Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
San Francisco Business Times Recognizes Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker as a Most Influential Woman in Bay Area Business
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- Arnold and Porter, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
San Francisco Business Times Recognizes Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker as a Most Influential Woman in Bay Area Business
Global Co-Chair of Arnold & Porter, Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker, has been named one of the Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business by the San Francisco Business Times. The award honors trailblazing leaders who are shaping industries, championing mentorship and community impact, and redefining leadership across the region.
Ellen is a seasoned transactional lawyer and law firm leader who brings clear-headed
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- Arnold and Porter, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
San Francisco Business Times Recognizes Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker as a Most Influential Woman in Bay Area Business
Global Co-Chair of Arnold & Porter, Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker, has been named one of the Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business by the San Francisco Business Times. The award honors trailblazing leaders who are shaping industries, championing mentorship and community impact, and redefining leadership across the region.
Ellen is a seasoned transactional lawyer and law firm leader who brings clear-headedand practical judgment to help both clients and the firm address complex matters.
She has been part of the firm's top leadership since January 2021, when she became Co-Managing Partner, and was subsequently named Global Co-Chair. Under her leadership, Arnold & Porter has continued to thrive as a place where clients can obtain world-class regulatory, litigation, and transactional solutions for their most complex challenges.
Her profile in the San Francisco Business Times noted early in her career, a mentor recognized potential in her that she had not yet seen in herself, and that his encouragement led her to pursue both law school and business school -- a decision that shaped her career and sense of what was possible.
Ellen has also supported and enhanced the firm's deep commitment to excellence in the practice of law and client service, a commitment to collegiality and collaboration, a diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture, and a dedication to pro bono service.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/news/2026/05/san-francisco-business-times-recognizes-ellen-kaye-fleishhacker
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Pillsbury Prevails in Winery Dispute After Five-Day Jury Trial
NEW YORK, May 9 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pillsbury Prevails in Winery Dispute After Five-Day Jury Trial
Related Federal Court Victory Earns Trial Team Litigator of the Week Honors
*
A team of Pillsbury lawyers led by Austin-based Litigation partner Casey Low prevailed in a five-day jury trial in favor of client Fred Schrader, the founder of the highly acclaimed Schrader Cellars winery, and the winery's current owner. A final judgment in the case was handed down on March 12, 2026, by the 157th District Court of Harris County in Texas. During the trial,
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 9 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pillsbury Prevails in Winery Dispute After Five-Day Jury Trial
Related Federal Court Victory Earns Trial Team Litigator of the Week Honors
*
A team of Pillsbury lawyers led by Austin-based Litigation partner Casey Low prevailed in a five-day jury trial in favor of client Fred Schrader, the founder of the highly acclaimed Schrader Cellars winery, and the winery's current owner. A final judgment in the case was handed down on March 12, 2026, by the 157th District Court of Harris County in Texas. During the trial,the jury found for Schrader and the winery's current owner, confirming that the winery and its assets were properly acquired from Schrader and rejecting Houston lawyer Randy Roach's claims that he had an ownership stake.
The case was also litigated in a parallel bench trial in California, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled in favor of Schrader Cellars. The Pillsbury team was subsequently recognized as "Litigators of the Week" by Law.com.
Schrader founded Schrader Cellars in 1998 to craft Cabernet Sauvignon with a single-minded focus on quality and provenance. After teaming up with renowned winemaker Thomas Brown in 2000, Schrader's wines achieved historic critical acclaim from famed critics Robert Parker (Wine Advocate), James Laube (Wine Spectator) and James Suckling. Since then, Schrader Cellars has been widely regarded as the preeminent producer of world-class Cabernet Sauvignons.
When Schrader retired in 2016, he sold Schrader Cellars. Roach filed his lawsuit more than a year after the sale, claiming that he and Schrader made a "handshake deal" in 2000 which, according to Roach, entitled him to an ownership interest in a specific wine bottled by Schrader Cellars called "Schrader RBS." After more than seven years of litigation, the Harris County jury deliberated for less than half a day before rejecting every one of Roach's claims. While Roach subsequently filed several motions seeking to overturn the jury's findings, the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict in March.
"While defending against my former best friend and lawyer's absurd claims of ownership has been a long, expensive and stressful ordeal, I am grateful that the jury saw through his fiction and rejected his claims," Schrader said. "Finally, he will no longer be able to tarnish my legacy and I can enjoy retirement in peace."
The Pillsbury trial team included Low, Dillon Ferguson, Sarah Goetz and Alex Guerin.
"It has been our honor to represent such good people and professionals in Fred and the Schrader Cellars team," Low said. "While it is disconcerting that they had to endure years of litigation to defend against an attorney's claim to ownership in his former client's business based on an oral agreement, the jury's verdict confirms that justice prevails in the end."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/pillsbury-prevails-winery-dispute-five-day-jury-trial.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: New Jersey Department of Labor Publishes Final ABC Rule
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by shareholders Alexander T. MacDonald and Rachel Seaton Brownell:
* * *
New Jersey Department of Labor Publishes Final ABC Rule
At a Glance
* New Jersey DOL issued final rule implementing the "ABC" test for assessing whether workers are employees or independent contractors under state law.
* The final rule scaled back or deleted some of the provisions to which the business community objected, but left much of the proposed ABC test intact.
*
After more than a year's delay, the New Jersey
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by shareholders Alexander T. MacDonald and Rachel Seaton Brownell:
* * *
New Jersey Department of Labor Publishes Final ABC Rule
At a Glance
* New Jersey DOL issued final rule implementing the "ABC" test for assessing whether workers are employees or independent contractors under state law.
* The final rule scaled back or deleted some of the provisions to which the business community objected, but left much of the proposed ABC test intact.
*
After more than a year's delay, the New JerseyDepartment of Labor announced a final rule implementing the state's "ABC" test. The ABC test is used to determine a worker's status as either an employee or as an independent contractor under multiple laws, including New Jersey's wage-and-hour laws. After the Department first proposed the rule last year, it received hundreds of comments expressing concern about the rule's breadth. In response, the final rule scales back many of the proposed rule's most controversial features, including "examples" that would have singled out companies in certain industries. The final rule also takes a softer approach to issues like legal compliance. Whereas the proposed rule would have treated precautions a business takes to comply with other laws as evidence of the business's "control" over the worker, the final rule takes the opposite approach: legal compliance is not evidence of control.
In all, the final rule is narrower than the original proposal. It responds to vigorous criticism by the business community by removing many of the proposal's most concerning features. And while it is by no means simple, it takes a lighter approach than many had feared.
What Was Proposed?
In April 2025, the Department proposed rules to implement the state's "ABC test." The ABC distinguishes between employees and independent contractors. It would have been stricter (and more likely to cause a worker to be deemed to be an employee) than many other common classification tests, such as the "common law" test or the "economic realities" test. Unlike those tests, the ABC requires a worker to meet all of three specific criteria: to be an independent contractor, the worker must (a) be free from control both under the contract and in fact; (b) work outside a company's usual course of business or all the company's places of business; and (c) work in an independently established business, profession, or trade. If workers fail any one of those criteria, they are deemed employees.
The ABC test is often used in state unemployment statutes: more than 20 states use it to decide whether a worker is eligible for unemployment compensation. But it is rarer in other contexts. In contrast, only a handful of states use it to determine whether a worker is eligible for overtime or minimum wages. States more often use a more flexible test, such as the common-law test or the multi-factor "economic realities" test.
In New Jersey, the test is used for multiple purposes. It appears not only in the state's unemployment-compensation laws, but also in its wage-and-hour and wage-payment rules. So rules implementing the test have a broader effect in New Jersey than they would in most states.
The proposed rule would have made New Jersey's version of the test one of the strictest in the country. It took an especially hard line against certain industries, including the construction and app-based services industries. But in response to negative feedback from the business community, the final rule significantly scales back the proposal's most controversial elements.
What Was Removed?
The final rule removes many controversial sections:
* Examples. The proposed rule listed examples of workers who provide work within the usual course of a company's business. These examples included rideshare drivers who use a transportation network company's app, drywall installers who work at a drywall-installation company's worksites, and caddies who work at a country club. The proposed rule also includes examples of workers who work within a company's usual places of business. These examples included delivery drivers who deliver goods through a delivery network company's app using their own cars. (The proposed rule treated the car as a place of the company's business.) All of these examples have been removed.
* Applications as control. The proposed rule would have treated software, including smartphone applications, as a form of control. It stated that if a business required a worker to use its software or applications, the business was controlling the worker. The final rule deletes this language.
* Actual work vs. right to work. The proposed rule would have minimized the right to work for other clients. It stated that the relevant question is not whether a worker has a right to work for others. Rather, the question is whether the worker actually works for others and is paid for that work. The final rule deletes that section.
* Definition of off-site work. The proposed rule would have differentiated between off-site work that is "essential" to a company's business and work that is only "ancillary" to the business. It would have treated "essential" work as performed at the employer's usual places of business, even when performed off site. This distinction has been removed.
* Legal compliance. The proposed rule would have discounted the importance of legal compliance. It stated that when a business controls a worker, the control is evidence of employment even when the business must control that aspect of the work to comply with some other law. The final rule eliminates that language.
What Was Added?
The final rule also adds a handful of less-controversial sections:
* Examples of exclusions. The final rule states that it does not affect any exclusion set out in a statute. It then lists several examples of these exclusions, including exclusions from minimum-wage and overtime requirements for "white collar" professionals. The rule clarifies that these exclusions continue to work in the same way as they did before the rule.
* Work from home. The final rule clarifies how the Department approaches remote work. It explains that when a person works from home, the person's home is not automatically part of the company's usual places of business. So remote workers do not automatically become employees just because they work from their homes rather than an independent office.
* Legal compliance. The final rule also takes a new approach to legal compliance. It states explicitly that steps a business takes to comply with federal, state, or local law is not "control" under the ABC test. In other words, it reverses the proposed rule's approach.
What Is Left?
While these changes are important, much of the proposed rule remains intact. The final rule still sets out the Department's general approach to the ABC test. It still puts the burden on a business to prove that a worker meets all three criteria. It also still lists certain facts that are relevant under each criterion, such as whether workers control their own schedule or set their own pay rate. And the final rule still says that some facts are not enough on their own to avoid a worker being deemed to be an employee. These facts include whether the worker has an independent-contractor agreement, whether the worker uses a business entity, whether the worker earns a low salary, and whether the worker has multiple jobs.
The final rule hardly makes New Jersey an independent-contracting haven. But it does step back from the aggressive approach taken in the proposed rule. On balance, it is positive news for businesses that work with independent suppliers and service providers in New Jersey.
* * *
Authors
Alexander T. MacDonald
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Rachel Seaton Brownell
Shareholder
Newark
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/new-jersey-department-labor-publishes-final-abc-rule
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: In the Eleventh Hour - Implementation Status of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by senior associate Donall Breen, partner Nicola James and knowledge management counsel Morgan Julia Matson:
* * *
In the Eleventh Hour: Implementation Status of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
At a Glance
* While some member states are on track to implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive (PTD) by June 7, 2026, many have formally announced delayed effective dates and others are still working out the "when"--leading to a fragmented implementation landscape across Europe.
* The draft
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by senior associate Donall Breen, partner Nicola James and knowledge management counsel Morgan Julia Matson:
* * *
In the Eleventh Hour: Implementation Status of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
At a Glance
* While some member states are on track to implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive (PTD) by June 7, 2026, many have formally announced delayed effective dates and others are still working out the "when"--leading to a fragmented implementation landscape across Europe.
* The draftlaws that have been published contain provisions that range from minimalistic implementation of the PTD's baseline requirements to more stringent measures.
* Even if a member state has stated they will miss the deadline to implement, employers should not wait to start the compliance process.
*
With a June 7 member state implementation deadline barely a month away, employers still face significant uncertainty as to how individual EU member states will implement the European Directive (EU) 2023/970 on pay transparency. Compliance in such a fragmented landscape is a challenge, but this article provides insight into the direction of implementation and what employers can anticipate.
Because PTD implementation is highly dynamic, the status of member state laws is subject to frequent change. This article provides an update based on information available at the time of publication. We encourage you to contact Littler's PTD Steering Committee for the most up-to-date, in-depth analysis for your European footprint. You can access additional resources, including Littler's Implementation Tracker, on Littler's EU Pay Transparency Directive webpage.
Status of Implementation
Efforts to Delay the PTD
At the end of March, the Swedish government announced that it will seek to "renegotiate" parts of the PTD and will therefore postpone implementing the PTD into national law because the PTD's design is administratively burdensome and risks reducing gender equality gains.
Following this, Estonian state media reported that the Estonian government formally asked the European Commission to delay the date by which member states were required to implement the PTD, arguing that its requirements would significantly increase the administrative burden on local businesses. However, two weeks later, Estonia tweaked its stance and is now progressing with limited domestic law reforms. While the announcement emphasized that Estonia supports the objectives of the PTD, the most onerous employer obligations (such as detailed pay structures, regular pay reporting for larger employers, and related explanatory duties) are being put on hold for the time being, pending discussions with the European Commission on how to minimize the administrative burden on businesses.
We are seeing other efforts to try to "stop the clock" with regards to PTD implementation. For example, Business Europe, one of Europe's largest business organizations representing 42 national business organizations in the EU region, published a statement in February urging EU legislators to simplify the PTD and grant a two-year extension to member states to implement the PTD.
In Belgium, the National Labour Council (NAR), a body comprising representatives from employer and employee organizations that advises the Belgian government on social matters, is currently discussing PTD implementation within the existing national collective labor agreements. However, the employer organizations have withdrawn from negotiations in support of the "stop the clock" movement, advocating for the European Commission to simplify the PTD and provide more time for member states and employers to prepare. This will stall implementation in Belgium, as the national collective labor agreements will need to be renegotiated to some degree to align to the requirements of the PTD.
Notably, none of these efforts seem to have made a material impact.
Although the European Commission has not issued a public response to these statements and actions, indicators suggest that it will not entertain renegotiation or postponement of the PTD. According to several sources, at a meeting in late April the Commission stated that no postponement would be possible and the deadline for transposition remains June 7, 2026.
When an EU member state misses the deadline to put a directive into national law, the European Commission can start infringement proceedings and the European Court of Justice may impose financial penalties. This is not just theory--it happens in practice. For example, Spain missed the deadline to implement the Work-Life Balance Directive and, as a result, was hit last summer with a Euros6.83 million fine plus a daily penalty until compliance is achieved. In July 2025, the Commission also launched infringement procedures against 18 member states for failing to fully transpose another directive. So, there is a clear financial incentive for countries to meet these deadlines.
However, as set out below, this deterrent does not seem to be spurring compliance across Europe.
No Indicated Effective Date
A number of member states have not indicated an effective date associated with their published draft legislation (Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, and Sweden--the status of Sweden's draft legislation is further complicated based on their renegotiation announcement). It is unclear whether or not these countries will rush to meet the June 7, 2026 deadline.
Other member states, such as Germany and Spain, have taken preliminary steps towards implementation. For example, in late April, the Spanish government launched a prior public consultation ahead of the drafting of the transposing legislation. Although the prior public consultation documentation notes the June 7, 2026 deadline, with no draft legislation and given the current timing and length of the remaining legislative process, it appears unlikely that this deadline will be met.
Our working assumption is that, due to the June deadline being just a month away, if a country has not yet published draft legislation it is more likely than not they will miss the implementation deadline.
Delayed Effective Date
Seven member states are targeting a delayed effective date: Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Netherlands, and Poland. While France has publicly announced it will meet the June 7, 2026 deadline, the draft legislation is not listed on the Parliamentary agenda for May so it is unlikely that the draft will be passed into law by the deadline.
These draft laws contain provisions that range from a self-proclaimed "minimalistic" approach to significant changes in local law. For example, in late March, the Czechia government published its draft implementation legislation. Czechia previously put a law into effect that implemented a very small part of the PTD (i.e., the prohibition against contractual terms that restrict workers from disclosing information regarding pay). The more recent proposal stated its intent to adopt a "minimalist" approach, but in reality the approach is a conservative and structured transposition of the PTD, with several procedural particularities rooted in domestic labor law traditions rather than strictly deferring to the PTD.
Met or Targeting the June 2026 Effective Date
Six member states appear to continue to target a June 7, 2026 effective date for either full or partial implementing legislation. Italy, Lithuania, and Romania anticipate passing their comprehensive draft laws by the deadline with June 7, 2026 effective dates. Malta and Poland will both partially meet the deadline as they have laws in effect that implement only a small part of the PTD dealing with pay disclosure.
Slovakia is the only country to date to have passed comprehensive implementing legislation. The bill is waiting for signature and official publication, which should occur in time for the June effective date.
First (and Only) Comprehensive Implementing Measure Passed
On April 15, 2026, the Slovak parliament passed legislation transposing the PTD. Key points targeted for June 7, 2026 implementation include:
* Employers will be required to have established specific criteria for determining whether employees perform work of equal value, and these criteria must also be made available to employees. If there are employee representatives, the criteria must be agreed upon with the employee representatives.
* Employers will be required to provide job applicants with the pay or pay range as well as the relevant pay provisions of any relevant collective bargaining agreement prior to the job interview or before concluding an employment contract with the employee.
* An employee will be entitled to request information about their pay level. Starting in 2028, employees are also entitled to the average pay of employees performing the same work or work of equal value, broken down by sex for the previous calendar year.
Other aspects of compliance have been pushed later, allowing for a phased introduction for compliance for employers in Slovakia. For example, by July 31, 2026, employers will be required to have in place a pay structure that considers whether employees are performing work of equal value, based on objective criteria specified by law, and during 2026, employers will be required to actively inform employees of their right to relevant information and the procedure for obtaining it. Reporting obligations will come into force in 2027 for employers employing at least 150 employees and in 2031 for employers with 100-149 employees.
What if the Deadline is Missed?
What is important to note is that until a member state actually implements the PTD into national law, no new PTD-related obligations come into play. Workers cannot bring claims against their employers in that member state based on the PTD itself--they must rely on the local implementing legislation to do so.
However, we advise against a wait-and-see approach, in part because of some potential risks:
1. Compliance risk: Employers cannot count on having a grace period and will need to be prepared before the local implementing legislation comes into effect.
2. Existing rights: Principles like equal pay for equal work and the ban on pay discrimination already exist in EU and certain individual member state law and can be enforced now. In fact, there have been successful claims based on these principles, even before the PTD was published. We see employers struggle to comply under the current regime, so it is helpful to prepare now for the more stringent requirements.
3. Indirect impact: At times, we have seen courts interpret existing national laws in line with the spirit of new EU directives, even before they are formally adopted locally.
4. Reputational risk: If a company is not seen to be taking action, it could hurt the employer's brand and relationship with its worker representatives--even before the laws officially kick in.
Next Steps
These developments underscore the increasingly fragmented approach to pay transparency reform across the EU. For employers, this divergence highlights the increased need for jurisdiction-specific compliance strategies. A "one-size-fits-all" approach to compliance will be difficult for most cross-border employers.
Employers should be actively preparing for compliance obligations. Such active compliance may include:
1. preparing an overarching compliance plan;
2. engaging both internal and external counsel in planning to utilize country-specific legal privilege;
3. fact-finding and gathering data;
4. reviewing and defining job architecture; and
5. auditing current pay practices to identify areas of risk and potential gaps.
* * *
Authors
Donall Breen
Senior Associate
London
* * *
Nicola James
Partner
London
* * *
Morgan Julia Matson
Knowledge Management Counsel
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/eleventh-hour-implementation-status-eu-pay-transparency-directive
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Free Speech Myth - How Employers Can Navigate 5 High-Risk Scenarios for Defamation Claims in the Workplace
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 9 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 8, 2026:
* * *
The Free Speech Myth: How Employers Can Navigate 5 High-Risk Scenarios for Defamation Claims in the Workplace
The concept of "free speech" is often misunderstood in the workplace. While many assume broad protections apply, the First Amendment offers limited coverage in private employment settings. At the same time, routine communications - whether during workplace investigations, for-cause terminations, employee reference checks, off-duty social media activity, or employee departures -
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 9 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 8, 2026:
* * *
The Free Speech Myth: How Employers Can Navigate 5 High-Risk Scenarios for Defamation Claims in the Workplace
The concept of "free speech" is often misunderstood in the workplace. While many assume broad protections apply, the First Amendment offers limited coverage in private employment settings. At the same time, routine communications - whether during workplace investigations, for-cause terminations, employee reference checks, off-duty social media activity, or employee departures -can create liability risks if not handled carefully. Here's our practical guide to navigating five high-risk workplace scenarios and handling sensitive communications with care.
Don't miss our May 20 webinar on this topic. Register here for The Free Speech Myth: Defamation Risks in Workplace Speech.
Overview: Speech and Defamation in the Workplace
In today's social and political climate, litigation is on the rise in situations where employees claim false statements were made about them. These claims can arise from routine workplace interactions or even off-duty conduct. Employees blame "cancel culture" and off-the-cuff statements as the reason for adverse employment actions or denial of future job prospects. These situations may trigger threats of defamation claims which can have real financial and public consequences for an employer. In this article, we will discuss what these claims involve and how they are applied in the workplace.
Free Speech Claims
One of the most common misunderstandings among employees is believing the First Amendment protects their speech at work. Although the concept of free speech is not fully a myth, the First Amendment has very little, if any, direct application outside of public-sector employment.
Notably, protections of off-duty speech differ from state-to-state. Still, the law does not give employees carte blanche to say whatever they want in the workplace or on platforms where their employer may be impacted. An employer retains the right to impose reasonable restrictions on workplace speech to preserve productivity, safety, and a respectful environment. It's a balancing act between creating space for diverse perspectives and maintaining consistency.
Defamation Claims
While most employers strive to create a positive workplace, employers can't avoid discussing negative or unfavorable information about employees in certain situations. This may come up in workplace investigations, discussions leading to an employee's termination, reference checks, and beyond. But what are the risks associated with these sorts of communications?
An unhappy employee may bring a defamation claim under state tort law, but there's a high bar to prove such claims. State laws vary, but an employee bringing a defamation claim will generally need to show:
* the employer made a false statement claiming it to be fact;
* the employer made the statement to a third person;
* the employer was at fault for at least negligence; and
* the employee suffered damages or reputational harm.
Defamation liability typically stems from false statements presented as fact, rather than subjective opinions. Courts tend to permit discovery on these issues which can lead to very public and expensive lawsuits. With this in mind, employers should:
* avoid negative opinions or overstatements that can escalate conflicts or prompt litigation;
* stick to documented facts; and
* recognize when legal review is warranted.
5 High-Risk Workplace Scenarios
1. Workplace Investigations
Workplace investigations typically arise from allegations of misconduct, policy violations, or discrimination. During an investigation, witnesses make statements, information is gathered and put in writing, conclusions are shared with leadership or sometimes a board or committee, and corrective measures are determined. This can be an emotional process for the employee at the center of it and potentially motivate them to sue for defamation when accusations are made and subsequent disciplinary steps are taken.
Practical Strategy: Ensure investigation communications are made on a need-to-know basis and share findings only with those who have a legitimate business reason to know, such as HR, legal counsel, or direct managers. Be sure to use neutral fact-based language in conversations and in written documentation and avoid overstatements or labels. Be sure not to draw conclusions about the employee being investigated, either in questioning or throughout the process.
2. "For Cause" Terminations
Any for-cause termination carries defamation risk because the underlying decision is inherently based on, broadly speaking, employee misconduct or workplace rule violations. Executive employment agreements, equity or long-term incentive plans, or collective bargaining agreements may include clauses that explain the circumstances that would constitute "cause" for termination. The employee whose career is taking an abrupt and involuntary turn may be motivated to pursue a defamation claim if they believe the termination is based on inaccuracies and those inaccuracies have been spread to third parties.
Practical Strategy: Avoid making character-based statements about the employee, such as calling them dishonest or using other labels. Train your managers and HR staff to keep termination communications factual, brief, and documented in writing. When "for cause" is defined in a contract, be precise about the reasons for the termination or demotion and include supporting documentation or evidence.
3. Employee Reference Checks
When a potential employer calls your organization for a reference check on a former employee or contractor, can you be honest about poor performance, misconduct, or other negative information without taking on liability for a defamation claim? While a negative reference might cause the former employee to lose the new opportunity, truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. Many states also recognize a qualified privilege for good-faith employment references, which can protect employers who share factual and accurate information. To avoid the potential risks, however, it is a best practice for employers to confirm name, most recent title, and dates of employment during the reference check process, with no other details provided.
Practical Strategy: You should be sure to limit your response to documented and verifiable facts. As a best practice you may want to direct all reference requests to trained HR team members who understand the applicable state laws and legal risks.
4. Off-Duty Social Media Conduct
When word gets back to a manager about something a trusted employee did or said off-duty, particularly on social media, the situation can be disruptive and impact work relationships. This is especially true if the social media activity impacts or references another employee. The employee's off-duty conduct or social media content may not align with your organization's workplace policies or views, and the information might come to light from a key customer, competitor, or trade group, or even anonymously. For the employee, any disciplinary action taken in response may feel like an attack on their freedom of speech.
Practical Strategy: Start by checking whether your state limits employer action on off-duty political or personal speech. These laws may surprise you, as some prevent employers from terminating the employment of someone whose posts are even clearly offensive unless you can show the communication caused direct business harm. Determine whether the post caused operational disruption, reputational damage, or significant internal strife. Absent that, discipline may not be legally or strategically justifiable. Be sure to enforce policies neutrally. Whether the post supports or opposes a cause, the focus should be on whether the employee violated your work rules, not the ideology behind the post. Selective enforcement invites discrimination claims.
5. Employee Departures
This scenario presents defamation risk on both sides. An employee who leaves for a competitor may spread false information in the market about your organization. Conversely, false or exaggerated comments your leadership makes to undermine a departing employee's reputation, whether to clients, remaining staff, or the new employer, can support a defamation claim against you.
Practical Strategy: Avoid making disparaging remarks about departing employees, even in informal settings. Comments that appear intended to damage an individual's reputation or interfere with a new employment relationship can increase your litigation risk. On the flipside, if a former employee is making potentially false claims about your organization, you should immediately document the statements. Consult with counsel before responding, so you can assess the risk and determine whether the situation merits legal action.
Avoiding Costly Litigation and Strengthening Your Defense
Across all five of these high-risk scenarios, a few key practices can reduce your liability risk:
* Stick to documented facts and avoid general characterizations.
* Limit sensitive communications to those with a need to know.
* Train managers to treat verbal statements with the same care as written ones.
* Apply your policies consistently to reduce the risk of discrimination claims.
* Consult legal counsel before your formal communications with employees on sensitive matters, particularly when the stakes are high during for-cause terminations, complicated investigations, or a key employee is leaving for a competitor.
Want to Learn More? Register here for our May 20 webinar breaking down the myths of free speech in the workplace. We'll do a deeper dive into these five topics and provide concrete strategies to reduce your legal exposure.
Conclusion
If you need assistance navigating any of the above scenarios, in crafting workplace policies, procedures, or training, reach out to your Fisher Phillips attorney or the authors of this Insight. We will continue to monitor developments related to all aspects of workplace law. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information.
* * *
Related People
James F. Glunt
Partner
412.822.6621
jglunt@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Deniz Uzel Reilly
Partner
610.230.6102
dreilly@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Ivy Waisbord
Associate
610.230.6108
iwaisbord@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/how-employers-can-navigate-5-high-risk-scenarios-for-defamation-claims-in-the-workplace
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions on CBS From China
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 8, 2026, by counsel Richard P. Ferrin, associate Morgan Alexis Howard and partners Carrie Bethea Connolly and Daniel R. Wilson:
* * *
New Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions on CBS from China
Petitioner Alleges a Dumping Margin of 1,231.15%
At a Glance
* Lanxess Corporation filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions on N-Cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide (CBS) from China.
* An investigation related to this petition could result in increased prices
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 8, 2026, by counsel Richard P. Ferrin, associate Morgan Alexis Howard and partners Carrie Bethea Connolly and Daniel R. Wilson:
* * *
New Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions on CBS from China
Petitioner Alleges a Dumping Margin of 1,231.15%
At a Glance
* Lanxess Corporation filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions on N-Cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide (CBS) from China.
* An investigation related to this petition could result in increased pricesand/or decreased supply of CBS.
* The US Department of Commerce is expected to begin investigation on May 27, 2026.
*
On May 7, 2026, antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions were filed on N-Cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide (CBS) imported from China. CBS is a chemical accelerator used for rubber vulcanization. The petitions were filed by Lanxess Corporation.
The US AD law imposes special tariffs to counteract imports that are sold in the United States at less than "normal value." The US CVD law imposes special tariffs to counteract imports that are sold in the United States with the benefit of foreign government subsidies. For AD/CVD duties to be imposed, the US government must determine not only that dumping and/or subsidization is occurring, but also that there is "material injury" (or threat thereof) by reason of the dumped and/or subsidized imports. Importers are liable for any potential AD/CVD duties imposed. In addition, these investigations could impact purchasers by increasing prices and/or decreasing supply of CBS.
Scope
Please note that this section was not written by our authors but is taken verbatim from the petition.
The product subject to this investigation is N-Cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2 sulfenamide ("CBS"), also known as N-cyclohexyl-2 benzothiazolesulfenamide, N-(1,3-benzothiazol-2-ylsulfanyl) cyclohexanamine and N-cyclohexylbenzothiazol-2-sulphenamide. It may additionally be termed Accelerator CZ, CBTS, Thiohexam, HIP4, Curax, DURAX, Conaca, Conach, Conacs, or Celacs.
CBS is an organic compound used in the rubber industry as a delayed action accelerator for rubber vulcanization. CBS is primarily used in the production of tires, but also used in the production of hoses, belts, and other rubber products. CBS accelerates the cross-linking of rubber molecules. Its use in rubber formulations reduces curing times during manufacturing, and it improves the elasticity and durability of the finished rubber products.
CBS is typically sold in an off-white or light gray powder, oiled powder, or granule with a melting point of 90 to 110 C and a molecular weight of 264.4 g/mol. CBS is soluble in benzene, but insoluble in water. It has the chemical formula C13H16N2S2 and is assigned the Chemical Abstract Service ("CAS") registry No. 95-33-0. CBS is generally sold at an assay of 94 to 99 percent, minimum CBS content. CBS powder, oiled powder, and granules are classified under subheading 2934.20.8000, HTSUS. CBS may also be classified as a mixture or blend with other accelerators, antioxidants, plasticizers, and fillers under subheadings 3812.10.1000 and 3812.10.5000, HTSUS. References to the HTSUS classification in this petition are provided for convenience and customs purposes, and the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive regarding the scope of the investigation.
Estimated Dumping Margins
The petitioner alleges a dumping margin of 1,231.15%.
The petitioner also alleges subsidies with respect to subject imports, although the CVD petitions do not quantify the alleged net subsidy margins.
Estimated Schedule of Investigations
The following is an estimated schedule of investigations by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and the US International Trade Commission (ITC):
May 7, 2026 ... Petitions are filed.
May 28, 2026 ... DOC initiates investigations.
May 28, 2026 ... ITC staff conference (estimated).
June 22, 2026 ... Deadline for ITC preliminary injury determinations.
July 31, 2026 ... Deadline for DOC preliminary CVD determination, if deadline is NOT postponed.
October 5, 2026 ... Deadline for DOC preliminary CVD determination, if deadline is fully postponed.
October 14, 2026 ... Deadline for DOC preliminary AD determination, if deadline is NOT postponed.
December 3, 2026 ... Deadline for DOC preliminary AD determination, if deadline is fully postponed.
April 19, 2027 ... Deadline for DOC final AD/CVD determinations, if all deadlines are fully postponed.
June 3, 2027 ... Deadline for ITC final injury determinations, if all DOC deadlines are fully postponed.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Richard P. Ferrin
Counsel
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5803
richard.ferrin@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Carrie Bethea Connolly
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5330
carrie.connolly@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Daniel R. Wilson
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5211
daniel.wilson@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Morgan Alexis Howard
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5305
morgan.howard@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/new-antidumping-duty-and-countervailing-duty-petitions-on-cbs-from-china
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath Issues Commentary: Multimillion-Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Reversed by Federal Circuit Due to Prior Disclosure in Patents and Self-Evident Concepts in California Case
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by partner Thatcher A. Rahmeier and associate Leah S. Chrisbacher:
* * *
Multimillion-Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Reversed by Federal Circuit Due to Prior Disclosure in Patents and Self-Evident Concepts in California Case
International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, No. 25-1843 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2026)
At a Glance
* Concepts that were already disclosed in prior patents were not protectable trade secrets because they were generally known to the public, regardless
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by partner Thatcher A. Rahmeier and associate Leah S. Chrisbacher:
* * *
Multimillion-Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Reversed by Federal Circuit Due to Prior Disclosure in Patents and Self-Evident Concepts in California Case
International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, No. 25-1843 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2026)
At a Glance
* Concepts that were already disclosed in prior patents were not protectable trade secrets because they were generally known to the public, regardlessof whether they were ever made into actual products.
* Self-evident or common concepts may be unprotectable even if the concept is put to a different use than originally intended or anticipated.
*
Summary
The plaintiffs, urologist Dr. James Elist and his company International Medical Devices, Inc., developed the Penuma(R) cosmetic implant. Penuma(R) is a silicone penile implant for the aesthetic improvement of penile appearance in men. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Robert Cornell and others misappropriated four trade secrets related to the implant's design and procedure and breached a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Dr. Cornell had attended a Penuma(R) surgical training session hosted by Dr. Elist and signed an NDA in which he agreed not to disclose or use confidential information supplied to him. During the training, Dr. Elist disclosed to Dr. Cornell several ideas for improving the implant, which the plaintiffs alleged to be trade secrets subject to the NDA. The disputed trade secrets involved:
* Internal pockets within the implant for flexibility
* Mesh tabs for tissue ingrowth
* Use of absorbable sutures
* A particular instrument list for the procedure
The defendants countered that these concepts were already disclosed in prior patents and the general knowledge in the art, and thus were not protectable trade secrets. After a jury trial on liability in favor of the plaintiffs, the district court awarded $18.3 million in damages, including exemplary damages, and issued an injunction. The defendants appealed.
The Federal Circuit's Analysis
In their appeal, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' asserted trade secrets had been publicly disclosed in patents, making them generally known and ineligible for trade secret protection. The plaintiffs argued that the prior patents had never been embodied in actual products, and therefore could not have been generally known.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument. Relying on well-settled case law, the court emphasized the principle that what is disclosed in a patent is "generally known to the public" and cannot be a trade secret. Further, the "patent disclosures make the alleged trade secrets generally known whether or not they were ever made into real-world products."
The plaintiffs asserted that the patent design was intended for a therapeutic use as opposed to the cosmetic use of Penuma(R). The court found, however, that therapeutic and cosmetic implants do not present different problems or require different solutions such that translating the generally known internal-pockets design from therapeutic use to a cosmetic use cannot sustain trade secret protection. The court also found other purported trade secrets unprotectable by coupling patent disclosures with knowledge in the art based on undisputed record evidence.
For the asserted trade secret of the instrument list for the procedure, the plaintiffs argued that although the instruments were not specialized, they were not typical of other types of penile surgery and were therefore a trade secret. Without resolving that argument, the court found that the list could not derive independent economic value from secrecy -- and thus did reach trade secret status -- because the plaintiffs did not preserve the secrecy of the list contents by emailing the list to Dr. Cornell and others without designating it as confidential, and the NDA did not provide that all communications between the parties were confidential or specifically designate the instrument list as confidential.
Because the court found that the alleged trade secrets did not qualify as trade secrets, the plaintiffs could not succeed on their claim for breach of the NDA either, as the plaintiffs did not identify any alleged confidential information other than the asserted trade secrets. The court also reversed patent invalidity due to improper inventorship because the unprotectable trade secrets that were generally known could not support an inventive contribution.
Key Takeaways
* Concepts or designs that have already been disclosed in patent publications may not qualify as trade secrets even if they are put towards a different use.
* The well-settled principle remains that publicly available information is not secret and therefore may not be afforded trade secret protection, regardless of whether the information was ever embodied in an actual product or is a self-evident variant.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Thatcher A. Rahmeier
Partner
Wilmington
+1 302 467 4211
thatcher.rahmeier@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Leah S. Chrisbacher
Associate
Los Angeles
+1 310 203 4030
leah.chrisbacher@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/multimillion-dollar-trade-secret-verdict-reversed-by-federal-circuit-due-to-prior-disclosure-in-patents-and-self-evident-concepts-in-california-case
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
