by Gerald Sauer
We’ve all had our share of difficult bosses. Those who micromanage to death and those who pay no attention at all. The experts who lack basic communication skills and the sub-proficient who love interacting with employees.
But how do you determine when your boss is so difficult or stressful that you should look for ways to protect yourself?
Gerald Sauer on Law360 explains, “Puma is a different animal. It has deep pockets and could, if it chose to, fight the fight.”
Sauer continues that “[t]rade dress registration is based on an applicant’s claim that the ‘total image’ of its good or services is distinctive to that company,” and points out that Puma might be able to fight In-N-Out over the trade dress issue and argue “that there is no likelihood of confusion between lace-up sneakers and ‘Double-Double’ burgers.” Barring settlement, Sauer concludes that this case might lead to courts providing guidance on “intent” in trademark and trade dress law.
By Sonya Goodwin & Emily Burkhardt Vicente on April 3, 2019
California has long been considered one of the most – if not the most – protective states of employee rights. This continues to ring true, as the legislature has proposed another law aimed at prohibiting employers from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. In essence, Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), would prevent employers from requiring their employees to bring all employment related claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour claims, in arbitration instead of state or federal court.
If passed, AB 51 also would prohibit employers from threatening, retaliating against, discriminating against, or terminating an employee or refusing to hire a prospective employee who refuses to sign an arbitration agreement. While the law does provide that employees may voluntarily consent to enter into an arbitration agreement, arbitration agreements with “opt-out” provisions or any provision that requires the employee to take affirmative action to avoid waiving his/her right to civil court would also be prohibited under AB 51. If passed, any violation of this law would constitute an unlawful employment practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The proposed bill also allows for injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
Read the rest at Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives
by Gerald Sauer
A hodge-podge: That’s the current U.S. data privacy regime. Long after the EU, Canada, and most other developed nations — as well as many states — have enacted strong regulatory frameworks for handling consumer data, the folks in D.C. are finally ready to take the issue seriously. It’s about time. Headlines about Cambridge Analytica, Uber, Google, Equifax and others have exposed the dark underbelly of data privacy.
Read full story on DailyJournal.com (subscription required)
by Gerald Sauer
When could a row of palm trees result in a legal dispute? When they appear on the shoelaces of a new line of sneakers that aims to capture the laid-backCalifornia coastal vibe.Footwear giant Puma North America Inc. recently introduced a $120 red, yellow and white sneaker dubbed the “Cali-0 Drive Thru” shoe. On its website, Puma describes the shoe as inspired by the essence of the California lifestyle: “The Cali Drive Thru pays homage to this classic style and an essential part of the Cali lifestyle: its burger diners.”
Read full story on Law360
