In a lawsuit alleging COVID-related religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a former employee of MGM Grand Detroit was just awarded $133,000 by a jury in federal District Court in Michigan. As the prevailing party, the plaintiff will also be awarded attorneys’ fees, in an amount determined by the trial judge, that will likely be multiples of the actual monetary award. Yermenian had worked for MGM Grand for 22 years before his discharge.

The jury found that Yermenian had a sincerely held religious belief that the COVID vaccine was immoral and inconsistent with his theological beliefs as an Orthodox Apostolic Christian, because he believed its production was associated with the use of tissue from aborted fetuses.

The jury was not swayed by MGM Grand’s defense that it was unable to reasonably accommodate plaintiff, because permitting Yermenian to work around his co-workers and guests, potentially exposing them to the COVID contagion, would have posed an undue hardship under Title VII.

MGM Grand told the jury that, before...

A very recent California Court of appeal case hammered home the point that the state’s wage and hour laws, and how they are applied, are intentionally skewed in favor of employees—so much so that even provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure are bent to achieve that end.

In Chavez v. Cal. Collision, LLC, No. A167658 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2024), California’s First Appellate District overturned the trial court’s award of $54,000 in court costs to an employer defendant. The Court did so even though the award of costs would generally have been appropriate under section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Court costs do not include attorneys’ fees, but do include such expenses as filing fees, transcript costs, service of process costs, and expert witness fess.

Section 998 provides that a “plaintiff shall not recover his or her post-offer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer" if two requirements are met. First, the defendant must make an offer of compromise that the plaintiff does not accept. Second, the plaintiff also does not...

While many trade secret disputes can often be nipped in the bud with a stern and timely cease-and-desist letter coupled with diligent monitoring, a very recent federal district court case in Massachusetts illustrates the reality that companies can and will, nonetheless, misappropriate a competitor's trade secrets when they believe the information may be leveraged to generate enough revenue to warrant the legal risk.

Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11780 (D. Mass.) arose out of the departure of several employees from biotech company Insulet Corporation to joint South Korean-owned competitor, EOFlow Company. Several years later, Insulet was forced to protect its trade secret rights by suing EOFlow in federal court for misappropriating IP relating to Insulet's wearable insulin patch technology of which the former employees were aware.

The jury awarded Insulet $452 million in damages against EOFlow and its CEO, $282 million of which were punitive damages. It is believed to be the largest award in a trade secrets case in...