Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Court Applies the Brakes to “Quickie” Election Rules

Posted in Labor

On May 16, 2012

As previously discussed on the Employment Law Alert, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) recently implemented a rule that could speed up the union election process and, in turn, leave employers with less time to communicate their positions on unions to employees. Yesterday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the rule invalid because only two Board members were “present” when the NLRB passed the rule last December. The court explained that the Board did not satisfy the National Labor Relations Act’s requirement that the NLRB have a quorum (typically the presence of three Board members) to conduct business when it voted on the rule. “According to Woody Allen, eight percent of life is just showing up,” wrote the court. “When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that.”

Predictive Coding Upheld by District Court: Judge Carter Endorses Judge Peck’s Approval of Computer-Assisted ESI Review

by Phillip J. Duffy

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On May 16, 2012

On March 2, 2012, we reported on Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s February 24, 2012 decision in Monique Da Silva Moore, et al., v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Civ. No. 11-1279 (ALC)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), wherein Judge Peck issued the first judicial opinion approving the use of predictive coding “in appropriate cases.” On April 25, 2012, District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. rejected plaintiffs’ bid to overturn that decision, and cleared the way for the use of computer-assisted ESI review in this case and others.

Recent Impact of Reexams on Stays in E.D. Texas

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On May 15, 2012

A district court’s inherent powers to control its docket and to stay proceedings are well-settled, harkening back to at least Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). Within the Eastern District of Texas, in determining whether a stay is warranted pending reexamination in a patent litigation, district courts typically consider factors such as whether a stay will unduly prejudice one party; whether a stay will simplify the issues in the case; and whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set. E.g., Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d 660, 662 (E.D.Tex.2005).

Chapter 91 – Failure to Comply Still Absolute Bar to Tax Appeal in N.J.

by Shepard A. Federgreen

Posted in Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On May 14, 2012

In United Parcel Service v. Secaucus, UPS failed to properly respond to a request for information as to income and expenses made by the tax assessor pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-34, universally known as a “Chapter 91 request.” Later, when UPS brought an action in the Tax Court to challenge its 2011 assessment, the assessor moved to have the action dismissed due to UPS’s failure to properly respond to the Chapter 91 request. This is what a tax assessor typically does in these circumstances because the statute is clear that the failure of the owner to respond to a Chapter 91 request within 45 days is an absolute bar to the right to bring an appeal of the assessment.

ESI Guidelines for the Bankruptcy Case: The ABA’s Electronic Discovery in Bankruptcy Working Group Issues Interim Report

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Technology Developments and Issues

On May 14, 2012

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were updated in 2006 specifically to deal with electronically stored information (“ESI”), Bankruptcy Courts and Bankruptcy practitioners have had little bankruptcy-specific guidelines for managing ESI and electronic discovery issues. As a result, the ABA commissioned the Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group “to study and prepare guidelines or a best practices report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve [ESI] in bankruptcy cases.” On March 15, 2012, the Working Group published their interim report on ESI in bankruptcy cases in an effort to invite and stimulate comments from a wider audience regarding how ESI issues should be handled in (i) large Chapter 11 cases; (ii) middle market and smaller Chapter 11 cases; and (iii) Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases.

New Law Generates Buzz Among South Jersey’s Wine Growers

by Brett S. Theisen

Posted in Liquor Licensing

On May 11, 2012

On May 1, 2012, a law took effect that will allow New Jersey farmers and wineries to skip wholesalers and sell directly to retailers and consumers. The new law grants similar rights to out-of-state wineries and finally cleared the way for the Garden State to begin issuing new winery licenses to growers. While local business and political leaders are hoping the relaxed regulations will encourage further investment in the state’s wine industry, producers, retailers, and wine lovers alike are cheering the increased access to locally-grown wines ahead of the summer tourism season.

CAVEAT EMPTOR! – USPTO Issues Warning on Misleading Third Party Communications

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks / USPTO

On May 11, 2012

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has issued a warning notice advising trademark owners to beware of third party communications that “mimic the look of official government documents” and request payment of fees. That notice was issued after a number of owners reported to the USPTO that they had made payments in response to such requests, believing that they were for official fees and then learned that they were not.

Denying a Disabled Employee’s Request to Fill a Vacant Position as an Accommodation Because More Qualified Candidates are Available Remains Problematic Under the ADA

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Disability

On May 11, 2012

Are employers obligated, as a reasonable accommodation, to fill a vacant position with an employee whose disability renders him unable to perform his own job when other candidates for the vacant position are more qualified? The position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that employers have that obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was recently rejected by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But the panel took the unusual step of recommending that the issue be considered by the court en banc (i.e. by the entire membership of the Seventh Circuit). In the great majority of circuits, the issue remains unsettled, and employers must tread carefully when responding to such accommodation requests.

Final ARRCS Rules Adoption Published in NJ Register

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On May 7, 2012

To fully implement the Site Remediation Reform Act, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has published a notice of adoption of amendments to the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (ARRCS rules), N.J.A.C. 7:26C in the New Jersey Register today, May 7, 2012. This adoption also amends several other rules related to site remediation in New Jersey, including the repeal and replacement of the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, N.J.A.C. 7:26E, and amendments to the Industrial Site Recovery Act rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26B. This rule adoption is concurrent with the final May 7, 2012 deadline for almost all remediating parties to engage a Licensed Site Remediation Professional to conduct remediations in NJ.

New Updated FMLA Forms Issued by DOL

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Family Leave

On May 7, 2012

Without any substantive changes, new updated model Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) forms have been issued by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) website and are available on the DOL website (in the section for Wage and Hour Division Forms). Employers using the former model FMLA forms on the DOL website should replace their prior versions, which expired on December 31, 201, with the new versions. Employers using their own FMLA forms should include appropriate language to prevent employee disclosure of genetic information prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Such language should generally be included in the employer’s FMLA policies and other employee communications. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations suggest a “safe harbor” notice to include in such communications to effectively lessen the chance of an inappropriate disclosure of genetic information.