Skinner & Saar Law Office

Add to Favorites

Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Business Law Attorneys

Be the first to review!

CLOSED NOW

Tomorrow: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

(360) 378-2191Call Visit WebsiteVisit Website Map & DirectionsDirections365 Spring StFriday Harbor, WA 98250 Write a ReviewWrite Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

Mon - Fri:	9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Places Near Friday Harbor with Attorneys

Shaw Island (9 miles)
Orcas (9 miles)
Lopez Island (9 miles)
Deer Harbor (10 miles)

More Info

AKA

Law Offices Of Christon C Skinner

Law Office of Skinner & Saar

Skinner & Saar PS Law Office

Saar, Douglas

Other Link

https://www.skinnerlaw.net

Categories

Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Business Law Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Discrimination & Civil Rights Law Attorneys, Domestic Violence Attorneys, Employee Benefits & Worker Compensation Attorneys, Employment Discrimination Attorneys, Labor & Employment Law Attorneys, Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Attorneys, Workers Compensation Assistance

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (360) 378-2191

Address: 365 Spring St, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Website: https://www.skinnerlaw.net

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Skinner & Saar Law Office

Adoption

Sex Crimes
Carol is admitted to practice law in state and federal courts in Minnesota and Wisconsin and the Seventh and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals. She received her undergraduate degree from Indiana University - Bloomington, graduating Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her JD from Indiana University - Bloomington. Her practice focuses on employment law, intellectual property law and mediation/arbitration. Carol is Of Counsel to Bakke Norman. She is fluent in French. In her free time, Carol has been involved in community organizations, including service on the boards of our local United Way, YMCA, Youth Action Hudson, Hudson Area Swim Association, local and State Bar Associations, and St Croix Valley Sexual Assault Response Team.
Assault
Restraining Order
3 In Byers a female employee terminated a sexual relationship with a male coworker. Due to problems Byers had terminating the relationship, she obtained a restraining order against the coworker. After showing the restraining order to her employer and explaining its meaning, Byers continued to be harassed by the coworker. Byers reported the problem to her employer on numerous occasions. The employer talked to the coworker, but the harassment continued. Despite the fact that the coworker was jailed several times for violating the restraining order, he was not suspended, terminated, or otherwise reprimanded by the employer. After this had continued for more than a year, Byers notified her employer that she could not return to work while the coworker continued to work there.

Business and Corporate Law

Trade Secrets
Intellectual Property
Intellectual property (IP) consists of certain creations of the intellect, including technological, marketing, literary, and artistic creations. Patents, copyrights and trademarks are the most common legal tools used to protect intellectual property. In general, they provide an exclusive right to use and commercialize the creation.

Workers Compensation
Until recently, an employee who sustained an emotional injury from harassment on the job was barred from pursuing a claim for the harassment under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA). The Labor Industry Review Commission (LIRC) dismissed such claims on grounds that the Worker's Compensation Act (WCA) contains an exclusive remedy provision barring all claims against an employer when liability exists under the WCA. LIRC's position has been upheld by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in often-cited decisions such as Schachtner v. DILHR
Wrongful Termination
5 Following a well-reasoned opinion in Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, which held that "an employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law," the Bushko court retreated. The plaintiff in Bushko claimed he was fired for making internal complaints about plant safety, hazardous waste, and honesty. The employer argued that it had every right to discharge its employee, as he had no contract of employment. Obviously troubled by the prospect of every adverse employment decision being open to court scrutiny, and thus swallowing up the employment-at-will rule, the Bushko court sought to balance the employer's and employees' interests. It opted to limit the public policy exception (and thus an actionable claim for wrongful discharge) to those employees fired for refusing a command, instruction, or request of the employer to violate public policy as established in existing law.
Employment Discrimination
Employment discrimination takes many forms, including any prohibited action having an adverse effect on the terms or conditions of employment. An example would be refusing to consider a woman for a job entailing overnight travel on the assumption she would have child care problems. Another form of employment discrimination is allowing a sexually — or otherwise discriminatorily — intimidating or harassing environment to prevail. For instance, allowing offensive jokes or racist remarks after an employee has complained about it. An employer is required to provide all employees with a work atmosphere free from such intimidation or harassment.
Employment Contract
While it is generally not the case, some employees do have a contract of employment with their employer providing for a specific term of employment, or promising that an employee will not be terminated unless good cause is shown. Employers who want to be able to terminate employees freely should not enter into employment contracts without legal advice.
Employment Litigation
While we believe that every effort should be made to avoid costly litigation, we are experienced in handling and litigating large and small employment claims, at administrative levels, as well as in state and federal court.

Disability Discrimination
In 1988 the court of appeals decided Schachtner v. DILHR, holding that the exclusive remedy provision of the WCA barred an employee who was refused rehire after a work-related injury from pursuing a handicap discrimination claim under the WFEA. Two years later a similar result was reached for part of an employee's discrimination claim in Norris v. DILHR. In Norris a mentally retarded employee, who was refused rehire after a work-related injury, was barred from bringing a disability discrimination claim based on the work-related injury, but was permitted to bring the same claim based on his mental retardation.

View All Services

Provided by