Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated thousands of DUI convictions after two independent testing labs examined the software.

Hundreds of thousands of workers are going to be put out of work. They deserve help from the government to move into more useful, viable industries. Read about this latest bailout here.

Read the Mexican Constitution (in Spanish). Check out news coverage about this story from Mexico (also in Spanish) here and here. The Jurist covered the story in English.

This is an interesting case. Joanna Grossman wrote a good piece for FindLaw. A law firm blog has some sarcastic observations about the 7th Circuit decision, while another firm is more objective in its analysis.

Edwards was an accountant for Arthur Anderson. The company folded its US operations due to the disgrace of Enron.  Edwards wanted a job.  The company wanted him to sign away any claims he might have with the company in return for being released from the non-compete clause.  The CA Supreme Court agreed with the employee and struck down the offending clause.

Most states interpret non-compete clauses narrowly, given the immense bargaining power of corporations and the importance of a worker’s freedom to ply his or her trade.  Read the Edwards v. Anderson opinion for yourself. While you’re at it, read DCS v. Castillo , a 2006 case from the 8th Circuit.  That case interprets Nebraska law. The employee won this case, too.

The Employee Free Choice Act passed the House last year, but the Republicans were successful in blocking it in the Senate. This bill would make it easier for unions to organize.  It would make it more likely that employers would have to face binding arbitration in the event that no collective bargaining agreement was reached in 90 days.

Barak Obama supports the EFCA. John McCain opposes it.

OK friends, guess where this case took place. If you live on one of the coasts, you probably guessed Texas or somewhere in the Old South. In point of fact, however, this case comes from the Bay Area of California. You can read more about this case here and here.

Crawford v. Metro is an important 6th Circuit case that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear.

At issue is a Federal anti-discrimination law called Title VII. This law expressly protects employees from retaliation in two ways. Employees who participate in an investigation, and those who oppose discriminatory practices are supposed to be shielded from retaliation. But it’s a little more complicated, because those who “participate” actually get more protection than those who “oppose.”

In the instant case, Ms Crawford was a 30-year employee of the defendant, a government agency. She was called in for an interview about allegations of sexual harassment that had been made against a manager. At that interview, Ms Crawford accused the manager of sexual harassment, both of herself and of others. She was later fired.

The Sixth Circuit held that Ms Crawford did not “oppose” discriminatory practices because she did not instigate the investigation by complaining. The court held that Ms Crawford’s participation in the investigation wasn’t protected by the “participation” clause because charges had not yet been filed. This seems to be an unjust result, one that runs against the policies of Title VII.

California has enacted a medical marijuana law that decriminalizes the possession and use of the drug with a doctor’s prescription. It is called the Compassionate Use Act. California also has an anti-discrimination law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Disabled people are protected by this law.

The plaintiff is qualified as ‘disabled’ for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. His doctor has recommended that he use marijuana to treat his symptoms. The Compassionate Use Act allows Mr. Ross to do so without fear of state criminal sanctions.

The defendant is a corporation. Defendant hired plaintiff to be a Lead Systems Analyst. Mr. Ross disclosed his medical marijuana use at the time he was hired. He took a standard drug test and began work. The test came back positive for marijuana. Mr. Ross was fired. The California Supreme Court says that’s fine.