Legal Advice Blog: Legal Advice, Case Insights, & Local Law Information

Too often, employers take advantage of their employees, with the employer typically leveraging its superior knowledge of the law. Employees forced to resort to legal action against their employers often face powerful and sometimes obstructive employers, but also benefit by representation from fierce attorney advocates who have the employee’s best interests in mind. Unfortunately, a recently announced U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) program may end up hindering employees’ ability to have their day in court with the aid of their chosen advocate. On March 6, 2018, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division announced a six-month pilot initiative referred to as the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (“PAID”) program. The PAID program will allow an employer to conduct self-audits of their payroll practices and voluntarily report underpayments to the DOL which, in turn, will supervise the back wage payments. Yet to be tested, the new program is touted as a way for employees to receive the wages they are owed faster without having to wait for litigation and as a means of correcting an employer’s underpayment of wages to employees. However, the PAID program potentially harms employees more than it will help them. The settlements that the DOL supervises do not mandate liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are an amount paid in addition to unpaid wages. The purpose of liquidated damages is to discourage employers from unlawfully withholding wages, only to pay them if they get caught; in which case the employer essentially enjoys a consequence-immune interest-free loan. Under the apparently employer-friendly PAID program, employers may be able to do a low cost review, and have the DOL approve repayment of back wages without further liability, and without the fierce legal advocate acting on behalf of the employee. Further, employees who submit to this route for reimbursement of their owed wages will give up their right to bring a lawsuit against their employer for the payment of unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation. The National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group, said it opposed the program. Judy Conti, a federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project, said the PAID program is an effort to “stack the deck in favor of employers” and acts as a “get out of jail free card” for them. Note that the program cannot be invoked when the violation is already at issue in litigation, in arbitration, or already under investigation by the DOL/WHD. Also, remember that wage and hour claims under the FLSA are typically subject to a two year statute of limitations, which can only be extended to three years under certain circumstances. If you feel that you are not being properly paid wages you have earned, call Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP for a free consultation at 800-274-5927. You may have a viable claim and we can help you determine the best course of action. (Advertising Material: This Notice is for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice).

Griffith, et al. v. Menard, Inc., Case No. 2:18-CV-81 (S.D. OH) Attorneys: Bob DeRose Practice Area: Wage and Hour/Overtime Violations On January 31, 2018, the law firms of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP and Anderson2X, PLLC filed a nationwide class and collective action lawsuit against Menard, Inc., the Wisconsin-based operator of the roughly 300 Menards retail stores across 14 Midwestern states. The Allegations The lawsuit contends that Menards maintained several unlawful company-wide policies in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and numerous state wage laws. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Menards maintained a company-wide policy of requiring employees to clock out for restroom breaks and certain store meetings during their shifts. It also alleges that Menards required employees to complete job-related training exercises at home, but failed to compensate them for performing the work. The Case Unpaid work hours and unpaid overtime compensation resulted from these alleged violations. The Named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are 160 current and former hourly Menards employees from 13 different states. The Named Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid compensation, overtime, and other damages owed to them under the FLSA and respective state wage laws. They also seek the Court’s permission to send notice of the nationwide collective action lawsuit to all similarly situated individuals to apprise them of their rights and provide them an opportunity to opt-in to the lawsuit. To inquire further about this case, please call (614) 221-4221 ext. 1129 or email info@barkanmeizlish.com. To read the Complaint, please click the link below. Media Links Ohio Attorneys File Class Action Suit Against Menards Updates as of 2/5/2020: There are currently multiple cases against Menards, including various wage and hour violations. The one Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP and our co-counsel Anderson Alexander are involved in is a case for those individuals who participated in In Home Training (IHT) beginning on January 31, 2015. If you believe you are eligible and want to confirm that you are opted in to this case, please call (877) 788-4959 to make sure they have your updated contact information.

Hall et al. v. U.S. Cargo & Courier Service, LLC Case No. 2:16-cv-330 (S.D. OH) Attorneys: Bob DeRose, , Trent Taylor Practice Area: Wage and Hour/Overtime Violations On April 13, 2016, we filed a Complaint on behalf of a former delivery driver against U.S. Cargo and Courier Service. U.S. Cargo is a company that provides regional courier and small package delivery services to businesses and financial institutions throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The Complaint alleges that U.S. Cargo improperly misclassified many of its delivery drivers as “independent contractors,” rather than employees. Because of the alleged misclassification, the former driver claims that U.S. Cargo wrongfully deprived him of rights and protections guaranteed to employees under Ohio and federal law, including overtime, unemployment insurance benefits, and workers’ compensation coverage. On November 1, 2017, we filed an Amended Complaint adding two additional former delivery drivers as plaintiffs to the lawsuit. In light of evidence that roughly 50 former drivers may have similar claims against U.S. Cargo, we filed a Motion for Conditional Certification requesting permission from the Court to notify other misclassified delivery drivers of their right to join this lawsuit. On March 9, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification. The Order will allow similarly situated independent contractor delivery drivers who worked for U.S. Cargo throughout Ohio to be notified of the opportunity to join the lawsuit and pursue their duly owed pay. To inquire further about this case, please call 614-221-4221 ext. 1129 or email srasoletti@barkanmeizlish.com.

A pizza restaurant chain in Manchester, Connecticut was held liable for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). An investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division found that the pizza restaurant chain had violated the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements between February 2013 and November 2015. The restaurant did not pay one-and-one-half their regular rates of pay to three employees who worked overtime hours up to seventy-five hours per week. Additionally, the restaurant took payroll deductions for cash register shortages that resulted in one employee receiving less than minimum wage. The investigation also found that the restaurant maintained and supplied false time and payroll records and statements to investigators during the current investigation and a prior investigation in 2015. Additionally, the investigation found that between December 2015 and April 2016, the owner of the restaurant continually pressured one employee to make false statements to investigators, leading the employee to believe he had no choice but to resign. The Department of Labor charged that the owner’s behavior resulted in the worker’s constructive discharge, in violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions. Therefore, on November 16, 2017, a United States District Court in Connecticut issued a judgment against Chemro LLC d/b/a People’s Choice, and Defendant Robert Y. Mercier II for back pay in the amount of $67,151.14, which includes minimum wage and overtime payments due, as well as liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, civil money penalties, and interest. The Court also ordered that the company and its owner comply with the FLSA and “refrain from discharging or discriminating against employees who initiate or cooperate with an FLSA investigation.” The FLSA requires that most employees receive one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay when they work more than 40 hours in a work week and that employers maintain adequate and accurate records of employees’ wages and work hours. If you feel that you are not being properly paid wages you have earned, you should call our unpaid wages lawyer for a free consultation. You may have a viable claim and we can help you determine the best course of action after thorough consideration of your situation. We can be reached at 800-274-5927. (Advertising Material: This Notice is for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice).

A Brooklyn federal judge has ruled that baklava chefs’ jobs were not “creative” to meet the Fair Labor Standards Act’s creative professional exemption from overtime pay. The judge held that this exemption requires “innovation and imagination,” not the “consistency and precision” displayed by the Turkish baklava and baked goods chefs when making their tasty treats. In a decision denying summary judgment to the defendants, the court held that the exemption defense failed because “although defendants adequately demonstrate that plaintiffs were experienced and talented , defendants not demonstrate how plaintiffs’ experience and talent were applied to an innovative and imaginative task.” The defendants, Gulluoglu, an entity that sells Turkish food at multiple locations, and its manager, failed to shoulder their burden of proving that its employees fell within the exemption. According to the court, “efendants did not sell their baklava and other baked goods in five-star or gourmet establishments, and plaintiffs, tasked with preparing baklava and other enumerated Turkish baked goods to be sold by third parties, did not have the autonomy to design unique dishes and menu items.” The plaintiffs, both former baked goods chefs for Gulluoglu, frequently worked 60 hour weeks, but were only paid a fixed weekly salary of $700. Although the plaintiffs’ skills and training were brought up in court, such as a plaintiff serving as an apprentice to a baklava maker in Turkey for seven years, deposition testimony showed that the baklava chef never prepared baklava from scratch. Rather, plaintiff would heat and apply a “sweet syrup” to frozen baklava imported from Turkey. Starting in 2010, however, the baklava was imported pre-cooked, with the syrup glaze already applied. Additionally, the pastry chef’s cakes were not made from scratch, but imported and defrosted. Defendants argued that “plaintiffs’ talent alone should trigger the exemption.” Yet, the court held that “he regulatory language makes clear that an employee talented at an unimaginative and unoriginal task does not fall within the exemption.” If you feel that you are not being properly paid wages, you should call our unpaid wages lawyer for a free consultation. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and is titled Eren v. Gulluoglu LLC, Case No. 15-CV-4083.

Barkan Meizlish would like to honor and thank all military veterans for their service. Our firm is proud to represent and advocate on behalf of many veterans through the work we conduct in our various practice areas. We would also like to honor Chris Peifer, a partner in our Labor Department and a veteran of the United States Air Force. During law school, Chris considered what he should do with his law degree. He decided that he wanted to do something that would be impactful and would fulfill his strong sense of duty to his country. He was also unsure about which specific area of the law he wanted to practice. Therefore, when he heard about the opportunity to become a Judge Advocate General (JAG) after graduation, Chris decided becoming a JAG was the perfect way to begin his legal career. After graduating from the University of Dayton Law School and passing the State of Ohio bar examination, Chris accepted a commission in the United States Air Force as a Judge Advocate General. Chris was assigned to RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, where he worked in the Staff Judge Advocate Office and the Area Defense Counsel’s Office. While at RAF Lakenheath, Chris’ work ranged from advising the general, to defending airmen in criminal matters, to working as a prosecuting court marshall. The subject matter of the cases and issues Chris worked on included aviation law, labor law, employment law, criminal law, tax law, wills and estates, operational law, international law, and other areas of military law. Later, Chris was assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. There, Chris worked on a variety of contract matters and continued building upon his knowledge of many areas of the law. Chris spent a total of six years in his career as a JAG before he separated from the United States Air Force in March of 2007 and accepted a position at a Dayton law firm. After his time in the Air Force, and before coming to Barkan Meizlish, Chris has worked in a law firm setting, in his own solo practice, and in-house at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 1224, in Wilmington, Ohio. Currently, Chris represents labor organizations in the public and private sectors, in collective bargaining, arbitration, and litigation in federal and state courts and before federal and state agencies charged with enforcing the nation’s labor laws. He provides advice and guidance to labor organizations on the myriad of issues that arise on a daily basis. Chris brings a unique breadth of experience, substantive knowledge, and sense of service to our team of attorneys. Our firm would like to thank all veterans, including Chris, for their service to our country.

Call center service provider Great Virtual Works is facing a collective action complaint for violations of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and minimum wage/overtime laws of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The case alleges that Great Virtual Works misclassified its “independent business owners” as independent contractors, rather than employees. Great Virtual Works is a corporation headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that provides telephone-based customer service, sales service and technical support to customers of client companies such as Great Healthworks, makers of the dietary supplement Omega XL. The collective claims brought under the FLSA here allegedly apply to similarly situated individuals in other states in a00ddition to Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The two plaintiffs claim that Great Virtual Works misclassified them in an attempt to avoid paying employees all the hours they spent actually working for the company.  According to the plaintiffs, Great VirtualWorks’ so-called “business owners” are actually individual employees working from their homes, performing hourly-paid work duties such as telephone-based customer service, sales service, and technical support for Great VirtualWorks’ client companies. The plaintiffs argue that they and other similarly situated individuals were not business owners or independent contractors as labeled by Great VirtualWorks because they did not make significant investments in equipment or materials, exercise any specific skills, or make a significant profit or loss from their work. The plaintiffs state that Great VirtualWorks has at all times of plaintiffs’ employment been in control of their work schedules and activities, relying on them and similarly situated employees to perform an integral part of its business of providing telephone-based customer service, sales service and technical support to other companies. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege Great VirtualWorks failed to pay them for work performed before, during, and after their shifts, including: connecting to the company from their own homes or places of work, opening computer applications for the company’s telephone-based customer service, sales service and technical support (5-20 minutes); having brief rest breaks (the FLSA says 5-minute to 20-minute breaks must be counted as hours worked); troubleshooting activities when disconnected from the company’s network; shutting down computers and applications at the end of a shift; reviewing emails and completing notes when not engaged in calls but clocked in; completing required online training; and attending mandatory meetings or coaching sessions. As a result of this unpaid work, the compensation plaintiffs actually received averaged less than the federal minimum wage, as well as the Kentucky and Pennsylvania minimum wage.  Additionally, plaintiffs allege that they did not receive proper overtime compensation at a rate of time-and-a-half of their regular rates of pay. The plaintiffs are now seeking unpaid minimum, overtime, and contractually-owed wages, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and costs, and other remedies they may be entitled to under federal or state law. The lawsuit is currently stayed pending an an upcoming ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a legal issue relevant to the employees’ claims, which is whether Great Virtual Works can require employees to submit their claims to individual arbitration. The amended collective class action complaint is recorded in Kentucky as Case No. 0:17-cv-00063-HRW. The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP and JTB Law Group, LLC. If you have questions or information to provide, you may contact the following attorneys: Trent Taylor; ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com; (800) 274-5297 Robi Baishnab; rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com; (800) 274-5297 Nicholas Conlon; nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com; (877) 561-0000

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was designed to protect workers from employers who may otherwise take advantage of their employees. Generally, the FLSA requires employers to pay an overtime premium to non-exempt employees of one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a workweek and to also pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked.  In the rapidly growing oil and gas industry, however, wage and hour violations have become more common as companies seek ways to lower their labor costs. For example: 1. Day Rate Pay Without Overtime One common type of violation occurs when an employee receives a “day rate” payment without overtime. A “day rate” method of payment is a flat sum for a day’s work without regard to the number of hours worked in the day. Simply paying employees a day rate does not, however, negate the FLSA’s requirement that non-exempt employees receive overtime at a rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40. To comply with the FLSA, employers who use this method of compensation must therefore pay non-exempt employees a premium overtime rate. There is often plenty of room for error in calculating an employee’s overtime on a day rate of pay, as this rate can fluctuate depending on the amount of hours worked. 2. Independent Contractor Misclassification Additionally, some employers try to avoid their obligations under the FLSA by classifying workers as independent contractors, rather than employees. Independent contractors are not subject to the many of the FLSA’s protections, including overtime, so employers often “misclassify” workers to eliminate certain tax obligations or other costs otherwise owed to employees. This technique is fairly common in the oil and gas industry, where much of the day-to-day work on oil rigs and gas wells is sub-contracted out to other companies. But it is the actual employment relationship—not the label—that controls whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of the FLSA. For example, one of the various tests applied by courts in making this determination (“economic reality test”) takes into consideration 6 different factors: (1) the permanency of the relationship; (2) the degree of skill required; (3) whether the worker contributes services that are an integral part of the business; (4) the employer’s control over the worker; (5) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss; and (6) the worker’s investment in materials and equipment. Defining employee status can be complex and it all depends on the circumstances surrounding the employment relationship as a whole. Additionally, misclassification can expose employers to serious liability—including payment of back wages, liquidated damages, and attorney’ fees—when violations are found.

On August 2, 2017, the law firm of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP filed a Complaint against Defendants Serenity Homes LV, LLC (“Serenity Homes”), and its manager, Valerie Kaleal, for the failure to properly compensate an employee in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Serenity Homes is a company based in Shelby, Ohio and provides home healthcare to individuals with mental and physical disabilities and specific medical needs throughout the Mansfield, Ohio and Shelby, Ohio area. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of plaintiff Catherine Sparks, a home health aide currently employed by Defendants, who regularly worked at least 40 hours per week, including overnight and weekend shifts, during the two years preceding the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff alleges Serenity Homes failed to pay her overtime at a rate of 1.5 times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was not adequately compensated at the overtime rate when she worked “sleep time” hours (10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M.). To exclude sleep time hours under the FLSA, an employer must show an expressed or implied agreement with the employee that excludes sleep time, provide adequate sleeping facilities, and the employee must have at least 5 hours of consecutive sleep during the scheduled sleeping periods. 29 C.F.R. 785.22. Any interruptions to perform duties must be counted as hours worked. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not have any “sleep time” agreement, nor did Plaintiff have 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep while working sleep time hours as a home health aide. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that she was not properly compensated for attending mandatory employee meetings and working “on call” hours, nor was she properly paid for her mileage or reimbursed for the use of her own car when she engaged in activities to benefit Defendants’ clients during the course of her employment. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division and is titled Sparks v. Serenity Homes LV, LLC et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01618. If you feel that you are not being properly paid wages you have earned, call Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP for a free consultation at 800-274-5927. You may have a viable claim and our employment attorney can help you determine the best course of action.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that it is finding “unacceptably high numbers of violations in the oil and gas industry,” and “pattern of industry employers failing to pay workers legally required overtime.” Common violations include: the mistaken classification of salaried employees as exempt; not properly calculating employees’ regular rates for the purposes of determining overtime, such as failing to include certain bonuses; failing to pay for time spent working off-the-clock; and paying flat daily/shift rates without regard to how many hours the employees worked. Even employees that earn more than $100,000 per year are often incorrectly classified as exempt, because the employer fails to satisfy all elements of the exemption. In addition to employees that work directly for oil & gas companies; workers in related businesses may also be underpaid, such as water and stone haulers, trucking, lodging, staffing companies and other types of oil and gas supporting trades. If you work for an oil and gas company, or if you work in an industry related to the oil and gas business; and if you work more than 40 hours a week, then call us for a free consultation to determine whether you are being paid properly. Remember, even if you receive “overtime” compensation, the amount of overtime paid may not be properly calculated by your employer or by the staffing agency. Also remember that wage and hour claims are typically subject to a two year statute of limitations. This is sometimes extended to three years, but only under certain circumstances. This means that as time goes by, historical weeks of earned wages are barred from recovery by the statute of limitations. Call us today at 800-274-5297. (Advertising Material: This Notice is for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice). Oil, gas industry workers in 9 states owed more than $1.6M in back wages ongoing Labor Department enforcement initiative finds See also To Be or Not to Be . . . exempt. I’m salaried, so I shouldn’t get overtime, right? Sorry, that is wrong. Oil, gas industry workers in 9 states owed more than $1.6M in back wages ongoing Labor Department enforcement initiative finds; and US Department of Labor finds oil and gas industry workers in New Mexico, west Texas underpaid by more than $1.3M Fact Sheet #17H: Highly-Compensated Workers and the Part 541-Exemptions Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Immigration status does not affect an employee’s ability to recover for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Evidence brought forth that would lead a juror to infer that a plaintiff was or is undocumented will likely be excluded, because it is more harmful to the Plaintiff and is not relevant to the FLSA claim. Numerous Circuit courts and District courts have agreed. For example, a United States Magistrate Judge in Illinois, in the case of Kim v. Hakuya Sushi Inc. et al.,1:15-cv-03474, Doc. No. 158, recently barred evidence in the lawsuit of an employee against his former employer. There, the Judge stated that “an individual’s status as an undocumented worker does not affect his or her ability to recover unpaid wages under the FLSA”, and therefore, “courts are generally in agreement that such evidence is not a proper subject of discovery and is appropriately excluded at trial.” The court noted that introduction of evidence of immigration status is irrelevant to a claim of unpaid wages, and thus, any evidence, even if solely used for impeachment purposes, would likely be too damaging to the jury’s view of the Plaintiff and should, as a result, be excluded from evidence. This case suggests that Plaintiffs should not be fearful that evidence of their immigration status may be used against them in their lawsuit to recover for unpaid wages. Employers have a duty to comply with the FLSA, regardless of immigration status. If you feel that you are not being properly paid wages you have earned, call us for a free consultation at 800-274-5927. You may have a viable claim and we can help you determine the best course of action after thorough consideration of your situation. (Advertising Material: This Notice is for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice).

The National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") was enacted in 1935 to “to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices.” The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted in 1925 to encourage private dispute resolution through arbitration. Whether two federal statutes can live in harmony or conflict is often a thing of heated legal debate. Currently before the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) are three consolidated cases that may put to rest a circuit split, deciding whether arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from joining other employees to pursue worked-related claims, including claims for unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime, violate the NLRA. In a rare position reversal, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in which it now supports class waiver by arbitration agreements. While not among the consolidated cases before the SCOTUS, the Sixth Circuit recently supported workers’ rights, holding that the NLRA does not conflict with the FAA, and since the NLRA creates a substantive, nonwaivable right to engage in concerted activity, arbitration agreements that prohibit concerted activities in any forum are unenforceable. It is important to note that the Sixth Circuit does not say that an arbitration agreement cannot require collective or class claims to be brought in arbitration. Rather, the Sixth Circuit says that an arbitration agreement cannot prohibit an employee from pursuing collective claims, class claims or any other concerted activity in all forums. It is an arbitration agreement’s prohibition against concerted activity that violates the NLRA, not the arbitration agreement’s requirement to arbitrate. Of course, disagreement on this issue is what the SCOTUS will decide. While the DOL’s shift certainly does not bode well for workers, we are hopeful that the legal arguments presented by the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits prevail. The power balance between workers and historically more powerful employers is facilitated by workers’ rights to join their individually insignificant damages and resources into collectives. If you feel that you are not being properly paid wages you’ve earned, and if you think you have no recourse because you signed an arbitration agreement; you should call us for a free consultation. You may have a viable claim in court or in arbitration, and we can help you determine the best course of action after thorough consideration of your situation. We can be reached at 800-274-5927. https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act http://www.legisworks.org/congress/68/publaw-401.pdf https://www.law360.com/employment/articles/935889/doj-reverses-obama-era-stance-in-class-waiver-suit?nl_pk=535043a8-09cf-4835-9108-d6d87bae778c&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=employment See 6th Cir. Opinion at Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alternative Entm't, Inc., No. 16-1385(6th Cir. May 26, 2017) (Advertising Material:  This Notice is for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice).