Massachusetts Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court in, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (PDF), concludes, "[t]he Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits[.]" Thus, MA defendants and defense attorneys will now be allowed to challenge the prosecutions' evidence prepared for trial by questioning the person who prepared a forensic report or analysis. SCOTUS Blog's analysis of the MA case states,

Expressing a heavy dose of skepticism that crime lab reports are so reliable as to be beyond question, the Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for chemists and other scientists who prepare such reports to be summoned to the witness stand in criminal trials to defend their analysis.  The 5-4 ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (07-591) resulted from some unusual alliances among the Justices, and continued the deep division within the Court over how to interpret the Constitution’s guarantee that an individual on trial for a crime has a right to face and challenge the witnesses for the prosecution.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, found this case to follow the court's precedent expressed in Crawford v. Washington. In laying the framework, Scalia states:

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 403 (1965), provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In Crawford, after reviewing the Clause’s historical underpinnings, we held that it guarantees a defendant’s right to confront those “who ‘bear testimony’” against him. 541 U. S., at 51. A witness’s testimony against a defendant is thus inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id., at 54.

See the SCOTUS Wiki for more on this case.

Technorati Tags: MA, Confrontation, Defense, Supreme Court, Forensic

My new Privacy Law and Policy blog is underway. This blog examines privacy law issues that include:

• Privacy Rights
• Privacy Invasions
• Security Breaches and Crimes
• Open Government

I help individuals in civil and criminal matters and represents municipalities and businesses in privacy compliance matters, security breaches, commercial privacy infringements, cybercrimes, and crimes involving privacy issues.

You can also follow Kevin Whitaker on Twitter at http://twitter.com/kevinwhitaker

Massachusetts attorney Kevin Whitaker's new Privacy Law and Policy Blog is live.

Technorati Tags: Privac, Privacy Law, Privacy Lawyer, Privacy Attorney

What do you do when a problem arises that could harm your reputation? How do you know when it's happening?

For starters, Google alerts provides one tool to keep track of what's being said about you online. A search on twitter might help, too. This list from author, Andy Beal, provides 34 more tools to consider, 34 Online Reputation Management Tools | Small Business Marketing Blog from Duct Tape Marketing.

Beal rightly states:

User generated media, blogs and discussion forums have changed the flow of information about your company forever.

Lee Odden in Basics of Online Reputation Management | Online Marketing Blog, proposes a three step approach: Monitor, Optimize and Engage. To start, Odden suggests monitoring:

• Brands
• Products
• Company
• Key Executives

OK, so once you have the information, now what do you do about it? Visit Odden's post describing more about optimizing and engaging.

In general, when a problem arises, one should consider both legal liability and business reputation issues when choosing the best course of action. Sometimes, however, these different approaches may not agree.

Continue reading "Web Identity Tips for Online Reputation Management" »

Massachusetts Lawyer's Weekly (LW) reports,

The Governor's Council voted 6-2 in favor of Superior Court Judge Ralph
D. Gants' nomination to a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court.

In a second story LW states,

Superior Court Judge Margaret R. Hinkle will succeed Judge Ralph D. Gants as head of the Business Litigation Session.

"Yes he did." Now with respect to the judiciary, "Yes he can," remains a theme likely to apply without much opposition. Bloomberg.com: News reports

The election of Barack Obama and a Democratic surge in the legislative branch could signal a shift in the nation’s court system. As President, Obama will be able to appoint federal, and possibly Supreme Court,judges that are more supportive of consumer and employee rights than many currently on the bench. Equally, a Democratic majority in the Senate should lead to swift confirmation of appointees.

Greg Stohr's article provides more analysis and context for court's future under an Obama Administration.

Thanks to Susan Cartier Liebel's blog post for pointing me to a great video. In under 9 minutes, the video, "Did you know 2.0", clearly conveys an appreciation of America's challenges in education and with evolving technology.

I find the video's message akin to Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (view trailer), but instead of environmental challenges, this video illuminates challenges in both education and technology -- although I suspect neither of these is ultimately too far removed from Gore's concerns. With the elections approaching, the economy struggling, and people's desire for change bubbling over, it think it's fair to predict for the times they are a-changin' in politics, technology, and law.

Blogs, social networks, and the web extend well beyond Massachusetts borders thus it's often instructive to look around the country and consider how laws are developing elsewhere as they relate to blogging and cyberspace in general. Trial lawyers of both today and of the future will need to be well versed in the law and understand this evolving interactive arena that changes day-by-day. Blogger and California law professor Eric Goldman recently mentions a case involving blog postings being introduced as evidence in a trademark infringement lawsuit. He quotes the court's holding which excluded the blog's comments from evidence.

The Court declines to consider these postings in reaching its decision. The Court is concerned, on this record, that the blog entries lack sufficient indicia of reliability.FN4

Nothing is known about the persons who made the entries, about whether they are related in any way to either party or whether they are describing true events and impressions. Moreover, the authors' meaning and the import of the blog entries are far from clear.

FN4. This should not be construed as a ruling by the Court that entries on Internet blogs could not, on a different record, be reliable and admissible.

(The case was as consumer confusion case on whether "Mooo Tracks" ice cream infringes upon "Moose Track" ice cream. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P. v. Denali Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2965655 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2008)).

You can look at this from two perspectives, the blog comments were kept out. On the other hand, there were some criteria listed for their exclusion. If these were met, would the comments be allowed into evidence here? It would seem so, why shouldn't they be? Look to the next round of cases to have greater foundations laid down concerning the inclusion of blog comments as evidence.

Like many attorneys I talk with, I'm already seeing more of my clients who are relying on blogs or websites for much of their news. The constantly dwindling size of my newspaper backs this up too. Some do believe, "If I read it, then it's true," but as we know, that's often not the case.

Reliability, validity, authenticity are continuing concerns of justice and in the short term, it seems the web won't make things easier in these areas. Here the law still has much to work out regarding how it's going to keep pace with the web, social media, web 2.0 or whatever name or thing is next. Smart trial lawyers will need to keep pace with these evidentiary possibilities as more and more communications and events are recorded somewhere someplace electronically. Appellate courts and lawyers should see interesting and intellectually stimulaing times ahead in this area of law. While some of the tools of proof may be new, the principles remain the same -- it may just take a little time to connect the two.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC) ruling in Commonwealth v. Donohue upholds MA Sheriffs' powers to release inmates wearing a GPS tracking device rather than serving the full sentence imposed on them by the courts.

There are interesting arguments to consider here: balance of powers, executive vs. judicial vs. legislative, prison overcrowding, reintergration with society, activism vs. legal realism... With another seat on the court opening, Governor Patrick has another opportunity to direct which way those debates lean for the years to come.

An interesting article on law.com recently discussed the issue of lawyers asking jurors about their medication use. With so much of the population on medication, is drug use something that should be questioned of potential jurors? If so, how far should questioning go? Do we ask a general question? Whether the use of medication will interfere with a juror's duties, or do we delve deeper into more specific questions about the person, their conditions, and their treatments? The article, by Julie Kay, offers pros and cons while raising issues likely to continue making headlines(juror falling asleep in murder trial, someone goes off their medications during trial...).

As an attorney-advocate there may be times when seeking this information makes sense for my client. As the lawyer for my client I have the duty the pursue what's in my clients best interests. Personally, however, I think when we start asking jurors to divulge what medication they're taking, we're crossing a finer line. We have to wonder if the jurors' themselves aren't thinking, "Who is actually on trial, here?" Of course there are going to be exceptions to every rule, but speaking from a policy perspective, I'd rather have privacy rights' invasions remain the limited exceptions and not become the standard rule.

USA Today's article, Hospital death rates unveiled for first-time comparison, has tools that allow users to compare mortality rates for hospitals near you:

• for heart attacks, heart failure, and pneuomnia on a map,
• compare hospitals in or near certain zip codes,
• or look at standouts (those with the highest and lowest death rates).

While data alone never tells the whole story, the use of statistics and measurement is growing across all fields and professions. The cultural change emerging with technology and collaboration will only continue to fuel this further. Law, politics, and other fields will not be far behind. Just look at sports as an example of how professionals and institutions are measured continuously. But is a focus on numbers alone good for us in the long run? How will this run into privacy concerns? Will Big Brother not only be always watching, but always measuring too? Time will tell how the law raises to these challenges and others.

While Massachusetts discrimination claims are often commenced under state discrimination laws (before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination or in Superior Court), federal laws also exist and can often overlap or provide additional context for interpreting or enforcing state laws. For instance, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are federal laws that cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

One of the lesser discussed discrimination prohibitions contained in Title VII concerns religious discrimination. While discrimination based on religion is seen less frequently than
other types of discrimination, its incidence of reporting has been
rising. Some attribute this to changes in the workforce,
attitudes post 9/11, and the increased attention focused on immigration issues. Perhaps due to these changes and others, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released an updated Compliance Manual (PDF) covering religious discrimination. The newly revised "Section 12" (7/22/2008) provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion.

The revision includes 55 examples relating to religious discrimination issues and lists "best practices" for employers and HR professionals to be aware of (see list of best practices below).

The Section is organized in parts:

1. I - Coverage issues, including the definition of “religion” and “sincerely held,” the religious organization exception, and the ministerial exception.
2. II - Disparate treatment analysis of employment decisions based on religion, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, and compensation, as well as differential treatment with respect to religious expression; customer preference; security requirements; and bona fide occupational qualifications.
3. III - Harassment analysis, including religious belief or practice as a condition of employment or advancement, hostile work environment, and employer liability issues.
4. IV - Reasonable accommodation analysis, including notice of the conflict between religion and work, scope of the accommodation requirement and undue hardship defense, and common methods of accommodation.
5. V - Related forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on national origin, race, or color, as well as retaliation.

The Overview states:

Religion is very broadly defined under Title VII. Religious beliefs, practices, and observances include those that are theistic in nature, as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Religious beliefs can include unique views held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices, and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer.

Some general areas include:

Prohibited Conduct

Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of “quid pro quo” harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances), or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.

National Origin, Race, and Color

Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination may overlap with Title VII’s prohibitions against discrimination based on national origin, race, and color. Where a given religion is strongly associated – or perceived to be associated – with a certain national origin, the same facts may state a claim of both religious and national origin discrimination. All four bases might be implicated where, for example, co-workers target a dark-skinned Muslim employee from Saudi Arabia for harassment because of his religion, national origin, race, and/or color.

Retaliation

Title VII prohibits retaliation by an employer, employment agency, or labor organization because an individual has engaged in protected activity. Protected activity consists of opposing a practice the employee reasonably believes is made unlawful by one of the employment discrimination statutes or of filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the statute. EEOC has taken the position that requesting religious accommodation is protected activity.

Employer Best Practices

• Employers can reduce the risk of discriminatory employment decisions by establishing written objective criteria for evaluating candidates for hire or promotion and applying those criteria consistently to all candidates.
• In conducting job interviews, employers can ensure nondiscriminatory treatment by asking the same questions of all applicants for a particular job or category of job and inquiring about matters directly related to the position in question.
• Employers can reduce the risk of religious discrimination claims by carefully and timely recording the accurate business reasons for disciplinary or performance‑related actions and sharing these reasons with the affected employees.
• When management decisions require the exercise of subjective judgment, employers can reduce the risk of discriminatory decisions by providing training to inexperienced managers and encouraging them to consult with more experienced managers or human resources personnel when addressing difficult issues.
• If an employer is confronted with customer biases, e.g., an adverse reaction to being served by an employee due to religious garb, the employer should consider engaging with and educating the customers regarding any misperceptions they may have and/or the equal employment opportunity laws.

• Employers should have a well-publicized and consistently applied anti-harassment policy that: (1) covers religious harassment; (2) clearly explains what is prohibited; (3) describes procedures for bringing harassment to management’s attention; and, (4) contains an assurance that complainants will be protected against retaliation. The procedures should include a complaint mechanism that includes multiple avenues for complaint; prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations; and prompt and appropriate corrective action.
• Employers should allow religious expression among employees to the same extent that they allow other types of personal expression that are not harassing or disruptive.
• Once an employer is on notice that an employee objects to religious conduct that is directed at him or her, the employer should take steps to end the conduct because even conduct that the employer does not regard as abusive can become sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the conditions of employment if allowed to persist in the face of the employee’s objection.
• If harassment is perpetrated by a non-employee assigned by a contractor, the supervisor or other appropriate individual in the chain of command should initiate a meeting with the contractor regarding the harassment and demand that it cease, that appropriate disciplinary action be taken if it continues, and/or that a different individual be assigned by the contractor.
• To prevent conflicts from escalating to the level of a Title VII violation, employers should immediately intervene when they become aware of objectively abusive or insulting conduct, even absent a complaint.
• Employers should encourage managers to intervene proactively and discuss with subordinates whether particular religious expression is welcome if the manager believes the expression might be construed as harassing to a reasonable person.
• While supervisors are permitted to engage in certain religious expression, they should avoid expression that might – due to their supervisory authority – reasonably be perceived by subordinates as coercive, even when not so intended.

Reasonable Accommodation

• Employers should inform employees that they will make reasonable efforts to accommodate the employees’ religious practices.
• Employers should train managers and supervisors on how to recognize religious accommodation requests from employees.
• Employers should consider developing internal procedures for processing religious accommodation requests.
• Employers should individually assess each request and avoid assumptions or stereotypes about what constitutes a religious belief or practice or what type of accommodation is appropriate.
• Employers and employees should confer fully and promptly to the extent needed to share any necessary information about the employee’s religious needs and the available accommodation options.
• An employer is not required to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation if there is more than one effective alternative to choose from. An employer should, however, consider the employee’s proposed method of accommodation, and if it is denied, explain to the employee why his proposed accommodation is not being granted.
• Managers and supervisors should be trained to consider alternative available accommodations if the particular accommodation requested would pose an undue hardship.
• When faced with a request for a religious accommodation which cannot be promptly implemented, an employer should consider offering alternative methods of accommodation on a temporary basis, while a permanent accommodation is being explored. In this situation, an employer should also keep the employee apprised of the status of the employer’s efforts to implement a permanent accommodation.

Undue Hardship

• The de minimis undue hardship standard refers to the legal requirement. As with all aspects of employee relations, employers can go beyond the requirements of the law and should be flexible in evaluating whether or not an accommodation is feasible.
• An employer should not assume that an accommodation will conflict with the terms of a seniority system or CBA without first checking if there are any exceptions for religious accommodation or other avenues to allow accommodation consistent with the seniority system or CBA.
• An employer should not automatically reject a request for religious accommodation just because the accommodation will interfere with the existing seniority system or terms of a CBA. Although an employer may not upset co-workers’ settled expectations, an employer is free to seek a voluntary modification to a CBA in order to accommodate an employee’s religious needs.
• Employers should train managers to be aware that, if the requested accommodation would violate the CBA or seniority system, they should confer with the employee to determine if an alternative accommodation is available.
• Employers should ensure that managers are aware that reasonable accommodation may require making exceptions to policies or procedures that are not part of a CBA or seniority system, where it would not infringe on other employees’ legitimate expectations.

Schedule Changes

• Employers should work with employees who need an adjustment to their work schedule to accommodate their religious practices.
• Notwithstanding that the legal standard for undue hardship is “more than de minimis,” employers may of course choose voluntarily to incur whatever additional operational or financial costs they deem appropriate to accommodate an employee’s religious need for scheduling flexibility.
• Employers should consider adopting flexible leave and scheduling policies and procedures that will often allow employees to meet their religious and other personal needs. Such policies can reduce individual requests for exceptions. For example, some employers have policies allowing alternative work schedules and/or a certain number of “floating” holidays for each employee. While such policies may not cover every eventuality and some individual accommodations may still be needed, the number of such individual accommodations may be substantially reduced.

Voluntary Substitutes or Swaps

• An employer should facilitate and encourage voluntary substitutions and swaps with employees of substantially similar qualifications by publicizing its policy permitting such arrangements, promoting an atmosphere in which substitutes are favorably regarded, and providing a central file, bulletin board, group e-mail, or other means to help an employee with a religious conflict find a volunteer to substitute or swap.

Change of Job Assignments and Lateral Transfers

• An employer should consider a lateral transfer when no accommodation which would keep the employee in his or her position is possible absent undue hardship. However, an employer should only resort to transfer, whether lateral or otherwise, after fully exploring accommodations that would permit the employee to remain in his position.
• Where a lateral transfer is unavailable, an employer should not assume that an employee would not be interested in a lower-paying position if that position would enable the employee to abide by his or her religious beliefs. If there is no accommodation available that would permit the employee to remain in his current position or an equivalent one, the employer should offer the available position as an accommodation and permit the employee to decide whether or not to take it.

Modifying Workplace Practices, Policies, and Procedures

• Employers should make efforts to accommodate an employee’s desire to wear a yarmulke, hijab, or other religious garb. If the employer is concerned about uniform appearance in a position which involves interaction with the public, it may be appropriate to consider whether the employee’s religious views would permit him to resolve the religious conflict by, for example, wearing the item of religious garb in the company uniform color(s).
• Managers and employees should be trained not to engage in stereotyping based on religious dress and grooming practices and should not assume that atypical dress will create an undue hardship.
• Employers should be flexible and creative regarding work schedules, work duties, and selection procedures to the extent practicable.
• Employers should be sensitive to the risk of unintentionally pressuring or coercing employees to attend social gatherings after the employees have indicated a religious objection to attending.

Permitting Prayer, Proselytizing, and Other Forms of Religious Expression

• Employers should train managers to gauge the actual disruption posed by religious expression in the workplace, rather than merely speculating that disruption may result. Employers should also train managers to identify alternative accommodations that might be offered to avoid actual disruption (e.g., designating an unused or private location in the workplace where a prayer session or Bible study meeting can occur if it is disrupting other workers).
• Employers should incorporate a discussion of religious expression, and the need for all employees to be sensitive to the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, into any anti-harassment training provided to managers and employees.

Retaliation

• Employers can reduce the risk of retaliation claims by training managers and supervisors to be aware of their anti-retaliation obligations under Title VII, including specific actions that may constitute retaliation.
• Employers can help reduce the risk of retaliation claims by carefully and timely recording the accurate business reasons for disciplinary or performance related actions and sharing these reasons with the employee.

Employee Best Practices

• Employees who are the recipients of unwelcome religious conduct should inform the individual engaging in the conduct that they wish it to stop. If the conduct does not stop, employees should report it to their supervisor or other appropriate company official in accordance with the procedures established in the company’s anti-harassment policy.
• Employees who do not wish to personally confront an individual who is directing unwelcome religious or anti-religious conduct towards them should report the conduct to their supervisor or other appropriate company official in accordance with the company’s anti-harassment policy.
• Employees should advise their supervisors or managers of the nature of the conflict between their religious needs and the work rules.
• Employees should provide enough information to enable the employer to understand what accommodation is needed, and why it is necessitated by a religious practice or belief.
• Employees who seek to proselytize in the workplace should cease doing so with respect to any individual who indicates that the communications are unwelcome.

Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in Massachusetts disability cases, arising under Federal and MA Discrimination laws, may have different meanings in different contexts.

If you are being discriminated against due to a disability or perceived disability there may be a number of legal claims for you to consider to aid in protecting your rights.The enforcement of disability discrimination laws can involve different courts or commissions and may require various types of expert evidence and testimony.

The MA Disability Law Center offers a chart on Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities and provides some examples of legal resources which may be available as a starting place.

Attorney John Parry has authored the book, Disability Discrimination Law, Evidence and Testimony. A Comprehensive Reference Manual for Lawyers, Judges and Disability Professionals, which covers a host of topics your lawyer or disability advocate may consider in handling your disability discrimination case.

Additionally, The Massachusetts Office on Disability (MOD) has prepared an online pamphlet to:

increase awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities, both by persons with disabilities themselves and by the larger community. Other goals of the Office include: the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities; the creation of a barrier free environment; the improvement of the state’s services delivery system for persons with disabilities, and the creation of fully integrated and accessible education, housing, transportation and employment in the public and private sectors.

Topics listed include:

• INTRODUCTION
• ABUSE / NEGLECT / TREATMENT CONDITIONS
• ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS
• AUTOMOBILES & TRANSPORTATION
• DISABILITY COMMISSIONS
• EDUCATION
• EMPLOYMENT
• EQUAL RIGHTS
• HATE CRIMES
• HOUSING
• PUBLIC PLACES & PROGRAMS
• SERVICE ANIMALS
• TELECOMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY
• VOTING
• WHEELCHAIRS
• ZONING

Attorney Kevin Whitaker serves as a town councilor and as an appointed member of the Town of Weymouth, MA Commission on Disabilities.

Do you know what's being said about you on the internet? Whether you're a Massachusetts small business owner, an individual, or a parent, are you monitoring the conversations about you, your business, or your family taking place on the internet?

Check out What Should Every Company Be Monitoring? for a list of ideas.

You can't respond to what you don't know about. I use alerts and RSS feeds to help stay on top of issues and conversations involving our Weymouth, MA law firm and our Massachusetts clients. With more and more reputation attacks and defamation cases arising on the internet (as well as speculative and plainly erroneous information), this is likely to be growth area in law and business.

An ABA Journal Article, "Former Law Dean Obtains Internet Addresses of Anonymous Online Critics", is a reminder that what one anonymously writes on the internet may not be anonymous.

Could your blog, comments, or other online postings land you in the middle of a defamation suit? Or raise the possibility of an interference with business relations claim? Are you anonymously mentioning competitors or promoting your services in a manner that could be seen as unfair competition or as violations of consumer protection laws?

Things to consider before making "anonymous" postings or contributions. In the alternative, this is also a means to seek protection when you, your business, or your children are the targets of anonymous online attacks.

In Blank Rome's Newsletter, Ninth Circuit Ruling Raises Stakes for Companies and Individuals Facing Parallel Civil and Criminal Investigations By: Matthew D. Lee and Tyler Brody, they discuss issues raised in a case were a civil governmental investigation was being coordinated with criminal investigations, United States v. Stringer, 521 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) Download Case.

The criminal investigations were slowed down and not overtly acted upon so the civil investigation could proceed and obtain statements which would not likely to be provided in a criminal case.  Here, the civil and criminal activities were closely coordinated and the civil investigators were even instructed on how to ask questions in depositions to help build the government's criminal case.  When the target's attorney asked about the possibility of a criminal investigation, despite knowing in was ongoing, the civil investigation did not need to disclose this fact when an SEC Form 1662 was provided which makes a blanket statement that information collected may be shared with other governmental agencies.

The Blank Rome article states:

The impact of the Stringer decision on how counsel should approach the defense of a civil investigation cannot be under - stated. Defense attorneys must be aware that their clients can potentially, and unknowingly, waive their Fifth Amendment rights after they are given minimal notice by civil investigators. Thus, even if a government investigation appears to be merely civil in nature, an astute defense attorney must anticipate the possibility that the civil attorneys are working with, or taking direction from, prosecutors seeking to build a criminal case. Counsel also must realize that, simply because the existence of criminal investigation is not readily apparent, does not mean that one is not underway, especially if their clients are cooperating with civil investigators. Indeed, Stringer allows criminal and civil investigators to conceal a significant amount of collaboration and joint strategic planning without triggering concerns that the government is acting in bad faith.

They conclude:

The Stringer decision shows that defense counsel should handle the defense of a client subject to a civil investigation as though it were criminal, and strongly consider the extent to which their clients should be cooperating with government lawyers, particularly where the lawyer knows that the client may have criminal exposure. Because the result of Stringer affords government lawyers so much leeway in using evidence collected in a civil investigation to build a criminal case, counsel must be careful not to allow their clients to supply the government with the proverbial rope with which they will ultimately be hung.

Erik J. Heels (described as "an MIT engineer, patent and trademark lawyer, Red Sox fan, and music lover) offers a simple visual concerning copyright law in his blog post a Drawing That Explains Copyright Law .

He states:

My drawing could be better. And my explanation could be better. But again, I drew this for a child, so it's a good place to start. The main point is that there are three classes of uses: unregulated, fair use, and protected.

Sometimes a picture can be worth one thousand words...

Age Discrimination

A Supreme Court decision extends federal workers' rights in filing age-bias suits by a vote of (6-3). A U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston's ruling (upholding a lower court's dismissal) was overturned. The ruling allows federal employees retaliated against (because of their discrimination complaints) to pursue lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Prior to this case, it was argued the ADEA only applied to private sector workers. This case establishes it applies to federal employees as well.

Racial Discrimination

Also, in a vote (7-2), the Supreme Court ruled a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (known as known as section 1981) covers claims of retaliation following complaints about discrimination based on race. The dissents in both these cases were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. While Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in only in the age bias case, he was with the majority in the racial discrimination case.

With rights expanding, the question becomes how do you prove discrimination. This led to interest in the "me too" evidence case. However, for now no new answers emerge form the Court on this issue.

Me Too Evidence

George Lenard, reports on his blog, George's Employment Blawg, in detail about the issue of "me too" evidence in discrimination cases:

In its recent unanimous decision in Sprint v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court largely avoided the tough issue before it: admissibility of “me-too” evidence in discrimination cases — testimony of other employees who believed they too had been discriminated against.

Genetic Information Discrimination On May 21, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) protecting people from discrimination based on genetic material. GINA becomes effective November 21, 2009. A general "primer" on GINA is covered at the Genetic Genealogist.

All and all, May has been a discriminating month...

A recently passed law in Weymouth, Massachusetts prevents level three sex offenders from establishing residency within 1,500 feet of places that children frequent. The law was recently covered in a Boston Globe article by Johann Seltz. The same topic is covered by in the Patriot Ledger's article by Jack Encarnacao as well as the Weymouth News article authored by Ed Baker. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm quoted in each article as Chairman of Weymouth's Ordinance Committee.

Bruce Selya, a judge since 2005 with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has been named chief judge of The U.S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. This court handles appeals over wiretaps of suspected terrorists or spies. It was created to hear government appeals when lower courts reject the government's application.

The Providence Journal reports Selya will take over as chief judge on May 19 and his term will run through 2012. Selya, from Rhode Island, was a federal judge before being appointed to the Federal Appeals Court in 1986.

A Congressional Research Service Report, The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: An Overview, dated January 24, 2007, by Elizabeth B. Bazan, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division provides a 15 page report. The Report's Summary states:

The national debate regarding the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) focused congressional attention on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congressional interest in these courts has been heightened by the January 17, 2007, letter from Attorney General Gonzales to Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter advising them that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge had “issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization,” stating that all surveillance previously occurring under the TSP will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and noting that the President has determined not to reauthorize the TSP when the current authorization expires. This report examines the creation, membership, structure, and jurisdiction of these courts. It will be updated as subsequent events may require.

Wikipedia gives a general overview of the topic,

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is a U.S. federal court authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 1803 and established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (known as FISA for short). It is a three judge panel whose sole purpose is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants (called FISA warrants) by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC). Each judge of the FISC, in turn, has the jurisdiction to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States. Any appeals from the Court of Review are made directly to the Supreme Court. Like a grand jury, the Court of Review is not an adversarial court; rather, the only party to the court is the federal government, although other parties may submit briefs as amici curiae. Records of the proceedings are kept, but they are classified, although copies of the proceedings with sensitive information redacted may be made public.

The judges of the Court of Review are district or appellate federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for seven year terms. The terms are staggered so that there are at least two years between consecutive appointments. A judge may be appointed only once to either this court or the FISC.

The Court of Review was called into session for the first time in 2002 in a case referred to as "In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001". The FISC had granted a FISA warrant to the F.B.I., but had placed restrictions on its use; specifically, the F.B.I. was denied the ability to use evidence gathered under the warrant in criminal cases. The Court of Review allowed a coalition of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to file briefs as amici curiae arguing against the F.B.I's new surveillance regulations. The Court of Review held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions.

Current composition of the court listed by Name, Circuit, Appointed, Expiration of Appointment Edward Leavy (presiding), Ninth, September 25, 2001, May 18, 2008 Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Second, May 18, 2003, May 18, 2010 Bruce Marshall Selya, First, October 8, 2005, May 18, 2012 List of former judges Laurence H. Silberman, D.C., May 18, 1996, May 18, 2003 Ralph B. Guy, Jr., Sixth, October 8, 1998, May 18, 2005 The exact dates of Judge Silberman's tenure are uncertain.

In 2002, Anita Ramasastry, an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and the Associate Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & Technology wrote a critcal review entitled, "THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW CREATES A POTENTIAL END RUN AROUND TRADITIONAL FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WIRETAPS"

While "A history of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" indicates:

Continue reading "AP Reports Federal appeals judge in Boston named top judge of wiretap court" »