Nevada Complex Litigation

Will US Supreme Court Reconsider “Kelo” for Atlantic Yards?

Developer Bruce Ratner envisions a mixed use 22 acre $18 Billion project to include affordable housing and a professional sports arena in Brooklyn.  About a dozen residents within the proposed development area are asking the US Supreme Court to review their property rights lawsuit.

While the proposed "Atlantic Yards" development (photo at left) has received the support of New York Governor Pataki, the state Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, and the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, it prompted residents to file a lawsuit against Pataki to stop the lawsuit.

To date, the lawsuit has been dismissed by two federal courts. Attorney for the residents, Matthew Brinkerhoff has petitioned the US Supreme Court asking for a chance to prove their allegation that the Atlantic Yards project is more about a plan to benefit Bruce Ratner than to benefit the public.

Brinkerhoff’s petition also states that the project never received the approval of either the City Council or state Legislature.

Will the US Supreme Court revisit the 2005 Kelo decision which provides government entities the power to seize properties by eminent domain for use by private developers?

It is more likely that the Supreme Court will deny the residents petition and just let Kelo stand.  But only time will tell.  As shown below (Eminent Domain on California Ballot), forward thinking states are trying to strengthen the property owners’ rights which were weakened by the Kelo decision.

Eminent Domain on California Ballot

There are two eminent domain related propositions on the California Ballot in the upcoming election.  They are both being promoted as protection for California citizens against eminent domain abuse.  Many believe that the 2005 US Supreme Court “Kelo” decision allows governmental agencies too much freedom in eminent domain actions. 

California voters will have a chance to restore property owners’ rights to a degree by voting on Propositions 98 and 99 on the June ballot.  The biggest difference between them is that Prop 98 contains provisions to eliminate rent control in California in addition to eminent domain reform.

The State of California has a Legislative Analyst's Office which has prepared non partisan descriptions of both propositions and potential ramifications.  You may view them by clicking Proposition 98 and Proposition 99.

Since Nevada lawyers often cite California law when Nevada has no applicable law, these propositions might well have impact on future eminent domain proceedings in Nevada.

Additionally, here is an opinion piece about the abuse of eminent domain law in Missouri in which the author Timothy Sandefur illustrates the need for reform on a state level.

Lastly, here is an article by Ilya Somin an assistant professor of law at George Mason University, who questions why eminent domain/property owners’ rights are not issues in our current presidential campaign. He also suggests steps our next president could take to strengthen property owners’ rights.  Somin’s amicus brief in the Kelo case was cited by the Supreme Court in its opinion.

Manager Wins $2.2 Million FMLA Verdict Against Chase Manhattan

In a complicated case spanning 4 years of litigation, Nicholas Lore, a former manager with Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. who earned  $600,000 annually, was awarded $2.2 Million for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  With liquidated damages and pre-judgment interest added as mandated by the FMLA, the award could reach $7.6 Million.

The lawsuit hinged on the answers to many questions including:

Did Lore qualify for leave under the FMLA?

Did Lore resign (as claimed by Chase) or was he terminated?

Did Lore steal and sell confidential Chase information (Trade Secrets), and if so to what degree was Chase damaged?

Did Chase bring the Trade Secrets counter claim to retaliate against Lore for filing the FMLA lawsuit?

Lore’s attorney summed up the jury verdict: "This case was really based on the credibility of the witnesses, so the case really came down to one question: Did my client pick up the phone and say 'I resign,' or was he fired by his boss? It's a credibility question," she said. "The jury did, in fact, believe our client and did not believe Chase's witnesses, and that's really something within the jury's discretion. It's not a legal question, it's a factual question."

The case is Lore v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., No. 1-04-cv-0204.

Judge Approves $24 Million Settlement in Walgreens Discrimination Lawsuit

In a fairness hearing this week, $20 Million was ordered split among 10,000 past and present Walgreen Company workers.  The remainder of the $24 Million will go towards fees and costs associated with the suit.

The lawsuit, filed against the national drugstore chain by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 2007, alleged that African-Americans were unfairly denied promotions or assigned to lower-performing stores.  The case was consolidated with a private class action case with 14 plaintiffs filed in 2005.

Walgreen Co. agreed to the settlement, while continuing to maintain its innocence. According to a released statement, "From the beginning, we denied all allegations. We do not tolerate discrimination in any aspect of employment."

Implementation of the non monetary aspects of the settlement began in July 2007 and will continue to be monitored by the EEOC.  Changes include extensive management training and oversight of Walgreens diversity and employment practices by outside consultants.

Currently, Walgreen Company reports that its African American store and district managers represent more than 17% of total employees in those positions, compared with the industry average of 9%. African American staff pharmacists at Walgreens account for 15% of those positions, compared with the industry average of 10%.

Walgreen is the nation’s largest drugstore chain. It has more than 6,000 stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico.  Last year their sales surpassed $47 Billion.