Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: remember that we now post every other day.
The posts on Sunday 3/8/2026, here and here, noted condo property manager and maintenance worker arrested in alleged kickback scheme. Board due diligence … Note that the management company is not named so it probably knew nothing about the bad actions.
Authorities said the scheme involved hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let’s take a closer look.
Francisco Obispo, 38, is facing 18 counts of receiving a kickback and one count of organized scheme to defraud, while Jose Luis Hernandez-Aguiar, age 52, is charged with organized scheme to defraud. According to the arrest warrant, the allegations involve the Euclid East Condominium that is managed by a company that assigned Obispo as the property manager about two years ago. Hernandez was paid by the management company to perform general maintenance for the condo.
In June 2025, a Board member notified the State Attorney’s office of discrepancies in the condo’s accounting and financial records involving operating and reserve accounts. The board member discovered several invoices and checks that “raised concerns and suspicions,” including payment of $370,000 between May 2024 – May 2025 to a vendor owned by Hernandez. More details on one of the checks at issue (for $25,000) are in the post. But Hernandez and his company aren’t licensed contractors able to perform the services for which the check was supposedly written, and the board member found that no permits had been pulled by Hernandez or his company. An email from Obispo send in June 2025 talked about Hernandez’ licensure, experience, and why he was chosen for the work for which the check was written. See the post for the details.
The board member also found another payment in the amount of $24,500 paid to Hernandez’s company in November 2024, but again found nothing supporting the supposed purpose of the check. In fact, an investigator later found contrary information – see the post.
Unsurprisingly, records showed that Hernandez’s company paid money to Obispo and a company owned by Obispo. In one instance, the condo association paid Hernandez’s company $4,550 for the things listed on the check (and in the post) and two days later Hernandez’s company issued a check for $1,800 to Obispo’s company. The arrest warrant contains more details about the financial relationship between Hernandez’s company, a contractor it used, and the contractor’s payments to Obispo and Obispo’s company – see the post.
In total, investigators found 18 transactions in which the condo association paid over $260,000 over a 1-year period. At the same time, Obispo received over $95,000 from the companies that were paid.
TAKEAWAY: Fraud is rare, and Board members can help prevent or find it when doing their due diligence.
The posts on Tuesday 3/10/2026, here and here, were EEOC reminder: refusing to hire applicants for past methadone use violates ADA. Employers must know the law.
The allegations by the EEOC in a class action suit filed in early December are that Wrightway Ready-Mix and affiliate Wright Concrete & Construction refused to hire an applicant for a laborer position because he was taking methadone to treat an opium addiction.
The complaint is linked in the post. During the applicant’s job interview, Wrightway’s hiring manager allegedly asked him if he was taking any medication. When the applicant said he took methadone, the hiring manager — and later the onsite head of HR — allegedly told him he couldn’t be hired due to company policy (which is described in the post). The EEOC sued for allegedly violating the ADA by refusing to hire the applicant and a class of applicants on the basis of a disability (opioid- or other substance-use disorders), their records of such disabilities and by regarding them as disabled (remember there are 3 classes of protection under the ADA!). And the complaint goes even further – see the post.
The suit can serve as a warning for HR and other relevant managers as to potential ADA missteps during the hiring process. Keep in mind that while the ADA does not cover people currently using illegal drugs, it does protect those with a past addiction. How that relates to substance abuse is noted in the post.
For example, in 2021, EEOC obtained a $60,000 settlement (linked in the post if you want additional details) from Professional Transportation (which it had sued in 2020 for allegedly refusing to hire an applicant for a driver position because of her Suboxone treatment). EEOC alleged the rejection was based on the company’s own research without considering whether the applicant actually experienced any side effects.
Similar to that case, EEOC alleged that here Wrightway never asked the applicant about his prescribed use of methadone and other relevant things detailed in the post. Wrightway did not respond to a request for a comment.
The Wrightway lawsuit also highlights potential confusion over pre-employment medical inquiries and what an employer can or cannot ask under the ADA – see the post for details.
The suit also got alleged that Wrightway employed an unlawful selection criterion or qualification standard under the ADA. The facts and violation basis are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers (and their HR personnel) must know what is or is not covered by the ADA. Consult an employment lawyer with questions.
The posts on Thursday 3/12/2026, here and here, told us condo association sues six insurers, claims they dodged payout over wrong cause. Would your condo or homeowners’ association file suit in this situation?
Americana Condominium Association filed suit in January 2026 in federal court, naming as defendants Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Lexington Insurance Company, Old Republic Union Insurance Company, QBE UK Limited, and Scottsdale Insurance Company. Yes, heavy hitters. Key to the suit is a question insurers grapple with regularly: what actually caused the loss? Pretty important, right?!?
The association’s property sustained significant damage following an incident on/about January 19, 2024. The building was insured under a program involving all six carriers for the period July 24, 2023, to July 24, 2024.
In its suit the association contends that an accident within the property’s boiler system triggered a systemic failure, which then led to damage including bursting, cracking, and splitting of covered equipment. How the association characterizes this as far as insurance coverage is in the post. But of course the insurers saw it differently. Their position as filed in court is also in the post.
The association alleges that after the loss, the insurers brought in adjusters from Sedgwick Building Consultation and a consultant from Advanced Engineering Investigations. That consultant’s initial findings and final determination as to the cause of the damage are described in the post. And then things get wacky. The association’s suit alleges that Sedgwick produced an estimate dated June 19, 2024, pegging damage at $170,762.54 — just below the policy’s $200,000 deductible. That meant no insurer paid anything.
But the association did not stop there. It hired its own experts — Forensic Building Science, Inc. and Keith Engineering, LLC. What they found as the cause of the damage is detailed in the post. Based on that, the association filed suit for breach of contract and unreasonable delay and denial of benefits under state law 9the damages for which are also in the post).
As of the filing, the insurers had not made any payments on the association’s claim. The case is in its early stages. But so far it has dueling causation theories, competing expert opinions, and the ever-present tension between what a policyholder believes is owed and what an insurer is willing to pay.
TAKEAWAY: Even if your association has a policy with the provisions it wants and understands, it still may be denied coverage and be forced to think about filing suit against the insurer. Discuss the matter with a community association lawyer before filing suit.
The posts on Saturday 3/14/2026, here and here, alerted us that National Labor Relations Board reverts to joint employer rule it crafted in Trump’s first term (2020). Employers, know the law so you can comply.
The National Labor Relations Board recently announced a final rule that withdraws its Biden-era joint employer rule in favor of a standard it adopted in 2020 during the first Trump administration. Upon challenge by business groups, a federal judge had vacated the now-withdrawn rule — which was published in 2023 — on the bases noted in the post. NLRB said the 2023 rule never took effect and the 2020 rule (linked in the post) was and remains the operative rule for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. And it went even farther: NLRB also said it determined that good cause existed for issuing the rule without prior notice and opportunity for public comment and that withdrawal of the 2023 rule is effective immediately.
The NLRB’s statement is in the post. Some may question whether it is factually correct, but that’s what NLRB said.
Joint employer status has been in a ping-pong match the last handful of years. The two major parties have offered divergent perspectives on what the NLRA requires in order to find that two or more employers are joint employers of the same employee.
The 2023 rule (that the NLRB says has now been withdrawn and was never effective) said that entities are joint employers if they shared or codetermined essential terms and conditions of employment. How that might occur is noted in the post. NLRB first applied that standard in its 2015 Browning-Ferris Industries decision (linked in the post).
Browning-Ferris itself was subject to an attempted reversal during the first Trump administration. The board’s 2020 rule (that is now effective after withdrawal of the 2023 rule) was meant to overturn the rationale behind Browning-Ferris. How the 2020 rule defined joint employment, and to what it limited the list of essential terms, is all in the post.
The new rule retains the 2020 rule’s language and defines “substantial” direct and immediate control as detailed in the post. Unlike the 2023(withdrawn) rule, the 2020 rule specifies that indirect control is probative of joint employer status only under certain circumstances (as noted in the rule and the post). What the NLRB said about the new (old) rule, and where the burden of proof lies, is in the post.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., criticized the decision on the basis that the 2020 rule gives big corporations cover as detailed in the post.
But in a twist after withdrawal of the 2023 rule, NLRB said it would reaffirm the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision that Browning-Ferris Industries was a joint employer under the standard outlined by the Obama-era board. But don’t get excited – that is limited as described in the post.
TAKEAWAY: We’ve said it before: employers must know the law and how to comply. Even non-unionized workplaces are covered by some provisions of the NLRA, so educate yourself and consult with an employment and labor lawyer to aid your compliance.