888-505-1335

Se Habla Español

Appeals court backs Jimmy John's franchisee in labor dispute

A company that owns 10 Jimmy John’s sandwich shops in the Twin Cities was within its rights to fire six union workers who circulated posters critical of the company’s sick-leave policy, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a three-judge appeals panel, which had affirmed a National Labor Relations Board ruling in favor of the workers, who were part of a unionization drive by the Industrial Workers of the World at shops owned by MikLin Enterprises. The full appeals court concluded that the poster attack was “so disloyal” that it wasn’t protected by federal labor law. The posters were timed to the flu season in early 2011. They protested the company’s policy against workers calling in sick without finding replacements to take their shifts, and accused the company of putting the health of its customers at risk. The poster features two identical photos of Jimmy John’s sandwiches but said one was made by a healthy worker and one was made by a sick worker. “Can’t tell the difference?” the poster read. “That’s too bad because Jimmy John’s workers don’t get paid sick days. Shoot, we can’t even call in sick. We hope your immune system is ready because you’re about to take the sandwich test.” The poster and a press release were distributed to more than 100 local and national news organizations, and the IWW threatened wider distribution if its demands were not met. The NLRB concluded that MikLin violated protections for employee communications to the public that are part of an ongoing labor dispute. The three-judge appeals panel agreed. But the full appeals court said the board misapplied a controlling precedent set in a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court case that permits firings for disloyalty when the quality of a company’s product is attacked, as opposed to communications targeting the employer’s labor practices. Source: Legal News Post Appeals court backs Jimmy John's franchisee in labor dispute

Continue Reading

U.S. Hospitals Struggle To Protect Mothers When Childbirth Turns Deadly – All Things Considered – WNYC

U.S. Hospitals Struggle To Protect Mothers When Childbirth Turns Deadly – All Things Considered – WNYC: A joint NPR and ProPublica investigation finds the U.S. medical system can be unprepared when the complications of childbirth turn deadly. NPR reports on healthy mothers who developed one highly treatable complication — preeclampsia — and how it killed them. Source: TTLA E-Clips U.S. Hospitals Struggle To Protect Mothers When Childbirth Turns Deadly – All Things Considered – WNYC

Continue Reading

Jury Awards Fla. Man Nearly $5M In Ladder Defect Suit – Law360

Jury Awards Fla. Man Nearly $5M In Ladder Defect Suit – Law360: Law360, New York (July 3, 2017, 9:03 PM EDT) — A federal jury in Florida has sided with a man who injured himself after falling from an allegedly defective ladder, awarding more than $4.7 million in damages in his suit against Tricam Industries and Home Depot, which respectively manufacturered and sold the Husky brand ladder. Source: TTLA E-Clips Jury Awards Fla. Man Nearly M In Ladder Defect Suit – Law360

Continue Reading

Final Orders for June 2017

Earlier today, the Texas Supreme Court issued decisions in its final four argued cases from the term. The Court’s official website has been struggling to recover from a serious server problem earlier this week, but I’m posting a copy of the opinions here: KING STREET PATRIOTS, CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT, BRYAN ENGELBRECHT, AND DIANE JOSEPHS v. TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY; GILBERTO HINOJOSA, SUCCESSOR TO BOYD RICHIE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY; JOHN WARREN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR DALLAS COUNTY CLERK; AND ANN BENNETT, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE DEMOCRATIC, No. 15-0320 Opinion of the Court Concurring JACK PIDGEON AND LARRY HICKS v. MAYOR SYLVESTER TURNER AND CITY OF HOUSTON, No. 15-0688 Opinion of the Court UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC. v. JAMES LEVINE, No. 15-0921 Opinion of the Court Dissenting JULIE HERSH v. JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM, No. 16-0096 Opinion of the Court Concurring (Some older opinions are gathered on this page.) You can also see my website’s version of the full orders list. The stats on my website have been updated but not yet triple-checked. You can see: The opinion counts for each Justice The basic voting pattern for divided cases (There were 11 cases with dissents this term. I bet the “under” but, at exactly 11, I think that qualifies as a push.) Source: Supreme Court of Texas Blog Final Orders for June 2017

Continue Reading

More court challenges expected for Trump's new travel ban

A scaled-back version of President Donald Trump’s travel is now in force, stripped of provisions that brought protests and chaos at airports worldwide in January yet still likely to generate a new round of court fights. The new rules, the product of months of legal wrangling, aren’t so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries. Refugees are covered, too. Administration officials promised that implementation this time, which started at 8 p.m. EDT, would be orderly. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Dan Hetlage said his agency expected “business as usual at our ports of entry,” with all valid visa holders still being able to travel. Still, immigration and refugee advocates are vowing to challenge the new requirements and the administration has struggled to explain how the rules will make the United States safer. Under the temporary rules, citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen who already have visas will be allowed into the United States. But people from those countries who want new visas will now have to prove a close family relationship or an existing relationship with an entity like a school or business in the U.S. It’s unclear how significantly the new rules will affect travel. In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel. Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas. Nevertheless, human rights groups girded for new legal battles. The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups challenging the ban, called the new criteria “extremely restrictive,” ”arbitrary” in their exclusions and designed to “disparage and condemn Muslims.” The state of Hawaii filed an emergency motion Thursday asking a federal judge to clarify that the administration cannot enforce the ban against relatives — such as grandparents, aunts or uncles — not included in the State Department’s definition of “bona fide” personal relationships. Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer met with customs officials and said he felt things would go smoothly. “For tonight, I’m anticipating few issues because, I think, there’s better preparation,” he told reporters at Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday night. “The federal government here, I think, has taken steps to avoid the havoc that occurred the last time.” Much of the confusion in January, when Trump’s first ban took effect, resulted from travelers with previously approved visas being kept off flights or barred entry on arrival in the United States. Immigration officials were instructed Thursday not to block anyone with valid travel documents and otherwise eligible to visit the United States. Source: Legal News Post More court challenges expected for Trump's new travel ban

Continue Reading