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.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment