The ABA Journal is reporting about Virginia's discriminatory application of its FOIA laws where out of state residents are unable to use the law to obtain public records. Apparently 2 separate cases have been brought, one in which a father lived in Virginia but subsequently moved and wanted paperwork related to this divorce, child custody, and child support payments. The other is a real estate data aggregator that requested public real estate data and was denied because he was an out of state petitioner.
0 Comments
The Chicago Tribune report on a fire-breathing actor who was injured during his routine provides a model lesson for employers on worker safety and potential administrative action for failing to adhere to OSHA regulations for employee safety.
Here, the employee was an actor who happened to very publicly injure himself when his face and throat caught on fire while attempting a fire breathing routine. The media firestorm, however, quickly engulfed reality and blew the matter out of proportion. It was so widely reported that an OSHA investigator reportedly showed up at the Civic Opera House to speak to officials and investigate their compliance with OSHA regulations. The Chicago Tribune reports that Kraft Foods, Inc. has sued casual dining chain Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. and its potential retail distributor the John Morrell Food Group to enjoin and nullify their contractual attempt to licensed the trademark "Cracker Barrel" to the distributor for retail distribution. Kraft trademarked "Cracker Barrel" in 1954 and sees Cracker Barrel Old Country Store's attempts to expand the use of their mark from their restaurant chains to retail grocers as infringing their mark.
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.
ESPN reports that the NFL has pressured a fan who clairvoyantly predicted this year's Superbowl matchup to give up his application for "Harbowl." The NFL asserted that Harbowl and Superbowl are so similar as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.
ESPN, of all sources, is reporting about an irate attorney who purchased a ticket to see the San Antonio Spurs play against the Miami Heat in Miami is suing the Spurs under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The attorney purchased a ticket for himself and his son. Shortly before the game, the coach of the Spurs, Greg Popovich, sent their best players back to San Antonio to rest rather than play their fourth game in five nights. The attorney is suing because he feels he was deceived into purchasing tickets and paying a premium for two teams loaded with star players. Instead, he watched the B and C squad Spurs take the Heat to the brink in a 100-105 loss.
As the calendar year turned, many new local, state, and federal laws came into effect. One of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which is also called "Obamacare", has raised the hackles of a pair of privately held corporations. These corporations are religiously objecting to complying with PPACA's birth control access requirements, because as we know, corporations are people except for the purposes of carpooling, but they must have religious beliefs, right? As it turns out, (surprise!) not many courts are buying the argument that closely held private corporations have religious beliefs. Clearly these Court have not run into the cultish Apple devotees.
Weak jokes aside, Hobby Lobby's attempt to escape the regulatory clutches of PPACA is a novel attempt at imputing further First Amendment rights on corporations. It is a bold strike at enlarging recent caselaw and enhancing their position as a corporation. The Chicago Tribune reports that two brewery business partners, Isaac Showaki and Andres Araya, are engaged in litigation over a widespread dispute. Having met 7 years ago while working for Bain Capital and consulting in Latin America for a brewer, the business partners set up a brewery in Chicago a bit less than two years.
Despite commercial success, including distribution deals with several local Chipotle franchises as well as other accolades, the business partners have a deeply personal dispute that has boiled over into the courtrooms. 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.). As the LA Times reports, the United States Supreme Court is set to weigh in on who qualifies as a supervisor for the purposes of Title VII discrimination litigation.
Respondeat superior, or vicarious liability that employers face for their employee's torts, has always been limited to acts committed in the scope of employment in furtherance of the employer's purpose. Here, the Supreme Court and Title VII limit the application respondeat superior to form liability for the company to supervisors. Who qualifies as a supervisor has generally been those that can hire, fire or punish. In addition, some courts have found that those that control the day to day activities are considered supervisors. Generally those supervisors are mid-level or bottom-level managers who lack the power to hire employees. As the LA Times article notes, the Justices were very skeptical of both expanding respondeat superior to a "day to day" supervisor and the facts of the Vance harassment claim. It is, based on the oral arguments, not looking favorable for he Court enlarging who can victimize an employee and who is responsible for that harm. |
AuthorRishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C. Archives
October 2013
Categories
All
|
|