New episode of our podcast, Speaking of Litigation: FBI! Open up! Is your organization prepared to handle a government investigation?
Guilty or not, having a preparedness plan in place for when a government agency comes knocking is just as important as conducting a company fire drill.
In this episode of Speaking of Litigation, Epstein Becker Green litigators Alkida Kacani, George Breen, and Eric Moran discuss a few of the most common (and invasive) legal maneuvers government investigators may take when approaching a company or its employees.
When dealing with civil ...
New episode of our podcast, Speaking of Litigation:
Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders can prove useful in a counsel’s attempt to preserve evidence, prove irreparable harm, protect trade secrets, stop violations of either building codes or health care laws, and much more.
In this episode of Speaking of Litigation, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Scheherazade Wasty, Jonathan Brollier, and David Jacobs delve into the recipes for success in these legal motions and emphasize the importance of an experienced counsel when seeking or opposing ...
New episode of our podcast, Speaking of Litigation: From chart-topping artificial rap songs to employment screening tools, artificial intelligence (AI) is not only a societal phenomenon but also a growing legal dilemma.
Trial lawyers around the globe are focused on the emergence of AI-related disputes in and out of the courtroom.
Trial lawyers are constantly developing dynamic litigation strategies and using new technologies in the courtroom.
Whether we like it or not, litigation is becoming more like a reality TV show, with video depositions trending toward full-scale production sets. But what really goes into making a comprehensive and seamless video deposition?
The Court has resumed issuing opinions with its holding in Babcock v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. This case of statutory interpretation is of particular interest to the relatively small set of individuals who claim retirement benefits based on simultaneous service in two federal pension systems. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Barrett, was joined by all of the other Justices, save for Justice Gorsuch, who, somewhat self-consciously, dissented.
Our colleagues Gregory Keating and Francesco DeLuca of Epstein Becker Green have a new post on Workforce Bulletin that will be of interest to our readers: "Massachusetts Case Highlights Importance of Clear Communication in Compensation Plans."
The following is an excerpt:
Preparing the terms of employee compensation can be a resource-intensive task requiring input from stakeholders across numerous departments, including human resources, finance, and legal. However, as the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s recent decision in Alfieri v. Merrimack Pharmaceuticals ...
Richard Robinson was a truck driver who tried to sue his former employer for civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney’s General Act (“PAGA”). Unfortunately for him, his employer settled another PAGA action while his case was still pending, and despite opting out of the other settlement, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case because he no longer had standing to bring his own PAGA claim once the other had settled.
Mr. Robinson worked as a truck driver for Southern Counties Oil Company. After completing the prerequisite steps for bringing a PAGA action against ...
On July 8, 2020, the California Court of Appeals held that when an employee fails to initial a specific part of an arbitration agreement, but still signs it, the agreement is still enforceable.
Plaintiff Joseph Martinez brought a series of employment claims against his former employer, BaronHR, Inc., which moved to compel arbitration. Martinez opposed the motion to compel arbitration on the ground that he did not initial the provision outlining his agreement to waive his right to a trial by jury. Martinez argued that the absence of his initials expressed an intent not to arbitrate ...
On September 6, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement in Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. The significance of the result is two-fold. First, substantively, it is a reminder to financial services firms of potential liability under California labor law when advisors are required to pay for business expenses. Second, procedurally, the court’s approval of the settlement is edifying on the subject of parallel class actions.
In the Harvey case, plaintiffs challenged Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s ...
On June 19, 2019, the New York State Senate and Assembly passed legislation that would, if signed into law, broaden the scope of last year’s ban on clauses requiring employees to arbitrate sexual harassment claims so as to prohibit such clauses with respect to all types of discrimination claims. As reported on this blog, this ban on mandatory arbitration clauses was deemed invalid, as contrary to federal law, by the June 26, 2019 decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 18-11528). It is too early ...
- What to Do If the Government Knocks on Your Company’s Door … or Breaks It Down – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
- What Does the Upcoming Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Mean for the Admission of Expert Testimony?
- Rare DOJ Criminal Indictment Related to Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment
- What to Do When Your Distribution Checks Stop Arriving
- The Validity of More Than a Decade’s Worth of Federal Regulations Are at Stake as the U.S. Supreme Court Decides the Constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Funding Structure