|
|
|
Chrysler and UAW talks pick up
Labor & Employment |
2007/10/07 04:58
|
Negotiators with the United Auto Workers union and Chrysler LLC remained at the bargaining table Saturday evening as efforts to reach a tentative contract agreement intensified, a person briefed on the talks said. The person, who requested anonymity because the talks are private, said they are expected to run through the weekend. Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans and UAW spokesman Roger Kerson did not return calls seeking comment Saturday. Chrysler spokeswoman Michele Tinson confirmed that the parties were negotiating Saturday but would not comment further.
The UAW reached a tentative agreement with General Motors Corp. on Sept. 26 but the agreement must be ratified by a majority of GM's UAW members to take effect. Members began voting last week and are expected to wrap up votes by Wednesday.A person briefed on the talks said late Friday that the UAW selected Chrysler as its next bargaining target and would turn to Ford Motor Co. last. The person requested anonymity because the talks are private. A message was left with Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans seeking comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE to close some plants in Brazil
Business |
2007/10/07 01:00
|
General Electric Co. said Thursday it will close a number of lighting plants in Brazil and the U.S. as part of a plan to restructure its consumer and industrial division, potentially cutting more than 1,400 jobs in the process.
GE Consumer & Industrial, based in Louisville, Ky., said it will close all of its lighting operations in Rio de Janeiro, which will affect about 900 jobs. The company also plans to close some lighting factories in the U.S., which will impact about 425 jobs. 'A portion' of the U.S. jobs will be transferred to other GE lighting facilities, the company added.
Another 80 jobs will be affected by a transfer of some operations from facilities in Mexico and the U.S. to other locations.
Fairfield, Conn.-based GE said it is closing the facilities, in part, because of a changing lighting market, in which demand for the incandescent bulb has declined over the past five years due to new technology and efficiency standards.
'It doesn't make sense for us to continue with an inefficient model,' said Jim Campbell, president and chief executive officer of GE Consumer & Industrial. 'The proposed plan would allow us to continue to reinvent our production model to use our global factory more efficiently and effectively.' The company can now purchase components at more competitive prices, making it more expensive to continue making the lighting-product components in-house, he said.
'The restructuring we are proposing, while very difficult due to the impact on employees, would be one of the most important things we've done in the 100-plus-year history of GE's lighting business,' Campbell said.
'We are increasing our focus on the development and production of new, innovative lighting products like LEDs, organic LEDs, our new high efficiency incandescent light bulbs and other products that our customers will increasingly demand and require,' he said.
GE previously laid off more than 3,000 workers in the consumer and industrial unit by closing facilities and transferring or selling operations in Europe, China, Indonesia, the U.S., Latin America, and India. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police Kill Man Who Shot 5 at Law Firm
Criminal Law |
2007/10/06 11:10
|
| Anger over a divorce settlement may have driven a 63-year-old Baptist deacon to shoot five people in a law office, killing two, then exchange gunfire with police during a standoff, authorities said Friday. A special tactical unit used explosives to enter the building shortly after midnight and shot John Ashley to death after he opened fire, police spokesman Sgt. Clifford Gatlin said. Autopsies were planned on the three victims, he said. Police said Ashley repeatedly shot at them during the 10-hour standoff Thursday, and even shot at a remote-controlled police robot they sent inside. No officers were hurt. "This is, it's a shock," Gatlin said. "It's big for us, because we know everybody." Ashley, a retired city maintenance worker, was found in the back of the office, which was converted from a single-story house. The two people police say he killed were found in the front of the building, where police rescued one of the three surviving victims Thursday afternoon. The other survivors escaped on their own. Gatlin said investigators have learned the shooting was "a possible dispute over a divorce settlement," but that he had no further details. He said investigators will need to speak with the three survivors to determine a motive, and at least two of them were seriously injured. The shooting rampage near the Rapides Parish Courthouse astounded people who knew Ashley in Alexandria, a central Louisiana town of about 46,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm to pay millions in age discrimination case
Legal Business |
2007/10/05 21:09
|
One of the nation's largest law firms has agreed to pay a $27.5-million settlement to 32 former partners to end a ground-breaking age discrimination case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced today. The case against Sidley Austin, which has more than 1,700 lawyers in 16 cities, including Los Angeles, had been closely watched because of a widely held belief in the legal profession that firm partners did not qualify for the protections of federal anti-discrimination laws because they were deemed "employers."
But the EEOC, in a lawsuit filed in 2005, contended that the cashiered lawyers were partners in name only, because they had no voice in the firm's management, including hiring, firing and salary decisions. Consequently, the lawyers were "employees" entitled to protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The firm vigorously defended the case, but lost key preliminary rounds in U.S. District Court in Chicago and at the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to review the decisions. Eventually, the Chicago-based firm decided to settle by agreeing to a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing.
However, Sidley Austin, in the consent decree, approved by U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel in Chicago on Thursday, made a significant concession, agreeing "that each person for whom the EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee within the meaning of" the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The decree also includes an injunction that bars the firm from "terminating, expelling, retiring, reducing the compensation of or otherwise adversely changing the partnership status of a partner because of age," or "maintaining any formal or informal policy or practice requiring retirement as a partner or requiring permission to continue as a partner once the partner has reached a certain age."
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said he thought the outcome set an important benchmark.
"Up to now, with no particularly good reason that I can discern, people in control of law firms said that if they called someone a partner ... they didn't need to worry about federal employment discrimination laws," he said.
"What the Sidley case says is that you have evidence that people are called partners, but in reality are not active in the governance of the firm and don't control their own destiny in the firm. You can call them whatever you want, but for the purposes of the Age Discrimination Act they are employees," Hendrickson said.
He said the case ensured "the protection of professionals from discriminatory employment actions" and ratified the authority of the EEOC "to investigate and obtain relief for victims of age discrimination on its own initiative."
During the litigation, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency was entitled to obtain records that could show whether the lawyers should have been protected under age discrimination law.
In that key ruling, Judge Richard Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, rejected Sidley's argument that the law did not apply to partners. Posner said he was particularly unconvinced by "Sidley's contention that since the executive committee [of the firm] exercises its absolute power by virtue of delegation by the entire partnership in the partnership agreement, we should treat the entire partnership as if it rather than the executive committee were directing the firm. That would be like saying that if the people elect a person to be dictator for life, the government is a democracy rather than a dictatorship."
Ronald S. Cooper, the EEOC's general counsel in Washington, emphasized the broader ramifications of the settlement.
"The demographic changes in America assure that we will see more opportunities for age discrimination to occur. Therefore it is increasingly important that all employers understand the impact of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act on their operations and that we reemphasize its important protection for older workers," he said.
The amount to be paid to each of the 32 former Sidley lawyers was placed under seal. However, the EEOC said that the payments averaged $859,375 per attorney, and ranged from a low of $122,169 to a high of $1,835,510. The EEOC said each of the lawyers either had been "expelled from the partnership in connection with an October 1999 reorganization or retired under the firm's age-based retirement policy."
The EEOC began an investigation of Sidley in 2001 after major changes at the firm. According to the suit, the firm for many years had a mandatory retirement age of 65. But in 1999, 32 lawyers -- all over age 40 -- were told that their status was being downgraded from partner to "special counsel" or "counsel," and that their pay would be reduced by about 10%. They also were told that they would soon have to leave the firm.
David A. Richards, one of the 32, said he thought the firm had taken the action, at least in part, to increase profits for the remaining partners. Richards, who was 54 at the time, said when he was told of his change in status, there was "absolutely" no contention that managing partners had problems with his performance.
A year or so later, Richards landed a job with McCarter & English, a large New York firm, where he still works as a real estate lawyer. On Friday, Richards said, "The settlement was overdue, but it gives all involved a satisfactory conclusion." The lawyers who sued now "have confirmation that their discharge was not for the quality of their work."
The commission, Richards emphasized, "has established an important legal principle for all large professional partnerships."
Sidley, through a New York public relations firm, issued a formal statement saying that it "believes that settling this case is preferable to the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation."
"This settlement puts the cost, time and distraction of this litigation behind us. Moreover, continuing litigation with the EEOC would have placed us in an adversarial position with former partners."
The firm said it continued to employ some of the lawyers who were stripped of their partnerships in 1999, but did not say how many.
The consent decree in the case runs until Dec. 31, 2009. During that period, Abner Mikva, a retired federal appeals court judge who also served as a Democratic congressman from Illinois and White House counsel during the Clinton administration, will monitor any complaints from former Sidney partners and report them to the EEOC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phila. law firm's longtime chairman to step down
Legal Careers News |
2007/10/05 17:12
|
Blank Rome said Friday that longtime Chairman David Girard-diCarlo will step down at the end of next year and will be replaced by partners Alan Hoffman and Mike Dyer. In addition, Carl Buchholz was re-elected managing partner and CEO and Gary Goldenberg was named finance partner. Girard-diCarlo has served as either managing partner or chairman at the 500-lawyer firm for 20 years, during which time the firm has more than doubled in size and opened offices in New York, Washington and Hong Kong. Girard-diCarlo, 64, returned to Philadelphia last spring after spending six years in Washington, where he helped grow the firm's office and client base there. He was aided by his close relationship with President Bush, for whom he was a chief fundraiser in 2000. Bush appointed Girard-DiCarlo to the board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Hoffman, 59, and Dyer, 61, will become co-chairmen of the firm Jan. 1, 2009. Philadelphia-based Hoffman is head of the 200-lawyer litigation department and Dyer heads the Washington office and the firm's business department. He joined the firm when it acquired Dyer Ellis & Joseph in 2003. Buchholz, 41, replaced Fred Blume, 66, as managing partner last year. The Girard-diCarlo announcement completes the firm's management succession planning. Buchholz will be responsible for running the firm on a daily basis while the chairman traditionally provides strategic management and guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watada's second court-martial on hold
Court Watch |
2007/10/05 17:07
|
| The Tuesday court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada at Fort Lewis has been put on hold by a U.S. District Court judge, who issued his ruling late today. This would have been the second trial for Watada, who faces up to six years in military prison for his refusal to deploy to Iraq, and separate charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. Watada's first court-martial, which gained international attention, ended in a mistrial earlier this year. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle wants time to consider whether a second trial would violate Watada's constitutional rights that protect him from "double jeopardy" that is a guarantee against being twice put to trial for the same offense. "This Court has not been presented any evidence showing that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim lacks merit," Settle wrote. "On the contrary, the record indicates that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim is meritous." For Settle, another key issue is whether a civilian court has the right to step in and block a military trial. Settle said that, as a general rule, civilian courts should not step in to rule on military trials. But in this case, all of the appeals to military courts had been exhausted, so a civilian judge could become involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge allows class action over Target Web site
Class Action |
2007/10/05 09:02
|
| A federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that Target Corp. is breaking California and federal law by failing to make its Web site usable for the blind. The plaintiffs fault Target for not adopting technology used by other companies to make Web sites accessible to the blind. The technology allows reading software to vocalize invisible code embedded in computer graphics and describe content on a Web page. Granting class-action status allows blind people throughout the country who have tried to access Target.com to become plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel also on Friday approved a separate class, made up of blind California residents who have attempted to use the site, to address the suit's charges that Target is violating state laws governing civil and disabled rights. "This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy," said Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind." The federation filed the suit — which originally was filed in California state court in February 2006 and moved at Target's request to San Francisco federal court the following month — on behalf of federation member and northern California resident Bruce Sexton. The suit alleged that "blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Target stores" and the "service and benefits offered to the public through Target.com." Judge Patel's order Friday noted that Target has modified its Web site some since the suit's filing to make the site more accessible to the blind. Target claimed the suit should therefore be dismissed, but Judge Patel ruled against that argument. A Target official couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday morning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
