In its 2017 listings, Oregon Super Lawyers Magazine has named ten of Bullard Law’s attorneys as either Oregon Super Lawyers® or Oregon Rising Stars®. 
  
Every year Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, selects attorneys from over 70 practice areas and varying firm sizes to determine the state’s outstanding lawyers. Lawyers included in the listings have attained a high level of peer recognition and professional achievement. No more than 5% of lawyers in the state are named as Super Lawyers and up to 2.5% as Rising Stars. Bullard Law attorneys listed in either the 2017 Oregon Super Lawyers or Oregon Rising Stars include: Francis T. Barnwell, C. Akin Blitz, Kathryn M. Hindman, Thomas I. Kramer, Victoria L. Macpherson, David J. Riewald, Maryann Yelnosky, Kara Backus, Megan J. Crowhurst and Benjamin P. O’Glasser. 
  
Attorneys selected by Super Lawyers are determined through an extensive four part patented process. Attorneys must first be nominated into the candidate pool through either a managing partner survey, peer nominations, third party feedback or by the Super Lawyers research team. An attorney-led research team then evaluates the candidates on 12 indicators: verdicts/settlements, transactions, representative clients, experience, honors and awards, special licenses/certifications, position within law firm, bar and/or professional activity, pro bono and community service, scholarly lectures/writings, education/employment background and other outstanding achievements. Next, candidates are reviewed by a panel of peers within their practice area. During the final evaluation phase candidates are grouped into categories by the size of their firm, and those with the highest point totals from their category are selected. 
  
The Super Lawyers selection process is aimed to “create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.” Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis and are published in Super Lawyers Magazine nationwide, as well as within state and regional magazines and newspapers.
  
  
About Bullard Law. Bullard Law partners with employers in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho and other states. The firm provides services in traditional labor law, public sector labor and employment law, employment litigation and class actions, employee benefits, personnel policies and practices and employment and non-competition agreements. Bullard Law helps clients be proactive, offering extensive training programs in all areas of labor, employment and benefits.  Contact Coni Crone at 503-248-1134 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for further information.

In March 2016, Oregon enacted a geographically-tiered minimum wage hike.  (Read former Bullard Alert here).  The first increase went into effect last year.  The second increase went into effect on July 1, 2017.  Scheduled annual minimum wage increases will continue through 2022.

Effective July 1, 2017, for all employees performing work in the “Portland Urban Growth Boundary,” the minimum wage increased $1.50 from $9.75 to $11.25 per hour.  These are businesses that employ workers in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties.

For employees performing work in the “Standard” Region, the minimum wage increased $0.50 from $9.75 to $10.25.  These are businesses that employ workers in Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Deschutes, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook, Wasco, and Yamhill counties.

For employees performing work in the “Nonurban” Region, the minimum wage increased $0.50 from $9.50 to $10.00 per hour.  These are businesses that employ workers in Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties.

Employers with individuals who provide services in multiple geographic regions in Oregon during any given pay period should follow these rules when evaluating which minimum wage rate applies:

1. If an employee performs more than 50% of his/her work during a pay period at a fixed business location, the minimum wage rate for the region for that business location applies to all hours worked during the pay period.

2. Delivery workers who start and end their work at the same fixed business location should be paid at least the minimum wage rate for the region encompassing that business location, notwithstanding deliveries made outside that region.

3. For those employees who do not perform more than 50% of their work hours during a pay period at a fixed business location, the employer must either (a) track (and maintain a record of) where the employee performs his/her work and pay at least the applicable wage rate for each region where the work was performed, or (b) pay the highest wage rate required for any region in which the employee worked for all hours worked during the pay period.

In addition, employers should be sure to post the new minimum wage rates (available on the BOLI website) at their worksites.  Please feel welcome to contact Bullard Law with any questions regarding minimum wages or other labor, employment and employee benefits issues.

Typically The Bullard Edge focuses on workplace laws.

America loves pets and loves animals that work.

In an 8-0 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) for church-sponsored employee benefit plans extends to plans maintained by entities that are affiliated with a church (“church-affiliated entities”), even if the plan was not established by a church.  The holding comes as a huge relief to many church-affiliated entities—often hospitals and educational institutions—that sponsor benefit plans, most of which have been functioning for many years under the assumption that the stringent regulatory requirements of ERISA do not apply to their “church plans.”  Bringing such plans into compliance with ERISA would have come at a massive cost, estimated to be in the billions of dollars.

The case, Advocate Health Network v. Stapleton, involved claims by participants in pension plans sponsored by three church-affiliated hospitals.  The plan participants claimed that the plans maintained by the hospitals did not meet ERISA’s exemption for “church plans” because the plans were not established by a church.  ERISA’s church-plan exemption is significant because it exempts such plans from the rigorous requirements mandated by ERISA for pension plans, such as those related to minimum funding levels, reporting and disclosure, fiduciary liability, and vesting.

At issue in the case was a 1980 amendment to ERISA that expanded the definition of a church plan to include plans of certain church-affiliated entities by adding the following provision:

Under the plan participants’ interpretation of this provision, in order for a plan maintained by a church-affiliated entity to be exempt from ERISA, it must have been established by a church.  Because none of the three plans in which they participated was established by a church, they argued, the plans are subject to ERISA.  The Court disagreed, relying on the “most natural reading” of the amended statute to conclude that any plan maintained by a church-affiliated entity is included in the definition of a plan established and maintained by a church, even if the plan maintained by the church-affiliated entity was not originally established by a church.

Even though this case involved a claim by pension plan participants, the holding extends to plans maintained by church-affiliated entities for the purpose of providing health and welfare benefits.  The case falls in line with decades of advice from regulatory agencies confirming that plans maintained by church-affiliated plan sponsors may be exempt from ERISA without having been established by a church.  Several federal circuit courts, however, including the Ninth Circuit Court here in the West, had concluded that ERISA applies to many hospital plans that were maintained but not established by a church.  The Court’s decision overturns those rulings.

The Court’s decision, however, merely eliminated the lower courts’ requirement that a church plan had to be established by a church (even if it were later maintained by a church-affiliated entity).  There remain other factors in determining whether a church-affiliated entity’s plan qualifies as a “church plan” that is exempt from ERISA.  Those factors are intended to help assess whether the church-affiliated entity is “controlled by or affiliated with a church.” The Court did not address this issue.  In general, the courts have examined “control” based on factors such as the ability to select board members and the terms of governing documents, such as articles and bylaws.  The courts have examined “association” based on factors such as shared “common bonds and convictions” with a church.

So, the Court’s decision means that employee benefit plans established by church-affiliated entities may be church plans.  A church-affiliated entity still may need to review the “association and control” factors to determine whether its plans qualify as church plans exempt from ERISA.  Alternately, such an entity might consider whether to make an affirmative election to have its plans covered by ERISA, perhaps to get the benefit of preemption of state laws.

If you have any questions about this case or other labor, employment, or employee benefits issues, please contact Bullard Law - 866-551-6939

Chambers and Partners USA released  their 2017 rankings today, noting Bullard Law as a top Labor & Employment Law firm in Oregon, with five of the firm’s attorneys recognized as notable practitioners. The Bullard Law attorneys named in this year’s listing are: Richard J. Alli, Jr., Francis T. Barnwell, Kathryn M. Hindman, Thomas I. Kramer and Maryann Yelnosky. 
  
When referring to Bullard Law and its attorneys, clients have expressed to Chambers and Partners:

Since 1990, Chambers has conducted in-depth, objective research in order to become the leading directory for legal professionals and firms. Every year over 170 full-time researchers evaluate lawyers and law firms based on several factors before selecting them for inclusion in the Chambers USA listing. Individual attorney rankings are based on the attorney’s practice areas, legal knowledge, abilities, experience, effectiveness and client service. These qualities are measured through interviews with clients and peers as well as by assessing their recent work. Law firm rankings are based on the quality of the law firm’s attorneys and the strength and depth of the firm’s practices. 
  
Law firms and attorneys must complete an extensive submission process, where they are then evaluated through interviews with clients and other attorneys. To learn more about Chambers and Partners USA and their methodology, please visit  http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/usa/5. 
  

About Bullard Law. Bullard Law partners with employers in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho and other states. The firm provides services in traditional labor law, public sector labor and employment law, employment litigation and class actions, employee benefits, personnel policies and practices and employment and non-competition agreements. Bullard Law helps clients be proactive, offering extensive training programs in all areas of labor, employment and benefits. Contact Coni Crone at 503-248-1134 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for further information.

The big news in the country continues to be the twin quests to repeat as champions.

Bullard Law is pleased to announce the addition of Lindsey M. Tran as an associate in the firm.  Lindsey has a varied professional background which includes litigation, in-house, human resources, and labor and employee relations work for some of the largest companies in the country.  Lindsey joined Bullard Law after relocating from San Francisco where she worked for Twitter, Inc. in their global employment legal and employee relations team. During her time at Twitter, Lindsey provided HR advice and counseling on matters relating to workplace conflicts, personnel policies, performance management, terminations, separation agreements, policy drafting, and general employment law advice and counseling.  

After graduating from law school, Lindsey joined Kaiser Permanente’s National Labor Relations Strategy team where she advised c-level executives on contract proposals, bargaining planning, bargaining to impasse, union strategies, and corporate campaign strategies.  Lindsey then worked as a litigation attorney for Hanna Brophy, LLP, a California law firm, where she represented employers throughout the state.  Prior to working at Twitter, Lindsey worked for Amazon.com in their global employee relations team where she successfully helped the company avert several external organizing efforts.     

Lindsey’s experience working for some of the biggest companies in the country puts her in a unique position to understand both the business and legal needs of her clients.  Lindsey believes that understanding a company’s corporate culture and its business needs is essential to providing effective legal advice and representation.  

Lindsey is a graduate of the University of California, Hastings College of Law, as well as the University of San Diego where she received her bachelor’s degree.