What Are Some Common Labor Laws?

Every worker should know what rights he or she is entitled to as an employee. Individuals working in the United States are subject to a wide range of labor laws. It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the basics of some common types of labor laws to ensure that you are being treated fairly as a worker.
While each state has its own individual labor laws, there are certain Federal mandates that affect all workers. For instance, the Family and Medical Leave Act gives all workers the right to take up to 12 weeks off of work without losing their jobs. Employees may use this time for their own illness, to take care of a family member, or as part of their maternity or paternity leave. It is important to note, however, that this provision does not require the employer to pay the employee during this time. The Act only ensures that the employee cannot be terminated from his or her position as a result of taking time off for medical or family reasons.
Another common type of labor law involves unemployment compensation. Unemployment benefits vary greatly from state to state, but all states require employers to provide some type of unemployment compensation in the event that they terminate an employee. There are various eligibility requirements, however, for the employee to receive these unemployment benefits. For example, the person often needs to have been working for the company where he or she was terminated for a certain length of time before the unemployed individual is eligible to collect compensation benefits. Moreover, the amount of compensation that the former employee receives will vary greatly depending on the amount earned during his or her time with the company.
For those who are looking for work, it is important to be familiar with equal employment opportunity laws. These labor laws make it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job candidate on the basis of sex, religion, race, age, disability, pregnancy, or national origin. These laws also forbid sexual harassment in the workplace and have established guidelines for equal pay.
All workers in the United States should be familiar with labor laws in order to know their rights as employees.

Common Law Divorces in Texas

Texas, common law marriage is recognized when two individuals live together and agree that they are "married", refer to each other as "husband or wife", and perform actions that are typical for married couples (such as filing a joint tax return). Under these conditions in this state, you could be legally eligible for this type of marriage determination. However, it is important to understand that even though of Texas identifies common law marriages, there is no similar process for common law divorces. This particular endeavor has its own set of rules and a couple cannot be simply divorce by stating it publicly or living apart.
If you choose to dissolve your marriage, you will still need to divide your assets and make determination regarding child support and child custody. Because this process can often be very complicated and time-consuming, you may want to consider hiring an attorney to help you through this process, as it will need to be done in a legally-recognizable manner. Consult with a lawyer today to answer any questions you may have regarding this procedure.
The following provisions may be said about common law divorce:

• Either spouse in the marriage has 2 years after you separate to file an action to prove that your marriage did indeed exist.
• You must have separated after September 1, 1989.
• You are still responsible for assets, debt, and the care of your children.
• In order to make sure that your spouse is legally responsible for what is owed to you, a divorce is preferred, rather than a legal separation or annulment.

If you experienced any form a spousal abuse in your common law marriage, there are provisions that can protect you under the law, such as requesting a protective order. These rights are still applicable for common law spouses as they are for spouses who obtain marriage licenses. Regardless of your marital status, you still may want to consult with a lawyer to make sure that you receive all of the funds to which you are entitled and your partner upholds his or her end of the custody determination.

Legal Analysis: Civil Law is Easier than Common Law

There are two legal traditions that work as foundations to all-out administration of any country in the world; these legal traditions are; civil law and common law traditions. This is one of the reasons why each country's legal education as well as any sort of administration are not the same and also one of the reasons why we cannot reach our abstract aspiration: "the world law." This article will reveal which tradition is easier in term of education and enforcement.
Civil law is easier than common law in both, terms of learning and enforcement, but why?
From the very outset, civil law tradition is a "writing tradition." Writing means every law or any nationwide effective administrative rule are written down and followed by printing in hard copies (books, journals, periodicals or other media publication) and even the fastest facilities: the internet. Writing makes the learners, the fellow citizens as well as the law enforcement officials easy, because they are able to find the law anytime and anywhere (library, bookstore, newsstand home library, etc) with or without the help from the expert in the field; in contrast, I do not think this ease applies to the common law countries. Above all, civil law is not as complicated like the common law where law or decision is flexible in accordance with the case.
One of the instinctive eases of civil law is that even the person whose brain is totally white with law or any social systematic complication can understand and it is much easier for serious law students who make to clarify or deeply understand and surprisingly, for the law enforcement officials.
The fact that civil law is a written tradition does facilitate me as a law student as well as others, because most of the times I do not need the expert in the fields to explain me every encountering difficulties; everything is literally and clearly written down in the books.
Furthermore, civil law also facilitates judge in making the decision, because he or she must follow a very stern system which are already stipulated in the books. Not just the judge, all the three institution (legislative, executive and judiciary) and the fellow citizens can easily follow what stipulated in the books; this would dramatically ease the conflicts of institutional and private interests.
The case that everything is written down in the civil law traditions, reveals me that it is easier from students from common law countries to study or practice laws in civil law countries, but it is extremely hard for civil law learners or lawyers to study or practice laws in the common law traditions, because civil law is easier to learn than the common law.
This article does not intend to underestimate common law tradition or promote the image of civil law tradition, but just, based on the author's opinion, to reveal the truth as well as other reasons why each country in one region, continent or different region and continent are still, in term of social administration, are different or very different.

Common Law Liability of Dog Owners

Washington State's "Dog Bite Statute" holds dog owners strictly liable for damages caused by injuries inflicted by their dogs. The phrase "strictly liable" means that the dog owner is liable regardless of whether the owner knew about the dog's dangerous propensities and regardless of whether the owner did anything wrong. To impose strict liability under the law, you simply must meet the elements of the statute.
But there is another basis to hold a dog owner liable for damages caused by the dog. In Washington a dog owner can also be held liable for damages under the common law. In this chapter I explain what "common law" means and how a dog owner can still be obligated to pay damages even if the terms of the "Dog Bite Statute" cannot be met.
What Is "Common Law"?
In our system of government, laws are usually created in two ways. The first way is when elected representatives draft a law and then enact it. At the state level, this body of representatives is called the "legislature." The Washington state legislature creates laws known as "statutes." At the local or city level, the body is often called the "city council" and it can create laws known as "ordinances." At the county level these laws may be called "codes." The "Dog Bite Statute" is an example of a law created by the Washington state legislature.
The second way that laws can be created is through the courts. This is also called "judge-made law" or more accurately, the "common law." Essentially, the "common law" refers to a body of law that is created by the decisions or opinions of judges. These judge-made decisions must be followed and enforced by the lower courts, often called trial courts. A leading judge-made law is often referred to as "precedent" because a lower court must comply with the decision and also enforce it in other cases with similar fact patterns.
The courts are only permitted to decide issues of law based on the narrow set of facts before it. The courts cannot make law based on hypothetical facts. This means that the common law can take many years to develop. As a result, the common law may be created in a patch-work fashion. At times, seemingly inconsistent or contradictory laws can be reached by two different courts when the facts of the case are nearly identical or similar. The application of the common law can be much less predictable since the facts giving rise to the laws may be slightly different in subsequent cases. The existence of a new fact or the omission of a small fact in a new case can give rise to new exceptions or changes in the common law addressing that particular issue.
It is important to understand that the state legislature can enact a law that overrules or changes the common law on a particular subject. This can only occur if the legislature's law is determined to be constitutional, which is a question left up to the courts. For example, by enacting the "Dog Bite Statute," the Washington state legislature essentially supplemented or added to the common law by creating a new cause of action as long as the elements of the statute are met.
In Washington, there is a body of judge-made law (or common law) that has been created over the years with respect to liability of dog owners for injuries or damages inflicted by their dogs. The "common law" liability of dog owners is more fully explained below.

Common law - Just What is It?

The law is a field that everyone is assumed to know, but the assumption is obviously wrong. The rule of law is so complex that most attorneys just specialize in a particular area since they can't keep track of everything going on. This is particularly do the to the continuing development of something known as common law.
Okay, it is a time to take a trip back to your civics class. How is our government process set up? Well, there are three branches - the legislative, judicial and executive branches. The legislative, Congress, is supposed to make laws. The judicial, the court, is supposed to oversee it. The executive, the President, is supposed to enforce it and guide the country. As you've probably noticed, the lines have become rather blurred when it comes to these duties and tasks.
Common law is the result of some of this blurring. Congress, as you've probably noticed, isn't exactly filled with the best of the best when it comes to intellectual minds. The legislature tends to pass laws that either conflict with other laws its passed or don't address big issues in the area in question. The only way to deal with this is for the courts to interpret the laws and make rulings. These rulings are known as common law because they set forth standards that must be followed even though the courts are not supposed to be making law.
For an example, let's just jump right into a hot button topic - abortion. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade that a right of privacy is inherent in the constitution and that said right is sufficient to rule that a women has the right to control her body. Thus, we know that abortion is legal as a matter of common law. Of course, the current court is much more conservative and will reverse Roe v. Wade probably sooner rather than later, but that is another issue for another article.
Now compare the federal situation to the abortion question as applied in California. The state has its own constitution. The right to privacy is specifically written into the document and there is no room for interpretation. Although not technically written by the legislature in California, the law is "on the books" and there is no need for a court to determine whether the right exists as a matter of common law or not. Given this, the right to privacy will always exist in California unless the state constitution is changed.
So, which set of rules plays a more prominent rule in real life - the laws passed by Congress or the common law issued by courts? It depends on the area of law, but common law is use in a majority of cases in one form or another.

How to Copyright - Common Law and Statutory Law Compared

It is widely misunderstood that one must file a copyright with the Copyright Office in order to secure a copyright. While acquiring a registration does indeed have its advantages, a registration within the Copyright Office is not required to secure rights. Instead, under common law, a copyright is automatically created when it is fixed in a tangible form for the first time. As long as it is an original work of authorship, you may claim ownership and protection and even place a copyright notice, including the "small c with a circle" symbol, on the particular work. Although a notice is not required any longer, should one desire to use it, it is important to follow the convention of using the © symbol followed by the year of the first publication of the work followed by the owner of the copyright and the work.
While creating and maintaining common law copyright protection is beneficial, the Copyright Act, a federal statute, provides additional benefits and protection rights to an owner. The most commonly recognized rights are the ability to sue within federal court, the ability to recover statutory damages up to $150,000.00 for willful infringement, and the ability to recover attorneys' fees. However, in order to receive these benefits, the copyright must be registered with the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress. While the time of filing for registration may affect which statutory damages are available, one must receive registration or be refused registration in order to proceed with an infringement lawsuit in federal court. Therefore, for a relatively small price, it is advisable to seek registration for all original works of authorship at the time of, or prior to, publication of the work. In addition, creating a public record of the work claimed, establishing a prima facia evidence of the validity, and other benefits make registration well worth the cost. With the ability to use online filing, there is no excuse for failure to register a copyright for whatever kind of work, including literary works, musical works, dramatic works, pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial graphic and sculptural works, motion pictures and other audio-visual works, sound recorders, and architectural works.
Ultimately, people must remember that as soon as an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible form and published, a copyright exists. However, under statutory law, and practically speaking, having a copyright registration with the Copyright Office will provide the additional benefits and advantages should the need to enforce it arise.

Brian A. Hall is an attorney and partner of Traverse Legal, PLC, a law firm specializing in complex litigation, intellectual property matters, internet law, and copyright registration and copyright infringement matters. Speak with a copyright attorney today and learn more about the importance of understanding the intricacies of copyright registration and other copyright issues.

Unmarried Couples and the Common Law Myth

One in six couples in England live together without getting married. Many of them are in long term relationships and wrongly believe that they have the same rights as married couples.
Long term partners often consider themselves to be 'common law' husband and wife after living together for a number of years, but the term 'common law' has no legal standing in this country in this situation.
The brutal truth is that, if you separate from your partner, the law will not treat you as equal partners in the way that it would a married couple. This could have serious implications both in terms of financial settlements and even possibly your rights in respect of your own children.
A woman may have no rights over the property in which she lives if the deeds are held in her partner's sole name and he has always paid the mortgage. So a woman who has given up work to look after the children could be severely disadvantaged come the separation.
Similarly, the rights of a father over his children are not as cut and dried as you would imagine. Even if the child has the same surname and the father is registered on the birth certificate, he may not automatically have parental responsibility, which is the legal right to make decisions which affect the child's life
Sandra Russell, family solicitor and Partner at Sheffield law firm Norrie Waite & Slater, talks us through the laws relating to unmarried couples.
Finances and the family home
For many couples the main asset they own is the family home. It is not uncommon for ownership of a home to be in the sole name of one partner, although often the other partner will have contributed financially to that home either by means of deposit, mortgage payments or paying for improvements.
If you were to separate under these circumstances you would need to try to negotiate a settlement with your ex-partner. If necessary, court proceedings may need to be issued for you to establish a proper share of the property, although this can be complex and requires specialist legal advice.
Establishing your rights to a share of the property may be possible if you can show that you had an agreement with your partner about how assets would be divided on separation (this may be in writing or a verbal promise, if it can be proven), or if you can provide financial records indicating that you made a significant contribution to the property.
Cohabitation Agreements
One way of avoiding potential disputes later on is to enter into a Cohabitation Agreement with your partner. A Cohabitation Agreement is effectively a contract which you both sign which sets out how assets will be divided in the event of you separating. In it you can state who owns what and, for assets which are jointly owned, you can state how they should be divided on separation and in what proportion. For a Cohabitation Agreement to be effective it is important to get it drawn up by an experienced family solicitor.
Other measures can be taken to protect yourselves in the event of separation or death, including both of you making Wills.
Unmarried fathers rights over children
Even if you are the biological father of a child it does not mean that you have an automatic right in law to parental responsibility.
If you are unmarried and separate from the child's mother and you do not have parental responsibility, then you do not have a legal say in the child's upbringing.
Parental responsibility is a legal term used to define who has the rights and obligations in making decisions which affect the child's life. Parental responsibility includes legal rights and responsibilities such as:

• Providing a home for the child
• Having contact with and living with the child
• Protecting and maintaining the child
• Disciplining the child
• Choosing and providing for the child's education
• Agreeing on the child's health and medical care
• Consenting to medical treatment for the child

Mothers automatically have parental responsibility. If the parents are married at the time of the child's birth then the father has automatic parental responsibility. For unmarried fathers the rules are more complicated.
You do have parental responsibility if:

• You are the father of a child born after 1st December 2003 and your name is on the birth certificate.

You do not have parental responsibility if:

• You are the father of a child born before 1st December 2003 and are not married to the child's mother.
• You are the unmarried father of a child born after 1st December 2003 and you are not named on the child's birth certificate.

If you do not have automatic parental responsibility, you may be able to get it in a number of ways. You could marry the child's mother or enter into a voluntary parental responsibility agreement with her or, if this is not an option, then you can apply to the court to obtain a parental responsibility order. An experienced family lawyer would be able to help you with this as you need to show a number of things, including that the application is being made in the interests of the child's welfare and that there is a degree of attachment between you and the child.
As you can see, cohabiting can be a potential legal minefield in the event of a separation, particularly where close financial ties exist, or when you have children. The law in the UK is some way behind catching up to the way in which many of us live our lives today.

Understanding Common Law Marriage

While most marriages are recognized with a marriage license, which is a legal document certifying your marriage, some marriages are recognized after you've been with a person for a long while. Common law marriage is much like a regular marriage, but it does not require a marriage contract or license. Rather, if you meet certain conditions, you're considered married in the state of Texas.
Like legal marriages, common law marriages may include benefits for the spouses, such as filing a joint tax return or having a joint insurance plan. Also like legal marriages, they may require a divorce if the union breaks down. To determine whether you need to get a divorce, you first need to determine if you are in a common law marriage.
Typically, these marriages are on dependent on three criteria. If you meet all three criteria, you may be in a common law marriage, and you may need to get a divorce when splitting from your partner. The three criteria are:

1. You and your partner both agree that you are married to one another
2. You and your partner present yourselves as husband and wife either in social situations or legally; this may include introducing your partner as your husband or wife or filing a joint tax return
3. You and your partner live together as a married couple in the state where you claim your common law marriage exists

These criteria are important, because meeting them may mean that you have joint property and debts and children. If this is the case, you may need to get divorce to determine assets, debts, and child custody if you cannot agree to terms.
Conversely, couples who are married because they meet the criteria may become legally married by proving that their marriage exists. The advantage of this is that your marriage will be legally recognized. The disadvantage is that being legally married means you certainly have to file for divorce should you and your spouse decide to split.
Divorce proceedings for common law marriages are just like divorce proceedings for legal marriages. As such, you will likely need a divorce attorney when going through the process to handle the legal aspects of the case.

Common Law Courts and Real Estate Considerations

Common law is the collection of rules laid down by generations on judges in the King's Courts covering all matters of contract and all questions of civil wrongs arising between the King's subjects. This is still the case as Jamaica real estate still falls under the King of England control.
The common law in medieval days was a comparatively rigid system. Every action in the King's Courts had to be started with a writ. Today it is easy to obtain and issue a writ. In early history, however, the writ was almost a magician's formula. Unless the wrong, which the would-be litigant complained of, was one which had previously been recognized by the Courts he could not obtained a writ at all. This limitation might be illustrated in this way:
Suppose A complained that B had thrown a log of wood over the garden wall into the road hitting A on the head, A could obtain a writ of "Trespass" and his action was properly started. If the complaint of A happened to be that B had thrown the log over some hours previously and A, coming by in the dark, had not seen it, tripped over it and broken his leg, A could not obtain a writ of trespass because this writ was only caused indirectly.
So A would have to go away without a remedy. There were, of course, a number of different writs, some very like each other, so that there was an added danger that the litigant even if he managed to get a writ might get the wrong one, which would be fatal to his action. Even assuming, however, that he contrived to start his action with the correct writ his course was not plain sailing.
The actual procedure used in actions in the King's Courts was very strict and formal. Any step in the procedure which had been omitted or incorrectly carried out may result in the Plaintiff failing in his action. There was a need, therefore for some system less rigid in its application than this common law. Normally where instances such as Jamaica property for sale in a Kingston auction occur, the court can stop all proceedings and title transfers.
There were additional disadvantages of the common law connected with the remedies available. At common law the only remedy recognized was the award of damages: it was considered that there was no injury for which a sum of money would not fairly compensate the Plaintiff. Now in the great majority of actions this might be true: But if my neighbor establishes a tannery at the bottom of my garden. I may be more concerned to have him prevented from continuing the offensive smells which appear to be necessary concomitant of tanning, than in obtaining a sum of money from him.
Again, if A refuses to carry out a contract to sell a valuable piece of land to B, B maybe more interested in obtaining the land than compensation for A's breach of contract. In both these eases the common law remedy of damages is really inadequate and what is required is some method of preventing my neighbor from continuing the nuisance in the first case and in the second case, of forcing A to hand over the land upon payment of the price by B.
You can now understand that this common law system was very rigid and the disadvantages are greater than the advantages. This has hampered procedures such as real estate auctions in Kingston Jamaica.

Texas Common Law Marriage

Common law marriage is recognized in a few states, and Texas happens to be one of them. Texas defines it as an informal marriage, rather than common law. Houston divorce lawyers are experienced in both traditional and informal marriage dissolutions and can answer any questions you have on this subject. A Houston divorce lawyer understands this unique law and how it is applied in Texas.
Under section 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by registering with the county without having a ceremony, or by meeting 3 requirements showing evidence of an agreement to be married; living together in Texas; and representation to others that the parties are wedded.
In order to register an informal marriage, a declaration approved by the bureau of vital statistics must be signed. Each party must provide proof of age and identity, and state that they are not related to each other in any way. Finally, they must agree to the printed declaration and oath found in section 2.402 of the Family Code. It reads:
"I SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER BY VIRTUE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: ON OR ABOUT (DATE) WE AGREED TO BE MARRIED, AND AFTER THAT DATE WE LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AND IN THIS STATE WE REPRESENTED TO OTHERS THAT WE WERE MARRIED. SINCE THE DATE OF MARRIAGE TO THE OTHER PARTY I HAVE NOT BEEN MARRIED TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS DECLARATION IS TRUE AND THE INFORMATION IN IT WHICH I HAVE GIVEN IS CORRECT."
Even if you don't register with a county in Houston, a couple may have a common law marriage if they meet these three requirements:
1. The man and woman agree to be married
2. The man and woman cohabitate in Texas
3. The man and woman hold out to other parties that they are married
Informal nuptials are recognized under Texas law the same as if the couple were formally wedded. This means that common law couples may need Houston divorce lawyers to help them legally end the relationship. Both partners are responsible for debts as well as care and support of any children from the marriage. Therefore, it is important to discuss a possible separation with a Houston divorce lawyer.
A new provision of the Family Code was added In 1995 that states either partner in a common law relationship has two years after separating to file an action to prove that the nuptials did exist. However, even if the time has expired for you to obtain a legal divorce, other measures can be taken to get orders for payment of child support and visitation for children. You should talk to a Houston divorce lawyer about your options.
There are two ways to end an informal marriage. If there have been children or if property and debts remain undivided, you will want to seek advice from a Houston divorce lawyer about a traditional divorce. However, if there are no children or contested property, you can separate; and under the new law, if neither person affirms that a marriage existed within two years of the date when the parties stopped living together in Texas, then it is assumed that the parties never entered into matrimony in the first place. While this does not automatically mean that the matrimony never existed, it does mean that the burden of proof falls on the person trying to prove there was a legitimate common law marriage.
When an informal marriage does exist; either person can file for a formal divorce. It is always advisable to hire a Houston divorce lawyer if there are contested issues involving property, finances or children. In formal divorce proceedings, matters such as child support, child custody, and property division will be decided by the court. Thus, it is important to seek the counsel of an experienced Houston divorce lawyer.