In a significant legal development, the California state appellate court has made a decisive ruling, partially overturning a trial court’s judgment in a proposed class action lawsuit against Yamaha Motor Corp. Initiated by a former employee, the lawsuit alleges wage withholding practices by Yamaha. The appellate court’s decision stipulates that the ex-employee’s claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) must undergo arbitration.

The Changing Landscape of Arbitration

This recent reversal by the appellate court marks a pivotal moment in the evolving legal discourse surrounding arbitration agreements, particularly their relevance in class action and PAGA cases. The ruling aligns with recent precedents established by the California Supreme Court, which now mandates the arbitration of individual PAGA claims.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The court’s decision accentuates the ongoing debate over the inclusion of arbitration clauses in employment agreements. Such clauses, commonplace in California, have sparked controversy, with critics contending that they curtail employees’ ability to address labor violations effectively.

Distinguishing Between Claims

The appellate court’s ruling draws a clear line between the plaintiff’s claim and those she brought on behalf of fellow workers. While endorsing arbitration for the ex-employees personal wage and hour grievances, the court decreed that claims on behalf of others should proceed through the judicial system post-individual arbitration.

This differentiation bears significant implications for analogous lawsuits in California, prompting inquiries into the power balance between employers and employees, as well as the extent to which arbitration clauses may constrain collective redress for labor violations.

Implications for the Future of Arbitration Agreements

The outcome of this case is poised to attract scrutiny from legal experts, employers, and employees alike. With arbitration agreements increasingly prevalent in employment contracts, this decision may set a precedent for future case adjudications.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

For employees, the ruling underscores the importance of comprehending employment contract terms and the potential ramifications of arbitration clauses. Conversely, for employers, it serves as a reminder of the evolving legal framework and the imperative of ensuring adherence to state and federal labor statutes.

Conclusion: Navigating the Evolving Terrain of Employment Law

As the Yamaha case progresses, it epitomizes the intricate equilibrium between employers’ prerogatives and employees’ safeguards. In the realm of employment law, characterized by perpetual evolution, both stakeholders will closely monitor how this decision shapes labor dispute resolution in California.

The partial reversal of the trial court’s judgment underscores the persistent discourse surrounding arbitration agreements and their function in class action and PAGA litigations. As the legal saga unfolds, it serves as a litmus test for the boundaries of such agreements and their potential to limit collective avenues for addressing labor grievances.

Ultimately, the Yamaha case transcends one individual’s quest for equitable wages. It symbolizes the broader struggle for workers’ rights and the relentless endeavor to hold employers accountable. Amidst the legal conundrum, one certainty remains: the ramifications of this decision are profound and far-reaching.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post California Appellate Court Partially Reverses Ruling in Yamaha Wage Dispute Case first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: An attorney, who has since been disbarred, in Georgia convicted of sexually molesting a child at his law office for six years was resentenced to a lower sentence.

A disbarred attorney in Georgia has been resentenced for child molestation. Former Savannah attorney Lawrence Edward Madison was sentenced in 2012 for child molestation of a female who worked in his law office. His new sentence has been set at 20 years, with 18 years to serve.

Chatham County Superior Court Judge James F. Bass Jr. noted a “severe break in trust” for Madison and his victim. He gave the maximum sentence for child molestation but later cut it down to comply with appellate rulings in such cases.

Madison’s attorney Tom Withers contended that his client had been offered a 15-year plea deal before going to trial. He argued that his client shouldn’t be punished for exercising his constitutional right to a trial. He wanted 15 years to be the top, asking the judge to give a 20-year sentence with 10 to serve. The remaining part of the sentence should be on probation plus credit for time served behind bars before the trial.

Assistant District Attorney Jenny Guyer noted that nobody had taken “responsibility for what he did to (the victim). …He’s never taken responsibility for it whatsoever. We’re asking that court to punish him for the crimes he committed.” The maximum penalty for child molestation is 20 years to serve. She added, “There’s no reason to drastically reduce that.” Guyer wanted a sentence of 19 years to serve with only one-year probation.

Madison was convicted in June of 2012 for child molestation and sexual battery of a female over a six-year period. The 2009 indictment stated that his abuse started in 2003 until 2009. The abuse took place in his law office at 321 Commercial Drive. The victim, who was 21 at the time of the trial, testified that she was 11 when he started abusing her and went until she turned 18.

Bass originally sentenced him to 25 years in prison without parole plus a lifetime of probation for aggravated sexual battery. He then added 20 more years onto the sentence for child molestation. Madison had been charged in 2009 of public indecency and was acquitted of child molestation in 2006.

An appeals court upheld Madison’s sentence for child molestation but reversed the sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery sentence given for when the victim was 18. This reversal was based on what the appellate court saw as an error in how the judge instructed the jury. Appellate rulings require a sentence split between prison and probation.

The victim, now 26, testified during the resentencing that “I’m the person this happened to. …It happened for a really, really long time. It’s not just the physical games he played with me. …He was manipulative. …He was a big part of my life.”

His siblings testified that Madison was not a threat to children. One sister said, “Lawrence is not a threat. Lawrence is good with children.” Another sister added, “What he did was illegal and wrong. I think it was a very unusual circumstance.” His brother noted, “It seems like he’s been in there a long time. He’s paid the price.”

Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court disbarred Madison from ever practicing law in the state again.

Do you think child molesters and abusers should be allowed to be free ever again? Tell us what you would like to see done with those convicted of sexually harming children in the comments below.

To learn more about sexual pedophiles, read these articles:

• Years of Sexual Abuse Uncovered at Choate Prep
• Los Angeles Teacher Accused of Sexual Relationship with Student at Elite Private School
• Entertainment Attorney Benjamin Adams’ Sexual Abuse Case Goes to Trial

Photo: savannahnow.com

The post Disbarred Attorney Lawrence E. Madison Resentenced first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Appellate judge Richard Posner announced his plan to retire from the court of appeals and focus on teaching and publishing.

Highly-recognized appellate judge Richard A. Posner announced his retirement from the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Posner, 78, is one of the most known appellate judges. He is also a teacher and productive writer while on the bench and off it. He has been part of the 7^th Circuit in Chicago for almost 36 years.

Posner said, “I am proud to have promoted a pragmatic approach to judging during my time on the Court, and to have had the opportunity to apply my view that judicial opinions should be easy to understand and that judges should focus on the right and wrong in every case. I look forward to continuing to teach and publish, with a particular focus on social justice reform.”

When he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the bench back in 1981, he was seen as a conservative pick for his views on domestic surveillance, concealed carry bans, and audio-recording police in public. However, he also supported the legalization of marijuana and voted in favor of same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

In a 2014 Daily Law Bulletin interview, Posner discussed his view of the Supreme Court. He is probably the most cited federal appellate judge in the country but had no intention or goal of being part of the Supreme Court. He said, “It’s not a real court. It’s a political court.”

He has written a number of books and articles on an array of topics, in addition to over 3,300 opinions. The topics have included adoption, public intellectuals, the 2000 presidential election ballot recount, President Bill Clinton’s scandalous affair with Monica Lewinsky, and domestic intelligence.

Posner has also helped out in other courts, serving as a trial judge in civil and criminal cases. Chief Judge Diane P. Wood of the 7^th Circuit called his impact on the justice system as “immeasurable.” She added. “For more than 50 years, Judge Posner has been one of the leading public intellectuals in the United States – indeed, in the world. He is one of the most distinguished people to ever sit on the federal bench. His opinions have had an impact around the world. He has produced an unparalleled body of scholarship – books, articles, and public commentary – covering virtually every legal topic that can be imagined.”

He earned a bachelor’s degree in English from Yale University in 1959 and then went on to receive his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1962. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Judge William J. Brennan Jr. for one year and then joined the Federal Trade Commission as an assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman.

In 1965, Posner became an assistant to then-U.S. solicitor general Thurgood Marshall, who went on to become a Supreme Court justice. After two years with Marshall, Posner accepted a job as the general counsel to a presidential task force on telecommunications policy.

He went on to teach law at Stanford from 1968 to 1969 before beginning a teaching career at the University of Chicago Law School. He started teaching there full-time and eventually went down to a part-time professor.

In 1977, Posner helped found Lexecon Inc., an economic consulting firm. In 2008, the firm merged with Competition Policy Associates. Once he joined the 7^th Circuit, he was no longer part of Lexecon.

He was the appeals court’s chief judge from 1993 to 2000.

Do you think Posner will pop up occasionally in the legal industry? Tell us in the comments below.

To learn more about Richard Posner, read these articles:

• A Chastised Lawyer Lashes Out at Judge Posner
• Federal Judge Suggests Skipping Constitutional Law in School
• Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Gay Employees

Photo: nytimes.com

The post Richard Posner Retires from Appellate Court first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Greenaway has been described as a centrist and even won praise from Alabama’s Jeff Sessions after Greenaway reaffirmed past comments he made in opposition to judicial activism.  He will take the seat vacated by Justice Alito, after Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court.  In the four appeals from Greenaway’s lower court cases that Alito ruled on while sitting on the appellate court, Alito voted to uphold three of them, and Alito took a more liberal line than Greenaway on the fourth.

Greenaway was first appointed to the federal bench in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

The post Senate Confirms Joseph Greenaway to 3rd Circuit first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Gerard Lynch became the first appellate court judge appointed by President Obama to be confirmed…

UK firms Halliwells and Manches are in merger talks…

Dechert picked up some lawyers for its Moscow office…

and two more Big Law firms are considering alternative forms of billing…

The post Monday Morning Roundup first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

There are currently 20 vacancies on the appellate level and 72 vacancies for federal district court judges.

The post Gerard Lynch Confirmed for 2nd Circuit Seat first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

This week, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner ruled in agreement with his colleague, and ordered New York’s governor and lawmakers to raise the pay of the state’s 1,300 judges.

Lehner ruled that the state executive and legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine by linking a judicial pay raise to other issues. Now the issue goes to the Court of Appeals, at the same time as two related cases decided by the Appellate Division.

The post Update: Judge Agrees with Judge that Judges Need More Money first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The state legislature’s failure to give the state’s judges a raise violated the separation of powers doctrine, the appeals court ruled unanimously yesterday. By linking judicial pay to legislators’ pay and other political considerations, lawmakers tainted the judicial branch with politics, the court found.

The panel’s decision affirms a ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner that the linkage of judicial raises to other issues is unconstitutional.

As lawmakers are reticent to give anyone a pay increase in the current economic environment, the issue is likely headed back to court.

The suit was brought by four judges: Manhattan Family Court Judge Susan Larabee, Cattaraugus County Family Court Judge Michael Nenno, Manhattan Civil Court Judge Geoffrey Wright and Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Patricia Nunez.

The post Judges Rule That Judges Deserve Pay Raise first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The project is led by Joseph W. Hatchett, former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and current Chair of the Appellate Practice Group and Diversity Committee at Akerman.

Fewer than 3% of lawyers throughout Florida are minorities. The program seeks to overcome this disparity by focusing on the entire spectrum of education, from kindergarten to law-school and bar admission, looking to encourage diverse candidates toward the legal profession.

Judge Hatchett, a FAMU alumnus who received his JD from the Howard University School of Law, made history in 1975 when Governor Reuben Askew appointed him to the Supreme Court of Florida. He became the first African-American elected to the highest court in the state in 1976.

Akerman Senterfitt was founded in 1920, and has grown to become one of the largest law firms in the United States. In 2008, the National Law Journal ranked the firm as 92nd largest in the US by number of attorneys, and the second-largest Florida-based firm.

The post Akerman Senterfitt Creates Florida’s First Minority Legal Pipeline Program first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Three hundred and sixty-eight of the state’s 396 trial & appeals judges agreed to the 0.5% salary cut imposed on state employees by Governor Beverly Perdue.

Four judges will give back the half percent, but did not consent to the payroll deduction. North Carolina’s Constitution protects judges against reduction in pay while they are on the bench.

All seven state Supreme Court justices, and the 15 judges of the state Court of Appeals, agreed to the voluntary cuts.

The post North Carolina Judges Agree to Pay Cut first appeared on JDJournal Blog.