Med Mal News
February 09, 2004
A roundup of news items that may affect your practice.
Verdicts
February 09, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
<i>Voir Dire</i> of Expert Witnesses
February 09, 2004
<i>Voir dire</i>, or a preliminary cross-examination that takes place prior to the direct examination of an opposing expert's qualifications, is a useful, often under-appreciated, tool to preclude, limit, or discredit expert testimony. We addresses only evidentiary <i>voir dire</i> in this article, not <i>Daubert/Frye</i> hearings regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence.
A Word to the Wise
February 09, 2004
The employment-at-will doctrine is the bane of the plaintiffs' bar. Exceptions under New York law are rare and strictly construed against the employee. More than just a shield, the at-will doctrine has been a seeming impenetrable wall insulating employers from liability. Is there ever an instance where an employee can invoke the at-will doctrine for his or her benefit? Just ask Seth Brody.
Spam At Work Gets Another Look
February 09, 2004
In our August 2003 issue, Jay Waks and Joshua Abraham reviewed the issue of workplace spam in their article entitled "A New York Perspective on Workplace Spam." Messrs. Waks and Abraham addressed in detail the controversial California Supreme Court decision on the topic that held that an employer had failed to satisfy the harm element in a trespass to chattel action where its former employee "spammed" it with 175,000 emails. <i>Intel Corp. v. Hamidi</i>, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003). A New York trial court recently revisited the employee spam issue in the post-Intel landscape. <i>School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz</i>, Index No. 115172-03, (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 12/22/03) (Richter, J.). The court's ruling affirms the validity of the Waks-Abraham view of the state on New York law on the troubling topic of workplace spam.
Citigroup Executive Properly Denied Benefits
February 09, 2004
Citigroup properly exercised its discretion when it denied a terminated executive the right to exercise his unvested shares of stock, cancelled his unvested stock options, and denied benefits to him under its severance, deferred compensation, and supplemental executive retirement plans, rules Judge Naomi Buckwald in granting Citigroup's motion for summary judgment. <i>Welland v. Citigroup, Inc.</i>, 2003 WL 22973574 (S.D.N.Y. 12/17/03)
Update: Danger to Unsuccessful Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs
February 09, 2004
The September 2003 issue of <i>New York Employment Law & Practice</i> published my article entitled "Be Wary of Rule 54(d)'s Costs Provision," in which I discussed the award of costs to prevailing defendant employers in employment law cases. I observed that courts have often assessed substantial costs awards against even low-income plaintiffs whose employment law cases are dismissed or lost at trial, although there are arguments available to plaintiffs' counsel in some situations that can be used to minimize or eliminate such awards. A January 2004 decision on a costs motion by Eastern District of New York Judge Arthur D. Spatt reinforces several of the points made in the September article, and further dramatizes the dangers of potential costs awards to plaintiffs with marginal cases.
