The case was brought by lawyers for Evelyn Coke, a 73-year-old retiree who spent more than two decades in the home care industry helping the ill and the elderly.

Now in failing health, Coke said her employer never paid her time and a half for all her extra hours on the job.

Lawyers for Coke challenged the Labor Department regulation, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ruled in the workers' favor.

The appeals court said it was "implausible" that Congress would have wanted the Labor Department to wipe out protection for an entire category of workers.

The Labor Department wrote the restrictive regulation after Congress expanded the law's coverage.

Paying overtime would cost billions, the home care industry says.

In New York City, the annual cost of the Medicaid-funded Personal Care Services Program would rise by at least a quarter of a billion dollars if the appeals court decision is allowed to stand, the city says. The Personal Care Services program pays 90 private companies to send 60,000 home attendants to the homes of low-income elderly and disabled.

Coke's former employer, Long Island Care at Home Ltd., says it would experience "tremendous and unsustainable losses" if it had to comply with federal overtime requirements.

The Bush administration and the company that employed Coke opposed her lawsuit.

If Congress had wanted to apply the law's wage and overtime provisions to such workers, "it easily could have done so," the Bush administration said in papers filed in the case. Instead, Congress assigned the secretary of labor the task of deciding the issue, the administration said.

At issue is a suit filed against Philip Morris by two Arkansas women alleging that the company engaged in unfair business practices in marketing its low-tar Cambridge Lights and Marlboro Lights cigarette brands.

Companies facing class-action lawsuits typically prefer to have those cases litigated in federal courts, where they usually fare better than in state courts.

Philip Morris succeeded in having the case moved to federal court, saying it was appropriate because cigarette advertisements had been regulated by a U.S. agency -- the Federal Trade Commission.

The move was subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in St. Louis. The U.S. Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the appeals court's ruling should be overturned.

The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the ruling in an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Breyer said the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail does not bring that company under the scope of the law that permits removal to federal court.

Three years earlier, he had shot his grandparents, Joe and Joy Pittman, with a pump-action shotgun as they slept, then set fire to their home in Chester County.

His attorneys argued unsuccessfully at trial that he was involuntarily intoxicated by the antidepressant Zoloft and didn't know right from wrong.

Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of Zoloft, has said the drug "didn't cause his problems, nor did the medication drive him to commit murder."

Zoloft is the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, with 32.7 million prescriptions written in 2003. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration ordered Zoloft and other antidepressants to carry "black box" warnings — the government's strongest warning short of a ban — about an increased risk of suicidal behavior in children.

Christopher Pittman, now 6-foot-2, has attracted attention worldwide. He turned 18 in April and is in an adult prison, where supporters visit him regularly.

The case generated outrage that Pittman was held so long before his trial. In October, dozens of supporters and relatives gathered in Columbia as defense attorney Andy Vickery argued before the state Supreme Court that his client's confession was influenced by Zoloft and his youth.

A law firm believes a conflict of interest may cost the school district money.

Two law firms represent the school district in trying to recover millions of dollars lost through fraud and abuse over several years. One, Saul Ewing LLP, a Princeton law firm, believes the other firm, Schenck, Price, Smith & King LLP of Morristown, has a conflict because it represents one of the parties the district might sue.

 
From 1998 to 2003, several contractors allegedly defrauded the district by padding bills, charging for incomplete work, receiving double payments and using other tactics.

Three former school district employees have so far been prosecuted for their roles in the case and the investigation is ongoing. Schenck Price has filed five lawsuits on behalf of the district since 2004 and recovered about $1.5 million thus far, said Sidney Sayovitz, an attorney for the firm.

But Schenck Price also represents Epic Construction Management, Sayovitz confirmed. John Pribish, a Saul Ewing lawyer, sent a letter obtained by the Herald News to the district on Sept. 14, 2006, expressing his concerns.

Pribish described Epic Construction as the construction manager during the time when the contractors sued by Schenck Price conducted their work. The Saul Ewing law firm was retained by the district to pursue litigation against Epic.

Now Pribish is saying that Schenck Price's representation of either the school district or Epic Construction compromises the law firm's ability to "maintain its duty of loyalty and confidentiality to both clients where the clients' interests are adverse."

Michael Glascoe, schools superintendent, was unavailable for comment Friday. Officials from the state Education Department would not comment on the matter.

Pribish said the matter is privileged between the attorney and his client, the school district, and would not comment.

In his September letter to Glascoe, Saul Ewing attorney Pribish asked to meet with school officials and Board of Education members to discuss the matter further.

No one confirmed whether a meeting has been set or ever took place.

Sayovitz, the Schenck Price lawyer, believes that his firm is not jeopardizing the district's ability to recoup money.

"Everyone understood from the beginning that we could not be involved with Epic. This was all very openly discussed," Sayovitz said Thursday. "Saul Ewing is free to sue Epic. That's why they were retained."

Sayovitz said the district informed his law firm to go ahead with its litigation against everybody but Epic. There is no record of any lawsuit being filed in Superior Court in Passaic County against Epic.

Mike Azzara, the district's former assistant superintendent for operations in 2002-2005, when both law firms were retained, said Schenck Price notified the district that they could not represent Paterson in anything related to Epic Construction. Azzara is the chief operations officer/treasurer in the Tredyffrin/Easttown school district in Pennsylvania.

"So I called around to find out who I could hire for a potential fraud investigation," of Epic, Azzara said Thursday, adding that Saul Ewing was recommended to him. "They knew I was hiring them because there was a conflict with our regular solicitor."

Saul Ewing lawyer Pribish wrote that Epic Construction may use the fact that it was not originally named in any lawsuits as a basis to argue that any further suit should be disallowed. The contractors currently being sued could also say that Epic is really culpable, and so the contractors themselves could not be held responsible.

Sayovitz said his firm has acted professionally and legally in all matters involving the school district.

"If they had filed suit against Epic," Sayovitz said of Saul Ewing, "and said they were intertwined with the other suits, then we would've done what we are required under the rules of professional conduct. We would've walked away."

The judge ordered Jefferson to surrender his passport and post a $100,000 bond. Ellis said he would allow Jefferson unrestricted travel between the Washington area and Louisiana, but he must get the judge's approval for other trips.

Jefferson was accused of soliciting millions of dollars in bribes from nearly a dozen companies.

The business ventures included telecommunications deals in Nigeria and Ghana, oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea, satellite transmission contracts in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo, and a Nigerian sugar plant.

According to the indictment, an FBI witness gave Jefferson $100,000 in cash intended as a bribe for an unnamed Nigerian official in 2005.

It said Jefferson put in his home freezer $90,000 of the cash, which was separated into amounts of $10,000, wrapped in aluminum foil and concealed inside various frozen food containers.

Representative Jefferson has not responded directly to the indictment, but his lawyer, Robert Trout, stated that his client was innocent and would "fight this indictment and clear his name." Acknowledging the comprehensive investigation carried out against his client, as detailed in the 94-page indictment, Trout pointed out that legislative action was not involved. "There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations," said Trout. "There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts."

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi expressed some concern over the allegations. "The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious," said Pelosi. "While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power."

If found guilty of the charges ultimately, Representative Jefferson faces a maximum sentence of 235 years.