It's obviously no longer Monday morning.  Publication this week was delayed due to an unforseen technical problem.  With apologies, we proceed, belatedly.

The Yankees finished their weekend on a good note, beating the Astro's. As a result, my week is off to a good start.

Here, however, I have to confess that the time crunch last week in getting our blog and website redesigns up and running cut mightily into my time for research for “pepper” items.  Here's a quick roundup.

The “cat's paw” decision from the Supreme Court — Staub v. Proctor Hospital — has been the subject of extensive comment already.  The plaintiff's bar mostly thinks the decision will make proving discrimination cases much easier.  The defense bar, if I read the initial reaction correctly, is afraid that the plaintiff's bar is right.  As with most such things, however, time will tell.

For a compilation of documents important to the Staub decision, see the ScotusBlog, here.

Most plainitff lawyers usually prefer trial by jury to trial by judge.  Here's a situation in a disability case where the a judge did just fine by a plaintiff, to the tune of $583,000.

And to finish with a baseball analogy, from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals comes an answer to the question of how many drug testing strikes a recovering drug addict gets without violating the ADA.  Answer, one strike and you're out.