NHL Expansion Team Faces Trademark Fight

The newest National Hockey League team - the Vegas Golden Knights - is facing a legal battle before its first puck even drops on the ice.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently issued an Office Action refusing the team's trademark registration, citing a likelihood of confusion with the College of Saint Rose Golden Knights,

The franchise (which is already selling merchandise with its name and logo) has six months to respond to the Office Action and does not plan to change its name.

From ESPN.com:

"We consider this a routine matter and it is not our intention to reconsider the name or logo of this franchise," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in a statement Thursday. "We fully intend to proceed as originally planned, relying on our common law trademark rights as well as our state trademark registrations while we work through the process of addressing the question raised in the federal applications."

The United States Army has also signaled its opposition to the "Golden Knights" moniker.  The Army's demonstration parachute team has been known as the Golden Knights since 1962, but the name was never protected by federal trademark law.

From the Washington Post:

“For us, the bottom line is the (perceived) connection between the Army and the professional sports team,” [Army spokesperson Alison] Bettencourt said, declining to answer whether the Army will ask the Vegas Golden Knights to change their name before the military’s review is completed.
 
“Our interest in this announcement is meant to protect the proud history of the Army’s Golden Knights and their vital role in telling the Army story and connecting America with their Army,” Bettencourt told the [Fayetteville] Observer.

For comparison, the Columbus Blue Jackets own numerous trademarks, including registrations for CBJ, Blue Jackets, Let Fandom Ring, We Are The 5th Line and a team logo featuring a cannon.

Nine to Five? The Uncertainty of Federal Overtime Regulations

On November 22, 2016, a federal judge in Texas granted a nationwide injunction to prevent implementation of new federal overtime regulations doubling the minimum salary of exempt employees.The ruling, which was issued only days before the rule was to become effective, has created uncertainty for many businesses.

First, it is important to note that this preliminary injunction is only a temporary hold on the overtime rule. The regulation may be implemented in the future, but given potential appeals by the Labor Department, as well as possible changes under the incoming Trump Administration, it is impossible to know when, if ever, the rule may become effective.

What should employers do in the meantime?  At least three general recommendations are in order:

1. Continue to comply with the existing overtime regulations.  Because the new regulation is not in effect, employers are not required to pay overtime wages as provided under the new rule.
   
2. Assume that the new regulation will be implemented in some form, and begin planning accordingly. For instance, our recommendation is that all employers keep detailed records of employees’ hours, whether those individuals work full-time, part-time, or volunteer. Likewise, it is a good time to update employee job descriptions, company policies, and employee handbooks to include specific procedures and guidelines for working overtime (even including such issues as smartphone usage).
   
3. If a business has already advised employees about the salary increase or has actually implemented the increase to keep up with the new federal regulation, it may be best to uphold those changes. Although businesses are not required to do so, honoring such a commitment encourages a relationship of good will between employer and employee. In these cases, employers may wish to consider a written agreement in which the employer will pay overtime wages to those employees who would have been eligible under the new regulation for a limited time period in the discretion of the employer.  

More suggestions are available at The Ohio Employer's Law Blog or The Employer Law Report.

If I Only Had the Words: Billy Joel's Relevance to Attorneys

Too often, the legal profession relies on specialized language (think of terms like jurisdiction, quitclaim, and fiduciary) without considering that such terms may confuse and discourage clients or other non-professionals. Whether addressing a court or a layperson, it is essential for attorneys to communicate well.

This weekend, attorney Christian Brill will discuss this important issue using an unlikely source - the music of Billy Joel. The presentation is part of “It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me”: The Music and Lyrics of Billy Joel, a scholarly symposium to discuss the impact of the Piano Man.

Brill's presentation will discuss the need for effective legal communication and how the lyrics of Billy Joel have been used in legal writing and opinions to interest, persuade, and illuminate readers. For example, judges have incorporated Joel lyrics into opinions on such varied matters as child support (“I Go To Extremes”) and arson (“We Didn’t Start The Fire”).

Changes to Public Records Laws Take Effect Sept. 28

Under Ohio's Public Records Law, any Ohioan may request copies of public records from a public office.  If a proper request for records is denied, the citizen can petition a court to order the release of the records.

However, new legislation passed by the General Assembly - the first of its kind in the country - now gives Ohioans a more streamlined and cost-effective way to obtain these records in case of a denial.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

On Sept. 28, the Ohio Court of Claims will begin accepting complaints on the refusal to release records by government at all levels, from townships to the state.

The law, the product of legislation from Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina, will send complaints to a mediator who will work with citizens and government officials in an attempt to reach a resolution.

If no agreement is reached, a special master will rule within seven days whether government was legally correct in denying a records request or broke the law and must hand over the records.

In order to file an appeal, a citizen must file a complaint form and copies of the records requests and governmental denials, along with a filing fee of $25, with the county court of common pleas. 

The 2016 Ohio Sunshine Laws Manual, published by the Public Records unit of the Ohio Attorney General's office, provides an excellent overview of Ohio's public records laws.

Faith-Based Discrimination in Hiring

Can a faith-based organization refuse to hire employees who do not share its faith?

Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e) exempts religious organizations from the prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. (Ohio has a similar statute.) Therefore, if an organization is religious for purposes of the statute, it can restrict employment to those of a certain religion in order to carry out its activities.

In order to qualify for the exemption, the organization must be primarily religious.  The definition is not included in the statute but has been explored by the courts.  For example, a 2010 federal case involving the relief and development organization World Vision examined if the organization is 1) organized for a self-identified religious purpose; 2) engaged in activity that is consistent with and furthers that purpose; and 3) holding itself out to the public as religious.

This exemption also extends to permit a religious organization to discriminate in hiring for its nonprofit secular activities, even if the employment is not primarily religious.  For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were permitted to terminate a non-Mormon employee of a nonprofit gymnasium which it controlled.

Religious organizations should be sure that all documents (from employment agreements to corporate articles) consistently reflect the organization's nature as religious and emphasize that all its activities are designed to further the organization's purpose.

More information regarding religious discrimination in the workplace is available from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.