|
|
|
Sanford Wittels & Heisler Files Employment Class Action
Class Action News |
2012/01/12 15:16
|
Attorneys at Sanford Wittels & Heisler today filed a $100 million gender discrimination employment class action complaint against Quest Diagnostics, Inc. and AmeriPath, Inc., in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint details the systemic discriminatory treatment of female sales representatives company-wide by the self-proclaimed "world leader in diagnostic testing, information and services."
"Although Quest boasts about its dedication to delivering quality care down to the molecular level, the company falls woefully short of devoting similar attention to extending equal employment opportunities to its female sales reps," said David Sanford, the plaintiffs' lead attorney. "Quest has known or should have known that its business practices have an illegal disparate impact on women, employees with family responsibilities and pregnant employees. However, it has consistently failed to adopt measures to rectify this pervasive discrimination that its discriminatory policies, practices and procedures creates."
Indiana resident Erin Beery and Florida resident Heather Traeger, both of them current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division, filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated sales reps employed from February 17, 2010 to the present. Beery is an Executive Territory Manager in Quest's Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Indianapolis; Traeger is Senior Executive Territory Manager in the Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Bradenton.
The complaint details a wide range of discriminatory practices in the selection, promotion and advancement of sales reps at Quest Diagnostics and AmeriPath, including discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and caretaking responsibilities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.
In addition, both of the named plaintiffs in the case have individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender hostility, the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation in the workplace affecting them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.
New Jersey based Quest is one of the largest companies in the U.S. It is currently ranked at 320 on the Fortune 500, reporting revenue of $7.4 billion and employing 42,000 workers in 2011.
About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in qui tam, employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in major class action cases in the United States.
http://www.nydclaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dutch court orders companies to block Pirate Bay
Legal World News |
2012/01/12 11:18
|
A Dutch court on Wednesday ordered two major Internet service providers in the Netherlands to block their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay website or face large fines.
The Swedish-born website has been a thorn in the side of the entertainment industry for years by helping millions of people download copyrighted music, movies and computer games. In 2010, a Swedish appeals court upheld the copyright infringement convictions of three men behind the site, but it remains in operation.
The Dutch ISPs Ziggo and XS4ALL had resisted demands by a copyright holders’ organization to block their subscribers’ access to the site, arguing they should not have to act as censors.
But the Hague District Court said in its written ruling they must do so within 10 working days or face fines of euro10,000 ($12,750) per day.
Another option, individually pursuing “many thousands of subscribers in the Netherlands who trade files via The Pirate Bay would be, in the court’s judgment, no less a far-reaching measure,” the court said.
Past attempts by the copyright organization Stichting Brein had either failed or proved ineffective: Dutch courts have repeatedly found that downloading copyrighted files is not illegal. Uploading them is illegal, since it is considered publishing without permission _ but it can be difficult to prove a person has uploaded a file without using spying techniques that are themselves illegal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules against man convicted by eyewitness ID
Headline News |
2012/01/11 18:37
|
The Supreme Court declined Wednesday to extend constitutional safeguards against the use of some eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite concerns that eyewitness identification plays a key role in innocent people going to prison.
In a case dealing with a narrow slice of the issue of identifying a suspect, the court voted 8-1 to uphold the theft conviction of Barion Perry in New Hampshire state court. Perry argued that courts should be able to exclude eyewitness testimony when identifications are made under suggestive circumstances, even when there is no evidence of manipulation by the police.
Judges already can bar testimony when the police do something to influence a witness to identify a suspect.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her opinion for the court that in cases with no police misconduct, lawyers can cross-examine a witness and juries can weigh the reliability of the testimony.
Ginsburg said a prime reason for excluding such testimony when the police are involved is deterrence. "Where there is no improper police conduct, there is nothing to deter," she said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court says Texas can enforce abortion law
Legal Career News |
2012/01/11 16:37
|
A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling that signaled the judges believe the law is constitutional.
When the state will begin enforcing the law was not immediately clear. The group that brought the case, the Center for Reproductive Rights, is weighing how to proceed and has 14 days to ask for a rehearing of the case. If there are no appeals by then, the court would likely allow the state to begin enforcing the law.
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary order against enforcing the law and went further to advise U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks how he should ultimately rule in the case. Chief Judge Edith H. Jones used her opinion to systematically dismantle the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, the key argument against the law.
"The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information," Jones wrote. "The appellees failed to demonstrate constitutional flaws" with the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rules in favor of arbitration
Headline News |
2012/01/10 17:16
|
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that disputes between consumers and companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings can be handled in business-friendly arbitration, rather than federal court.
The justices voted 8-1 to reverse a federal appeals court ruling allowing consumers to sue in federal court, the latest in a string of recent high court decisions in favor of arbitration. The consumers said they were promised an initial $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees in the first year they had the credit card.
But the court, with only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting, agreed with the companies' argument that the dispute must be settled through arbitration, under an agreement that the customers signed to receive the card.
The federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, says consumers have a right to sue, which the federal appeals court in San Francisco interpreted as a right to go to court, rather than be forced to submit to arbitration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court says Texas can enforce abortion law
Legal Career News |
2012/01/10 17:16
|
A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks' temporary order against enforcing the law, saying Sparks was incorrect to rule that doctors who oppose it had a substantial chance of winning their case. The court's opinion systematically dismantles the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, one of the key arguments for not enforcing the law.
"The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information," the opinion concluded.
Sparks ruled in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by requiring that they show and describe the sonogram images and describe the fetal heartbeat, all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.
The appeals court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "upheld an informed-consent statute over precisely the same 'compelled speech' challenges made" in the current Texas case.
Earlier rulings have found laws requiring doctors to give "truthful, nonmisleading and relevant" information are reasonable regulation, not ideological speech requiring strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, the appeals court said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
