Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  19937-19943 displayed

1  2846 2847 2848 2849 2850  3627

---

Robinson & Cole LLP

Robinson & Cole LandLaw Lawyer Published in Municipal Lawyer
An article by Carla M. Moynihan, a lawyer in R&C's LandLaw Section, entitled "Implementing Form-Based Zoning in Your Municipality" was published in the July/August 2006 issue of Municipal Lawyer. The article discusses the advantages of form-based zoning on the municipal level as compared to the more familiar use-based zoning and provides implementation tips.

08-17-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Litigation Attorney Edward Carbone Publishes Chapter in FDLA Civil Defense Manual
Litigation attorney Edward J. Carbone has contributed a chapter to ""The Defense Speaks,"" a comprehensive manual for civil defense attorneys published by the Florida Defense Lawyers Association (FDLA). Carbone is a shareholder in Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney's Tampa office.

Carbone was also selected to join the editorial board of the FDLA's quarterly journal, Trial Advocate Quarterly.

Formed in 1967, the FDLA represents the interests of lawyers in private practice whose practice is primarily the defense of civil matters. Its goal is to promote a level playing field in civil litigation and to foster its members' growth as professionals.

08-17-2006

---

Willman & Silvaggio LLP

Subaru of America and Budd Baer, Inc., Granted Judgment Non Pros for Plaintiff’s Failure to Prosecute
Willman & Arnold successfully obtained judgment non pros in favor of its clients, Subaru of America, Inc., and Budd Baer, Inc., on plaintiff’s Lemon Law and related claims. Judge Katherine B. Emery of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas dismissed plaintiff’s claims where there was no docket activity for six (6) years and where plaintiff produced no evidence that she was engaged in any activity in the pursuit of her claims for the last six (6) years against Subaru and Baer. This action was originally filed in 1993 and involved the purchase of a 1992 Subaru Legacy from Budd Baer. In its opinion, which is attached hereto, the Court held that defendants’ motion satisfied, and plaintiff failed to refute, the three-prong test set forth in Jacobs v. Halloran. With respect to the actual prejudice prong, the Court found:

This matter arises out of the allegedly faulty paint job on a 1992 Subaru. It is now 2006 and the natural wear and tear or age of the paint hinders the Defendants’ ability to challenge Plaintiff’s claim that the paint was scratched and contained swirls and pits at the time of the purchase or that the paint was susceptible to acid rain damage. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a new car, Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched by replacing 1992 car with a 2006 model in light of her own lack of diligence in bringing this matter to trial.

08-17-2006

---

Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberger & Krauss, Chtd.

Court Draws Line in the Sand Bret A. Rappaport
“Jane” (pseudonym), a 16 year old girl, worked as a “scooper” at Oberweis Dairy in Bartlett, Illinois. Her 25 year old shift supervisor, Matt, repeatedly hit on her. His flirtations led to a “consensual” sexual relationship with Jane.

Matt was subsequently charged and convicted of statutory rape. In Illinois, the age of consent is 17. Jane sued Oberweis for sexual harassment. Oberweis defended, claiming that Jane’s “consent” to sexual intercourse with Matt barred her sexual harassment claim against the employer.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that consent to sexual relations with a co-worker or supervisor is not a defense to a Title VII case brought by an underage plaintiff. The Court reasoned that if the legislature determined that a teenage girl lacks the capacity to consent to sexual relations for the purposes of statutory rape, then her participation in a relationship with a co-worker or supervisor cannot, as a matter of law, be “welcomed”.

Although “willingness” on the part of a teenage plaintiff may be taken into account in assessing damages, the implications of this case may be dramatic for employers of teenagers. Where sexual relationships between supervisors/subordinates are not illegal between consenting adults, such relationships do violate the prohibitions on sexual harassment if the subordinate is under 17. The rule of law also appears to encompass relationships between under-17 and over-17 coworkers.

Each case is unique. A relationship between a 25-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl is obviously different from two high school upperclassmen, one 16, the other just 18. But for employers, the following extra steps should be taken if employees are younger than 17:
1. The employer must have a strong, written and disseminated sexual harassment prevention policy, and supervisors must be trained and retrained regarding the policy.
2. Dating between employees under and over 17 should be prohibited, and the policy must be enforced.
3. If an employer discovers the existence of such a relationship, the employment of the adult in the relationship should be terminated.

These suggestions are not iron-clad. The case is new, and additional court decisions in months and years to come will add greater clarity to the do’s and don’ts. But for now, those who employ teenagers should consider consulting with their attorney to review their policy.

08-17-2006

---

Wiley, Rein & Fielding, L.L.P.

Exon-Florio Reform Legislation Pending in Congress
In the wake of bids by foreign companies China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Dubai Ports World (DPW) to acquire certain U.S. energy and transportation-related assets, Congress has focused its attention on the federal review process for foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies. On July 26, 2006, the Senate and the House of Representatives each approved legislation to restructure the process carried out by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the formerly obscure federal agency charged with reviewing foreign acquisitions to determine their impact on U.S. national security. This memorandum provides a summary of the current review process and the changes proposed thereto by the pending Senate and House bills.

08-17-2006

---

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP

Judge Finds DOJ Policy Unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for the Southern District of New York recently held that a Department of Justice mandate pressuring the accounting firm KPMG to break its policy of indemnifying employees violated the employees' Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In United States v. Stein, Kaplan held that the government should not prejudice KPMG for advancing legal fees to past and present employees.

The policy at issue is mandated in the 2003 ""Thompson Memorandum"" and requires prosecutors to consider a company's indemnification of employees in determining its cooperation with a government investigation. Kaplan rejected the policy because ""[t]here is no necessary inconsistency between an entity cooperating with the government and, at the same time, paying defense costs of individual employees and former employees.""

How this impacts you
The court's hostility toward governmental interference with an employee's right to counsel is good news for directors and officers. Kaplan's opinion implies that the government should consider employee indemnification ""only if it is used as a means to obstruct an investigation"" and that corporations that have agreed to indemnify their employees either in employment contracts or the company's bylaws may continue to do so. But, this does not mean that the Department of Justice will comply with Kaplan's ruling in other districts. We can expect to see the DOJ continue to seek to enforce the concepts set out in the Thompson Memorandum for the time being. This is certainly an issue to watch.

08-17-2006

---

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Pension Protection Act of 2006 Makes Sweeping Changes to Funding, Investment, Qualification and Other Employee Benefit Plan Rules
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) (the "Act"), which was passed by the House of Representatives on July 28 and the Senate on August 3 and has been sent to the President for his signature, makes significant changes to a wide variety of rules that apply to employee benefit plans, including those dealing with minimum funding, plan investments, and tax qualification. Many provisions will require changes to plan documents and procedures, in some cases quite soon. This Client Alert summarizes some of the most significant changes made by the Act.

08-17-2006

---

25383 matches |  19937-19943 displayed

1  2846 2847 2848 2849 2850  3627