Attig Law Firm P.L.L.C

I recently read a survey that compared the market factors that men and women prefer when looking for a location to open their business.

Here is what the report said that women-business owners prefer in their target markets:

• Low crime rate
• Low property tax rates
• High household income
• Modest real estate prices
• Rapid population growth
• Pedestrian-friendly

Here is what the report said that male-business owners prefer in their target markets:

• pro-business government
• having a major city nearby,
• high quality of life

I haven’t thought enough about the differences to draw any solid conclusions, but I did notice that the factors important to women business owners were a lot more defined than those important to men. Not only are they more defined, but they all appear to be key factors in generating immediate cash flow or providing immediate access to customers.

I have read (but have never seen quantified studies) that it is harder for female enterpreneurs to get financing than male enterpreneurs. If that is true, then perhaps the female owners try to compensate for the greater unavailability of financing by locating their business closer to clusters of potential customers.

On the other hand, the opposite may be true - perhaps because women business owners are better at placing businesses near their customers, they have a reduced need to seek out financing.

Women-owned businesses account for half of new startups in the U.S, and 1 out of 11 women own a small business. If you are thinking about starting a business in 2007, it is best to consult with a small business lawyer to discern the legal obstacles and opporturnities you may face.

The Attig Law Firm represents small businesses and those seeking to start a small business in Texas.

In May 2006, the Supreme Court’s Garcetti v. Ceballos decision effectively denied constitutional free speech protection to government employees who disclosed waste, fraud or abuse while carrying out their job duties.

Unfortunately for government employees and those interested in an efficient and lawful federal government, Garcetti was only another decision in a long of cases that chipped away at legal protection for whistleblowers. In a recently published article, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (which has exclusive authority to hear whistleblower cases) has almost unanimously ruled against whistle-blowers: 129 out of 131 cases since 1994.

The Senate bill, called the “Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, S.274, is an attempt at immediate reform of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Among the provisions of the proposed law are:

• Language that expands whisteblower protection to all lawful communication of misconduct.
• Bans the illegal agency gag orders that are often used by Agencies against national security whistleblowers.
• Provides protection against retaliatory investigations, giving whistleblowers a chance to end reprisals in their early stages.
• End the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals monopoly on appellate review of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
• Strengthen the Office of Special Counsel’s authority to seek disciplinary sanctions against managers who retaliate.

We should know pretty soon if this reform will pass.

No post on this website is legal advice, is meant to be legal advice, and certainly does not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Information is power, and we are providing this information to give you, the federal employee, with some power. This information is not widely or easily accessible to Federal Employees.   If you have blown the whistle on government waste, fraud, abuse or gross mismanagement, and feel that your Agency has retaliated against you for this, it is always best to consult with a federal employee lawyer with familiarity in prosecuting and defending whistleblower cases.

The Attig Law Firm represents Federal employees who have been the victims of reprisal for blowing the whistle on government waste, fraud, abuse and gross mismanagement.  Chris Attig, a lawyer with the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, has handled whistle-blower reprisal appeals before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). It is best to consult with an  attorney or lawyer familiar with Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals to discuss the facts and law of your particular case, particularly in a whistle-blower reprisal appeal.

If you think you are a whistle-blower, and you think that your Agency may have retaliated against you because of that, contact the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, to schedule a telephone consultation.

Ever since visiting Miller Park last year, I’ve been keeping an eye on the Milwaukee Brewers. This is a great young team with a lot of potential, playing in a division where anything could happen. Worth commenting on, however, is what could be the Brewers “Achilles’ heel”: relief pitching.

The Brewers starting rotation has the potential to dominate - each of the five (Capuano, Vargas, Sheets, Suppan and Bush) has potential to throw 200+ innings. These 5 threw an average of 7 strikeouts per outing, and have a collective WHIP of 1.27. One problem, though - the Brewers’ Starting Five averaged under 6 innings per outing in 2006.

That’s not a big problem, if your offense can score runs: with more runs on the board, the starters can leave the game with a bigger lead and a relief squad of Capellan, Turnbow, Wise, Shouse, and Coco have an easier time shutting down any late inning threats.

However, the Brewers scored fewer runs than most teams in the National League last year - in fact, only Pittsburgh and San Diego scored fewer runs. That means that the Brewers relief squad is likely to come into the game with a small - or no - lead. This is the relief squad that had one of the highest ERA’s in the National League last year - so they will likely need a big lead to close out the game with a “W”.

If Coco isn’t in perfect form in 2007, and if Turnbow can’t return to his 2005 form, then it’s likely that the Brewers won’t be the surprise contender that everyone thinks they can be.

And that would be very disappointing - this is an exciting small-market team whose management is making the right moves - a team whose time is due.

When I saw this year’s vote tallies for the Baseball Hall of Fame, I couldn’t believe that there were any sportswriters that did not vote for Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn for membership in the Hall.

As you’ll see in the upcoming season, I have a growing distaste for most sportswriters and baseball broadcasters: many of them don’t understand the game of baseball and how it’s played, few of them rarely offer any insight into the game or the players, and many of them just regurgitate the “topic of the moment” without any independent analysis or thought.

Now you can just say I’m a Yankee apologist (true) or that I have a Yankee bias (also true), but there is no reason that Derek Jeter should not have been the 2006 AL MVP. There is no reason that Jose Canseco should have gotten a single vote for the Hall of Fame (he got 6). And there is no reason that some players should not have been unanimously elected to the Hall of Fame.

Bob Ryan, a Boston Globe columnist, is the first writer I am aware of to call his sportswriter brethren to the carpet to explain why Cal Ripken wasn’t unanimously elected to the Hall. In his column on January 28th, he lists several other players who should have been unanimously elected. I have to say, I am in completement agreement with his list.

I also want to second his challenge: look me in the eye and tell me that Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame.  Better yet, look me in the eye and tell me that Jose Canseco should be in the Hall of Fame.

Here is a good site for researching data about your industry’s performance in Texas.

The site offers a breakdown by industry and NAICS code, and compares 1st quarter 2005 performance to the quarter/year prior.

Key statistics include weekly wage comparisons and employment percentages, giving you a benchmark to help you plan some key financials for your startup or existing business.

A couple weeks ago, Sammy Sosa signed a $500,000 minor-league deal with the Texas Rangers.

While I’m not convinced I care all that much about Sammy Sosa, I am not entirely convinced it’s a bad idea. If anything, I like Jon Daniels’ willingness to take a risk. Here’s a few reasons it may work out:

• Sosa flopped in 2005 in Baltimore because his hitting mechanics stunk. He couldn’t get back to fundamentals. (Or, maybe he just couldn’t find a good corked bat). Ranger hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo is a master at getting hitters back to fundamentals - if he can get Sosa to make quicker adjustments at the plate, Sosa may have a productive year in Texas.
• New Ranger manager Ron Washington hinted that Sosa could bat fifth behind Teixeira. Although Tex is probably better suited for the 3-hole, he’d probably get a little more protection with Sosa hitting behind him than he did last year with Nevin and Blalock.
• Sosa has a personality, and personalities draw fans to games. As long as his personality doesn’t interfere with the Rangers’ clubhouse dynamic, Sosa could really help getting some fans out to the Ballpark. One thing that’s clear about the Rangers - when more fans are in the seats, they are a more competitive team.

All things considered, Sammy Sosa may turn out to be a huge flop. But for $500,000 - or just 50% above the league-minimum salary - it’s worth the gamble.

Imagine this scenario - you have a disability, and your management chain has just agreed to provide you a modified work schedule or modified work duties in order to accommodate that disability.

Your co-workers start to become curious why you’re not at work when they are, or you’re not doing the same tasks that they are. They approach your manager to ask why you are getting preferential treatment. Can your manager tell them you have a disability?

According to the EEOC — No:

“An employer may not disclose that an employee is receiving a reasonable accommodation because this usually amounts to a disclosure that the individual has a disability. The ADA specifically prohibits the disclosure of medical information except in certain limited situations, which do not include disclosure to coworkers.”

In fact, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only three groups of people may be told about your disability and reasonable accommodation:

• Supervisors and managers may be told about necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and about necessary accommodations;
• First aid and safety personnel may be told if the disability might require emergency treatment;
• Government officials investigating compliance with the ADA must be given relevant information on request.

If your supervisors or managers are telling other employees that you are disabled and that you have received a reasonable accommodation, and you have not expressly allowed them to do this, they may be in violation of the ADA.

If you are a federal employee, and you believe your manager is discriminating against you because of your disability or has refused to give you a reasonable accommodation, the best course of action is to consult with a federal employee lawyer who has knowledge and experience in the special procedures that apply to federal employees.

The Attig Law Firm represents federal employees in their claims that their management chain has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

I just read a story in the Dallas Morning News, detailing credit card abuse by DISD employees. The story claims that between January 2004 and March 2006, a reporter was able to identify $6.3 million in charges that violated state purchasing laws or school district policy. One DISD employee admitted recently to charging over $100,000 in personal charges on her DISD charge card!!

If your small business gives employees access to company credit, this story is an eye-opener. In 2004, the CFE (Certified Fraud Examiners) issued a report on “Occupational Fraud and Abuse” and their finding was mind-numbing: small businesses suffered a median loss of $100,000 annually due to employee theft, including credit card fraud.

Here are a couple things you can do prevent employee theft and credit card abuse:

• Give a company credit card only to the most trusted employees. However, even with those trusted employees, follow the Reagan Philosophy: “Trust, but verify”. Sometimes, the most trusted employee turns out to be the biggest credit card abuser.
• Look through your statements every month - little purchases …a doctor’s visit here, a movie there…suggest an employee may be “testing the water”. Small non-business charges are usually a red-flag for bigger charges in the future.
• Review your accounting methods and business policies on credit card use and hold your employees accountable: all purchases, or purchases over a certain amount, should require documentation to support the business-relatedness of the purchase.
• Take a look at this article on preventing employee theft - you will learn something new, I guarantee.

If you have concerns about stopping or preventing employee theft or credit card abuse in your business, it is best to speak with a small business attorney. The Attig Law Firm can discuss several options available to you to stop current abuse/theft and prevent future abuse/theft.

According to the New York Post, Carl Pavano is taking a bullpen session in Phoenix today.   The mystery question is this: what will he injure today?

Increasingly, Federal agencies are charging employees with misconduct based on “lack of candor”. This charge is what Agencies use when they can’t prove “falsification”.

Falsification is an intentional misrepresentation of some fact. It often arises in filling out some government form, or in the course of an official (or unofficial) investigation - the employee is accused of knowingly providing an incorrect answer to a question, or knowingly trying to deceive or mislead the investigator.

“Lack of Candor”, on the other hand, does not necessarily require any intent to deceive. It is a broader concept that depends on the specific facts and context of each case. Just because it’s a broader charge doesn’t mean that Federal agencies have an easier job of proving up the charge.

I surveyed MSPB Initial Decisions, issued in 2006, involving charges of “Lack of Candor” and uncovered some interesting trends:

• If an employee is honestly doing his or her best to cooperate with an investigation, and there is evidence that corroborates the employee’s “good-faith”, the Agency is going to have a hard time sustaining the charge.
• In the context of an investigative scenario, if the employee gave a specific answer to a specific question, and the Agency cannot prove that the answer is inaccurate, the charge seems destined to fail.
• The quality of the investigation, the reputation and experience of the investigators, and the credibility of the investigators seems to be a pivotal factor when the lack of candor purportedly occurred in an investigation.
• There appears to be a trend that the Agency must prove that the conduct underlying the charge actually occurred; otherwise, what the Agency perceives as a lack of candor may be nothing more than the employee legitimately defending themselves.
• The credibility of witnesses is often crucial to sustaining or over-turning the charge.

“Lack of Candor” can be a tricky charge of misconduct. If you have been suspended or removed because of a charge of “lack of candor”, or any misconduct, it is best to consult with a Federal Employee lawyer to discuss the charges against you.