Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 410: Listen and Learn -- Relevance Issues (Evidence)
In ExxonMobil Corp. v. Brown, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals has continued appellate-court efforts to define the contours of proving and evaluating non-economic damages in Texas....more
In New Jersey, being declared incapacitated does not necessarily mean that a person will remain under guardianship forever. Circumstances can change, and when they do, the law provides a path for individuals to regain some,...more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - USA v. Day - sentencing - Mullin v. Dep’t of Vet Affairs - employment, Rehabilitation Act - Mukhina v. Walmart - employment, Title VII, evidence, remedy exhaustion...more
The California Office of Tax Appeals sustained the majority of a proposed assessment resulting from a federal change as the taxpayer did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the assertion of additional tax. In re: G....more
For decades, courts have relied on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework as the primary method for evaluating employment discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence. As I discussed earlier this year,...more
In May 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released updated Guidelines on applications for three-year non-use cancellation actions against registered trademarks (Updated Guidelines). A key...more
Marlean Ames (“Plaintiff”), a heterosexual woman, was an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“the Department”). Ames was hired by the Department in 2004 for a secretarial position but was later promoted to...more
The Third Circuit in Jorjani v. NJIT, et al., just issued a precedential opinion last week on private professor speech that further refines what evidence is needed to show disruption....more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner is its first review of a rare patent dispute resolution process under the America Invents Act (AIA). The decision serves as a warning that proving...more
As the Supreme Court prepares for its next term to begin October 6, let’s look back on all the SCOTUS cases from the past year that impacted your workplace, industry, and litigation exposure. Here’s a quick guide to 12 times...more
Join Weber Gallagher Partners Jeffrey Newby, Jennifer Laver, and John Kutner for an insightful webinar that provides a deeper look into New Jersey Workers’ Compensation. Whether you’re handling routine claims or navigating...more
Introduction - Financial fraud represents a persistent threat to economic stability, undermining trust among businesses, investors, and the general public. As India’s financial ecosystem expands and transactions become...more
In Richards v. Eli Lily & Co., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined the Fifth and Sixth Circuits in departing from the longstanding two-step procedure for distributing notice to potential...more
In high-stakes litigation, expert testimony that cannot withstand a Daubert or Robinson challenge can derail even the most well-prepared case. A failed Daubert or Robinson challenge can leave attorneys without their key...more
A California Superior Court recently saw its decision reversed on appeal to the California Court of Appeal over several improper evidentiary rulings in Sabrena Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District, et al., (2025)...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more
Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025) - Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged under Title VII that she had been denied a management promotion and demoted based on her sexual...more
Introduction - The intersection of digital customer service tools and privacy law continues to generate high-stakes litigation, especially in California, where the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) has become a...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
Recently, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that lowered the bar for employees seeking to sue their employer. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual white woman claimed that she suffered discrimination...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how majority-group discrimination claims are evaluated under Title VII of the...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more