Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims
March 14, 2022 —
Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question.
Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57
April 15, 2015 —
David M. Levitt and Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergA group including billionaire investor Bill Ackman paid $91.5 million for a duplex penthouse at Extell Development Co.’s One57 condominium tower, one of New York City’s most expensive home purchases ever.
The purchase of unit 75 in the luxury skyscraper overlooking Central Park closed on March 27, according to property records filed Thursday. The buyer was listed as 57157 Co. LLC, a single-purpose entity that Ackman controls.
The 13,554-square-foot (1,259-square-meter), six-bedroom home spans the 75th and 76th floors of the 90-story skyscraper. Ackman last year told the New York Times it was “the Mona Lisa of apartments.” Monthly common charges on the unit were estimated at $23,595, according to documents Extell filed with the state attorney general’s office.
Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg and
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Providence Partner Monica R. Nelson Helps Union Carbide Secure Defense Verdict in 1st Rhode Island Asbestos Trial in Nearly 40 Years
December 31, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomProvidence, R.I. (November 22, 2024) - On November 21, 2024, a Providence County jury returned a unanimous defense verdict for Union Carbide Corporation after a nine-day trial presided over by Associate Justice Richard A. Licht. Tim McGowan of Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber LLP, Eric Cook of Willcox Savage, and Monica R. Nelson of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP represented Union Carbide at trial. Elliott Davis of Shook Hardy & Bacon was Union Carbide’s appellate counsel.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers, Vincent L. Greene IV, Nathan D. Finch, and Ashley Hornstein of Motley Rice LLC, represented the family of Mrs. Bonnie Bonito in the first asbestos matter to go to trial in Rhode Island in close to 40 years and requested nearly $25 million in compensatory damages for the death of Mrs. Bonito from her alleged exposure to Union Carbide’s asbestos, among many other asbestos-containing products, through the work clothes of her husband. The plaintiffs’ proffered theory of liability against Union Carbide Corporation is known as a “take-home” exposure claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”
May 24, 2018 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn April 20, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an Alabama district court decision finding that an “absolute pollution exclusion” did not bar coverage for environmental property damage and injuries from a sewage leak. Evanston Ins. Co. v. J&J Cable Constr., LLC, No. 17-11188, 2018 WL 1887459, (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018).
J&J Cable was hired to install underground electrical conduit in a subdivision when it struck and broke the sewer pipe to two homes. As a result, sewage backed up into the homes causing property damage and personal injuries. The commercial general liability policy at issue contained an “absolute pollution exclusion,” which sought to bar coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” The insurer relied on an earlier Alabama federal district court decision, which precluded coverage for liability from lead paint exposure, concluding that lead was a pollutant under a similar exclusion. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, recognizing that insurance is a state law issue and opting instead to rely on binding state court precedent. The Eleventh Circuit, therefore, found that the decision in U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), by the state’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court, governed. That case made a distinction between industrial waste and residential sewage. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the “absolute pollution exclusion” did not preclude coverage for liability for injuries caused by sewage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters , Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Alexander D. Russo , Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@huntonak.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA
August 03, 2022 —
Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - PillsburyTakeaways
- The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
- The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
- The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
Introduction
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production.
The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury,
Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and
Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury
Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ASCE Releases New Report on Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure Investment in Disadvantaged Communities
February 05, 2024 —
The American Society of Civil EngineersWashington — The
American Society of Civil Engineers today released a new paper, Measuring the Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure in Disadvantaged Communities. The report looks at how several communities across the country consider equity when investing infrastructure funds, and the impact of those projects on lower-income communities.
"Civil engineers are focused on improving quality of life by building systems that improve the public's health, safety, and well-being," said Marsia Geldert-Murphey, P.E., 2024 President, ASCE. "However, the decisions on how and where infrastructure is built can affect communities for decades after a project is complete. By looking at the benefits and burdens of past projects, infrastructure owners and developers can find better ways to consider the impact of infrastructure projects being designed now."
Some of the recommendations in the paper include encouraging government and other infrastructure stakeholders to use community engagement and transparent metrics when making decisions about proposed infrastructure investments. It also encourages post-project assessments and the use of existing resources to evaluate the positive and unexpected consequences of past infrastructure projects.
Measuring the Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure in Disadvantaged Communities is
available here.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim
August 26, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the project owner's general partner was not an additional insured entitled to a defense and indemnity against claims for construction defects. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v,. Cypress Fairway Condo. Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94012 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2015).
Construction of the Cypress Fairway Condominium project took place in 1999 and 2000. Cypress Fairway Ltd. ("Cypress") was the owner and Vineland Partners , LLC ("Vineland") was its general partner. The general contractor was Winter Park Construction Company ("WPC"). Water intrusion and property damage occurred, but it was unclear when or whether the damage was known. Cypress' expert indicated that the damage began shortly after the end of construction.
In 2004, the complex was sold to Cypress Madison Ownership Company. In 2010, the Cypress Fairway Condominium Association sued Cypress and Vineland. Count V of the underlying complaint asserted there were construction defects that Cypress and Vineland were responsible for when they owned and managed the project. Count VI alleged that Cypress and Vineland negligently supplied information which the Association relied on for the purchase of the condominiums.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsRecently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification.
I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger.
Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
