The FTC’s Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements | What You Need to Know
The Chartwell Chronicles: Florida Workers' Compensation
The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Caselaw Updates
The Maritime Anti-Corruption Network: An In-Depth Conversation
Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: The Mechanics of Multidistrict Litigation: Streamlining Complex Cases
The Chartwell Chronicles: Medical Provider Claims
A General Overview of Maryland Workers' Compensation
Elements and Defenses to Claim Petitions
NGE On Demand: The (Dilatory) Forum Defendant Rule and Snap Removal with Nick Graber
Redefining Personal Jurisdiction: SCOTUS rules on the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 19]
Workers' Compensation Academy: 2020: A Unique Year in Many Ways Including Changes in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 263: Listen and Learn -- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Issues, Venue, and Jurisdiction by Kristhy Peguero and Jennifer Wertz
Podcast: CFIUS Update: Key Takeaways from the FIRRMA Implementing Regulations
Episode 116 -- Alstom Executive Convicted of FCPA and Money Laundering Offenses
[WEBINAR] Planning in the Coastal Zone
New anti-abuse provisions
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
In MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 134 S.Ct. 927, 937 (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court recently resolved a debate that has long divided Circuit Courts throughout the U.S: whether section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy...more
Last week the US Supreme Court heard arguments regarding whether the interlocutory appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration should also automatically stay proceedings in the trial court such as discovery. The...more
On December 9, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a non-frivolous appeal to the denial of a motion to compel arbitration strips the...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the requirement set forth in Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit is...more
Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement—whereby an aggrieved employee first must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or a state...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (or relevant state or local agency) is not a jurisdictional prescription to a...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that employers in discrimination claims can waive their right to assert that the Plaintiff failed to...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, written by Justice Ginsberg, that filing an EEOC Charge is not “jurisdictional.” Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (June 3, 2019)....more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the precondition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring employees to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)...more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal courts can hear Title VII discrimination claims even if employees fail to first file with an administrative agency, such as the Equal Employment...more
On January 11, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted an appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision dealing with the administrative prerequisites for a plaintiff to file suit against an employer under Title VII and related...more
In its recent decision in Hall vs. Hall, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that after a final decision in one of several consolidated cases, the losing party has the immediate right to appeal that decision, even when...more
On March 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Hall v. Hall, Case No. 16-1150, holding that cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) remain independent for purposes of determining...more
The United States Supreme Court recently clarified that cases consolidated under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure retain their independent identities “at least to the extent that a final decision in one is...more
On March 20, 2018, a unanimous United States Supreme Court, in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Employees Ret. Fund, No. 15-1439, 2018 WL 1384564, answered two questions concerning investors' ability to pursue alleged violations of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when a final decision has been issued in one of several consolidated civil cases, the losing party can immediately appeal, even if other of the consolidated cases are ongoing. Hall v....more
The U.S. Supreme Court today decided unanimously that, when cases are consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), they nevertheless remain separate cases. In Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150, two separate cases had been consolidated...more
On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Kagan, ruled that state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions brought under the Securities Act of 1933...more