When Findlaw.com launched 15 hyperlocal, news-based blogs last winter, the legal blogosphere took note—and aim—at the alleged “spam blogs.”
See ABA Journal
Friday, April 30, 2010
Case Law: State Agency Notice Does Not Trigger Limitation Period for Filing Federal Discrimination Action
When does a plaintiff’s 90 days to file a federal discrimination lawsuit run out? Today, the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion (.pdf) on the subject.
See Colorado Bar Association
See Colorado Bar Association
The IRS Is Increasing Employment Tax Enforcement
The IRS plans to audit 6,000 companies for employment tax compliance during the next three years. Its primary focus will be worker classification (i.e., whether workers are being properly classified as independent contractors rather than as employees), but it also intends to examine fringe benefits, backup withholding, Form 1099 compliance, and Code section 409A issues.
See Faegre & Benson
See Faegre & Benson
Legal Error Not A Defense To FDCPA Action
On April 21, 2010, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c), the provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA” or the “Act”) that excuses a debt collector from liability for violations arising from “a bona fide error,” does not protect debt collectors from errors in interpreting the legal requirements of the FDCPA.
See Day Pitney LLP
See Day Pitney LLP
Court Emphasizes that Evidence of Training Is a Must
In Bishop v. Woodbury Clinical Laboratory, No. 3:08-cv-1032 (M.D. Tenn. 2010), the court rejected the employer's Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense despite the fact that the employer had an existing anti-harassment policy that was published and provided to all of its employees.
See Ford & Harrison LLP
See Ford & Harrison LLP
Workshops for Small and Mid-Sized 501(c)(3) Organizations
The Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the Internal Revenue Service invites you to a one-day workshop for small and mid-sized 501(c)(3) organizations.
Each workshop, presented by experienced IRS Exempt Organizations specialists, will explain what 501(c)(3) organizations must do to keep their tax-exempt status and comply with tax obligations. This introductory workshop is designed for administrators or volunteers who are responsible for an organization's tax compliance. Pre-registration is required.
See irsworkshops
Each workshop, presented by experienced IRS Exempt Organizations specialists, will explain what 501(c)(3) organizations must do to keep their tax-exempt status and comply with tax obligations. This introductory workshop is designed for administrators or volunteers who are responsible for an organization's tax compliance. Pre-registration is required.
See irsworkshops
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clarifies Class Certification Standards, Affirms in Part & Remands in Part the Certification of Nationwide Class in Dukes v. Wal-Mart
The Ninth Circuit’s en banc ruling:
1. Affirmed the district court’s certification of a class of female employees who were employed by Wal-Mart when the lawsuit
was filed in 2001 with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay under
Rule 23(b)(2);
2. Reversed and remanded the district court’s class certification of the employees’ claims for punitive damages,
instructing the district court to consider whether to certify the class under newly elucidated standards of Rule 23(b)(2) or
(b)(3);
3. Reversed and remanded the claims of putative class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart when the complaint
was filed in 2001, instructing the district court to consider whether to certify an additional class or classes under
Rule 23(b)(3); and,
4. Affirmed the district court’s decision not to certify promotion claims brought by class members who lacked objective
evidence of their interest in promotion.
See Seyfarth Shaw
1. Affirmed the district court’s certification of a class of female employees who were employed by Wal-Mart when the lawsuit
was filed in 2001 with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay under
Rule 23(b)(2);
2. Reversed and remanded the district court’s class certification of the employees’ claims for punitive damages,
instructing the district court to consider whether to certify the class under newly elucidated standards of Rule 23(b)(2) or
(b)(3);
3. Reversed and remanded the claims of putative class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart when the complaint
was filed in 2001, instructing the district court to consider whether to certify an additional class or classes under
Rule 23(b)(3); and,
4. Affirmed the district court’s decision not to certify promotion claims brought by class members who lacked objective
evidence of their interest in promotion.
See Seyfarth Shaw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)