Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Lynne Stewart is screwed. Lynne Stewart, attorney for radicals and terrorists (allegedly), is now in deep trouble. The Second Circuit has affirmed her conviction and has even suggested that the District Court may have been too lenient. It probably didn't help that she stated that she could do the two-and-a-half-year sentence "standing on her head." For a smart lawyer, she sure didn't handle herself well post-conviction. In my view, she might have expressed her gratitude to the District Court for its lenient sentence (the prosecution had asked for thirty years) and done in her time. If she had done so, she would have completed her sentence by now and could be working on getting reinstated to the bar. That' s not going to happen now.
The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Stewart can be found here.
The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Stewart can be found here.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Cautionary Tale. Not from the Second Circuit, but of interest to appellate practitioners is the decision in Espitia v. Fouche. The Wisconsin Court of Appeal sanctioned a litigant for an citation error.
The decision in the case can be found here. The relevant portion of the decision is in paragraph 5.
The decision in the case can be found here. The relevant portion of the decision is in paragraph 5.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Aiding and Abetting Alien Torts. The Second Circuit has set a high bar for foreign plaintiffs attempting to use U.S. courts to hold foreign defendants accountable for aiding and abetting human rights violations in foreign lands. Such a defendant may only be found liable if he or she "purposefully" aided and abetted a violation of international law. Knowledge alone is not enough.
The decision in The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. can be found here.
The decision in The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. can be found here.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Global warming. The Second Circuit reinstated lawsuits brought by New York State and others who challenged major utilities on carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants, holding that there was no need for the District Court to defer to the political branches and refrain from hearing the suit until there is a definitive policy statement on global warming from Congress and the President.
The decision in State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. can be found here.
The decision in State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. can be found here.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Superior respondeat (or something). The Second Circuit has held that an employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties, including independent contractors authorized by the employer to make hiring decisions on its behalf.
The decision in Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments Inc. can be found here.
The decision in Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments Inc. can be found here.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Internet radio. The Second Circuit is the first appellate court to determine whether a webcasting service that provides users with individualized internet radio stations, the content of which can be affected by the users ratings of songs, artists and albums, is an interactive service under 17 U.S.C 114(j)(7). If it were an interactive service, the webcasting service would be required to pay individual license fees to the copyright holders of the sound recordings of songs the webcasting service pays for its users. If it is not, it must only pay a statutory licensing fee set by the Copyright Royalty Board. The Court held that it was not an interactive service.
The decision in Arista Records, LLC. v. Launch Media, Inc. can be found here.
The decision in Arista Records, LLC. v. Launch Media, Inc. can be found here.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Another certified question. The Second Circuit, in Zakrzewska v. New School, certified the following question to the New York State Court of Appeals:
Does the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code.
The Supreme Court in those cases provided that an employer would not be liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by a supervisor if the employer can prove that (1) no tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion or undesireable reassignmentwas taken as part of the alleged harassment, (2) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and (3) the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
The decision can be found here. When the Court of Appeals acts, it will be reported.
Does the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code.
The Supreme Court in those cases provided that an employer would not be liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by a supervisor if the employer can prove that (1) no tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion or undesireable reassignmentwas taken as part of the alleged harassment, (2) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and (3) the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
The decision can be found here. When the Court of Appeals acts, it will be reported.
