Saturday, November 24, 2018

Peter Margulies: The Temporary Restraining Order Against Trump’s Asylum Ban: Statutory Structure and Agency Discretion

Peter Margulies: The Temporary Restraining Order Against Trump’s Asylum Ban: Statutory Structure and Agency Discretion

 Peter Margulies on Lawfare supplements the reason of the federal district court's entry of a TRO barring implementation of the Department of Homeland Security’s interim final rule implementing President Trump’s recent asylum proclamation. Professor Margulies buttresses the court's reasoning by looking "to the overall structure of the asylum provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."

KJ

Peter Margulies: The Temporary Restraining Order Against Trump’s Asylum Ban: Statutory Structure and Agency Discretion

Peter Margulies: The Temporary Restraining Order Against Trump’s Asylum Ban: Statutory Structure and Agency Discretion

 Peter Margulies on Lawfare supplements the reason of the federal district court's entry of a TRO barring implementation of the Department of Homeland Security’s interim final rule implementing President Trump’s recent asylum proclamation. Professor Margulies buttresses the court's reasoning by looking "to the overall structure of the asylum provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."

KJ

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Vice Dean Leslie Kendrick’s Oral Argument Prevails at State Supreme Court | University of Virginia School of Law



This is a good win. New York and New Jersey split on this question. - gwc

Vice Dean Leslie Kendrick’s Oral Argument Prevails at State Supreme Court | University of Virginia School of Law

Vice Dean Leslie Kendrick ’06 of the University of Virginia School of Law has won her debut argument at the Supreme Court of Virginia, in a case that reshapes state tort law and garnered national attention.
The landmark 4-3 ruling released Thursday in Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. expands corporate liability for damages from asbestos and other potential traveling health hazards.
In the case, a Newport News man representing his mother’s estate filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that a shipyard was negligent in her death from mesothelioma in 2016.
The federal lawsuit claimed she had been exposed for years to asbestos from her father’s work clothes; the company hadn’t warned that it would be dangerous to bring them into their home or taken steps to prevent home contamination, the lawsuit said.
The shipyard sought dismissal, arguing that it should only be liable for what happened on site, and that the woman was neither an employee nor ever on the premises.
The district court asked the state Supreme Court to help clarify state law regarding responsibility and advise on how to proceed with the federal litigation.
“The lawyers for Mrs. Quisenberry reached out to me because the issue was a pure question of law about tort duties in Virginia,” said Kendrick, who served as co-counsel with four attorneys with Dallas–based Waters Kraus & Paul and presented oral argument in April. She has argued in federal court before in her career, but not the state Supreme Court.
The attorneys had to establish that the company had a “duty of care” in order to proceed with the negligence claim. In this case, a duty of care would place a legal obligation on one party to take reasonable steps to avoid injuring others; the state Supreme Court had never ruled on whether a duty exists in “take-home” asbestos cases.
The court ruled that a company has a duty to prevent “recognizable and foreseeable” risk based on Virginia common law, including for household members exposed to asbestos on employees’ work clothes.

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times

Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times



Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, showed utter contempt for his agency’s core mission last month when he proposed deleting the phrase “free from discrimination” from the HUD mission statement. Yet Mr. Carson is not the first housing secretary to betray the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968 — which turns 50 years old this week — by failing to enforce policies designed to prevent states and cities from using federal dollars to perpetuate segregation.
By its actions and failure to act, HUD has prolonged segregation in housing since the 1960s under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The courtshave repeatedly chastised the agency for allowing cities to confine families to federally financed ghettos that offer little or no access to jobs, transportation or viable schools. The lawsuits, filed by individuals and fair housing groups, have forced the agency to adopt rules and policies that have been crucial in advancing the goals of the Fair Housing Act.
Mr. Carson was named in such a lawsuit filed last month by the nonprofit Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. The suit accuses HUD of illegally funneling federal money to the city of Houston, despite a 2017 finding by HUD itself that the city was flouting federal civil rights laws by allowing racially motivated opposition to stop affordable housing projects in white neighborhoods. In adetail reminiscent of the Jim Crow South, the plaintiffs argue that Houston discriminates even at the level of flood relief, maintaining “entirely different (and markedly inferior) drainage systems in predominantly minority neighborhoods, exposing the residents of those neighborhoods to increased risk from storms.”
The next round of lawsuits against Mr. Carson’s HUD will almost certainly challenge his recent decision to suspend until 2020 rules introduced under the Obama administration that require communities to analyze housing segregation and submit plans to address it as a condition for receiving billions of dollars in federal aid.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Citgo must repay full cost of oil spill cleanup

By Keith Goldberg
Law360 (March 29, 2018, 11:19 AM EDT) -- The Third Circuit handed down a precedential opinion Thursday that saddled three Citgo units with the lion's share of liability for a $100 million-plus oil spill judgment and said the refiner must fully repay the federal government for its role in the cleanup, reversing a lower court's finding that Citgo only had to pick up half the government's bill. 

Citgo Asphalt Refining Co., Citgo Petroleum Corp. and Citgo East Coast Oil Corp. sought to overturn a Pennsylvania federal judge’s apportionment of the blame over a 2004 incident in which Frescati Shipping Co.’s Athos I tanker — which Citgo chartered — hit a submerged anchor and spilled 263,000 gallons of crude oil into the Delaware River.

After Frescati paid out $143 million for the cleanup, a federal judge ordered Citgo to pay $66 million to Frescati, including interest, and $48 million to the federal government to reimburse it for roughly half of the payout Frescati received from the Oil Liability Trust Fund.


The case is Re: Petition of Frescati Shipping Co. Ltd., case number 16-3470, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Monday, March 19, 2018

$2 billion estimate for Kansas public schools shocks lawmakers; consultants' accuracy questioned

Torts Today: $2 billion estimate for Kansas public schools shocks lawmakers; consultants' accuracy questioned

$2 billion estimate for Kansas public schools shocks lawmakers; consultants' accuracy questioned

$2 billion estimate for Kansas public schools shocks lawmakers; consultants' accuracy questioned

 — Kansas may need to spend roughly $2 billion a year in additional funding for public schools in order to meet the Kansas Supreme Court's standard for a constitutional funding system, according to a new study delivered to lawmakers Friday.
The numbers came as a shock to some lawmakers, especially those who were anticipating the consultants who wrote the report were hired specifically for the purpose of coming up with a much lower number.
"I'll admit, I'm surprised," House Democratic Leader Jim Ward of Wichita, one of the early skeptics of the study, said after hearing a summary of the report. "But I'm really happy that it really validated what happened in (earlier) studies, which is, money matters. For better outcomes, you've got to spend money."

KEEP READING

Saturday, March 10, 2018

New York City Creates An Independent Cause Of Action Against Employers For Failing To Engage In The Interactive Process Of Determining If An Accommodation Of A Disabled Employee Is Needed

New York City Creates An Independent Cause Of Action Against Employers For Failing To Engage In The Interactive Process Of Determining If An Accommodation Of A Disabled Employee Is Needed

by David S. Rich, Esq.

On January 18, 2018, New York City Local Law 59 of 2018 (“Local Law 59” or the “new Law”) became law.  Effective October 15, 2018, Local Law 59 of 2018 amends the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 – 8-131 (the “City Human Rights Law” or the “NYCHRL”), by creating an independent cause of action, for monetary damages, against employers in New York City for failing to engage in the interactive process of determining if an accommodation of a disabled employee (or other eligible employee) is needed.
On December 19, 2017, the New York City Council, by a vote of 48-2, had approved Local Law 59.  Because New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio neither signed nor vetoed Local Law 59 within 30 days after its approval by the Council, Local Law 59 became law.
Local Law 59 legislatively overrules, in part, the New York Court of Appeals’ 2014 decision of Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824, 11 N.E.3d 159, 988 N.Y.S.2d 86 (N.Y. 2014).  In the Jacobsen decision, the New York Court of Appeals had held (i) that there exists no independent cause of action, either under the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301 (the “State Human Rights Law” or the “NYSHRL”) or under the NYCHRL, against employers for failing to engage in a good faith “interactive process” of determining if an accommodation of a disabled worker is needed, but (ii) that the employer’s refusal to engage in an interactive process is a factor to be considered by the courts in determining whether a reasonable accommodation, for the worker’s disability, was available.  See Jacobsen, 22 N.Y.3d at 838.
Background
The New York City Human Rights Law requires employers with four or more employees to make reasonable accommodation to enable an individual with a disability to satisfy the essential requisites of a job.
The City Human Rights Law also requires employers with four or more employees to reasonably accommodate (i) an employee’s religious practices, (ii) an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition, and (iii) an employee’s needs as a victim of domestic violence, sex offenses or stalking.
The NYCHRL authorizes any individual aggrieved by a discriminatory practice to file a civil actionin a court of law or to file an administrative proceeding with the City Commission on Human Rights.  Under the NYCHRL, in a civil action in a court of law, employees may recover, among other remedies, non-capped compensatory damages, punitive damages, and, if they win and at the court’s discretion, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
The New Law
Local Law 59 of 2016 amends sections 8-102 and 8-107 of the NYCHRL by rendering it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer in New York City with four or more employees to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a “cooperative dialogue” within a reasonable time with an individual who has requested an accommodation (whether related to a disability, religious practices, pregnancy or childbirth, or needs as a victim of domestic violence) or whom the employer has notice may require such an accommodation.
The new Law defines a ” ‘cooperative dialogue’ ” as “the process by which [an employer] and a person entitled to an accommodation, or who may be entitled to accommodation under the law, engage in good faith in a written or oral dialogue concerning the person’s accommodation needs; potential accommodations that may address the person’s accommodation needs, including alternatives to a requested accommodation; and the difficulties that such potential accommodations may pose for [the employer].”
Although, under Local Law 59, employers in New York City must engage in the interactive process of determining if an accommodation of a disabled employee (or other eligible employee) is needed, the new Law specifies that satisfying this cooperative dialogue requirement “is not a defense” to a claim of failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.
Local Law 59 further provides that the employer, after concluding the cooperative dialogue and reaching a determination, must give, to the requesting employee, “a written final determination identifying any accommodation granted or denied.”
Take-Aways for Employers
Because, under Local Law 59, failure to engage in the interactive process is itself actionable, the new Law increases the importance, to employers in New York City, of satisfying this cooperative dialogue requirement.
In order to avoid inadvertent oversights and undue delays, employers should train their managers or supervisors to recognize when to begin the interactive process.
Even before Local Law 59 became law, the best practice was for an employer, after finishing the interactive process and reaching a decision, to give, to the employee requesting an accommodation, a written response identifying any accommodation provided or denied.
Now, however, employers in New York City are required to issue these written determinations.  Businesses must issue, to requesting workers, these written determinations whether the request for accommodation is related to a disability, religious practices, pregnancy or childbirth, or needs as a victim of domestic violence.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen tries to silence adult-film star Stormy Daniels - NBC News

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen tries to silence adult-film star Stormy Daniels - NBC News

by Sarah Fitzpatrick//NBC News

President Donald Trump's lawyer is trying to silence adult-film star Stormy Daniels, obtaining a secret restraining order in a private arbitration proceeding and warning that she will face penalties if she publicly discusses a relationship with the president, NBC News has learned.