In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 575 U.S. — (Mar. 25, 2015), employers have a little more clarity on whether they must make accommodations for a pregnant worker.

Burr & Forman lawyers Kathryn Willis and Matthew Scully, writing in a paper published on the firm’s website, said the plaintiff alleged that if UPS made accommodations for other workers it should have made accommodations for her.

“Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found in favor of UPS, concluding that UPS’s policy was “pregnancy-blind” and that Young was different from the employees UPS was accommodating (those injured on-the-job, lacking certifications, or “disabled” under the ADA), but the Supreme Court disagreed, vacating the Fourth Circuit’s decision and remanding for further consideration,” they wrote.

Read the white paper.

In a landmark decision delivered last month in Nabor Well Services, Ltd v. Romero, the Texas Supreme Court overturned more than 40 years of precedent and unanimously reversed the Court’s long-standing prohibition on evidence concerning a claimant’s failure to use a seatbelt, says Matt Perkins of Perkins & Associates of Shreveport, La.

The court had previously held that such evidence was inadmissible to reduce a claimant’s recovery for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, thus rendering such evidence easily susceptible to an objection on relevance grounds. (Kerby v. Abilene Christian College, 503 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. 1973); Carnation v. Wong, 516 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. 1974)) However, in Romero, the Court ultimately held that relevant evidence of use or nonuse of seatbelts is now admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits. (2015 WL 648858 at *17)

Recently reported in DRI:

“While the practical impact of the Court’s holding is yet to be seen, the Court’s abrupt about-face is significant and signals the Court’s willingness to revisit a rule that has outlived both its usefulness and its purpose.

“To summarize, the Texas Supreme Court held that relevant evidence of use or nonuse of seatbelts, and relevant evidence of a plaintiff’s pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct generally, is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility under the Texas proportionate-responsibility statute, provided that the plaintiff’s conduct caused or was a cause of his damages. While it can certainly be argued that the Court is over a decade late to the party, it has, nevertheless, decisively eliminated a rule many believed anachronistic, and in doing so, has added another useful tool to the arsenal of the savvy defense attorney.”

In this case, biomechanical evidence was attempted to explain why the injuries occurred, Perkins said. The district and appellate courts prohibited it, but the Texas Supreme Court said that such evidence is relevant.

When a party seeks penalties as a result of an insurer’s failure to pay a settlement within 30 days, the party need not prove the insurer was “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause” in failing to pay, according to a recent decision in the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. That’s the analysis offered by Mark Perkins of Perkins & Associates, L.L.C., a regional defense firm serving North Louisiana and Northeast Texas.

Perkins said that’s it’s important to note that this is a Third Circuit case and may not apply to other venues in Louisiana.

However, he said, anyone confronted by a plaintiff’s attorney in Louisiana threatening penalties and attorney’s fees for failing to fund an alleged agreement within 30 days, should review:

“When a party seeks penalties as a result of an insurer’s failure to pay a settlement within 30 days, the party need not prove the insurer was ‘arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause’ in failing to pay; rather, the party need only show that the insurer’s failure was ‘knowingly committed.’ While the compromise must be made in writing and evidenced by documentation signed by both parties, there is no requirement that the compromise be contained in a single document. However, a letter written by one party memorializing their understanding of an oral agreement was insufficient to satisfy the ‘in writing’ requirement of La. C.C. art. 3072, and thus there was no agreement of the parties triggering the penalties for non-payment set forth in La. R.S. 33:1973. Barnes v West, Third Circuit, No. CA 14-1018 (2/4/15), at www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2015/02/020415/14-1018opi.pdf.”

The court described the case:

The words “forced arbitration” might not appear in a contract and instead are referred to by the term “dispute-resolution mechanism.” But once you sign on the dotted line or click the “I agree” button online, the options for seeking justice are tossed out the window, says an article published by Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley.

“Forced arbitration lurks in the lengthy documents all of us sign at some point in our lives when we accept a job, buy tickets for travel, enter a cell-phone agreement or rent an apartment,” says the author of the article, Search Denney attorneyLaurie Briggs. “And those are just a few of the dozens of examples of us waiving our rights to sue should something go wrong. Radin describes the cunning contracts as boilerplates.”

Read the article.

DLA Piper has posted a paper about a $185 million punitive damages award won by a plaintiff in a pregnancy discrimination suit.

Joseph Domenick Guarino and Kevin Connelly wrote that Rosario Juarez began as a retail salesperson in San Diego at AutoZone in 2000. She was promoted to Parts Sales Manager but was unsuccessful in seeking advancement to store manager until she complained of discrimination and threatened a lawsuit. Her career became even more difficult after she became pregnant in 2005.

After she gave birth, she was demoted and later fired.

At trial, a jury set punitive damages at $185 million, more than 200 times the compensatory damages award and $25 million more than Juarez’s attorney asked the jury to grant in punitive damages

Read the paper.

Winstead presents a complimentary on-demand webinar discussing the pros and cons of pre-judgment and post-judgment remedies.

A judgment without any recovery is at best an empty victory, Winstead says on its website.

Understanding pre-judgment and post-judgment remedies can be critical to the success of turning the judgment into cash.  This webinar discusses the pros and cons of pre-judgment and post-judgment remedies, the strategic use of pre-judgment remedies to shorten the litigation process, and available remedies against LLC members and partners.

Post-judgment bankruptcy strategies are also discussed.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

The Washington Legal Foundation has posted a free on-demand webinar discussing the Spokeo case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court and the issue of “no-injury” class actions.

Spokeo Inc. v. Robbins raises the question whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute, Mayer Brown says on its website. This question of Article III standing potentially impacts a wide variety of lawsuits that Mayer Brown views as “no-injury” class actions.

Mayer Brown represents the petitioner.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

If legislators won’t pass tougher gun control, the argument goes, then crusading lawyers will seek justice in court. But the strategy hasn’t worked in the past—and it won’t work in the future. But Bloomberg Businessweek says gun-control advocates’ plans have some basic weaknesses.

The latest attempt to sue a gunmaker for firearm mayhem is under way in Connecticut.

Businessweek says lawyers working on the Sandy Hook suit know they will run into the liability-shield law, and they think they have a solution: an exception in the law that allows suits based on the theory of “negligent entrustment.” Under the shield law a defendant can still be held liable for entrusting a dangerous product to another party who then causes harm to a victim or victims.

Read the story.

The Harvard Law School Program on Dispute Resolution offers a free white paper offering advice on understanding how relationships can help someone to negotiate even the most difficult conversations.

On its website, the Program on Dispute Resolution says the free special report provides strategies on successfully negotiating difficult disputes, preserving relationships, and reaching mutually beneficial agreements.

Topics include how to:

• Foster relationships by building rapport
• Manage conflict in long-term relationships
• Negotiate business decisions with family members

Download the free white paper.

Some former employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment have filed a suit forcing the company to defend the security measures it took in advance of the hack.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Michael Corona, who says he worked at the company from 2004 to 2007, and Christina Mathis, who says she worked at the company between 2000 and 2002. Both say they had information such as social security numbers leaked, reports The Hollywood Reporter.

The report continues:

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at the law firm of Keller Rohrback who are demanding actual and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement for causes of action that include negligence, health privacy and a California statute requiring notifications of data breaches. They haven’t estimated the value of the damages, but they are also demanding equitable relief including forcing Sony to provide credit monitoring for at least five years, identity theft insurance, credit restoration service and requiring Sony receive periodic compliance audits by a third party regarding the security of its computer systems.

Read the story.

Google has avoided a potentially costly legal precedent by settling out of court with a former Morgan Stanley banker in an online abuse case due to be heard in Britain’s High Court Nov. 24.

Daniel Hegglin was seeking an injunction to force Google to block all traces in its search results of online abuse against him, following a defamatory anonymous campaign of abuse.

But Google instead settled with Hegglin before the case started. His lawyer said the settlement “includes significant efforts on Google’s part to remove the abusive material” from search results and Google-hosted websites.

David Cook, cybercrime specialist at law firm Slater & Gordon, said if the court had ruled in Hegglin’s favour it would have set a costly precedent for the company and “opened a floodgate” of claims in much the same way as the so-called “right to be forgotten” ruling has done, reported The Register.

Read the story.

Financial Advisor and Ace Private Risk Services present a complimentary webinar designed to help high net worth families protect their assets from personal liability lawsuits, which can take years to litigate and result in awards and settlements well in excess of $10 million.

On its website, Financial Advisor says this course explores the liability exposures of high net worth (HNW) families and presents a five-step plan for addressing them. It compares the perceptions HNW individuals have about liability risk with the realities they face. It reviews how wealth and a wealthy lifestyle lead to increased liability risk, and how jury composition and widespread legal doctrines such as joint and several liability further increase this risk. The course will detail these families’ growing concerns, which include financial loss, stress of protracted legal proceedings, and damage to their reputations and earning power.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

Taylor English Duma LLP offers a complimentary on-demand webinar on litigation fundamentals, titled “Using Court Reporters Throughout the Trial Process.”

In the webinar, Henry M. Quillian III reviews techniques and advice for maintaining the court reporter’s record so that you can utilize it throughout the litigation. Quillian, a member of Taylor English, nationally litigates, arbitrates and solves commercial disputes in the construction, real estate, insurance, technology and general business sectors.

He outlines the various times a court reporter is called upon during the course of litigation, beginning with discovery and depositions.

See the on-demand video.

Rocket Matter offers an on-demand webinar showing lawyers how to make their points more memorable, allow a better connection with juries, increase intake, and win people over.

Stories build relationships, they create a visual, making your message resonate and linger, said a Rocket Matter spokesman. Stories hook your audience and build a rapport.

Learn about the numerous skills needed to become a good storyteller. Those include effective body language, voice inflection, hand movements, strong opens and closes, as well as making numbers become visual.

Former TV journalist Corey Saban is the speaker. An accomplished speaker and consultant, Saban is now on the other side of the TV industry, helping attorneys increase their exposure through content management, public speaking and media strategies as the VP of Affiliate Relations for THELAW.TV.

See the on-demand webinar.

Michael Best & Friedrich offers a webinar designed to provide an analysis and review of most recent case law relating to life sciences issues.

The complimentary one-hour webinar will be Wednesday, July 23, beginning at noon Central time.

The presentation is geared toward in-house counsel, IP agents, and other in-house staff involved with life sciences IP litigation.

Founded in 1848, Michael Best has approximately 220 attorneys in offices in Milwaukee, Madison, Waukesha and Manitowoc, WI, Chicago, IL, Washington, D.C., and Salt Lake City, UT.

Register for the webinar.