Articles Posted in Wages and Benefits

By Scott A. Holt


The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its proposed rule today that would broaden federal overtime pay regulations by raising the minimum salary threshold to $50,440 per year in order qualify for an exemption from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

To help understand what this means, below are answers to some questions you might have:

Q.        Why is the DOL making this change?

A.        The proposed change was prompted by a memorandum President Obama issued in March 2014 which directed the DOL to “modernize and streamline” the regulations on exemptions from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.  By way of this new rule, the DOL seeks to update the salary level test to ensure that the FLSA’s intended overtime protections are “fully implemented” and “to simplify the identification of overtime-eligible employees.”

Q.        What are the changes being proposed?

A.        Under the current regulations, which were last updated in 2004, employees have to meet certain job duties-related tests and be paid at least $455 per week-or $23,660 annually-in order to be exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA exemption for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees. The proposed rule would make the following changes:

· Increase the current minimum salary requirement from $23,660 to $50,440 a year;

· Increase the highly compensated employee annual compensation level from $100,000 annually to $122,148 per year; and

· Automatically increasing the salary and compensation levels on an annual basis.


Q.       How will this change impact employees and employers?

A.        The change is estimated to impact approximately 11 million employees who earn below the proposed salary threshold or who qualify for the highly compensated employee exemption.  Of this group, almost 5 million white collar workers will become newly entitled to overtime compensation because of the increase in the minimum salary threshold to $50,440 a year.  Another 6 million highly compensated white collar employees will have their eligibility clarified because it will be determined solely by application of the new salary threshold of $122,148 per year.

Q.        Did the DOL propose any changes to the “duties” test of the FLSA?

A.        While the DOL did not propose any specific changes to the standard duties tests, it is seeking comments on whether the current duties tests are working as intended to screen out employees who are not bona fide “white collar” exempt employees.

Q.        What happens next?

A.        Under the DOL’s Notice for Proposed Rulemaking, the federal agency must accept comments from the public before implementing the change.  Public comments can be submitted to the DOL in writing (or online at by referencing the rule’s Identification Number (RIN) 1235-AA11. Once the period of commentary has ended, the DOL will likely issue a final rule implementing the changes.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor created a lot of uncertainty in the area of federal employment benefits. Because the federal government’s definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman was held to be unconstitutional, the decision left open the question of when same-sex couples were eligible for spousal benefits in a variety of contexts. In a move that is sure to simplify issues for multi-state employers, the Department of Labor is taking steps to clarify that issue under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).


The FMLA is a federal law providing unpaid leave to employees who have worked for a company for at least twelve months, and who worked at least 1,250 hours in the calendar year preceding the request for leave. Leave may be taken for a variety of reasons, including to care for a spouse with a serious health condition. Thus, a key consideration in determining eligibility for FMLA leave is whether the person for whom you intend to care is a “spouse” under applicable law. The term “spouse” used to be defined by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, DOMA’s definition of marriage was declared to be unconstitutional under the Windsor decision.

The Reaction to Windsor

In the wake of the Windsor decision, the federal government was forced to come up with a new approach to federal benefits impacting spouses. Different agencies adopted different approaches, and sometimes applied different standards to different laws administered by the same agency. With regard to the FMLA, the U.S. Department of Labor adopted a “state-of-residence” rule, meaning that if a same-sex couple’s marriage was not legal in the state where they lived, they were not entitled to spousal leave under the FMLA. So, for example, in 2003 a same-sex couple living in Pennsylvania, who are employed in Delaware and came to Delaware to get married, would not be entitled to spousal leave benefits under the FMLA because their marriage would not be recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2014).

This “state-of-residence” rule imposed a significant administrative burden on employers, who would have to research the legality of a couple’s marriage in their home state as part of the FMLA eligibility analysis. The problems are particularly taxing on the East Coast, where individuals frequently live and work in adjacent states. It also created a problem for businesses with a telecommuting workforce, where the HR professionals could have to familiarize themselves with the laws in all 50 states.

A New Approach

Recognizing the administrative burden imposed on employers, the Department of Labor had revised its approach to spousal benefits under the FMLA, adopting a “place-of-celebration” rule. Under the new rule, so long as the marriage is legal in the location in which it is celebrated, the couple will be considered spouses for purposes of being entitled to leave under the FMLA. This approach reduces the administrative burden on employers, who can now treat same-sex marriages the same way that they treat traditional marriages: by reviewing a copy of the marriage certificate of simply assuming that the marriage is valid.

The new rule is part of a formal rule-making process, and will be issued on February 25, 2015. It becomes effective March 27, 2015.

Bottom Line

The Department of Labor’s revised approach to spousal leave benefits is intended to give same-sex spouses the same access to FMLA leave as all other married partners. It has the added benefit of simplifying the administrative process for employers, which is already onerous under the FMLA. Employers who have already voluntarily extended FMLA leave to all same-sex spouses will not experience any change in the process, and can breathe an added sigh of relief!

It’s summer and that means it’s time for summer vacations.  Some employers are unaware of the law regarding when an employee may be paid “comp time” instead of wages.  So here’s a brief recap of what you should know.logo_from_dev

Rule #1

Absent an exemption (see below), all employees must be paid at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the normal hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40.

This means that an employee who earns $20/hr. must be paid $30/hr for each hour worked over 40.

If the employee works 40 hours, he is paid $20 x 40 = $800.  If he works 42 hours, he is paid $20 x 40 ($800) plus $30 x 2 ($60) as overtime compensation.

But he may not be paid his regular rate for the first 40 hours ($800) plus 2 hours of “comp time.”  No, no, no.  All time in excess of 40 must be paid (money in an amount equal to) 1.5 times the normal hourly rate.

Rule #2

Provided the employer complies with Rule #1, the employer may offer comp time as a supplemental form of wages.

One common example of this is paying comp time for hours 35-40.  So, in addition to his regular wage of $800, the employee may also be paid 5 hours in comp time as an incentive or reward for working those last five hours.  Similarly, some employers offer comp time for premium shifts.

Both scenarios are totally kosher, so long as the employee is receiving his regular wage.  Comp time is a supplement not a substitute.

Rule #3

As with any rule, there are exceptions.

But, with comp time, the exceptions are few.  An employer may pay an employee comp time in lieu of  wages in certain situations.  First, exempt employees (those who are not entitled to overtime in the first instance) can be paid comp time for time worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Second, certain public-sector employees may be paid comp time, including state and local government employers.  In the public sector, under certain conditions, employees may receive compensatory time off at a rate of 1.5 hours for each overtime worked, instead of cash overtime pay.

Law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency response personnel and employees engaged in seasonal activities may accrue up to 480 hours of comp time; all other state and local government employees may accrue up to 240 hours.


There are exceptions to every rule.  For example, some states do not permit the use of comp time or limit accrual to a lesser number than provided by federal law.  Before you implement a comp-time system in your workplace, you should consider having it reviewed with legal counsel.  And, if you have a comp-time system in place for non-exempt employees as a substitute for overtime pay, you should consider consulting with your employment lawyer to determine whether the system violates state or federal wage payment laws.

See also U.S. DOL Fact Sheet #7 State & Local Governments Under the FLSA

Other FLSA posts

The number of FLSA lawsuits filed each year continues to rise.  See The Wage & Hour Litigation Epidemic Continues, at Seyfarth Shaw’s Wage & Hour Litigation Blog.  Often, the lawsuits follow certain trends, targeting a particular industry, job type, or claim.  One such trend, which I’ve written about previously, is meal-break claims.  In these suits, the plaintiffs allege that their pay was automatically deducted for meal breaks that they never received.logo_from_dev

Although this has been a popular claim, it’s not been a very successful one.  And a recent case from the Eastern District of New York gives employers real reason to believe that meal-break claims are all but dead upon arrival.

In DeSilva v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., the court decertified a collective action of 1,196 plaintiffs who had alleged that they were subject to automatic deduction of meal breaks that they didn’t receive.  In its opinion, the court makes clear that such claims will have a difficult time proceeding as a collective action:

In the time since this action was initially filed, mounting precedent supports the proposition that [the employer’s] timekeeping system and system-wide overtime compensation policies are lawful under the FLSA.

The court explains that this “mounting precedent” has resolved any doubt about the validity of auto-deduct policies, which require an employee to report a missed break to his supervisor in order to be paid for it.  If no report of a missed break is made, the break period (usually 30 minutes) is automatically deducted from the time worked.  This timekeeping system has the benefit of not requiring that employees clock in and out during their breaks-only at the beginning and end of each shift.  The court reiterated that “automatic meal deduction policies are not per se illegal” and:

[w]ithout more, a legal automatic meal deduction for previously scheduled breaks cannot serve as the common bond around which an FLSA collective action may be formed.”

This decision continues to build on the growing body of case law dismissing or decertifying FLSA collective and class actions arising from auto-deduct meal-break policies.  Good news for employers, particularly in health care, where these policies are commonplace.

DeSilva v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., No. 10-CV-1341 (PKC) (WDW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77669 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2014).


See also

2d Cir. Drops the FLSA Hammer (Dejesus v. HF Mgmt’s Servs., LLC, No. 12-4565 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2013).

Another Auto-Deduct Case Bites the Dust (Raposo v. Garelick Farms, LLC (D. Mass. July 11, 2013)).

8th Cir- FLSA Plaintiffs Must Spell It Out (Carmody v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs (8th Cir. Apr. 23, 2013)).

2d Cir- FLSA Does Not Cover Gap Time (Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)).

Another Employer’s Auto-Deduct Policy Is Upheld (Creeley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2013)).

6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FLSA Gotcha Litigation (White v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp. (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012)).

The Legality of Automatically Deducting Meal Breaks (Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2012)).

E.D. Pa. Dismisses Nurses’ Claims for Missed Meal Breaks, Part I and Part II (Lynn v. Jefferson Health Sys., Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2012)).

FLSA Victory: Class Certification Denied (Pennington v. Integrity Comm’n, LLC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2012)).

Rumor has it that today is Valentine’s Day.  Being married to a chef-restaurateur, Valentine’s Day doesn’t mean “romantic holiday” to me as much as “very, very busy workday.”  And, for that reason, I’ll dedicate today’s post to the food-service professionals who have a long weekend of work ahead of them.

There are plenty of employment-law topics with a chef or restaurant connection.  Here are a few stories from recent history that come to heart tattoo art_thumb

Wage-and-Hour Claims

Certainly, restaurants are not the only industry subject to wage-and-hour claims by employees.  But there does seem to have been a recent proliferation of settlements of such claims by businesses owned by famous-name chefs.

There was the $5.25 million settlement forked out by Chef Mario Batali in March 2012, over allegations that servers’ tips had been improperly withheld.  Then there was the January 2014 settlement agreement that Chef Daniel Boulud reached with 88 workers who alleged that their pay had been improperly reduced to account for tips, resulting in payment of overtime at an incorrect rate.  The amount of that settlement is confidential.  And, even more recently, there was the $446,500 settlement agreement reached to resolve the wage claims of 130 servers at two NYC restaurants owned by Chef Wolfgang Puck.

Why are so many wage claims against restaurants?  One reason is the complexity of the laws in this area.  The overtime laws are complicated even in the context of an employee who receives hourly wages only.  But, add to that tip credits, earned tips, and tip pooling, and you’ve got a virtual maze of complex issues.  The laws are not easy to navigate, especially without guidance from experienced legal counsel.

Social-Media Use and/or Misuse

I’d be remiss, of course, if I didn’t give at least one social-media related story, too.  So I will end today’s post with a reference to a story about a chef who sent a bunch of not-so-nice tweets from the restaurant’s official Twitter account after he’d been fired but before (apparently) the restaurant had changed the password on its account.

Chef Grant Achatz, owner of Alinea in Chicago, landed in hot water when he tweeted about a couple who brought their 8-month old to dinner.  I have a definite opinion on this story.  Having been to Alinea, I feel very comfortable saying that it is not a place where an 8-month old needs to be and, if the 8-month old is crying at the top of his lungs, it’s not a place where that baby should be.  The restaurant is very expensive, with meals starting at more than $200 per person.  Reservations are wickedly difficult to get with only 80 seats.

Most important, though, is the nature of the experience.  Diners fight for reservations and pay big bucks for a reason–the meal is something you remember forever.  The food is so far beyond anything else, it’s almost an Alice-In-Wonderland experience.  And to have that be ruined by the guests at the table next to you would be, to me anyway, a crushing disappointment.

So, there.  That’s where I stand on the question.  Chef Achatz’s tweet did not offend me or make me adore his restaurant any less.

The Family and Medical Leave Act has been a part of the workplace for more than a decade, so it’s gotten easier for HR to administer, right?  Not so.  Confusing regulations, coupled with numerous recent changes at both the legislative and regulatory levels and conflicting court decisions, ensure that FMLA continues to be one of the biggest compliance headaches for employers.

Let us help you clarify the confusion surrounding the numerous legislative and regulatory changes to the FMLA and get answers to all your FMLA questions at this advanced-level seminar just for Delaware employers.  Learn More.

Register now for the one-day seminar, and you’ll learn:

  • The latest expansion, so you don’t risk noncompliance
  • What recent FMLA court decisions really mean, so you can adjust your policies accordingly
  • Why FMLA record-keeping continues to trip up even the savviest human resource managers, and effective solutions to avoid similar mistakes
  • How to tame the intermittent leave and reduced schedule beasts, and put a stop to abuse and fraud
  • How FMLA, ADA, and your state’s leave and workers’ comp laws overlap, so you don’t violate any statute
  • What to expect when an employee’s expecting, so you can balance your business needs with her personal requirements, all within the spirit and letter of the law
  • How to judge a “serious health condition” the way a real judge would, and eliminate disputes about what does and doesn’t constitute it
  • And more

Visit to see your full Agenda.

How to Register:

  • Register Now online or call (800) 274-6774.
  • Please mention Seminar Code S1694A when calling

Editor’s Note:  This post was written by Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway’s Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections. 

Delaware’s Mini-COBRA law, enacted in May 2012, allows qualified individuals who work for employers with fewer than 20 employees to continue their coverage at their own cost, for up to 9 months after termination of coverage.  When it was passed, the legislature provided that the provisions of the Mini-COBRA statute:

shall have no force or effect if the Health Care bill passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States of America in 2010 is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America or the provisions addressed by this Act are preempted by federal law on January 1, 2014, whichever first carerationale for doing so as follows:

The Mini-COBRA Bill was originally passed as a short-term bill that was needed until the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) became applicable to states, which was to occur on January 1, 2014. However, because PPACA’s legislation relating to small employer group health policies now permits insurance companies to impose a ninety (90) day waiting period prior to the effective date of coverage, which was not anticipated when the Mini-COBRA Bill was passed, it is desirable to remove the sunset provision of the Mini-COBRA Bill so that the Mini-COBRA Bill remains in the Delaware Code, at least until a point in time when PPACA or other law may no longer permit an insurance company to impose waiting periods.

I initially thought that the Legislature provided for a January 1, 2014 sunset date because that is the date that coverage begins under the healthcare exchanges, which do not impose waiting periods in the typical COBRA scenario.  Thus, an individual terminated from a small employer could purchase his or her coverage for at least the 90-day waiting period from the exchange rather than requiring the former employer’s insurer to provide the mini-COBRA benefit.  In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees regular COBRA benefit administration, has issued revised model COBRA Notices that inform the qualified beneficiaries that they can acquire COBRA coverage through their former employer or they can obtain new coverage from the healthcare exchange.

The FLSA continues to wreak havoc for countless employers. I’ve written numerous times about the difficulties in defending against a claim brought under the FLSA or its state counterparts.  Even meritless claims can be incredibly costly to litigate, leaving many employers feeling like they have no choice but to settle. I believe the term I’ve used on more than one occasion to describe such situations is “legal extortion.”3d man with hammer_thumb

There are, however, some small glimmers of hope from the courts. I’ve written about a line of cases that have rejected plaintiff’s auto-deduction cases.  I also wrote recently about an 8th Cir. decision, Carmody v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, in which the court awarded summary judgment against a class of plaintiff-police officers who failed during discovery to identify with specificity the hours they claimed to have worked but not been paid. This decision was a very big deal for employers.  Which is why a new decision from the 2d Circuit offers even more hope that the law will trend towards dismissal of meritless cases involving legal extortion.

In Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC, the plaintiff’s overtime claim was dismissed by the trial court because her complaint did not include “any approximation of the number of unpaid overtime hours worked, her rate of pay, or any approximation of the amount of wages due.”  Instead, her complaint merely alleged that she worked more than forty hours per week during “some or all weeks” of her employment.

On appeal, the 2d Cir. affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that she worked overtime without proper compensation under the FLSA.  The court reiterated the standard that it had announced in Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, decided earlier this year.  Specifically, the standard requires a plaintiff to sufficiently allege 40 hours of work in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours.”

In Lundy, the court did not go so far as to require that the plaintiff include an approximation of the number of overtime hours sought but it did say that including such an approximation “may help draw a plaintiff’s claim closer to plausibility” and thereby avoid dismissal.

Perhaps the most powerful part of the court’s opinion in Dejesus was the acknowledgment that the information about the plaintiff’s allegations rest squarely with the plaintiff.  As the court explained, if an employee has absolutely no recollection whatsoever about the times worked, then he or she should not have pursued a claim in court.

Hopefully, this trend continues and, with any luck, courts in other circuits will begin to adopt this reasoning in FLSA cases.

Dejesus v. HF Mgm’t Servs., LLC, No. 12-4565 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2013).

See also

Another Auto-Deduct Case Bites the Dust (Raposo v. Garelick Farms, LLC (D. Mass. July 11, 2013)).

8th Cir- FLSA Plaintiffs Must Spell It Out (Carmody v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs (8th Cir. Apr. 23, 2013)).

2d Cir- FLSA Does Not Cover Gap Time (Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)).

Another Employer’s Auto-Deduct Policy Is Upheld (Creeley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2013)).

6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FLSA Gotcha Litigation (White v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp. (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012)).

The Legality of Automatically Deducting Meal Breaks (Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2012)).

E.D. Pa. Dismisses Nurses’ Claims for Missed Meal Breaks, Part I and Part II (Lynn v. Jefferson Health Sys., Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2012)).

FLSA Victory: Class Certification Denied (Pennington v. Integrity Comm’n, LLC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2012)).

Auto-deduction cases involve a potential class of employees who allege that they were not paid for time worked because their employer automatically deducted time for meal breaks.  The employees claim that, for various reasons, they were not able to take their breaks and, therefore, are owed for the time that was deducted from their hours worked.  These claims have been on the rise in the past few years but, recently, have seen rougher times as more and more courts have refused to certify the class.

A recent decision from the District of Massachusetts is another case to add to that list.  In Raposo v. Garelick Farms, LLC, a group of truck drivers sought back pay for time worked during meal breaks that were automatically deducted from their pay.  The court denied the plaintiff-employees’ motion for class certification, though, concluding that the employees had failed to meet their burden of proof.

The court’s analysis was simple but solid, looking to two issues.  First, did the employees show that everyone in the class had worked through their breaks and, if so, did they do so for the same reason?  Second, could the employees’ damages be calculated on a class-wide basis?  The court answered both questions in the negative.

As to the first issue, the court found that some employees had taken their meal breaks but others had not.  Among those who claimed to have worked through the break, the reasons for doing so varied between employees and changed frequently.  So, the court concluded, the answer to the first question-can liability be established on a class-wide basis-was “no.”

Turning to the second issue, the court found that some employees had complained to their respective supervisors and, as a result, been compensated for the missed breaks.  Whether or not they complained and to whom they complained affected whether or not they were later paid for the missed time. 

As a result, the court found that certification was not appropriate.  Another victory for employers who find themselves facing a wage-and-hour lawsuit for unpaid meal breaks.

Raposo v. Garelick Farms, LLC, No. 11-11943-NMG (D. Mass. July 11, 2013).

See also:

8th Cir- FLSA Plaintiffs Must Spell It Out (Carmody v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs (8th Cir. Apr. 23, 2013)).

2d Cir- FLSA Does Not Cover Gap Time (Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)).

Another Employer’s Auto-Deduct Policy Is Upheld (Creeley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2013)).

6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FLSA Gotcha Litigation (White v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp. (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012)).

The Legality of Automatically Deducting Meal Breaks (Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2012)).

E.D. Pa. Dismisses Nurses’ Claims for Missed Meal Breaks, Part I and Part II (Lynn v. Jefferson Health Sys., Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2012)).

FLSA Victory: Class Certification Denied (Pennington v. Integrity Comm’n, LLC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2012)).

Delaware began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on July 1, 2013, less than a week after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Delaware will no longer perform civil unions pursuant to the Civil Union Equality Act, which was passed into law in 2010. Couples who entered into a civil union prior to July 1 may convert their civil union into a legally recognized marriage or wait until July 1, 2014, when all remaining civil unions will be automatically converted.

The Court’s DOMA ruling is expected to affect an estimated 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and privileges. For Delaware employers, the impact is potentially significant. Delaware employers must now extend all federal benefits to gay married couples that were previously made available to straight married couples. The impact also is immediate. Unlike with new legislation, there will be no delay between the Court’s ruling and an employer’s obligation to extend benefits.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision will impact who is eligible for benefits, the procedures remain unchanged. For example, the process for requesting and reviewing FMLA leave, COBRA coverage, and other federally mandated benefits of employment will not change.

One step employers should consider is possible adjustments to tax and health-insurance forms. Spouses that could not previously “claim” one another on federal tax forms may need to submit new IRS Form W-4s. In addition, if your company offers ERISA-covered health-insurance plans and did not previously extend benefits to gay couples, those plans will now be open to the enrollment of gay spouses. This means that, if your company offers health insurance coverage to the straight spouses of its employees, the same benefits must now be extended to gay spouses. In addition, gay spouses will now be the primary beneficiary on all 401(k) plans.

In the end, Delaware employers are likely in a better position to adapt to the Supreme Court’s decision, since benefits have been extended under State law since January 1, 2012. Employers should keep in mind that the same benefits must be extended and the same processes will still apply to same-sex married couples. In the event that you think it may be necessary to deviate from this rule of thumb for some unusual circumstances, consider consulting legal counsel before doing so.

Contact Information