A long-running age discrimination suit against 3M Co. is back in Ramsey County District Court, and an attorney is once again seeking to turn it into a class action on behalf of as many as 5,000 3M employees.

The suit was originally filed in 2004 on behalf of six 3M employees who alleged they were discriminated against based on age during the tenure of CEO James McNerney Jr., which extended from 2001 to 2005.

After hearing arguments over class-action certification -- in which plaintiffs and 3M attorneys presented anecdotal and statistical evidence to refute the other's positions -- District Judge Gregg Johnson took the case under advisement. By law, he must rule on the case within 90 days.

The suit, which has had an up-and-down history, was previously certified as a class action by Johnson in 2008, but last year the Minnesota Court of Appeals returned the case to the lower court with instructions to review whether the "preponderance of the evidence" justified making the case a class action.

Wal-Mart asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to throw out a class-action lawsuit against it that the retailer says is the largest employment suit ever.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that Wal-Mart should face charges in court that it pays women less than men for the same jobs. The lawsuit, which covers all female workers at Wal-Mart since 1998, could cost the company billions if it loses.

"It's an extremely significant case," says former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission general counsel Eric Dreiband, who is not involved in the lawsuit. "The rights of millions of women are at stake."

Wal-Mart, the world's largest private employer, says the case raises serious issues about procedures governing class-action lawsuits.

"The class is larger than the active-duty personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard combined — making it the largest employment class action in history by several orders of magnitude," Wal-Mart argued in its petition to the Supreme Court.

"Tax Lady" Roni Deutch says California Attorney General Jerry Brown is engaging in election year politics by filing a lawsuit accusing her law firm of false advertising and misleading consumers.

Deutch said in a statement Tuesday that she will fight the $34 million lawsuit filed a day earlier in Sacramento County Superior Court by Brown, the Democrats' nominee for governor.

She says her firm has saved thousands of people tens of millions of dollars through negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service over nearly 20 years.

The suit accuses her of vastly overstating the number of delinquent taxpayers she has helped. The suit also alleges she ran up clients' fees through false billings.

Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac says the lawsuit is backed by evidence gathered during a monthslong investigation.

Four men charged with trying to blow up New York synagogues and shoot down military planes were caught on videotape plotting and praying together before setting out to launch the attack, a prosecutor said Tuesday in opening statements at their trial.

"You will see them pray for success," Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Hickey told jurors in federal court in Manhattan.

The prosecutor said that alleged mastermind James Cromitie also was taped complaining that "the best target has been hit" — a reference to the World Trade Center. But the defendant also suggested the George Washington Bridge, a military transport plane and especially a synagogue were worthy targets for jihad.

"I hate those Jewish bastards," the prosecutor quoted Cromitie as saying. "I would like to get a synagogue for me personally."

Cromitie's lawyer countered by calling the 100 hours of videotape from the sting operation a "movie" produced and directed by a paid FBI informant assigned to root out radicals at a mosque in Newburgh, a small town north of New York City.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a televangelist's defamation lawsuit claiming ABC's "20/20" news program used a fictionalized sermon portraying himself as a wealthy braggart out of context.

A trial court judge had earlier tossed out the lawsuit filed by the Rev. Frederick Price, ruling that the video apparently showing the founder of the Crenshaw Christian Center boast about his wealth didn't leave the audience with the wrong impression of the preacher: Price is wealthy and he does boast, going as far as calling himself a "prophet of prosperity."

But the problem for ABC is that the clip of Price it aired was actually a sermon on greed in which the preacher slips into the role of a fictional character who is wealthy but unhappy.

"I live in a 25-room mansion," television viewers saw Price preach. "I have my own $6 million yacht. I have my own private jet, and I have my own helicopter, and I have seven luxury automobiles."

Because none of that was true but was presented as fact, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to reconsider the lawsuit and determine whether Price suffered any harm to his reputation because of the clip.

Court records show that Price owns an 8,000 square-foot house worth $4.6 million, drives a Rolls Royce, wears an $8,500 watch and travels the world in a Gulfstream jet owned by the church, which he describes as a $40 million operation.

An appeals court upheld federal government auctions of about $33 billion of wireless spectrum, saying it would be "imprudent and unfair" to undo them even though some rules governing them were invalid.

Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia allows Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc, Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile unit and others to keep billions of dollars of licenses they had won in the auctions, which took place between 2006 and 2008.

The auction process had been challenged by Council Tree Communications Inc, Bethel Native Corp and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, which contended that Federal Communications Commission rules for the auctions were unfair to smaller service providers.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring proof of kickbacks or bribes in prosecutions involving the theft of so-called honest services left prosecutors with "little choice" but to dismiss charges against two former Westar Energy executives, the U.S. attorney's office said Monday.

"The law no longer supported our position," U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said in a statement. "We were duty-bound not to go forward with the prosecution."

Former Westar Chief Executive David Wittig and his top strategy officer, Douglas Lake, were charged in 2003 with conspiring to inflate their compensation from the Topeka-based utility and taking steps to hide their actions.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson dismissed all charges against them Friday at the request of federal prosecutors.

That prompted Jim Ludwig, Westar Energy's executive vice president, to issue a statement saying the company disagreed with the Justice Department's decision and planned to pursue civil claims in an arbitration proceeding that had been put on hold pending the criminal case. He noted investors, who had borne the damages and expenses, had not received any restitution.