Employment discrimination cases pop up every so often in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and here, the court addresses the elements of a prima facie racial discrimination case.
The court sided with the employer, Teva Pharmaceuticals. Nevertheless, the discussion on employment discrimination is always interesting and worth digging into.
In a recent bankruptcy case before the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, the court zeroed in on the issue of tax debts dischargeable in bankruptcy.
As you may already know, there are dischargeable debts in bankruptcy and non-dischargeable debts. When it comes to tax debts, the distinction isn’t always that clear. This case clarifies the distinction between an excise tax and a trust fund tax.
Here’s a very interesting immigration law case out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s not your standard removal or asylum case. The case involves the removal of an alien, with issues involving drug trafficking and the definition of “aggravated felony.”
The petitioner involved is actually a lawful permanent resident of the United States. That’s what makes the case a little different from what we’re used to seeing.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark opinion on pay-for-delay deals involving pharmaceutical products, reports Businessweek.
The decision involved Merck & Co’s Schering-Plough branch, which entered into pay-for-delay agreements to delay the entry of generic versions of the K-Dur drug into the market.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a conviction in a drug trafficking case and remanded the case back to the District Court for sentencing earlier this week.
After a jury in the Virgin Islands found the defendant to be guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute, the District Court of the Virgin Islands entered a judgment of acquittal, finding that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant participated in the conspiracy.
The definition of “employer” is crucial to a valid federal employment claim and for class certification in class action lawsuits by employees. In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed down the Fair Labor Standards Act’s definition of “employer.”
The district court had previously held that Enterprise Holding (of Enterprise Rent-a-Car) was not a “joint employer” under the FLSA.
Here’s some news on the Delaware River channel dispute.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has chimed in, upholding prior rulings by federal district courts in Trenton (NJ) and Wilmington (DE). The ruling opens the door to the continuation of the deepening project. The project would deepen the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet, a move that was opposed by some environmental groups, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The entire class needs to be properly protected for valid class certification. For starters, class representatives need to have the interests of the whole class in mind. Proper notice to potential class members is also crucial to a valid class action case.
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a settlement between Sprint and a class of its customers last week, claiming that the $17.5 million settlement didn’t adequately protect absent class members.
