The MineolaAmerican reports that a local wholesale car dealership which does business with Carmax, a large consumer-oriented car reseller and purchaser, has sued the massive dealer for anti-trust violations stemming from their refusal to allow dealers to supply car history reports from any information company rather than Carmax's preferred vendor(s).
|
The Chicago Tribune reports that Walgreen Co. has been sued by a California consumer for alleged labeling violations on their Vitamin E supplements. The consumer objects to allegedly misleading claims on Walgreen's Vitamin E 400 IU Dietary Supplement that says the product "naturally contributes to cardiovascular health by helping to protect LDL cholesterol from oxidation which may cause cellular damage."
The complaint alleges that these statements are false and misleading based on clinical data that disproves these statements and indicates that the product is ineffective as marketed. Lawsuits against supplement manufacturers are only just the beginning of the process. This case illustrates why both consumers and manufacturers need to be very aware of the legal terrain in supplements and why consumers often mistake natural supplements for regulated drugs. The Chicago Tribune reports that Pella Corp., of Iowa, manufacturer of self-branded windows, has reached a settlement with a Lake Forest doctor who sued Pella over issues with his ProLine series of windows in his home. The doctor brought a class action against Pella Corp. in the name of all owners of ProLine series windows and Pella has agreed to pay those owners between $750 and $6,000 as well as warranty against wood rot.
The EEOC, despite major budget cuts and a stated goal of suing on behalf of classes or employers engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, decided to sue on behalf of a woman fired after only 2 days on the job allegedly because she had a prosthetic leg.
The EEOC is the federal administrative agency that authorizes individuals to sue for employment discrimination matters including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. § 621-629), and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a 7th Circuit Appellate ruling that the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute violates the First Amendment where it prevents citizens from audio recording police officers when they make otherwise non-confidential or priviledged statements. As the Chicago Tribune reports, The Seventh Circuit reversed the trial court's holding that prevents the ACLU from amending its complaint as well as directing the trial court to enter a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Eavesdropping Statute.
The Chicago Tribune reports that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California, has certified a class comprising of women employees of Costco holding that such a class meets the requirements the Supreme Court stated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Betty Dukes, et al., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) regarding class certification in Rule 23.
|
AuthorRishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C. Archives
October 2013
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
