The state of Maryland appears poised to join seven other states and various local jurisdictions (including Montgomery County, Maryland) already requiring employers to provide paid sick and save leave. On April 5, 2017, the Maryland House of Delegates approved a bill previously passed by the Maryland Senate that would require most employers with at least 15 employees to provide up to five paid sick and safe leave days per year to their employees, and smaller employers to provide up to five unpaid sick and safe leave days. Although the bill contains an effective date of January 1, 2018, the actual effective date will depend on action by Governor Larry Hogan.
1.04.2017 the Order of Federal Service for Supervision in Healthcare (hereinafter–“Roszdravnadzor”) No. 1071 dated 15.02.20171 came into force (hereinafter – “Order”). The Order provides for the Roszdavnadzor supervision over pharmacovigilance.
According to the current legislation the pharmacovigilance is defined as a kind of activity comprising monitoring efficiency and safety of medical drugs. The purpose of pharmacovigilance is to identify, evaluate and prevent adverse drug reactions2.
The state of Maryland appears poised to join seven other states and various local jurisdictions (including Montgomery County, Maryland) already requiring employers to provide paid sick and save leave. On April 5, 2017, the Maryland House of Delegates approved a bill previously passed by the Maryland Senate that requires would require most employers with at least 15 employees to provide up to five paid sick and safe leave days per year to their employees, and smaller employers to provide up to five unpaid sick and safe leave days. Although the bill contains an effective date of January 1, 2018, the actual effective date will depend on action by Governor Larry Hogan.
April 10, 2017 — RSS is happy to report that two recruits joined us recently.
Maude Léveillée joins our Insurance Law Practice Group: she will be performing research and help with the preparation of cases to be presented to the courts.
Zachary Ouimet joins our Litigation Group. A member of the Bars of Quebec and Ontario, he already has a few years’ experience before the courts, with a wide variety of matters.
Before the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) became federal law in the spring of 2016, Supreme Court watchers would likely care little about prospective justices’ approach to trade secrets matters. Such matters were the province of state law, and the phrase “trade secret” might be avoided, even in passing, in the opinions of the Supreme Court for entire terms or more. But with DTSA cases being reported with increasing regularity, differences in interpretation are beginning to emerge. Supreme Court attention may follow.
In Re Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.: The Tenth Circuit Permits A Company-Wide FLSA Collective Action To Proceed Under The Spurious Action Approach to Facilitate Notice
In In re: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 17-1028 (10th Cir. March 27, 2017), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated its holding in Theissen v. GE Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1055 (10th Cir. 2001), that a district court may utilize a variety of approaches to identify similarly situated workers for purposes of authorizing facilitated notice in FLSA collective actions.
With India presently having a wind power installed capacity of around 32GW, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (“MNRE”) has invited comments on the draft guidelines for procurement of wind power through bidding. The draft guidelines have been formulated to promote competition and transparency through the process of bidding as required in terms of section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The draft guidelines identifies the participants in the bidding process and outlines the pre-bid and post-bid activities and documentation to be fulfilled while undertaking the bidding process. A copy of the draft guidelines can be found here. Comments are requested by April 21, 2017.
The results of the best law firms’ research annually conducted by the Chambers and Partners Europe once again demonstrate Lidings’ top positions as the leading legal advisor in the areas of Dispute Resolution, Corporate and M&A, and Life Sciences in Russia.
The newly released rating publishes feedback of one of the Lidings clients on his experience of working with the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice team stating that: «They were very confident in hearings, they had all the answers to defend their positions». «Detailed analysis of every situation means they always get the right result», – another client says.
Seventh Circuit is First Federal Appeals Court to Hold Sexual Orientation Discrimination Covered by Title VII
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s protections against discrimination on the basis of sex.
In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Kimberly Hively, a lesbian part-time professor at Ivy Tech, applied for but was denied several full-time positions with the college. After her employment was later terminated, she filed a lawsuit alleging that she was denied promotion and then terminated because of her sexual orientation. The lower courts held that they were bound by Seventh Circuit precedent to rule that sexual orientation was not a protected category under Title VII. On July 28, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination. The Seventh Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc with all 11 judges.
Our colleague Adriana S. Kosovych, associate at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Hospitality Employment and Labor blog that will be of interest to many of our readers: “Chipotle Exploits Wide Variation Among Plaintiffs to Defeat Class and Collective Certification.”