Tag Archives: Supreme Court

ILN Today Post

Supreme Court Rules that Federal Law Protects Gay and Transgender/Transitioning Employees from Workplace Discrimination

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in a L.G.B.T. civil rights case that is important for employers to note, as it is likely to apply broadly to gender-based policies in the workplace.

In one of the three cases decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of Aimee Stephens, an employee who claimed that her former employer, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. (the Funeral Home), had fired her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) when the Funeral Home prohibited her from representing herself, and dressing, as a woman while at work, as she transitioned from male to female. Read more…

Read full article

Employment Law This Week®: Cannabis User Protections, WHD Opinion Letters, New Salary History Bans, NYS Anti-Harassment Training Deadline

This Employment Law This Week® Monthly Rundown discusses the most important developments for employers in July 2019.

This episode includes:

  • Increased Employee Protections for Cannabis Users
  • First Opinion Letters Released Under New Wage and Hour Leadership
  • New Jersey and Illinois Enact Salary History Inquiry Bans
  • Deadline for New York State Anti-Harassment Training Approaches
  • Tip of the Week: Disrupting bias with teams and clients

Read more

Read full article

Whether Worth Less or Worthless, Quality of Care Issues Under the FCA are Worth Noting

On February 27, 2019, Tennessee-based holding company Vanguard Healthcare, LLC (“Vanguard”), agreed to pay over $18 million to settle a False Claims Act (“FCA”) action brought by the United States and the state of Tennessee for “grossly substandard nursing home services.” The settlement stems from allegations that five Vanguard-operated facilities failed to do the following: (1) administer medications as prescribed, (2) provide standard infection control resulting in urinary tract and wound infections, (3) attend to the basic nutrition and hygiene requirements of residents, (4) take prophylactic measures to prevent pressure ulcers, and (5) use physical restraints only when necessary. The FCA makes it illegal for anyone to submit claims (or cause claims to be submitted) for reimbursement to Medicare or Medicaid that are known to be false or based on false information. This settlement also resolves allegations that the Director of Operations, CEO, and several Vanguard companies caused false and/or fraudulent claims to be submitted.  Both the CEO and Director of Operations agreed to pay $250,000, and Vanguard will enter into a chain-wide corporate integrity agreement. The $18 million settlement is the largest “worthless services” settlement to date in Tennessee.

Read more

Read full article

Supreme Court Refuses to Impose Class Action Arbitration Based on Ambiguous Agreements

Our colleague Stuart M. Gerson at Epstein Becker Green recently posted an article on LinkedIn that will be of interest to our readers: “SCOTUS Today: Class Action Ambiguity Finds No Shelter Under the Federal Arbitration Act.”

Read more

Read full article

Can Employers Now Thwart Forum Shopping by Plantiffs in FLSA Class & Collective Actions?

The U. S. Supreme Court established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants in state court “mass” actions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct 1773 (June 17, 2017) (hereafter “BMS”).  BMS’s key holding was that the necessary nexus between an appropriate court for a mass action and a corporate defendant required more than just the company’s connections in the state and the alleged similarity of claims by resident plaintiffs and non-resident plaintiffs.  The practical effect is to limit forum shopping by plaintiffs in large state mass or class actions and to require such suits be maintained only where a corporate defendant has significant contacts to support general jurisdiction.

Read more

Read full article

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER ‘ON-SALE BAR’ DOCTRINE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent focus on the United States Supreme Court has surrounded who President Trump will nominate to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.  (The nominee is Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit.)  However, once October is here, the 2018 Term begins and focus will shift back to the cases before the Court.  One of those issues will be the extent that sales (or offers for sale) of an invention before the filing of a patent application will prevent the issuance of a patent.  Also known as the ‘on-sale bar’ doctrine, the outcome will have broad implications for startup companies and small businesses holding intellectual property assets.

Read more

Read full article

“I get knocked down, but I [might] get up again”: The Survival of the ACA

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has taken quite a few significant jabs and blows. When Congress failed to repeal the ACA, Congress instead eliminated the individual mandate penalty through the GOP tax bill. The individual mandate penalty was one of the main pillars of the ACA because it effectively widened the pool of participants who buy health insurance in order to keep costs down. While removal of this penalty hit the ACA where it hurt, the true threat to the stability of the ACA arose when the Trump Administration announced that it would no longer defend the ACA against a challenge filed by twenty states that believe the individual mandate itself is unconstitutional and that key parts of the act are invalid. What is the outlook for the ACA?

Read more

Read full article

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker in LGBT Discrimination Case

On June 4, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of a Christian Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious objections to gay marriage.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Auditor bears the risk

The NSW Court of Appeal handed down a decision on 23 May 2018 which will be of interest to auditors and their Professional Indemnity insurers.

Read more

Read full article

Supreme Court Rejects Longstanding “Narrow Construction” Rule for FLSA Exemptions

For more than 70 years, the Supreme Court has construed exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) narrowly. In A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, for example, the Court stated that “[t]o extend an exemption to other than those plainly and unmistakably within its terms and spirit is to abuse the interpretative process and to frustrate the announced will of the people.”  324 U.S. 490, 493 (1945).  The Supreme Court has restated this rule many times in the intervening years, and the lower courts have followed, citing this principle in virtually every significant case involving overtime exemptions.

Read more

Read full article