This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled Thursday that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in a private lawsuit to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. This decision clarifies what damages are available to individuals who sue under federal anti-discrimination statutes.
Whether you are drafting contracts, memos, or legal briefs, knowing how to handle numbers can significantly enhance the precision and professionalism of your documents. For example, in contracts, it is common for drafters to present numbers in both word form and numerically, such as five (5) to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.
The ACA (in Section 1557) bars federally funded health care programs from discriminating in violation of certain civil rights statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act. The same is true, in effect, of other antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title IX. In the 2002 case Barnes v.
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.
The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw.
The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that the plaintiffs conceded that venue in Boulder County was not proper for San Miguel under this statute. WildEarth Guardians v. Mountain Coal Co. , 1:20-cv-01342 (D. Coverage of the oral argument is available here.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content