Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Monday, September 10, 2018

The Case Against Brett Kavanaugh

Today's post is authored by Deborah Berkowitz and is shared from nelp.org

IF YOU WORK IN A DANGEROUS JOB, YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH

When a vibrant 40-year-old animal trainer was killed by a whale at SeaWorld in 2010, the government’s safety agency, an administrative law judge, and a panel of appellate judges all agreed that SeaWorld broke the law by not taking basic precautions to provide a safe workplace. All, that is, except one judge on the appellate panel who dissented: Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Supreme Court Rules for Employers in Two Cases

Today's post was shared by WSJ Law Blog and comes from blogs.wsj.com

The Supreme Court Monday gave airlines a wide berth to report potential security threats, dismissing a pilot’s lawsuit alleging his employer defamed him by telling the Transportation Security Administration he could be armed and mentally unstable.

Separately, the court rejected a claim by steelworkers from Gary, Ind., that they were entitled to pay for time spent putting on safety gear, finding that the task qualified as “changing clothes,” for which their union contract didn’t require compensation.

Finally, Monday, the court sided with a convicted heroin dealer to rule that he couldn’t be punished for the death of one of his customers because of evidence that the man’s health was so poor he might have died even without the narcotic.

All three decisions were unanimous or nearly so, underscoring that despite gulfs in the most charged disputes, justices of different ideological backgrounds agree on a significant number of legal issues. Read the full story here.

[Click here to see the original post]

Related articles

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Obama administration to begin processing Social Security payments to same-sex couples

Same sex marriages are now going to be recognized as beneficiaries for Social Security purposes. Today's post is shared from Jurist.org

The Obama administration announced [press release] Monday that the Social Security Administration will begin processing payments to surviving spouses of same-sex married couples
In n a brief statement, Press Officer LaVenia LaVelle said, "I am pleased to announce that, effective today, Social Security is processing some widow's and widower's claims by surviving members of same-sex marriages and paying benefits where they are due. In addition, we are able to pay some one-time lump sum death benefit claims to surviving same-sex spouses.

As I stated shortly after the Supreme Court decision on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, our goal is to treat all Americans with dignity and respect." Widow's benefits are payable to the surviving spouses who were married at the time of their spouse's death, as well as those who were legally married for at least 10 years, but later divorced. The maximum amount a widow over 60 years old may receive is the amount the deceased spouse was receiving or would have received at the time of death. Because the SSA regulations specifically yield to the definition of "marriage" used by the state in which a couple lives, the SSA has lagged behind other federal departments in providing for same-sex couples.
Other federal agencies have taken similar steps to ensure the inclusion of same-sex couples in administrative processes. Earlier this month the US Department of Education [official website] announced [JURIST report] that for the purposes of applying for and receiving federal student financial aid, the federal government will now recognize all legal same-sex marriages.On the same day as the Department of Education's announcement, the US Customs and Border Protection said [Time report] it will expand the definition of "members of a family residing in a household" to include same-sex couples and other domestic relationships so as to facilitate the declarations process.
While the Windsor decision did not create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it does entitle couples in lawfully recognized same-sex marriages to certain federal benefits. In September the US Department of Labor [official website] issued guidance explaining [JURIST report] that all legally married same-sex spouses in the US can participate in employee benefit plans overseen by the Employee Benefits Security Administration [official website]. Earlier in September the US Department of Justice [official website] announced [JURIST report] that it will no longer enforce a federal law that denies same-sex spouses veterans benefits. In August the US Treasury Department [official website] announced that it, along with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [official website], will recognize marriages [JURIST report] of all same-sex couples for federal tax purposes.


Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Supreme Court 2013: Court Could Cripple Unions In Major Labor Cases

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.ibtimes.com

Over the next few months, the Supreme Court will hear two major cases that could prove a major setback to unions' ability to organize and collect dues -- and the conservative majority on the court is making pro-labor advocates nervous.
In UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall, the court will decide whether agreements between unions and employers that set the ground rules for union organizing violate the anti-corruption provision of the Labor Management Relations Act. That may sound pretty specific, but it could have far-reaching effects, leading labor expert and Harvard Law School professor Benjamin Sachs to write that this “could be the most significant labor law case in a generation.”
In this particular case, the union, Unite Here Local 355, struck an agreement with Mardi Gras, a Florida casino company, under which the casino would not interfere in the union’s organizing drive, and in return, the union promised not to strike during that organizing period. That kind of agreement is standard practice across the country.
The challenge to this routine agreement alleges that the casino’s concessions to the union, which included a promise to remain neutral during the organizing campaign, violates an anti-corruption statute that was intended to keep employers from bribing unions by specifically prohibiting companies from giving union officials “things of value.” Until very recently, no one considered that these organizing agreements would constitute...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, November 4, 2013

The End of the Class-Action Carnival

The End of the Class-Action Carnival
Class actions have been a major vehicle to creating safer workplace in the past. It is imperative that the people have their day in court to maintain a democratically balanced system of  government. Today's post article is shared from businessweek.com.

F. Paul Bland Jr. brings class-action lawsuits for a living. Over the years he’s represented groups of plaintiffs in suits against payday lender Check ’n Go and financial institution Wachovia.

He’s worried about business drying up. As a result of hostile Supreme Court rulings over the last several years, scores of mass consumer and employment suits that would have been viable a decade ago have been dismissed, says Bland, a senior attorney with Public Justice, a nonprofit in Washington.

“People bring me cases against cable companies or big employers, and I say, ‘Forget it. It’s impossible. Not even worth trying.’ ”

The mass lawsuit—in which hundreds or even thousands of plaintiffs join together to go after a corporate defendant—is in deep trouble. Growing judicial skepticism toward such suits and toward the lucrative settlements they generate has caused plaintiffs’ attorneys to shy away from accepting lengthy, complicated cases.

That’s tilting the legal playing field decisively in favor of Big Business—and as the Supreme Court reconvened on Oct. 7 for its 2013-14 term, trial lawyers are bracing for more setbacks.
Not everyone is shedding tears. Walter Olson, a legal expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, attributes the decline of mass lawsuits to a predictable—and...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 31, 2013

End of Life Care: Withholding Antibiotics

A few weeks ago I had a discussion with my good friend, Melissa Brown, A Law School Professor who teaches Elder Law and Social Policy, and expert in workers' compensation law. We discussed End of Life Care , and the withholding of antibiotics to treat infections. The moral and ethical issues are far reaching when balancing the quality of life issues in older patients.  Today post is shared from jurist.org . I would encourage readers to read the entire article and linked material as the important issue will soon be in the forefront of care protocols in the US.

The UK Supreme Court [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF; press release, PDF] Wednesday that Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [official website] was justified in its decision that withholding certain invasive treatments would be in the best interests of critical care patient David James, despite resistance from the patient's family. James was admitted to Aintree's critical care unit in May 2012 for an infection acquired during his treatment for colon cancer, where he was reliant on ventilator support and suffered multiple severe setbacks. Despite opposition from James' family, the hospital brought proceedings to the Court of Protection [official website] in September 2012. The hospital sought judicial declaration that withholding the specified treatments would be in James' best interest, pursuant to the 2005 Mental Capacity Act [text, PDF; Code of Practice] provision that it may in the best interests of a patient to withhold life-sustaining treatment "where treatment is futile, overly burdensome to the patient or where there is no prospect of recovery." The trial judge ruled against the declarations on December 6, and Aintree appealed. James subsequently suffered "further dramatic deterioration," and the Court of Appeal reversed [judgment, PDF] the decision on December 21, 2012. James died of cardiac arrest only 10 days later. Wednesday's ruling by the Supreme Court subsequently determined that the trial judge was correct in opposing the declarations and that the Court of Appeal was also correct in light of the changed circumstances since the initial ruling.

Click here to read the entire article.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Black lung injury not compensable because company was OSHA-compliant


Today's post is shared from thinkprogress.org via @RWJF_PubHealth

A furnace operator seeking a Workers’ Compensation claim against his employer for allegedly suffering exposure to occupational pneumoconiosis was properly denied because the company was compliant with OSHA standards, the state Supreme Court has held.

Randy Torris originally filed a claim alleging he suffered exposure to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis, also known as “black lung,” while working as a furnace operator for Alcan Rolled Products-Ravenswood, LLC.

In 2009, an administrator rejected Torris’ claim. Torris then appealed the ruling to the state Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the administrator’s decision in a 2011 ruling saying Torris did not meet the exposure requirement for a valid pneumoconiosis claim.

Torris again appealed, asserting that there was sufficient evidence to prove he was exposed to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis for the entire time he worked for the company.

In its defense, Torris’ employer argued it performed regular industrial hygiene testing while Torris was with the company and also met OSHA regulations to limit employee exposure to excessive or harmful quantities of dust.

The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision released Oct. 4, upheld the board’s ruling citing state rule §85-20-52.2 (2006).

The rule states that if “an employer submits credible...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]



Found on



Related articles
Safety Violations Matter: Wisconsin Court Reaffirms Basis for Employer Safety Penalties (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
What a Government Default Will Do To Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Steel company fined $115,400 by US Labor Department's OSHA for failing to abate workplace hazards (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Florida rejects workers' compensation rate hike (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
How OSHA's West Fertilizer fine stacks up against others (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
OSHA cites Nebraska Cold Storage for 14 safety violations including ammonia exposure (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)


Friday, October 11, 2013

Raising the mandatory judicial retirement age to 80

Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

The New York City Bar Association says it supports a proposal on the state’s Nov. 5 ballot to amend the New York Constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age to 80 for state Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices.
The state constitution currently requires all state judges to retire at age 70.
However, judges of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, and justices of the state’s main trial court, the Supreme Court, may serve for up to six years after retirement so long as court administrators certify every two years that the judge’s services are necessary to expedite the business of the court, and he or she is mentally and physically able and competent to perform the full duties of the office.
“The City Bar supports Proposal 6, consistent with our longstanding position that the mandatory judicial retirement age, which was enacted in 1869, is outdated,” the bar association said in a statement Monday.
“Many individuals who reach the age of 70 have a substantial number of productive years ahead of them. Many states and the federal judiciary permit judges to serve past the age of 70, and New York should as well.”
The association argues that raising the retirement age would ease a strained court system — in particular, permit the transfer of Supreme Court justices to the state’s overburdened family courts.
In Pennsylvania, three groups of judges sued over...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Supreme Court Rejects Tobacco Companies’ Appeal of Florida Case

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.insurancejournal.com


The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the tobacco industry’s appeal of a Florida ruling that may help thousands of smokers sue cigarette makers over smoking-related illnesses.

The nation’s highest court today turned away arguments by Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Vector Group Ltd.’s Liggett unit. They challenged a $2.5 million award to the family of Charlotte Douglas, who died in 2008 of lung cancer at age 62.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to intervene in tobacco litigation in Florida, where more than 4,500 smoker suits are pending. So far, Florida juries have returned verdicts totaling more than $500 million against the industry, the companies said in their appeal.

Cigarette makers are seeking to limit the effect of a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision, which said a jury’s factual findings against the industry in a class-action case could serve as the starting point for individual suits. The Florida high court reaffirmed that ruling in the Douglas case.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, the tobacco companies said they were being deprived of their constitutional right to due process of law.

“It is impossible to conclude with any certainty in any of these cases that any jury in any proceeding has ever decided all the elements of the plaintiff’s claims in his or her favor,” the companies contended in their appeal.

Douglas’s widower, James,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, October 4, 2013

Hearing set for N.J. SC nominee

Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com


A hearing has been scheduled for one of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s state Supreme Court nominees.

According to NewsWorks, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 17 on Judge Faustino Fernandez-Vina’s nomination to the state’s high court.
Fernandez-Vina

Christie, whose previous attempts to fill the vacant seats on the state’s high court have failed, nominated Fernandez-Vina in August.
The Cuban-born Republican has served as a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court since July 2004.

“In the words of the late Sen. John Adler, Judge Fernandez-Vina had ‘the highest level of competence and he’s just the total package,’” Christie said in August.

“Last year Chief Justice (Stuart) Rabner named Judge Fernandez-Vina the assignment judge of the Camden Vicinage. At that time, the chief justice said the following, ‘Judge Fernandez-Vina brings to the position of assignment judge a wealth of experience, a proven, practical approach to addressing issues, superb judgment and the respect of the bench and bar.’ Those are his words not mine.”
Christie said he couldn’t agree more.

“Beyond his time in public life Judge Fernandez-Vina had 22 years of private sector legal experience where he tried in excess of 100 cases and was a certified civil trial attorney certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court,” the governor said, noting...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Judge Orders New Jersey to Allow Gay Marriage

Dependency benefits under the NJ workers' compensation system are going to expand.

A New Jersey judge ruled on Friday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, saying that not doing so deprives them of rights that were guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in June.
It is the first time a court has struck down a state’s refusal to legalize same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling, and with lawsuits pending in other states, it could presage other successful challenges across the country.
The decision was a rebuff to Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature last year that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. His office said it would appeal to the state’s highest court. And he is likely to seek a stay preventing same-sex marriages from beginning on Oct. 21, as the judge ordered.
New Jersey was particularly ripe for a challenge after the Supreme Court ruling, because of a previous ruling by the state’s highest court in 2006. In that decision, in the case Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage. But the court stopped short of saying they had a fundamental right to marry, and in an unusual step instructed the Legislature to define how to confer equal protection.
“The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts,” Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]