LJN Newsletters

Increasing reliance on e-mail is a fact of life in today's business and legal environments. The falling costs of storing vast amounts of data, coupled with the fear of being accused of destroying material that companies may be obligated to retain, have led to the retention of increasing amounts of data for longer periods of time. Among the problems this creates for litigators is the increased burden of reviewing vast quantities of e-mails, and identifying and asserting claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over electronic documents.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

In the old days, decisions made by executives and directors in the board room often were cloaked with a veil of legitimacy. Now, however, these decisions are under constant surveillance and scrutiny from outsiders and are even vulnerable to leaks from insiders. As executives and directors are thrust into the media and legal forefront, not only do they face potential personal liability for their decisions, but the corporations themselves face liability for their actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case of great importance to employers, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. It will decide when the statute of limitations begins to run under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) ('Title VII') for certain types of disparate pay claims.

In September 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a retailer with physical store locations may be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA'), the Unrue Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 51(b)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 54.1(a)(1)), if its Web site is not accessible to the blind. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the ADA does not impose an affirmative duty on companies to make Web sites accessible to the disabled, the Target decision may represent the tip of a looming iceberg.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Trusts and estates law is replete with special rules, or exceptions to the general rules, designed to recognize and protect the financial side of the marriage partnership. What happens, however, when husbands or wives decide that they no longer wish to be married? Once the decision is made to end the marriage, one spouse usually wishes to minimize any benefits that the other spouse could obtain from the estate.

Other than holding that courts cannot use race as a criterion for decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has not delved deeply into defining the constitutional rights of divorcing parents in the context of a custody dispute. In Shepp v. Shepp, 906 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 2006), however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that a divorced parent had a constitutional right to advocate his sincere religious belief in polygamy to his 9-year-old child.