Blog by Bill Singer Esq WEEK IN REVIEW

April 4, 2020

Whole Worker Sick-Out Was Half-Assed ( Blog)
Just as I would not approve of Amazon/Whole Foods threatening to lock out its employees if they didn't agree to half pay during the pandemic, just as I would be angered if the conglomerate imposed a doubled charge for healthcare upon its employees -- I am equally troubled by the employees thinking that a rising death count is an opportunity to demand double pay. During these times, it may well be that double or triple pay is in order for many employees in many industries. I don't dispute that. But walking out of grocery stores during this pandemic strikes me as using unfair leverage or unconscionable means. Our medical heroes deserve increased pay and bonuses. When I see nurses and doctors protesting, however, they are only complaining about the health and safety of themselves and their patients. I have yet to see a nurse or doctor refuse to return to an ICU unless the AFL-CIO or Change to Win organizes the hospital's staff. I have yet to see a nurse or doctor threaten a sick-out unless they were given double pay. Accordingly, Whole Worker's sick-out comes off as half-assed.
Years ago, in anticipation of a pandemic that we all knew (or should have known) was coming, there were calls to build a stockpile of inexpensive ventilators that could be deployed immediately. Those plans moved forward. The bids came in. Deals were struck; however, the development of a $3,000 ventilator was sacrificed to maximize the profits of a large corporation, notes Aegis Frumento, Esq.  In retrospect, not only a sad bit of math but a cost-benefits analysis that will cost lives.
Stockbroker and investment advisor Leon C. Vaccarelli got into the ring with the United States Government and thought he could go the distance against a 21-count Indictment. In the end, Vaccarelli found himself on his back, looking up at the ceiling, and being counted out. Perhaps hearing the bell for the 13th Round of a 12 Round fight, Vaccarelli continued to fight back via a Motion for Acquittal. Sometimes you just gotta know when to stay down.
A FINRA Arbitration Panel awarded a public customer $286,000 against the husband and wife registered representatives who had serviced his account; however, the arbitrators did not render an award against the couple's employers. On appeal, the customer argued that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the misconduct of the the husband and wife should also be attributable to their employers. In contrast, the employer firms argued that they did not, in fact, know that their employees had engaged in misconduct, and that any alleged misconduct had taken place outside the "scope of employment."
Regrettably, I am forced to concede as a lawyer that I understand the legal bases for the courts' dismissal of the Lanzas' appeals. Boiled down to its repugnant essence, the courts' rationale is that the Lanzas entered into FINRA arbitration subject to the forum's rules -- among which was a policy that an "explained decision" is only required in response to a request joined into by all parties.  Okay, I get it: Since Ameriprise didn't join in on the request, the Lanzas were on notice that the arbitrators could just issue crapola and that's it.