News
[03/10] Harbin Electric Reports Record Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2009 Results
[03/10] Runaway Prius driver: Brakes were 'almost burned'
More...
[03/10] Ceridian-UCLA Pulse of Commerce Index(TM) Reveals Disappointing February, Potentially Dampened by Record Snowfalls
[03/10] Google opens Web store for business applications
More...
Case Summaries
[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.
More...
[03/03] In re: Baycol Prods. Litig.
In a failure-to-warn case involving the prescription drug Baycol, a cholesterol-reducing medication, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) an expert relied upon by plaintiff to prove causation had inadequate factual evidence on which to base his opinion; and 2) plaintiff received what he bargained for and therefore could not demonstrate that defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of plaintiff purchasing Baycol.
[02/24] Niagara Mohawk Power Assn. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
In an action to recover costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) allowing plaintiff to proceed under 42 U.S.C. section 107(a) would in effect nullify the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act amendment and abrogate the requirements Congress placed on contribution claims under section 113; and 2) plaintiff did not offer evidence that it incurred costs as to certain disputed areas. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) the 2003 Consent Order between plaintiff and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation qualified as "an administrative or judicially approved settlement" under section 113(f) (3)(B), and thus plaintiff was entitled to seek contribution under CERCLA; and 2) plaintiff introduced evidence that defendant's asphalt facility produced or used hazardous materials that may have been released with the asphalt at issue.
More...
[03/10] Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In an ERISA action regarding defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits to plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of an ERISA plan administrator's discretion to ignore an opinion when the physician did not provide reliable objective evidence of testing or other proof to support a finding of long term disability; and 2) the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion by using the DOT description of plaintiff's occupation, rather than a description of his actual job duties.
[03/01] Jones v. Unum Provident Corp.
In an action under ERISA for wrongful denial of benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant thoroughly investigated plaintiff's claim, both initially and when plaintiff appealed, and its initial and final decisions were carefully reasoned; and 2) coverage under the policy at issue lapsed more than six weeks prior to plaintiff's return to full-time work, and thus her later disability claim was not covered because of a pre-existing condition clause.
More...
[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.
[03/03] Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
In a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers under New York law, the Delaware Supreme Court certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation; and, the outside auditor did not knowingly participate in the corporation's fraud, but instead, failed to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements?
More...
[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.
[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
More...
Articles
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990, and it applies to most employers with fifteen or more employees for at least twenty weeks in the current or last calendar year. Additionally, the requirements of the act apply to any agents of the employer. Under the law, employers are prohibited from discriminating against persons with disabilities in regard to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, or discharge, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. However, the ADA does not prohibit discrimination against any person with a physical or mental impairment. The ADA only protects a qualified individual with a disability. A qualified individual with a disability is defined in the statute as an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. The ADA also prohibits an employer from discriminating against someone because he or she has a record or previous history of having a physical or mental impairment, even if he or she does not have the impairment any more, or because the employer regards the person as having an impairment covered by the ADA, even when the employee is not impaired.
More...
Tips for Employees Dealing With Discrimination
Discrimination and harassment can take a number of different forms in the workplace. There are broad federal laws prohibiting discrimination and harassment against individuals on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, pregnancy, and age, among other classifications, in a variety of situations. State and local laws may contain similar protections, may provide broader protections than federal law, and may protect other classes of employees or individuals. If you are an employee, and you feel you are being discriminated against or harassed by your employer or coworkers, what can you do?
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
How may an employer monitor employees in the workplace?
When is harassment illegal?
May an employer or supervisor play favorites among employees?
More...
