Alfred G. Feliu
Arbitration has become an increasingly powerful force in the resolution of disputes in the employment setting. Your client has asked you to draft or revise an arbitration provision in an employment agreement. What do you do?
Features
Lee F. Bantle
Sexual orientation will now be treated as any other protected category in employment litigation under New York State law. After having been proposed without passage for 31 years, the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (S. 720/ A. 1971) (SONDA) finally became law on January 16, 2003.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
An employer's medical plan that denies coverage for certain female-only infertility procedures does not violate either the Pregnancy Disability Act (PDA) or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Second Circuit, in a ruling of first impression, concluded that neither are violated.
Features
Karl B. Holtzschue
The Property Condition Disclosure Act (PCDA), which became effective on March 1, 2002, requires a seller of residential real property to deliver to a buyer a Property Condition Disclosure Statement (PCDS) before the buyer signs a binding contract. In <i>Malach v. Chuang, infra</i>, a Richmond County Civil Court judge construed ' for the first time ' the remedy provisions of the statute (R.P.L. sec. 465).
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Analysis of the latest cases of interest to your practice.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
A rundown of the latest cases.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
If your product liability case involves damage to a specific organ, <i>eg,</i> heart damage allegedly caused by the use of fen-phen, professional organizations such as the American College of Cardiology (ACC) may offer some assistance. You can go to the association's Web site (www.acc.org) for information on a number of conditions.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
Robert O. Lesley
<i>This is the first of a two-part article. Part two will appear next month.</i> Product liability practitioners must be intimately familiar with the strategy and tactics of challenging expert testimony under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid., and the so-called <i>Daubert</i> trilogy of cases. Nearly 10 years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), vastly changed the road map for the admission of expert testimony. A body of case law has grown since that decision, providing numerous avenues to challenge admission of expert testimony. Because product liability cases usually rely on expert testimony, <i>Daubert</i> challenges are particularly important in them.
