Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Ky. high court clears way for mine death lawsuit
Labor & Employment | 2009/05/21 04:17
The widow of a Kentucky coal miner who bled to death after his legs were cut off in a gruesome underground accident can proceed with a lawsuit against the company that employed him.


The Kentucky Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling Thursday, gave Stella Morris of Cumberland the go-ahead to seek punitive damages from H & D Mining Inc.

The company had filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed. That motion was denied by the trial judge, the Kentucky Court of Appeals and now the Supreme Court.

David "Bud" Morris Jr., 29, bled to death in 2005 after being struck by a coal hauler, severing his legs just below the knees.



Court rules for worker over retaliation
Labor & Employment | 2009/01/26 08:07
The Supreme Court has ruled that workers who cooperate with internal investigations of retaliation by their employers are sheltered by federal laws prohibiting job discrimination.


In an opinion Monday, the justices held that a longtime school system employee in Tennessee can pursue a civil rights lawsuit over her firing.

The court voted unanimously to reverse the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to employees who merely cooperate with an internal probe rather than complain on their own or take part in a formal investigation.

Vicky Crawford was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County.

She did not file a complaint about harassment by a school official. But she said she had been subject to unwanted sexual advances when she was interviewed by investigators for the school system who were looking into other employees' allegations against the director of employee relations.

Crawford was fired months later. The official was not disciplined.

She filed a federal lawsuit, but it was dismissed by a federal judge and upheld on appeal.



Court issues injunction against United pilot union
Labor & Employment | 2008/11/18 09:00
United Airlines said on Tuesday that a federal judge has barred its pilot union and four pilots from activities that disrupt the airline's activities.

United had accused some pilots of abusing sick time and refusing to fly extra hours. Sick-outs in particular are not allowed under the Railway Labor Act, the federal law that governs airline labor relations.

United said the judge in Chicago found that the actions of the Air Line Pilots Association had violated the act, and issued a preliminary injunction on Monday against four pilots and the union. United said it would next seek a permanent injunction.

Over the summer United blamed the pilots for the cancellation of 329 flights between July 19 and July 27. The carrier said that cost it about $8 million in lost revenue and $3.9 million in operating profit. United filed the lawsuit on July 30.

A spokesman for the United branch of ALPA did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

"While there is always room for discussion and tough give-and-take about our business, deliberate actions that unfairly or unlawfully impact our customers and employees — and that keep us from achieving our full potential — will not go unchallenged," Chief Operating Officer John Tague said in an e-mail to United employees.



Court sympathetic to worker's retaliation claims
Labor & Employment | 2008/10/09 10:30
Supreme Court justices indicated Wednesday they would side with a longtime government worker who claims she was fired in retaliation after she cooperated with a sexual harassment investigation.

The court wrestled with whether the anti-retaliation provisions of a landmark civil rights law apply to people who haven't themselves complained about workplace discrimination. The only doubt at the end of arguments Wednesday was how broadly the court would rule for the employee.

Vicky Crawford was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County.

She did not file a complaint about harassment by a school official. But she said she had been subject to unwanted sexual advances when she was interviewed by investigators for the school system who were looking into other employees' allegations against the director of employee relations.



Iowa meat co. fights unionization at NY warehouse
Labor & Employment | 2008/09/16 06:56
A kosher meatpacking plant in Iowa that was the target of a sweeping immigration raid this year is not the only venue where the plant's owners are locked in a fight over undocumented workers.

Agriprocessors Inc. has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to urge the justices to reconsider their long-held position that workers in the country illegally have a right to join labor unions.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to take the case, but if it does, it could have ramifications for a complicated area of U.S. labor law.

At issue are rules that make it a crime for a company to hire illegal immigrants, yet simultaneously protect those same workers from retaliation for engaging in union activity.

Those intertwined standards came into play at Agriprocessors' small distribution facility on the Brooklyn waterfront in 2005, when a group of about 20 workers voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

Agriprocessors fired most of the workers after the vote, saying it had investigated their Social Security numbers and concluded at least 17 were in the country illegally.

The company also refused to accept the unionization vote, arguing that it was invalid because of the workers' immigration status.

The National Labor Relations Board sided with the union and took the company to court. The company ultimately gave the workers $2,500 apiece to settle their retaliation complaints, but the dispute over whether the warehouse is now officially a United Food and Commercial Workers Union shop is still unresolved.



Writers' Strike Nearing A Resolution
Labor & Employment | 2008/02/10 12:34
Hollywood writers were optimistic they could end a three-month strike that has crippled the entertainment industry after reviewing a proposed deal from studios that increases their payments for online use of TV shows and movies.

Leaders of the Writers Guild of America recommended the deal Saturday to thousands of members gathered on both coasts and warned that holding out for a better deal might be disastrous.

Union chief negotiator John Bowman told writers at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles that "if they push any further, everyone would fall off the cliff," said Mike Rowe, a writer for the animated show "Futurama."

The WGA board planned to meet Sunday and decide whether to authorize a membership vote to lift the strike, according to a person familiar with the plan who requested anonymity because of a media blackout.

If guild members approve, they could be back at work on Wednesday, although formal approval of a contract would have to await ratification by members, which could take two weeks.

Giving writers a 48-hour window to vote on lifting the strike order would help alleviate concerns that the agreement was being pushed too rapidly by the guild's board.

Still, writers seemed confident that the walkout, which cost the Los Angeles area economy alone an estimated $1 billion or more, was coming to a close.

"It's a historic moment for labor in this country," said Oscar-nominated WGA member Michael Moore, who attended the New York meeting.

Carmen Culver, a film and TV writer, lauded the guild "for hanging tough."

"It's a great day for the labor movement. We have suffered a lot of privation in order to achieve what we've achieved," Culver said.

The WGA's first strike in 20 years began Nov. 5 and involved 10,000 members. It idled thousands of other entertainment industry workers, from caterers to security staff, disrupted both TV and movie production and derailed the Golden Globes awards, which was reduced to a news conference because actors wouldn't cross picket lines.

The Grammy Awards, set for Sunday night, were not affected because they received a waiver allowing writers to work on them. But an end to the strike could permit resumption of work for the Feb. 24 Academy Awards show.

A tentative three-year agreement was hammered out in recent talks between the WGA and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, with the actual contract language concluded by lawyers on Friday.

According to the guild's summary, the deal provides union jurisdiction over projects created for the Internet based on certain guidelines, sets compensation for streamed, ad-supported programs and increases residuals for downloaded movies and TV programs.



House Fails to Overcome Veto on Health Bill Vote
Labor & Employment | 2007/10/25 16:24

Once again defying a veto threat from President Bush, the House this afternoon passed a new bill to provide health insurance for 10 million children, but not by a margin large enough to override a promised veto. The vote was 265 to 142, or 7 votes short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto. Forty-three Republicans joined 222 Democrats in voting for the bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California implored members to vote for the bill, declaring that it "has the support of the American people."

But the Republican minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said late revisions to the bill were "window-dressing rather than substantive changes."

Throughout hours of debate, several Republican opponents of the legislation said its supporters were trying to ram it through while much of the California delegation was back home because of the wildfires in their state. Ten of the 26 members who did not vote today are from California, and 8 of the 10 are Republicans.

A week ago, President Bush's veto of the original bill was sustained, as the 273-to-156 vote in support of the bill was 13 short of the toll needed to overturn the veto. Forty-four Republicans voted then to override the veto, and the suspense before today's vote was whether the bill's supporters would convert any Republicans. But only 43 Republicans voted for the bill today.

"It's unfortunate that even after a week of meetings and adjustments to the bill at the Republicans' request, they would still apparently prefer to play politics instead of reauthorizing a program the vast majority of the country supports," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said after today's vote. "Once again, Republicans have chosen partisanship over pediatrics."

The Senate will probably approve the revised bill next week. There is a veto-proof majority in favor of the bill in the Senate, but today's vote in the House, as well as last week's, signal that it will sustain Mr. Bush's veto again.

If that happens, Democrats said, they may extend the existing insurance program for children through next summer. They would then schedule another vote on the issue in September or October, in the hope of inflicting maximum political damage on Republicans just before the 2008 elections.

Two prominent Republican senators who generally side with the White House, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, expressed disappointment after this afternoon's vote, underscoring how the children's insurance issue cuts across party politics.

"It's a shame that this legislation, which is even stronger than the compromise legislation passed earlier this month, did not secure a veto-proof majority of support from members of the House of Representatives," Mr. Grassley said.

Mr. Hatch called today's outcome "a lost opportunity for America's low-income, uninsured children" and said he was dismayed that the issue had become such a political battle. "As a result, low-income children will continue to be uninsured," he said. "That is a shame."

The new bill, like the one vetoed by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, would cost $60 billion over five years, an increase of $35 billion over the current level of spending.

Supporters of the new bill said it addressed all the major concerns that prompted Republicans to oppose an earlier version. The new bill, they said, would end coverage of adults, ban coverage of illegal immigrants and generally prohibit states from covering children in families with incomes above three times the poverty level, or $61,950 for a family of four.

Speaker Pelosi said the restrictions on adults, immigrants and high-income families were clear in the first bill, and "they are even clearer in the second bill."

For the cost of just 41 days of the Iraq war, Democrats said, the government could finance a full year of health care for 10 million children.

But President Bush said his concerns had not been addressed "in a meaningful way," and many Republican lawmakers said the changes were illusory.

"The bill puts lipstick on a sow," said Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York. "Today is raw politics — trotting out a vote just for the sake of a vote."

Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, Republican of Florida, said the State Children's Health Insurance Program would still be a "magnet for illegal aliens." Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, said that rich children could still qualify for benefits because states, in determining eligibility, could ignore or disregard part of a family's income.

Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, said the bill still called for a "a massive tax increase" The federal excise tax on cigarettes would be increased to $1 a pack, up 61 cents from the current level.

And Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, said that under the new bill, as under the original, two million people would lose private health insurance coverage and enroll in the expanded government program.



[PREV] [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] [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
Trump faces prospect of addi..
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein ..
Starbucks appears likely to ..
Supreme Court will weigh ban..
Judge in Trump case orders m..
Court makes it easier to sue..
Top Europe rights court cond..
Elon Musk will be investigat..
Retired Supreme Court Justic..
The Man Charged in an Illino..
Texas’ migrant arrest law w..
Former Georgia insurance com..
Alabama woman who faked kidn..
A Supreme Court ruling in a ..
Court upholds mandatory pris..


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