The NFL is subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the most recent version of which went into effect in 2011. The term of the current CBA is ten years and it will expire in 2021 (the "NFL CBA").
In the overwhelming response to my prior writings on the #TakeTheKnee controversy (the first article from 2016 here, and yesterday's post here) one astute commenter asked whether the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement has any impact on the NFL's official stance on player protests in uniform.
In short, a close reading of the NFL CBA shows exactly why the NFL has no choice but to let the players protest, at least within the confines of the 2017-2018 season.
Read moreIt was slightly over a year ago that I wrote about the new (at the time) controversy that was roiling the NFL, which was Colin Kaepernick's decision to take a knee during the playing of the National Anthem prior to the 49ers games. The purpose of Mr. Kaepernick's actions was to draw attention to police brutality issues among other things. The media and the talking heads on ESPN in particular seemingly couldn't stop talking about it.
At the time, from a legal standpoint it was quite simply about the rights of an employee to voice their personal opinion in a very public way while working for a private employer. The NFL, as you know, is not the US Government, nor is it a state or municipal government for that matter. The NFL is a private entity, as are the 32 NFL franchises that employ the NFL players. Because of this fact, there is no civil rights issue, and there is no free speech issue. It is WELL settled that private employers can dictate employee conduct while the employees are on company time - for instance when an NFL player is suited up on the field about to being playing a nationally televised game.
Fast forward one year, and the debate has persisted. Mr. Kaepernick was released by the San Francisco 49ers and and not been signed by another NFL team despite there being a clear need for starting caliber quarterbacks.
Read moreNonprofit leaders have some new options when it comes to how to organize their business. Recent changes to Pennsylvania law have paved the way for the easier creation of charitable entities.
On February 21, 2017, PA Act 170 of 2016 went into effect with the stated purpose modernizing, clarifying, and replacing outdated laws. Act 170 amends Title 15 (Associations Code) and Title 54 (Names) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.
In general, Act 170 replaces the 1914 version of general partnerships, limited partnerships and limited liability companies with the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), the Uniform Limited Partnership Act (ULPA) and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA). These changes create better consistency between an LLC and Corporation, and clarify taxation and owner protection.
The big news for nonprofit leaders, however are the provisions of Act 170 which are specifically related to nonprofits, namely the creation of Nonprofit LLCs and Benefit Companies.
Read moreThe legal landscape is changing rapidly, perhaps now more so than any time in American history. While we are only one week into the Trump Administration, federal policy is shifting before our very eyes. The political climate is no doubt highly charged, as I am sure you have all experienced in your conversations with friends and neighbors.
In a non-partisan and non-political way, I will do my best to analyze and provide context on the legal aspects of these federal issues that may directly or indirectly impact your businesses and/or organizations. This analysis is intended to provide some clarity for TLO friends and clients.
Summary
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order (the “Order”) entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” It is a densely worded document, but the Order does the following:
Read morePreviously, I've written about the digital "resurrection" of Tupac Shakur, Ronnie James Dio and others. This week marked a giant leap forward (or backward depending on your worldview) in that trend. The late Peter Cushing, who among other famous roles played the iconic Governor Tarkin in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, turns in a new "performance" 22 years after his death in the newly released Disney film, Rogue One.
How is this possible? Digital manipulation of Cushing's likeness. This is the latest in a line of developments where deceased musicians have "appeared" by hologram in concert, actors from bygone eras are inserted into TV commercials for vacuum cleaners and other products.
With the release of Rogue One, it is indeed a different paradigm now in film, tv and video content. We are rapidly approaching an era where people's likenesses can be resurrected via CGI after death to create new "performances" in future years that we can't now contemplate. What is a live performance really mean in this context?
Read more