Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The American Society for Quality (ASQ), <i>www.asq.org,</i> headquartered in Milwaukee, was formed Feb. 16, 1946. The purpose of the 104,000-member professional association is to create better workplaces and communities worldwide by advancing learning, quality improvement, and knowledge exchange to improve business results. ASQ makes its officers and member experts available to inform and advise Congress, government agencies, state legislatures, and other groups and individuals on quality-related topics. ASQ representatives have provided testimony on issues such as training, health care quality, education, transportation safety, quality management in the federal government, licensing for quality professionals, and more.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
Imagine that you represent a manufacturer who is being sued in a putative class action alleging that one of your client's products is defective. Although some consumers who used the product were injured as a result of the defect, the class action complaint does not make any claims for personal injury. Instead, the complaint asserts claims for economic damages only (<i>eg</i>, refunds of the purchase price of the product). Conventional wisdom would say that you should be thankful. Economic damages usually pale in comparison to personal injury damages, so if putative class counsel has chosen to forego a potentially larger verdict, so be it. Unconventional wisdom, on the other hand, would recognize that the class plaintiffs are "splitting" their claims, and claim splitting presents a number of unique issues for defense counsel.
Features
A case in strict products liability is available in all states against the manufacturer of a defective product. A "manufacturer" is often defined as one who designs, produces, sells or otherwise distributes the product. Suppose, however, a company's logo is on a product that has been manufactured by someone else. Is the non-manufacturer responsible to a plaintiff and if so, under what theory? The answer depends upon the state in which you sue. Some jurisdictions hold a non-manufacturer liable as an "apparent manufacturer" if it has merely licensed its trademark. Other states require that the licensor have a "significant role" in the chain of distribution, and some states are hybrid, <i>eg</i>, they permit liability against trademark licensors but require more than just licensing the trademark. The following examples illustrate the way some states analyze this liability.
It is increasingly common in product liability cases for a plaintiff to disclose as an expert a former employee of a government agency such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") or the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). These witnesses frequently advertise themselves as experts in "product/drug safety" and refer to their regulatory background as their primary qualification. Frequently, however, these witnesses' responsibilities as government employees had little, if anything, to do with the subjects about which they are now testifying. Nevertheless, these witnesses are dangerous if allowed to testify to a jury, because they lend the credibility of the U.S. government to the plaintiff's case.
Features
A former modeling agency executive has been arrested on charges that she tampered with a jury in an unusual civil suit over cigarette smoke in the workplace.
Features
The United States Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that bars plaintiffs alleging retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from seeking compensatory and punitive damages. <i>Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC</i>, U.S., No. 03-1451, cert. denied 6/21/04. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to conclude that the ADA does not provide plaintiffs the right to seek such damages in retaliation cases. <i>Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC</i>, 355 F.3d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
In one of its most important employment decisions on the subject of sexual harassment since its landmark decisions in <i>Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth</i> (524 U.S. 742, 141 L. Ed. 2d 633, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)) and <i>Faragher v. Boca Raton</i> (524 U.S. 775, 808, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998)), the Supreme Court, in <i>Pennsylvania State Police vs. Suders</i> (124 S. Ct. 2342, 159 L. Ed. 2d 204, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4176 (2004)), addressed the issue of a constructive discharge resulting from sexual harassment.
Features
Is there a person alive who does not know that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has been sued in a gigantic class action? On June 21, U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins of the Northern District of California certified the largest employment discrimination class action in American history. <i>See Dukes v. Wal-mart Inc.</i>, No. C 01-02252 (N.D. Calif. 2004), 2004 U.S. Lexis 11365.