Bondsman in Seminole County – Legal Experts Weigh in on Planned Parenthood Case

Source     : WSJ Blogs
By            : Jacob Gershman
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Legal Experts Weigh in on Planned Parenthood Case

A Texas grand jury’s decision this week to clear Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing in the fetal tissue controversy and instead indict two anti-abortion activists took legal watchers — and just about everybody else — by surprise. The founder of the Center for Medical Progress, the group behind the undercover sting videos that got the case started, and another activist with the organization face felony charges of tampering with a governmental record. What to make of the development? Here’s a sampling of some of the most interesting legal analysis from around the web. The twist in the case is “a stark reminder that the criminal law is a dangerous animal,” writes Harvard constitutional scholar and Bloomberg View columnist Noah Feldman. “Once it’s set free, there’s no telling who will be its target,” he says. “[CMP founder David] Daleiden’s amateur activism may or may not have crossed ethical lines. But if he crossed legal lines, he can legitimately be prosecuted.”

Mr. Feldman also notes the maximum penalty attached to the felony charge which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. “It’s an unfortunate fact of modern criminal law that maximum sentences are set outrageously high. In theory this allows judges to implement extreme punishment for an extreme case,” writes Mr. Feldman. “In practice, it gives leverage to prosecutors to extract a plea bargain from defendants.” Writing at Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explores the First Amendment dimensions, discussing whether having a journalistic purpose could exempt someone from criminal prosecution. “Generally speaking, journalists have to follow the law in investigating their stories,” writes Mr. Volokh. “If the law bans using false documents or offering to buy fetal tissue or recording conversations without all parties’ consent, journalists are bound by that no less than anyone else.” He goes on to explore some of the very limited statutory exemptions.

The Center for Medical Progress says its activists use “the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press.” Mr. Volokh also notes that the accused activists “might well have defenses unrelated to their journalistic purposes.” Some conservative pundits have questioned the possible motives of Harris County district attorney Devon Anderson, the prosecutor handling the case. As the Associated Press reports, it’s not the first time the Republican elected official has come under fire from pro-life groups. Houston criminal defense lawyer Murray Newman, writing at Mimesis Law, comes to her defense, saying Ms. Anderson made the right call despite the potential political consequences.

“The Harris County District Attorney’s Office, under Republican D.A. Devon Anderson, showed that law matters more than party politics,” he writes. But to what end? asks Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

Let’s again presume, for the sake of argument, that [David Daleiden] is technically guilty—although he maintains that he violated no laws. That doesn’t make the prosecution just. The law prohibiting the solicitation of human organs for purchase was clearly intended to prevent a black market in such things, not to punish people who are so against the sale of human organs that they falsely represent themselves as buyers in hopes of discovering and shutting down illegal activity.

“As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us,” Ms. Anderson said in her announcement of the indictment.

Read more : blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/01/27/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-planned-parenthood-case/

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Texas urges Supreme Court to uphold abortion law

Source     : Reuters
By            : Lawrence Hurley
Category : Seminole County Bail Bonds, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Texas urges Supreme Court to uphold abortion law

The state of Texas on Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold its restrictions on abortion providers, citing the case of a Philadelphia doctor convicted in 2013 of murdering babies at his abortion clinic. Lawyers for Texas were responding to court papers filed by abortion providers who challenged the 2013 state law. The high court is due to hear oral arguments on March 2 and issue a ruling by the end of June. It is one of the biggest cases before the nine justices in their current term. The Texas brief includes prominent mentions of Kermit Gosnell, who is serving three life sentences in prison for murdering babies during late-term abortions and other crimes committed at his Philadelphia clinic. A clinic worker testified during the trial that the doctor had delivered live babies during botched late-term abortions and cut their spinal cords.

Gosnell was indicted in 2011 and convicted in May 2013, two months before the Republican-backed Texas law was passed. The state’s lawyers wrote that Texas was one of several states that passed laws to protect healthcare standards in abortion clinics in the aftermath of that case. “The Kermit Gosnell scandal shocked our nation and put a spotlight on the urgent need to prevent such tragedies from happening in our own state,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement.  He asked the court to “uphold the ability of the state to ensure women seeking abortions are not harmed.” Women’s healthcare providers dispute the state’s characterization of the law’s purpose, saying it was aimed at making it harder for women to get abortions. Lawyers for Whole Woman’s Health and other clinic operators in the state argued that law imposes an undue burden on women seeking to end their pregnancies in violation of Supreme Court decisions protecting abortion rights.

The case focuses in part on a provision of the Texas law that has not yet gone into effect, requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. A separate section of the law that requires abortion clinic physicians to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 km) is also at issue but has gone into effect in most parts of Texas. The Supreme Court legalized abortion more than four decades ago but abortion remains a contentious issue. Some U.S. states have sought to chip away at a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy with laws enacting various restrictions.

Read more : reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKCN0V52XT

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Senate committee approves bill that weakens public records law

Source     : Naples News
By            : Arek Sarkissian
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Senate committee approves bill that weakens public records law

Florida Senate committee Tuesday approved a bill that would weaken public records law by stripping out a guarantee that people could recover legal fees if they won court fights to obtain records. Some government agencies in Florida deny the public access to public records, requiring them to obtain a court order before the information is released. Florida law now allows people to sue agencies for records and guarantees payment of legal fees if a lawsuit is successful. The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah, drew criticism. “No attorney is going to take the case if they aren’t sure they’re going to get paid,” said Florida First Amendment Foundation President Barbara Petersen.

“We know there are some bad actors who are taking advantage of this, but there are better ways to address the issue,” Petersen said. Garcia said his bill would trust a judge to determine whether a public records lawsuit was filed in bad faith. “I’ll be more than happy to work out the issues of this bill and come to a happy medium so we can have a policy in place that works and protects the public,” Garcia said. “I believe in this and I feel like people should have access to public records law.” St. Petersburg bankruptcy attorney Matthew Weidner, who sued Gov. Rick Scott last year for public documents about Florida Department of Law Enforcement Chief Gerald Bailey’s ouster in January 2015, said the bill would end lawsuits seeking public records. For his suit, eventually backed by a coalition of new agencies, he was faced by a dozen state-paid attorneys that charge $400 an hour.

“Just imagine your everyday person walking into a room and seeing 12 high-price attorneys staring back at them,” Weidner said. Garcia’s bill passed the Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability on Tuesday with a unanimous vote from a three-member panel. The bill would require an agency to acknowledge a request within five days of receiving it. That change would prevent lawyers from filing a lawsuit the same day as the request. Garcia said he filed the bill after hearing from several cities that were flooded with lawsuits. The issue surfaced in 2014 when news sites such as the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting wrote about a law firm owned by South Palm Beach millionaire Martin O’Boyle, which made hundreds of public records requests to local government agencies across the state. An employee hired by O’Boyle accused him of filing the requests so that he could file claims for legal fees.

Gulf Stream received 2,500 public records requests in two years from law firms. Gulf Stream Vice Mayor Robert Ganger brought up during the Tuesday committee meeting a case where a law firm requested all pictures of bicycles. The city replied to the request that it had no such pictures, and then it faced a lawsuit when one was found on its official website. “The court today has no discretion and because we technically didn’t comply, they awarded legal fees,” Ganger said. “It’s killing us.” Garcia’s bill is paired with HB 1021, by state Rep. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, who said the bill should not prevent citizens from waging public records fights in court, Steube said. “I’m not saying you can’t file a public records lawsuit and I’m not saying you can’t get attorney’s fees,” Steube said. “I’m simply saying it’s up to the discretion of the court just like it says in statute in civil actions in Florida.”

Read more :  naplesnews.com/news/government/senate-panel-approves-weakening-floridas-sunshine-law-making-citizens-fight-for-legal-fees-2a3e41ba–366632181.html

Bail Bond Sanford – Arguments Over North Carolina Voter ID Law Begin in Federal Court

Source     :  New York Times
By            :  ALAN BLINDER and KEN OTTERBOURG
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Arguments Over North Carolina Voter ID Law Begin in Federal Court

The bitter dispute about North Carolina’s elections laws returned to a federal courtroom here on Monday as the state’s voter identification requirement went on trial. The week’s proceedings will affect election practices in North Carolina, a state that has been closely contested in recent years and where voting rules could play a part in deciding tight elections, from local races to the 15 electoral votes for president. Court rulings here could also provide an early glimpse at how the federal courts might examine balloting laws in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision that, in 2013, upended a significant component of the Voting Rights Act. “The North Carolina litigation is the leading litigation in the post-Shelby world,” said Edward B. Foley, an elections law expert at Ohio State University, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, Alabama, v. Holder. “It’s the test case, the battleground case more than any other.” The trial about North Carolina’s identification standard, which requires voters to produce one of six accepted credentials or to submit a provisional ballot, is included in a broader challenge of the election law changes that the state’s Republican-dominated legislature first approved in 2013. Then, as now, supporters of the alterations to voting procedures described them as safeguards against potential fraud, but critics condemned them as thinly veiled efforts to throw up barriers, particularly to black and Hispanic voters.

“The state has engaged in a game of whack-a-mole with one of our most basic constitutional rights,” Michael A. Glick, a lawyer for the North Carolina chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. and other plaintiffs, told Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the Federal District Court. Mr. Glick, who called the photo identification law “a solution in search of a problem,” later said, “The right question is why should the citizens of this state — particularly members of a protected class — have to jump through these hoops in the first place?” But the state has argued that the process of obtaining an approved form of identification — the list of accepted documentation includes driver’s licenses and passports — is not any more difficult than any other routine interaction with government. They contend that officials proved that disenfranchisement was not the law’s aim last year, when the state allowed voters to cast a provisional ballot if they submitted a “reasonable impediment declaration” that explained why they lacked identification. (Legal experts said the amendment improved substantially the law’s odds of surviving this court challenge.) “We’re talking about a very, very small group of people who might be affected by this statute,” said Thomas A.

Farr, a lawyer for the state, who asserted that critics of the measure “just don’t like the policy of the photo ID law, and that simply isn’t enough.” The statute’s fate will fall to Judge Schroeder, an appointee of President George W. Bush who presided over last summer’s trial involving other provisions of North Carolina’s elections laws. He has not issued a decision from that trial, and he has not said when he anticipates announcing a ruling in the one that opened Monday. It is unclear how his decisions, which are likely to be appealed, will affect North Carolina’s presidential primaries, scheduled for March, or the general election. Judge Schroeder has already signaled some reluctance to strike down the identification law, at least in the short term.

This month, he refused the N.A.A.C.P.’s request for an injunction and said the group had so far “failed to clearly demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits.” Whenever Judge Schroeder’s ruling comes, it will be among the first in the South after the Supreme Court decision that effectively halted the requirement for some jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to receive preclearance for changes to voting procedures. North Carolina was not among the states that were subject to that oversight, although 40 of its 100 counties were. In this case, opponents of the law, which include the Justice Department, are relying on another tenet of the Voting Rights Act: Section 2, which prohibits any “standard, practice or procedure” that has the effect of “a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The Supreme Court could someday consider applications of Section 2, and some observers predicted that the North Carolina case might serve as interim guidance to governors and lawmakers elsewhere about the extent to which they could pursue measures like voter identification.

“How the courts handle this ultimately will be a signal, I think, to other Republican legislatures,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in elections law. Others were skeptical of the case’s influence, even as they expressed confidence that North Carolina would prevail, because of previous court rulings that upheld voter identification laws. Hans A. von Spakovsky, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, said politicians needed little justification from Judge Schroeder. “They don’t need more legal cover,” he said, “because they’ve already had legal cover.”

Read more : nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/arguments-over-north-carolina-voter-id-law-begin-in-federal-court.html

Sanford Bail Bond – Maurer Professor named most influential in legal education

Source     :  IDS News
By            :  IDS Reports
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Maurer Professor named most influential in legal education

William Henderson, a professor in the IU Maurer School of Law, has been named the most influential person in legal education by the National Jurist. This is his second year atop the list, which appeared in the February 2016 edition of the National Jurist. Henderson is “a staunch believer in the need for change in the way tomorrow’s lawyers are shaped in today’s classroom,” according to an IU press release.

However, according to the release, Henderson believes today’s legal education faces serious problems, such as the way in which professionals’ work is judged. Yet Henderson said in the release he is impressed by efforts law schools are making to address the crisis. “The National Jurist’s ranking confirms what we in the legal education circle have known for years: that Bill Henderson is one of, if not the most, influential voices in the county when it comes to explaining and understanding changes occurring in large law firms and the legal profession,” Austen L. Parrish, dean of the Maurer School of Law, said in the release. “We are fortunate to have Bill here in Bloomington, where his insight and expertise have been invaluable.”

Henderson began teaching at the Maurer School of Law in 2003 after a visiting appointment at Chicago-Kent College of Law and a judicial clerkship for Judge Richard Cudahy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In 2009, Henderson, along with other IU professors, instituted a four-credit-hour course, B614: The Legal Profession. The course concerns the ethics and economics of practicing law and seeks to immerse students in the kinds of situations they’ll encounter often as 
professionals. Henderson teaches various business law courses, including corporations, business planning, project management and the law firm as business 
organization.

From 2009 to 2014, he served as the director of Indiana Law’s Center on the Global Legal Profession. Much of Henderson’s research and scholastic work is centered on legal education and legal analysis. His work has been published in national publications including the American Lawyer, the Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal and the National Law Journal. Henderson is a research associate with the Law School Survey of Student Engagement, or LSSSE, and a principal in Lawyer Metrics, a consulting group which helps find promising lawyers for other firms through evidence-based methods.

Read more : idsnews.com/article/2016/01/maurer-professor-named-most-influential-in-legal-education

Bondsman in Seminole County – Apple v. Samsung: Tech Powers Urge Top Court To Take Up Patent Feud

Source     : News Factor
By            : Howard Mintz
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Apple v. Samsung: Tech Powers Urge Top Court To Take Up Patent Feud

Tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Hewlett-Packard have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Samsung’s appeal of its patent loss to Apple over the copying of iPhone technology. In “friend-of-the-court” briefs filed over the weekend, the companies warned the high court that the outcome against Samsung — which already has had to cut a check to Apple for more than $500 million for patent violations and faces the potential for more penalties — “will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies” because of the long-term impact on how patent law is applied to technology products such as smartphones. Samsung in December asked the Supreme Court to hear its appeal, giving the nation’s high court an opportunity to weigh in on perhaps the most high-profile tech showdown in recent memory.

The Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals last year rejected Samsung’s arguments in a ruling largely backing Apple — leaving the Supreme Court as the only legal option left for Samsung to try to overturn the adverse jury verdict. Samsung maintains that a three-judge Federal Circuit panel erred when it left intact a jury’s 2012 verdict that the South Korean tech giant’s smartphones and tablets infringed Apple’s design patents. That part of the verdict — which has been pared from an original judgment of $1 billion — accounts for the $548 million in damages Samsung still had to pay Apple from their first trial. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rebuffed Samsung’s effort to stall paying Apple until the Supreme Court appeal is resolved, forcing the South Korean tech giant to provide the money to Apple in December. Samsung appealed a San Jose jury’s August 2012 verdict that it violated Apple’s patent or trademark rights in 23 products, such as the Galaxy S2 smartphone, as well as about $930 million in damages awarded to the iPhone maker. The case, known as “Apple I,” was the first of two trials between the feuding tech titans. Another federal jury later found Samsung copied iPhone technology in more recent products, but awarded $120 million in damages, a fraction of what Apple sought. That case also has been appealed to the Federal Circuit, which recently heard arguments and is expected to rule sometime this spring.

Meanwhile, Samsung has enlisted support from various groups hoping the Supreme Court will clarify the patent issues in the showdown with Apple, in addition to the tech companies. Many of those same companies sided with Samsung in the Federal Circuit, which nevertheless sided with Apple. In one brief joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, groups backing Samsung warned the Supreme Court that the verdict, if allowed to stand, “opens the door to a new species of abusive patent litigation.” Apple has repeatedly argued that the courts have gotten it right in the case, saying it provided clear evidence that Samsung blatantly copied iPhone and iPad technology in the development of its smartphones and tablets. The Supreme Court is likely to decide whether to take the case before its term ends in June.

Read more :  newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=11100DINKHXI

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Nestle loses court Legal battle to trademark KitKat shape

Source     : Mirror Co UK
By            : Ruki Sayid
Category :  Seminole County Bail Bonds, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Nestle loses latest KitKat legal battle as High Court rules four-finger bar can’t be trademarked

Today’s ruling that the four-finger shape of the popular chocolate biscuit bar can’t be legally protected was welcomed by Nestle’s bitter rival Cadbury’s. Chocolate giant Nestle has lost its legal battle to trademark the shape of its iconic KitKat bar. It means the creator of the best selling four-finger treat is powerless to block a string of copycats from arch rival Cadbury as well as supermarket own-brand treats. The High Court ruled today that the shape itself was not enough to give the snack trademark status.

Nestle had argued that 90% of consumers shown an unmarked four finger chocolate bar believed it was a KitKat.
But Mr Justice Arnold kicked out the Swiss company’s bid to be granted a monopoly on the shape. The ruling is a blow for the confectionery maker, which has battled for almost six years to have the familiar bar protected by a trademark to prevent competitors from ripping off its design.  It follows a judgement by the European Court of Justice in September last year which also ruled the shape alone was not unique enough to warrant a coveted trademark. Nestle said it would appeal the decision and added in a statement: “KitKat is much loved and the iconic shape of the four-finger bar, which has been used in the UK for more than 80 years, is well known by consumers.

“We believe that the shape deserves to be protected as a trademark in the UK and are disappointed that the court did not agree on this occasion.” But Cadbury was thrilled with the court’s decision and said in a statement: “We are pleased by this ruling by the UK High Court which is in line with our contention that the shape of the KitKat bar is not distinctive enough to be protected as a trade mark.” Today’s judgment was the latest in a bitter spat between Nestle and Cadbury’s, who have been locked in a long series of legal wrangles over shapes and colours of their products.
In 2013 Nestle successfully thwarted Cadbury’s attempt to trademark purple as its brand colour in 2013.
Attorney Sharon Daboul at London trademark law firm EIP said: “This seems to be a common sense decision.
“Allowing registration of the KitKat shape would have given Nestle a valuable monopoly and competitive advantage over other confectionery manufacturers, which is one of the reasons why Cadbury has been keen to stop them.
“Whilst is it rare to win trademark protection for shapes, it is not impossible – the Toblerone shape and Nestle’s Walnut Whip are both protected.”

Read more : mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nestle-loses-latest-kitkat-legal-7213657

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Save the Ugly Robots

Source    :  SLATE
By            :  John Frank Weaver
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Save the Ugly Robots

In his 1993 album No Cure for Cancer, comedian Denis Leary satirized animal rights by claiming: “We only want to save the cute animals, don’t we? Yeah. Why don’t we just have animal auditions. Line ’em up one by one and interview them individually.” Understandably, supporters of animal rights frequently objected to Leary’s oversimplification—otters might do cute little human things with their hands, but there’s room for bovine legal protection. In a way, the animal rights activists’ approach is a good template for the way we should approach robots’ rights. Save the cute robots, but save the practical, homely ones as well. And by save, I mean create defined legal rights and protections for them. The cute robots are already well taken care of. Researchers like Kate Darling, research specialist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab and a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center, and Yueh-Hsuan Weng, co-founder of the Robolaw.Asia Initiative at Peking University, are exploring the benefits of providing legal protections to robots we befriend.

Darling has written and presented on the topic of extending legal rights to “social robots,” which she describes as a “physically embodied, autonomous agent that communicates and interacts with humans on an emotional level.” She notes that studies indicate we anthropomorphize social robots and form emotional bonds with them. And she predicts that in the same way we have passed laws to protect animals because of our personal attachment to them, we may also create legal protections for robots because we have bonded with them. But Darling also worries about desensitization and argues that we should pass legal protections for social robots because of the ethical implications. She writes in an email that if

Robots and living things become muddled in people’s subconsciousness, there could be an effect on people’s behavior if they become accustomed to “mistreating” robots that move and otherwise behave in a lifelike way. Like if a child grows up kicking a robot dog, will they be more likely to kick a real animal? We don’t know the answer to this yet, but we know that it brings the violence in video games question to a whole new level. We’re very physical creatures. And in this case, we might want to prevent people from “mistreating” lifelike robots.

Her concerns have merit—research indicates that kids like to beat up robots, despite perceiving them as “human-like.” Encouraging kindness toward humanlike robots may encourage kindness toward actual humans. Similarly, Weng advocates that we should give humanlike machines a special legal status he calls the “Third Existence,” basically providing them with rights akin to protections granted to pets. Weng notes that a person who injures your dog can be found liable for the cost of treatment and care, and he proposes that robots should be granted similar protections. “My main argument is that current laws do not help human beings to project their empathy while interacting with humanoid robots,” Weng told Tech Insider (emphasis added). Weng’s and Darling’s efforts stem directly from the concern that our interactions with social robots and humanoid robots will desensitize us to violence against real people. Their proposed response—legal protection for certain types of robots—ends up “saving” the cute robots.

However, in focusing on laws that protect how we socialize with anthropomorphized robots, we need to make sure not to ignore plainer robots. They need legal protections, too. In fact, I have gone so far as to recommend that we should grant them limited legal personhood. It’s not because we should empathize with them—it’s because laws governing interactions with ugly bots could improve their utility and benefit to humans. As any monkey with a camera and selfie stick can tell you, copyright protection exists only for works created by human beings. It certainly doesn’t cover works created by artificial intelligence programs, which enter the public domain. Creating certain intellectual property rights for creative pieces produced by that technology will incentivize programmers and designers to do more work in that field. It’s not clear that contracts signed by robots are legitimate, meaning delivery agreements with drones and purchases performed by retail A.I. might not be binding. Granting robots the right to enter and perform contracts will clarify that utilitarian, nonsocial, nonhumanoid robots will provide useful services in the economy—make deliveries, take orders, etc.—while minimizing uncertainty about their legal ability to do so. Clarifying that the First Amendment applies to robots will protect autonomous writing technology from overzealous legislators who are offended by what they produce. Requiring certain forms of robots—self-driving cars, autonomous delivery drones, etc.—to carry insurance provides necessary protection for owners and third parties alike from any potential liability. The interactions I just described will frequently be dull. They won’t be cute. These machines will merely function; they will not invite emotional bonding. But thoughtful laws and policies can make these interactions more useful, letting A.I., autonomous devices, and robots help us in ways that social robots cannot. When we think about laws for robots, it’s important to protect the cute robot otters, but let’s not forget to provide some rights for the practical robot cows too.

Read more :  slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/01/19/ugly_robots_deserve_legal_protections_too.html

Bail Bond Sanford – DraftKings could soon face legal battles in yet another state

Source     : Biz Journals
By            : Sara Castellanos
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

DraftKings could soon face legal battles in yet another state

DraftKings, the embattled online daily fantasy sports business headquartered in Boston, could soon be facing legal battles in Maryland. Maryland state officials, including Assistant Attorney General Katherine Rowe and Chief Counsel Adam Snyder, sent a letter to the Maryland Senate President saying Maryland lawmakers should “weigh in” on daily fantasy sports during its upcoming legislative session, according to the Washington Post.

“We recommend that the legislature squarely take up the issue this session and clarify whether daily fantasy sports are authorized in Maryland,” they said. “By contrast, we think it is clear that traditional fantasy sports were authorized by [a 2012 law].” Jonathan Schiller, legal counsel to DraftKings, said in a statement that he looks forward to working with lawmakers to make sure that users can enjoy the games. “We agree with the Attorney General that this is a matter for the legislature. By an overwhelming majority, the Maryland General Assembly passed a law in 2012 that made it clear that fantasy sports, including daily fantasy sports, are not gambling and are legal in the state. We look forward to continued engagement with lawmakers to ensure that players in Maryland and around the country can continue to enjoy our contests.”

DraftKings, which has secured about $500 million in venture capital funding to date, is also embroiled in several regulatory battles in other states including New York. In the Bay State, the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey recently hosted a public hearing about her proposed consumer protection regulations on the fantasy sports industry. Healey’s office will be taking public comment through Jan. 22. The regulations focus on protecting minors, ensuring transparency, and leveling the playing field for consumers. For example, the regulations prohibit people under the age of 21 from playing online daily fantasy sports games and ban advertising on high school and college campuses.

Read more : bizjournals.com/boston/blog/startups/2016/01/draftkings-could-soon-face-legal-battles-in-yet.html

Sanford Bail Bond – A Legal Overview of Religious Discrimination in Employment

Source     : Huffington Post
By            : Brad Reid
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

A Legal Overview of Religious Discrimination in Employment

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other requirements, prohibits discrimination in employment based upon religion for covered employers who have 15 or more employees (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e). Employees’ religious beliefs and practices are entitled to “reasonable accommodation” in the workplace unless it would cause the employer an “undue hardship.” Asserted claims of prohibited discrimination must typically be made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or comparable state agency within 180 days of the discriminating event. Note that many states have similar statutes that may include more employers or have different procedural requirements. This comment provides a brief and incomplete educational overview of the complex topic of religious discrimination in private sector employment. Public employees have a somewhat different situation. Always contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney in a specific situation. Courts have difficulty precisely defining “religion.” Courts do not judge religious doctrines. This is as ancient as the Biblical account in Acts 18 of a Roman Proconsul declining to hear such a case. Numerous modern U.S. court decisions address employer “undue hardship.” These cases may conclude, for example, that since customers prefer that employees without tattoos serve them, it is an undue hardship if an employer cannot require their covering, even if the tattoos are religiously inspired. Courts state that a religious belief or practice is “sincere,” “central,” “influences behavior,” and addresses “ultimate ideas” concerning “life, purpose, and death.” However, the courts have concluded that “religion” may exist without the individual believing in a traditional Deity or acting in conformity with an established religious group. In other words, it is legally possible to have a one person “religion.” Courts distinguish “religion” from social, political, or ethical viewpoints. Personal preferences in appearance such as hairstyle, clothing, or jewelry do not constitute “religion.” Nutritional preferences or political affiliations are not “religion.” The analysis becomes very factually specific. A religious practice or belief is “sincerely held” (“bona fide”) based upon both the employee’s subjective belief and objective practice. While a court will not determine the ultimate truth or reasonableness of the subjective religious belief, the court will take note of consistent objective practice. The employee must be consistent in belief and practice in order to successfully assert religion. Courts have determined that both “disparate treatment” (different treatment due to the employee’s religion) or a failure to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious belief or practice (absent employer undue hardship) are forms of unlawful religious discrimination in employment. Precisely what is a “reasonable accommodation” in a specific situation? This is fact specific. Note that not only must the employee have a bona fide religious belief, she or he must typically inform the employer of this belief. Why did the employer take the adverse employment action in question? Did the employee fail to comply with a job requirement that conflicted with the communicated religious belief when a reasonable accommodation was possible? A 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision (8:1) involved a successful lawsuit by a prospective employee who was denied employment after wearing a hijab to an employment interview but without requesting a religious accommodation (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch). However, this case involves unique facts.

Consequently, from the employer’s viewpoint:

1. Is there notification or reason to know that a reasonable religious accommodation may be appropriate?
2. If so, initiate communication with the employee concerning possible accommodations. The accommodation process involves cooperation and dialogue and cannot be unilaterally undertaken by either party.
3. Listen to the employee’s request and why the employee wants it.
4. An employer does not have to provide the employee with her or his requested accommodation if the employer prefers to provide a different but reasonable alternative.
5. An employer needs to be factually objective concerning what accommodation is reasonable or might create an undue hardship.

The following are some general types of proposed reasonable accommodation:

1 . Flex schedules or personal leave policies.
2. Schedule and shift exchanging done voluntarily.
3. Modification in employer grooming standards or dress codes.
4. Voluntary transfers and sometimes voluntary demotion. Be cautious.
5. Allowing non-disruptive prayer and/or religious conversation outside of customer service areas. This is very fact specific.

An employer might possibly reject a proposed accommodation because it:

1. Imposes more than a de minimis (very small) cost or administrative burden.
2. Creates building or business code violations, or other legal violations or safety issues.
3. Violates contract rights or a collective bargaining contract.
4. Creates workplace disruption, workplace conflicts, or damages customer interactions. Be factually objective.
5. Adversely impacts the corporate brand or creates community disdain.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs regulations require federal contractors and subcontractors to provide employees and prospective employees with accommodations for religious observance and practice, specifically mentioning Sabbath and religious holiday observance (41 CFR 60-50.3). However, in determining what might constitute an undue hardship to the employer, the regulation states that factors such as business necessity, financial costs and expenses, and resulting personnel problems may be considered. Religious faiths and religious educational institutions may discriminate on the basis of religion in employment decisions. Additionally, when an employee’s conduct is contrary to the religious principles of the religious institution, the employee may be terminated. However, determining if a particular employer is “religious” may be difficult. Courts frequently examine the relative mixture of secular and religious activities occurring within the organization. “Ministerial” employees are not allowed to sue religious employers under anti-discrimination statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2012 unanimous decision (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC). The teacher in question had completed a course of theological study and accepted a “call,” teaching both religious and secular classes in kindergarten and the fourth grade. After a dispute with her employer concerning disability leave for narcolepsy, she was terminated. Upon reviewing the facts of this situation, as well as the history of religious liberty and the First Amendment, the Supreme Court concluded that the ministerial exception bared her lawsuit. The Court noted that it expressed no opinion concerning whether or not the ministerial exception would prohibit other types of lawsuits, such as breach of contract or tort (injury). Consequently, a religious employee would be advised to have a written employment contract containing provisions for disability and severance benefits, etc. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, in broad overview, prohibits government from substantially burdening one’s exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and the governmental burden is the least restrictive method to address this compelling interest (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000bb-1). In 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this statute to limit regulations under the federal Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide health insurance coverage for some methods of contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores). This complex topic is beyond the scope of a brief comment. This comment provides a brief and incomplete educational overview of a complex topic and is not intended to provide legal advice. Always contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney in a specific situation.

Read more: huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/a-legal-overview-of-relig_b_8999632.html