<?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>Mavrick Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com</link>
	<description>South Florida Employment Lawyers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:03:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<!--built on the Whiteboard Framework-->
		<item>
		<title>ADMITTING PUBLIC RECORDS INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/admitting-public-records-into-evidence-at-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/admitting-public-records-into-evidence-at-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 20:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under Florida law, government records are often admissible both as business records and public records, but it is generally easier to obtain admission as a public record. An evidentiary proponent may easily authenticate public records by requesting the state supply the record under seal.   It also is not necessary to show the state created the<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/admitting-public-records-into-evidence-at-trial/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/admitting-public-records-into-evidence-at-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PERSONAL USE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN THE WORKPLACE</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-use-of-electronic-equipment-in-the-workplace/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-use-of-electronic-equipment-in-the-workplace/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 21:38:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The use of computers in the workplace has become so pervasive that, whether or not employers officially permit personal use, such use has become the norm.  Where “reasonable” personal use is allowed, the lines between excessive use and acceptable or normal use may not always be easy to draw. For example, Coleman v. Review Bd.<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-use-of-electronic-equipment-in-the-workplace/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-use-of-electronic-equipment-in-the-workplace/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS AS TRADE SECRETS</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/customer-relationships-as-trade-secrets/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/customer-relationships-as-trade-secrets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Businesses enter into non-competition and confidentiality agreements with employees to protect trade secrets, which are usually in the form of specific practices, processes, designs, or a compilation of information.  The agreements are designed to deter misappropriation of the trade secrets after the employment relationship has ended.  The most frequent issue in non-competition or confidentiality agreement<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/customer-relationships-as-trade-secrets/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/customer-relationships-as-trade-secrets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PRIVACY RIGHTS IN AN EMPLOYEE’S PERSONNEL FILE</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/privacy-rights-in-an-employees-personnel-file/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/privacy-rights-in-an-employees-personnel-file/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 17:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is there a right to privacy in an employee’s personnel file?  A recent Florida appellate court case Walker v. Rout, 2013 Fla.App. Lexis 6466 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), analyzed this subject in depth.  The court observed that personnel files undoubtedly contain private information.  See, for example, Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co, 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008),<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/privacy-rights-in-an-employees-personnel-file/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/privacy-rights-in-an-employees-personnel-file/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SUCCESSFULLY USING BUSINESS RECORDS AT TRIAL</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/successfully-using-business-records-at-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/successfully-using-business-records-at-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trials in business disputes typically deal with documents such as correspondence, ledgers, contracts, and other business records.  While those documents by themselves are often inadmissible hearsay, business trial attorneys usually get the documents into evidence via the “business records exception” to the rule against hearsay.  The business record exception is based on the concept that records<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/successfully-using-business-records-at-trial/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/successfully-using-business-records-at-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>APRIL 2013 TRIAL VICTORY FOR MAVRICK LAW FIRM CLIENT</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/april-2013-trial-victory-for-mavrick-law-firm-client/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/april-2013-trial-victory-for-mavrick-law-firm-client/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In April 2013, the Mavrick Law Firm represented a victorious client in state court in Broward County, Florida.  The case involved a lawsuit filed by a construction subcontractor against the general contractor in a commercial construction case.  The Mavrick Law Firm successfully defended the general contractor at trial.   The verdict was a complete defense verdict of<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/april-2013-trial-victory-for-mavrick-law-firm-client/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/april-2013-trial-victory-for-mavrick-law-firm-client/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FLORIDA LAW CONCERNING AN EMPLOYER’S JOB REFERENCE IMMUNITY</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/florida-law-concerning-an-employers-job-reference-immunity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/florida-law-concerning-an-employers-job-reference-immunity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a prospective employer contacts a potential employee’s former employer for a job reference, what liability does the former employer potentially face when responding?  And is it prudent for a former employer to create potential liability issues by commenting on a former employee? Prior to 1990, employers had a common law qualified privilege to discuss<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/florida-law-concerning-an-employers-job-reference-immunity/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/florida-law-concerning-an-employers-job-reference-immunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RECENT CASE HOLDS PREGNANCY IS NOT A &#8220;DISABILITY&#8221; UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/recent-case-holds-pregnancy-is-not-a-disability-under-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/recent-case-holds-pregnancy-is-not-a-disability-under-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:54:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, interpreting the Americans With Disabilities Act (&#8220;ADA&#8221;) before its 2008 amendments, recently ruled in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 707 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013), that an employee&#8217;s pregnancy does not justify a disability discrimination lawsuit.  The ADA is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against persons who are disabled, have  a<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/recent-case-holds-pregnancy-is-not-a-disability-under-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/recent-case-holds-pregnancy-is-not-a-disability-under-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR A CORPORATION’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER FLORIDA LAW: “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL”</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-liability-for-a-corporations-obligations-under-florida-law-piercing-the-corporate-veil/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-liability-for-a-corporations-obligations-under-florida-law-piercing-the-corporate-veil/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In business litigation cases, it is important to evaluate the possibility of “piercing the corporate veil,” whether from the perspective of plaintiff/creditor or defendant/debtor.  While a corporate debtor might be uncollectable due to its lack of financial resources, the story does not always end with the corporation’s own balance sheet.  When a plaintiff/creditor can prove<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-liability-for-a-corporations-obligations-under-florida-law-piercing-the-corporate-veil/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/personal-liability-for-a-corporations-obligations-under-florida-law-piercing-the-corporate-veil/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MARCH 2013 TRIAL VICTORY FOR PETER T. MAVRICK&#8217;S CLIENT</title>
		<link>http://www.mavricklaw.com/march-2013-trial-victory-for-mr-mavricks-client/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mavricklaw.com/march-2013-trial-victory-for-mr-mavricks-client/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mavrick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mavricklaw.com/?p=395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March 2013, Mr. Mavrick successfully represented a corporate employer at trial in a worker&#8217;s compensation case in Broward County, Florida.  Mr. Mavrick presented testimony from four witness and conducted an extensive cross-examination of the Claimant-employee.  Crucial credibility problems emerged with the former employee&#8217;s case.  The Judge ruled in favor of Mr. Mavrick&#8217;s client.  In<a href="http://www.mavricklaw.com/march-2013-trial-victory-for-mr-mavricks-client/" class="read-more">&#160; Continue Reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mavricklaw.com/march-2013-trial-victory-for-mr-mavricks-client/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
