The article discusses a decision by a three-judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami-Dade County, which upheld Circuit Judge Reemberto Diaz’s ruling that North Miami Council members acted within Florida law when they voted to move the election date.

Ed represented the city of North Miami in the case. He told the Miami Herald that because the appeals court simply upheld the trial court’s ruling without elaborating in a written opinion of their own, “technically that kind of decision is not binding precedent.” 

Nevertheless, Ed said Florida law allows municipalities to change the election date via ordinance and without voter input. 

“It is very, very clear that the Florida Legislature authorized this kind of election date-changing by cities, and to do so by ordinance notwithstanding a charter,” Ed said.

He emphasized that making the change is “a one-time shot.” “This isn’t just a mechanism for cities to abuse the process and sitting elected officials to continuously extend their terms in office, because it’s a one-shot alignment,” Ed said. “Once you align, that’s it. You’re done.”

Ed is Board Certified in Appellate Practice by the Florida Bar and is chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. He has litigated dozens of appeals before the Florida Supreme Court, Florida’s district courts of appeal, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals in a wide variety of matters, including medical malpractice, premises liability, probate, First Amendment and constitutional litigation, family law, state and federal administrative rule-making and regulation, home rule authority and preemption, election law, civil rights, land use and zoning, intellectual property, and labor and employment issues.

Click here to view the article.

The post WSHC+B Partner Edward G. Guedes Featured in Miami Herald on Legality of Changing Election Dates appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Key Provisions of the CHOICE Act

1. Presumption of Enforceability

The Act establishes a presumption that certain non-compete and garden leave agreements are enforceable and do not violate public policy, provided they meet specific criteria. Courts are required to issue injunctions enforcing covered agreements, shifting the burden of proof onto the former employee or poaching employer to establish certain narrow defenses. This marks a significant shift from existing law, which requires employers seeking enforcement to prove the existence of a legitimate business interest supporting the restrictive covenant, irreparable harm, and several other elements. The existing legal standard will continue to apply to agreements that are not covered by the CHOICE Act.

2. Covered Employees

The Act applies to employees or contractors who:

• Work primarily in Florida or for an employer with its principal place of business in Florida.
• Earn or are expected to earn a salary exceeding twice the annual mean wage of the relevant county.
• Are not classified as healthcare practitioners under Florida law.

3. Requirements for Presumptively Enforceable Agreements

Non-Compete Agreements will be presumed to be enforceable if:

1. The employee is informed in writing of their right to seek legal counsel before signing the agreement and is given at least seven days to review the agreement before signing.
2. The employee acknowledges in writing that they will receive confidential information or information about customer relationships during their employment.
3. The employee agrees not to assume a role with or for another business that provides services similar to those provided to the covered employer during the three years preceding the non-compete period, or in which it is reasonably likely that they would use confidential information or customer relationships.
4. The non-compete period does not exceed four years.
5. If the employee is granted a covered garden leave agreement, the non-compete period is reduced day-for-day by any non-working portion of the notice period.
6. It’s important to note that there are no restrictions on the geographic scope of a covered non-compete agreement. 

Similarly, Garden Leave Agreements are presumed enforceable if:

1. The employee is informed in writing of their right to seek legal counsel before signing the agreement and has at least seven days to review the agreement before signing.
2. The employee and employer agree to provide up to four years’ advance notice before terminating employment, which is known as the “notice period.”
3. During the notice period, the employer agrees to pay the employee their regular base salary and benefits.
4. The employee acknowledges in writing that they may receive confidential information or information about customer relationships during their employment.
5. The garden leave provisions provide that:

• After the first 90 days of the notice period, the covered employee is not required to provide services to the covered employer.
• During the remainder of the notice period, the covered employee may engage in nonwork activities, including during normal business hours.
• The covered employee may also work for another employer with the permission of the covered employer during the remainder of the notice period.

Action Steps for Employers

1. Review your existing agreements and assess whether they need modifications to align with the Act’s definition of a “covered” garden leave or non-compete agreement.
2. Restrictive covenants can still be enforced against employees earning less than twice the mean salary for the applicable county. However, employers won’t have a preliminary injunction without demonstrating a legitimate business interest and irreparable harm.
3. Review your company’s confidentiality protocols and ensure comprehensive, up-to-date, and legally compliant policies regarding trade secrets, customer information, and confidential information. While the CHOICE Act only requires employees to acknowledge access to confidential information, implementing additional guardrails enhances overall security.

The post Client Alert: New Florida CHOICE Act Reshapes Non-Compete Landscape appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The post Gov. DeSantis announces Florida’s New Government Efficiency Task Force: What It Means for Governmental Agencies and Government-Funded Entities appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The Palm Beach County Personnel Appeals Board is responsible for adjudicating appeals from permanent

status, non-bargaining unit employees regarding discharges and layoffs. Upon an employee’s request, the Board conducts hearings and renders final, binding decisions.

As a Florida Bar Board Certified attorney in Labor and Employment Law, Brett helps public and private sector employers resolve issues in a prompt and efficient manner. Brett is a frequent speaker on labor and employment law and human resources matters and works closely with employers to ensure that their practices comply with federal, state, and local laws.

The post WSHC+B Partner Brett Schneider Appointed to Palm Beach County Personnel Appeals Board appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Section 3 of the EO, titled “Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government,” specifically addresses the federal contracting process and revokes several previous executive orders and memoranda, including Executive Order 11246 (“EO 11246”). Originally established in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, EO 11246 prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. EO 11246 also required covered contractors to take affirmative action to ensure equal employment. President Trump’s EO now bars federal contractors from considering race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin in their employment, procurement or contracting practices “in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.” The EO ultimately eliminates affirmative action plan obligations for federal contractors.

Section 4 of the EO, titled “Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences” directs federal agencies, in coordination with the attorney general, to take necessary actions to implement the EO’s principles. Within 120 days, the attorney general, in consultation with agency heads, is required to submit a report with recommendations for enforcing federal civil rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI. This report must outline key areas of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction, identify the most egregious DEI practices, propose specific measures to deter illegal discrimination, suggest strategies for private sector engagement, and indicate potential litigation and regulatory actions.

It is crucial to note that President Trump’s EO does not alter existing anti-discrimination laws (like Title VII or the Florida Civil Rights Act) or their judicial interpretations. However, we strongly encourage employers, particularly federal contractors, to evaluate their current DEI initiatives and/or programs to ensure potential compliance with the EO.

We will continue to monitor developments regarding this executive order. If you have any questions or concerns about it or other employment-related executive orders, please feel free to reach out to us.

The post Client Alert: What President Trump’s Executive Order on DEI Means for Employers appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has announced that the reporting of certain stakeholder information is voluntary, pending the resolution of the federal government’s appeal of an injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This injunction barred enforcement of the CTA and its beneficial ownership reporting requirements, citing potential unconstitutionality.

Fabio pointed out the difference between the Texas court’s decision and an earlier decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama: “This case in Texas goes a step further, and a big step further, because it imposed the injunction, which is not limited to the plaintiffs in the case, but it’s a nationwide injunction.”

Fabio is a corporate and real estate attorney, representing businesses and investors in the acquisition and financing of property, along with business transactions and corporate matters. He specializes in cross-border transactions involving clients based in the United States, Europe, and Latin America.

Read the full article in the Daily Business Review here: https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2024/12/10/nationwide-injunction-halts-corporate-transparency-act-reporting-requirements/?slreturn=20241218103920&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

The post Fabio Giallanza discusses with the Daily Business Review CTA compliance and the Texas court’s decision on a nationwide injunction appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The court found that the CTA represented an unprecedented federal intrusion into areas traditionally managed by state governments and posed a threat to the anonymity historically afforded to corporate owners. Additionally, the Court found the Plaintiffs’ were likely to succeed in showing these constitutional violations and enforcement of the CTA compliance deadline would cause irreparable harm. The Court stayed the deadline to file a report under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) § 705.

We are studying the decision and will monitor FinCEN’s response in the next days in order to advise clients on what to do regarding filing before the upcoming December 31st deadline. 

The full text of the decision is available here: Bloomberg Law

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Emma Rodgers at erodgers@wsh-law.com.

The post Client Alert: Corporate Transparency Act Update appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Reports under the CTA must be submitted by December 31, 2024. For businesses registered on or after January 1, 2024, registration is required within 90 days of filing their initial Articles of Organization or incorporation. Our firm is available to assist clients with this filing.

On March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama deemed the CTA unconstitutional. However, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury maintains that all applicable entities must still file their reports, except for those members of the National Small Business Association, the plaintiff in the case.

If you would like our assistance with your company’s CTA report, we are here to help.

Please note that the CTA report is not an annual filing. You will only need to refile if you sell your company or make significant governance changes, such as appointing a new president or senior officer.

The firm’s legal services will include:

1. Assessing your CTA reporting obligations by reviewing your corporate structure
2. Identifying beneficial owners based on the information you provide
3. Filing your company’s initial Beneficial Ownership Information report with FinCEN

Please be aware that the CTA is a complex law, and non-compliance can lead to significant penalties. We are here to guide you through this process and ensure you remain compliant. To receive an engagement letter, please email Emma Rodgers at ERodgers@wsh-law.com and she can send it to you by email or DocuSign upon request. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us by phone at (305) 854-0800 or by email, and we can discuss the process in more detail.

The post The Deadline is Approaching for the Corporate Transparency Act Filing Deadline appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Howard, Chair of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group, focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation matters. He has extensive experience in corporate and partnership litigation, business divorce, business torts, trade secret litigation, intellectual property, and commercial real estate recovery disputes.

Anne is a civil litigator, representing both public and private clients in a wide range of cases. Her litigation practice includes federal civil rights matters, personal injury, contract disputes, and real property claims, and she actively practices in both federal and state court.

Ronald Nisonson is a commercial litigator and Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Mediator with over two decades of experience. His practice focuses on contracts, corporate and commercial litigation, construction litigation, professional liability, and insurance defense litigation. Ronald has handled complex matters in trial and appellate courts in both the Florida and federal judicial systems.

Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Litigators in America guide showcases top U.S. litigators across various specialties. Compiled through submissions, journalistic research, and peer vetting, it features 2,878 lawyers from about 100 firms.

To view the full guide, click here.

The post Firm Partners Howard D. DuBosar, Anne R. Flanigan, and Ronald S. Nisonson Recognized in the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

On August 20, 2024, however, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas enjoined the implementation of the Noncompete Ban, meaning that it will no longer take effect on September 4, 2024 (or at any point thereafter, unless there is a successful appeal of Judge Brown’s ruling). In particular, Judge Brown found that the FTC lacked authority to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition, which importantly includes the Noncompete Ban. This ruling returns employers to the status quo, allowing for enforcement of noncompete agreements according to current state-specific frameworks.

Should you have any inquiries or seek clarification on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The post Client Alert: Federal Court Blocks FTC Noncompete Ban From Taking Effect appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.