Articles Posted in Featured Posts

Published on:

A December 2016 decision reached by an Administrative Law Judge in New Jersey may have implications for employers in other states where medical marijuana is legal. With the current trend toward legalization of marijuana, it’s only logical for entrepreneurs to consult with attorneys about how these laws might affect them.

Medical-Marijuana-79796786-001

The current case involved Andrew Watson, a lumber company employee who injured his hand on-the-job. Initially, Watson’s doctors prescribed Percocet to manage his chronic pain. His doctor then recommended that he try medical marijuana. Watson legally purchased medical marijuana, and submitted a claim to his employer’s worker’s compensation insurance. An ounce of medical marijuana costs an average of $489 in New Jersey, which is one of the most expensive prices in the U.S. The insurer refused compensation.

Nonetheless, Watson found that the marijuana helped manage his chronic pain effectively and with fewer side effects than the opiates. He took his case to court so that he could continue with the treatment and have the expenses reimbursed by his employer’s worker’s compensation coverage.

After considering the situation, Judge Ingrid French ruled that Watson’s use of medical marijuana is appropriate and that the insurer should pay for the associated expenses. She notes in her decision that “the effects of the marijuana … is not as debilitating as the effects of the Percocet.” Additionally, French found that Watson had “achieved a greater level of functionality,” because of the medical marijuana use and that “his approach to his pain management needs (is) cautious, mature …”

She went on to say that whether or not medicinal marijuana is used is a matter that should be reserved for doctors and patients in states where its use is legal. While some employers expressed concern over the outcome, others say that it likely will not affect them. That’s because the requirements for qualifying for medical marijuana are so stringent in New Jersey. This, coupled with the relatively limited chances of a worker also qualifying for a worker’s compensation claim, keeps them optimistic.

Published on:

Ownership of some of the most well-known Beatles songs has been on a tortuous path for decades. Sir Paul McCartney, a former Beatle and writer or co-writer of many of the group’s biggest hits, is taking legal action to reclaim the rights to his creations. It’s an ongoing odyssey with no end in sight.

Beatles-Imagine-2902823-001McCartney is the author of many famous Beatles songs. Sometimes collaborating with John Lennon, he wrote tunes like “Love Me Do” and “Yesterday.” However, the rights to those songs were often immediately signed away. Most of the rights were lost between 1962 and 1971. Various publishers snapped up the rights, but by the 1980s, publisher ATV owned most of them. When an Australian businessman who owned a controlling share in the songs put them up for sale in 1984, Michael Jackson notoriously outbid Paul McCartney to become the owner of the Beatles’ catalog.

In fact, Jackson and Sony formed Sony/ATV, with the Beatles’ works being among the company’s major assets. The Jackson family sold their share of the company to Sony after Michael Jackson’s 2009 death. Now that Sony/ATV can claim sole ownership, McCartney is suing them to regain ownership of his work.

The lawsuit, which was filed in New York, is based on a facet of the 1976 Copyright Act, which stipulates that any creative works made prior to 1978 be returned after 56 years to their originators. McCartney’s filing is timely considering that he and Lennon first began writing together in 1962, precisely 56 years before 2018. Accordingly, a court could decide that McCartney may reclaim the lucrative rights to his songs as early as next year.

McCartney has been trying to reclaim those rights for many years. Thus far, Sony/ATV is unwilling to accommodate his request. They cite a long-term relationship with McCartney, and express disappointment that the musician filed the lawsuit, which they call unnecessary and premature.

The battle over the rights to the Beatles’ catalog is likely to continue for many years, which only highlights the need for individuals and companies to protect their intellectual property rights.

Published on:

With the passage of Proposition 64 in November, California became one of a handful of states to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. Many residents are thrilled with the outcome, but the new law is leaving employers wondering what their rights are.

Marijuana-legalization-94540729-001The good news is that the authors of Proposition 64 foresaw that marijuana legalization might pose a problem to numerous industries. That’s why there is a provision in the law that explicitly maintains the employer’s right to prohibit the use and possession of marijuana, particularly on any work sites. Accordingly, any company is perfectly within its rights to keep their drug-free workplace policies on track, though it does make sense to ensure that everything is in order.

Now is the perfect time to meet with an employment attorney to make certain that an existing company drug policy is sufficiently broad. If a drug policy is not already in place, then it is definitely time to craft one, a project that takes time and considerable legal expertise. Under the new law, employers are still permitted to require pre-employment drug tests, and they maintain the right to not hire candidates who test positive for marijuana. Even if the drug was obtained and used legally, the employer does not have to accept such use among their prospective employees. However, it is critical that any pre-employment drug screenings are conducted fairly and impartially, without any discriminatory element.

Under California’s new law, employers are also permitted to conduct drug tests among existing employees. Once again, it is crucial that this be done in a non-discriminatory manner. Moreover, companies may want to review their written drug policies with all employees to make it clear that marijuana use is not appropriate or acceptable. Management may also need to sit down with human resources staff to ensure that they are ready to field questions from employees.

California’s revolutionary Proposition 64 may have made recreational marijuana use legal, but it still allows employers to make important safety decisions. If you have any questions about how California’s new recreational marijuana law will affect you and/or your employees, feel free to contact me, attorney Rich Oppenheim at 818-461-8500. You may also use the form on the right side of this page.

Published on:

A U.S. magistrate judge has made an important ruling that will allow plaintiff’s counsel to serve notice of a lawsuit on the defendant via Twitter. The ruling may help to set precedent in similar cases where a party in the U.S. wants to sue a foreign defendant.

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.

The case at hand was brought by St. Francis of Assisi. A non-profit that provides help to refugees, the organization wanted to sue the Kuwait Finance House, Kuveyt-Turk Participation Bank and an individual named Hajjaj al-Ajmi. Service on the first two defendants was relatively straightforward, but the plaintiff was having difficulty locating al-Ajmi.

St. Francis of Assisi was alleging that the three defendants had funded a Christian genocide in countries like Syria and Iraq. However, service of the complaint had to be completed before the case could proceed. Al-Ajmi had already been identified by the United Nations and the U.S. government as a financier of terror group ISIS. He is known to have organized numerous Twitter campaigns to raise funds for the organization under several different Twitter handles.

That’s why counsel for plaintiffs petitioned the judge for the opportunity to serve the complaint on al-Ajmi via Twitter. Traditional methods had already failed. Plus, because Kuwait is not a signor of the Hague Convention, it wasn’t possible for service to be completed through some sort of centralized or government authority.

Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted the plaintiff’s request to serve notice via Twitter. Writing that Twitter was “reasonably calculated to give notice” and that the effort “is not prohibited by international agreement,” Beeler opened the door not only for St. Francis of Assisi, but also for other plaintiffs who want to serve a lawsuit on a foreign national that seems to be able to avoid service by regular means.

The ability to serve a lawsuit via Twitter doesn’t guarantee that al-Ajmi will respond or that he will ever pay any money that the court may decide is owed to the plaintiffs. Nonetheless, the fact that such unconventional service is being allowed may prove to be beneficial for other plaintiffs in similar situations.

 

Published on:

The Consumer Product Safety Act, or CPSA, and legislation like it, makes it a crime to sell products that are the subject of a safety recall. Nonetheless, that is precisely what the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, says that retail giant Best Buy did between 2010 and 2015. The retailer recently agreed to pay a $3.8 million penalty to the CPSC for breaking the law.

Compliance and Violation words on green road or street signs to illustrate the important choice between following or ignoring vital legal rules, guidelines, laws and regulations

The CPSC accused Best Buy of continuing to sell 16 products even after those items had been recalled. Ranging from cameras and laptops to dishwashers and electric ranges, each product posed a safety hazard. A recalled dehumidifier sparked a fire after being sold by a Best Buy store years after it should have been quarantined from sale. Given the more stringent clauses of the CPSA, which was amended in 2008, it was only a matter of time before the CPSC took notice.

Best Buy stated that they had a recall system in place during the 2010 to 2015 period. However, the CPSC found that Best Buy’s system for finding and getting rid of recalled products was ineffective. Among the findings, the CPSC says that the Best Buy system failed to permanently block product codes for recalled items. Additionally, some of those product codes were reactivated or the system functions that should have prevented a sale were overridden.

In addition to paying the $3.8 million penalty, Best Buy must also set up a much more robust system for identifying recalled products and preventing them from being sold. This system will include an internal component of controls and procedures as well as an element that requires reporting information to the CPSC.

Best Buy’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for all retailers. The CPSC is growing increasingly vigilant about enforcing the CPSA, and that means that more companies are going to see large penalties being levied against them. It is more important than ever for retailers to understand the CPSA and to stay informed regarding current government and manufacturer recalls. Working with an experienced business attorney is one of the best ways to ensure compliance.

Published on:

Longtime educator Alan Cohen has sued his former employer after being fired. Cohen was employed for 13 months by Speyer Legacy School, which advertises itself as an institution for intellectually gifted children in grades kindergarten through eighth grade. The exclusive private school charges students approximately $40,000 per year to attend.

you are fired 2Cohen spent 20 years working for New York City’s Department of Education before becoming the head of the lower school at the prestigious Portledge School. He made the move to Speyer where he was named the Assistant Head of the school as well as the Head of the lower school. Things appeared to go well. Teachers, administrators, parents and students all took to Cohen. Then, the school’s newly appointed Head Dr. Barbara Tischler told Cohen about another faculty member who was asking questions about Cohen’s sexuality.

Cohen, who happens to be gay, quickly discovered that his sexual orientation was a hot topic of conversation among faculty, administrators and board members. One board member even tried to set up Cohen on a blind date with one of her male friends. Additionally, Dr. Tischler asked Cohen if he could give advice to another administrator at the school. The other administrator was a lesbian, and there was widespread feeling among members of the board that her masculine dress and appearance would render her unsuitable for the Dean of Admissions position.

Cohen brought his concerns over the focus on his sexual orientation to Tischler, but to no avail. In April 2016, Cohen was informed that his contract was not going to be renewed.

Cohen has gone on to find employment at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A married, heterosexual woman now holds his old job at Speyer. Nonetheless, Cohen’s experiences at the exclusive school suggest an atmosphere of discrimination that violates both state and federal law. Situations like this remind employers how important it is to work with an employment law attorney to avoid  discriminatory actions.

Published on:

With approximately 60,000 employees participating in its 401(k) program, Morgan Stanley should be positioned to offer an outstanding retirement investment package. However, a group of employees is now seeking class action status as they sue the investment firm for mismanagement of the company’s 401(k) plan.

Balance in digital background / A concept of technology law or tIn the complaint, plaintiff Robert Patterson alleges that Morgan Stanley only made poorly performing investments available in its 401(k) program. The suit argues that instead of abiding by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which states that employers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of plan members, Morgan Stanley routinely chose to include some of its least successful funds in the company 401(k).For instance, the available mid-cap fund was Morgan Stanley’s own Institutional Mid-Cap Growth Fund. Investment advisory firm Morningstar, Inc., gave this fund the worst rating for investors who held an interest in the fund over a period of several years. The small-cap fund that Morgan Stanley offered to its employees fared even worse. It underperformed 99 percent of all similar funds in 2014, and its performance didn’t improve much in the subsequent year.

Moreover, the lawsuit claims that Morgan Stanley was charging outrageous fees. Patterson and his co-plaintiffs allege that Morgan Stanley was charging their employees considerably more than outside clients were being charged. In some cases, employees were charged twice the going rate for outside clients.

In the complaint, lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the company “selected their proprietary funds not based on their merits as investments, or because doing so was in the interest of plan participants, but because these products provided significant revenues and profits to Morgan Stanley.”

Other financial management firms like Edward Jones and Franklin Templeton have been hit with similar lawsuits in recent months. Several high-profile educational institutions like Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Johns Hopkins University have also been accused of similar mismanagement. With lawsuits like these on the rise, it is more important than ever before for employers to ensure that their 401(k) plans comply with ERISA and other applicable legislation.

Published on:

Judge R. Gary Klausner has ruled that Led Zeppelin may not collect almost $800,000 in defense fees from the plaintiffs in a recent copyright lawsuit. Earlier, the copyright infringement case was settled in the band’s favor.

monumentThe lawsuit centered around the band’s most successful song, “Stairway to Heaven.” Songwriter and guitarist Randy Wolfe had long harbored suspicions that the better-known rockers had lifted the introduction of his 1968 instrumental composition “Taurus,” to be used in their hit. Wolfe passed away in 1997, but his trust filed the lawsuit in 2014. If the suit had been decided in the plaintiff’s favor, the trust might have received several million dollars. Estimates suggested that the song has generated more than $500 million thanks to its popularity.

The jury decided in Led Zeppelin’s favor. However, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant along with Warner/Chappell Music, the song’s publishing company, had expended considerable money in fighting the lawsuit. Once they prevailed, they decided that they were entitled to recoup those expenses from the unsuccessful plaintiff.

Ultimately, Judge Klausner found that the songwriters and publishing company were not entitled to legal fees and miscellaneous costs related to their defense because the initial lawsuit was not frivolous. The defendants contended that the lawsuit was merely an attempt to obtain easy money from famous musicians and that an award of legal fees to the defendants would discourage other potential plaintiffs from embarking on similar efforts.

The judge was not swayed by these arguments, stating that he had found sufficient validity in the lawsuit to allow it to go to trial. By definition, this meant that the suit could not be categorized as frivolous. Moreover, the judge asserted that there was no evidence suggesting that the Wolfe trustee had acted with “nefarious motives.”

The Led Zeppelin copyright infringement lawsuit contains many fascinating and instructive components. The most important of these may be how crucial it is to preserve and defend intellectual property rights. Whether you are an inventor or are being accused of profiting from someone’s else’s innovation, you need competent legal counsel to protect yourself.

Published on:

Most people think Snapchat is just a fun messaging app. They use it to send photos and videos that self-destruct seconds after being viewed. Snapchat also features an app that makes it possible to creatively alter photographs. Known as “Lenses,” this app is what makes it possible for the photo’s subject to sport floppy dog ears, hearts instead of eyes or a floral headband. Now, this capability is at the center of a potential class action lawsuit.

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.

Illinois residents Jose Martinez and Malcolm Neal filed a complaint in Los Angeles in May of 2016, arguing that Snapchat violated their state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act. The law is aimed at preventing biometric identifiers from falling into questionable hands and sprang from concerns about how the necessary technology used to collect biometric identifiers might be used without the user’s knowledge or permission.

The lawsuit contends that Snapchat is collecting and maintaining detailed biometric information on their customers. This is being done without the knowledge and consent of the users, which is contrary to Illinois’ law.

Snapchat categorically denies the allegations, arguing that their service is not capable of collecting complex biometric information that would allow them to identify the face of one user as opposed to another. Instead, they say that the technology involved is merely for object recognition, which makes it possible for the program to determine which objects in a photo are faces and where the eyes, nose and mouth are located. Moreover, Snapchat denies that they are in any way storing the data that is used in the Lenses app.

Snapchat is not the first social media platform to be sued over similar technology. Both Facebook and Google are facing legal battles relating to face-recognition software that automatically identifies particular people in photographs.

This lawsuit is only in its beginning stages. It was moved to the federal courts in July 2016, and Snapchat may be facing stiff fines if their software is determined to be guilty of violating Illinois’ law. This incident demonstrates the powerful need for businesses to understand the laws of states where they will be operating.

Published on:

Well-known clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has taken plenty of media heat thanks to its restrictive “look policy.” At one time, they dictated everything from the length of employees’ fingernails to the color of their hair. In addition, employees were required to purchase clothes from the retailer.

Lawsuit word breaking through red glass to illustrate legal action brought by a plantiff against a defendant in a court of law through opposing lawers or attorneys

Abercrombie & Fitch is now being sued for this aspect of their look policy. Judge Jesus Bernal recently ruled that a lawsuit that was originally filed by two former employees could move forward as a class action. The class could potentially have thousands of members, making this case much more significant, and possibly much more costly, if the plaintiffs prevail.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the store’s policy that required its approximately 62,000 employees to exclusively buy their work attire through the brand. The complaint, which was filed in California, notes that workers were expected to purchase clothes at least five times per year to coincide with the seasonal fashions found in the stores. Allegedly, all employees were given a “style booklet” outlining what they were supposed to buy and how it should be worn.

The complaint claims that this policy caused the hourly pay rate to fall below minimum wage. At the same time, the plaintiffs say that Abercrombie benefited from the policy. Although employees received a discount on their purchases, the retailer nonetheless made a substantial profit through requiring workers to shop there. Moreover, employees working on the sales floor were considered “models” who were displaying the store’s latest fashions. This enticed customers to spend more money to attain the same look that employees were wearing.

Abercrombie has already drawn fire for refusing to hire a Muslim female who needed to wear a hajib and for firing another worker who had a prosthetic arm. Their situation provides a helpful reminder for other employers that employee dress codes need to be well thought-out and reasonable. Most importantly, they should be in line with the law and all Constitutional rights. It is a wise idea to have an experienced attorney review a dress code policy to minimize the opportunities for litigation.