The Florida Law Weekly

Federal New Releases

New Releases
from Federal Courts

Viewing the full text of these opinions will require logging in with your user name and password.

Arbitration -- Federal Arbitration Act -- Exemptions -- 9 U.S.C. § 1 exempts from FAA coverage “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” -- “Class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” is not limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry -- Circuit court erred in compelling arbitration of distributors' state and federal wage law claims against company that produced and marketed baked goods based on conclusion that the distributors work in the bakery industry, not the transportation industry
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil rights -- Racial discrimination -- Disparate treatment -- Hostile work environment -- Retaliation -- Title VII federal-sector provision -- Action brought by black speech language pathologist against former colleagues at army hospital under Title VII's federal-sector provision alleging, among other claims, race-based disparate treatment, race-based hostile work environment, traditional retaliation, and hostile-work-environment retaliation -- Extensive discussion of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a), which provides that “[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees . . . in military departments . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on race . . . ,” and of “but-for” standard of liability in this context -- Proper framework and standard for evaluating federal-sector claims -- Under federal-sector standard, remedies available to a plaintiff who proves discrimination in the decision-making process differ according to whether or not the discriminatory factor was the “but-for” cause of adverse employment action -- Summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's race-based disparate-treatment claim is affirmed to the extent trial court found that race was not a but-for cause of plaintiff's termination -- However, race-based disparate-treatment claim based on theory that discrimination tainted the decision-making process that led to adverse employment action was supported by sufficient evidence to create jury issue, and it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant on this aspect of claim -- Race-based hostile work environment claim was supported by sufficient evidence, and it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant on this claim -- Trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant on claim that her removal from federal service was in retaliation for having filed racial discrimination complaints with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where plaintiff did not submit evidence that would allow reasonable jury to find that retaliation played any part in decision-making process -- Trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim where evidence presented by plaintiff lent itself only to inference that hostile work environment was race-based, not retaliatory
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Jurors -- Challenges -- Gender discrimination
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Eminent domain -- Takings -- The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions -- State court of appeal erroneously rejected building permit applicant's challenge to traffic impact fee required to obtain a permit as an unlawful “exaction” of money under Takings Clause on ground that fee was imposed by legislation and legislative permit conditions are categorically exempt from the requirements of Supreme Court's decisions in Nollan and Dolan
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Securities -- Fraud -- Material misstatements or omissions -- Pure omissions are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b -- 5(b), which makes it unlawful to omit material facts in connection with buying or selling securities when that omission renders “statements made” misleading -- By its plain text, Rule 10b -- 5(b) covers half-truths, not pure omissions, because the Rule requires identifying affirmative assertions, “statements made,” before determining if other facts are needed to make those statements “not misleading” -- Accordingly, failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K cannot support a private action under Rule 10b -- 5(b) if the failure does not render any “statements made” misleading
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Are you a nonsubscriber and just need to get a case? Try our 2-Hour or 24-Hour Access! Log in for a limited period to all 3 of our publications. Details Here	FLW Mobile - For easier navigation on your mobile phone!
	© 2024 Judicial & Administrative Research Associates, Inc.	*Add unlimited access to FLW Online* for as little as $10.50 per month.** This price is available to anyone whose office subscribes to FLW. Call 800-351-0917, e-mail us--or click here for more details.	Sign up for free e-mail alerts of Florida appellate decisions, within hours of filing.