20+ Years Practicing Business Law

With over twenty years of business law experience, including multiple general counsel engagements, Scott Magliochetti has acquired the skills and invaluable perspective necessary to help you achieve your business goals.  He delivers practical business oriented solutions and strategic advice needed to address the commercial, corporate and transactional issues your business confronts on a daily basis.  Scott Magliochetti knows the real world legal needs of business people – decisive and concise advice delivered in a quick and efficient manner. Rather than being a “deal killer”, Mr. Magliochetti furthers his client’s success by helping them balance risk with opportunities.  Our legal  services are delivered at substantially lower costs than traditional law firms by avoiding big law firm overhead and eliminating redundancy billing often associated with large firms.

Scott Magliochetti, Esq.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel 908-281-7624
Fax 888-298-4163

Who is a Full Time Employee Under ObamaCare?

Under the Affordable Care Act (i.e. ObamaCare) penalties are imposed on “large employers” (i.e. those with 50 or more full time employees) if any “full time” employee receives a tax subsidy to assist in buying health insurance.  For employers in the staffing industry, who bring on w-2 employees to staff client projects, determining what constitutes “full time” employment under ObamaCare could be a complicated task. As part of the ObamaCare implementation process, the Department of Labor recently released “frequently asked questions” which, in part, touch upon the “full time” employment question.  (see http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/tr12-01.pdf)  According to the DOL, “full time” employees are those who are employed at least 30 hours per week.  In making such determination, for employees who are not “newly hired” employers can “look back” for up to 12 months to determine who is full time.  For “newly hired” employees, an employer will be given six months to determine whether it “reasonably expects the employee to work full-time on an annual basis.” The FAQs further provide that if “a newly-hired employee is reasonably expected to work full-time on an … Continue reading

Need an experienced business lawyer?

In 2000, I became the General Counsel for Starpoint Solutions, LLC a technology engineering company headquartered in New York City specializing in IT staff augmentation, application development and product integration. In my role as General Counsel for Starpoint Solutions, I was in charge of all legal aspects of their operations, including transactional matters, capital financing, contract negotiations and corporate governance. In addition to my role as General Counsel, I also managed Starpoint’s human resources department where I supervised all employee related matters. This experience has proven invaluable to my practice. Why not put my 20 years of varied experience in Business law to work for your business?

NLRB Postpones Posting Requirement

Last month I blogged that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) had issued a final rule requiring companies to post in the workplace notices to employees about their rights to join a union.  Under the rule, such notice was to be posted by November 14, 2011. Given the coverage scope and content of the posting requirement, several legal actions seeking to enjoin enforcement of the rule were promptly instituted.  Such suits (brought by the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Right to Work Foundation and the National Federation of Independent Business) challenge, in part, the NLRB’s statutory authority to implement such far reaching rules.  In connection with the suits, National Federation of Independent Business President and CEO, Dan Danner, declared that “[t]he NLRB has strayed from its role as an impartial arbiter to instead become just an extension of labor unions,” and that “[t]his new atmosphere has created a chilling effect on businesses of all sizes.”  Executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, Robin Conrad, flatly declares that the notice requirement is contrary to … Continue reading

Staffing Industry Seeks Repeal of ObamaCare

Earlier this month, representatives of the Staffing Industry urged Congress to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (“ObamaCare”) that was signed into law in March of last year.  Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer a minimum mandated coverage or pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee per year.  “Full time” workers are those who provide at least 30 hours of service per week, with respect to any month. Many staffing firms have two separate groups of “full time” employees, internal permanent workers and “project based” employees who perform the consulting / freelance services to end clients.  Often, staffing firms offer two separate health care plans to these distinct “full time” employee groups.  One plan being a “traditional” plan offered / taken by internal permanent workers and a second plan being a “basic” plan offered / taken by “project based” employees.  These “basic” plans will almost certainly not qualify as “Obama blessed” plans meeting ObamaCare’s  mandates. What does this mean to staffing companies? If ObamaCare is not repealed, staffing companies will … Continue reading

Prophylactic Steps to Avoid an .XXX Domain Hijacking

Top level domains (“TLD”), such as .com, .net and .org are about to have another bedfellow – the .xxx domain name extension.  These .xxx domains are intended to be utilized solely for hosting adult oriented websites.  But, this new TLD has a lot of entities worried about having their company name, or brands, being linked to .xxx domains secured by unrelated parties.  Recognizing this concern, the ICM Registry (the entity administering the TLD launch) has established a “sunrise” period that permits trademark owners and other business entities not in the adult entertainment industry, a period to claim certain .xxx names before they are open to the public. Accordingly, owners of federal trademarks or service marks (not in the adult entertainment industry) may file an application (between September 7th and October 28th) to block an .xxx domain registration utilizing their mark.  If the application is approved, third parties trying to hijack the mark for .xxx purposes will be blocked.  This application period is referred to by ICM Registry as the “Sunrise B” period. Unregistered trademark owners can also take steps to … Continue reading

NLRB Requires Posting of NLRA Rights

Nearly all employers are covered under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Under the NLRA, most private-sector employees are extended the right to organize and bargain with their employer collectively.  The law is administered and enforced principally by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). On August 30, 2011, a rule was published in the Federal Register requiring employers covered under the NLRA to post a notice in the workplace explaining employees’ rights under the NLRA.   In general, the notice informs employees of their unionizing rights, provides examples of unlawful union and employer conduct, and instructs employees to contact the NLRB with questions and complaints. The NLRB rule requires that the notice be posted by November 14, 2011.  Copies of the notice will be available on the NLRB’s website by October 1st.  In addition to the physical posting, the rule requires every covered employer to post the notice on an internet or intranet site if personnel rules and policies are customarily posted there.   Translated versions must be posted where at least 20% of the workforce is not proficient … Continue reading

U.S. House of Rep. Follows NJ to Protect Against Discrimination Against the Unemployed

In May of this year I wrote a blog about N.J.S.A. 34:8B-1 et seq.  –  a new New Jersey law  prohibiting  employers from discriminating against the unemployed in print and internet job advertisements.   Now, the U.S House of Representatives has proposed a similar law – the   “Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011” (HR 2501(1) – the “Act”) which protects the unemployed from “discrimination” shown by potential employers. Under the Act, employers with 15 or more employees (including staffing firms) are prohibited from “discriminating” against job applicants due to their employment status.  Discriminatory acts include refusing to consider an applicant due to his/her unemployed status, impeding access to information available to the unemployed regarding jobs, and placing ads that state that the unemployed “need not apply.”  Unlike the related NJ law, the Act (i) provides for a private right of action, (ii) delineates a very broad range of remedies (including the payment of attorney fees) and (iii) includes a whistleblower protection provision. While the New Jersey act was bad enough in that it is just one more seemingly meaningless governmental … Continue reading

DOL Goes High Tech. to Track FLSA Violations

In March 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) requested a $13.3 million increase in its budget, the bulk of which is slated towards increased enforcement and regulation of wage and hour laws (namely FLSA).  The DOL has sought 107 additional full-time personnel to advance its crusade against wage and hour violations and, according to the DOL, is planning to conduct an additional 3,250 investigations in 2012. As part of its increased enforcement plan, the DOL recently launched a timesheet application for smartphones to empower employees to independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed.  Via the application, employees can track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers.  It also permits users to add comments related to their work hours; view a summary of work hours in a daily, weekly and monthly format; and email the summary of work hours and gross pay as an attachment.  According to the DOL, “[t]his information could prove invaluable during a Wage and Hour Division investigation when an employer has failed to … Continue reading

Nonprofits Losing Tax Status

In 2006 Congress passed the Pension Protection Act (“PPA”), mandating that most tax-exempt organizations file an annual information return with the IRS.  The PPA imposed upon small organizations a filing requirement for the first time in 2007.  More importantly, the PPA automatically revokes an entity’s tax-exempt status if it fails to file required returns for three consecutive years. Recently, the IRS announced that approximately 275,000 organizations had automatically lost their tax-exempt status under the PPA because they failed to file the required annual reports for three consecutive years.  While the IRS believes a vast majority of these organizations are defunct, a large portion is likely active organizations that just failed to file their annual returns, or were unaware of the requirement.  A list of the organizations that have lost their tax exempt status may be found on the IRS’s website (www.IRS.gov).   Being on the list should have no impact on donors who previously made deductible contributions to the auto-revoked organizations.  However, going forward organizations that are on the auto-revocation list that do not receive reinstatement are no longer eligible to … Continue reading

Tough Times Lead to Rise in Cafeteria Plan Change Requests

When times are tough and it is increasingly difficult to pay the rent / mortgage and put food on the table, many benefits (health benefits, life insurance, etc.) elected under “cafeteria plans” (benefits purchased on a pre-tax basis) become luxuries, not necessities.  With rising costs of living and stagnant salaries, many employers are being faced with requests from employees to withdraw from cafeteria plan benefits during the plan year.  Seems simple enough, right?  A few standard forms and a call to your plan manager should do the trick?  Not so fast. Under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code (and the regulations promulgated thereunder) cafeteria plans may allow employees to revoke an election during a period of coverage and make a new election for the rest of the period if a “change in status event” has occurred, and the election change is consistent with the event.  “Change in status events” include changes in marital status, employment status, number of dependents; instances where a dependent satisfies or ceases to satisfy eligibility requirements; and changes in residence.  To satisfy the “consistency rule,” … Continue reading