The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayCheck out ftc.gov/scams for the latest advice about How To Avoid a Scam, including how to recognize four common signs of a scam. You’ll also find tips to recognize and avoid impersonators who claim to be from the Social Security Administration, the FTC, the IRS, Medicare, or another government agency. Click here for more. Neiman Marcus reports data breach affecting millions of customersNeiman Marcus has alerted customers that a data breach last year may have exposed the payment records of 4.6 million customers. Your MoneyYou may not need to pay Social Security tax on all of your earnings if you have a high salary. Workers pay into the Social Security system until their income reaches the Social Security tax limit for that year. In 2021, the Social Security taxable maximum is $142,800. Earnings above this amount are not subject to Social Security tax or factored into Social Security payments in retirement. The Social Security tax limit is the maximum amount of earnings subject to Social Security tax. The Social Security taxable maximum is $142,800 in 2021. Workers pay a 6.2% Social Security tax on their earnings until they reach $142,800 in earnings for the year. Click here for more. For the LawyersIn 2019, the California legislature passed AB 51, a law prohibiting employers from requiring employees to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment. Before the law went into effect, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a coalition of employers—challenged the law in federal court, arguing that it violated the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). The FAA effectively requires arbitration agreements to be treated the same as any other contract. That is, under the FAA arbitration agreements are not allowed to be singled out or targeted for any special rules or heightened scrutiny. Reviewing the challenge, the federal court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the challenge was likely to be successful and granted a temporary injunction barring the law from being enforced. The State of California appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit, who disagreed with the Eastern District and upheld the law. Affirming the law’s validity in a 2-1 split decision, the 9th Circuit reasoned that AB 51 did not in fact separate arbitration agreements out for unique treatment in violation of the FAA, but rather simply prohibited mandatory arbitration. In the majority’s view, the law did not address the “enforcement” of arbitration agreements, and thus did not violate the FAA. Brice v. Haynes Investments LLC, (9th Cir. 2021) Click here for more. |
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |