The Civil Pretrial Practice Advocacy is the newest division of the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification.

If you get in a workplace dispute, watch your emotions carefully.  If you lose your cool, you will likely lose your job.

People understandably feel strong emotions when confronted with strong emotions– say if a boss or HR rep is treating you condenscendingly, sarcastically, or worse, is yelling at you.  If these things happen, it is hard not to let emotions well up and take over.  But that is exactly what you have to prevent.

If management loses their cool, they keep their jobs.  You do not make the decision whether your managers keep their jobs, when they lost their cool in dealing with you.  But if you lose YOUR cool in dealing with them, then they can choose whether to label your actions “insubordination” or “misconduct”, etc.  They can choose to fire you.

These are simple concepts.  But the minute a worker gets into a dispute, he is quick to forget the logical concepts above, and likely to lose his cool.  Don’t lose your cool.  It will do you no good, and will likely cost you your job.

News Reports About “Meat Glue” Being Used to Bind Cheap Meat Scraps Together As “Filets”

There have been recent news reports, including this ABC affiliate’s report, about “meat glue”– a product apparently being used by some meat suppliers and restaurants to “glue” together pieces of inexpensive meat (e.g. stew scraps) and make them appear to be a single piece of high-quality meat (e.g. pieced into one cut resembling filet mignon).

The meat-glue substance itself is a powder mix, sold under the brand names Activa or Fibrimex.  The Activa product, made by the company Ajinomoto, is made with the enzyme transglutaminase, also called TG or TGase.  The Fibrimex product is made with the enzyme fibrin.  The use of the meat glue products and their enzymes is not illegal, in and of itself.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has permitted the use of the TG enzyme under certain circumstances.  Under FSIS regulations, a meat supplier which meat-glues a given product, and thus uses the TG enzyme in that product, must comply with several important requirements, including these: (1) the product must declare the presence of TG enzyme in the list of ingredients on the product’s label; and (2) the product name must be labeled to bear the term “formed” or “reformed” in conjunction with product name.

Potential Health Safety Issue, Due to Bacteria

According to some media accounts (e.g. here and here), use of meat glue could present a public-health risk, because scraps of meat have a significant amount of bacteria on their surfaces, and when they are pieced together into one piece, they have more bacteria distributed throughout the meat than does a natural single cut of meat (which does not have significant bacteria at its center).  If a meat-glued meat piece is served rare or not cooked properly, it could present more risk to the consumer than a natural cut of meat.

It must be noted the media articles discuss potential risks, and there has not been any specific instance reported in the media accounts I saw where any meat-glued product had caused health concerns for any specific consumer.  But independent of any safety concern, there is a growing concern that consumers may not be informed and aware of certain instances when they are eating meat-glued meat.

Particular Meat Suppliers Not Labeling Meat-Glued Products As “Formed,” “Reformed” Etc. As Required?

News articles I have seen have shown examples of how meat glue is used, but the examples are typically conducted by food-industry people who (while knowing how meat glue works and is used) do not use meat glue in their own business.  Of note, the articles have not identified any specific meat supplier who have violated labeling requirements by not labeling TG-altered products as “reformed” or “formed”, or by not including transglutaminase (TG or TGase) in that product’s ingredients. It is certainly possible, however, that this is a systemic practice being conducted by particular meat suppliers.

Restaurants Failing to Disclose Meat-Glued Products, e.g. Buying “Reformed” Meat and Selling to Customers As “Filets”?

The news articles I’ve seen have not identified any specific restaurants who use meat-glued products, or how such restaurants are labeling those products in menus and otherwise.

From my review of FSIS regulations, it is not certain whether restaurants using TG- altered meat products are required to label the product for the consumer/menu (e.g. the FSIS requirement to label as “reformed” or “formed” as referenced above) or to otherwise disclose that their product is something other than the consumer understands it to be. In my view, some– but not all– restaurant operations are exempted from the FSIS labeling requirement, so there is legal gray area there.

Aside from the FSIS disclosure requirement, there could be violations of false advertising-related laws if a restaurant or supplier knowingly labels items of meat to be something they are not (e.g. calling meat-glued scraps a “filet”), or knowingly conceals important information from the consumer.

I have not heard of any specific restaurants, suppliers or situations where meat-glue altered meat is not labeled properly; whether there are actual violations of law and/or safety standards depends on the circumstances.

Are you aware of restaurants or suppliers using meat-glued and re-formed meat (whether if it was meat-glued by suppliers or meat-glued by the practices of the restaurant itself), and not labeling the meat in a way customers would understand that’s the case?  If so and you are interested in discussing this privately, please call me (Attorney Michael Brown) at 920-858-2265 or please email me at mbrown@pbclaw.com.

If you are a worker in a dispute — whether it’s a dispute with your current employer’s management, a dispute with your former employer about unemployment benefits, etc.– there is something important you should know.

Regardless of what the employer may have done wrong, YOU are probably the person who is under the most scrutiny, and who has the most to lose. That is, you are probably the one on the hotseat.

For example, if you are subject to a disciplinary meeting or grievance process at work, it may well be that the discipline is unfair.  However, the nature of that sort of proceeding (whether the discipline is fair or not) is to decide whether YOU did something wrong.  That sort of proceeding is NOT a proceeding to determine whether others (coworkers, management, etc.) did something wrong. You are on the hotseat, not them.

Similarly, in an unemployment hearing, it is usually the judge’s job to decide whether the WORKER did something wrong.  Whether the worker committed misconduct or not, whether the worker quit without good cause or not, etc.  It is usually not part of the unemployment judge’s function to decide whether the employer did something wrong.  So again, YOU would be on the hotseat, not the employer.

If you are in a dispute at work or in a legal proceeding, before you make any assumptions or take any actions, ask yourself this: “Who is on the hotseat here?”  That is, ask yourself what the purpose of the proceeding is– to examine YOUR wrongdoing or the employer’s.

Chances are, the proceeding is geared to investigate your wrongdoing.  Chances are, you are the one on the hotseat.  If you are not sure who is on the hotseat, then don’t make any assumptions, and talk to an attorney.

If you are in fact the one on the hotseat, then it is very important you know this: the worst thing to do while on the hotseat is to blame others for their wrongdoing.  If you’re accused of starting a fire (falsely or not), then that is not a good occasion to talk about others’ tax fraud.

For a more common example, if you are in a disciplinary meeting with management, you should not speak during that occasion (i.e. a proceeding for which you are on the hotseat and being reviewed for accusations against you) about what other people did wrong, about how you are being disciplined unfairly, etc. The hotseat is not the place to cast blame from. Because of the context, people in authority will be suspicious of what you have to say, and think you are playing the blame game; that you are being defensive and trying to divert attention from yourself.  If you case blame from the hotseat, it will only make people more upset, and more inclined to take action against you.

So what DO you do while you’re on the hotseat?  Three things.  First, you LISTEN.  Second, you ANSWER. (If no one asks you a question, then you don’t say anything).  Third, when you have to answer, you SPEAK WITH FACTS.  Fact-talk is talk like this: “On June 1, the sky was blue.”  Blame-talk is like this: “Manager Smith was being unfair and lying when he said the sky was green. That’s ridiculous.  Why are you giving me discipline, when he’s the one that’s wrong?  Management has not given this matter a fair investigation.”

Hopefully, what I’m saying gives you pause.  Hopefully, you’ll give thorough thought to whether you’re on the hotseat, and if so, you’ll take great care not to cast blame.

If you have any doubts, talk to an employee rights attorney to sort it out before you say or do something that may make the hotseat hotter!

                A potential client approached us in early 2009 on referral from another trial firm. Our client had worked on the site of a plant that had manufactured gas from coal from the mid eighteenth century until approximately 1960.  A known byproduct of manufacturing gas from coal is benzene contamination.  The utility which owned the plant sold the property in 1966.   During the time our client worked as a maintenance mechanic on the property, it was being used as part of the public water plant for a medium-sized Midwestern city.  Our client worked there from the mid-1970’s until the city built a new water plant in 2001.  In 2006, our client was diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM), a rare leukemic cancer of the bone marrow, which will likely kill him.

                Fortunately, the three year statute of limitations started running at the time of our client’s diagnosis of cancer, rather than at the time of his exposure to the benzene. We had to research possible legal theories of recovery and draft a legal complaint that laid out these theories demanding relief from the huge corporation responsible for polluting the land.  We had to do all this before the statute of limitations ran in June 2009.  We discovered that there were two basic, applicable legal theories, which lawyers call “claims for relief” or “causes of action.”

                A complaint was drafted and served on the utility corporation.  We maintained that the utility was negligent at the time they ran the plant for polluting the ground in the first place. They compounded their negligence when they failed to disclose to the city seeking to expand its public water plant that the land was contaminated with carcinogenic, toxic pollution.  We claimed that by leaving the land in its toxic condition at the time of its sale, the utility created a public nuisance which endangered the public in general and tragically harmed our client in particular.

                Battling a large, corporate utility is extremely expensive and enormously time consuming.  It is impossible for any firm without a successful track record in complex litigation to get involved in such a crusade.   During the course of the litigation, we asked for and received thousands of pages of documents related to the original plant. While sifting through the documents, we learned what the utility knew about the site after they sold the property, and what they knew about the inherent danger to humans caused by the toxic contamination produced there.  The fact that the documents had been shuffled as to date and subject matter before we received them, made our research especially difficult.  Our staff spent hundreds of hours sorting through the documents.  During that process, we studied the full history of the gas plant site and learned that the utility was fully aware of the monster they had created and hidden from public view.

                Many depositions were taken from expert witnesses in Milwaukee, Chicago and Washington, D.C.  Epidemiologists, toxicologists, industrial hygienists and industrial historians were all involved with developing evidence.  Mediation was scheduled prior to the jury trial.  We were painfully aware that the entire financial future of our client and his family was at stake.

                The mediation was held before a retired trial court judge with tremendous experience as a trial lawyer, and continued for months.  Our efforts were successful.  Although the corporate utility insisted, as part of the agreement, that the amount of the settlement be kept confidential, we are pleased that though our client can no longer work and his wife had to halt her nursing career to care for him, they face a stable financial future. This result made all time we spent, the separation from our families and the risking of large amounts of our own resources, seem very worthwhile.

The issue of social media in the courtroom was in the news recently with the criminal trial of an individual accused of murdering family members of the actress/singer Jennifer Hudson in Illinois. 

Attorney Amy M. Risseeuw of Peterson, Berk & Cross, was asked to comment on this issue on a segment of The Philcast with Phil Cianciola on WHBY 1150 AM.  You can listen to the conversation here:

4-17-12_430-5.MP3 Listen on Posterous

There is significant debate among judges, lawyers, reporters and the public regarding the use of social media in the courtroom.  From the perspective of most lawyers and judges, the main concern is the that jury is free of influence during the trial, and bases its decision solely upon the evidence presented in the case. 

In Wisconsin, jurors are normally instructed that they are not to discuss the case with anyone until all the evidence has been presented and cautioned not to do any outside research.  The pattern jury instructions were updated in 2010 to specifically caution jurors not to communicate about the trial by blog, e-mail, text message, Twitter, Facebook, or any other social networking site while performing jury duty.  While at the same time as the courts are attempting to protect the jury from outside influence, Wisconsin law allows for media in the courtrooms, including television cameras and the broadcasting of court events.

PBC Attorney John Peterson has been certified as an advocate by the National Board of Civil Pretrial Practice Advocacy. His certification date as a Civil Pretrial Practice Advocate is April 25, 2012.

The Civil Pretrial Practice Advocacy is the newest division of the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification.

If you are an H-1B worker with unpaid wages, as we have described before, there is a 1-year deadline for a particular type of legal complaint you could pursue.  That is, there is 1-year deadline to file a WH-4 complaint at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

We have found that many H-1B workers (whether they have read our blog or not) are aware that a WH4 complaint can be pursued at DOL as a way to seek unpaid wages.

However, some H-1B workers who are past the 1-year deadline for a WH4 complaint may assume they have lost their chance to pursue unpaid wages.

Please know that often this is not the case.  There often are options an H-1B worker can consider when the unpaid wages were earned more than one year ago.  For example, several Federal and State laws (unlike the H-1B regulations and WH4 process) allow deadline periods of 2-6 years to pursue unpaid wages.  So, if an H-1B worker’s employer had failed to pay wages that were due more than a year ago, that worker– while not having options at DOL per the WH4  complaint process– may well have options under other Federal or State laws.  The attorney-authors of this blog can speak to this firsthand, as we have represented H-1B workers in several legal actions with legal claims seeking wages owed from several years prior.

The take-home points for you, as an underpaid H-1B worker, are these: (1) if you’re owed wages from more than one year ago, don’t assume you are beyond all legal deadlines to pursue those wages, unless a competent attorney tells you that following a consultation; and (2) if you are interested in a potential legal complaint, promptly have an attorney evaluate your situation, potential legal claims, and deadlines.  The longer you wait, the more likely it is that all applicable legal deadlines will pass.

Over the years, the lawyers at Peterson, Berk & Cross have represented many victims of attacks and bites by dogs.  Tragically, the victims are often little children who end up with lifelong physical and emotional scars.  Our attorneys and staff are experienced in working with victims and their families during the initial trauma after the attack, the wounds and their repair, and healing during the months or years following the attack.

Facial scars are particularly difficult for people to deal with. We have worked with counselors and psychologists to help dog bite victims deal with their scars.  We have worked with plastic surgeons in assessing whether scars can be improved by surgery.  Although scars cannot be erased, plastic surgeons can often replace an unsightly scar with one less noticeable.  This decision must be made between the treating plastic surgeon and the patient. If the child is very young, sometimes the decision is deferred until the child is mature enough to participate in the decision making process.

It is extremely important that the facts in dog bite cases be investigated as soon as possible after the attack occurs.  Under Wisconsin law, a dog does not have to be put to sleep when it bites someone for the first time, although the dog’s owner may be held responsible for damages which could include a reasonable award for pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of earning capacity and medical expenses.  If the dog bites someone again, damages for its second victim would double.  In order to protect the public, it is crucial that an investigation be conducted quickly, even if the case will continue for months or even years, depending on the nature of the injuries.  The lawyers at Peterson, Berk & Cross have learned after many decades of experience, that these cases demand patience.  We work with our clients on an ongoing basis to ensure that the final result is fair and reasonable.