The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Carter v. Entercom Sacramento, LLC - Third District Court of Appeal, CA Facts :  As a result of drinking too much water during a radio contest, a woman died.  Her family sued the company that owned the radio station, Entercom, and Matt Carter, an Entercom employee who helped conduct the contest.  Entercom offered to provide legal counsel to Carter, but Carter chose to hire his own attorney and refused the attorney offered by the company's insurance carrier.  When the insurer refused to pay for the attorney Carter had selected, Carter cross-complained against Entercom, seeking indemnity under California Labor Code § 2802 for the fees and costs he incurred by paying the attorney he had selected.  The trial court held that none of the fees and costs that Carter had incurred after the insurer appointed an attorney to represent him in the suit were necessary expenditures.  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. Holding :  The Court held that Carter did not have an absol

Kaplan v. Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc. - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Plaintiffs were enrolled as students in MedVance Institute's Medical Billing and Coding Specialist program.  To graduate, MedVance required all students complete an externship program.  Plaintiffs completed their externship at Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc., Magnetic Medical Management, Inc., and East Florida Eye Institute, P.A.   Plaintiffs did not expect nor receive payment for the work they performed. After completing their externships, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for work performed during their externship.  Plaintiffs argued they received very little educational benefit from their externships and instead had conferred economic benefit on Defendants.  As a result, Plaintiffs alleged they were "employees" under the FLSA and were entitled to minimum wage. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for

Roberts v. IBM - Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts : George Roberts worked for IBM and was subsequently fired after a few years at the company and a history of poor work performance.  Notwithstanding the history of poor work performance, Roberts brought an age discrimination claim against IBM and focused on two instances:  1) an instant message between Human Resources managers that talked about Roberts's "shelf life" and 2) the name of IBM's program used to eliminate positions that were not cost effective, labeled "Project Blue."  Roberts argued that the discussion of his "shelf life" was a reference to his age and that the name of IBM's "Project Blue" constituted direct evidence of age discrimination, given that "blue" often referred to older people with blue hair.  The District Court granted summary judgment for IBM. Holding :  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Roberts could not succeed

Purton v. Marriott International, Inc. - Fourth District Court of Appeal, CA Facts :  An employee of defendant consumed alcoholic beverages before and during an annual holiday party hosted by defendant.  The employee consumed hard liquor, some of which was provided by the bartender at the holiday party.  After the party was over, the employee left (a dispute exists as to whether the employee drove home with others or was only a passenger in the car).  After arriving safely at home, the employee decided to drive a coworker home that had become too intoxicated.  In doing so, the employee struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared Purton and killed him.  Plaintiff's parents brought suit against defendant and others.  The basis of this case centers on the claim that defendant was liable for the death, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not liable as the accident did not occur within the scope of the employee'