This document provides a summary of key Supreme Court decisions from the 2013-2014 term. It lists over 30 cases decided by the Supreme Court, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores regarding religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, and NLRB v. Noel Canning regarding the president's recess appointment powers. For each case, it provides the case name, docket number, date of decision, and lower court being appealed from. The document is intended to inform readers about important Supreme Court rulings from the recent term.
Fred Douglas - inequitable conduct (01 18-06)dougfrm
This document discusses inequitable conduct, which is the failure to satisfy the duty of candor and good faith to the Patent and Trademark Office during patent prosecution. It can result in a patent being found unenforceable. The two elements of inequitable conduct are materiality and intent. Undisclosed prior art is usually considered material. Intent can be inferred from high materiality or proven by acts and their natural consequences. Examples of inequitable conduct include failing to disclose relevant prior art or submitting misleading affidavits. The standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence.
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2014 - State Courts and Civil ProcedureNicole Benjamin
This document summarizes recent developments in Rhode Island law from 2014, focusing on state courts and civil procedure. Key points include: the launch of electronic filing in civil cases beginning in November 2014; changes to the Providence County civil non-dispositive motion calendar eliminating the call of the calendar; and several issues of first impression addressed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court during the 2013-2014 term related to admiralty law, appellate practice, attorneys, class actions, commercial law, and medical malpractice.
BURWELL v HOBBY LOBBY STORES INC FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE ACABrandon Shields
This document provides background information on the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. It discusses the history of relevant legislation and case law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It summarizes the Hobby Lobby case, in which for-profit corporations challenged the ACA contraceptive mandate on religious grounds under RFRA. The document analyzes the Court's decision and implications, including whether corporations can claim protections under RFRA and how the decision contradicts previous precedent.
Sweet Coffee Shop is a proposed coffee shop business to be located on the campus of Cochin University of Science and Technology. The business plan projects that the coffee shop, which will offer coffee, tea, snacks and stationery items, will earn sales revenue of 175,000 INR in its first year of operation. Market research found that students, faculty, office workers and lab staff on campus would be the primary customers. The coffee shop aims to distinguish itself through high quality products and cleanliness. It projects sales and profits to increase significantly over the first three years.
This document provides a business plan for a new restaurant to be opened in Bangalore, India. It outlines objectives to keep food costs below 35% of revenue, promote the unique concept, expand marketing, ensure customer satisfaction and a healthy environment. The plan details the restaurant's mission to combine varied cuisine with excellent service in an eclectic atmosphere. Key factors for success include unique products, quality control, employee retention and cost control. The plan provides details on the restaurant's concept, location, operations, menu, management team, marketing strategy, finances and future goals.
To be hired to assist the supervisor.
Chefs: 2 experienced chefs to be hired to develop menu items and
oversee food preparation.
Wait Staff: Initially plan to hire 6 wait staff to handle lunch and
dinner shifts.
Host/Cashier: 1 host/cashier to greet customers and handle
payments.
Janitorial: Contract cleaning services.
Accountant: Part-time accountant for bookkeeping and financial
reporting.
Marketing Plan
Website Development
Social Media Marketing
Print Advertising
Fred Douglas - inequitable conduct (01 18-06)dougfrm
This document discusses inequitable conduct, which is the failure to satisfy the duty of candor and good faith to the Patent and Trademark Office during patent prosecution. It can result in a patent being found unenforceable. The two elements of inequitable conduct are materiality and intent. Undisclosed prior art is usually considered material. Intent can be inferred from high materiality or proven by acts and their natural consequences. Examples of inequitable conduct include failing to disclose relevant prior art or submitting misleading affidavits. The standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence.
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2014 - State Courts and Civil ProcedureNicole Benjamin
This document summarizes recent developments in Rhode Island law from 2014, focusing on state courts and civil procedure. Key points include: the launch of electronic filing in civil cases beginning in November 2014; changes to the Providence County civil non-dispositive motion calendar eliminating the call of the calendar; and several issues of first impression addressed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court during the 2013-2014 term related to admiralty law, appellate practice, attorneys, class actions, commercial law, and medical malpractice.
BURWELL v HOBBY LOBBY STORES INC FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE ACABrandon Shields
This document provides background information on the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. It discusses the history of relevant legislation and case law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It summarizes the Hobby Lobby case, in which for-profit corporations challenged the ACA contraceptive mandate on religious grounds under RFRA. The document analyzes the Court's decision and implications, including whether corporations can claim protections under RFRA and how the decision contradicts previous precedent.
Sweet Coffee Shop is a proposed coffee shop business to be located on the campus of Cochin University of Science and Technology. The business plan projects that the coffee shop, which will offer coffee, tea, snacks and stationery items, will earn sales revenue of 175,000 INR in its first year of operation. Market research found that students, faculty, office workers and lab staff on campus would be the primary customers. The coffee shop aims to distinguish itself through high quality products and cleanliness. It projects sales and profits to increase significantly over the first three years.
This document provides a business plan for a new restaurant to be opened in Bangalore, India. It outlines objectives to keep food costs below 35% of revenue, promote the unique concept, expand marketing, ensure customer satisfaction and a healthy environment. The plan details the restaurant's mission to combine varied cuisine with excellent service in an eclectic atmosphere. Key factors for success include unique products, quality control, employee retention and cost control. The plan provides details on the restaurant's concept, location, operations, menu, management team, marketing strategy, finances and future goals.
To be hired to assist the supervisor.
Chefs: 2 experienced chefs to be hired to develop menu items and
oversee food preparation.
Wait Staff: Initially plan to hire 6 wait staff to handle lunch and
dinner shifts.
Host/Cashier: 1 host/cashier to greet customers and handle
payments.
Janitorial: Contract cleaning services.
Accountant: Part-time accountant for bookkeeping and financial
reporting.
Marketing Plan
Website Development
Social Media Marketing
Print Advertising
This document summarizes several recent developments in employment law across various areas:
1) It discusses recent court rulings on whether law firm shareholders are considered employees under discrimination statutes, the appropriate causation standard for ADA claims, and whether the paycheck accrual rule applies to §1983 cases.
2) It also summarizes recent cases related to burden of proof standards for FMLA interference claims, the scope of bankruptcy anti-discrimination statutes, and whether a new EEOC charge is required for retaliation occurring after an initial filing.
3) Additionally, the document analyzes issues like what constitutes actionable retaliation by a lawyer, the right to a jury trial under the WARN Act, and standards for
This document provides a summary of experience for Adam Schwartz, a Senior Staff Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois since 2002. It details his extensive experience in legal advocacy, legislative advocacy, and communications advocacy in numerous areas including freedom of expression, juvenile justice, police accountability, and technology/privacy. It provides examples of representative cases he has worked on and amicus briefs filed. It also outlines his legal education background and qualifications.
This document is an initial brief filed by Traian Bujduveanu in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appealing a lower court decision. It provides background on the case, which involves claims by Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc. and several employees for violations of his civil rights during his residency at a halfway house operated by Dismas. It outlines the procedural history of the case in the lower court and provides statements of facts and the case intended to support Bujduveanu's appeal.
Proskauer's May 2015 Antitrust Update for In-House Counsel presentation to the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Corporate Counseling Committee.
Topics: Class Action Updates and Predictions; Health Care Agency Review; Merger Review Updates in the US and Abroad; Network Neutrality - FCC Authority & Antitrust Law
Presenters: Christopher Ondeck, Alicia Batts, John Ingrassia, Alyse Stach
This document is a curriculum vitae for Kimberlee A. Hillock. It outlines her education, employment history, participation in appellate court decisions, and awards. She received her Juris Doctor from Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Bachelor of Science from Ferris State University. Her employment includes being a shareholder at Willingham & Coté, P.C. and clerking for judges at the Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. She has participated in over 200 appellate court decisions and written amicus briefs.
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsBryan Johnson
This order grants a preliminary injunction requiring the US Border Patrol to comply with its own guidelines for holding detainees, based on evidence that detainees' basic human needs were not being met. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that conditions violated detainees' due process rights by depriving them of adequate sleep, hygiene, medical care, food and water, and warmth. While acknowledging funding constraints, the court ruled constitutional rights cannot be denied for fiscal reasons and ordered compliance with guidelines to provide these basic needs as outlined in the Border Patrol's 2008 policy and TEDS standards.
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
RRs REPORTED CASES updated 4-30-15 for websiteRobert Rivas
This document provides a partial list of appellate cases Robert Rivas has worked on as lead counsel. It summarizes several cases where Rivas represented individuals or organizations in significant First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech or access to information. These include cases involving aid in dying, physician-assisted suicide, access to public records, and content-based restrictions on speech. The document demonstrates Rivas' experience and success in handling important appellate cases related to civil liberties.
This document summarizes recent developments and cases related to state employment law. It discusses a new Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York, a proposed anti-workplace bullying statute, a case finding that calling one's boss a "slimebag" did not breach a non-disparagement clause, and a case preventing the recovery of damages for humiliation or injury to feelings in a non-disparagement breach of contract case. It also summarizes cases related to forum selection clauses, social media background checks under the FCRA, discovery of social media content, and more.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores that requiring closely held for-profit corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court found that under RFRA, corporations are protected "persons" and the contraceptive mandate placed a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of the owners by forcing them to choose between noncompliance penalties or violating their religious beliefs. The dissent argued that for-profit corporations cannot exercise religion and the connection between the mandate and religious beliefs was too attenuated to constitute a substantial burden.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
This document summarizes tactics for removing and remanding class action lawsuits. It discusses:
- CAFA provisions allowing for class action and mass action removal to federal court when certain criteria are met.
- Plaintiffs' tactics to avoid removal or achieve remand, such as stipulating to less than $5M in controversy, seeking only declaratory relief, or subdividing plaintiffs into multiple parallel cases.
- Court decisions addressing these tactics, including finding that pre-certification stipulations do not bind absent class members, that requests for declaratory judgment can satisfy the amount in controversy, and that parallel cases must explicitly propose a joint trial to qualify as a mass action.
- The principle that jurisdiction is assessed at
This document is a curriculum vitae for Kimberlee A. Hillock that summarizes her education and employment history. It shows that she received a Juris Doctor from Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 2002 and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Ferris State University in 1997. Since 2009, she has been a shareholder and co-chairperson of the appellate practice group at Willingham & Coté, P.C. where she has worked on over 50 cases that were successfully appealed. She also previously clerked for the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals.
Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 96 So. 3d 956 - Fla Dist. Court o.docxcargillfilberto
Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 96 So. 3d 956 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2012
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567294466853850897&q=2012+civil+case&hl=en&as_sdt=4,167
96 So.3d 956 (
2012
)
Peguy DELVA, Appellant,
v.
The CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., Appellee.
No. 3D11-2964.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 25,
2012
.
Rehearing Denied September 18,
2012
.
957*957 McGuinness & Gonzalez, Lawrence J. McGuinness and Juliana Gonzalez, for appellant.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, Andrew L. Rodman and Bayardo Aleman, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG and LAGOA, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
The discrete, single issue in this
case
is whether the Florida
Civil
Rights Act, section 760.10, Florida Statute,
[1]
prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy.
[2]
Although there was no doubt as to the sufficiency of the allegation that the plaintiff was discriminated against on this basis,
[3]
the trial judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that there was no such right. We agree.
Two district courts have addressed this question. In
Carsillo v. City of Lake
958*958
Worth,
995 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008),
review denied,
20 So.3d 848 (Fla. 2009), the Fourth District held that there was such a right. In
O'Loughlin v. Pinchback,
579 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991),
the First District held that there was not, stating:
In
General Electric Company v. Gilbert,
429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976),
the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination under Title VII. However, in 1978, in response to the
Gilbert
decision, Congress amended Title VII by enacting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The PDA specifies that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is sex discrimination, and therefore violative of Title VII. Florida has not similarly amended its Human Rights Act to include a prohibition against pregnancy-based discrimination.
O'Loughlin,
579 So.2d at 791
(footnote omitted).
We believe this holding in
O'Loughlin
[4]
is in accord with the Act, and is by far the better reasoned decision. We therefore adopt it as our own. Accord
DuChateau v. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
822 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D.Fla.2011)
;
Whiteman v. Cingular Wireless, LLC,
273 Fed.Appx. 841 (11th Cir.2008)
(affirming summary judgment for employer where district court found that pregnancy was not a protected class under the Florida
Civil
Rights Act);
Boone v. Total Renal Labs., Inc.,
565 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1326 (M.D.Fla.2008)
("This Court agrees with those courts that have found that because the Florida legislature did not add language similar to the PDA [Title VII of the Federal
Civil
Rights Act as amended by Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) ] to the FCRA when it was enacted in 1992 — after
O'Loug.
Michael Smyth sued his former employer Pillsbury for wrongful termination. Smyth claims he was fired for sending private email messages over Pillsbury's email system in reliance on their assurances that email would remain confidential. Pillsbury argues that, as an at-will employee, Smyth could be fired without cause. The court must determine if Smyth's termination violates public policy regarding an employee's right to privacy. While Pennsylvania law generally allows at-will termination, exceptions exist for terminations that threaten clear public policy mandates. Smyth claims his termination violated public policy protecting privacy in email communications.
Richard Wellington Winn is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas since 1985. He received his law degree from Texas Tech University School of Law in 1984. He has over 30 years of experience as an attorney, first working as a legal clerk and then spending nearly 30 years at the law firms Wesner Coke & Clymer, PC and Glast Phillips & Murray, PC. His experience includes a broad range of business litigation and transactions. He has extensive trial and appellate experience in both state and federal courts.
Standards of review on review of agency decisions 9th circuit 21-pagesUmesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes the standards for judicial review of agency decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act. It discusses how agency decisions may be overturned if they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law. It also outlines the narrow scope of review and deference given to agency interpretations of statutes and regulations. Finally, it provides examples of specific agencies that are subject to judicial review, including FERC, EPA, FCC, and others.
This document contains the syllabus for Civil Procedure 1 taught by Dean Salvador N. Moya II at Tomas Claudio Colleges College of Law. It outlines the general principles of civil procedure, including jurisdiction and parties to civil actions. It also summarizes key cases related to each topic. The syllabus is intended to guide students in understanding the important concepts and jurisprudence related to civil procedure.
This document summarizes several recent developments in employment law across various areas:
1) It discusses recent court rulings on whether law firm shareholders are considered employees under discrimination statutes, the appropriate causation standard for ADA claims, and whether the paycheck accrual rule applies to §1983 cases.
2) It also summarizes recent cases related to burden of proof standards for FMLA interference claims, the scope of bankruptcy anti-discrimination statutes, and whether a new EEOC charge is required for retaliation occurring after an initial filing.
3) Additionally, the document analyzes issues like what constitutes actionable retaliation by a lawyer, the right to a jury trial under the WARN Act, and standards for
This document provides a summary of experience for Adam Schwartz, a Senior Staff Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois since 2002. It details his extensive experience in legal advocacy, legislative advocacy, and communications advocacy in numerous areas including freedom of expression, juvenile justice, police accountability, and technology/privacy. It provides examples of representative cases he has worked on and amicus briefs filed. It also outlines his legal education background and qualifications.
This document is an initial brief filed by Traian Bujduveanu in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appealing a lower court decision. It provides background on the case, which involves claims by Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc. and several employees for violations of his civil rights during his residency at a halfway house operated by Dismas. It outlines the procedural history of the case in the lower court and provides statements of facts and the case intended to support Bujduveanu's appeal.
Proskauer's May 2015 Antitrust Update for In-House Counsel presentation to the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Corporate Counseling Committee.
Topics: Class Action Updates and Predictions; Health Care Agency Review; Merger Review Updates in the US and Abroad; Network Neutrality - FCC Authority & Antitrust Law
Presenters: Christopher Ondeck, Alicia Batts, John Ingrassia, Alyse Stach
This document is a curriculum vitae for Kimberlee A. Hillock. It outlines her education, employment history, participation in appellate court decisions, and awards. She received her Juris Doctor from Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Bachelor of Science from Ferris State University. Her employment includes being a shareholder at Willingham & Coté, P.C. and clerking for judges at the Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. She has participated in over 200 appellate court decisions and written amicus briefs.
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsBryan Johnson
This order grants a preliminary injunction requiring the US Border Patrol to comply with its own guidelines for holding detainees, based on evidence that detainees' basic human needs were not being met. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that conditions violated detainees' due process rights by depriving them of adequate sleep, hygiene, medical care, food and water, and warmth. While acknowledging funding constraints, the court ruled constitutional rights cannot be denied for fiscal reasons and ordered compliance with guidelines to provide these basic needs as outlined in the Border Patrol's 2008 policy and TEDS standards.
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
RRs REPORTED CASES updated 4-30-15 for websiteRobert Rivas
This document provides a partial list of appellate cases Robert Rivas has worked on as lead counsel. It summarizes several cases where Rivas represented individuals or organizations in significant First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech or access to information. These include cases involving aid in dying, physician-assisted suicide, access to public records, and content-based restrictions on speech. The document demonstrates Rivas' experience and success in handling important appellate cases related to civil liberties.
This document summarizes recent developments and cases related to state employment law. It discusses a new Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York, a proposed anti-workplace bullying statute, a case finding that calling one's boss a "slimebag" did not breach a non-disparagement clause, and a case preventing the recovery of damages for humiliation or injury to feelings in a non-disparagement breach of contract case. It also summarizes cases related to forum selection clauses, social media background checks under the FCRA, discovery of social media content, and more.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores that requiring closely held for-profit corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court found that under RFRA, corporations are protected "persons" and the contraceptive mandate placed a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of the owners by forcing them to choose between noncompliance penalties or violating their religious beliefs. The dissent argued that for-profit corporations cannot exercise religion and the connection between the mandate and religious beliefs was too attenuated to constitute a substantial burden.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the federal Animal Welfare Act does not preempt a claim brought under North Carolina law alleging animal cruelty at a zoo. The federal law does not expressly preempt state law, implies no intent to exclusively regulate animal welfare nationwide, and does not conflict with the state law. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and its dismissal was reversed and remanded.
This document summarizes tactics for removing and remanding class action lawsuits. It discusses:
- CAFA provisions allowing for class action and mass action removal to federal court when certain criteria are met.
- Plaintiffs' tactics to avoid removal or achieve remand, such as stipulating to less than $5M in controversy, seeking only declaratory relief, or subdividing plaintiffs into multiple parallel cases.
- Court decisions addressing these tactics, including finding that pre-certification stipulations do not bind absent class members, that requests for declaratory judgment can satisfy the amount in controversy, and that parallel cases must explicitly propose a joint trial to qualify as a mass action.
- The principle that jurisdiction is assessed at
This document is a curriculum vitae for Kimberlee A. Hillock that summarizes her education and employment history. It shows that she received a Juris Doctor from Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 2002 and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Ferris State University in 1997. Since 2009, she has been a shareholder and co-chairperson of the appellate practice group at Willingham & Coté, P.C. where she has worked on over 50 cases that were successfully appealed. She also previously clerked for the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals.
Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 96 So. 3d 956 - Fla Dist. Court o.docxcargillfilberto
Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 96 So. 3d 956 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2012
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567294466853850897&q=2012+civil+case&hl=en&as_sdt=4,167
96 So.3d 956 (
2012
)
Peguy DELVA, Appellant,
v.
The CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., Appellee.
No. 3D11-2964.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 25,
2012
.
Rehearing Denied September 18,
2012
.
957*957 McGuinness & Gonzalez, Lawrence J. McGuinness and Juliana Gonzalez, for appellant.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, Andrew L. Rodman and Bayardo Aleman, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG and LAGOA, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
The discrete, single issue in this
case
is whether the Florida
Civil
Rights Act, section 760.10, Florida Statute,
[1]
prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy.
[2]
Although there was no doubt as to the sufficiency of the allegation that the plaintiff was discriminated against on this basis,
[3]
the trial judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that there was no such right. We agree.
Two district courts have addressed this question. In
Carsillo v. City of Lake
958*958
Worth,
995 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008),
review denied,
20 So.3d 848 (Fla. 2009), the Fourth District held that there was such a right. In
O'Loughlin v. Pinchback,
579 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991),
the First District held that there was not, stating:
In
General Electric Company v. Gilbert,
429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976),
the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination under Title VII. However, in 1978, in response to the
Gilbert
decision, Congress amended Title VII by enacting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The PDA specifies that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is sex discrimination, and therefore violative of Title VII. Florida has not similarly amended its Human Rights Act to include a prohibition against pregnancy-based discrimination.
O'Loughlin,
579 So.2d at 791
(footnote omitted).
We believe this holding in
O'Loughlin
[4]
is in accord with the Act, and is by far the better reasoned decision. We therefore adopt it as our own. Accord
DuChateau v. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
822 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D.Fla.2011)
;
Whiteman v. Cingular Wireless, LLC,
273 Fed.Appx. 841 (11th Cir.2008)
(affirming summary judgment for employer where district court found that pregnancy was not a protected class under the Florida
Civil
Rights Act);
Boone v. Total Renal Labs., Inc.,
565 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1326 (M.D.Fla.2008)
("This Court agrees with those courts that have found that because the Florida legislature did not add language similar to the PDA [Title VII of the Federal
Civil
Rights Act as amended by Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) ] to the FCRA when it was enacted in 1992 — after
O'Loug.
Michael Smyth sued his former employer Pillsbury for wrongful termination. Smyth claims he was fired for sending private email messages over Pillsbury's email system in reliance on their assurances that email would remain confidential. Pillsbury argues that, as an at-will employee, Smyth could be fired without cause. The court must determine if Smyth's termination violates public policy regarding an employee's right to privacy. While Pennsylvania law generally allows at-will termination, exceptions exist for terminations that threaten clear public policy mandates. Smyth claims his termination violated public policy protecting privacy in email communications.
Richard Wellington Winn is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas since 1985. He received his law degree from Texas Tech University School of Law in 1984. He has over 30 years of experience as an attorney, first working as a legal clerk and then spending nearly 30 years at the law firms Wesner Coke & Clymer, PC and Glast Phillips & Murray, PC. His experience includes a broad range of business litigation and transactions. He has extensive trial and appellate experience in both state and federal courts.
Standards of review on review of agency decisions 9th circuit 21-pagesUmesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes the standards for judicial review of agency decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act. It discusses how agency decisions may be overturned if they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law. It also outlines the narrow scope of review and deference given to agency interpretations of statutes and regulations. Finally, it provides examples of specific agencies that are subject to judicial review, including FERC, EPA, FCC, and others.
This document contains the syllabus for Civil Procedure 1 taught by Dean Salvador N. Moya II at Tomas Claudio Colleges College of Law. It outlines the general principles of civil procedure, including jurisdiction and parties to civil actions. It also summarizes key cases related to each topic. The syllabus is intended to guide students in understanding the important concepts and jurisprudence related to civil procedure.
Similar to Supreme Court 2013 2014 Term (Unabridged) (20)
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
1. SUPREME COURT UPDATE
2013-2014 TERM
by
Robert B. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC
Universal Building South
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 640
Washington, D.C. 20009-5728
(202) 588-5300
(202) 588-5023 (fax)
fitzpatrick.law@verizon.net (e-mail)
http://www.robertbfitzpatrick.com (website)
2. DISCLAIMER OF ALL LIABILITY
AND RESPONSIBILITY
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS BASED UPON SOURCES BELIEVED TO
BE ACCURATE AND RELIABLE – INCLUDING SECONDARY SOURCES. DILIGENT
EFFORT WAS MADE TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THESE MATERIALS, BUT THE
AUTHOR ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY READER’S RELIANCE ON THEM
AND ENCOURAGES READERS TO VERIFY ALL ITEMS BY REVIEWING PRIMARY
SOURCES WHERE APPROPRIATE AND BY USING TRADITIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH
TECHNIQUES TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN AFFECTED OR
CHANGED BY RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.
THIS PAPER IS PRESENTED AS AN INFORMATIONAL SOURCE ONLY. IT IS
INTENDED TO ASSIST READERS AS A LEARNING AID; IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. IT IS NOT WRITTEN
(NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE USED) FOR PURPOSES OF ASSISTING CLIENTS, NOR
TO PROMOTE, MARKET, OR RECOMMEND ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER
ADDRESSED; AND, GIVEN THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPER, IT MAY OMIT
DISCUSSION OF EXCEPTIONS, QUALIFICATIONS, OR OTHER RELEVANT
INFORMATION THAT MAY AFFECT ITS UTILITY IN ANY LEGAL SITUATION. THIS
PAPER DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
AUTHOR AND ANY READER. DUE TO THE RAPIDLY CHANGING NATURE OF THE
LAW, INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PAPER MAY BECOME OUTDATED. IN NO
EVENT WILL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR OTHER DAMAGES RESULTING FROM AND/OR RELATED TO
THE USE OF THIS MATERIAL.
5. Wheaton College v. Burwell,
No. 13A1284, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4706 (July 3,
2014)
(Non-Profit Organization – Religious Objection to Providing
Coverage for Contraceptives)
• On appeal from Wheaton
College v. Burwell, No. 14-
2396, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS
12706 (7th Cir. June 30, 2014)
6. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
Nos. 13-354, 356, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4505 (June
30, 2014)
(First Amendment - Religion)
• On appeal from Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723
F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013)
• Consolidated with Conestoga
Wood Specialties Corp. v.
Sec’y HHS, 724 F.3d 377 (3d
Cir. 2013)
7. Harris v. Quinn,
No. 11-681, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4504 (June 30, 2014)
(First Amendment – Compelled Representation)
• On appeal from Harris v.
Quinn, 656 F.3d 692 (7th Cir.
2011)
8. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, No. 13-888, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 4576 (June 20, 2014)
(ERISA)
• On appeal from Harris v.
Amgen, Inc., 738 F.3d
1026 (9th Cir. 2013)
9. McCullen v. Coakley,
No. 12-1168, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4499 (June 26,
2014)
(Free Speech/Abortion)
• On appeal from McCullen v.
Coakley, 708 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.
2013)
10. NLRB v. Noel Canning,
No. 12-1281, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4500 (June 26,
2014)
(Recess Appointments)
• On appeal from Canning v.
NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.
2013)
– Noel Canning, No. 19-CA-32872,
2012 NLRB LEXIS 61, 358 NLRB
No. 4 (NLRB Feb. 8, 2012)
11. Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer
No. 12-751, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4495 (June 25,
2014)
(ERISA Fiduciary Duties)
• On appeal from Dudenhoefer
v. Fifth Third Bancorp., 692
F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012)
12. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,
No. 13-461, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4496 (June 25,
2014)
(Rebroadcasting & Copyright)
• On appeal from WNET v.
Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676 (2d
Cir. 2013)
13. Riley v. California,
Nos. 13-132, 212, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4497 (June 25,
2014)
(4th Amendment – Cell Phones)
• On appeal from People v.
Riley, No. S209350, 2013 Cal.
LEXIS 3714 (Cal. May 1,
2013); and United States v.
Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.
2013).
14. Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 189 L.
Ed. 2d 339 (June 23, 2014)
(Securities Fraud / Misrepresentation)
• On appeal from Erica P.
John Fund, Inc. v.
Halliburton Co., 718 F.3d
423 (5th Cir. 2013)
• (Justice Thomas and
others believe Basic Inc.
v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224
(1988) should be
overruled)
15. Lane v. Franks,
No. 13-483, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4302 (June 19, 2014)
(First Amendment Retaliation)
• On appeal from Lane v. Cent.
Ala. Cmty. Coll., 523 Fed.
Appx. 709 (11th Cir. 2013)
16. Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 134 S.
Ct. 2250 (June 16, 2014)
(Foreign Sovereign Immunity)
• On appeal from EM Ltd.
v. Republic of Argentina,
695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.
2012)
17. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
No. 13-193, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 5169 (June 16, 2014)
(First Amendment)
• On appeal from Susan B.
Anthony List v. Driehaus, 525
Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2013)
18. POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Co., 134 S.
Ct. 2228 (June 12, 2014)
(Unfair Competition)
• On appeal from POM
Wonderful LLC v. Coca-
Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170
(9th Cir. 2012)
19. Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S.
Ct. 2165 (June 9, 2014)
(Bankruptcy)
• On appeal from Exec.
Benefits Ins. Agency v.
Arkison (In re Bellingham
Ins. Agency), 702 F.3d
553 (9th Cir. 2012)
20. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct.
2024 (May 27, 2014)
(Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
• On appeal from Michigan
v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.,
695 F.3d 406 (6th Cir.
2012)
21. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (May 27,
2014)
(Qualified Immunity)
• On appeal from Estate of
Allen v. City of W.
Memphis, 509 Fed. Appx.
388 (6th Cir. 2012)
22. Hall v. Florida,
No. 12-10882, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3615 (May 27,
2014)
(Death Penalty)
• On appeal from Hall v. State,
109 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 2012)
23. Wood v. Moss,
No. 13-115, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3614 (May 27, 2014)
(Qualified Immunity/Pleading Standards)
• On appeal from Moss v.
United States Secret Serv.,
711 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2012)
24. Tolan v. Cotton,
188 L. Ed. 2d 895 (May 5, 2014)
(Summary Judgment)
• On appeal from Tolan v.
Cotton, 713 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.
2013)
25. Town of Greece v. Galloway,
188 L. Ed. 2d 835 (May 5, 2014)
(Summary Judgment)
• On appeal from Galloway v.
Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20
(2d Cir. 2012)
26. Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness,
188 L. Ed. 2d 816 (Apr. 29, 2014)
(Attorneys’ Fees)
• On appeal from Icon Health &
Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness,
LLC, 496 Fed. Appx. 57 (Fed.
Cir. 2012)
27. Paroline v. United States,
188 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Apr. 23, 2014)
(Proximate Cause)
• On appeal from United States
v. Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th
Cir. 2012)
28. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action,
188 L. Ed. 2d 613 (Apr. 22, 2014)
(Affirmative Action)
• On appeal from Coalition to
Defend Affirmative Action v.
Regents of the Univ. of Mich.,
701 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2012)
29. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n,
134 S. Ct. 1434 (Apr. 2, 2014)
(Campaign Finance)
• On appeal from McCutcheon
v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 893
F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012)
(three judge panel).
30. Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg,
134 S. Ct. 1422 (Apr. 2, 2014)
(Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing)
• On appeal from Ginsberg v.
Northwest, Inc., 695 F.3d 873
(9th Cir. 2012)
31. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,
Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (Mar. 25, 2014)
(Lanham Act)
• On appeal from Static Control
Components, Inc. v. Lexmark
Int’l, Inc., 697 F.3d 387 (6th
Cir. 2012).
32. United States v. Quality Stores, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 1395 (Mar. 25, 2014).
(Taxation of Severance Payments)
• On appeal from United States
v. Quality Stores, Inc., 693
F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012)
33. BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina,
134 S. Ct. 1198 (Mar. 5, 2014)
(Arbitration)
• On appeal from Republic of
Argentina v. BG Grp. PLC, 665
F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
34. Lozano v. Alvarez,
134 S. Ct. 1224 (Mar. 5, 2014)
(Equitable Tolling)
• On appeal from Lozano v.
Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.
2012).
35. Lawson v. FMR LLC,
134 S. Ct. 1158 (Mar. 4, 2014)
(Sarbanes-Oxley Retaliation)
• On appeal from Lawson v.
FMR LLC, 670 F.3d 61 (1st
Cir. 2012)
36. Walden v. Fiore,
No. 12-574, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1635 (Feb. 25, 2014)
(Personal Jurisdiction)
• On appeal from Fiore v.
Walden, 688 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.
2012)
37. Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.,
134 S. Ct. 870 (Jan. 27, 2014)
(FLSA Donning/Doffing)
• On appeal from Sandifer v.
United States Steel Corp., 678
F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2012)
38. Air Wis. Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper,
134 S. Ct. 852 (Jan. 27, 2014)
(ATSA Immunity)
• On appeal from Air Wisc.
Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 2012
CO 19 (March 19, 2012)
39. Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v.
Sebelius, No. 13A691, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 791 (Jan.
24, 2014)
(Non-Profit Organization – Religious Objection to Providing
Coverage for Contraceptives)
• On appeal from Little
Sisters of the Poor Home
for the Aged v. Sebelius,
No. 13-1540, 2013 U.S.
App. LEXIS 25915 (10th
Cir. Dec. 31, 2013).
40. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
No. 12-1315, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3311 (Jan. 21,
2014)
(Laches)
• On appeal from Petrella v.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
695 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2012)
41. DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman,
134 S. Ct. 746 (Jan. 14, 2014)
(Personal Jurisdiction)
• On appeal from Bauman v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644
F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011)
42. Miss. ex rel Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S.
Ct. 736 (Jan. 14, 2014)
(Class Action Fairness Act / Mass Action)
• On appeal from State ex
rel. Hood v. AU Optronics
Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th
Cir. 2012).
43. Miss. ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics,
134 S. Ct. 736 (Jan. 14, 2014)
(Class Actions)
• On appeal from State ex rel.
Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.,
701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012)
44. Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
134 S. Ct. 604 (Dec. 16, 2013)
(Statute of Limitations)
• On appeal from Heimeshoff v.
Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 496 Fed. Appx. 129 (2d
Cir. 2012)
45. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.
Ct. 1584 (Dec. 10, 2013)
(Chevron Deference)
• On appeal from EME
Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7
(D.C. Cir. 2012)
46. Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Jacobs,
134 S. Ct. 584 (Dec. 10, 2013)
(Younger Abstention)
• On appeal from Sprint
Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. Jacobs,
690 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012)
47. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of the
Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating
Employers,
134 S. Ct. 773 (Dec. 9, 2013)
(Attorneys’ Fees)
• On appeal from Cent. Pension
Fund of Int’l Union of
Operating Eng’rs &
Participating Emp’rs v. Ray
Haluch Gravel Co., 695 F.3d 1
(1st Cir. 2012)
48. Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
134 S. Ct. 568 (Dec. 3, 2013)
(Forum Selection Clause)
• On appeal from In re Atl.
Marine Constr. Co., Inc., 701
F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2012)
49. Burrage v. United States
134 S. Ct. 881 (Nov. 12, 2013)
(Causation)
• On appeal from United States
v. Burrage, 687 F.3d 1015 (8th
Cir. 2012)
50. Bond v. United States,
No. 12-158, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3988 (Nov. 5, 2013)
(Treaty Power)
• On appeal from United States
v. Bond, 681 F.3d 149 (3d Cir.
2012)
52. Young v. United Postal Serv.,
No. 12-1226, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4683 (July 1, 2014)
(cert. granted)
(Pregnancy Discrimination)
• On appeal from Young v.
United Postal Serv., Inc., 707
F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013)
• Solicitor General invited to file
brief Oct. 7, 2013
53. Wellness Int’l. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 4693 (July 1, 2014) (cert.
granted in part)
(Extent of Bankruptcy Courts’ Constitutional Authority)
• On appeal from Wellness
Int’l Network, Ltd. v.
Sharif, 727 F.3d 751 (7th
Cir. 2013)
54. Mach Mining v. EEOC
No. 13-1019, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4644 (June 30,
2014) (cert. granted)
(EEOC Conciliation)
• On appeal from EEOC v.
Mach Mining, LLC, 738 F.3d
171 (7th Cir. 2013)
55. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n., No. 13-1401, 2014
U.S. LEXIS 4275 (June 16, 2014) (cert. granted)
(Administrative Procedure Act)
• On appeal from Mortg.
Bankers Ass’n. v. Harris,
720 F.3d 966 (D.C. Cir.
2013)
56. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Maclean, No. 13-894,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 3562 (May 19, 2014) (cert granted)
(Whistleblower Protection Act)
• On appeal from MacLean
v. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., 714 F.3d 1301
(Fed. Cir. 2013)
57. M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett,
No. 13-1010, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3192 (May 5,
2014) (cert. granted)
(Collective Bargaining Agreements)
• On appeal from Tackett v.
M&G Polymers USA, LLC, 733
F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2013)
58. Yates v. United States, No. 13-7451, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 3064 (Apr. 28, 2014) (cert. granted in part)
(Sarbanes-Oxley Act)
• On appeal from United
States v. Yates, 733 F.3d
1059 (11th Cir. 2014)
59. Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No.
13-684, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3005 (Apr. 28, 2014)
(cert. granted)
(Truth in Lending Act)
• On appeal from Jesinoski
v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 736 F.3d
1134 (8th Cir. 2013)
60. Pub. Emples. Ret. Sys. v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., No.
13-640 (Mar. 10, 2014) (cert. granted)
(Class Action / Statute of Limitations)
• On appeal from Police &
Fire Ret. Sys. v. Indymac
MBS, Inc., 721 F.3d 95
(2d Cir. 2013)
61. Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, No. 13-433,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 1724 (Mar. 3, 2014) (cert.
granted)
(FLSA / Portal-to-Portal Act)
• On appeal from Busk v.
Integrity Staffing
Solutions, Inc., 713 F.3d
525 (9th Cir. 2013)
62. Holt v. Hobbs, 134 S. Ct. 1490 (Mar. 3, 2014)
(cert. granted)
(Prisoner Religious Beliefs and Grooming)
• On appeal from Holt v.
Hobbs, 509 Fed. Appx.
561 (8th Cir. 2013)
64. Brown v. Miss. Dep’t of Health, No. 13-1343 (cert.
pending)
(Tax Bump under Title VII)
• On appeal from Brown v.
Miss. Dep’t of Health, 550
Fed. Appx. 228 (5th Cir.
2013)
65. Tex. Dept. of Hous. and Cmty. Affairs v. The
Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., No. 13-1371 (cert.
pending)
(Disparate Impact Claim Under Fair Housing Act)
• On appeal from Inclusive
Cmtys. Project, Inc. v.
Tex. Dept. of Hous. And
Cmty. Affairs, 747 F.3d
275 (5th Cir. 2014)
66. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (cert.
pending)
(Standing)
• On appeal from Robins v.
Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d
409 (9th Cir. 2014)
68. OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, No. 13-1067,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 3551 (May 19, 2014) (cert.
pending, views of Solicitor General requested)
(Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)
• On appeal from Sachs v.
Republic of Aus., 737
F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2013)
69. Fannie Mae v. Sundquist, No. 13-852, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 3247 (May 5, 2014) (cert. pending, views of
Solicitor General requested)
(State Power to Restrict National Bank’s Exercise of
Fiduciary Powers re Real Property)
• On appeal from Fannie
Mae v. Sundquist, 311
P.3d 1004 (Utah 2013)
70. Tibble v. Edison Int’l., No. 13-550, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 2207 (Mar. 24, 2014) (cert. pending, views
of Solicitor General requested)
(ERISA – Alleged Fiduciary Breaches)
• On appeal from Tibble v.
Edison Int’l., 711 F.3d
1061 (9th Cir. 2013)
72. Bank of America v. Rose, No. 13-662, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 4671 (June 30, 2014) (cert. denied)
(Unfair Competition / Preemption)
• On appeal from Rose v.
Bank of America, N.A.,
304 P.3d 181 (Cal. 2013)
73. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. v. Scott, No. 13-899,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 4625 (June 30, 2014) (cert.
denied)
(Sex Harassment and Equal Pay; Leave to Amend to
Satisfy Rule 23(a) Commonality Requirement)
• On appeal from Scott v.
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
733 F.3d 105 (4th Cir.
2013)
74. Van Hollen v. Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc.,
No. 13-1127, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4404 (June 23,
2014) (cert. denied)
(Injunction on State Abortion Statute)
• On appeal from Planned
Parenthood of Wis., Inc.
v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d
786 (7th Cir. 2013).
75. Accenture, L.L.P. v. Wellogix, Inc., No. 13-1051,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 4088 (June 9, 2014) (cert.
denied)
(Fed. R. Evid. 702 – Judge vs. Jury Deciding Reliability of
Expert Testimony)
• On appeal from Wellogix,
Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P.,
No. 11-20816, 2013 U.S.
App. LEXIS 25944 (5th
Cir. May 15, 2013)
76. Debord v. Mercy Health Sys. of Kan., Inc., No. 13-
1118, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3622 (May 27, 2014) (cert.
denied)
(Retaliation)
• On appeal from Debord v.
Mercy Health Sys. Of
Kan., Inc., 737 F.3d 642
(10th Cir. 2013).
77. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, No. 13-585,
2014 U.S. LEXIS 2453 (Apr. 7, 2014) (cert.
denied)
(State Public Accommodations Statute / First Amendment
Free Speech)
• On appeal from Elane
Photography, LLC v.
Willock, 309 P.3d 53
(N.M. 2013)
78. Northover v. Archuleta,
188 L. Ed. 2d 592 (Mar. 31, 2014) (Cert. Denied)
(MSPB Action)
• On appeal from Kaplan v.
Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed.
Cir. 2013)
79. Delaware Coalition for Open Gov’t, Inc. v. Strine,
134 S. Ct. 1551 (Mar. 24, 2014) (cert. denied)
(First Amendment Experience & Logic Test)
• On appeal from Delaware
Coalition for Open Gov’t, Inc.
v. Strine, 733 F.3d 510 (3d Cir.
2013)
80. Stroud v. McIntosh,
187 L. Ed. 2d 786 (Jan. 13, 2014) (Cert. Denied)
(Sovereign Immunity)
• On appeal from Stroud v.
McIntosh, 722 F.3d 1294 (11th
Cir. 2013)
81. DeJesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC,
187 L. Ed. 2d 781 (Jan. 13, 2014) (cert. denied)
(FLSA)
• On appeal from DeJesus v. HF
Mgmt. Servs., 726 F.3d 85 (2d
Cir. 2013)
82. Martin v. Blessing,
134 S. Ct. 402 (Nov. 18, 2013) (Cert. Denied)
(Class Certification, Standing)
• On appeal from Blessing v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., 507 Fed.
Appx. 1 (2d Cir. 2012)
• Alito, J., Concurring:
– “It seems quite farfetched to
argue that class counsel cannot
fairly and adequately represent a
class unless the race and gender
of counsel mirror the
demographics of the class.
Indeed, if the District Court’s rule
were taken seriously, it would
seriously complicate the
appointment process and lead to
truly bizarre results.”
83. Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8 (Nov. 4, 2013) (cert.
denied)
(Federal and State Privacy Laws)
• On appeal from Lane v.
Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d
811 (9th Cir. 2012)
• Chief Justice Roberts
wrote a statement
discussing cy pres.
84. Landolfi v. City of Melbourne,
134 S. Ct. 239 (Oct. 7, 2013) (cert. denied)
(USERRA)
• On appeal from Landolfi v. City
of Melbourne, 515 Fed. Appx.
832 (11th Cir. 2013)
86. Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall,
134 S. Ct. 594 (Dec. 10, 2013) (cert. dismissed)
(LMRA)
• On appeal from Kaplan v.
Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed.
Cir. 2013)
• Writ of Certiorari dismissed as
improvidently granted
• Breyer, J., was joined by
Sotomayor and Kagan, J.J.,
dissenting.
87. Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 636 (Nov. 15, 2013) (cert. dismissed)
(Fair Housing Act)
• On appeal from Mt. Holly
Gardens Citizens in Action,
Inc. v. Mt. Holly, 658 F.3d 375
(3d Cir. 2011)
• Writ of Certiorari dismissed
pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 46.1.
88. Madigan v. Levin,
134 S. Ct. 2 (Oct. 15, 2013) (cert. dismissed)
(ADEA)
• On appeal from Levin v.
Madigan, 692 F.3d 607 (7th
Cir. 2012)
• Writ of Certiorari dismissed as
improvidently granted.