The federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision last month, in Shuler v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, sharply restricting the scope of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which President Obama signed into law soon after entering office.  The Fair Pay Act extends the timely filing deadlines for certain discriminatory employment actions, specifically those involving “discrimination in compensation.”  The case involved a plaintiff who was denied a promotion in 1999 and 2000 and who claimed that those decisions, which were made because of age discrimination, had continuing effects on his compensation because the promotions would have come with raises.  With little analysis, the Court held that “discrimination in compensation” means “paying different wages or providing different benefits to similarly situated employees, not promoting one employee but not another to a more remunerative position.”  A close reading of the statute’s language, purpose, and legislative history might challenge the Court’s conclusion, and hopefully other courts will consider the question more carefully.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: ADEA, Case Commentary, DC Circuit, Discrimination, Labor and Employment, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Statute of Limitations

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 16, in Deal v. Frye Regional Medical Center, addressing the line between medical malpractice cases and ordinary negligence cases.  There are special requirements on plaintiffs who file malpractice claims, unlike negligence claims, so the line is important.  In this case, the decedent had been admitted and was being cared for because of a heart attack and other problems.  During his stay, however, the nurses failed to conduct a Fall Risk Screen Assessment (“FRSA”) and failed to implement a fall risk safety policy to protect decedent from falling.  Subsequently, the decedent fell out of his hospital bed and fractured his right hip, which required surgery and rehabilitation.  The Court held that the potential negligence here — the failure to conduct the FRSA — was a professional activity of the nurses, involving clinical judgment, and therefore made the claim one of medical malpractice, not just negligence.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Medical Malpractice, NC Court of Appeals, Negligence, Personal Injuries

Inexplicably, Republican Senator Jim Bunning has held up a much-needed extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits.  Bunning has single-handily blocked a vote on a 30-day extension by being the only senator to oppose a unanimous consent motion to vote on the bill, which was passed earlier by the House. The extended benefits are scheduled to expire today.  Thousands may lose benefits because of Bunning — how many depending on how quickly Democrats can force a vote on the bill.  This callous disregard of the needs of working class Americans is outrageous, as are Senate rules which allow a single Senator to hold up such essential legislation.

The stress of losing a job is hard enough, and has been shown to create adverse health effects, but the least the government can do is provide unemployment benefits in a timely manner.  More coverage here and here.

Categories: Legislative Action Tags: COBRA, Congress, Labor and Employment, Unemployment Benefits

In Taylor v. Town of Garner, we have filed this brief with the North Carolina Court of Appeals in this workers’ compensation case.  Officer Taylor in a veteran of the Garner police force who was injured while providing official inter-agency assistance at an N.C. State football game.  The primary issue is whether the Town of Garner is solely liable for Officer Taylor’s compensation, or whether both Garner and N.C. State are liable.  Garner should be liable because Office Taylor was working at N.C. State pursuant to an official mutual aid and assistance agreement between Garner and N.C. State.  Valerie Johnson and Narendra Ghosh are representing Officer Taylor.

Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Appeals, Briefs, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Police Officers, Valerie Johnson, Workers' Compensation

Burton Craige was the Program Chair for today’s CLE on 2010 Ethics Hot Topics, presented by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.  Topics included the ethical considerations in dealing with child witnesses, attorneys’ websites and advertising, and contacting the employees of companies in a lawsuit.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Burton Craige, Ethics, NCAJ, Presentation

In King v. McMillan, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and the court’s rulings in a sexual harassment case.  The plaintiff, a former deputy in a sheriff’s office, had been sexually harassed by the sheriff over several years.   A jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages on her claims of battery and sexual harassment under Title VII.  The Court upheld the awards, the substitution of the correct defendant, and the admission of testimony of other female employees who had been sexually harassed by the same sheriff.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Battery, Case Commentary, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Punitive Damages, Sexual Harassment, Title VII

Check out this profile of Leto Copeley, entitled “The Interpreter” in the February 2010 edition of the North Carolina Super Lawyers magazine.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Leto Copeley, Press, Recognition, Super Lawyers

Patterson Harkavy is a sponsor at tonight’s 41st Annual Frank Porter Graham Awards Ceremony, hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation.  This year’s honorees are:

Frank Porter Graham Award – Jimmy Creech
ACLU of North Carolina Award – Juvencio Rocha Peralta
Paul Green Award – Jeremy Collins & Charmaine Fuller Cooper

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Civil Rights, Firm News, Frank Porter Graham Ceremony, NC ACLU, Patterson Harkavy

Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals published four opinions concerns concerning workers’ compensation and personal injury cases.  In Berardi v. Craven County Schools, the Court considered and described the Industrial Commission’s new process for expedited medical motions, which speed up resolution of medical treatment disputes in workers’ compensation cases.  At issue was whether the employer could appeal a decision of the Commission granting one such motion.  The Court held that it could not because the order was interlocutory, i.e. it did not resolve all issues, the usual prerequisite for appeals.

In Freeman v. Rothrock, the North Carolina Supreme Court had sent the case back to the Court of Appeals after reversing it and rejecting the judicial creation of a bar to recovery of worker’s compensation benefits when an employee made misrepresentations at the time of hiring about his physical condition.  On remand, the Court addressed the other appealed issues from the Commission, and affirmed the Commission’s conclusions that the plaintiff is entitled to ongoing total disability benefits and that the employer is not entitled to a credit based on previous clinchers (settlements) with the plaintiff.

Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Appeals, Bicycle Accidents, Car Accident, Case Commentary, Clinchers, Disability Benefits, Governmental Immunity, Industrial Commission, Medical Motions, Negligence, Personal Injuries, Workers' Compensation

The Obama administration proposed new rules recently that should improve insurance coverage of mental health care for more those fortunate to have medical insurance through their jobs.  The rules implement the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). Under the rules, employers and group health plans generally cannot provide less coverage for mental health care than for the treatment of physical conditions.  More information is available from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Of course, what millions of uninsured workers need right now is the healthcare reform bill that is stalled in Congress, so that everyone can get health insurance.  Even the bill the Senate passed would be a big step in the right direction, if only the House would just pass it.

Categories: Legislative Action Tags: Administrative Rulemaking, Congress, Health Care, Labor and Employment, Medical Insurance, MHPAEA