Charlotte Employment Attorney - Strianese Law

The Strianese, PLLC was founded by Chris Strianese, a Charlotte based attorney who focuses his practice on employment law including but not limited to sexual harassment, wage and hour, and discrimination within the work place. He primarily represents wronged employees who have been fired for unlawful reasons or are currently experiencing harassment or discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Strianese represents all wronged employees from high level executives to office workers.

Mr. Strianese has made it a point to provide individualized attention to each and every one of his clients in order to protect their rights and remain focused on the case. While most discrimination and harassment cases can be settled through negotiation, if litigation is necessary, Mr. Strianese will provide the experience, expertise, and strategic thinking necessary in order to best represent you and protect your rights. You will work directly with Mr. Strianese on your case and will be updated and walked through the whole process.

Mr. Strianese has handled all types of employment cases for Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, and small businesses. He is well accustomed to the typical defenses raised by employers during litigation and can easily counter those defenses. If you are interested in discussing your case with Mr. Strianese, visit his website and fill out the contact form for more information. 

Ex-UBS banker pleads guilty in US tax evasion case

A former executive at Swiss bank UBS AG has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge as part of a long-running U.S. investigation into tax evasion using secret accounts.

Hansruedi Schumacher entered the plea Thursday before a Florida federal judge. Schumacher is cooperating in the investigation and in return, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of five years' probation and a $150,000 fine.

Schumacher admitted in court papers that while at UBS and a second Swiss bank from 1995 to 2009 he helped wealthy U.S. citizens escape the Internal Revenue Service using secret offshore accounts.

Several other bankers and dozens of customers have been prosecuted. UBS itself paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. in 2009 and agreed to disclose names of thousands of its American customers.

5 arrested in protest inside Supreme Court

Protesters disrupted Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday for the second time this year with shouted criticism of the court's previous rulings on campaign finance.
 
Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.

The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.

Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.

The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.

In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.

The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.

High court must fix special prosecutor process, lawyers say

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not known for being shy about defending its prerogatives, has put itself in a curious situation.After months of intrigue and court silence, the justices surprised Pennsylvania's legal community by saying they would hear public arguments on Attorney General Kathleen Kane's legal challenge to the court's self-appointed power to launch special prosecutions.

The case in question is a court-ordered investigation into whether Kane's office illegally shared secret investigative material with the Philadelphia Daily News. The result was a grand jury's recommendation that Kane be charged with perjury and other offenses.

The justices may not ultimately agree with Kane that the courts lack the authority to appoint prosecutors to run grand juries or investigate her office. But, say lawyers and court watchers, the justices must at least clean up a murky and messy process that has been dogged by questions about legality and constitutionality.

Republicans welcome court decision in immigration lawsuit

House Speaker John Boehner says a federal judge's ruling temporarily blocking President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration underscores that he acted beyond his authority.
 
In a statement Tuesday, the Ohio Republican said the ruling by a Texas judge was no surprise, citing Obama's repeated comments about the limits of his authority. Boehner said he hoped that Senate Democrats will relent in their opposition to a Homeland Security Department spending bill that overturns Obama's actions to spare millions of immigrants from deportation.

The department's funding expires Feb. 27 and Congress has only a few legislative days to act.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said in a statement that he hoped Obama obeys the court's ruling. The Justice Department has said it would appeal.

Two justices once open to cameras in court now reconsider

Two Supreme Court justices who once seemed open to the idea of cameras in the courtroom said Monday they have reconsidered those views, dashing even faint hopes that April's historic arguments over gay marriage might be televised.

In separate appearances, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could fundamentally change the nature of the high court.

Sotomayor told an audience in West Palm Beach, Florida, that cameras could change the behavior of both the justices and lawyers appearing at the court, who might succumb to "this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom."

"I am moving more closely to saying I think it might be a bad idea," she said.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras and would try to soften other justices' opposition to cameras.

Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, Kagan told an audience that she is "conflicted" over the issue and noted strong arguments on both sides.

Kagan said that when she used to argue cases before the court as Solicitor General, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were for each case "and really look as though they are trying to get it right."

But Kagan said she is wary now of anything "that may upset the dynamic of the institution."

She pointed to Congress, which televises floor proceedings, saying lawmakers talk more in made-for-TV sound bites than to each other.

Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care

Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.

This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.

And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.

Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.

The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.

The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.