To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The Department of Justice s Civil Rights Division released a
March 26, 2021 memorandum explaining the
Division s position that Title IX prohibits discrimination on
the basis of transgender and sexual orientation status. In so
concluding, the Division seeks to expand to Title IX the U.S.
Supreme Court s decision in
Bostock v. Clayton
Cnty., which held that Title VII s definition of sex prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity in the employment context.
The Division characterizes its advice as a supposed starting point for federal agencies. But it is
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
A recent lawsuit filed by Twitter against Texas AG
Ken Paxton claims that an investigation into the company s
internal content moderation policies violates the First
Amendment.
On January 13, Paxton issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to
Twitter seeking information related to the company s policies
and procedures for content moderation. In addition to requesting
all versions of Twitter s terms of use, terms of service, and
policies and procedures related to content moderation since 2017,
the CID directs the company to produce all communications regarding
the social media platform Parler. This last request includes both
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The recent decided case of
Duplessis Buick-GMC Truck,
Inc. v. Chauncey offers Louisiana employers a powerful
cause of action against highly trusted former employees for breach
of fiduciary duty one that is akin to an action to enforce
noncompete agreements or trade secret laws but without statutory
constraints.
Fiduciary duty is the highest duty known to the law. In
Louisiana, employees ordinarily have a duty of loyalty to their
current or former employers, but they do not have a fiduciary duty
to their employers. Certain relationships, however, impose
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
This week, we take a look at one decision considering when
California law requires application of California s statute of
limitations, and another reiterating the strict standard for
pleading scienter in a securities fraud case.
The Court holds that under California choice-of-law
principles, California s statute of limitations applies when a
state resident is sued in California and the conflicting
out-of-state law is not intended to protect plaintiffs.
Panel: Judges Wardlaw, Bea, and
Caine, Jr. (W.D. La.), with Judge Bea writing the opinion.
Key highlight: Both
In the recent decision of
Blackmon v. O3 Insight,
Inc., C.A. No. 2020-1014-SG (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2021), the
Delaware Court of Chancery held that the arbitrability of a
Delaware director s claim for advancement must be determined by
an arbitrator.
The Petitioner, Theodore Blackmon, is a director and stockholder
of respondent O3 Insight, Inc. (the Company ), a
Delaware corporation. In September of 2020, the Company sued
Blackmon in Alabama alleging breach of his fiduciary duty to the
Company. The Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Company
provide for advancement following tender of an undertaking to
repay.
Blackmon filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery