Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  24809-24815 displayed

1  3541 3542 3543 3544 3545  3627

---

Gray, Plant & Mooty

Preliminary Agreements: How to Avoid Unintended Contractual Obligations" by Jonathan Toronto
Gray Plant Mooty attorney, Jonathan J. Toronto, has co-authored an article titled, "Preliminary Agreements: How to Avoid Unintended Contractual Obligations." The article was published in the fall issue of the Franchise Law Journal.

01-24-2006

---

Goodwin Procter, LLP

Thomson Financial Ranks Goodwin Procter Among Top Issuer-Side Legal Advisors in Worldwide IPOs
Jan. 24, 2006 — Thomson Financial, a leading provider of information to the global financial community and publisher of Venture Capital Journal, has ranked Goodwin Procter LLP the 15th most active issuer-side legal advisor in worldwide initial public offerings (IPOs) in the United States from Jan. 1, 2005 - Sept. 30, 2005, based on proceeds.

Goodwin Procter advises companies going public in a broad range of industries including technology, life sciences, financial services and real estate. Most recently, the firm has represented iRobot, Nastech Pharmaceutical Company, Lionbridge Technologies, Codgell Spencer and DiamondRock in their IPOs.

01-24-2006

---

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP

FMC Reports on the 2006 Canadian Election
On January 23rd, 2006, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada were elected as the new minority government of Canada. Click here for election highlights and an analysis of the results.

01-24-2006

---

Foster Pepper PLLC

Foster Pepper Ranked 5th in Nation by The Bond Buyer
Foster Pepper PLLC has been listed by The Bond Buyer as 5th in the nation for "Top Bond Counsel: Competitive Issues," with $2.26 billion of bonds in 2005. The January 17, 2006 issue ranked firms for eight separate bond-related issues, and Foster Pepper is the only Washington State firm listed in any category.

Foster Pepper is "nationally recognized" as bond counsel, a term used in the municipal securities industry, and has been for more than 60 years. Foster Pepper lawyers are well known to underwriters, rating agencies, and bond insurers, and were involved in the formation of the National Association of Bond Lawyers and the American College of Bond Counsel. Attorneys at Foster Pepper frequently lead seminars in tax and substantive law at national and regional conferences, regularly comment on IRS and SEC proposals, and are often quoted in The Bond Buyer and other national publications.

With offices in Seattle, Portland, and Spokane, Foster Pepper PLLC provides a full range of legal services to businesses, municipalities and individuals both regionally and across the country. In 2005, the firm entered its second century of service.


Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14'

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK__PageVisit__newsr__503BEA1C'. The conflict occurred in database 'Website', table 'NewsroomStory', column 'newsroomStoryID'.

/newsroom/newsmakers.asp, line 206

01-24-2006

---

Ford & Harrison LLP

Plaintiffs Entitled to Trial on Discrimination Claims Based on Employer's English-Only Policy
The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that several Hispanic plaintiffs should be permitted to go to trial on their claims that their employer's English-only policy violates federal antidiscrimination laws. See Maldonado v. City of Altus. In this case, the employer adopted a policy requiring employees to speak English in all work-related communications, except when necessary to communicate with a citizen in his or her native language because of the citizen's limited English skills. The policy exempted private conversations between co-workers that occur while on break or during lunch hours or before or after work hours, as long as city property is not used in the communication. The policy also exempted private communications between an employee and a family member so long as the communications are limited in time and not disruptive to the work environment.

The plaintiffs, eleven bi-lingual employees, sued the employer claiming, among other things, that the policy violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs claimed the English-only policy extended beyond its written terms to include personal calls, lunch hours, and breaks, if non-Spanish-speaking co-workers were in the vicinity. The plaintiffs submitted evidence supporting this claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer; however, the Tenth Circuit reversed this decision with regard to the Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983 claims.

The plaintiffs claimed that the English-only policy had an unlawful disparate impact on them by creating a hostile work environment. To establish a disparate impact claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that a facially neutral employment policy in fact falls more harshly on one group of employees than another, and is not justified by a business necessity. The court noted that, although hostile work environment claims are usually brought as disparate treatment claims, there "is no reason to prohibit discriminatory-impact claims predicated on a hostile work environment."

The Tenth Circuit rejected the trial court's determination that the plaintiffs failed to establish a disparate impact claim because they failed to show that requiring them to use the English language in the workplace imposed significant, adverse effects on the terms, conditions or privileges of their employment. The Tenth Circuit held that, based on the record evidence, a jury should be permitted to determine whether the impact of the English-only policy on Hispanic workers was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of their employment and create an abusive working environment.

The Tenth Circuit also held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of a business necessity to justify the implementation of the English-only policy, which could have supported the grant of summary judgment. The court found "scant" evidence supporting such a business necessity. There was no written record of problems resulting from the use of Spanish in the workplace and little undocumented evidence of such problems. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs claimed the English-only policy, as enforced, encompassed lunch hours, breaks, and private telephone conversations; the defendant conceded that there would be no business reason for such a restriction.

The Tenth Circuit also held that a jury should be permitted to hear the plaintiffs' Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983 disparate impact hostile work environment claims based on the imposition of the English-only policy.

Employers' Bottom Line:
The Tenth Circuit's decision in this case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that: (1) an English-only policy is narrowly tailored to encompass only business-related conversations; (2) the English-only policy is supported by legitimate business reasons; (3) supervisors enforce the policy in accordance with its terms; and (4) the policy does not create a hostile work environment for non-English-speaking employees.

If you have questions regarding the implementation or enforcement of an English-only policy, please consult the Ford & Harrison attorney with whom you usually work.



01-24-2006

---

Foley & Lardner

Foley recognized as Madison\'s top law firm by In Business Magazine
In Business Magazine recently named Foley's Madison office the preferred local law firm in its 2005 Executive Consumer Choice Awards. Foley was chosen for the award for outstanding client service, including using advanced technology to foster communication with clients and establishing incentive billing arrangements to ensure certain results.
In Business compiled the list of nominees for the award by combining the Executive Consumer Choice nominees and winners from 2003 and 2004. The nominees were then voted on by In Business' Executive Register, a list comprised of more than 700 Madison business leaders named annually in In Business' July issue. Those with the most votes were chosen as the final winners.

01-24-2006

---

Foley & Lardner

Foley recognized as Madison\'s top law firm by In Business Magazine
In Business Magazine recently named Foley's Madison office the preferred local law firm in its 2005 Executive Consumer Choice Awards. Foley was chosen for the award for outstanding client service, including using advanced technology to foster communication with clients and establishing incentive billing arrangements to ensure certain results.
In Business compiled the list of nominees for the award by combining the Executive Consumer Choice nominees and winners from 2003 and 2004. The nominees were then voted on by In Business' Executive Register, a list comprised of more than 700 Madison business leaders named annually in In Business' July issue. Those with the most votes were chosen as the final winners.

01-24-2006

---

25383 matches |  24809-24815 displayed

1  3541 3542 3543 3544 3545  3627