFTEN DRAGGED THEIR FEET OR OTHERWISE SOUGHT TO PREVENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES FROM SITING VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE (SUCH AS THE CELL PHONE TOWERS AT ISSUE HERE) IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO FIX THAT PROBLEM BY REQUIRING DENIALS TO BE SUBJECT TO EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 7/10/14. United Steel v. Sweeney - Labor Indiana State Superior Court NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN PUSHING FOR THE PASSAGE OF INDIANA'S RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE IN INDIANA, WHICH GUARANTEES EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH A UNION. UNDER THE STATE'S RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE, UNIONS CAN NO LONGER INSIST THAT EMPLOYERS CONDITION JOB OFFERS ON A REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEE JOIN THE UNION. BUT, SEVERAL UNIONS HAVE FILED LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE LAW. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER JOINED WITH NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK IN AN AMICUS DEFENDING THE INDIANA RIGHT TO WORK LAW HERE. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 1/10/14 SUPPORTING THE LAW. Walston v. Boeing - Labor Washington Supreme Court WASHINGTON LAW PROVIDES A FORM OF IMMUNITY FOR EMPLOYERS FOR POTENTIAL LAWSUITS STEMMING FROM WORKPLACE INJURIES. UNDER THE STATE'S STATUTORY REGIME, EMPLOYEES MUST PURSUE SUCH CLAIMS THROUGH WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE, AND CAN ONLY ADVANCE A LAWSUIT WHERE THE EMPLOYER INTENTIONALLY CAUSED HIS OR HER INJURIES. BUT IN THIS CASE, A FORMER EMPLOYEE SEEKS TO UPSET THIS LONG-SETTLED UNDERSTANDING-ARGUING THAT HE CAN ADVANCE AN ASBESTOS LAWSUIT BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER KNEW THAT THERE WAS A CHANCE THAT, WHEN HE WAS EXPOSED TO CERTAIN CHEMICALS, THE EMPLOYEE MIGHT HAVE SUFFERED INJURIES ON THE MOLECULAR LEVEL. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER JOINED WITH OTHER INDUSTRY GROUPS IN REBUFFING THIS THEORY-AS IT WOULD OPEN EMPLOYERS TO A NEW ROUND OF ASBESTOS LAWSUITS. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 1/13/14. Warne v. Hall - Legal Reform Colorado Supreme Court THE CASE ARISES OUT OF A LAND USE DISPUTE AND CONCERNS WHETHER COLORADO SHOULD ADOPT THE IQBAL/TWOMBLY PLEADING STANDARD. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ON 12/15/14. Webb v. Special Electric - Legal Reform California Supreme Court THE COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER A SUPPLIER OF HAZARDOUS RAW MATERIALS TO A MANUFACTURER OF FINISHED PRODUCTS CAN BE FOUND LIABLE ON A FAILURE-TO-WARN THEORY TO A PLAINTIFF EXPOSED WHILE WORKING WITH THE FINISHED PRODUCT. THE CASE DIRECTLY IMPLICATES CALIFORNIA'S DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOPHISTICATED USER DOCTRINE, AND PRESENTS THE COURT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT APPLIES TO DISCHARGE ANY DUTY TO WARN WHERE THE USER IS A SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIATE PURCHASER OF THE PRODUCT, RATHER THAN THE END-USER. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/18/14. Westerville, OH v. Taylor - Property Rights Ohio Court of Appeals - Tenth district THE CITY OF WESTERVILLE HAS MOVED TO TAKE TAYLOR'S PROPERTY FOR A SELF-DESCRIBED "BEAUTIFICATION" AND "BRANDING" PROJECT TO PROMOTE A NEW IMAGE FOR THE CITY. CLAIMING ITS RIGHT TO DO SO UNDER THE POLICE POWER, THE CITY IS TAKING THE MAIN ACCESS POINT TO MR. TAYLOR'S BUSINESS AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION AND ELIMINATING ITS ON-STREET SIGNAGE. DESPITE TAKING THE OWNER'S PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE VISIBILITY OF A BUSINESS FROM THE STREET, THE CITY CONTENDS THAT THE OWNER IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF VISIBILITY. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 3/5/14. Wills v. RadioShack - Wage and Hour U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit THE APPEAL CONCERNS THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S DETERMINATION THAT EMPLOYERS WHO PAY BONUS, PREMIUM PAY, OR COMMISSION IN ADDITION TO A FIXED SALARY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO USE THE FLUCTU |
| SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2014 (CONT.) | FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4a Young v. UPS - Employment U.S. Supreme Court IN THIS CASE, THE EMPLOYER DENIED A REQUEST FOR A WORK REASSIGNMENT BASED ON A COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENT. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER ARGUES THAT ALTHOUGH THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT (PDA) REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO TREAT WOMEN "AFFECTED BY PREGNANCY, CHILDBIRTH, OR RELATED MEDICAL CONDITIONS" THE SAME IN ALL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT AS OTHER EMPLOYEES, IT STOPS SHORT OF IMPOSING AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY ON EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE PREGNANCY-RELATED WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE NOT OFFERED CATEGORICALLY TO ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES. STATUS: DECIDED. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 10/31/14. ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 12/3/14. THE COURT RULED THAT THE PDA IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION ON EMPLOYERS TO GIVE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO PREGNANT EMPLOYEES, BUT THAT EMPLOYERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T OFFER THE ACCOMMODATION. Zoeller v. United Steel - Labor IN Supreme Court IN THIS CASE A LABOR UNION CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INDIANA'S RIGHT TO WORK LAW. THE UNION ARGUES THAT THE RIGHT TO WORK LAW VIOLATES INDIANA'S CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST FORCED SERVITUDE ON THE THEORY IT COMPELS UNIONS TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE REPRESENTATION. IN RESPONSE, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER JOINED WITH NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK IN DEFENDING INDIANA'S RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE. WE ARGUED THAT FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTS THE UNION'S ARGUMENTS IN ALLOWING STATES TO ENACT RIGHT TO WORK STATUTES. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 12/13/13. Zucker v. U.S. CPSC - Regulatory Reform U.S. District of Maryland MR. ZUCKER HAS INITIATED THIS LAWSUIT ASKING A FEDERAL COURT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE U.S. CONSUMER PROTECTION SAFETY COMMISSION (US CPSC) BECAUSE THE AGENCY IS SEEKING TO HOLD HIM PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR A 54 MILLION DOLLAR RECALL OF A PRODUCT THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN PRODUCED BY A COMPANY THAT HE HAD FOUNDED. THE COMPANY HAS NOW DISSOLVED, AND US CPSC SEEKS TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL TO HOLD ZUCKER PERSONALLY LIABLE. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER FILED A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMICUS BRIEF OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN THIS MATTER, URGING THE COURT TO RULE IN ZUCKER'S FAVOR. STATUS: PENDING. NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER AMICUS BRIEF FILED 4/11/14. |
| FORM 990 PROVIDED TO GOVERNING BODY | PART VI, SECTION B: POLICIES, 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'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 RETURN IS REVIEWED BY THE CHAIR OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE FINAL RETURN IS THEN FILED WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. |
| WRITTEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY | PART VI, SECTION B: POLICIES, LINE 12 EVERY BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, AND KEY EMPLOYEE OF NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. |
| 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 OF NFIB IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION FOR THE CEO, CFO, SECRETARY AND SVPS OF THE ORGANIZATION. THE TREASURER'S AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMPENSATION IS REVIEWED AND SET BY THE CEO. IN NOVEMBER 2014, AN OUTSIDE COMPENSATION CONSULTING FIRM WAS ENGAGED TO PROVIDE EXPERT ANALYSES REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE TOTAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR THE EXECUTIVES OF NFIB AND ITS AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS. THE 2014-2015 RESULTS ALONG WITH AN IRC 4958 OPINION LETTER WERE PROVIDED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AT THE FEBRUARY 2015 MEETING. THE COMMITTEE RELIES ON THIS INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT REASONABLE COMPENSATION IS PAID TO THE CEO, CFO, SECRETARY AND SVPS. 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 SVPs EACH YEAR DURING THEIR MEETING WHICH IS TYPICALLY HELD IN 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. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |