Preview Newsletter
Legal News Report 6-17-2016
-
A Look at the Attempt to Block Indiana's New Abortion Law
Jun 12, 2016 | The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge will hold a hearing this week to consider a bid to block Indiana's new abortion law from taking effect on July 1. The law, which conservative Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed off on in March, includes a provision banning abortions sought because of a fetus' genetic abnormalities. Here is a look at the law's provisions and the arguments that are likely to come up during the hearing Tuesday: -
Lawyer for Uber Drivers Offers to Cut Fee by $10 Million
Jun 15, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Lauren Weber
A federal judge’s approval of the controversial settlement in the U.S. between Uber Technologies Inc. and some 385,000 of its current and former drivers looks far from assured. To help move the settlement forward, the drivers’ lawyer has offered to cut her fee by $10 million. -
Iran Sues U.S. in International Court Over Frozen Assets
Jun 16, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Asa Fitch
Iran is suing the U.S. in the International Court of Justice, accusing Washington of violating a 1955 treaty by freezing its assets. -
FedEx Agrees to $240 Million Settlement With Drivers in 20 States
Jun 16, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Mike Esterl
FedEx Corp. said Thursday it has agreed to pay $240 million to settle lawsuits in 20 states with drivers, possibly ending a years long legal dispute over whether they were employees or independent contractors.
Legal News
-
A Look at the Attempt to Block Indiana's New Abortion Law
Jun 12, 2016 | The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge will hold a hearing this week to consider a bid to block Indiana's new abortion law from taking effect on July 1. The law, which conservative Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed off on in March, includes a provision banning abortions sought because of a fetus' genetic abnormalities. Here is a look at the law's provisions and the arguments that are likely to come up during the hearing Tuesday:
WHAT'S IN THE LAW?
Indiana's law would ban abortions sought due to fetal genetic abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, or because of the race, sex or ancestry of a fetus. It also would require that aborted fetuses be disposed of through burial or cremation.
The measure was approved by Indiana's Republican-dominated Legislature over the objections of many female legislators, including Republicans, who said it would go too far and that the lower chamber didn't adequately vet the bill before approving it.
If upheld, Indiana would join North Dakota as the only two states to ban abortions sought because of genetic fetal abnormalities.
WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE LEGAL CHALLENGE?
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky contends in its lawsuit that Indiana's law is unconstitutional and violates women's privacy rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana joined Planned Parenthood in the lawsuit, which seeks a preliminary injunction blocking it from taking effect.
The plaintiffs argue that the law puts an "undue burden on women's right to choose an abortion" because it bans the procedure in certain circumstances. Their suit also says women have a right to choose an abortion in the first trimester "for any reason."
WHAT ARE INDIANA'S ARGUMENTS?
Indiana's attorney general's office contends that the new law's provisions are constitutional.
In a brief, the state argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision upholding a woman's right to an abortion and subsequent rulings "did not recognize a right to terminate an otherwise welcome pregnancy by discriminating against a particular fetus for having undesirable characteristics."
Indiana says the law's requirement that fetal remains be cremated or interred is "a legitimate means of ensuring human remains are treated with dignity and respect."
Indiana University has filed a separate lawsuit that also seeks to block the law. The school argues that the fetal disposal provision would prevent its scientists from acquiring fetal tissue for scientific research and sharing it with other institutions.
WHAT COULD THE LAW'S IMPACT BE?
Under Indiana's law, doctors could be sued for wrongful death or face professional reprimand for performing an abortion sought due to genetic abnormalities or a fetus' race or sex. The law has an exemption for fetuses not expected to live past three months if brought to term.
Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen said the law would threaten the "frank, comprehensive discussions" women considering abortions need to have with their doctors.
"This law places a terrible chilling effect on those conversations by saying certain aspects of the decision are going to be controlled by the government," she said, calling that "a terrible specter."
WHO IS THE PRESIDING JUDGE?
The case is before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who in 2011 ruled against an Indiana law that would have prohibited entities that perform abortions from obtaining state funding.
Johnsen said she expects Pratt to find the new abortion law unconstitutional. She said the Indiana case, unlike some that challenged abortion laws in other states, won't require the court "to engage in any kind of novel analysis" of issues related to women's right to an abortion.
"It should be very straightforward case, a very easy case," she said.
HOW DO INDIANA'S ABORTION LAWS STACK UP?
Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Dakota have the nation's most sweeping abortion limits, according to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, which supports legal access to abortion.
Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst for the institute, said that assessment is based on 10 major restrictions, including abortion waiting periods, clinic regulations and minors' access to abortion.
She said the analysis didn't take into account Indiana's new law or new abortion limits approved this month in Louisiana that are awaiting action by its governor because those laws haven't taken effect.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/06/12/us/ap-us-abortion-restrictions-indiana-qa.html
-
Lawyer for Uber Drivers Offers to Cut Fee by $10 Million
Jun 15, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Lauren Weber
A federal judge’s approval of the controversial settlement in the U.S. between Uber Technologies Inc. and some 385,000 of its current and former drivers looks far from assured. To help move the settlement forward, the drivers’ lawyer has offered to cut her fee by $10 million.
The settlement provides for a payout of $84 million to drivers, with $16 million added on in the event that Uber goes public. Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer who represents drivers who had sued to be reclassified as employees rather than independent contractors, had originally requested 25% of the settlement—or as much as $25 million—as her firm’s fee, a standard share in class-action cases.
Under scrutiny from some drivers, attorneys and U.S. District Judge Edward Chen after the settlement, Ms. Liss-Riordan stated in a filing on Friday that she was reducing her requested fee by $10 million, meaning her Boston firm would end up with $11 million or $15 million if the current agreement is approved. Judge Chen hasn’t suggested that her fee is too high, but in court he has questioned whether Ms. Liss-Riordan, who has a reputation as a tireless fighter for her clients, conceded too much to Uber too quickly. A few dozen drivers filed objections to the settlement, some alleging that the monetary relief was too low.
“I cut the fee in order to emphasize that my judgment that this settlement was good for the class was not about my firm’s fee,” Ms. Liss-Riordan said in an email Wednesday. Since the settlement was announced in April, she has said that the risks of proceeding to trial—and of drivers receiving no relief at all—were so great that the deal was the best possible outcome.
Along with as much as $100 million for drivers in California and Massachusetts, the agreement includes provisions that Uber will revise its practice of deactivating drivers from its platform without much warning or recourse, and will allow drivers to solicit tips. Concessions aside, the settlement is widely considered a victory for Uber because it allows the ride-hailing service to maintain its labor model, treating drivers as freelancers.
The deal was hard-fought by Ms. Liss-Riordan and lawyers for Uber, led by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
In a May filing defending the settlement, Uber said the agreement was “the result of several protracted, contentious arm’s-length negotiations,” adding that objectors’ claims that “this settlement—shepherded by a neutral mediator after three years of extensive investigation, discovery and hotly contested motion practice on the verge of trial—is premature or collusive is almost laughable.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyer-for-uber-drivers-offers-to-cut-fee-by-10-million-1466003161
-
Iran Sues U.S. in International Court Over Frozen Assets
Jun 16, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Asa Fitch
Iran is suing the U.S. in the International Court of Justice, accusing Washington of violating a 1955 treaty by freezing its assets.
The case, filed Tuesday at the United Nations’ main court, follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that gave victims of terrorist attacks allegedly linked to Iran the right to collect some $2 billion in Iranian assets that are frozen in the U.S.
It’s not clear whether the Netherlands-based international court will have jurisdiction in the case. The U.S. hasn’t automatically recognized the court’s jurisdiction since 1986, and since then has accepted its oversight only on a case-by-case basis.
Tehran claims the U.S. seized assets of Iranian entities that weren’t party to judgments and were immune from enforcement proceedings under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, the international court said. Iran said U.S. courts had awarded more than $56 billion of damages against it over Tehran’s alleged involvement in terrorist attacks.
The U.S. has received the filing and is evaluating its next steps, State Department spokesman John Kirby said Thursday.
“As we have said before, we believe that the United States has acted consistent with its obligations under international law,” he said.
Iran’s case comes at a time when tensions with the U.S. appeared to be easing. The U.S. and five other countries reached a landmark nuclear deal with Iran last year, promising to remove sanctions in exchange for new curbs on the country’s nuclear program. The deal went into effect in January.
Attacks blamed on Iran include the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing, in which 241 American military personnel were killed in Lebanon. Victims of that attack and others have won U.S. court cases against Iran in recent years, and sought to collect damages. Iran has denied responsibility for all attacks.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday that his government would pursue the court case until it won back its assets and received compensation. He rejected allegations of Iranian involvement in the Beirut bombing.
“American courts have ruled through illegitimate decrees that these assets must be put at the disposal of Americans and the families of those who were killed in Lebanon,” he said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. “It’s not clear what Americans were doing in Lebanon and what this issue has to do with Iran.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-sues-u-s-in-international-court-over-frozen-assets-1466027629
-
FedEx Agrees to $240 Million Settlement With Drivers in 20 States
Jun 16, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Mike Esterl
FedEx Corp. said Thursday it has agreed to pay $240 million to settle lawsuits in 20 states with drivers, possibly ending a years long legal dispute over whether they were employees or independent contractors.
The settlement requires final court approval and would affect roughly 13,000 drivers, according to a company spokesman.
“We are pleased to put this matter behind us as it relates to a contract that has not been in use for a number of years,” FedEx said in its statement.
The Memphis, Tenn., delivery company disclosed in March that it had reached agreements in principle to settle 19 cases for a net loss of $204 million. Thursday’s $240 million figure includes a separate settlement in Kansas.
Plaintiffs filed motions Wednesday for preliminary approval of the terms in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, which is overseeing the multistate litigation.
FedEx formerly hired drivers as independent contractors. Drivers sued the company, arguing they were employees and entitled to more benefits.
The company changed the practice in 2011, when it stopped hiring drivers directly and signed contracts with companies that employ drivers.
FedEx also agreed in June 2015 to settle a similar case in California for $228 million.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fedex-agrees-to-240-million-settlement-with-drivers-in-20-states-1466123381
Legal News
Add recipients
Suggested