A woman filed charges against her employer, the Guilford County Sheriff’s Office, after she received a disciplinary sanction that prevented her from receiving a promotion.
In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined whether the Secretary of Labor has the authority “to issue a citation to a general contractor at a multi-employer construction worksite who controls a hazardous condition at that worksite, even if the condition affects another employer’s employees.” By concluding he does have that authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Court reversed the Final Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Hyunju Song, founder and Ceo of Puroon, Inc., developed a “Memory Book”, which it described as “an all-in-one convertible photo frame, album, and scrapbook”.
When Credit Bureau of the South contacted Ms. Davis in an effort to collect a debt from her, they violated the FDCPA’s rule prohibiting the use of false or misleading information to collect a debt. The company had not acted as a credit reporting agency for years before it contacted Ms. Davis and its name violated the policy.
When an imposter of Daewoo, an importer and exporter of chemicals, contacted Daewoo’s customer, Allnex, to request payment to a “new” Wells Fa
What do alcoholic beverages and Mattel’s iconic BARBIE® doll have in common? According to Mattel, Paris Distilling Company, LLC’s trademark application for its OLD BARBEE mark is too close to its BARBIE® trademark and would dilute the BARBIE® brand. Mattel filed an opposition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office last month.
When Global employee Marlon Diggs lost control of the Mack truck he was driving on North Beltway 8 in Houston, Texas, he struck four vehicles and a toll plaza over the course of ten minutes.
A security officer in a troubled school requested a chair and desk in an accommodation to allow her to rest for ten minutes every hour of her shift due to plantar fasciitis. The school denied her request because walking constantly was an “essential job function”. When the officer sued the Chicago Board of Education, the School Board moved for summary judgment.
Google, Uber and other tech companies announced changes in recent months to their policies eliminating the requirement for arbitration of sexual harassment claims. New legislation imposes potential tax co
Last summer the Department of Justice issued a brief that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation and any changes are up to Congress. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appears to have followed this brief when ruling  “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” Bostock v. Clayton Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 894 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018). The claimant asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
When a health inspector requested the County create a new position for her due to an injury, the County denied her request but did accommodate her injury with a temporary job reassignment. The health inspector resigned from her position and filed suit alleging the failure to create a new position was in violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
All eyes are on the Supreme Court this month as the court contemplates a review of three employment discrimination cases involving Title VII protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The United States Courts of Appeal for the Second and Seventh Circuit Courts ruled Title VII’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination also protects against discrimination due to sexual orientation.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prevents private employers with twenty or more employees from making employment decisions due to age. In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to cover state and local governments.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, in a case of first impression, ruled that there is no basis for a Title VII retaliation claims based on an employer’s denial of an employee’s request for a 
After completing 8 months of National Guard training, Tammy Webster requested to renew her contract as a dispatcher with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). She filed a claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) when MDWFP refused to rehire her. The trial court awarded her $7,589 for one year’s worth of lost part-time wages and an attorney-fee award of $2,800.
Fifteen years after founding On-Site Fuel Service, Inc., Gregory Nethery entered into a deal with CapitalSouth and Harbert granting them an ownership interest in the company. As part of that agreement, Nethery entered into a Stockholder Agreement which included choice of law and arbitration provisions. Five years later Nethery filed suit against the two companies for breach of fiduciary duty, corporat
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard its first Defend Trade Secrets Act case but ruled on attorneys’ fees in the case, not trade secrets. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant were members of a limited liability company that placed blue wayfinding signs on Texas highways. When the company’s contract expired, the Defendants declined to include the Plaintiffs in a new company which acted as a competitor and won the contract.
Twitter picked up hashtags (words following the # symbol) in 2007 as a way to link related content across its social media platform. Several cases have challenged whether a hashtag or hash mark can be trademarked. As a basic rule, courts judge the merits of these trademarks on a case by case basis forcing each case to meet the requirements of traditional trademarks. Read more about how hashtag trademarks are evolving in the U.S.
Girl Scouts took on Boy Scouts earlier this month in a trademark infringement case when Boy Scouts launched a rebranding campaign. Boy Scouts announced a name change to Scouts BSA and a program change to include girls of all ages in its programs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently ruled on a case we previously discussed on our site, Manuel v. Turner Industries Group, LLC, et al. The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of Manuel’s ERISA § 502(a)(3) claims because they could have been brought under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B).