News
[02/03] From Plastic Bottles to Fashion Apparel - The Latest in Sustainable Clothing From Jackpot Sustainable Fashion
[02/03] Factory orders up 1.1 percent in December
More...
[02/03] Profitero Named IBM Global Entrepreneur of the Year
[02/03] Japan's Panasonic projects record annual net loss
More...
Case Summaries
[02/03] Lawson v. FMR, LLC
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.
[02/03] Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.
[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.
More...
[06/23] Thach v. Tiger Corp.
In a negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty action against the Japanese manufacturer of a rice cooker which allegedly caused a fire at plaintiffs' home, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs had failed to serve defendant within South Dakota's three-year statute of limitations, because delivery of plaintiffs' request for service to the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry on either December 7 or 19 did not toll the limitations period under S.D. Stat. 15-2-31 before its expiration on December 11, 2007.
[06/23] Hendrix v. Evenflo Co.
In an action alleging that plaintiff's son sustained traumatic brain injuries when a child restraint system manufactured by defendant malfunctioned during a minor traffic accident, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert testimony based on the insufficient reliability of that testimony under Daubert.
More...
[02/01] Muto v. CBS Corp.
In a putative class action complaint brought in New York by Pennsylvania residents against the plaintiffs' former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under ERISA, the district court's dismissal of the complaint as time-barred is affirmed, where: 1) the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute directing it to look to Pennsylvania law for the applicable statute of limitations; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law.
[01/26] The DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. US
In a case involving the calculation and payment of segment closing adjustments associated with a corporation's sale of certain business units that included the transfer of defined benefit pension plans, the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment in favor of the corporation is affirmed, where: 1) the Claims Court did not err by calculating segment closing adjustments based on the assets and liabilities of the entire segment, rather than only the assets and liabilities that the corporation retained; and 2) the Claims Court correctly determined that the corporation's segment closing obligations could be satisfied by the cost savings realized by the government in the successor contracts.
[01/23] Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan
In an action under ERISA challenging the termination of the plaintiff's long-term disability benefits that was dismissed by the district court for lack of standing to pursue an ERISA claim and thus lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is vacated and the case remanded, as the plaintiff's status as a participant for purposes of ERISA was a substantive element of his claim, not a prerequisite for subject matter jurisdiction.
More...
[02/03] Lawson v. FMR, LLC
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.
[01/26] The DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. US
In a case involving the calculation and payment of segment closing adjustments associated with a corporation's sale of certain business units that included the transfer of defined benefit pension plans, the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment in favor of the corporation is affirmed, where: 1) the Claims Court did not err by calculating segment closing adjustments based on the assets and liabilities of the entire segment, rather than only the assets and liabilities that the corporation retained; and 2) the Claims Court correctly determined that the corporation's segment closing obligations could be satisfied by the cost savings realized by the government in the successor contracts.
[01/24] TIFD III-E, Inc. v. US
In a suit by a taxpayer partner challenging IRS notices of adjustment reallocating a large percentage of the partnership's income for the years 1993 to 1998 to the taxpayer away from two Dutch banks that had purchased an interest in the partnership, and imposing a penalty for underpayment, the district court's judgment in favor of the taxpayer is reversed, where: 1) the banks' interest was not a capital interest for purposes of qualifying them as partners within the meaning of IRC section 704(e)(1); and 2) the taxpayer failed to point to substantial authority supporting its position, so that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income.
More...
[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.
[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.
[01/24] Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.
More...
Articles
Pensions, Benefits and Compensation
Federal and state laws mandate that an employer must provide certain benefits to employees, such as Social Security, workers' compensation, and unemployment compensation or reemployment insurance. In addition, while federal and state law generally do not require that an employer provide health or disability insurance to employees, or that it establish a pension plan, once an employer has provided these benefits, federal and many state laws regulate how the employer must administer these plans, and whether and when the employer can terminate them.
More...
Chronology of a Discrimination Charge Filed with the EEOC or State Fair Employment Practices Agency
It is illegal for employers to discriminate against their employees based on age, race, religion, gender, disability, or other factors under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and other federal anti-discrimination laws. Most states have similar laws. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against you at work for asserting your rights under these laws or assisting or testifying on behalf of others in asserting their rights under these laws.
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
Are there certain questions that an employer may not ask during a job interview?
When may an employee be entitled to medical leave from work?
How can an employee secure a reasonable accommodation for his or her disability by an employer?
More...
