News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Comcast

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Foley & Lardner LLP

Northern District of California Decertifies Class Under Comcast Due to Inadequacy of Damages Model

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Freitas v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently decertified a class because of a “critical” mistake in Plaintiff’s damages model that rendered it...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Declines Comcast’s Challenge To The ITC’s Jurisdiction, Thus Confirming The Broad Reach Of Section 337

Husch Blackwell LLP on

Entering October Term 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court had never reviewed a Section 337 investigation. However, some court-watchers thought that Comcast Corporation v. International Trade Commission might have the right...more

McGuireWoods LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert in Rovi-Comcast ITC Dispute

McGuireWoods LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Comcast’s petition for certiorari arising from one of the disputes at the International Trade Commission (ITC) between Rovi and Comcast regarding alleged patent infringement....more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Supreme Court Clarifies Race Discrimination Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Must Meet More Stringent “But-For” Causation Standard

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints on

Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

National Employment Perspective | Focus on Discrimination

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. on

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Requires But-For Causation for Section 1981 Claims

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Sets High Bar For Those Bringing Race Discrimination Cases

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more

McAfee & Taft

U.S. Supreme Court confirms ‘but for’ causation in Section 1981 cases

McAfee & Taft on

Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law...

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Section 1981 Racial Discrimination Claims Require But-For Causation

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law... on

In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Supreme Court Confirms Strict “But for” Causation Test Applies to Section 1981 Claims

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Holds that Claims for Intentional Discrimination Under Section 1981 Must Meet “But For” Causation Test

Franczek P.C. on

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Supreme Court: § 1981 Suits Require Plaintiffs To Show Bias Is ‘But For’ Cause of Injury

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Resolving a split among the federal circuit courts on the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that a plaintiff bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff’s race was a “but for”...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171, holding that the but-for causation standard applies to claims of racial...more

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

SCOTUS Raises Bar On Contract Discrimination Claims

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on

Today the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar on a wide-ranging Civil War Era statute that prohibits discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned...more

Littler

Supreme Court Clarifies That But-For Causation Standard Applies to Section 1981 Claims Throughout Pendency of Litigation

Littler on

In a landmark decision delivered on March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Civil Rights Act of 1886, and that this standard applies...more

Baker Donelson

Supreme Court Sets Stage for Game-Changing 2019 Term for Employers

Baker Donelson on

Between gerrymandering and the 'citizenship' question, the Supreme Court concluded its 2018 term with a bang. The Court is primed for further fireworks in its 2019 term. For employers, this includes whether Title VII...more

Knobbe Martens

Discretionary Denial as a Case Management Tool: PTAB Requires Petitioner to Rank its Six IPR Petitions by Merit and then...

Knobbe Martens on

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS v. Iancu, which held that an IPR institution is an “all-or-nothing” proposition, the PTAB lost its ability to rely on “partial institutions” as a case management tool (e.g., by...more

BakerHostetler

Trial Courts Wrestle with Expert Testimony and Daubert at Class Certification

BakerHostetler on

Expert testimony plays a critical role in nearly all putative class actions, including at the class certification stage where parties rely on expert evidence to address the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Your Daily Dose of Financial News

Robins Kaplan LLP on

The High Court has a daunting lineup of decisions yet to issue this year, but it’s checking one off the list with yesterday’s 5-4 holding upholding the right of companies to use arbitration clauses in employment contracts “to...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

Comcast and its Discontents

Pierce Atwood LLP on

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), I appeared before a federal district judge on a motion to dismiss...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Future Of ERISA Litigation — Sleeper Supreme Court Case Worth Watching — Part II

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

On May 12, 2015, we reported at here on a non-ERISA case accepted for review by the Supreme Court in the 2015-16 Supreme Court Term that has ERISA Litigation implications. Now, as that Term is set to begin on October 5,...more

BakerHostetler

Plaintiffs Fold on Their Full Tilt Poker Actions Following Court’s Rejection of Class Certification and Proposed Settlement

BakerHostetler on

The plaintiffs in three actions against entities and individuals involved in the Full Tilt Poker Internet gambling operation dismissed their claims without prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Third Circuit Clarifies Article III Standing for Absent Class Members, Impact of Comcast

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In a case of first impression in the Third Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that unnamed, putative class members are not required to establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the Court held that...more

Zelle LLP

2 Years After Comcast, Little Has Changed

Zelle LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2013 decision in Comcast was heralded by many as a class certification “game-changer” that raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking class certification in competition and other class cases —...more

Winstead PC

Alice in Wonderland: The Ongoing Impact of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l on Computer-Implemented Inventions

Winstead PC on

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[i]. In Alice, the Court held that several patents that pertained to a computerized platform for eliminating risk...more

68 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide