Features
Poppy Seed or Onion?
Unusual case: Is a bagel a weapon?
Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment Analysis
The United States Supreme Court rebuked a Ninth Circuit panel for misapplying disparate impact analysis in the context of a disparate treatment case when the lower court ruled that a recovered drug addict could not be denied reemployment under the terms of the employer's no-rehire rule. In doing so, the Supreme Court determined that, in fact, a no-rehire rule is a "quintessential legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing an employee who was terminated because of misconduct."
Extensive Amendments to Federal Rules Governing Class Actions
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was recently amended extensively to add two new sections governing the appointment of class counsel and the payment of attorney fee awards.
Features
What Were They Thinking ... ?
Editor-in-Chief Alfred G. Feliu shakes his head in disbelief.
Forfeiture Provision of Voluntary Stock Not Illegal
New York's highest court has issued an important decision interpreting Section 193 of the New York Labor Law, which prohibits employers from making deductions from an employee's wages except in limited circumstances.
Features
John Gaal's Ethics Corner
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Features
Decisions of Interest
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
Alleged Employee Wrongdoing
On Dec. 4, 2003, President Bush signed into the law the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT), Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952 (2003), amending 15 U.S.C. § 1681a, <i>et. seq.</i>, and reauthorizing and amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Developments of Note
Recent developments in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
e-Commerce Docket Sheet
Recent court rulings in e-commerce.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
