<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HS Lawyers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hslawyers.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hslawyers.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:11:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals per curium affirmed Judge Schlesinger&#8217;s denial of Jim Overton&#8217;s motion to dismiss in the matter of Blanchard, et al v. Overton. A great win for our clients!</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/the-eleventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-per-curium-affirmed-judge-schlesingers-denial-of-jim-overtons-motion-to-dismiss-in-the-matter-of-blanchard-et-al-v-overton-a-great-win-for-our-clients-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/the-eleventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-per-curium-affirmed-judge-schlesingers-denial-of-jim-overtons-motion-to-dismiss-in-the-matter-of-blanchard-et-al-v-overton-a-great-win-for-our-clients-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:08:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Latest News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=1068</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Click on entry to view opinion. Opinion PCA]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Click on entry to view opinion. <a href='http://www.hslawyers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Opinion-PCA3.pdf'>Opinion PCA</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/the-eleventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-per-curium-affirmed-judge-schlesingers-denial-of-jim-overtons-motion-to-dismiss-in-the-matter-of-blanchard-et-al-v-overton-a-great-win-for-our-clients-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justin Spiller featured in Jacksonville Business Journal</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/justin-spiller-featured-in-jacksonville-business-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/justin-spiller-featured-in-jacksonville-business-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Latest News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=1059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[November 14, 2011 Justin Spiller, Associate at Henrichsen Siegel, P.L.L.C., is featured in the People on the Move section in the Jacksonville Business Journal. http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/potmsearch/detail/submission/339731]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>November 14, 2011 Justin Spiller, Associate at Henrichsen Siegel, P.L.L.C., is featured in the People on the Move section in the Jacksonville Business Journal. http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/potmsearch/detail/submission/339731</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/potmsearch/detail/submission/339731" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/potmsearch/detail/submission/339731?referer=');"></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/justin-spiller-featured-in-jacksonville-business-journal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank Vice President Terminated for Complaining About Sex Harassment Wins Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/bank-vice-president-terminated-for-complaining-about-sex-harassment-wins-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/bank-vice-president-terminated-for-complaining-about-sex-harassment-wins-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=986</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Egan v. Freedom Bank, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a bank vice president who was terminated shortly after lodging an internal complaint against a board member for sexually harassing her is entitled to a jury trial. The vice president had only been employed for seven months with [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the case of Egan v. Freedom Bank, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a bank vice president who was terminated shortly after lodging an internal complaint against a board member for sexually harassing her is entitled to a jury trial.  The vice president had only been employed for seven months with no performance issues, no attendance problems and no complaints against her.  However, after having dinner with one of the bank&#8217;s board members, the board member made unwanted advances.  Only two months after her complaint of sex harassment, the vice president was inexplicably fired.  The court found that sufficient facts existed for a reasonable jury to determine that the plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for complaining about unlawful sex harassment in the workplace.</p>
<p>Contact Henrichsen Siegel if you believe you are the victim of unlawful sex harassment or retaliation.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/bank-vice-president-terminated-for-complaining-about-sex-harassment-wins-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SUPREME COURT PROTECTS RAILROAD WORKERS’ RIGHTS UNDER FELA</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/supreme-court-protects-railroad-workers%e2%80%99-rights-under-fela/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/supreme-court-protects-railroad-workers%e2%80%99-rights-under-fela/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of workers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), which makes railroads liable for the injuries or deaths of employees resulting in whole or in part from negligence. Unlike common-law tort cases where a proximate cause standard is applied, the Supreme Court affirmed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of workers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), which makes railroads liable for the injuries or deaths of employees resulting in whole or in part from negligence.  Unlike common-law tort cases where a proximate cause standard is applied, the Supreme Court affirmed that under FELA a railroad causes or contributes to an employee’s injury if the railroad’s negligence plays any part in bringing about the injury.  Henrichsen Siegel, P.L.L.C. represents the rights of railroad workers in employment dispute matters and negligence cases.   Please contact Neil L. Henrichsen, Esquire of the firm with any questions about FELA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/supreme-court-protects-railroad-workers%e2%80%99-rights-under-fela/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Federal jobs bill bars discrimination against unemployed applicants</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/new-federal-jobs-bill-bars-discrimination-against-unemployed-applicants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/new-federal-jobs-bill-bars-discrimination-against-unemployed-applicants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Latest News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[September 28th, 2011 The New York Times reported this week that President Obama&#8217;s jobs bill would prohibit hiring discrimination against unemployed applicants and bar employment agencies and websites from &#8220;from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed.&#8221; The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission &#8220;would be given new power to enforce the proposed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>September 28th, 2011<br />
<a href="http://mailview.custombriefings.com/mailview.aspx?m=2011092801aaj&#038;r=3911298-0635&#038;l=01e-f06&#038;t=c" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/mailview.custombriefings.com/mailview.aspx?m=2011092801aaj_038_r=3911298-0635_038_l=01e-f06_038_t=c&amp;referer=');">The New York Times</a> reported this week that President Obama&#8217;s jobs bill would prohibit hiring discrimination against unemployed applicants and bar employment agencies and websites from &#8220;from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed.&#8221; The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission &#8220;would be given new power to enforce the proposed ban on discrimination against the jobless.&#8221; The Times said job discrimination cases increase in a slow economy but &#8220;in many cases, lawyers said, it may be difficult for job applicants to show that they were turned down because they were unemployed&#8221; though they note the presence of postings excluding unemployed applicants.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/new-federal-jobs-bill-bars-discrimination-against-unemployed-applicants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Property Appraiser&#8217;s Motion to Dismiss Defeated</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/property-appraisers-motion-to-dismiss-defeated/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/property-appraisers-motion-to-dismiss-defeated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duval county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property Appraiser]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=947</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 2, 2011, the United States District Court denied Jim Overton, Property Appraiser&#8217;s Motion to Stay or, Alternatively, to Dismiss and Strike Claims for Fees and Costs. The Property Appraiser raised several arguments in support of his attempt to have the class action complaint filed by the Plaintiffs dismissed, including CERCLA preemption, sovereign immunity [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On March 2, 2011, the United States District Court denied Jim Overton, Property Appraiser&#8217;s Motion to Stay or, Alternatively, to Dismiss and Strike Claims for Fees and Costs. The Property Appraiser raised several arguments in support of his attempt to have the class action complaint filed by the Plaintiffs dismissed, including CERCLA preemption, sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court rejected all of the Property Appraiser&#8217;s arguments, agreeing with the Plaintiffs that the case should not be dismissed or stayed.</p>
<p>The full text of the Court&#8217;s Order can be view by clicking the link below.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-948" href="http://www.hslawyers.com/property-appraisers-motion-to-dismiss-defeated/doc-30-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-or-to-stay-and-strike/">Doc 30 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss or to Stay and Strike</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/property-appraisers-motion-to-dismiss-defeated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Neil Henrichsen named a Top Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/neil-henrichsen-named-a-top-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/neil-henrichsen-named-a-top-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AV rated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The October 2010 edition of Jacksonville Magazine’s  904, names Neil Henrichsen as a Top Lawyer in construction law in the Jacksonville area. This ranking is based on the highest Martindale-Hubbell peer review rating of AV Preeminent. Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Ratings serve as an objective indicator that a lawyer has the highest ethical standards and professional ability [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The October 2010 edition of <em>Jacksonville Magazine’s  904</em>, names Neil Henrichsen as a Top Lawyer in construction law in the Jacksonville area. This ranking is based on the highest Martindale-Hubbell peer review rating of AV Preeminent. Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Ratings serve as an objective indicator that a lawyer has the highest ethical standards and professional ability and are based on evaluations performed by Martindale-Hubbell from opinions obtained from fellow lawyers and the judiciary.  To see the full article and list, follow the link below and click Top Lawyers of 2010 on the cover:</p>
<p><a href="http://trendmag2.trendoffset.com/publication/?m=9130&amp;l=1" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/trendmag2.trendoffset.com/publication/?m=9130_amp_l=1&amp;referer=');">http://trendmag2.trendoffset.com/publication/?m=9130&amp;l=1</a></p>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" />
<input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" />Congratulations, Neil!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/neil-henrichsen-named-a-top-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ordinance 2010-00703 officially discharged by the City Council</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/ordinance-2010-00703-officially-discharged-by-the-city-council/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/ordinance-2010-00703-officially-discharged-by-the-city-council/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:17:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jacksonville:  The City Council discharged proposed Ordinance 2010-00703 at last night&#8217;s City Council Meeting after two committees voted unanimously to withdraw the ordinance at their committee meetings.  Ms. Cindy Laquidara, General Counsel, addressed the City Council and the public at the meeting regarding the withdrawal of the Ordinance. City Council President Jack Webb acknowledged that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacksonville:  The City Council discharged proposed Ordinance 2010-00703 at last night&#8217;s City Council Meeting after two committees voted unanimously to withdraw the ordinance at their committee meetings.  Ms. Cindy Laquidara, General Counsel, addressed the City Council and the public at the meeting regarding the withdrawal of the Ordinance. City Council President Jack Webb acknowledged that there were many residents present to oppose the Ordinance. Ms. Laquidara indicated to the City Council that the tags on properties outside the strict Site boundaries would be removed in the near future. These events were precipitated by the class action filed by Helen Albee and her co-counsel, Chris Parrish on behalf of the property owners outside the Site boundaries as defined by the Consent Decree in U.S. v. City of Jacksonville.</p>
<p>To view the City Council meeting on this Ordinance, follow the link below and fast forward to time stamp 57:00.</p>
<p><a title="City Council 9-14-10 meeting" href="http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%209-14-10.wmv" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/media.coj.net/City_Council/Council_209-14-10.wmv?referer=');">http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%209-14-10.wmv</a></p>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" />
<input id="jsProxy" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" type="hidden" />
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/ordinance-2010-00703-officially-discharged-by-the-city-council/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%209-14-10.wmv" length="0" type="video/asf" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/881/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/881/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jacksonville:  Cindy Laquidara, General Counsel for the City of Jacksonville, agrees with the position asserted in Blanchard, et al v. Overton which was filed by partner Helen Albee and her co-counsel Chris Parrish. As alleged in the complaint, too many properties were tagged with language which implied there were hazardous substances on the property. The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacksonville:  Cindy Laquidara, General Counsel for the City of Jacksonville, agrees with the position asserted in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Blanchard, et al v. Overton</span> which was filed by partner Helen Albee and her co-counsel Chris Parrish. As alleged in the complaint, too many properties were tagged with language which implied there were hazardous substances on the property. The City appears ready to remove the tags which were improperly placed. Ms. Albee points out that even if the City rolls back the actions previously taken, property owners have still suffered damages for which the City may still liable.</p>
<p><a href="http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-09-09/story/ash-warnings-may-need-recall-jacksonville-general-counsel-says" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-09-09/story/ash-warnings-may-need-recall-jacksonville-general-counsel-says?referer=');">http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-09-09/story/ash-warnings-may-need-recall-jacksonville-general-counsel-says</a></p>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" />
<input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" />
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" />
<input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" />
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/881/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Office of the General Counsel to withdraw proposed Ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.hslawyers.com/office-of-the-general-counsel-to-withdraw-proposed-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hslawyers.com/office-of-the-general-counsel-to-withdraw-proposed-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shands</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hslawyers.com/?p=877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jacksonville:  Today, Helen Albee received the below e-mail from Councilman John Crescimbeni which confirmed that proposed Ordinance 2010-00703 which would have retroactively approved of the Property Appraiser&#8217;s illegal actions will be withdrawn. This ordinance was drafted in direct response to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the class by Ms. Albee and her co-counsel, Chris [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacksonville:  Today, Helen Albee received the below e-mail from Councilman John Crescimbeni which confirmed that proposed Ordinance 2010-00703 which would have retroactively approved of the Property Appraiser&#8217;s illegal actions will be withdrawn. This ordinance was drafted in direct response to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the class by Ms. Albee and her co-counsel, Chris Parrish. While the tags still need to be removed, this is a great result as far as the ordinance is concerned.</p>
<p><strong>From:</strong> Crescimbeni, John [mailto:JRC@coj.net]<br />
<strong>Sent:</strong> Wednesday, September 08, 2010 3:17 PM<br />
<strong>To:</strong> Helen Albee<br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> RE: Proposed Ordinance 2010-00703</p>
<p>Ms. Albee:</p>
<p>Thank you for your email.  If you received my auto-reply, you know that I was out of the office from August 27th until yesterday.  I was taking full advantage of a fifth week here at City Hall (when no City Council meetings or committee meetings are scheduled) to travel to Alaska with my wife for our belated honeymoon, so I apologize for my delay in responding.  In addition, I have chosen to not employ an Executive Council Assistant, and as a result, respond to all constituent inquiries personally.</p>
<p>As you probably know, in 2007 the City Council approved a settlement agreement (consent decree) with the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the past disposal of ash from two former incinerator sites.  The settlement agreement included a requirement of the City to implement a number of corrective remedies, one of which was noting property record cards for those parcels possibly contaminated with said ash.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, proposed ordinance 2010-703 took a broad approach to validate the Property Appraiser’s notations.  By broad, I mean it proposed to note all property record cards within the entire site boundaries, despite the fact that some parcels were far removed from the point source of the ash and were unlikely to have any ash thereon.  Because the proposed ordinance dealt with the issue in such a broad manner (I have received several emails similar to yours), I am happy to report that 2010-703 will be <strong>withdrawn</strong> – perhaps as early as Tuesday night’s City Council meeting.</p>
<p>In closing, I hope this information helps to address your concerns and I invite you to contact me further if you should have any additional questions.</p>
<p>John R. Crescimbeni</p>
<p><strong>City Councilman, At-Large, Group 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>Office of the City Council</strong></p>
<p><strong>City Hall at St. James</strong></p>
<p><strong>117 West Duval Street, Suite 425</strong></p>
<p><strong>Jacksonville, Florida 32202</strong></p>
<p><strong>(904) 630-1381</strong></p>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" />
<input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" />
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hslawyers.com/office-of-the-general-counsel-to-withdraw-proposed-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

