|
|
|
Md. man's leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court
Legal Topics |
2012/01/12 17:32
|
A man who sued the state of Maryland after allegedly being fired for trying to take a 10-day medical leave from his state job will have his case heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the outcome could affect whether state workers nationwide can sue in similar situations.
Daniel Coleman was fired from his job overseeing contracts for the Maryland court system in 2007. He says he was fired after asking for time off for doctor-ordered bed rest to deal with hypertension and diabetes. Under a law passed by Congress and enacted in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees can take up to three months of unpaid leave for certain reasons, including a serious health issue. After being fired, Coleman sued, claiming a violation of the leave law and discrimination, a claim that was later thrown out by a lower court. He asked Maryland to pay him a reported $1.1 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
But lawyers for Maryland argue Congress was wrong to give employees like Coleman the ability to sue state employers for money damages. Unlike private employers, states are generally exempt from such lawsuits. Two lower courts have agreed with Maryland that Congress overstepped its authority, and 26 other states are also supporting the state's arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute
Areas of Focus |
2012/01/11 18:39
|
In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.
But the court's unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the government's protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who can't.
It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a "ministerial exception" to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves employees of these institutions.
The case came before the court because the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., on behalf of employee Cheryl Perich, over her firing, which happened after she complained of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Writing the court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said allowing anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court says Texas can enforce abortion law
Legal Topics |
2012/01/10 17:24
|
A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks' temporary order against enforcing the law, saying Sparks was incorrect to rule that doctors who oppose it had a substantial chance of winning their case. The court's opinion systematically dismantles the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, one of the key arguments for not enforcing the law.
"The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information," the opinion concluded.
Sparks ruled in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by requiring that they show and describe the sonogram images and describe the fetal heartbeat, all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.
The appeals court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "upheld an informed-consent statute over precisely the same 'compelled speech' challenges made" in the current Texas case.
Earlier rulings have found laws requiring doctors to give "truthful, nonmisleading and relevant" information are reasonable regulation, not ideological speech requiring strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, the appeals court said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth Shaw's Workplace Class Action Litigation Report
Legal Topics |
2012/01/09 17:57
|
Leading employment law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP has issued its annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, covering a charged national landscape of "bet the company" employment disputes fueled by an aggressive plaintiffs' bar, invigorated federal and state enforcement regimes, a sluggish economic recovery, and several groundbreaking rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 that are certain to reverberate in the year ahead and beyond.
Seyfarth notes that the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, handed down last June, has already been cited more than 260 times in federal and state court opinions, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion 215 times -- remarkable figures for rulings less than a year old. Dukes, which established a new standard for certifying class actions, and Concepcion , which held that federal arbitration law supersedes limitations imposed by individual states, opened the floodgates to a wave a new case law in class actions, which will continue to evolve in the coming year and impact litigants for years to come.
Released this week, Seyfarth's 8th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report examines the theoretical and strategic uncertainties stemming from the Supreme Court's employment law rulings in 2011, and the challenges they pose for companies and their defense counsel. The new Report is the most comprehensive yet, examining 976 class action decisions rendered in the past 12 months by federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The number of case rulings covered by Seyfarth climbed 15% over last year's total of 849 -- a direct result of issues raised by Dukes and Concepcion that have loomed over workplace litigation since those landmark decisions last spring.
Seyfarth's Report remains the sole compendium dedicated exclusively to labor and employment class action litigation in the U.S. Regarded as "the definitive source on employment class action litigation" (EPLiC Magazine, Spring 2011), it has become the "go-to" research and resource guide for businesses and corporate counsel facing complex litigation. Corporate counsel routinely depict the prospect of large workplace class-actions as especially worrisome for companies, as well as a significant burden for in-house legal budgets.
Seyfarth Shaw has over 750 attorneys located in 10 offices throughout the United States , including: Atlanta , Boston , Chicago , Houston , Los Angeles , New York , Sacramento , San Francisco and Washington, D.C. , as well as internationally in London . Seyfarth Shaw provides a broad range of legal services in the areas of labor and employment, employee benefits, litigation, corporate and real estate. The firm's clients include over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies, and our practice reflects virtually every industry and segment of the economy. For more information, please visit www.seyfarth.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Announces Class Action
Areas of Focus |
2012/01/09 17:57
|
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District Court of New York on behalf of purchasers of Camelot Information Systems Inc. American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between July 21, 2010 and August 17, 2011 (the "Class Period"), including those who acquired Camelot ADSs pursuant or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with its July 21, 2010 initial public offering and December 10, 2010 Secondary Offering.
No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact either Peretz Bronstein or Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email eitan@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. March 5, 2012 is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of both class and individual litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate work, litigation and securities arbitration.
http://www.bgandg.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court backs foreign campaign contribution ban
Legal Topics |
2012/01/08 17:57
|
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to expand the ability of foreigners to contribute to American political campaigns.
The justices on Monday upheld a federal court ruling in favor of the ban on foreign contributions from all but immigrants who permanently live in the United States.
Washington lawyer Michael Carvin wanted the justices to extend their 2010 decision in the Citizens United case allowing greater political participation by corporations and labor unions. Carvin sued on behalf of two people with visas to work in the United States.
A three-judge court in Washington said Congress was well within its powers when it prohibited most foreigners from making campaign contributions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court papers: NYC officer shooting suspect sorry
Areas of Focus |
2012/01/05 17:34
|
The man charged with murder in the shooting death of a police officer during a botched break-in apologized and said he didn't mean to fire the gun, according to court papers released Wednesday.
Lamont Pride, 27, and four others have pleaded not guilty in the death of Officer Peter Figoski, who was shot once in the face Dec. 12 as he tried to enter the basement apartment, the scene of a reported burglary. While Pride was being driven in a police car to central booking, he told police he was sorry, according to the papers.
"I didn't mean for this to happen," he said. "I didn't want to kill a cop. It went wrong and I'm sorry. I can't take it back," he said, according to the papers.
Through the stack of messy, hand-written statements gleaned from investigators, the plot emerges as a badly-conceived attempt to rob a drug dealer. Authorities said Pride and the others hatched the plot the day before to rob the apartment. Michael Velez, 21, stayed in the getaway car as the four others went in to the dingy, barely finished apartment at 25 Pine St. Ariel Tejada, 22, and Nelson Morales, 27, pistol-whipped the tenant and beat him while they ransacked the place, authorities charged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
