Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Court Rules Against Home Care Workers
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/11 06:35

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that home care workers are not entitled to overtime pay under federal law. The unanimous decision upheld a 1975 Labor Department regulation exempting the nation's 1 million home care workers from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that leaving home care workers without overtime protection under the act does not exceed the agency's authority and "courts should defer to the department's rule."

The case was brought by lawyers for Evelyn Coke, a 73-year-old retiree who spent more than two decades in the home care industry helping the ill and the elderly.

Now in failing health, Coke said her employer never paid her time and a half for all her extra hours on the job.

Lawyers for Coke challenged the Labor Department regulation, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ruled in the workers' favor.

The appeals court said it was "implausible" that Congress would have wanted the Labor Department to wipe out protection for an entire category of workers.

The Labor Department wrote the restrictive regulation after Congress expanded the law's coverage.

Paying overtime would cost billions, the home care industry says.

In New York City, the annual cost of the Medicaid-funded Personal Care Services Program would rise by at least a quarter of a billion dollars if the appeals court decision is allowed to stand, the city says. The Personal Care Services program pays 90 private companies to send 60,000 home attendants to the homes of low-income elderly and disabled.

Coke's former employer, Long Island Care at Home Ltd., says it would experience "tremendous and unsustainable losses" if it had to comply with federal overtime requirements.

The Bush administration and the company that employed Coke opposed her lawsuit.

If Congress had wanted to apply the law's wage and overtime provisions to such workers, "it easily could have done so," the Bush administration said in papers filed in the case. Instead, Congress assigned the secretary of labor the task of deciding the issue, the administration said.



Jefferson pleads not guilty to bribery
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/08 07:46

Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, accused of hiding $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer, pleaded not guilty on Friday to making and taking payoffs for helping to arrange business deals in Africa. In court, a lawyer for the Louisiana lawmaker entered a not guilty plea to all 16 counts of racketeering, soliciting bribes, fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis set a trial date of January 16, 2008, for Jefferson, a member of Congress since 1991 whose district includes New Orleans.

The judge ordered Jefferson to surrender his passport and post a $100,000 bond. Ellis said he would allow Jefferson unrestricted travel between the Washington area and Louisiana, but he must get the judge's approval for other trips.

Jefferson was accused of soliciting millions of dollars in bribes from nearly a dozen companies.

The business ventures included telecommunications deals in Nigeria and Ghana, oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea, satellite transmission contracts in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo, and a Nigerian sugar plant.

According to the indictment, an FBI witness gave Jefferson $100,000 in cash intended as a bribe for an unnamed Nigerian official in 2005.

It said Jefferson put in his home freezer $90,000 of the cash, which was separated into amounts of $10,000, wrapped in aluminum foil and concealed inside various frozen food containers.

Representative Jefferson has not responded directly to the indictment, but his lawyer, Robert Trout, stated that his client was innocent and would "fight this indictment and clear his name." Acknowledging the comprehensive investigation carried out against his client, as detailed in the 94-page indictment, Trout pointed out that legislative action was not involved. "There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations," said Trout. "There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts."

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi expressed some concern over the allegations. "The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious," said Pelosi. "While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power."

If found guilty of the charges ultimately, Representative Jefferson faces a maximum sentence of 235 years.



Ex-Alcatel exec pleads guilty to bribery
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/08 01:55

A former Alcatel executive has pleaded guilty to paying more than $2.5 million in bribes to secure a telephone contract with Costa Rica's state telecommunications agency, the U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday. Christian Sapsizian pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act at U.S. District Court in Miami, the DOJ said in a statement. He is set to be sentenced on December 20 and now faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and $580,000 in fines.

According to the DOJ, Sapsizian admitted to paying the bribes to a director at Costa Rica's Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, in order to secure mobile telephone contracts for his company. Alcatel was eventually awarded a $149 million mobile phone contract in August 2001, the department said.

Sapsizian had been employed by Alcatel and its subsidiaries for more than 20 years. Alcatel merged with Lucent Technologies in late 2006 and the joint company is now known as Alcatel-Lucent.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation continues to investigate the matter, the DOJ said.



Libby lawyers seek prison sentence delay
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/08 00:36

Lawyers for former US vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby asked a federal judge Thursday to delay Libby's prison sentence because they felt they have a good chance of winning an appeal of his conviction. Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in March, and sentenced to 2 1/2- years in prison on Tuesday.

Defense lawyers filed papers with the court Thursday arguing that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not have the authority to bring charges against Libby, and that they were wrongly barred from questioning NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell about certain aspects of the Valerie Plame scandal. Earlier this week, US District Judge Reggie B. Walton said there was no reason that Libby should not begin serving his sentence while his case is on appeal.



Appeals court ponders fate of book on Cuba
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/07 08:44

A federal appeals judge asked an attorney Wednesday whether a disputed children's book about Cuban life that omits mention of Fidel Castro's Communist government is the same as one about Adolf Hitler that doesn't mention the Holocaust. The discussion came as the Miami-Dade County School District asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to remove 49 copies of Vamos a Cuba (A Visit to Cuba) from its libraries. The board argues that the English and Spanish book for 5- to 8-year-olds is inaccurate about life in Cuba.

Senior Circuit Judge Donald Walter presented the hypothetical situation about Hitler to American Civil Liberties Union attorney JoNel Newman, asking her if a school board would be allowed to remove that book from library shelves.

Newman answered by saying that the book about Cuba was a geography book about daily life on the island, not about Castro.

"The political reality in Cuba is not what the book is about, " Newman said. "The School Board can't remove it because it wishes to inject a political message into it."

Board members voted last year to remove the book after a parent who spent time as a political prisoner in Cuba complained. Cuban-Americans, most of them anti-Castro, have significant political sway as the largest ethnic group in Miami.

In seeking to remove the book, the board overruled the decision of two academic advisory committees, as well as the county school superintendent.

But another parent and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida challenged the removal. A federal judge ruled last summer that the board's opposition to the book was political and that it should add books of different perspectives to its collections instead of removing the offending titles. The ACLU contends that diverse opinions should be represented in school libraries.

Circuit Judge Ed Carnes presented his own hypothetical, asking Newman if a book about North Korea could be pulled from shelves because it failed to mention problems in that Communist government.

Newman countered by saying such political discussions shouldn't be required for books for elementary students, arguing whether a book about the Great Wall of China must mention Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung.

On another issue, the third member of the appeals panel, Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, asked if a book had to be part of the curriculum or required reading in order to be removed from school libraries, where it was available for checkout on a voluntary basis.

"If a book is educationally unsuitable, it can be removed, " said Richard Ovelmen, the School Board's attorney.

Also at issue is whether the ACLU has standing to file its legal challenge.

The court hasn't indicated when it would rule.



Virginia Tech Panel Taps Law Firm For Advice
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/07 05:57

The panel created by Governor Tim Kaine to study the Virginia Tech shootings has hired an outside law firm for advice.

The international law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom will work with the panel on a pro bono basis. The states' attorney general's office has been advising the panel, state police and Virginia Tech.

According to the panel's chairman Gerald Massengill, because of the independent nature of the panel, outside counsel was necessary to provide legal advice.

Governor Kaine created the panel in order to study the circumstances and responses surrounding the April 16 tragedy.



Former DOD Employee Pleads Guilty to Fraud
Breaking Legal News | 2007/06/06 10:08

A former civilian employee of the Department of Defense (DOD) and former member of the California Army National Guard, has pleaded guilty to defrauding the United States and conspiring with four other individuals to do the same, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

Jesse D. Lane Jr. pleaded guilty in federal court in Los Angeles before U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson to one count of conspiracy and one count of honest services wire fraud. As part of his plea, Lane admitted that he and his co-conspirators were members of the 223rd Finance Detachment, a unit of the California National Guard that processes pay for Army National Guard members, and were deployed together to Iraq and Kuwait from March 2004 until February 2005, when they returned to their home drilling post in Compton, Calif. Beginning in March 2005, and continuing through August 2005, Lane accessed a DOD pay-processing computer system and inputted thousands of dollars in unauthorized DOD pay and entitlements for himself and his co-conspirators. In return, Lane’s co-conspirators kicked back at least half of the money they received to Lane.

Lane faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for conspiracy, 20 years in prison for honest services wire fraud, and three years of supervised release. Sentencing was set for Sept. 24, 2007.

On Nov. 13, 2006, Lane’s co-conspirators Jennifer Anjakos of Chula Vista, Calif., Lomeli Chavez of Oceanside, Calif., and Derryl Hollier and Luis Lopez of Los Angeles each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud on related charges arising from this scheme. Their sentencings have been scheduled for Sept. 10, 2007.

These cases are being prosecuted by trial attorney John P. Pearson of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, which is headed by Section Chief William M. Welch II. These cases are being investigated by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, in support of the Justice Department’s National Procurement Fraud Task Force and the International Contract Corruption Initiative. The prosecution has received substantial assistance from the California National Guard and the U.S. Army Audit Agency.

The National Procurement Fraud Initiative was announced by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty in October 2006, and is designed to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in contracting activity for national security and other government programs. As part of this initiative, the Deputy Attorney General has created the National Procurement Fraud Task Force, which is chaired by Assistant Attorney General Fisher.



[PREV] [1] ..[212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220].. [260] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..


Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design