Posts Tagged ‘preemption’

Workplace law roundup

  • Obama pay reporting rules: “Forget for a moment that the whole purpose [is] to provide litigation attorneys a database they can mine to legally harass businesses. The reporting requirements here are incredibly onerous.” [Coyote, earlier here and here]
  • This seems so French: “Man Sues Former Employers for Boring Him” [Atlas Obscura, Paris; but compare 1994 Canadian story of attorney Paul Ebbs]
  • Second Circuit: managers, supervisors can be individually liable for Family and Medical Leave Act violations [Daniel Schwartz, Jon Hyman] Can one of those managers dismiss an employee who’s exhausted the allotted FMLA leave and not come back? Given the presence of the ADA in the background, you might have to guess [Schwartz]
  • Invincible myths of the pay gap [Robin Shea, Hans Bader/CEI, Claudia Goldin 2014 via Marc Andreesen, earlier]
  • Yes, a legislature does advance important state interests when it pre-empts local employment regulations [Hans Bader, CEI, on one element of North Carolina HB 2 law, on which earlier]
  • Here come “ban the box” bills restricting private, not just public, employer inquiries into criminal records of job applicants [Daniel Schwartz, Connecticut; Aabid Allibhai, On Labor]

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

Medical roundup

  • “No, Donating Your Leftover Tissue To Research Is Not Like Letting Someone Rifle Through Your Phone” [Michelle Meyer answers “Henrietta Lacks” author Rebecca Skloot; related, Richard Epstein/Hoover]
  • “Women Should Not Have to Visit a Doctor for Birth Control” [Jeffrey Singer, Time/Cato]
  • Lawyer ads can scare TV viewers into discontinuing medically indicated therapies. But is more regulation the right answer? [reform group Sick of Lawsuits]
  • Johnson & Johnson followed federal government’s own advice on labeling a drug, and got slammed by a jury in consequence [WSJ editorial]
  • U.S. opinion resistant to ratifying treaties that would create an international-law right to health care, so how about smuggling it in via congressional/executive agreement? [Nicholas Diamond, Harvard “Bill of Health”]
  • Denmark, like other Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, has replaced malpractice suits with iatrogenic injury compensation scheme [Pro Publica]
  • Has liberalized patient access to opioids been a net harm? Study suggests no [Tyler Cowen]

Gov. Brown vetoes anti-arbitration bill

In a lawyer-stimulus move that incidentally trashed freedom of contract, the California legislature passed a bill that would have virtually banned arbitration of workplace disputes that has been agreed on in advance of a dispute. But California Governor Jerry Brown has now vetoed it, arguing that the research on the effects of arbitration is still inconclusive, that the state has means of regulating it short of a ban, and that the Supreme Court is currently considering in two cases whether California law already improperly restricts arbitration in violation of the Federal Arbitration Act, an objection that could be lodged against the new enactment as well. [Carl Larson, Saqui Law Group]

NYC to carwashes: unionize or else

A new law in New York City aims to close car washes that don’t unionize, and workers’ own wishes in the matter would appear to be irrelevant. The bill would “requir[e] car wash owners to purchase a $150,000 surety bond to operate in city limits. … [But] businesses with collective bargaining agreements with unions in place only need $30,000 coverage.” [F. Bill McMorris, Free Beacon]

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

Torts roundup

  • Bad lawsuit on bad theory: “Cantor Fitzgerald, American Airlines Settle 9/11 Lawsuit” [Financial Advisor mag]
  • New Jersey court: only golfer, not his companions, responsible for yelling “Fore” to warn of errant ball [TortsProf]
  • “The New Lawsuit Ecosystem: Trends, Targets and Players,” 158-page report for Chamber of Commerce, topics include emerging areas of litigation (food class actions, data privacy); also lists leading plaintiff’s lawyers in various areas [Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform]
  • “Eleventh Circuit Stacks Deck Against Defendants in Never-Ending Engle Product Liability Litigation” [Cory Andrews, WLF]
  • Beck vs. Prof. Chemerinsky on prescription drugs and pre-emption [Drug and Device Law]
  • “Outrageous Court Decisions: O’Brien v. Muskin Corp.” [Schearer; above-ground pool dive defect claim, New Jersey 1983]
  • New York rejects medical monitoring cause of action [Behrens]

New Supreme Court decisions: Vance, Nassar, Mutual

I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty on three important decisions for the business community decided today at the Supreme Court, two on employment law and one on pharmaceutical pre-emption: Vance v. Ball State on liability for supervisorial harassment, University of Texas Southwestern v. Nassar on mixed-motive retaliation, and Mutual v. Bartlett (more) on design default preemption for a generic drug. (& welcome Coyote, Point of Law, SCOTUSBlog, Taegan Goddard/WonkWire readers)

Drug-originator liability for generic-drug injuries

A WSJ editorial and news coverage have called attention to a case from the Alabama high court holding Pfizer liable for a drug it didn’t produce, namely a generic knockoff of its acid reflux drug Reglan. Michael Greve agrees that it’s daffy to allow such suits, but traces the problem to the U.S. Supreme Court’s popular (at least with the media) 2009 decision in Wyeth v. Levine, okaying state tort actions over federally approved labels — and cautions that any victories for regulated business on the issue of federal-state preemption tend to be temporary at best. More: Coyote, FedSocBlog.

California’s Prop 37: Prop 65 in organic garb

After the quarter-century disgrace that is Proposition 65 litigation — run by and for lawyers’ interests, with no discernible benefit to the health of the citizenry — you’d think California voters would have learned a thing or two. But unless poll numbers reverse themselves, they’re on the way to approving this fall’s Proposition 37, ostensibly aimed at requiring labeling of genetically modified food, whose main sponsor just happens to be a Prop 65 lawyer. I explain in a new piece at Daily Caller. More coverage: Western Farm Press; Hank Campbell, Science 2.0; Ronald Bailey, Reason (& Red State).

More: defenders of Prop 37 point to this analysis (PDF) by economist James Cooper, arguing that 37 is drafted more narrowly than 65 in ways that would avert some of the potential for abusive litigation. And from Hans Bader: would the measure be open to challenge as unconstitutional, or as federally preempted?