cygent
07-02 04:43 PM
You cannot sue them for any of the above.
3) See (2)
kaisersose,
I see your point in 1) Ok, I will agree with that. My mistake.
But from 2) it is very clear injustice. You just mentioned that they made a "choice" not to burn unused visa's, well then that choice obviously excluded the rest of the field, in terms of the rules. Of course, they have the excuse of backlog + 2007 visagate, but that does not redeem their actions. The root cause is because of how the laws were crafted.
Similar argument for 3) - They must be held accountable.
3) See (2)
kaisersose,
I see your point in 1) Ok, I will agree with that. My mistake.
But from 2) it is very clear injustice. You just mentioned that they made a "choice" not to burn unused visa's, well then that choice obviously excluded the rest of the field, in terms of the rules. Of course, they have the excuse of backlog + 2007 visagate, but that does not redeem their actions. The root cause is because of how the laws were crafted.
Similar argument for 3) - They must be held accountable.
wallpaper Black and White Wedding
sheela
08-22 08:27 PM
Got approval emails on August 14th, received approval notice by mail on August 20th, and finally got the physical green cards by mail today.:)
congratulations, Conchshell.
I appreciate your postings which were helpful to many here
congratulations, Conchshell.
I appreciate your postings which were helpful to many here
go_guy123
11-03 04:47 PM
Pls let us know if you would like to tell your story in a media interview?
Sure why not.
I came to us in 1999 did my masters here in US and graduated in 2001.
I worked for some time on OPT and then went back to work in India.
I came back in 2005 , the immigration situation being very bad with retrogression I applied for canada immigration from US ( from india
there is a severe backlog...canada has a per immigration visa post backlog unlike us which has per birth country backlog)
I recently got Canada PR , I joined the MBA here at U of Toronto.
Had I been in my early 20s I would have thought about US imigration.
Nowdays it take 7 to 8 years ....thats more than 10 to 15% of your productive life.
I have talked to my friends ( from IIT delhi ) all of them have same opinion...its a lost cause
now. Now that theyhave invested 5 years they dont want to quit.
Only 1 in know who did MS in US and got GC. Rest were all PhD who got GC through EB1.
EB2 , EB3 is all dead now.
Now it too late I need to settled . How can I marry with the insecurity of moving from place to place in search of contract project, bodyshopper eating avay 30% of your billing rate etc.
I have given up hope. There are challenges in Canada as job market is
not that great but atleast I can sleep at night without having to worry
about the immigration. Ihave one more friend working in Canada he also moved from US.
The salary rate etc is lot lower in fact. On the whole Canada is hard for foreign educated...
one of the reasons I am doing an MBA.
1.5 years it takes for Immigration from US/Canada. Actually
from Canada its faster but there is hope. The uncertainity in the US process
is unbearable.
Sure why not.
I came to us in 1999 did my masters here in US and graduated in 2001.
I worked for some time on OPT and then went back to work in India.
I came back in 2005 , the immigration situation being very bad with retrogression I applied for canada immigration from US ( from india
there is a severe backlog...canada has a per immigration visa post backlog unlike us which has per birth country backlog)
I recently got Canada PR , I joined the MBA here at U of Toronto.
Had I been in my early 20s I would have thought about US imigration.
Nowdays it take 7 to 8 years ....thats more than 10 to 15% of your productive life.
I have talked to my friends ( from IIT delhi ) all of them have same opinion...its a lost cause
now. Now that theyhave invested 5 years they dont want to quit.
Only 1 in know who did MS in US and got GC. Rest were all PhD who got GC through EB1.
EB2 , EB3 is all dead now.
Now it too late I need to settled . How can I marry with the insecurity of moving from place to place in search of contract project, bodyshopper eating avay 30% of your billing rate etc.
I have given up hope. There are challenges in Canada as job market is
not that great but atleast I can sleep at night without having to worry
about the immigration. Ihave one more friend working in Canada he also moved from US.
The salary rate etc is lot lower in fact. On the whole Canada is hard for foreign educated...
one of the reasons I am doing an MBA.
1.5 years it takes for Immigration from US/Canada. Actually
from Canada its faster but there is hope. The uncertainity in the US process
is unbearable.
2011 lack white wedding photo
rbms
04-03 10:06 AM
Yes, IV is working on that. If you have not sent the fax #10 and #11 already, please send them and encourage your friends to send it. It addresses your concerns.
HI Admin,
I would like to know if IV is working on ability to file I485 dureing retrogression...if so can youc alrify us how would you proceed for this issue...an ammendement thru somebody...Just want to know..
thanks
HI Admin,
I would like to know if IV is working on ability to file I485 dureing retrogression...if so can youc alrify us how would you proceed for this issue...an ammendement thru somebody...Just want to know..
thanks
more...
abracadabra
05-30 02:22 PM
The window closed automatically, no luck
brij523
02-17 12:15 PM
Indraneel ,
amsgc,
guyfromsg,
Vik ,
Nikhil
and significant other GA member
Lets have conference call on Wednesday 2/28/07 at 9pm EST.
Call In number 218-486-1300
Bridge - 654535
Agenda of the meeting
1) Introduction
2) Discuss method to raise membership
3) Plan to contant Senator Office and Cogress Member office
4) Any other topic.
Would appreciate your participation.
Thanks
amsgc,
guyfromsg,
Vik ,
Nikhil
and significant other GA member
Lets have conference call on Wednesday 2/28/07 at 9pm EST.
Call In number 218-486-1300
Bridge - 654535
Agenda of the meeting
1) Introduction
2) Discuss method to raise membership
3) Plan to contant Senator Office and Cogress Member office
4) Any other topic.
Would appreciate your participation.
Thanks
more...
Administrator2
07-07 08:05 PM
mbawa,
We regard IV website as an important tool to reach our goal. Please be cautioned that if we find you damage our effort, we will be forced to ban you from this website.
IV Team
We regard IV website as an important tool to reach our goal. Please be cautioned that if we find you damage our effort, we will be forced to ban you from this website.
IV Team
2010 full cast of wedding party
WeShallOvercome
07-25 01:37 PM
>>>>
more...
das0
03-09 01:54 PM
Hi nat23,
Thank you very much for your reply.
Currently i am not enrolled into any company benefits like Health Insurnace etc as i have those benefits from my spose company.
This company said that they are paying thier attorney firm 5200$ for H1b and i am not paying anything.
For this 5 months, i will be H4 and will not get paied by this company.
Question is:
1. Can the company now apply and pay for H1b for Oct 1st start date and then later can they tell me not to hire me anymore?
2. Can mutiple employers file for h1B with same start date of Oct 1st?
If yes, then i would start looking for other jobs as my backup H1b jobs.
Please advise. Much appreciated - thanks
Thank you very much for your reply.
Currently i am not enrolled into any company benefits like Health Insurnace etc as i have those benefits from my spose company.
This company said that they are paying thier attorney firm 5200$ for H1b and i am not paying anything.
For this 5 months, i will be H4 and will not get paied by this company.
Question is:
1. Can the company now apply and pay for H1b for Oct 1st start date and then later can they tell me not to hire me anymore?
2. Can mutiple employers file for h1B with same start date of Oct 1st?
If yes, then i would start looking for other jobs as my backup H1b jobs.
Please advise. Much appreciated - thanks
hair Wedding Reception at The Falls
Better_Days
05-31 08:01 PM
Thanks so much sumggymba, just one more thing if you know. Do they file eb2 ?
Yes they do. A friend of mine got his GC processed in EB2 and it was a few years ago. .
Please note that he did have a Masters from a US university.
Yes they do. A friend of mine got his GC processed in EB2 and it was a few years ago. .
Please note that he did have a Masters from a US university.
more...
Leo07
07-07 08:23 PM
I don't agree with what mbawa2574 has to say,but I certainly disagree banning mbawa for expressing views. I think, mbawa2574 is well within limits of posting anything that could hurt IV image/goals. ( On this thread, I mean).
What's the damage caused to your effort?( apart from deleting threads )
I'd rather help channel his thoughts and energies in a direction that helps IV than ban him.
mbawa2574, can you get in touch with some one in IV Core and put your thoughts on paper?
I'm sure you understand by now that IV is made of just you, me and bunch of other anonymous keyboard monkeys.
Cheers!
mbawa,
We regard IV website as an important tool to reach our goal. Please be cautioned that if we find you damage our effort, we will be forced to ban you from this website.
IV Team
What's the damage caused to your effort?( apart from deleting threads )
I'd rather help channel his thoughts and energies in a direction that helps IV than ban him.
mbawa2574, can you get in touch with some one in IV Core and put your thoughts on paper?
I'm sure you understand by now that IV is made of just you, me and bunch of other anonymous keyboard monkeys.
Cheers!
mbawa,
We regard IV website as an important tool to reach our goal. Please be cautioned that if we find you damage our effort, we will be forced to ban you from this website.
IV Team
hot 58-wedding-party-lack-
chi_shark
06-24 05:56 AM
Yes I am still waiting. No luds other than the ones for supporting documents.
Same here.
I applied on May 18th and my EAD expires on Aug 10th. There were three SLUDs in a row two weeks after I applied, and there is no update after that.
Did you notice any LUDs in your case? Are you still waiting for a decision? Please update.
Same here.
I applied on May 18th and my EAD expires on Aug 10th. There were three SLUDs in a row two weeks after I applied, and there is no update after that.
Did you notice any LUDs in your case? Are you still waiting for a decision? Please update.
more...
house A Black and White Wedding in
thomachan72
10-29 04:05 PM
NRE accounts--> interest earned is not taxable in India but has to be reported in your 1040 here.
NRO accuont--> earns very high interest rates (was 11%) just a few months ago. There will be TDS but you can file an income tax return and claim the amount that they deducted above what you would be taxed.
For eg:- if your total interest earned is 100,000 they would withhold upto 30% of it (may be lesser depending upon your situation). When you file your returns your total income is only 100,000 which is below the taxable limits and therefor you will be returned all that was witheld. Only those with interests >180,000 per anum will really lose money.
Some people split accounts and try to hide interest income. This is not advisable if you ever want to repatriate the interest income. Once you have payed required taxes on the interest you can repatriate any amount of interest income to the US. Many people use this as a source of regular income.
NRO accuont--> earns very high interest rates (was 11%) just a few months ago. There will be TDS but you can file an income tax return and claim the amount that they deducted above what you would be taxed.
For eg:- if your total interest earned is 100,000 they would withhold upto 30% of it (may be lesser depending upon your situation). When you file your returns your total income is only 100,000 which is below the taxable limits and therefor you will be returned all that was witheld. Only those with interests >180,000 per anum will really lose money.
Some people split accounts and try to hide interest income. This is not advisable if you ever want to repatriate the interest income. Once you have payed required taxes on the interest you can repatriate any amount of interest income to the US. Many people use this as a source of regular income.
tattoo -party-guests-lack-white
tdasara
02-08 07:33 AM
L1A is for managers and you actually have to work atleast one year outside the US to apply for a GC (L1A - GC)
L1B is most commonly used (abused). There is no minimum required pay and has no cap. Moving from L1B to H1b is a nightmare.
L1B is most commonly used (abused). There is no minimum required pay and has no cap. Moving from L1B to H1b is a nightmare.
more...
pictures lack and white wedding ideas
smuggymba
05-11 04:34 PM
OP is busy, International Manager got a call from her TCS Manager.
Please don't insult OP by calling her Intl Manager - they are called "Global Program Manager" and "Executive Engagement Manager". These companies are coming up with new fancy names for these PM's with 70K salary, 6 yrs of experience and 10 college freshers reporting to them.
Please don't insult OP by calling her Intl Manager - they are called "Global Program Manager" and "Executive Engagement Manager". These companies are coming up with new fancy names for these PM's with 70K salary, 6 yrs of experience and 10 college freshers reporting to them.
dresses Black White Wedding Party.
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
H-1B workers certainly seem to be under fire these days on many fronts. A new memo issued by USCIS on the employer-employee relationship imposes new extra-regulatory regulations on the types of activities in which H-1B workers can engage as well as the types of enterprises that can petition for H-1B workers. The memo targets the consulting industry directly, deftly slips in a new concept that seems to prohibit H-1B petitions for employer-owners of businesses, and will surely constitute an open invitation to the Service Centers to hit H-1B petitioners with a new slew of kitchen-sink RFE's. On another front, USCIS continues to make unannounced H-1B site visits, often repeatedly to the same employer. Apart from the "in-terrorem" impact of such visits, I personally cannot see the utility of three different visits to the same employer, particularly after the first one or two visits show that the employer is fully compliant.
But USCIS isn't the only agency that is rigorously targeting H-1B's. An AILA member recently reported that CBP pulled newly-arrived Indian nationals holding H-1B visas out of an immigration inspection line and reportedly placed them in Expedited Removal. The legal basis of those actions is still unclear. However, the tactic is too close to racial profiling for my own comfort.
Finally, recent H-1B "skirmishes" include various U.S. consular posts in India issuing "pink letters" that are, simply put, consular "RFE's" appearing to question the bona fides of the H-1B and requesting information on a host of truly repetitive and/or irrelevant topics. Much of the information that is routinely requested on a pink letter is already in the copy of the H-1B visa petition. Some of the letters request payroll information for all employees of the sponsoring company, a ridiculous request in most instances, particularly for major multi-national companies. One of the most frustrating actions we are seeing from consular officers in this context is the checking off or highlighting of every single category of additional information on the form letter, whether directly applicable or not, in effect a "paper wall" that must be overcome before an applicant can have the H-1B visa issued. Very discouraging to both employer and employee.
How have we come to a point in time where the H-1B category in and of itself is so disdained and mistrusted? Of course I'm aware that instances of fraud have cast this category in a bad light. But I think that vehemence of the administrative attack on the H-1B category is so disproportionate to the actual statistics about fraud. And interestingly, the disproportionate heavy-handed administrative reaction comes not from the agency specifically tasked with H-1B enforcement�the Department of Labor�but from CIS, CBP and State. Sometimes I just have to shake my head and ask myself what makes people so darn angry about a visa category that, at bottom, is designed to bring in relatively tiny number of really smart people to work in U.S. businesses of any size. It has to be a reaction against something else.
Yes, a great number of IT consultants come to the US on H-1B's. It is important to remember that so many of these individuals are extremely well-educated, capable people, working in an industry in which there are a large number of high profile players. And arguably, the high profile consulting companies have the most at stake if they do not focus on compliance, as they are the easiest enforcement target and they need their business model to work in the U.S. in order to survive. Some people may not like the business model, although arguably IT consulting companies provide needed services that allow US businesses, such as banks and insurance companies to focus on their own core strengths. Like it or not, though, this business model is perfectly legal under current law, and the agencies that enforce our immigration laws have no business trying to eviscerate it by policy or a pattern of discretionary actions.
It is true that some IT consulting companies' practices have been the focus of fraud investigations. But DOL has stringent rules in place to deal with the bad guys. Benching H-1B workers without pay, paying below the prevailing wage, sending H-1B workers on long-term assignments to a site not covered by an LCA�these are the practices we most often hear about, and every single one of these is a violation of an existing regulation that could be enforced by the Department of Labor. When an employer violates wage and hour rules, DOL investigates the practices and enforces the regulations against that employer. But no one shuts down an entire industry as a result.
And the IT consulting industry is not the only user of the H-1B visa. Let's not forget how many other critical fields use H-1B workers. In my own career alone, I have seen H-1B petitions for nanoscientists, ornithologists, CEO's of significant not for profit organizations, teachers, applied mathematicians, risk analysts, professionals involved in pharmaceutical research and development, automotive designers, international legal experts, film editors, microimaging engineers. H-1B's are valuable to small and large businesses alike, arguably even more to that emerging business that needs one key expert to develop a new product or service and get the business off the ground.
The assault on H-1B's is not only offensive, it's dangerous. Here's why:
H-1B's create jobs�statistics show that 5 jobs are created in the U.S. for every H-1B worker hired. An administrative clamp-down in the program will hinder this job creation. And think about the valuable sharing of skills and expertise between H-1B workers and U.S. workers�this is lost when companies are discouraged from using the program.
The anti-H-1B assault dissuades large businesses from conducting research and development in the US, and encourages the relocation of those facilities in jurisdictions that are friendlier to foreign professionals.
The anti-H-1B assault chills the formation of small businesses in the US, particularly in emerging technologies. This will most certainly be one of the long-term results of USCIS' most recent memo.
The attack on H-1B's offends our friends and allies in the world. An example: Earlier this year India �one of the U.S.'s closest allies --announced new visa restrictions on foreign nationals working there. Surely the treatment of Indian national H-1B workers at the hands of our agencies involved in the immigration process would not have escaped the attention of the Indian government as they issued their own restrictions.
The increasing challenges in the H-1B program may have the effect of encouraging foreign students who were educated in the U.S. to seek permanent positions elsewhere.
Whatever the cause of the visceral reaction against H-1B workers might be�whether it stems from a fear that fraud will become more widespread or whether it is simply a broader reaction against foreign workers that often raises its head during any down economy �I sincerely hope that the agencies are able to gain some perspective on the program that allows them to treat legitimate H-1B employers and employees with the respect they deserve and to effectively enforce against those who are non-compliant, rather than casting a wide net and treating all H-1B users as abusers.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-7575642888668204601?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-is-h-1b-dirty-word.html)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
H-1B workers certainly seem to be under fire these days on many fronts. A new memo issued by USCIS on the employer-employee relationship imposes new extra-regulatory regulations on the types of activities in which H-1B workers can engage as well as the types of enterprises that can petition for H-1B workers. The memo targets the consulting industry directly, deftly slips in a new concept that seems to prohibit H-1B petitions for employer-owners of businesses, and will surely constitute an open invitation to the Service Centers to hit H-1B petitioners with a new slew of kitchen-sink RFE's. On another front, USCIS continues to make unannounced H-1B site visits, often repeatedly to the same employer. Apart from the "in-terrorem" impact of such visits, I personally cannot see the utility of three different visits to the same employer, particularly after the first one or two visits show that the employer is fully compliant.
But USCIS isn't the only agency that is rigorously targeting H-1B's. An AILA member recently reported that CBP pulled newly-arrived Indian nationals holding H-1B visas out of an immigration inspection line and reportedly placed them in Expedited Removal. The legal basis of those actions is still unclear. However, the tactic is too close to racial profiling for my own comfort.
Finally, recent H-1B "skirmishes" include various U.S. consular posts in India issuing "pink letters" that are, simply put, consular "RFE's" appearing to question the bona fides of the H-1B and requesting information on a host of truly repetitive and/or irrelevant topics. Much of the information that is routinely requested on a pink letter is already in the copy of the H-1B visa petition. Some of the letters request payroll information for all employees of the sponsoring company, a ridiculous request in most instances, particularly for major multi-national companies. One of the most frustrating actions we are seeing from consular officers in this context is the checking off or highlighting of every single category of additional information on the form letter, whether directly applicable or not, in effect a "paper wall" that must be overcome before an applicant can have the H-1B visa issued. Very discouraging to both employer and employee.
How have we come to a point in time where the H-1B category in and of itself is so disdained and mistrusted? Of course I'm aware that instances of fraud have cast this category in a bad light. But I think that vehemence of the administrative attack on the H-1B category is so disproportionate to the actual statistics about fraud. And interestingly, the disproportionate heavy-handed administrative reaction comes not from the agency specifically tasked with H-1B enforcement�the Department of Labor�but from CIS, CBP and State. Sometimes I just have to shake my head and ask myself what makes people so darn angry about a visa category that, at bottom, is designed to bring in relatively tiny number of really smart people to work in U.S. businesses of any size. It has to be a reaction against something else.
Yes, a great number of IT consultants come to the US on H-1B's. It is important to remember that so many of these individuals are extremely well-educated, capable people, working in an industry in which there are a large number of high profile players. And arguably, the high profile consulting companies have the most at stake if they do not focus on compliance, as they are the easiest enforcement target and they need their business model to work in the U.S. in order to survive. Some people may not like the business model, although arguably IT consulting companies provide needed services that allow US businesses, such as banks and insurance companies to focus on their own core strengths. Like it or not, though, this business model is perfectly legal under current law, and the agencies that enforce our immigration laws have no business trying to eviscerate it by policy or a pattern of discretionary actions.
It is true that some IT consulting companies' practices have been the focus of fraud investigations. But DOL has stringent rules in place to deal with the bad guys. Benching H-1B workers without pay, paying below the prevailing wage, sending H-1B workers on long-term assignments to a site not covered by an LCA�these are the practices we most often hear about, and every single one of these is a violation of an existing regulation that could be enforced by the Department of Labor. When an employer violates wage and hour rules, DOL investigates the practices and enforces the regulations against that employer. But no one shuts down an entire industry as a result.
And the IT consulting industry is not the only user of the H-1B visa. Let's not forget how many other critical fields use H-1B workers. In my own career alone, I have seen H-1B petitions for nanoscientists, ornithologists, CEO's of significant not for profit organizations, teachers, applied mathematicians, risk analysts, professionals involved in pharmaceutical research and development, automotive designers, international legal experts, film editors, microimaging engineers. H-1B's are valuable to small and large businesses alike, arguably even more to that emerging business that needs one key expert to develop a new product or service and get the business off the ground.
The assault on H-1B's is not only offensive, it's dangerous. Here's why:
H-1B's create jobs�statistics show that 5 jobs are created in the U.S. for every H-1B worker hired. An administrative clamp-down in the program will hinder this job creation. And think about the valuable sharing of skills and expertise between H-1B workers and U.S. workers�this is lost when companies are discouraged from using the program.
The anti-H-1B assault dissuades large businesses from conducting research and development in the US, and encourages the relocation of those facilities in jurisdictions that are friendlier to foreign professionals.
The anti-H-1B assault chills the formation of small businesses in the US, particularly in emerging technologies. This will most certainly be one of the long-term results of USCIS' most recent memo.
The attack on H-1B's offends our friends and allies in the world. An example: Earlier this year India �one of the U.S.'s closest allies --announced new visa restrictions on foreign nationals working there. Surely the treatment of Indian national H-1B workers at the hands of our agencies involved in the immigration process would not have escaped the attention of the Indian government as they issued their own restrictions.
The increasing challenges in the H-1B program may have the effect of encouraging foreign students who were educated in the U.S. to seek permanent positions elsewhere.
Whatever the cause of the visceral reaction against H-1B workers might be�whether it stems from a fear that fraud will become more widespread or whether it is simply a broader reaction against foreign workers that often raises its head during any down economy �I sincerely hope that the agencies are able to gain some perspective on the program that allows them to treat legitimate H-1B employers and employees with the respect they deserve and to effectively enforce against those who are non-compliant, rather than casting a wide net and treating all H-1B users as abusers.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-7575642888668204601?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-is-h-1b-dirty-word.html)
more...
makeup dresses Wedding and Party
psaxena
07-04 02:01 PM
They are already against us and shouting on top of their lungs "SLUMDOG" for the reason that cowards and scared and suppressed people like you never gonna do anything.
The same attitude like yours actually made us slaves for many more years, instead would have got the freedom long long time back.
Next time when your tail is between your legs , do not try to make suggestions.
Some ideas should be kept to ones self, saying in public "we work harder, longer" than American will turn public against us even more because they feel in an opposite way and it is an insult.
The same attitude like yours actually made us slaves for many more years, instead would have got the freedom long long time back.
Next time when your tail is between your legs , do not try to make suggestions.
Some ideas should be kept to ones self, saying in public "we work harder, longer" than American will turn public against us even more because they feel in an opposite way and it is an insult.
girlfriend Black And White Wedding
lskreddy
08-14 12:04 PM
Congrats. I am sure it is not easy to leave everything behind. I see a lot of positives in R2Iing and the worst case scenario is if it does not work, you could come back here with a fresh H1. Sent you a PM..
hairstyles Reception Table in Black
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
485_spouse
04-27 03:16 PM
I-140 approved
Self I-485 2004, Spouse not able to file I-485 because of retrogression
Wife not able to work(H4, no EAD)
Moving around for jobs with family
Good Employer but not great
Frustation with H1B Extension and stamping
Not able to Plan to go to India because of Interview dates
Not able to buy house
I have EAD but have to stick with the current employer
No promotion
Could not join fortune 500 company as no GC :mad:
Self I-485 2004, Spouse not able to file I-485 because of retrogression
Wife not able to work(H4, no EAD)
Moving around for jobs with family
Good Employer but not great
Frustation with H1B Extension and stamping
Not able to Plan to go to India because of Interview dates
Not able to buy house
I have EAD but have to stick with the current employer
No promotion
Could not join fortune 500 company as no GC :mad:
gc_maine2
05-15 11:44 AM
Good JOb Learning01 for your efforts, and Thanks Ras4u for posting it..
Bloomberg story at International Herald Tribune: U.S. firms press Congress to open door to technology workers (Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/14/bloomberg/bximmigrate.php))
Bloomberg story at International Herald Tribune: U.S. firms press Congress to open door to technology workers (Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/14/bloomberg/bximmigrate.php))
No comments:
Post a Comment