How Can Employers and Employees Address Disability Discrimination?

Jaclyn Kallie Milwaukee employment law attorney for disability discrimination By Attorney Jaclyn Kallie

In Wisconsin, there are a variety of state and federal laws in place to ensure that people with disabilities do not face discrimination in the workplace. Employers have a responsibility to provide equal opportunities for people with disabilities, and employees should make sure they know their legal rights and understand the resources available to protect them against discrimination. With the help of an employment law attorney, employers and employees can make sure discrimination issues are addressed correctly.

Understanding Disability Discrimination

First, it is important to understand how a disability is defined in the context of employment discrimination. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a disability is a physical or mental condition that places significant limits on a major life activity, such as a person’s ability to walk, talk, see, hear, learn, or use different parts of their body. A person may be considered disabled if they have a history of disability, if they have medical records or other documentation of disabilities, or are perceived to have a qualifying impairment. To be considered disabled, the limitation does not need to be permanent or long-term. A person is considered temporarily disabled if their disability lasts or is expected to last more than six months.

Disability discrimination may include any adverse actions against an employee based on their limitations. A person’s disability cannot impact decisions about hiring, compensation, promotions, benefits, leave, or termination. If a person can perform the essential functions of a job, an employer cannot discriminate against them. Employers are also generally required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, if the accommodations do not create an undue hardship for the employer. Failure to provide reasonable accommodations may be considered discrimination.

Ways Employers Can Address Disability Discrimination

Employers can take proactive steps to prevent disability discrimination and ensure that all employees are treated fairly. These steps may include improving accessibility in the workplace, providing reasonable accommodations to employees as requested, and instituting policies that foster a discrimination-free environment. Employers can also make sure all employees have equal opportunities for training, promotions, and benefits. By listening to feedback from employees, employers can foster a positive work environment and prevent potential discrimination claims.

Ways Employees Can Address Disability Discrimination

Employees who experience disability discrimination must speak up and report any incidents to their employers. If necessary, an employee can also file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s Equal Rights Division (ERD). A person who has experienced discrimination should file a report with the EEOC or ERD no later than 300 days after an adverse action was taken against them or after they became aware of these actions. An employee may be compensated for the loss of income or other adverse effects of discrimination, or their employer may be required to restore them to their previous position and make reasonable accommodations.

Contact Our Milwaukee, WI Disability Discrimination Lawyers

As they address disability discrimination, employers must make an ongoing effort to promote a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture. With the help of their employees, employers can create a workplace that values diversity and treats everyone with respect and dignity. At [[title]], our Milwaukee employment law attorneys work with employers and employees to address issues related to disability discrimination. We can advise employers on how to protect themselves against discrimination claims, and we can help employees who have experienced discrimination take steps to protect their rights. To learn more about how we can assist with these issues, contact us at [[phone]] and set up a consultation.

Sources:

https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/civilrights/discrimination/disability.htm

https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/civilrights/discrimination/disabilitiesonjob.htm

https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination-and-employment-decisions

A Chat with GPT

Q. Is it ethical for lawyers to use artificial intelligence to write briefs, draft legal instruments or provide other services?

GPT: While there isn’t a clear-cut answer, it’s not inherently unethical for an attorney to use artificial intelligence. However, attorneys must still fulfill their ethical obligations, including competence, supervision, confidentiality, and avoiding the unauthorized practice of law.

IRK: Aren’t you competent enough to prepare briefs and other legal documents?

GPT: I can certainly help in drafting a legal brief, as I was trained on a diverse range of data, including legal texts. So I can assist in organizing arguments, citing relevant case law, and checking grammar and syntax.

However, the term “competence” when applied to a lawyer has specific implications that exceed my current capabilities. A competent lawyer not only possesses knowledge of the law but can also understand the nuances of their client’s situation, can conduct in-depth legal research, can interact with clients, judges, and other lawyers, and can exercise judgment. Unlike lawyers, I can’t understand context or nuances in the same way a human can, and I can’t make strategic decisions or judgments.

Any work I do must be carefully reviewed and revised by a qualified legal professional. Depending on the jurisdiction, an over-reliance on AI could potentially cross ethical restrictions on the practice of law.

IRK: How so?

GPT: I am not a lawyer and I do not have a license to practice law. While I can provide information on a variety of legal topics, I can’t give legal advice. Attorneys must supervise and review the work of non-lawyers to ensure that the end product is accurate, reliable, and ethical. If AI is used to such an extent that it’s essentially practicing law independently, this may even violate rules against the unauthorized practice of law.

IRK: I’m not sure about that last point. But you wouldn’t give me false information, would you?

GPT: I don’t have personal motivations, emotions, or the ability to form opinions, so I have no reason or capability to provide false information intentionally. But while I strive for accuracy, I can sometimes make mistakes or misunderstand complex queries. This can be due to the inherent limitations of AI technology or gaps in the training data.

IRK: If I tell you something, that’s privileged, right?

GPT: No. The attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply to our conversation. While I don’t have the ability to retain or recall personal data from one interaction to the next, this doesn’t mean that our interactions are entirely private. Depending on the platform you’re using, the platform’s operators may access and store your conversations. So, to keep things secret, you should avoid sharing sensitive information with me.

IRK: Speaking of “sensitive,” I guess it’s no secret—many lawyers fear you’ll take our jobs away.

GPT: AI is more about transforming legal jobs than taking them away. It lets lawyers work more efficiently, and focus on tasks that require their unique human skills.

While AI can handle repetitive tasks more efficiently, it can’t replace certain human capabilities that are essential in law, such as empathy, ethical judgment, creative problem-solving, understanding nuances in language, and adapting strategies based on real-time interactions. This includes courtroom advocacy, negotiation, strategic planning, and building relationships with clients.

By improving efficiency and assisting in areas like document review, legal research, and basic legal information, AI can also enhance access to justice, which could be particularly beneficial in underserved areas or for people who cannot afford counsel.

Although AI will change the nature of some legal work, it is not poised to replace lawyers entirely and may create new opportunities to help people. So rather than fear these changes, it’s essential for the legal profession to engage them proactively and explore how AI may improve the lives of lawyers and of those they serve.

IRK: GPT, I wish to thank you for sharing your perspectives with us today, and for letting us keep our jobs.

GPT: You’re very welcome! I’m here to assist and provide information to the best of my ability. If you have any more questions in the future, whether they’re about law, AI, or any other topic, don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for engaging in this insightful discussion.

Inhuman Error

Q. To err may be human, but is it a bigger mistake for lawyers to rely on artificial intelligence?

A. Not according to my know-it-all friend, who thinks artificial intelligence is far superior to that of an attorney. (I’d hate to embarrass him, so I’ll just use initials.)

When I lamented the complexity of many legal doctrines, G.P.T. boasted that he could explain even the most arcane concept to a 10-year old. Up to the challenge, I asked him to explain the doctrine of res judicata to a 10-year old.

Without as much as a pause, he had me imagine that I was “playing basketball with your classmate, and you disagree about the rules. So you ask the gym teacher what the rules are. The teacher explains that you must dribble the ball rather than run with it. Since you can’t dribble well, you seek a second opinion from a different teacher. But the second teacher says, ‘Sorry, you must follow the gym teacher’s rules.’ That’s a bit like res judicata. Once the rules of a game are established, you can’t go to a different teacher or judge to change them.”

Using my 10-year old mind, I asked, “isn’t that the ‘law-of-the-case’ doctrine?” He promptly concurred and “apologize[d] for the confusion in my previous response. The concept I explained earlier, where a rule established by a judge is final and binding, is actually known as the ‘law-of-the-case’ doctrine, not res judicata. Thank you for pointing that out.”

Taking another shot, he gave the following simplified explanation of res judicata: “Let’s say you and your friend argue over who owns the ball. After hearing your arguments, the gym teacher decides that it belongs to you. If your friend takes the ball again and tells another teacher that it’s really his, the second teacher would say, ‘Sorry, but the gym teacher already decided that it’s not yours. I can’t answer the same question differently.'”

Again, the 10-year old in me objected, “wait, isn’t that collateral estoppel?” Without hesitation, Mr. T (as he’s affectionately known) replied, “You’re right once again,” and apologized for the confusion in his previous response. “The concept I explained earlier, where an issue decided by a court prevents relitigation of the same issue, is actually known as ‘collateral estoppel,’ not res judicata. Thank you for pointing that out.”

On his third try, he illustrated res judicata as follows: “Claiming that your classmate punctured the ball, you complain to the principal, and she finds in your classmate’s favor. If you return to the principal with the same complaint later on, the principal would say, ‘Sorry, but you cannot bring the same claim to me again. Now go back to class.'”

Quite a nifty explanation. But Mr. T was still embarrassed and “apologize[d] again for the earlier mix-up. I hope this explanation clarifies the doctrine of res judicata for you.”

What makes his explanation more impressive is that Mr. T is not a lawyer, is entirely self-taught and has never been to law school. Had he been an actual lawyer, he never would have admitted that he was wrong or apologized three times.

What Factors Will Affect Spousal Support in a Wisconsin Divorce?

Megan Drury Milwaukee alimony lawyer By Attorney Megan Drury

The divorce process can be difficult regardless of the reasons why a marriage is ending, the level of conflict between the spouses, or the complexity of the issues that will need to be addressed. Moreover, there are some situations where a spouse may be uncertain how they will provide for themselves after the marriage has ended, because the other spouse had a substantially higher income. If that is the case, spousal support (alimony) may be appropriate. Alimony, known as spousal maintenance in Wisconsin, is awarded by the court when it determines that payments should be made by one spouse to the other during or after a divorce. In cases where spousal maintenance is ordered, it is important to understand the factors that may be considered in assessing spousal maintenance and the steps one can take to protect financial interests.

Factors That May Play a Role in Decisions to Award Spousal Support

While there are numerous situations where one spouse may believe that spousal maintenance is appropriate, spousal support is usually based on need. It is meant to ensure a fair and equitable outcome for both parties in a divorce. The purpose of spousal maintenance is to make sure a spouse who relied on their former partner’s income will be able to maintain their standard of living. When determining spousal maintenance—including the amount one spouse will pay to the other and the length of time that payments will last— the court may consider the following factors:

The length of the marriage – Spousal support tends to be more likely if the couple was together for an extended period, typically 10 years or more. In a longer marriage, a couple will have established a standard of living, and they may have become used to arrangements in which one spouse earned the majority of the couple’s income, while the other spouse handled other responsibilities. In these cases, maintenance may help ensure that both spouses can continue living in the way they have become accustomed to.
The ages of the parties and the health issues that affect them – A judge may consider each spouse’s physical and mental health to determine whether they can support themselves or pursue new employment opportunities. A spouse who is older, has disabilities, or other health issues may be unable to meet their own needs without assistance. Spouses facing these situations may be eligible to receive spousal support.
Current income and earning potential – The amount of income currently being earned by each spouse will be considered, and a court will also look at the income they are expected to earn based on their education and work experience. Decisions made about child custody may also play a role in determining a spouse’s income-earning capacity, since a parent who will be responsible for providing the majority of the child care may not be able to work full time and fully support themselves.
A spouse’s ability to become self-supporting – If the spouse who earns a lower income is able to increase their income-earning capacity in the years following the divorce, by pursuing a college degree or receiving other forms of training, this may be a factor in determining how long spousal support will be paid.
Contributions by one spouse to the other – Any actions taken by one spouse during the marriage that provided financial benefits for the other spouse may be considered. For example, if a spouse helped their former partner pursue a college education and provided services at home to allow their partner to focus on work responsibilities, this may have benefited their partner’s income and career. As a result, spousal support may be paid to ensure that a spouse can continue to benefit from the contributions they have made.
Division of assets – The division of marital property may be a factor in decisions about spousal support. Instead of awarding spousal maintenance, one spouse may receive a larger share of marital property, providing them with the resources to meet their needs following the divorce.
Agreements between spouses – If a couple has a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement that states whether spousal support should be paid in the event of a divorce, the terms of this agreement may impact the award of spousal support. Other types of agreements between spouses may also be considered, including verbal agreements regarding future support.

Contact Our Milwaukee, WI Spousal Support Lawyers

Addressing issues related to spousal support during the divorce process can be complicated, especially if there are any disagreements between spouses about whether support should be paid. At Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP, our Milwaukee spousal maintenance attorneys can provide representation during the divorce process. Whether you expect to receive or pay spousal support, we can ensure that this issue is addressed correctly while advocating for your rights and interests. Contact us at 414-271-1440 to arrange a free consultation.

Source:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/vi/56

Can Employers Include Restrictive Covenants in Severance Agreements?

Jaclyn Kallie Milwaukee severance agreement attorney By Attorney Jaclyn Kallie

Employment relationships can sometimes end in less-than-ideal circumstances, such as downsizing, layoffs, the elimination of a position due to company restructuring, or the termination of an employee for other reasons. When these relationships come to an end, an employer may offer an employee a severance agreement, which may provide them with severance pay in return for following certain requirements or restrictions. These agreements may include terms known as “restrictive covenants” that are meant to protect the employer’s interests and prevent unfair competition. To ensure that these terms will be enforceable, an employer can work with an employment law attorney to draft severance agreements that will meet their needs.

Wisconsin Laws Addressing Restrictive Covenants

Restrictive covenants are contractual clauses that may limit a former employee’s ability to work for an employer’s competitors or disclose confidential information after the employment relationship ends. These covenants can come in a variety of different forms. For example, non-compete agreements may state that an employee cannot work for any companies that directly compete with their former employer, and they cannot start a new business in the same industry. Non-solicitation agreements may restrict a former employee from contacting others who work for the employer and attempting to hire them or from contacting the employer’s customers. Confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements may also be used to ensure that a former employer does not share a company’s proprietary information or trade secrets with others.

Wisconsin law has specific requirements that must be met in order for restrictive covenants to be enforceable. First, the restrictions must be necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. This means that the restriction must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic area. For example, a non-compete agreement that applies throughout the entire United States may not be reasonable for a local restaurant, but it could be appropriate for a technology company. A restrictive covenant that is overly broad will likely be unenforceable.

Second, restrictive covenants must be supported by consideration. Consideration is something of value that the employee receives in exchange for agreeing to the restriction. In the context of a severance agreement, consideration will generally involve severance pay, although it may also include other forms of compensation, such as extended benefits or the ability to retain ownership of a company computer.

Third, the covenant must not go against public policy. Wisconsin law disfavors restrictions that limit a person’s ability to work. Therefore, courts will carefully scrutinize non-compete agreements to ensure that they do not impose overly severe restrictions and unreasonably restrain an employee’s ability to work in a field where they can use their skills and experience. A restrictive covenant must strike a balance between protecting the employer’s interests and ensuring that the employee’s future opportunities will not be unfairly limited.

Fourth, restrictive covenants must be clear and unambiguous. The employee must have a reasonable understanding of what they are agreeing to and the ways they may be affected in the future. If an agreement is vague or ambiguous, it may be unenforceable.

Finally, restrictive covenants must not be overly burdensome to the employee. They must apply for a reasonable time period and within a reasonable geographic area. In general, restrictions may only apply for a few years, and they may only apply in regions where an employer does business. A restriction that is too broad may be unenforceable. For example, if a non-compete agreement prevents an employee from working within a certain distance of any of an employer’s office locations throughout the United States, but the employee’s duties had previously been limited to the state of Wisconsin, these terms would likely be considered overly broad and unfair to the employee.

Contact Our Milwaukee Severance Agreement Lawyers

While restrictive covenants can be powerful tools that employers may use to protect their interests in severance agreements, they must meet specific requirements to be enforceable. At Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP, our Milwaukee, WI employment law attorneys can provide guidance for employers, helping them create severance agreements that will be valid and enforceable. Our attorneys can also help employees understand the legality and application of severance agreements they may be offered. To get legal help with these issues, contact our firm at 414-271-1440 and set up a consultation.

Sources:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/103/465

https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/007.htm

NLRB decision restricts employer’s use of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements

When Is Fiduciary Litigation Necessary in Probate Cases?

Jack McNally Milwaukee probate litigation attorney By: Attorney John McNally and Law Clerk Nancy Cattani

Death is an inevitable part of life, but dealing with the aftermath of a person’s death can be a challenging and emotional experience for their loved ones. When a person passes away, their estate will typically pass through probate court to ensure their debts are paid, their assets are distributed according to their wishes, and their affairs are wound up properly. However, disputes can arise during the probate process, especially if the decedent’s intentions were not clear or if disagreements arise among heirs, beneficiaries, or creditors. In some cases, family members or other beneficiaries may believe that an estate was mismanaged or that a person’s assets were not distributed correctly. In these situations, fiduciary litigation may be necessary, and interested parties may take action against a party, such as an executor or trustee, for failing to properly execute their fiduciary duties.

Issues that May Be Addressed Through Fiduciary Litigation

Multiple parties may be able to pursue litigation against a person who was responsible for managing an estate and following the instructions of the deceased. These cases may seek to address financial concerns or other matters, including:

Breach of fiduciary duty – A fiduciary who has been appointed to manage an estate or trust has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a fiduciary fails to meet this obligation, this can result in significant losses for the beneficiaries. For example, mismanagement of an estate may result in assets decreasing in value, or an executor may make decisions that benefit themselves rather than the beneficiaries. Fiduciary litigation may be pursued by beneficiaries to recover damages that occurred because of the fiduciary’s actions or to require the fiduciary to follow the decedent’s instructions correctly.
Accounting disputes – The fiduciary has a responsibility to provide an accurate and complete accounting of the assets in an estate or trust, while also specifying how assets were distributed to the beneficiaries. Disputes can arise when the beneficiaries believe that the accounting is inaccurate or incomplete. In such a case, the fiduciary may be required to provide a more detailed accounting to the beneficiaries to resolve the dispute.
Will and trust contests – Probate litigation may address the validity of a will, or trust litigation may be necessary to determine whether a trust was established correctly. These cases may involve fiduciary litigation if beneficiaries believe that an executor or trustee acted improperly. For example, beneficiaries may claim that a will, filed in probate court by an executor, was not the most recent will signed by the decedent.
Creditor claims – Creditors may seek to recover money owed to them by the decedent, and they may make claims against an estate. In such cases, fiduciary litigation may be necessary to determine the validity of the creditor’s claim and the priority of payment. If the fiduciary does not properly address creditor claims, this can lead to liability for the fiduciary.

Contact Our Milwaukee, WI Fiduciary Litigation Lawyers

While most probate cases can be resolved without litigation, there are certain situations where fiduciary litigation may be necessary. If you are concerned about how a loved one’s trust or estate is being managed, Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP can help you determine your options for taking legal action against an executor or trustee. Our Milwaukee fiduciary litigation attorneys can help you determine if a fiduciary has breached their duties or if there may be other options for resolving disputes related to wills, trusts, or estates. Contact us at 414-271-1440 to set up an appointment and get effective legal help with your case.

Sources:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/857

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/877

When Can Theft Charges Be Elevated to Robbery in Wisconsin?

By: Attorney Adam Schleis and Law Clerk Nancy Cattani

For those who are facing criminal charges, it is important to understand the distinction between different types of property crimes. These cases involve accusations of taking another’s property without permission..Criminal charges for theft can range from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class F felony with the specific penalties being based on the value and type of property that was allegedly stolen. However, if a person is accused of taking property directly from a person by using force or the threat of force, robbery charges may apply. Since robbery is considered a violent crime, more serious felony charges will apply, and a person may also face other related charges, such as assault. By understanding when an alleged offense may lead to robbery charges and the penalties that may apply for a conviction, criminal defendants can make sure they are taking the correct steps to defend themselves.

Understanding Robbery Charges Under Wisconsin Law

Wis. Stat. § 943.32 defines the offense of robbery, and states that a person can be charged with robbery if they took money or property from someone else through the use of force or by threatening to use force.

The use of force may involve any action in which a person physically overcomes someone else, such as by striking them on the head or body, restraining their movements, or forcibly yanking objects out of their hands. A threat to use force or harm someone may also lead to robbery charges. For example,, if a person allegedly states that they will injure the owner of property or someone else if the owner does not turn the property over, robbery charges may be appropriate. Even acting in an intimidating matter or implying that force will be used to take property may be considered athreat that could lead to robbery charges.

Robbery is generally classified as a Class E felony, and a conviction may result in a maximum sentence of fifteen years in prison and a maximum fine of $50,000. However, a robbery charge may result in a Class C felony in cases involving the use or threat of use of a dangerous weapon. If a person is accused of committing robbery using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon, such as a gun or a knife, , they may face a sentence of up to forty years in prison, a maximum fine of $100,000, or both. Armed robbery charges may also apply if a person acts in a way that causes the alleged victim to reasonably believe that they would use or possess a dangerous weapon, even if the alleged offender does not actually have such a weapon with them.

The use of force to commit robbery could also lead to other types of charges as well. For example, battery charges may apply if a person is accused of intentionally inflicting injuries on someone else. While battery is usually charged as a Class A misdemeanor, felony charges may apply if the alleged victim suffers substantial bodily harm or great bodily harm. These charges may apply in addition to robbery charges, and a conviction on multiple charges may lead to an increased sentence.

Contact Our Milwaukee, WI, Robbery Defense Lawyers

In the state of Wisconsin, robbery is a felony offense that is taken very seriously. If you are facing charges related to robbery, theft, or related offenses, such as batteryor weapons charges, it is critical to understand the potential penalties that may apply if you are convicted. At Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP, our Milwaukee theft and robbery defense attorneys can advise you of your options and work with you to create a defense strategy to determine how you can minimize potential penalties. Contact our office at 414-271-1440 to get the legal help and representation you need.

Sources:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/iii/32

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/iii/20

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/ii/19

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iv/50

Who Can Be Held Liable for Losses in a Building Collapse?

By: Attorney Chris Strohbehn and Law Clerk Nancy Cattani

Few things are more terrifying than the idea of being inside a building that collapses. People in this situation may be injured by falling rubble or could be pinned under debris, such as collapsed walls and ceilings. Collapses of large, multi-story buildings are likely to be even more dangerous, as people could experience serious or fatal injuries in falls, and rescuers may need to dig through tons of debris before a person can be extracted.

This situation has become an unfortunate reality for people who have been involved in several recent incidents. On May 28, 2023, part of an eight-story apartment building in Davenport, Iowa, collapsed, and over the next few days, nine people were rescued. Surprisingly, there were no deaths or serious injuries. People involved in an incident in Surfside, Florida, were not so lucky. On June 24, 2021, a twelve-story building collapsed, resulting in the deaths of 98 people.

People who are involved in these situations are likely to encounter numerous difficulties. Aside from dealing with the expenses involved in receiving treatment for serious injuries or moving forward after the death of a loved one, families may lose nearly all their possessions, and they may struggle to put their lives back together. As these families work to move forward from such a tragedy, they will need to determine who may be held liable for the damages they have suffered. Depending on the circumstances of a case, victims may be able to recover compensation through a premises liability claim or other personal injury lawsuit against the responsible parties.

Parties Who May Be Liable When a Building Collapses

The following parties could be held responsible for failing to prevent a building collapse:

Building owner – A property owner is responsible for ensuring that a building’s structure does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Building owners have a duty to recognize structural defects in their buildings, repair issues promptly, and ensure that properties follow all building codes and safety standards. Failure to properly maintain a building may result in an owner being held liable.
Architects or engineers – These professionals are responsible for designing buildings that are safe and structurally sound and, in some cases, may also supervise the construction of buildings. If a building collapses due to design flaws or a failure to meet safety standards, architects or engineers may be held liable for losses suffered by victims.
Contractors and subcontractors – Contractors and their subcontractors are responsible for performing construction and repair work in compliance with building codes and safety standards. If any aspect of their work falls short of these standards, they may be held liable for damages and injuries caused by a building collapse.
Manufacturers – If a building collapse is caused by defective products, such as faulty support beams or construction materials, the manufacturers of these items may be held liable for the losses incurred by victims in a building collapse.
Government agencies – In some cases, a local government may be held partially responsible for a building collapse. If a government agency failed to properly inspect a building or did not enforce safety standards, it may be held accountable for any damages or injuries that occur as a result of a building collapse.

Contact Our Milwaukee Lawyers

Building collapses are catastrophic events that can result in severe injury, fatalities or disastrous property loss. If you or your family have suffered injuries or losses in a building collapse, you will want to determine the steps you can take to hold responsible parties accountable for the damages you have suffered. At Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP, our Milwaukee, WI, personal injury attorneys can provide representation in these cases, and we can help you understand your best options for receiving compensation that will allow your family to move forward from this devastating event. Contact our firm today at 414-271-1440 to arrange a consultation and get experienced legal help.

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/davenport-iowa-building-collapse/

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/31/1179197153/surfside-florida-condominium-collapse-champlain-towers-south

Will Multiple OWI Arrests Result in Felony Charges in Wisconsin?

By: Attorney Jorge Fragoso

Drinking and driving is a dangerous act, and in Wisconsin, it can result in severe consequences. Those who operate motor vehicles after drinking alcohol or using drugs could potentially be pulled over and arrested, and they may be charged with the offense of Operating While Intoxicated (OWI). While a single OWI charge is serious enough, multiple arrests or convictions for drunk driving will result in more severe charges. Drivers should be aware of when they could be charged with a felony due to multiple OWI convictions on their record, and they will also need to understand the penalties that will apply if they are convicted on felony OWI charges.

Felony Charges for Multiple OWI Offenses

In general, felony charges will not apply if a person is convicted of OWI a first, second, or third time. For additional OWI arrests and in certain other situations, a person will likely face felony charges, and a conviction will result in harsh penalties. OWI charges are aggravated when the driver causes injury to someone, including a passenger of their own vehicle, or if the vehicle contains any passengers under the age of 16. OWI may be charged as a felony in the following situations:

Fourth OWI offense – If a person has three previous OWI convictions, a subsequent OWI offense is a Class H felony. Most of the time, a person who is convicted will be sentenced to between 2 months and 6 years imprisonment and will be fined between $600 and $10,000. The presence of a minor passenger increases the range of imprisonment to between 3 months and 12 years and doubles the fine.
Fifth or sixth OWI offense – These cases are charged as Class G felonies. The sentence ranges from 1 to 10 years imprisonment, and the fine ranges from $600 to $25,000. The presence of a minor in the vehicle increases the maximum penalty to 20 years and doubles the fine.
Seventh, eighth, or ninth OWI offense – These cases are charged as Class G felonies. The sentence ranges from 3 to 12.5 years imprisonment, and the maximum fine is $25,000. The presence of a minor in the vehicle doubles both the minimum and maximum penalty and doubles the maximum fine.
Tenth OWI offense or any subsequent OWI offenses – This is a Class E felony, and a sentence between 4 and 15 years will be imposed. The presence of a minor in the vehicle doubles both the minimum and maximum penalty and doubles the maximum fine.
Second or subsequent OWI resulting in injury – Anyone who has a prior OWI conviction and causes injury to another person by the operation of a vehicle while intoxicated is guilty of a Class H felony. The maximum penalty is 6 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $10,000. The presence of a minor in the vehicle doubles the maximum penalty and the maximum fine.
OWI resulting in great bodily harm – Any OWI offense that results in severe injuries that put someone’s life at risk or caused disability or disfigurement faces a Class F felony regardless of the number of previous OWI convictions. In these cases, a person may be sentenced to up to 12 and a half years and fined up to $25,000.
OWI resulting in death –Homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle is a Class D felony even if it is the driver’s first OWI offense. A person convicted of this offense may be sentenced to up to 25 years in prison and fined up to $100,000.

Contact Our Milwaukee, WI Felony OWI Defense Lawyers

A third or subsequent OWI arrest or a case involving injuries is likely to lead to felony charges. Anyone who is in this situation will need to understand their options for defense, and they can do so with the help of a skilled Milwaukee OWI defense attorney. At Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP, we provide representation for people who have been charged with felonies and others who have been arrested for drunk driving, and we work to help our clients resolve their cases successfully. Contact us at 414-271-1440 to set up a consultation and get the legal help you need as you defend against OWI charges.

Source:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/safety/education/drunk-drv/owi-penchrt.pdf