-
Nov 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Christopher M. Pardo
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (“BMS”), holding the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state court from adjudicating non-resident plaintiffs’ state-law claims.
-
Nov 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Christopher M. Pardo |Theanna Bezney |Whitt Steineker
Skip to main content November 14, 2024 Volume XIV, Number 319 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
-
Oct 7, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Christopher M. Pardo
On September 27, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”) entered judgment in favor of 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) in Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., putting to rest a class action lawsuit 7-Eleven has been defending for more than seven years regarding allegations that its franchisees were actually employees of 7-Eleven, based on the application of the Massachusetts independent contractor statute.
-
Sep 23, 2024 | 
law.com | Ryan Glasgow |Christopher M. Pardo |Katherine Sandberg
In August of this year, a Texas federal court blocked the Federal Trade Commission’s Noncompete Rule (16 C.F.R. Section 910.1-6) (Final Rule) on a nationwide basis for all employers. The Final Rule would have banned nearly all noncompetes for most types of workers and was set to go into effect on Sept. 4, 2024. Despite this favorable ruling, the future of the Final Rule is uncertain because of ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions.
-
Sep 17, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Christopher M. Pardo
As background, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) permits employers to satisfy a portion of their minimum wage obligations (currently $7.25 per hour) to “tipped employees” (defined as “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips”) by allocating a tip credit toward the minimum wage. Accordingly, the employer can pay an hourly rate as low as $2.13 per hour as long as the employee’s tips make up the difference.
-
Sep 17, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Christopher M. Pardo |Katherine Sandberg
As background, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) permits employers to satisfy a portion of their minimum wage obligations (currently $7.25 per hour) to “tipped employees” (defined as “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips”) by allocating a tip credit toward the minimum wage. Accordingly, the employer can pay an hourly rate as low as $2.13 per hour as long as the employee’s tips make up the difference.
-
Sep 5, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Kathryn Rattigan |Sean Griffin |Christopher M. Pardo |Veronica A. Torrejón
On September 4, 2024, the Irish High Court dismissed proceedings against X related to X’s use of personal data for its AI tool “Grok”. In August 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) brought an urgent action before the Irish High Court regarding significant concerns it had with X’s processing of personal data contained in public posts of X’s EU/EEA users for the purpose of training Grok and the associated risks to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the users.
-
Sep 5, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Nick Oberheiden |Christopher M. Pardo |Veronica A. Torrejón |Stefanie Marrone
On September 3, 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (“Dutch DPA”) announced a €30.5 million fine against Clearview AI for the processing of personal data related to its biometric data database. The decision is dated May 16, 2024. The Dutch DPA follows other European data protection authorities that have previously fined Clearview AI for similar practices, such as the CNIL. According to the Dutch DPA, Clearview AI has a database with more than 30 billion photos of individuals.
-
Sep 5, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Christopher M. Pardo
The EEOC is asking the Ninth Circuit to clarify the U.S. Supreme Court’s new standard for determining the type of harm that constitutes an adverse job action in discrimination cases and to apply that standard or remand the case at issue so the lower court can apply the new standard. The case pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, titled Xu v.
-
Sep 5, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Christopher M. Pardo |Veronica A. Torrejón
The EEOC is asking the Ninth Circuit to clarify the U.S. Supreme Court’s new standard for determining the type of harm that constitutes an adverse job action in discrimination cases and to apply that standard or remand the case at issue so the lower court can apply the new standard. The case pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, titled Xu v.
