|
|
|
Court: Wisconsin Bell discriminated against worker
Attorney News |
2017/03/25 01:03
|
A Wisconsin appeals court says state labor officials properly determined that Wisconsin Bell's decision to fire a bipolar employee amounted to discrimination.
According to court documents, Wisconsin Bell fired Charles Carlson in 2011 for engaging in electronic chats with co-workers and leaving work early one day. Carlson maintained he was reacting to news he didn't get a promotion, he was looking for support as his therapist had suggested and he doesn't react like other people.
The Labor Industry Review Commission found the company fired Carlson because of his disability in violation of employment discrimination laws.
The 1st District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the commission's interpretation was reasonable and there's enough evidence to support imposing liability on Wisconsin Bell.
Wisconsin Bell says it does not tolerate discrimination of any kind, including that based on disability. The company says it disagrees with the ruling and is considering its options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston, Texas Trust and Estate Litigation Attorney
Attorney News |
2017/03/23 00:35
|
Houston, Texas Trust and Estate Litigation Attorney Trisha English provides quality legal advice to individuals, families, and fiduciaries regarding all aspects of trust and estate litigation, probate, trust and estate administrations, and estate planning.
The administration of trusts and estates can be complex and disputes frequently arise. Often, these disputes are among family members and can stretch family relationships to their breaking point. I have the experience to efficiently guide you through trust and estate disputes, keeping in mind both your monetary and non-monetary goals.
Whether you are looking to establish an estate plan for the first time, revise an old estate plan, obtain assistance after the loss of a loved one, or you find yourself caught up in a dispute, Trisha will walk you through the legal process and work with you to identify what is most important to you and to develop a solution that addresses your concerns.
My mission is to help clients protect their families and the assets that they have worked so hard for. I take great pride in the personalized attention I provide to each of my clients. I strive to empower you with knowledge of how best to protect your interests, and also give you the peace of mind that comes with knowing you have a strong advocate on your side.
I understand how challenging the process can be, and I will help you and keep you informed through every step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won’t hear appeal in senator’s corruption case
Attorney News |
2017/03/21 15:15
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez’s appeal of his corruption indictment, setting the stage for a federal trial in the fall.
The justices let stand a lower court ruling that refused to dismiss charges including conspiracy, bribery and fraud against the Democratic lawmaker.
Menendez was indicted in 2015 after prosecutors said he took official action on behalf of a longtime friend who had given him gifts and campaign donations including flights aboard a luxury jet and a Paris vacation.
The friend, Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, currently is on trial in Florida on multiple counts of Medicare fraud that are separate from the counts he faces in the Menendez indictment.
The indictment alleges Menendez used his official influence to set up meetings with government officials aimed at helping Melgen in a Medicare dispute and with a business interest involving port security in the Dominican Republic.
Menendez has contended he was seeking to influence future policy instead of advocating on behalf of his friend, and that the government is attempting to use the timing of campaign donations to create a quid pro quo between him and Melgen that he claims never existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High EU court: workplace headscarf ban not discriminatory
Attorney News |
2017/03/14 23:00
|
Private businesses in Europe can forbid Muslim women in their employ from wearing headscarves if the ban is part of a policy of neutrality within the company and not a sign of prejudice against a particular religion, the European Court of Justice said Tuesday.
Such a ban doesn't constitute what Europe's high court calls "direct discrimination."
The conclusion by the highest court in the 28-nation European Union was in response to two cases brought by a Belgian and a French woman, both fired for refusing to remove their headscarves. It clarifies a long-standing question about whether partial bans by some countries on religious symbols can include the workplace.
The court's response fed right into the French presidential campaign, bolstering the platforms of far-right leader Marine Le Pen, a leading contender in the spring election who wants to do away with all "ostentatious" religious symbols in the name of secularism, and conservative Francois Fillon, who hailed the court's decisions. France already bans headscarves and other religious symbols in classrooms as well as face-covering veils in streets.
However, critics quickly voiced fears that the decision risks becoming a setback to all working Muslim women.
"Today's disappointing rulings ... give greater leeway to employers to discriminate against women — and men — on the grounds of religious belief," said a statement by Amnesty International. "At a time when identity and appearance has become a political battleground, people need more protection against prejudice, not less."
The Open Society Justice Initiative, which submitted a brief supporting the women, expressed disappointment.
"The group's policy officer, Maryam Hmadoum, contended that the decision "weakens the guarantee of equality that is at the heart of the EU's antidiscrimination directive," which the Court of Justice cited in weighing the cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC governor, legislature head to court in power showdown
Attorney News |
2017/03/05 00:20
|
North Carolina's new Democratic governor and majority Republican legislature are charging at each other in a constitutional game of chicken over their powers, a confrontation that could shape the recent conservative direction of state policies and spending.
The confrontation continues Tuesday, when the two branches of state government appear for a court hearing before the third. A panel of three trial judges will gather in Raleigh to hear lawyers for Gov. Roy Cooper dispute attorneys for the state House and Senate leaders over whether new laws are constitutional.
"This is a fight that involves really the three branches of government. It's one of a series of possible contests that we can see as the governor serves his term in office about who is going to make what decisions," High Point University political scientist Martin Kifer said. "It also has to do with the pace of policymaking. This isn't speeding things up."
GOP lawmakers passed several provisions that reduced the incoming governor's powers during a surprise special legislative session two weeks before Cooper took office Jan. 1. The laws:
— require Cooper's choices to run 10 state agencies to be approved by the GOP-led Senate.
— strip Cooper's control over administering elections and gives Republicans control over state and local elections boards during even-numbered years when elections for major statewide and national office are held.
— slash Cooper's patronage hiring discretion and gives civil service protections to hundreds of political appointees hired by former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who narrowly lost to Cooper last fall.
Cooper might not like the increasing number of limits Republicans impose, but he'd better get used to it, attorneys for legislative leaders said in a court filing. The state's constitution and legal precedents have created one of the country's weakest governors, and makes the General Assembly the dominant branch, attorneys for state House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California court expands endangered-species removal powers
Attorney News |
2017/03/02 08:46
|
The California Supreme Court on Monday said petitioners seeking to remove a subset of coho salmon from the state's endangered species list could present new evidence to argue the listing was wrong.
In a unanimous ruling, the court overturned a lower court decision that said efforts to remove the salmon and other species could only argue that the listing was no longer necessary.
The high court decision came in a lawsuit by Big Creek Lumber Co. and the Central Coast Forest Association, which includes forest landowners. They filed a petition to remove a subset of coho salmon from the state's endangered species list, arguing that the listing was wrong because the fish were not native to the area and were introduced and maintained there artificially using hatcheries.
The fight was over coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco. The Fish and Game Commission listed those salmon as endangered in 1995.
Environmental groups were keeping a close eye on the case to see whether the court would rule on the native species argument. It did not do that and instead sent the case back to the appeals court for that determination.
"We don't accept that they are not native fish just because they are hatchery raised," said Lisa Belenky, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed a brief in the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph Wapner, star of 'The People's Court,' dead at 97
Attorney News |
2017/03/01 08:50
|
Joseph Wapner, the retired Los Angeles judge who presided over "The People's Court" with steady force during the heyday of the reality courtroom show, died Sunday at age 97.
Son David Wapner told The Associated Press that his father died at home in his sleep. Joseph Wapner was hospitalized a week ago with breathing problems and had been under home hospice care.
"The People's Court," on which Wapner decided real small-claims from 1981 to 1993, was one of the granddaddies of the syndicated reality shows of today. His affable, no-nonsense approach attracted many fans, putting "The People's Court" in the top five in syndication at its peak.
Before auditioning for the show, Wapner had spent more than 20 years on the bench in Los Angeles, first in Municipal Court and then in Superior Court. At one time he was presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest court in the United States. He retired as judge in November 1979, the day after his 60th birthday.
"Everything on the show is real," Wapner told the AP in a 1986 interview. "There's no script, no rehearsal, no retakes. Everything from beginning to end is like a real courtroom, and I personally consider each case as a trial."
"Sometimes I don't even deliberate," he added. "I just decide from the bench, it's so obvious. The beautiful part is that I have carte blanche."
"The People's Court" cases were tried without lawyers by the rules of Small Claims Court, which has a damage limit of $1,500. Researchers for the producer, Ralph Edwards Productions, checked claims filed in Southern California for interesting cases.
The plaintiff and defendant had to agree to have the case settled on the show and sign a binding arbitration agreement; the show paid for the settlements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
