Attacking adverse authority: two threshold issues
Eric Voight at Lawyerist has advice on attacking adverse authority. The first thing to do is panic. Once you’ve got that out of the way, “determine two threshold issues: whether the authority is binding or merely persuasive and whether the facts are analogous to your situation.” If none of his ensuing suggestions work, Voight says, consider settling.
Justice Antonin Scalia famously called the Windsor case “argle-bargle” and predicted that it would lead to a striking of state laws on marriage equality. It has, says the New York Times and others, and soon “Scalia will have the chance to deliver the most vitriolic ‘I told you so’ in recent Supreme Court memory.” At Slate, it is reported that lower courts have considered equality based on sexual orientation 18 times since Windsor, and “equality has won every single time.” (Slate’s emphasis.)
Electrolux wants employees to toe the line
The humiliating treatment allegedly meted out by an employer over production line employees’ use of the restroom is discussed in Prince v. Electrolux, where … you can read it. Electrolux’ argues its competitiveness in the industry is dependent on employees not leaving the line, but it allegedly failed to, ahem, relieve the plaintiff. Judge Donovan Frank denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. Minnesota Litigator has the story here.