Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Paid Suspension Not Adverse Employment Action Under Title VII, According to Third Circuit Court of Appeals

On September 8, 2015

In Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a paid suspension is not an adverse employment action in the “substantive discrimination context.” A predicate for a discrimination claim under the various anti-discrimination laws, requires the plaintiff to show she suffered an “adverse employment action,” generally described as an action or incident substantially serious to alter an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. In the absence of an adverse employment action, a discrimination claim fails. Now, a paid suspension, as determined by the Circuit Court, is not significantly sufficient to affect the employment relationship to create liability under Federal and Pennsylvania State anti-discrimination laws.

District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Opinion Offers Cautionary Tale Over Engaging in Settlement Negotiations with a Rival

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Patent

On September 3, 2015

A recent decision from the Western District of Washington denying a motion for a preliminary injunction offers a cautionary tale to keep in mind when considering whether to engage in settlement negotiations with a competitor. BitTitan brought suit against SkyKick for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,938,510, a patent directed to the migration of email data from one email system to another. According to BitTitan, the ‘510 patent covered the essential elements of BitTitan’s email migration product and SkyKick was its main competitor in this industry.

USPTO Proposes a Pilot Program to Allow a Single APJ to Institute an Inter Partes Review

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On September 2, 2015

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has published a request for comments in the Federal Register for a proposed pilot program which would allow for a single Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) to determine whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR), with two additional APJs being assigned to the IPR if a trial were instituted.

Target/Visa Settlement: A Potential Guide Post in Data Breach Litigation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Privacy and Data Security

On August 26, 2015

While the winter holidays are a time for spending and good cheer, the 2013 holiday season was one that continues to be costly for Target. On December 19, 2013, Target publicly announced that computer hackers had stolen data, including credit card payment information, from millions of Target shoppers. In January 2014, Gibbons P.C., in light of the Target data breach, discussed the ramifications of delay in notifying consumers, whether the delay was intentional or as a result of compliance with law enforcement requests. Banks and credit unions, which had issued credit cards affected by the breach, were forced to reimburse Target customers in some cases and reissue millions of cards, brought a class action lawsuit against Target.

NLRB Calls a Timeout in Northwestern Football Players Case

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Labor

On August 24, 2015

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its long-awaited decision in Northwestern University, a case involving an attempt by scholarship football players to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act. About a year-and-a-half ago, in response to the university’s attempt to dismiss a union election petition filed on behalf of the players, a regional director decided that the students were statutory employees who could unionize. The university challenged the regional director’s decision, which set the stage for the Board’s decision.

Federal Circuit Expands Liability for Direct Infringement Under § 271(a)

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Patent

On August 21, 2015

Last week, en banc, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. “unanimously set forth the law of divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),” and expanded direct infringement liability to include instances where, “an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.”

Jury Awards $2.2 Million to Employees Over DNA Tests in Violation of GINA in “Devious Defecator” Case

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Discrimination

On August 19, 2015

A federal court jury in Georgia recently awarded $2.22 million to two employees in what is believed to be the first jury verdict in a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) employment case since the law went into effect in 2008. Dubbed the “devious defecator” case by the court, Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC involved an employer’s testing of two employees’ facial cheek (or “buccal”) swabs to identify whether either was the individual who had been repeatedly defecating on the employer’s premises. All jokes aside, the decision is notable, not only because it is one of the few, if only, jury verdicts awarded under GINA, but because it serves as an important warning to employers that GINA may apply more broadly than some initially believed, while also possibly providing a blueprint for other courts on how to interpret the statute.

Second Circuit Rejects the Department of Labor Test for the Lawful Employment of Unpaid Interns

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Wage and Hour

On August 17, 2015

In a much anticipated decision in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently adopted the “primary beneficiary” test for determining whether individuals performing services for no compensation have been properly classified as “unpaid interns” or are, in fact, “employees” who have been improperly denied wages mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court, in an opinion that received a great deal of attention, had ruled that the plaintiffs were employees for FLSA purposes, applying the factors enumerated in the test proposed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The Second Circuit rejected the DOL’s test and, accordingly, reversed the district court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and their motion to certify a collective action.

New Jersey Tax Court Alarms Nonprofits in the Morristown Memorial Hospital Case

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Real Estate

On August 10, 2015

In a detailed and closely-watched decision issued on June 25, 2015, Judge Vito Bianco, a New Jersey Tax Court judge sitting in Morristown, denied a property tax appeal of Morristown Memorial Hospital. This case, AHS Hospital Corp., d/b/a Morristown Memorial Hospital v. Town of Morristown, has received great attention in the press for good reason. By holding that a nonprofit hospital is not exempt from paying real estate taxes, the implication is that many hospitals could face this fate as well. For municipalities, this will be welcome news, but for hospitals – and, potentially, other nonprofits – this is a very unwelcome result.

District Courts Adopting Middle Ground in Fashioning Statutory Damages Awards in Trademark Counterfeiting Cases

by Wendy R. Stein

Posted in Trademark Counterfeiting / Trademarks

On August 10, 2015

Two recent opinions, one from the Northern District of Illinois and another from the Southern District of New York, offer guidance to those electing statutory damages in lieu of actual damages and profits in trademark counterfeiting cases. The takeaway for litigators is that courts appear to be taking a middle ground in statutory damages awards, awarding $1 million per mark/good combination instead of the $2 million statutory maximum.