Business Litigation Report: March 2012

03/25/2012 / Business Litigation Department

 

 

In the March Issue:


Class Action Suit Dismissed Because EEOC Failed to Properly Investigate Before Suing
By Christopher Harristhal

 

On February 22, 2012, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an EEOC class suit because the EEOC had failed to investigate the claims of the class members before it sued in September 2007 and failed to offer the employer/defendant a chance to settle those claims through conciliation as required by Section 706 of Title VII.  EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited Inc. (8th Cir.  Feb. 22, 2012).  This case has potentially far-reaching implications for those employers facing an EEOC charge where the Commission fails to fully investigate the claims and come to a probable cause determination before suit.  To read more, click here.
 

 


California Courts Make Crucial Data Privacy Rulings
By Jay Reding
 

Data privacy has become an increasingly major concern for businesses in recent years, especially retailers.  Making the situation more difficult is that there is no unified law of consumer or employee privacy in the United States, putting the U.S. in a category with Turkey as the only countries without a unified privacy law.  Instead, the U.S. has a patchwork of state, federal, and even local rules and regulations.  It is estimated that there are at least 30 federal statutes and over 300 state statutes concerning data privacy in the United States.  For a business to navigate through this thicket requires understanding the interplay between all of these statutes—a daunting task for retailers and other businesses that deal with private consumer information.

  

Recent US Supreme Court Decision Seems to Spark Trend Narrowing Creditors’ Ability to Shield Itself from Liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

by L. Kathleen Harrell-Latham

 

The United States Supreme Court significantly narrowed the application of the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its ruling in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, et. al. In that case, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split amongst the circuits on whether a creditor attempting to collect a debt was entitled to claim the protection of the bona fide error defense under the FDCPA for an error resulting from misinterpretation of the law in lieu of a factual mistake. Since this decision was entered, courts considering application of the defense appear to be limiting its availability even further. This apparent trend is particularly important for all businesses and individuals considering their options and strategies when faced with collection of outstanding receivables in this economic climate. To read more, click here.
 

 


Business Litigation Department Attorneys:

Email 
952-896-3280
 


Kenneth

Corey-Edstrom

Email
952-896-3380

 

Richard J. "Jay" Reding

952-896-6704

 
John A. Kvinge
Email
952-896-1554

Email 
952-896-3340


Cynthia M. Klaus

Email
952-896-3392

 

 

L. Kathleen Harrell-Latham

Email
952-896-1544

 
Susan E. Tegt
Email
952-896-3325

Email 
952-896-3275 
 

 

Email
952-896-1572

 

 

Michael C. Jackman

Email
952-896-3374 

James A. Godwin
Email
952-896-6701

Email
952-896-3312

 

Email
952-896-3318

 

 

952-896-3353

Email 
952-896-3288

 
 

Lauris A. Heyerdahl
Email
952-896-1529 

 

Glenna L. Gilbert
Email
952-896-3283

This alert is provided as a service to our clients and firm associates. While the information provided in this publication is believed to be accurate, it is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice.