Emerging Litigation Podcast
Labor Law in 2021 with Kathryn Hatfield
Labor Law in 2021 with Kathryn Hatfield Participation in labor unions is less than half of what it was 40 years ago. It has seen an uptick in the service sector, but a sharp decline in manufacturing. According to economist Heidi Shierholz decline in union rolls is partly responsible for today's yawning income inequality gap. Recently we've seen the formation of a modest union at Google and a movement among Amazon workers. We've also seen how the pandemic has shone a bright light on the fragility of our nation's workforce struggling to survive at the bottom rungs of the pay scale. Joining me to speak about these issues is Kathryn Van Deusen Hatfield, a senior managing partner at Hatfield Schwartz Law Group in New Jersey. Kathy represents private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, with expertise in litigating state and federal cases on behalf of employers involving Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and providing legal opinions and advice on personnel, employment and labor issues. Kathy shares her insights on recent developments in the labor movement, some of the causes of its decline, how unions get a bad rap, and how, even though she represents management, she believes unions can be a good thing for everyone -- employees and companies alike. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative David and Dan are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to demonstrate how little I [...]
Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver
Attorneys Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver on Cannabis Industry Competition Law What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market? It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It's based on their article -- Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis -- which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021. Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S. Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues. Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Ausra and Jennifer are, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview. Tom Hagy Founder & Managing Director HB Litigation Conferences
Three Urgent Consumer Class Action Topics with Paul Bland of Public Justice
Three Urgent Consumer Class Action Topics with Paul Bland of Public Justice To discuss these issues, it was my pleasure to interview F. Paul Bland, Jr., Executive Director of Public Justice, an organization that pursues "high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the Earth’s sustainability, and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses." Paul has argued and won more than 40 cases that led to reported decisions for consumers, employees or whistleblowers, including one victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has won one or more cases in six of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the high courts of 10 different states. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Paul is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview, and how I slipped in mention of Schrödinger's cat which, as everyone knows (that's sarcasm and self-deprecation), is a thought experiment that illustrates an apparent paradox of quantum superposition. Class actions can be an invaluable tool when consumers need to level the playing field in disputes with corporations. Two important class action cases are currently before the Supreme Court. One case, TransUnion v. Ramirez, involves innocent consumers who were erroneously added to the government's watch list for terrorists and drug smugglers. [Note: We recorded before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling that only plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant’s statutory violation have Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court.] In the second, Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers, consumers seek to fend off a decision that could limit securities [...]
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP
7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? By Jennifer M. Oliver The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads: “Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?” The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021). An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should the court determine that the first scan is the only scan that starts the statute of limitations clock ticking, opponents to that interpretation say, anyone bringing a claim after five years would be out of luck, even if their private biometric data continued to be transmitted more than five years after the first occurrence. Preceding the federal court’s certification of this question by just five days, an Illinois appellate court ruled that, yes, claims under sections 15(a) and (b) accrue with each capture and use of a plaintiff’s biometric information. Watson v. Legacy [...]
The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP GalleryThe New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP
The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP
The Author Vince Vitkowsky is a partner in Gfeller Laurie LLP, resident in New York. He focuses on cyber risks, liabilities, insurance, and litigation. Vince assists insurers and reinsurers in product development, and in all aspects of coverage evaluation and dispute resolution in many lines of business, including cyber, CGL, property, and professional liability. He also assists in complex claim evaluations, and if necessary, the defense of insureds in complex matters. Vince is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Contact: vvitkowsky@gllawgroup.com More from Vince and his colleagues. The New LMA War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies By Vincent J. Vitkowsky On November 25, 2021, the Lloyd’s Market Association released four War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions (“Exclusions”). The LMA Cyber Business Panel spent well over two years drafting the Exclusions, which are models for use in standalone cyber insurance policies. Lloyd’s has agreed that they meet the requirement that all insurance and reinsurance policies written at Lloyd’s must, except in very limited circumstances, contain a clause which excludes all losses caused by war. The Exclusions address some difficult issues troubling the cyber insurance market for several years, following cyberattacks by nation-states (“states”) and threat actors associated with them. They attempt to reduce uncertainty for both insurers and policyholders. Five interrelated issues. The treatment of collateral damage (borrowing a concept from the traditional Law of Armed Conflict). Some state-sponsored attacks had significant effects on many entities that were not the intended targets. How attribution is to be determined, and whether the insurers have an obligation to make payments while attribution is being determined. The extent to which attacks by non-state actors associated with a state are excluded. The treatment of state and state-sponsored cyberattacks directed at essential services, most [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
