Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Legislatures and courts alike in several jurisdictions have extended existing anti-discrimination laws to transgender people, and some employers have followed suit with changes to their non-discrimination policies. Employers are thus advised not only to familiarize themselves with the current legal landscape for transgender rights, but also to consider the practical implications of such laws on their own efforts to provide an inclusive and non-discriminatory workplace environment for transgender employees. This two-part article will explore the legal landscape and its implications.
Features
The first part of this article discussed the current state of the law with regard to the legal standing of unions to represent and litigate on behalf of retirees. The conclusion herein addresses cases involving the presumption of vesting, and offers tips for managing changes in retirement plans and negotiating future plans.
Features
There have been numerous cases involving various challenges to employer 'tip-pooling' policies, particularly in Massachusetts and California, with wait staff and other restaurant employees claiming that such policies violate state wage and hour laws. This article describes this recent line of cases, which are of particular interest to employers and employees in the restaurant or hospitality industries, but which have extended to other industries as well. The article also suggests guidelines for employers in the restaurant and hospitality industries to adopt so that their tip-pooling policies do not run afoul of state wage and hour laws.
Features
The use of bankruptcy to protect an individual's home from foreclosure is sufficiently commonplace that practitioners would be well advised to understand the foreclosure process in their state and, in particular, when that process will be deemed completed for purposes of section 1322. This article explains why.
Features
Few subjects in the staid world of economics generate as much controversy as expert testimony quantifying hedonic damages: tort damages that attempt to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of enjoyment of life. Countless articles in forensics literature debate whether monetary value placed on a statistical life applies to a specific plaintiff. This controversy has spilled over into the courtroom. While most jurisdictions allow recovery of some form of hedonic damages, the trend, especially in the post-<i>Daubert</i> era, has been to exclude expert testimony that purports to calculate the amount of those damages. This article examines the trend against expert testimony quantifying hedonic damages and notes recent decisions that indicate the trend may be curbing, especially in jurisdictions that have refused to adopt <i>Daubert</i>.
Divorce isn't just divorce anymore. At least not if you are on top of your game in Family Law. As the September issue of <i>The Matrimonial Strategist</i> describes in several different articles, Interdisciplinary Collaborative Divorce is the wave of the future. <i>The Matrimonial Strategist</i> first discussed Collaborative Law Divorce in May, 2006. To quote Editorial Board Member Charles J. McEvily, 'The hallmark of the Collaborative Divorce is the execution of an agreement by both parties and'
Divorce isn't just divorce anymore. At least not if you are on top of your game in Family Law. As the September issue of <i>The Matrimonial Strategist</i> describes in several different articles, Interdisciplinary Collaborative Divorce is the wave of the future. <i>The Matrimonial Strategist</i> first discussed Collaborative Law Divorce in May, 2006. To quote Editorial Board Member Charles J. McEvily, 'The hallmark of the Collaborative Divorce is the execution of an agreement by both parties and'
Features
Ethical prohibitions impact the common practice of almost every active trademark lawyer regarding his or her use of private investigators to collect information from third parties. However, the scope of permissible conduct is not always clearly defined. For instance, when a search report reveals one possible bar to your client's adoption of the mark, such as a nine-year-old federal registration by an individual who does not appear to have a Web site, can you or your investigator contact this person and devise some plausible explanation for the reason that you want to know if the mark is still in use? Or if you discover that a company appears to be infringing your client's trademark, can you send someone pretending to be a customer, but who asks all sorts of questions relevant to proving infringement that the ordinary consumer is highly unlikely to raise? Does it matter if the person you or your investigator makes contact with is a low-level sales clerk or the owner of the company?
Features
In this writer's experience, the majority of medical malpractice cases involve a primary target defendant, usually a hospital or attending physician, often joined with multiple codefendants with less potential exposure. It is not uncommon to find three or more defense firms playing active roles in the discovery process, and, for purposes of this article, we shall refer to those defendants with lesser potential exposure as 'secondary defendants.'