Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Ropes & Gray Attorneys Author Expert Analysis Chapter on Whole Business Securitization in ICLG - Securitisation 2026
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 14 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Attorneys Author Expert Analysis Chapter on Whole Business Securitization in ICLG - Securitisation 2026
Ropes & Gray's securitization partners Matthieu Wharmby, Patricia Lynch, Chris Poggi, and Amir Shmueli have authored an expert analysis chapter, "Securitising the Company: Inside Whole Business Securitisation," published in the International Comparative Legal Guide - Securitisation 2026.
This guide provides a comprehensive overview of global securitisation laws.
The chapter provides
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 14 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Attorneys Author Expert Analysis Chapter on Whole Business Securitization in ICLG - Securitisation 2026
Ropes & Gray's securitization partners Matthieu Wharmby, Patricia Lynch, Chris Poggi, and Amir Shmueli have authored an expert analysis chapter, "Securitising the Company: Inside Whole Business Securitisation," published in the International Comparative Legal Guide - Securitisation 2026.
This guide provides a comprehensive overview of global securitisation laws.
The chapter providesan in-depth overview of whole business securitisation (WBS), a financing technique that enables companies to raise capital by leveraging the cash flows generated from their entire business operations. It explores the structural features, legal considerations, and practical applications of WBS, highlighting how this approach differs from traditional asset-backed securitisations.
The chapter also examines the benefits, challenges, and key factors involved in implementing a whole business securitisation, offering insights into its use across various sectors and jurisdictions.
Learn more about Ropes & Gray's award-winning Securitization & Structured Finance (https://www.ropesgray.com/en/services/practices/finance/securitization-structured-finance).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/05/ropes-gray-attorneys-author-expert-analysis-chapter-in-iclg-securitisation-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Lightbulb - April 2026 Employment Appellate Roundup
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 14 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lightbulb - April 2026 Employment Appellate Roundup
At a Glance
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month.
By Amelia McDermott
Fifth Circuit Vacates NLRB Order Regarding Company Subpoenas During Union Organizing Campaign
In Starbucks v. NLRB, __ F.4th __ (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026), the Fifth Circuit vacated the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) order regarding subpoenas issued by
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 14 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lightbulb - April 2026 Employment Appellate Roundup
At a Glance
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month.
By Amelia McDermott
Fifth Circuit Vacates NLRB Order Regarding Company Subpoenas During Union Organizing Campaign
In Starbucks v. NLRB, __ F.4th __ (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026), the Fifth Circuit vacated the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) order regarding subpoenas issued bythe company in defense of an NLRB charge alleging unlawful conduct during a union organizing campaign. The Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB's claim that the subpoenas, which requested a broad range of documents, including communications by employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by interfering with employees' Section 7 organizing rights by requesting "information and communications concerning their protected and concerted activities, and/or union activities."
The Fifth Circuit held the NLRB applied the wrong standard for assessing a Section 8(a)(1) violation, finding that the discovery rule for determining whether unions or employees could withhold otherwise relevant information based on confidentiality interests did not apply. "The test for Section 8(a)(1) liability is whether an employer's conduct would 'tend to be coercive' when considered 'within the totality of circumstances surrounding the occurrence at issue," the Fifth Circuit stated. Instead of applying the appropriate standard, the NLRB applied the discovery-focused, balancing test which weighed employees' rights to "keep their protected activities confidential" against the "employer's need for the information to present its defense." This test, however, was designed to determine whether production in response to a subpoena was required, but "does not resolve the distinct question whether the employer's conduct is coercive" and, therefore, a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Importantly, "that coercion determination turns on the employer's conduct considered in its full context." But, in using its test, the NLRB failed to consider important factors regarding whether the subpoenas were coercive, including the subpoena instructions, which explained how recipients could petition to revoke or modify the subpoena.
* * *
Tenth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for the Employer in Title VII Retaliation Claim
A few weeks after complaining to the company Human Relations Vice President that his supervisor gave preferential treatment to female employees, the plaintiff in Dominguez v. Weiser Security Services, 172 F.4th 1138 (10th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026), was terminated from employment. He filed suit under Title VII claiming he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that neither the plant manager, who made the termination decision, nor the plaintiff's supervisor knew about his complaint.
Affirming summary judgment for the employer, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that the plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation claim must show either that the decisionmaker who took the adverse employment action knew of the protected activity or that the person who engaged in the alleged discriminatory action knew of the complaint and influenced the decisionmaker to take the adverse employment action under the "cat's paw" theory. The Tenth Circuit found that the plaintiff in the case failed to provide the required evidence under either theory. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit concluded the evidence he introduced, including an angry phone call in which his supervisor yelled at him for failing to conduct required training and the supervisor's erroneous assertion that he failed to attend a training, did not establish that the supervisor knew about the complaint against him. Rather, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the evidence likely proved "'something more benign' than retaliation for protected activity, 'like mere dislike.'"
* * *
Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for the Employer in Rehabilitation Act Discrimination and Retaliation Case
After she was terminated from employment for performance issues, the plaintiff in Lewis v. Indiana Department of Transportation, __ F.4th __ (7th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026) filed suit asserting claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires employers receiving federal funds to reasonably accommodate their employees with disabilities, and race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
In contrast to the ADA, which requires plaintiffs to show they were discriminated against "on the basis of" their disability, the Seventh Circuit held that the Rehabilitation Act imposes a higher standard, requiring plaintiffs to establish they were discriminated against "solely by reason of" their disability, which the plaintiff was unable to do in light of her history of poor job performance. In response to the plaintiff's claim that the reasons for her termination were pretextual, the Seventh Circuit found the record established a clear history of insubordination and ineffective job performance, including contesting assignments and a direct order from the department director, poor attendance at meetings, and negative comments about the director to other employees, which the court found were justifications for termination. Based on these facts, the Seventh Circuit also found there was no basis for the plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim.
As to her discrimination complaint, the plaintiff, who was a Black, claimed that she was discriminated against because a White colleague received a higher raise than she did. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff failed to provide information to establish that the other employee was an appropriate comparator based on job title, job duties, or other factors. Moreover, the court found, the White employee received a higher raise because his salary was lower than hers before and after the raise. The plaintiff's retaliation claim failed for the same reasons.
* * *
Seventh Circuit applies MCA Overtime Exemption and Affirms Summary Judgment for Employers in FLSA Class Action
Stingley v. Laci Transport, 172 F.4th 525 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), and Johnson v. Bosman Trucking, 172 F.4th 525 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), a consolidated class action, involved claims for unpaid overtime under the FLSA by shuttle truck drivers who transported out-of-state manufactured automobile parts from storage lots to a nearby assembly plant and returned to the storage lots after the parts were unloaded. The issue in the case was whether the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) overtime exemption for interstate drivers applied to the plaintiffs. The district court granted summary judgment for the employers and the plaintiffs appealed.
Assessing the issue, the Seventh Circuit noted, "[e]ven those who drive intrastate routes ... such as the plaintiffs here," can be covered under the MCA exemption if the "intrastate run" is part of a continuous interstate journey. Among the factors to be considered in determining whether the routes by the drivers were part of an interstate shipment were whether processing or substantial product modification occurred at the intermediate stop, and whether the shipper had a fixed and consistent intended destination. Citing a prior Seventh Circuit decision, the court stated that when a shipper transports product across state lines for sale to customers in the destination state and "the product undergoes no alteration during its journey to the shipper's customers, and interruptions in the journey that occur in the destination state are no more than the normal stops or stages that are common in interstate sales, such as temporary warehousing, the entire journey should be regarded as having taken place in interstate commerce ..." In this case, the Seventh Circuit concluded the temporary stops at the storage lots were routine stops to the final destination, the assembly plant, and the transport of the empty containers from the assembly plant to the storage lots was also properly designated as interstate transportation as the intended destination was clearly the out-of-state manufacturing plant. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employers.
* * *
Fourth Circuit Affirms Bonus Plan Exemption Under ERISA
The issue in Milligan v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 173 F.4th 128 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026), as amended (Apr. 20, 2026), was whether the employer's incentive compensation program, which provided a lump-sum cash award to high-performing employees after eight years of employment, qualified as an employee pension benefit plan under ERISA. The plaintiff, who was part of the program, voluntarily resigned before becoming eligible for the award, and filed a class action alleging that the program violated ERISA's vesting and anti-forfeiture requirements. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the program was an ERISA-exempt bonus plan, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Fourth Circuit applied 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2510.3-2(c), which provides that "the terms 'employee pension benefit plan' and 'pension plan' shall not include payments made by an employer to some or all of its employees as bonuses for work performed ..." Surveying the case law, the Fourth Circuit stated that among the factors courts consider in determining whether a plan is a bonus plan is whether the plan provides universal employee participation or imposes heightened eligibility requirements, and whether employees can unilaterally postpone payments until termination or beyond. Applying these factors to the program at issue, the court found that the program did not apply to all employees but rather had heightened eligibility requirements and was only available to high-performing employees who remained employed for eight years. Employees also could not choose to have program payments disbursed at termination or during retirement. Satisfying the eight-year vesting requirement triggered automatic, mandatory payment of the award. Based on these and other factors, the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer, finding the program was clearly an ERISA-exempt bonus plan.
* * *
D.C. Circuit Holds Union Employee's Termination for Disparaging Testimony Was Not an NLRA Violation
Plaintiff in Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC v. NLRB, __ F.4th __ (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) was terminated from employment after giving disparaging testimony about the employer's products at a legislative hearing. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the employer committed an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 7 the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects employees' right "to engage in ... concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," including "a right to appeal to third parties outside the employment relationship in an effort to 'improve terms and conditions of employment.'"
The employer petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review, which determined that the NLRB failed to address the first prong of the "Jefferson Standard" test articulated by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Loc. Union No. 1229, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 346 U.S. 464, 471-73 (1953). Under that test, an employee may be discharged for making a disparaging comment about the company or its products to a third party if the communication (1) does not disclose that "it is related to an ongoing dispute between the employees and the employers" or (2) is "disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue." The D.C. Circuit therefore remanded the case to the NLRB "for further consideration" of that issue. The NLRB found the plaintiff's testimony showed a connection to an ongoing labor dispute and his termination was therefore unlawful, and the employer again petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review.
Disagreeing with the NLRB's conclusion, the D.C. Circuit found that nothing the plaintiff said connected his criticism of the company's products to an ongoing labor dispute, and therefore he was not protected from dismissal under the NLRA. Among other things, the court rejected the NLRB's finding that plaintiff's testimony was a complaint about his working conditions. and that an employee's discussion of working conditions necessarily indicates a connection to an ongoing labor dispute. "An employee's negative statements about working conditions, without more," the court stated, "do not show that those conditions are part of a labor dispute. The Board's suggestion that any disparaging communication that references working conditions satisfies Jefferson Standard's first prong would eviscerate the requirement that the protected communication express a connection to an ongoing employer-employee dispute." Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit granted the employer's petition for review and denied the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement.
* * *
Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court, Finding Company's Arbitration Agreements Enforceable
O'Dell v. Aya Healthcare Servs., 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2026) involved a class action challenging the validity of arbitration agreements containing a clause requiring an arbitrator, rather than a court, to determine the validity of the agreement. Initially, the district court sent claims by four plaintiffs to separate arbitrations. Two of the arbitrators found that the agreements were valid, and the other two arbitrators found that the agreements were invalid. Later, after 255 additional plaintiffs opted in to the case, a different district court judge applied the doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel, which applies when a party different from the party in the original action is seeking to avoid relitigating the same issue, to preclude the enforcement of the arbitration agreements.
The employer appealed to the Ninth Circuit which held that applying non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to invalidate arbitration agreements would eviscerate the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA provides that arbitration agreements are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" and that the only grounds for revocation are fraud, duress, or unconscionability, none of which the court found in this case. "[T]he application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel provides no exception to that mandate," the Ninth Circuit stated. Moreover, the court noted, several Supreme Court decisions have also held that imposing a class action without the parties' consent and where the parties had agreed to individually arbitrate is a violation of the FAA, which requires mutual consent. Based on all these factors, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that as a matter of apparent first impression, the FAA does not permit the application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel that would result in the effective invalidation of arbitration agreements.
* * *
Authors
Amelia McDermott
Senior Counsel
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/littler-lightbulb-april-2026-employment-appellate-roundup
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Named Among BTI's Law Firms With Highest Associate Job Satisfaction
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Fisher Phillips Named Among BTI's Law Firms with Highest Associate Job Satisfaction
Fisher Phillips, an international labor and employment law firm representing employers, is pleased to announce that it has been named a top law firm in BTI Consulting Group's Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026: BTI Survey of Law Firms Where Associates are Happiest. The firm was named among 189 law firms distinguished for achieving the highest levels of associate job satisfaction, based on more than 5,000 organic and unprompted
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Fisher Phillips Named Among BTI's Law Firms with Highest Associate Job Satisfaction
Fisher Phillips, an international labor and employment law firm representing employers, is pleased to announce that it has been named a top law firm in BTI Consulting Group's Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026: BTI Survey of Law Firms Where Associates are Happiest. The firm was named among 189 law firms distinguished for achieving the highest levels of associate job satisfaction, based on more than 5,000 organic and unpromptedresponses from associates nationwide.
BTI's research identifies seven factors driving associate retention, including a commitment to accelerating careers, high-impact mentoring, a clear career growth path, and having at least one partner actively invested in each associate's success.
The firm's recognition as an Associate Satisfaction A-Lister reinforces its position not only as a trusted partner for employers navigating complex legal challenges, but as a destination firm for attorneys seeking long-term careers built on meaningful work, strong mentorship, and a clear path forward.
The firm has invested heavily in professional development infrastructure, mentorship programs, and culture-building initiatives that directly reflect the seven factors BTI identifies as central to associate retention. As one of the nation's largest management-side labor and employment firms, Fisher Phillips brings together attorneys at every stage of their careers to advise employers on the full spectrum of workplace law.
To access a preview of the BTI Survey of Law Firms Where Associates are the Happiest, visit BTI Consulting Group (https://bticonsulting.com/themadclientist/189-law-firms-with-the-highest-associate-job-satisfaction).
Attorneys interested in joining the firm can explore open opportunities here (https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/careers).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/news/fisher-phillips-named-among-btis-law-firms-with-highest-associate-job-satisfaction
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Employer Playbook for Attacking AI Use in Pro Se Litigation - Roundup of Recent Court Sanctions Against ChatGPT Plaintiffs
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 13, 2026:
* * *
Employer Playbook for Attacking AI Use in Pro Se Litigation: A Roundup of Recent Court Sanctions Against ChatGPT Plaintiffs
Pro se litigants are increasingly using GenAI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, or CoPilot to file and maintain lawsuits against their employers - and corporate counsel and defense attorneys need new tools to fight back. We've assembled a collection of helpful rulings from the past few months where courts have given relief to defendants against these
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 13, 2026:
* * *
Employer Playbook for Attacking AI Use in Pro Se Litigation: A Roundup of Recent Court Sanctions Against ChatGPT Plaintiffs
Pro se litigants are increasingly using GenAI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, or CoPilot to file and maintain lawsuits against their employers - and corporate counsel and defense attorneys need new tools to fight back. We've assembled a collection of helpful rulings from the past few months where courts have given relief to defendants against theseChatGPT plaintiffs, laying out a blueprint you can put to use in your cases. While docket searches are replete with examples of courts warning or even admonishing pro se plaintiffs, these rulings provide support for stronger sanctions: monetary penalties, denied motions, and claims dismissals.
Quick Background: Read our comprehensive summary - "The ChatGPT Plaintiff: How AI Is Transforming Employment Litigation, Driving Up Defense Costs, and What In-House Counsel Can Do About It" - for a more complete picture of this issue and practical steps corporate counsel can take.
Monetary Sanctions
Allen v. Cass Casper (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff sued her former employment attorney for legal malpractice and other related claims, alleging he removed claims from her lawsuit without her consent.
* The AI Misconduct: In opposing a motion to dismiss, the pro se plaintiff submitted a 112-page brief containing at least two entirely fabricated case citations. The court found the brief also contained AI-generated content sections and repeated inaccurate factual assertions unsupported by the record, concluding the plaintiff had over-relied on AI to generate her legal arguments.
* Sanction Imposed: $1,500 payable to the Clerk of the Court for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
* Notable Court Quotes: "Pro se status does not shelter plaintiffs from sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. ... Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11. Allen did just that. This demonstrates that Allen failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts."
Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 (E.D. Okla. March 19, 2026)
* Case Background: A former substitute teacher and volunteer wrestling coach sued Tahlequah Public Schools and individual administrators under Title IX, Title VII, and the First Amendment, alleging he was retaliated against after reporting gender-based mistreatment of female student athletes.
* The AI Misconduct: While representing himself, the plaintiff filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion against the defendants that contained fictitious and inaccurate case citations generated by AI.
* Sanction Imposed: $500 payable directly to the defendant school district, representing approximately two hours of defense counsel's billable time spent researching and identifying the bogus citations.
* Notable Court Quote: "The Court finds the Plaintiff's submission of a pleading containing fictitious cases and inaccurate case references warrants sanctions."
Hulvat v. Gumina (Ill. App. Ct. April 9, 2026)
* Case Background: A self-represented former husband sued his ex-wife, her divorce attorney, and her law firm for civil conspiracy and related claims.
* The AI Misconduct: The plaintiff's initial appellate brief contained nine citations to entirely nonexistent cases, including fabricated quotations attributed to a real case that bore no resemblance to the actual opinion. The plaintiff filed an amended brief, which also contained unsupported arguments and illegitimate citations.
* Sanction Imposed: Attorneys' fees and costs of $3,178 awarded to defendants.
* Notable Court Quotes: "Robert's reliance on fictitious authority is a pervasive, nascent, and very serious issue afflicting courts as the use and reliance on generative AI in preparing legal filings becomes more commonplace. ... Robert's self-represented status does not excuse his misuse of AI. ... A monetary penalty in this context should impress upon all litigants the caution one must undertake when utilizing AI in brief preparation and the solemnity of filing documents before the court."
Briefs Stricken / Motions Denied
Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (E.D. Mich. April 6, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff brought a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit against a social services agency and related defendants.
* The AI Misconduct: The plaintiff's motion to consolidate several cases cited fabricated quotations attributed to two real 6th Circuit opinions. A companion motion to compel discovery similarly cited a Supreme Court opinion for a proposition that does not appear in that opinion.
* Sanction Imposed: The motion to consolidate was stricken as frivolous and the motion to compel was denied.
* Notable Court Quotes: "Courts and opposing counsel are burdened by the careless use of AI by pro se filers."
Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company (D. Ariz. April 29, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff brought suit against an infrastructure contractor and related defendants in federal court in Arizona.
* The AI Misconduct: While moving for leave to file a revised second amended complaint, the plaintiff submitted a brief containing at least two fabricated case citations alongside a real case that was entirely irrelevant to the proposition for which it was cited. The court concluded these hallucinations were evidence that the plaintiff had used generative AI to prepare her filing without verifying its accuracy.
* Sanction Imposed: The motion was stricken from the record for the AI errors and other procedural violations.
* Notable Court Quotes: "While the use of [generative AI] is not necessarily problematic, the failure to confirm the accuracy of the filing is. ... Plaintiff's pro se status does not relieve her of this requirement."
Monetary Sanctions + Briefs Stricken
Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (N.D. Ill. April 9, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking to challenge the outcome of state family court proceedings.
* The AI Misconduct: After the court dismissed her complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment that was riddled with AI hallucinations, including fabricated case citations, invented quotes attributed to real cases, and language falsely attributed to the court's own prior order. The court identified at least 13 hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law across the motion and reply briefs.
* Sanction Imposed: $5,000 payable to the Clerk of the Court for Rule 11 violations. The motion and reply briefs were also stricken from the record for violating local page-limit rules.
* Notable Court Quotes: "Normally the Court, recognizing Plaintiff's pro se status, would offer leeway and consider Plaintiff's briefs despite violating Local Rule 7.1. Plaintiff's egregious, repeated, and ongoing Rule 11 violations, however, foreclose any such possibility. ... Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11."
Claim Dismissal
Mills v. City of St. Louis, et al. (E.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff sued the City of St. Louis and two individual defendants alleging age and sex discrimination and retaliation in employment.
* The AI Misconduct: The plaintiff's filings contained misquotations, misrepresentations of cited case law, and citations to cases that do not exist.
* Sanction Imposed: Dismissal with prejudice as a Rule 11 sanction.
* Notable Court Quotes: "All litigants - represented and unrepresented - must read their filings and take reasonable care to avoid misrepresentations, factual and legal. ... Every filing in a federal court that contains citations to phony case law amounts to a violation of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ... There is no pro se exception to Rule 11(b). ... Even a pure heart and empty head is not enough to avoid the sting of Rule 11 sanctions."
Samuel K. v. Focia (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 26, 2026)
* Case Background: A self-represented defendant appealed a one-year domestic violence restraining order entered against her.
* The AI Misconduct: The appellant's opening brief contained 12 legal quotations, 11 of which were fabrications - either attributed to nonexistent cases or misrepresenting the holdings of real ones.
* Sanction Imposed: Appeal dismissed in its entirety.
* Notable Court Quote: "Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations - whether provided by generative AI or any other source - that the person responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified."
Donaldson v. Hiland Dairy, et al. (N.D. Tex. April 9, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff sued his former dairy employer and individual supervisors under Title VII and Texas state law, alleging he was wrongfully terminated on pretextual grounds after reporting what he claimed was an inappropriate hug from an HR manager.
* The AI Misconduct: After the magistrate judge recommended dismissal as time-barred, the plaintiff filed 29 separate objections totaling 677 pages. The district court noted that the plaintiff attached hundreds of pages of AI-generated responses to Google searches on various legal topics, content that was cryptic, conclusory, and entirely unresponsive to the magistrate's statute of limitations analysis.
* Sanction Imposed: The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
* Notable Court Quote: "Courts still require pro se parties to fundamentally abide by the rules that govern the federal courts. So pro se litigants must properly plead sufficient facts that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim to relief."
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke (Iowa Ct. App. April 29, 2026)
* Case Background: A self-represented homeowner appealed a summary judgment ruling in a quiet title action.
* The AI Misconduct: In her appellate brief, the defendant cited two cases that do not exist and a third that exists but had no relevance to the proposition for which she cited it.
* Sanction Imposed: The court deemed every issue on appeal waived for failure to cite valid legal authority, effectively ending her case. The court affirmed summary judgment against her in full.
* Notable Court Quotes: "We do not have a double standard for those represented by counsel and those who are unrepresented - we expect all to follow our procedures. ... We have repeatedly stressed that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings."
Claims Dismissal + Monetary Sanctions
Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. (Ga. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff sued a dental practice and an individual dentist.
* The AI Misconduct: The plaintiff's motions to strike cited a total of six case citations across two motions, the majority of which were AI hallucinations. In one motion, two of four cited cases were entirely fictional. In the other motion, all four cited cases were fictional AI-generated hallucinations, including fabricated direct quotations attributed to nonexistent Georgia authority.
* Sanction Imposed: $2,632 in attorneys' fees, representing defense counsel's reasonable and necessary fees in responding to the AI-hallucinated filings, and dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
* Notable Court Quotes: "There is no 'liberal' way to construe a lie or an AI-generated falsehood - such citations demonstrate bad faith to the Court, and they are sanctionable as to the pro se litigant."
In the Matter of the Estate of Thomas W. Kuerschner (Ariz. Ct. App. March 5, 2026)
* Case Background: A self-represented widow appealed attorney fee sanctions imposed during her deceased husband's probate proceedings, in which she had lost on all claims.
* The AI Misconduct: The appellant's briefs contained 25 citations that were either fabricated or contained substantial errors including fake quotes and unsupported propositions. Examples identified by the court included: a case that could not be located under the name cited; a real case cited for a quote that does not appear in that opinion; and a real case cited for a proposition it does not address.
* Sanction Imposed: Appeal dismissed in its entirety under state civil procedure rules. The court also awarded the opposing party reasonable attorney fees and costs for counsel's time spent identifying the violations.
* Notable Court Quotes: "We dismiss her appeal and impose sanctions because she continues to violate our rules by fabricating case citations and omitting record references. ... We find Stefanie's repeated and unrepentant violations warrant sanctions under ARCAP 25 to discourage similar behavior. Although we are generally reluctant to impose such sanctions, recidivism after a warning justifies this result."
Allen v. Western Governors University, et al. (D. Nev. March 31, 2026)
* Case Background: A pro se plaintiff sued Western Governors University and 10 individual administrators, alleging wrongful academic expulsion and related claims.
* The AI Misconduct: Defendants identified over 60 misrepresented or fabricated case citations across the plaintiff's filings.
* Sanction Imposed: Case dismissed with prejudice under the court's inherent powers, plus monetary sanctions in the form of defendants' attorney fees and costs incurred as a direct result of the citation misconduct.
* Notable Court Quote: "Although courts make some allowances for a pro se plaintiff's failure to cite to proper legal authority, courts do not make allowances for a plaintiff who cites to fake, nonexistent, misleading authorities."
Want to Learn More?
Join us in Washington, DC, for our fourth-annual AI Conference June 24-26 for a full discussion about the way AI has changed the face of litigation. Check out our full agenda and register here!
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Litigation Practice Group or our AI, Data, and Analytics Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Amanda E. Brown
Partner
214.220.8336
amebrown@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Christine E. Howard
Executive Partner, Management Committee
813.769.7503
choward@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Richard R. Meneghello
Chief Content Officer
503.205.8044
rmeneghello@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/employer-playbook-for-attacking-ai-use-in-pro-se-litigation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Chinese Court Rules Employer Can't Fire Worker Because AI Took His Job - Why All Global Employers Should Take Note
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 13, 2026:
* * *
Chinese Court Rules Employer Can't Fire Worker Because AI Took His Job: Why All Global Employers Should Take Note
An appellate court in China just ruled that a tech company violated the law when it fired an employee after AI took over his job. The April ruling from the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court sets a precedent that companies with employees in China should pay attention to. What happened and what do you need to know about this ruling?
What Happened
A tech company in Hangzhou,
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 13, 2026:
* * *
Chinese Court Rules Employer Can't Fire Worker Because AI Took His Job: Why All Global Employers Should Take Note
An appellate court in China just ruled that a tech company violated the law when it fired an employee after AI took over his job. The April ruling from the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court sets a precedent that companies with employees in China should pay attention to. What happened and what do you need to know about this ruling?
What Happened
A tech company in Hangzhou,China's eastern AI hub, deployed AI large language models to take over a quality assurance supervisor's core responsibilities (which, ironically, focused on verifying the accuracy of AI-generated outputs). Rather than eliminate his position right away, the company attempted to reassign him to a lower-level role at a 40% salary reduction. When the employee (identified only by his surname Zhou) refused, the company terminated his contract, citing organizational restructuring and reduced staffing needs driven by AI adoption.
Zhou fought back and filed an arbitration claim. After he won, the company (which was also unnamed in the court ruling) sued to overturn the arbitration decision. But it lost at the district court level and just last week lost again on appeal.
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled the dismissal unlawful on two grounds:
* First, AI-driven workforce reduction does not constitute a "major change in objective circumstances" under China's Labor Contract Law, which is the legal threshold required to justify termination based on redundancy.
* Second, the steep salary cut embedded in the reassignment offer was itself unreasonable. The court's conclusion was that companies cannot shift the costs of technological transformation onto their employees.
Similar Legal Standards Exist Around the Globe
The Hangzhou ruling is not an isolated development. It builds on a December 2024 arbitration decision in Beijing involving a data mapping worker whose job was automated away. That panel reached a similar conclusion: an employer's decision to adopt AI is not an uncontrollable event, and the costs of that business choice cannot be unilaterally passed to employees through dismissal or demotion.
But the significance extends well beyond China. Most US employers operate in an at-will environment and have grown accustomed to broad latitude in workforce decisions, including those driven by technology (although there is simmering tension when it comes to unionized work). By contrast, many countries impose robust statutory protections governing how, when, and under what circumstances employees can be dismissed. The integration of AI adoption is a key factor being considered in an increasing number of situations.
* In the European Union, for example, mass layoffs driven by automation may trigger consultation obligations under the Collective Redundancies Directive. This law requires employers to notify and engage works councils before redundancies are implemented.
* The EU AI Act adds a separate compliance layer for high-risk AI systems used in employment contexts, including hiring, performance management, and task allocation.
* In the United Kingdom, dismissals linked to technological change may engage unfair dismissal protections, with tribunals scrutinizing whether employers followed fair processes and genuinely considered alternatives.
* Across Asia-Pacific in jurisdictions such as Singapore and Japan, mandatory reemployment obligations, notice periods tied to seniority, and sector-specific labor rules can create significant exposure for employers who treat AI-related restructuring as a straightforward business decision.
What Does This Mean for Your International Operations?
Whether you have employees in China, Europe, or elsewhere, the Hangzhou ruling can teach lessons about what you should be doing right now.
* Audit your AI deployment plans jurisdiction by jurisdiction: Before rolling out AI tools that will displace or materially alter existing roles, understand the legal framework in each country where affected employees work.
* Don't assume reassignment is a safe harbor: The Hangzhou court's scrutiny of the pay cut shows that a demotion or material reduction in compensation can itself constitute a constructive dismissal and expose employers to liability.
* Engage local counsel before you make decisions: AI-fueled restructuring decisions that look clean from a US perspective can carry significant legal risk abroad. You should work with employment counsel in each jurisdiction at the planning stage.
Conclusion
If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our AI, Data, and Analytics Practice Group or our International Practice Group. Make sure you subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to gather the most up-to-date information on AI and the workplace.
* * *
Related People
Nan Sato, CIPP/E, CIPP/C
Regional Managing Partner, Tokyo
+81-3-6892-5595
nsato@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/chinese-court-rules-employer-cant-fire-worker-because-ai-took-his-job
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dinsmore Branding Insight Featured in Law360 on Law Firm Rebrands
CINCINNATI, Ohio, May 14 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Branding Insight Featured in Law360 on Law Firm Rebrands
In a Law360 article exploring how law firms approach logo design during periods of major change, Dinsmore Senior Manager of Branding & Creative Services John Bart shared insight from the Firm's recent rebrand and website redesign.
John emphasized the importance of centering design decisions on client perception and trust, noting, "You have to be aware of what clients like most about your firm and put that at the forefront of
... Show Full Article
CINCINNATI, Ohio, May 14 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Branding Insight Featured in Law360 on Law Firm Rebrands
In a Law360 article exploring how law firms approach logo design during periods of major change, Dinsmore Senior Manager of Branding & Creative Services John Bart shared insight from the Firm's recent rebrand and website redesign.
John emphasized the importance of centering design decisions on client perception and trust, noting, "You have to be aware of what clients like most about your firm and put that at the forefront ofevery design conversation."
The article also examined how mergers and rebrands use visual identity to signal stability, credibility and continuity, highlighting the strategic balance firms strike between honoring legacy brands and projecting a unified, modern future.
Designers and branding leaders are quoted throughout emphasizing that logo design in the legal industry is as much about storytelling and trust as it is about aesthetics.
Read the full article here (https://www.law360.com/pulse/new-york-pulse/articles/2474925).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dinsmore.com/quotes-mentions/dinsmore-branding-insight-featured-in-law360-on-law-firm-rebrands/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Crowell & Moring Opens Office in Minneapolis
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Crowell & Moring Opens Office in Minneapolis
Practice Aligns with Firm Strengths and Client Needs in a Complex Regulatory and Business Environment
*
Crowell & Moring has opened a new office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with a focus on the firm's regulatory, enforcement and litigation strengths in areas including health care, antitrust and competition, and labor and employment. The office launches with an initial team of eight attorneys, including partners Toni Michelle Jackson and Jeff Gleason, with additional
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Crowell & Moring Opens Office in Minneapolis
Practice Aligns with Firm Strengths and Client Needs in a Complex Regulatory and Business Environment
*
Crowell & Moring has opened a new office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with a focus on the firm's regulatory, enforcement and litigation strengths in areas including health care, antitrust and competition, and labor and employment. The office launches with an initial team of eight attorneys, including partners Toni Michelle Jackson and Jeff Gleason, with additionalgrowth anticipated in the near term. Minneapolis is Crowell's 13th office and follows office openings last year in Boston and Dallas.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area is home to the headquarters of 17 Fortune 500 companies, making it one of the most dynamic and exciting corporate markets in the country. Crowell has longstanding relationships with clients based in the area, and the opening of an office will allow the firm to enhance its support in a regulatory and business environment characterized by constant change and uncertainty. Crowell partner Toni Michelle Jackson, who has deep roots in Minneapolis and chairs the firm's State Attorneys General Practice, will serve as managing partner. Her practice is focused on high-stakes litigation and investigations for companies facing bet-the-company risk--including class and collective actions, constitutional and civil rights challenges, State AG matters, and complex employment disputes in federal and state courts nationwide.
Health care litigator Jeffrey Gleason joined Crowell as a partner in October of 2025. His practice focuses on health care law, government investigations and enforcement actions, including under the False Claims Act, complex business litigation, and affirmative recoveries for managed care organizations. Jackson and Gleason are joined by five counsel and associates.
"The opening of an office in Minneapolis reflects an appreciation of the value of being close to clients to better understand their complex and evolving business needs. It's also a recognition of the importance of the Minneapolis market and the opportunity to continue to expand our upper mid-west footprint," said Toni Michelle Jackson, Managing Partner of Crowell's Minneapolis office.
"The Minneapolis-St. Paul region is the home to longstanding clients who value our ability to bridge the divide between this dynamic business market and the complex regulatory and enforcement landscape driven by decisions in Washington," said Philip T. Inglima, chair of Crowell's Management Board.
* * *
About Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring is an international law firm with operations in the United States, Europe, MENA, and Asia. Drawing on significant government, business, industry, and legal experience, the firm helps clients capitalize on opportunities and provides creative solutions to complex regulatory and policy, litigation, transactional, and intellectual property issues. The firm is consistently recognized for its commitment to pro bono service, as well as its comprehensive programs and initiatives to advance the professional and personal development of all members of the Crowell community.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/firm-news/crowell-and-moring-opens-office-in-minneapolis
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
