Tag: Age Discrimination

2019-2020 Supreme Court Labor and Employment Cases

Published by Brett Holubeck on August 5, 2020

Image of a gavel to represent the Supreme Court's labor and employment decision from this term. — Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

This is one of the most impactful years that the Supreme Court has had on labor and employment law. The Court took on a number of important and controversial issues including gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination, the DACA program, the standard that must be met for proving age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and race discrimination under Section 1981, whether the ministerial exception applies to teachers at religious schools, and whether the government properly exempted religious institutions from the contraception mandate under the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare). The impacts and the follow-up cases clarifying the decisions from this term will continue to be felt for years, especially in the context of issues involving sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County (Consolidated with Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

This was by far the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court in employment law in years. The Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their gender identity (transgender discrimination) and their sexual orientation. Essentially, employers cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of their sex, which includes gender identity and sexual orientation. Employers should update their handbooks to ensure that discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited. Employers should also retrain managers to ensure that employees do not suffer these types of prohibited discrimination. As a reminder, a number of states have their own laws on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. This ruling will not affect those state laws. Anyone with questions should first check the laws of their state to determine the best approach to resolving sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination issues.

Justice Alito’s dissent outlined the most controversial issues that will be decided by future cases (these are described below in each subheading). The biggest questions that remain from the case involve the interaction between the law’s prohibition against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination and its protection of religious liberty.

“[B]athrooms, locker rooms, [and other things] of [that] kind”

When will an employee that is transitioning be permitted (or required) to use the locker room or bathroom associated with their gender identity? How does this right interact with the rights of other employees that may not feel comfortable sharing a bathroom or a locker room with an employee who has not had gender reassignment surgery? Courts will help resolve this issue. Many states have their own statutes (and subsequent cases) clarifying these protections. It remains to be seen how the rights will be protected/interpreted under Title VII, but one should expect the law to settle along similar lines as those in the various states (i.e. it is likely that employees will have the right to use the locker room or bathroom associated with their gender identity at some point in the future).

Women’s Sports

Whether transgender athletes can or are required to participate in the team that is in line with their gender identity. This is not an employment issue (except for paid female athletes), but it is a question that will need to be resolved based on the ruling. Many states are examining this question for sports including most recently Idaho. It is an issue that will likely continue to be litigated.

Healthcare

There are likely to be lawsuits by transgender employees that have employer sponsored health plans that do not cover the cost of gender reassignment surgery. Many of these plans will likely start to cover the surgery due to social pressure anyway, but it is an issue that still needs to be resolved.

Freedom of Speech

Employees don’t have “freedom of speech” in the workplace. Companies can fire employees for what they say as long as the firing would not be for an unlawful reason (speech that is protected under the National Labor Relations Act, whistleblowing protections of various statutes, or protected by another law). For example, a company could and should fire someone for making a death threat against another employee. A company cannot fire someone because they say that the company needs a union.

The dissent in the Bostock case stated that “the Court’s decision may also pressure employers to suppress any statements by employees expressing disapproval of same-sex relationships and sex reassignment procedures. Employers are already imposing such restrictions voluntarily, and after today’s decisions employers will fear that allowing employees to express their religious views on these subjects may give rise to Title VII harassment claims.” The interaction of the decision with issues of religion and the protections that individuals have to practice their religion will undoubtedly be the most interesting.

Babb v. Wilkie

The Supreme Court ruled that under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) a plaintiff only needs to prove that age is a motivating factor in an employment decision for there to be a violation of the ADEA. However, but-for causation (but for their age the employee would not have suffered the adverse employment action) is important to determining the appropriate remedy for a violation of the ADEA. For example, a plaintiff cannot obtain some forms of relief, like hiring, reinstatement, backpay, and compensatory damages without a showing of but for causation. Plaintiffs could get injunctive or other forward-looking relief if they cannot show that age was a but-for cause of the employment decision but merely a motivating factor.

The decision will make it easier for plaintiffs to obtain relief under the ADEA as some forms of relief may be available even if they cannot meet the but-for causation standard.

Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a plaintiff must show that race was the but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury rather than a mere motivating factor (one factor among others that lead to the adverse employment action).

The case will make it easier for companies to defend against Section1981 claims, but employees that cannot meet the but for causation standard may be able to meet the motivating factor standard under Title VII and choose to file a charge with the EEOC or their respective state agency.

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

While this is not strictly an employment law case, it will have a big impact on employment.

As I said in a prior post, “DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protects certain people that were brought to the US as children from deportation and allows them to get a job or attend school. They cannot obtain permanent residency through the program but may obtain work authorization and continue to reside in the country. There are currently nearly 700,000 people that are in the DACA program.”

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s order to undo the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was arbitrary and capricious (the administration did not conduct a thorough review of all the relevant factors that it should have taken into account such as any “legitimate reliance” that individuals had on the DACA memo, whether the government could have eliminated eligibility while continuing forbearance, and giving consideration to other policy alternatives). Instead, the Trump administration relied only on the illegality of providing the benefit by the prior administration as its reason for ending it.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

This is one of the three major religious liberty cases that were before the Supreme Court this year. It may provide some insight into how the Court will view religious liberty issues in the future within an employment context, especially how they relate to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court concluded that:

As we have explained, RFRA [(Religious Freedom Restoration Act)] “provide[s] very broad protection for religious liberty.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 693. In RFRA’s congressional findings, Congress stated that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise,” a right described by RFRA as “unalienable.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb(a)(1), (3). To protect this right, Congress provided that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless “it demonstrates that application of the burden . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §§2000bb–1(a)–(b). Placing Congress’ intent beyond dispute, RFRA specifies that it “applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise.” §2000bb–3(a). RFRA also permits Congress to exclude statutes from RFRA’s protections. §2000bb–3(b).

The essence of the decision is that the government acted lawfully to expand the contraception exemption for employers like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Justices Alito and Gorsuch wished to go further and rule that the RFRA required the government to do so, but that issue was not necessarily ripe at the time. Of course, that will likely be one of the major cases before the Court in the future.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

In this case, the Supreme Court applied the ministerial exception to teachers at religious schools. The ministerial exception bars ministers from suing churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious institutions for employment discrimination. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, found that the school and religious institution meet the exception because the teachers are responsible for instructing the students in their faith. Whether the exception applies depends heavily on the beliefs of the particular faith and the employee’s role in teaching or developing it.

As a reminder, the ministerial exception grew out of the idea that religious institutions should be able to remove ministers without interference from the government. This makes sense for many reasons. For example, it would be weird, and unjust for a Lutheran church to be sued for discrimination because the pastor became a Buddhist and the church terminated his contract. The minister of a Lutheran church or the minister (or equivalent position) of any faith should obviously believe the teachings of that particular faith to hold that position.

Other issues and forms of discrimination are a little less clear (such as disability issues) but the Supreme Court determined that the employees subject to the ministerial exception do not have that protection. The reach of the exception will generally be limited as it only applies to people that teach the faith (i.e. are ministers). It is not going to be broadened to apply to those that work at religious institutions that are not tasked with ministerial duties (teaching the faith) such as janitors, administrators, and even those that work at many nonprofits that are owned by religious institutions (such as universities and hospitals).

Conclusion

This was a huge year for labor and employment decisions from the Supreme Court. The Court altered the impact of Title VII by finding that it protects individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. It also decided three cases regarding protections for religious beliefs (it found for the religious institutions in all three cases) including one case where the Court found that states cannot bar taxpayer aid to parochial and other religious run schools if they provide aid to nonreligious schools (essentially the Court found that states cannot discriminate against schools based on their religion). It seems inevitable that there will be a clash between religious protections and issues involving gender identity and sexual orientation. Courts will need to determine how these rights interact.

The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

Severance Agreement Checklist

Published by Brett Holubeck on May 8, 2020

Unfortunately, the Coronavirus and COVID-19 layoffs are going to continue. In one survey, 32% of Chief Financial Officers believe that there will be more job cuts. There are a number of surveys that discuss what people will do once restrictions regarding the coronavirus are lifted. One survey found that 57% of people in Seattle will avoid social gatherings once restrictions are lifted. There are a lot of stories out of Texas about restaurants and other businesses that have no customers coming back. Some experts expect a recovery sometime soon and others looking at a recovery in 2 years or so.

With more layoffs expected now is a good time to review the basics of severance agreements.

One thing that many employers fail to do is to create a severance agreement checklist when they are laying off employees. There are a number of items that should be included. A checklist is a great way to make sure that companies have the information that they need to let create the best severance agreement. Here are some provisions that should be considered to include in any severance agreement checklist.

1. Waiver of Liability

All severance agreements normally have a waiver and release of various claims including: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), Veteran’s Reemployment Rights Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act including the Older Worker’s Benefit Protection Act, and many other statutes such as state statutes.

Some claims cannot be waived such as Workers’ Compensation claims or rights falling under the National Labor Relations Act.

Severance agreements should normally include a waiver of liability and some sort of admission that the employee does not have any claims that they are aware of against the company. This waiver serves as a way to reduce a company’s liability.

2. Company Property Returned

Companies need to make sure that employees return property. Any severance payment should be contingent on the employees returning any files, computers, passwords, and other items that they have taken or have from the company.

Employees should also be required to return any confidential information in any medium including flash drives, passwords, access to dropbox and other accounts on home and other devices. Employers should ideally change passwords after an employee leaves.

3. Confidentiality

Most people want to keep the terms of the agreement secret (both for the employee’s and the company’s sake). Moreover, confidentiality is something that the employer may also be purchasing with the payment that they give to their soon to be former employee. The confidentiality provision usually protects the employer and the employee from revealing issues about each other and the terms of the agreement. The employer would be prohibited from revealing the terms that the employee is leaving under to anyone that asks them (usually a future employer or member of the media).

4. Non-Disparagement

Companies and employees often seek a non-disparagement agreement that prevents both parties from discussing problems in the workplace or with each other. Again, this is beneficial for both employers and employees. Both parties are prohibited from giving negative comments about the other party. For employees, this generally prohibits them from commenting to the media, writing on social media, and engaging in other communication that is negative about the company. For employers, this usually is meant to stop them from making negative comments about an employee to potential future employers.

5. Medical Benefits

Many companies will offer me`dical benefits to employees as an incentive for the employee sign the agreement or as a benefit that that they want departing employees to have. Employers may wish to pay for an employee’s COBRA insurance for a certain period while alerting employees that they will be responsible for COBRA after that period.

6. Older Worker Benefits Protection Act

The Older Worker Benefits Protection Act modified the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that protects workers that are 40 and older. There are some requirements that the OWBPA imposes on any severance agreement.

It must be in writing.
The agreement must be drafted in plain language so that the employee signing the agreement can understand it.
It should not be misleading. Any advantages or disadvantages should be adequately described.
The waiver must specifically waive rights under the ADEA and OWBPA.
The agreement cannot waive future claims.
The agreement must be backed by consideration. The employer must give something of value to the employee in exchange for the agreement.
Employees must have 21 days to consider the severance offer, or 45 days if more than one employee is laid off as part of a group lay off.
When the layoff is for a group of employees then the individuals must be informed in writing of the group of individuals that will be laid off, the eligibility factors for the exit program (e.g. voluntary early retirement), the job titles and ages of all employees that are eligible to participate in the lay off or those that are laid off involuntarily, the ages of all employees in the same job/class as the person being laid off that were not eligible for the voluntary layoff or were not selected for the layoff.
Employees also have 7 days to revoke the severance agreement after signing. The parties cannot waive this time to revoke.
Employees should also be advised in writing to consult a lawyer before signing the agreement.

Employers are strictly liable when they fail to follow the requirements. An employer either followed it or failed to follow it. There is not much arguing about whether the required steps were in the agreement, so employers should be careful to follow all requirements.

7. Waiver of Future Employment

A severance agreement may need to address whether an employee will be able to join the company in the future and what will happen if they apply. When an employee is being terminated for cause or because of a disagreement with the company, the employer will typically require the employee to waive the right to rejoin the company or apply for jobs at the company.

8. Address Letters of Recommendation

There are usually two purposes to a provision about letters of recommendation and they differ based on the circumstances for the termination of the employee. For employees that had good performance and were not fired for cause, a severance will often say that the employer will provide a detailed letter of recommendation on request. For employees that were terminated for cause or due to some dispute with the company, the provision usually states that the employer will give a letter confirming dates of employment and job title with few other details. Some employers will refuse to do even this.

9. Dispute Resolution

How will disputes between the parties be solved? Will the agreement require claims to go to arbitration or through the court system? Is the agreement going to include a class action waiver that limits class claims? Will the agreement have a jury waiver so that the dispute will be heard by the judge? These are a few of the issues that should be resolved.

10. Tax Issues

Employees should be required to accept and bear all tax consequences for the payment (under most circumstances). Some payments may not be treated as wages and the employer is not able to withhold income taxes for the employee (which should be outlined in the agreement) for these payments.

11. Unemployment

Employers often agree not to contest unemployment. It is often beneficial to not contest a departing employee’s unemployment even when they are being terminated for cause to discourage the employee from filing a claim against the company.

12. Paying Out Vacation

Companies should consider whether they intend to pay out vacation. In may states, PTO must be paid out. Texas does not require companies to pay out any accrued paid time off or other leave. Employers should follow their policies and past practices for paying out vacation.

13. Governing Law and Venue

What state law will apply to the agreement? How will disputes be resolved? Some states allow you to insert a choice of law provision to apply the law of another state to the dispute concerning the agreement. Usually, this occurs when an employer is headquartered in a different state than the state where the employee works, when the employee works in more than one state, or when the employee lives in a different state from where they work. The venue, particular state or federal court or arbitration association and the location of any arbitration, should be outlined in the agreement. There are very specific state laws to follow here so you should consult an attorney.

14. No Admission of Liability

A severance agreement normally includes a clause that the company does not admit liability for anything that may have happened, and the agreement should not be evidence that the company did something wrong.

15. Severability Provision

Agreements should include a provision stating that provisions within the agreement may be removed from the agreement or not enforced if they are unlawful or impermissible. However, the rest of the agreement will remain in force.

16. Liquidated Damages Provision

This is not a necessary part of the agreement. However, many agreements will put some form of liquidated damages that will or could be enforced upon a party that breaks the agreement. Frequently, this is something that the employer seeks to include in the agreement in the event that the employee disparages the company, breaks the confidentiality agreement, or violates other portions of the agreement.

17. Entire Agreement Clause

Severance agreements should contain a statement that the severance agreement encompasses the entire agreement between the parties. Essentially, this provision means that there is no other agreement between the parties. Oftentimes, employers may have separate agreements (e.g. noncompetition agreements) that they wish to continue to enforce and may also be referenced in this section.

18. Statement of Legal Competence

Agreements generally include a provision that the signee has legal competence; they are of sound mind and understand what they are signing.

Conclusion

Severance agreements are an important part of ensuring a smooth departure for both the employees and the companies. In the times of the coronavirus, they are critical to ensure that companies reduce potential liability and to ensure that employees get some payment as their service to a company ends. All companies can benefit from using a severance agreement checklist to ensure that they include all the needed or wanted provisions within their severance agreement.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

How to Reopen a Business and Recall Employees

Published by Brett Holubeck on April 24, 2020

Image of a shop sign with the words "Yes, we are open" to show that the store reopened. — Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Unsplash

With COVID-19 still raging through the country and unemployment projected to hit 32% and affect 47 million people, recalling employees may seem to be one of the last things on employees’ minds right now. However, it is something that all companies need to seriously be concerned about.

Moreover, with President Trump’s plan to reopen the economy and Governor Abbott’s plan to reopen Texas it is something that all Texas employers need to start to consider. Governor Abbott stated that retail stores will be able to open under a retail-to-go plan on April 24, certain “nonessential” surgeries will be able to be performed, and state parks were opened on April 20. There will be additional announcements on April 27 and later as the plan to reopen Texas develops.

So, what should companies do when they reopen?

Issues that Companies Face When Reopening and Recalling Employees

There are a number of issues that employers face when they are trying to reopen. If you read my COVID-19 article, article on protecting essential workers, or the WARN article, then you understand some of the issues that companies must consider when they reopen and recall employees.

Here are some additional issues to consider:

Avoiding WARN Act Issues

If you temporarily laid off your employees and intended to bring them back (I hope you listed an intended date of return on your notice to them if WARN applied), then you need and ought to take certain steps. The most important step is recalling employees to ensure that you do not meet one of the thresholds where WARN would have been triggered. As a reminder, the DOL states that

[a] covered mass layoff occurs when 50 to 499 employees are affected during any 30-day period at a single employment site (or for certain multiple related layoffs, during a 90-day period), if these employees represent at least 33 percent of the employer’s workforce where the layoff will occur, and the layoff results in an employment loss for more than six months. If the layoff affects 500 or more workers, the 33 percent rule does not apply.

If you laid off employees temporarily and want to bring them back, you must be extremely careful and act quickly.

Keeping in Contact with Laid Off Employees

You should be in contact with your employees. Now is a time to show them that you actually care about them. If you had a temporary layoff or are now recalling employees that were permanently laid off, then you should do things that actually demonstrate that you meant you would like to bring them back and show that you care so that you get the employees back when that time comes.

Some simple things that you can do to show that you care and keep in contact is to:

Update the contact information (phone numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses) for all employees
If you gave a date when you expected the closure to last until then consider reminding employees and checking in before that date to inform them of what they will need to do to return to work and whether the opening will proceed on that date.
Write and send letters of recommendation for former employees if they are applying for jobs.
Do not contest unemployment and consider filing for mass unemployment while they are not working for you.
When you contact employees you need to ask how they are doing. They are human. They are going through a lot. Businesses that show that they care about their employees are more likely to succeed.

Recalling Employees

Companies need to follow their protocols to recall employees.

If a company will rehire employees that were previously laid off or recall employees that were furloughed, then the most important thing a company needs is some form of objective criteria to determine which employees they will recall if they do not recall everyone. Typically, employers would first look at their employee handbook to see whether it outlines any return to work policy. Unionized companies must follow their collective bargaining agreement. If there is no policy in place, then employers should attempt to develop a policy that they will follow.

What criteria should you consider before you bring employees back when you are not bringing everyone back?

What jobs need to be brought back? Are there any jobs that do not need to be brought back?
Will any employees need to come back before other employees? For example, some machinery may require maintenance before it is able to operate again. You may need to recall your maintenance staff first so that they can get any machinery that has been turned off up and running again.
What skills do you need? Some employees may have cross-trained and be able to fill in other roles which could be important if less employees come back to work.
Will you use past evaluations to determine what employees should not be brought back in the same job? How will you measure performance?
Are you going to use seniority?
Are there any employees that you are not going to bring back? You should document why you are not bringing back certain employees.

The most important thing to do is to document the reasons that you are bringing back certain employees. While this may seem like an easy task, how you conduct a recall will have major implications on potential discrimination claims and morale issues, and potentially WARN Act issues if you fail to recall enough workers.

Special Recall Rules for Employers with Collective Bargaining Agreements

If you have a collective bargaining agreement, then you must follow the requirements within it to recall employees. Typically, a collective bargaining agreement requires that employers recall employees by seniority in each position. If everyone is not recalled, then there may be obligations to bargain with the union.

Age Discrimination Issues

Companies need to carefully review who they plan to recall and review whether any disparate impact occurs on employees. Sometimes companies choose to use salary as a factor for returning employees. This can cause a situation where the oldest employees, typically those that have worked for a company the longest and thus have the highest salary, are not recalled because the company is trying to save money. Companies must be careful to justify the reasons that they are bringing back certain employees and not others. This kind of situation could cause an age discrimination claim.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act Issues

Any employee that is recalled will be immediately eligible to take sick leave under the FFCRA. Employees are not eligible for expanded family leave until they have been an employee of the company and on the payroll for at least 30 days. Any recalled employee will be eligible to take sick leave under the FFCRA right away and the company will need to front the money to pay for it. This may be especially difficult for companies that have been closed for more than a month.

Preparing to Reopen Your Business

There are a ton of considerations before any business reopens. A lot of it is specific to the particular business. One issue is employee safety. Lear, a Fortune 500 company that produces automotive seating and automotive electrical systems, has put together a great guide that can help companies that are preparing to reopen their business.

There are a number of factors to consider when a business reopens:

Is there enough work? Can your business reopen, or should you file bankruptcy?
How much work is there? Does your business need to bring back only certain parts of the business that are likely to be the most profitable? Will you cut other parts of the business?
Are supply chains up and running and able to provide the business with the resources that you need to make your product or operate your business?
Are your customers operating? Is there a market for your product or business? Does the business need to wait for customers to reopen first?
Have you been keeping in touch with your employees as described above to ensure that you will be adequately staffed when you reopen? Some employees may not wish to come back especially if they are collecting more on unemployment. It is entirely possible that you may need to hire new/additional employees.
Have you updated your procedures and practices before you plan to reopen? Have you reviewed all the guidance from OSHA and the CDC that apply to your business? Implementing them to the extent possible at a business is critical to protect employees and avoid potential claims against the business for failing to provide a safe working environment, worker’s compensation claims if employees fall ill, and premise liability claims from customers that get sick?
Will you train your supervisors and cleaning staff to follow guidelines from OSHA and the CDC to ensure that cleaning is properly done? Have you identified areas that will need to be more frequently cleaned? Have you instituted new policies to space out employees in hallways, lunchrooms, and their workstations as is possible in your business? Will you institute staggered lunches?
Have you updated your handbook to include policies related to leave under the FFCRA?
Have you obtained the necessary safety supplies to clean areas and protect your employees including infrared (no contact) thermometers, masks, gloves, and additional cleaning supplies? Will you be using temperature checks when employees enter the facility?
Have you trained supervisors to handle employee accommodation requests? For example, an employee with a heart condition may have a disability that needs to be accommodated. Are supervisors prepared to address any disability accommodation requests related to the coronavirus?
Do you have a plan in place to let employees know all of the extra steps that you are taking to protect them and to receive feedback on any safety concerns? Are you posting flyers related to the steps that you have taken? Again, Lear has provided flyers that can be used.

These suggestions barely begin to scratch the surface of issues that businesses must consider to reopen. Every business is unique, and it is likely beneficial for businesses to seek outside guidance about their specific business as they prepare to reopen and recall employees.

Conclusion

With an over 20% “real” unemployment rate, many people in the country are suffering. This is not going to end soon. A lot of capital has been lost, supply chains have been destroyed, and the economy has changed forever. The more preparation businesses do to reopen, the more likely they will be successful in doing so.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.