Firm: All
Practice Industry: Employment & Labor, Government & Public Sector, Transportation
Region: All
Country/ State: All
Tag: All
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | July 2023

At the end of its 2023 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several buzz-worthy decisions. Two opinions may have substantial and lasting impacts on employers and their efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Court addressed religious accommodation and clarified the parameters of its “undue burden” standard set forth in its prior decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63 (1977). 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790 ...

This is a briefing on Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 20-07-04-SC (2020 Interim Rules on Remote Notarization of Paper Documents) dated July 14, 20201 (“RON Rules”), a COVID-19 related issuance. In general, signatories of documents to be notarized have to appear before the notary generally at the latter’s place of business ...

Dykema | April 2020

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff need not show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's trademark as a requirement for recovering the defendant’s profits.Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Grp., Inc., No. 18-1233, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2408, at *12-13 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020). Romag Fasteners, Inc. sued Fossil, Inc ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | July 2017

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court held in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., that the three-year time limit in the Securities Act of 1933 is a statute of repose that is not subject to equitable tolling. This means that shareholders will not be able to rely on the filing of a proposed class action lawsuit to suspend the running of a statute of repose on their individual claims ...

The Supreme Court has issued Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 20-12-01-SC (Re: Proposed Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing) dated December 9, 20201 (Court Videoconferencing Guidelines) to ensure that hearings via videoconferencing are conducted in an orderly manner and that the constitutional rights of the accused are protected ...

Hanson Bridgett LLP | March 2021

Key Points Historic definition of "public works" expanded beyond construction-related activities Supreme Court holds that some special districts must pay prevailing wages to workers performing non-infrastructure related tasks Full extent of coverage of prevailing wages for operational contract workers is unclear   Labor Code Section 1720(a)(1) defines a "public work" as "construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in wh

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2015

On June 1, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.1 to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that in order to prove a disparate-treatment (or “intentional discrimination”) claim, an applicant need only show that his need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in an employer’s decision not to hire him ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | April 2020

The Supreme Court this past week denied certiorari in United States ex rel. Schneider v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., an appeal from a D.C. Circuit case affirming the district court’s dismissal of a qui tam FCA action. See No. 19-678, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2079 (Apr. 6, 2020). In so doing, the Court declined to address the emerging circuit split over the extent of the government’s dismissal power in qui tam cases ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | March 2021

The Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue of False Claims Act (FCA) “objective falsity” in relation to medical opinions, denying certiorari in paired cases from the Third Circuit (United States ex rel. Druding v. Care Alternatives, Inc.)[1] and Ninth Circuit (Winter ex rel. United States v. Gardens Reg’l Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc.) ...

Dykema | June 2018

InLagos v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that limits the ability of corporate victims of fraud to seek reimbursement of legal fees for internal investigations. The case began when GE Capital discovered that Sergio Lagos falsified numerous invoices for his company, which he used as collateral to obtain tens of millions of dollars in loans from GE Capital ...

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. University of North Carolina (collectively “SFFA”) that Harvard and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by impermissibly considering race when making undergraduate admissions decisions ...

Under article 253(d) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), when an association, partnership or corporation commits an act or omission that violates the Tax Code, the penalty "shall be imposed on the partner, president, general manager, branch manager, treasurer, officer-in-charge, and the employees responsible for the violation". This means that any of the persons enumerated may be criminally prosecuted for the corporation or partnership's criminal act or omission under the code ...

Hanson Bridgett LLP | June 2017

Prior to imposing, extending, or increasing any tax, a public agency must submit the tax to a vote of the electorate. However, public agencies need no such approval to impose certain types of fees. In Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara, the Supreme Court considered whether and when municipal franchise fees—fees charged to utilities and others for the use of public rights of way—constitute taxes requiring voter approval ...

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP | October 2023

phttps://www.huntonak.com/images/content/9/3/v2/93738/sc-clarifies-undue-hardship-standard-for-title-vii-religious-acc ...

Dykema | January 2023

On January 23, 2023, after hearing an extensive oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissedIn re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th1088 (9th Cir. 2021),cert granted, 143 S. Ct. 80 (2022), a highly anticipated case about how the attorney-client privilege applies to “multipurpose” communications ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | January 2022

On Jan. 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued an order blocking enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring (among other things) employers of 100 or more employees to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or ensure unvaccinated employees are tested for COVID-19 weekly ...

Dykema | May 2018

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, resolving an issue on which several Courts of Appeals and various federal agencies and administrations had disagreed. At issue in Epic Systems (and two companion cases presenting the same issue: Ernst & Young LLP. v. Morris and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | January 2022

On Jan. 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States lifted the injunction on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) vaccine mandate (Mandate).[1] Previously, injunctions were imposed by district courts in Missouri and Louisiana, and affirmed on appeal by the Eighth and Fifth Circuits, respectively, thereby prohibiting enforcement of the Mandate in 24 states ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | April 2019

The Supreme Court of the United States announced three cases will be argued next term that could determine whether Title VII protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination.  Title VII prohibits discrimination because of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but it does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | February 2011

Here we go again! Consistent with its retaliation decisions over the past five years, the United States Supreme Court has revisited and expanded the scope of protection from retaliation under Title VII. In an 8-0 decision issued January 24, 2011, the high court expanded the scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision by concluding that in certain situations, the statute allows an employee who has not personally engaged in protected activity to lodge a retaliation claim under the statute ...

Dykema | July 2020

In a decision contrary to current Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rules, the United States Supreme Court has found the mark BOOKING.COM as a whole is not generic and that combining a generic term with “.com” does not necessarily result in a composite term that also is generic. Background Booking.com B.V. (“Booking.com”) sought to federally register the mark BOOKING.COM, and related variations, for travel services ...

PLMJ | December 2020

On 7 October 2020, Judgment to Standardise Case Law of the Supreme Administrative Court no. 4/2020 was published in the official gazette, Diário da República1 ...

Shoosmiths LLP | February 2024

Recent surveys have revealed the shocking statistic that 90% of breastfeeding mothers are forced to use a toilet or are not provided with a suitable space to express their breastmilk at work. We look at what employers can do to rectify this issue in order to offer the appropriate level of support to new mums. Returning to work following maternity leave can be a daunting prospect, particularly if this is the first time that an employee has been apart from their baby for long periods of time ...

Shoosmiths LLP | June 2023

Fertility is not only a ‘women’s issue’ - the impact of infertility on men can be enormous, yet regularly goes unnoticed. In light of Men’s Health Week and Father’s Day, we look at improving support for men who are experiencing fertility issues. When it comes to infertility, research and support predominantly centres around the perspectives of women ...

Shoosmiths LLP | March 2023

More and more employers are introducing paid fertility leave and a fertility leave policy to their workforce. For employers considering doing something similar, we explain the requirements for fertility leave and points to ponder when preparing a policy. Are employers required to provide time off for fertility treatment? There is no statutory right to provide staff with time off (paid or otherwise) for fertility or related treatment ...

dots