The Journey of Litigation
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
In Richards v. Eli Lilly, the Seventh Circuit charted new territory for how courts should evaluate requests to send notice in Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Departing from the...more
On July 25, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Finley v. Kraft Heinz Inc. upending the grant of summary judgment to an employer in a retaliation case. ...more
Hollins v. Lyft, Inc., 2025 WL 915412 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2025) - The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of Lyft in a personal injury claim stemming from an...more
In this week's episode of OK at Work, attorneys Sarah Sawyer and Russell Berger from Offit Kurman discuss various aspects of litigation. They highlight that most litigation cases don't go to trial, benefiting both courts and...more
The Tenth Circuit recently upheld an Oklahoma District Court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a trade secret defendant based on insufficient specificity as to the trade secrets at issue, as well as a lack of proper...more
Among the first questions I ask when investigating a lawsuit accusing my client of discriminatory conduct is, “Who made the decision?” The reasons are simple. First, an adverse employment action – like termination,...more
Maybe you are one of the lucky employers who has not been sued in court or received a charge filed with a federal or state agency enforcing employment laws, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more
In May 2025, the Supreme Court of Washington overruled previous precedent regarding the deliberate intent to injure exception related to workers’ compensation immunity for employers, finding that an employee may sue its...more
Case: Stenson Tamaddon LLC v. IRS, No. CV-24-01123-PHX-SPL, 2025 WL 1725942 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2025) On June 20, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for summary judgment that was filed...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of June 22-28. Here’s what’s...more
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a law firm employer, holding that a legal assistant’s request to work entirely remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic was not a reasonable...more
The exclusivity provision of the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) normally prevents an employee from suing his employer in civil court for work injuries. The employee is normally relegated to filing a...more
Key Takeaways - - The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to show additional “background...more
In Conner v. Stark & Stark, P.C., 2025 WL 1694052 (D.N.J. June 17, 2025), defendant’s privilege log helped partially defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion....more
Jameel, etc. v. Dember, et al., No. A-1225-23 (April 28, 2025) - A wrongful death and survivorship action arising from a fatal accident in a hospital employee parking lot was dismissed after the New Jersey Appellate Division...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island) recently awarded a victory to employers litigating claims “related to” certain employer-sponsored...more
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that plaintiffs in the majority group within a protected class have the same burden of proof at summary judgment to demonstrate...more
This third installment of the 10 Compelling Reasons for Employment Arbitration explores the impact of an arbitration agreement on a plaintiff’s litigation strategy. As discussed herein, arbitration programs can tamp down a...more
On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that, in order to establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” is not required to show “background...more
A New York intermediate appellate court, applying New York law, has held that an insurer had no coverage obligation for a third lawsuit filed against its insured that was deemed related to two earlier lawsuits that were filed...more