Legal Alerts

Legal Alerts

  • September 17, 2021
    Illinois Appellate Court Holds Different Statutes of Limitations Apply to Different BIPA Provisions

    Today, in a highly-anticipated opinion, the Illinois First District Appellate Court ruled in Tims v. Black Horse Motor Carriers, Inc. that different statutes of limitations apply to different provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA, or the Act). This ruling has far reaching implications for all pending BIPA litigation and is likely to be appealed.

    Read more
  • September 16, 2021
    California Appellate Court Holds Unpaid Medical Bills May Be Admitted Into Evidence Under Very Limited Circumstances

    In Qaadir v. Figueroa (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 790, the plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence arising from a car accident defendants caused. During trial, both parties had billing experts testify about the reasonableness of the medical bills. Neither of the billing experts relied upon plaintiff’s unpaid medical bills to determine the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s medical expenses. On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court erred by admitting the plaintiff’s unpaid medical bills.

    Read more
  • September 16, 2021
    FTC Publishes Report on Non-HSR Acquisitions by Tech Giants

    On September 15, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a report summarizing its findings from a study it performed regarding acquisitions made by five large technology firms over a 10-year period that were not reported to the federal U.S. antitrust agencies under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.

    Read more
  • September 15, 2021
    House Democrats Propose Detailed Federal Tax Changes, Mostly Increases

    Late in the night on Sunday, September 12, 2021, Democrats on the House Ways & Means Committee leaked changes spanning much of federal tax law. On September 13, Ways & Means officially released a summary of the proposed changes and 645 pages of draft legislative text.

    Read more
  • September 10, 2021
    Large Employer Vaccine Mandate and COVID-19 Action Plan

    On September 9, 2021, in response to growing case counts and lagging vaccination rates, the Biden administration announced its COVID-19 Action Plan, laying out a “path out of the pandemic.” The centerpiece of the president’s announcement is a new employee vaccination mandate for all private sector employers with at least 100 employees.

    Read more
  • September 09, 2021
    Florida Supreme Court Adopts Apex Doctrine, Provides Protections for High-Level Corporate Officials

    Historically, Florida state courts have allowed plaintiffs to depose a defendant’s senior executives regardless of whether they have personal knowledge of the underlying claim, a tactic that has been used by some plaintiffs' counsel to exert pressure on the defendant. In federal court, however, this practice is prohibited by the “Apex Doctrine.” On August 26, 2021, the court amended the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure following a certified question of the First District Court of Appeal.

    Read more
  • September 09, 2021
    Texas Legislature Passes Overtly Employee-Friendly Reforms to Sexual Harassment Laws

    Perhaps surprising for Texas employers, the Texas legislature has significantly expanded sexual harassment protections for employees, rendering Texas’ state law protections more expansive than those provided by similar federal statutes. These changes, which took effect on September 1, 2021, have significant practical implications.

    Read more
  • September 08, 2021
    Two Steps Backward for Gig Economy Businesses After California Superior Court Judge Finds Proposition 22 Exemption to AB 5 Unconstitutional

    In November 2020, California voters passed Proposition 22, which exempted gig economy businesses (such as Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc., DoorDash Inc. and Instacart Inc.) from California Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5). Previously, AB 5 had required these “app-based drivers” to be classified as employees instead of independent contractors. In what is unlikely to be the only judicial attack on Prop. 22, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge recently deemed Prop. 22 unconstitutional and unenforceable.

    Read more
Load More