In the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, the concurrence and dissent sharply disagreed about the significance of the majority opinion. Depending on which opinion you read, Family Dollar is either a sweeping reinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s class action decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes or a narrow holding reiterating the rule in favor of liberal amendment of complaints. Time will tell who is right.
Fourth Circuit Finds District Court Erroneously Applied Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes in Denying Leave to Amend Complaint in Pay Discrimination Suit
In its recent decision in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 12-1610 (4th Cir. Oct. 16, 2013), the Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs asserting claims of gender-based pay discrimination leave to file an amended complaint based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Rule 23(a) commonality requirements for class certification set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Takes Rare Step of Vacating Arbitrator’s Award, Saving Employer $400,000
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit took the unusual step of reversing an arbitrator’s award in favor of an ex-employee, finding that the arbitrator’s award was in “manifest disregard” of the law.
While commentators can, and often do, debate fine points regarding the technical elements of a class action claim, the result in a given case is often dictated by a more fundamental concern. That issue is whether the judge views class action treatment as an exception to the general rule or, instead, as a fundamental right.
Undefeated welterweight boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has added to his string of victories, with his most recent win coming from the Fourth Circuit in the decision Dash v. Mayweather.
Fourth Circuit Holds That Virginia Government Cannot Prohibit Alcohol Advertising in All College Newspapers
Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (based in Richmond, VA) handed down the attached decision in Educational Media v. Insley, No. 12-2183 (Sept. 25, 2013). The case underlines the trend to provide commercial speech, even speech about heavily-regulated products like alcohol beverages, with strong protection under the Constitution’s First Amendment.
Third Circuit Decision Finding No Clean Air Act Preemption of State Law Nuisance Creates Apparent Split with Fourth Circuit
A recent case from the Third Circuit has muddied the waters for emissions facilities complying with Clean Air Act (“CAA”) permits.
Federal Courts continue to be a friendly venue for victims of illegal union actions. Recently in Waugh Chapel South, LLC v. UFCW Local 27, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals joined a growing number of Federal Courts in affirming the right to recover damages against a union for illegal secondary activity.
A federal appellate court on Wednesday ruled that the First Amendment protects the act of “liking” on Facebook or other social media. In Bland v. Roberts, a sheriff’s deputy “liked” the Facebook page of the candidate who was challenging the incumbent sheriff in the upcoming elections. After the incumbent won re-election, the deputy was fired.
In a closely watched case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that a “Like” on Facebook is a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment.