The court ruled Tuesday 6-3 that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The law does specifically bars reprisals against private sector employees who complain about discrimination. But it is silent as to federal workers. Justice Samuel Alito said in the ruling that the law indeed does apply to both categories of employees.

The latest tussle over who has legitimate claim to what's "sexy" in tresses came late Friday, when Victoria's Secret filed court papers challenging a federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling in favor of Sexy Hair Concepts LLC.

The board concluded in April 2007 that consumers were likely to confuse the lingerie giant's "So Sexy" trademark for hair-care items with Sexy Hair Concepts' various trademarks using the word "sexy" for its own coiffure line.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Victoria's Secret said it wants the court to consider a study it conducted. The survey found only five of 308 people who bought hair-care products associated the word "sexy" with a single company and made any reference to Sexy Hair Concepts and its offerings.

The Columbus, Ohio-based company that also introduced the Very Sexy bra said its study proves "that the word `sexy' has not acquired distinctiveness among purchasers of hair care products."

Thus, it added, Sexy Hair Concepts "is not the owner of a family of trademarks in the word 'sexy.'"

In court papers filed earlier this month, Sexy Hair Concepts said it had used "Sexy Hair" to describe hair-care items since 1998. The company said it packages and promotes the "sexy" family of products to give "sexy" a distinctive commercial impression.

Sexy Hair Concepts applied to protect its trademarks for the "sexy" product line in November 2001, well before Victoria's Secret began testing some of its "So Sexy" coiffure products in April 2003, said Sexy Hair Concepts, based in Chatsworth, Calif.

Victoria's Secret has appealed the trademark board's ruling to a federal judge, who is considering only whether the board ruled correctly.

Sexy Hair said it sells tens of millions of dollars' worth of "Sexy Hair" products annually.

Earlier this year, Victoria's Secret chief executive Sharen Turney said her company might have become "too sexy" for its own good.

"We've so much gotten off our heritage ... too sexy, and we use the word sexy a lot and really have forgotten the ultra feminine," Turney told industry analysts.

Sanchez admitted he used his patrol vehicle on six separate occasions to transport marijuana in the area around Nogales, in southern Arizona on the border with Mexico, and to accepting $45,000 in bribes.

The agent also pleaded guilty to worker's compensation fraud charges relating to an injury he received in a vehicle accident while on duty.

Sentencing in the case was set for Aug 13. Sanchez faces a fine of up to $4 million and a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Southern Arizona is the busiest corridor for marijuana smuggling on the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico border.

Last year, Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector seized some 440 tons (tonnes) of the drug, which is moved over the border by smugglers in trucks, on horseback and on foot in improvised backpacks.

Martin Mustapha will have to shell out thousands in court costs, instead of collecting the more than $345,000 he won in an Ontario court three years ago.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in a 9-0 judgment that Mustapha suffered real psychological harm, but Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said his reaction was so "unusual or extreme" that bottling company Culligan of Canada Ltd., should not have to pay compensation.

McLachlin said the legal test for damages is whether a person of "ordinary fortitude" would suffer psychological harm. In Mustapha's case, she concluded, the reaction was so unique that Culligan could not reasonably have foreseen the consequences and should not be held liable.

Mustapha insisted that he had been treated unfairly and said finding the dead fly in an unopened bottle of water in 2001 devastated him. He became obsessed with thoughts of dead flies, could not sleep and was constantly on edge — to the point that his business and even his sex life suffered.

"I'm just the type of person that is very clean and cautious about the health and well-being of myself and my family," Mustapha said.

He was diagnosed by several doctors as suffering from severe depression, anxiety and phobias.

The two-acre island hosts a strategic lighthouse that has been a landmark for 150 years and a beacon of safety for hundreds of ships passing daily.

The U.N.'s highest court, however, gave Malaysia ownership of a smaller uninhabited outcropping. Sovereignty over a third disputed cluster of rocks was left to be determined later between the countries when they sort our their territorial waters, the ruling said.

Malaysia had disputed Singapore's rule of the island listed on most maps as Pedra Branca and known by Malaysia as Pulau Batu Puteh.

Singapore, a former British colony, said it inherited the island, which it said was ceded to the British to build the lighthouse in the mid-1840s.

Malaysia said the sultan of Johor, whose ownership of the island was recognized as early as the 1500s, had merely given the British permission to build and operate the lighthouse but had never given up sovereignty.

The 16-member court agreed that Johor, now a Malaysian state, had historical ownership, but said whether it had legally transferred sovereignty was unclear.

It ruled in favor of Singapore's argument that it had exercised sovereign powers over the rock since 1851, with no protest from Malaysia until 30 years ago.

A Rochester employment law firm filed class-action lawsuits Thursday against Kaleida Health and Catholic Health System, accusing the health-care giants of violating federal and state law by not paying hourly employees for lunch or meal periods that were interrupted or missed.

The suit, filed in U. S. District Court by Dolin, Thomas and Solomon LLP, claims the two hospital systems have policies to automatically deduct the time for meal periods from employees’ pay, even if workers didn’t receive their full time off and should have been paid.

That’s against federal and state labor laws, the firm says, citing a recent bulletin from the U. S. Department of Labor aimed at the healthcare industry.

The two hospital systems said they had not yet been served with court papers, but were familiar with the firm and suit, and roundly denounced both.

“This is obviously a self-serving effort by an out-of-town law firm intent on exploiting our hardworking employees,” said Michael P. Hughes, Kaleida spokesman. “Unfortunately, this law firm has a track record of this type of activity in other communities such as Rochester. Our commitment to our employees is unquestionable and we will vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit.”

Catholic Health spokesman Dennis McCarthy said the firm had been “soliciting our employees and former employees for months to join this lawsuit.” He said the hospital has policies “to ensure that employees are properly paid for all time worked, including overtime.”

“Such a claim is utterly meritless and will be vigorously defended against,” he said. “CHS will not permit this lawsuit to disrupt its commitment to provide exceptional healthcare.”

Under federal law, meal periods are typically at least 30 minutes in duration, are not considered worktime, and do not have to be paid. However, the law specifically says employees must be “completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals,” and says workers are not considered “relieved” if they are “required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.”

“The law is clear that employers must compensate employees for all hours worked,” said attorney J. Nelson Thomas, who represents over 700 current and former employees who have joined the lawsuit. “Catholic [Health] and Kaleida cannot be allowed to circumvent the Department of Labor’s regulations.”

The Labor Department bulletin says employers are responsible for ensuring workers take their 30-minute breaks without interruption if they don’t pay the employees for that time. And if employees are interrupted frequently, such as by patient requests, the employees should be paid for the full period.

Violations are common in healthcare, Thomas said, because of the nature of the work. “Nurses are dedicated and they don’t just drop patients to take lunch,” Thomas said.

So after hearing of the issue, the law firm posted a Web site to attract clients. It won a settlement in a similar case in 2006 against University of Rochester.

To date, 389 Kaleida employees and 333 at Catholic Healthhave signed on as plaintiffs, but the firm is seeking more current and former employees, and expects as many as 10,000 may be affected. Thomas said total damages could exceed $10 million.

Federal law allows workers to recover lost wages for three years, but New York law allows six years if the court agrees to allow the state claim. Only hourly workers are covered.

Thomas said the law firm also investigated Erie County Medical Center, but found it complies with the law by paying all employees for meal breaks, whether they take them or not.

The firm is still investigating practices at eight other hospitals or systems in New York State, including Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, Mount St. Mary’s Hospital and Health Center, Sheehan Memorial Hospital, the McGuire Group, the VA Healthcare Systems, Ascension Health and Catholic Health East.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the same court's 2005 ruling striking down the law. The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to take another look at Virginia's statute after the ruling on the federal ban.

The appeals court cited a key difference between the federal and state bans on the procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion." The federal law protects doctors who set out to perform a legal abortion that by accident becomes the banned procedure. The Virginia statute provides no such protection.

The state has two weeks to ask the full federal appeals court to review the ruling, or 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. The attorney general's office "is reviewing all possible courses of action," spokesman J. Tucker Martin said.

The state law is unconstitutional "because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Diana Gribbon-Motz.