Bodine v. Cook’s Pest Control, Inc., Case No. 15-13233 (decided July 29, 2016), enforced an arbitration agreement in an employment contract. In that case, the Court dealt with the impact of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) on the arbitration agreement. Mr. Bodine was employed by Cook’s Pest Control. His armed forces commitment required him to take leave from work. He contended that his employer discriminated against him because of his military service obligations, which gave him a cause of action under USERRA. Mr. Bodine filed a lawsuit against Cook’s, but he had an arbitration… Read more
Georgia Appellate Developments
Georgia Court of Appeals Expands the Time Period in Which Crime Victims Can File Civil Lawsuits
The April term of court for the Georgia Court of Appeals will end on July 15. In these last weeks of the term, the Court often will issue opinions in its most difficult cases. In Harrison v. McAfee, Case No. A16A0648 (decided July 7, 2016), the whole court (all 15 judges) issued an opinion that overruled several other decisions of the Court of Appeals and effectively lengthened the period in which crime victims can file tort claims against certain defendants. The case arose out of the attempted robbery of a bar. Mr. Harrison was shot in the arm when a… Read more
The Continuing Asbestos Saga
For over 40 years, the courts have been filled with personal injury claims arising out of exposure to asbestos. Those cases continue to be litigated, and in Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight, Case No. S15G1278 (decided July 5, 2016), the Georgia Supreme Court added another chapter to that saga. The Court considered whether certain expert testimony was sufficient to establish a plaintiff’s claim that he had contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. For a number of years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mr. Knight had worked at the Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. facility in Waycross,… Read more
How Much is That Doggie in the Window? The Georgia Supreme Court Looks at the Measure of Damages for a Lost Pet
In Barking Hound Village, LLC v. Monyak, Case No. S15G1184 (decided June 6, 2016), the Georgia Supreme Court addressed how to properly measure the damages available to the owners of an animal killed through the negligence of others. The plaintiffs owned an 8½-year-old mixed-breed dog. While being boarded at a kennel owned by defendant, the dog allegedly received improper amounts of medication which caused the dog to experience renal failure. After receiving extensive veterinary care, the dog died. The veterinary bills and related expenses totaled over $67,000. The owners of the deceased dog sued the kennel for negligence. The central… Read more
A Second Front in Litigating with Alleged Whistleblowers
In Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lear Corp., Case No. 15-12060 (decided May 13, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed when the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor could seek an injunction to prevent a business from suing a former employee who claimed the status of whistleblower under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Lear had sued a former employee in state court for defamation and intentional interference with business relations. The Secretary filed a case in federal court seeking injunctive relief under the whistleblower protection provisions of OSHA…. Read more
The Eleventh Circuit Visits Margaritaville
In Buehrle v. City of Key West, Case No. 14-15354 (decided December 29, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether a limit on the number of tattoo establishments in the City of Key West, Florida infringed the First Amendment rights of a tattoo artist. From 1966 through 2007, the City of Key West, Florida prohibited the operation of any tattoo parlors. Opinion, pp. 2-3. As a result of litigation, Key West adopted an ordinance permitting two tattoo businesses to operate in its historic district. According to the Opinion, Key West maintained that “tattoo establishments… Read more
Generic Drug Labeling in Georgia
In Georgia, Brand Name Drug Manufacturers are Not Responsible for the Labeling of Generic Drugs In Pliva, Inc. v. Dement, Case No. A15A1157 (decided November 20, 2015), the Georgia Court of Appeals joined the majority of jurisdictions that have held that a party who claims to have been injured by allegedly incorrect or inadequate warnings on a drug produced by a generic manufacturer cannot attempt to blame the manufacturer of the identical brand name drug. Under federal law, a generic drug manufacturer is obligated to use the same labeling that the FDA has approved for the identical brand name drug…. Read more
Commercial Speech in the Eleventh Circuit
You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato In Dana’s Railroad Supply v. Florida Attorney General, Case No. 14-14427 (decided November 4, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed an interesting issue involving the application of the First Amendment to commercial speech. The Court concluded that the State of Florida was improperly regulating commercial speech by authorizing one type of conduct and penalizing other conduct when, in the Court’s view, there was no difference between the two types of conduct. In the Court’s view, the statute at issue drew a distinction merely over how the conduct was… Read more
Interns Come to the Eleventh Circuit
Recently, the news has contained reports about litigation over the status under federal labor laws of unpaid interns. Such internships can provide valuable training to students as well as offering a foot in the door of a future employer. However, internships may at times feel more like real work than educational experiences. Interns may feel that employment-like experiences entitle them to employment-like benefits such as regular pay and the protection of federal labor laws. When does an internship cross over from being an educational experience into employment? The Eleventh Circuit addressed that issue in Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia, P.A., Case… Read more
A Lesson About Protective Orders
In Glock v. Glock, Inc., Case No. 14-15601 (decided August 17, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed a novel about the use of discovery taken in the United States to aid a case filed overseas. However, the more useful lesson of that case is about protective orders. Glock, Inc. is the well-known manufacturer of guns. In 2011, Gaston Glock and Helga Glock began a divorce proceeding in Austria. In connection with those proceedings, Helga Glock filed an action in the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking to discover evidence from Glock, Inc. and… Read more