The Second Circuit upheld Tom Brady’s suspension for the first four games of the new season and overturned the district court’s ruling.  The court ruled the arbitrator’s award was valid and should not be disturbed.

Judge Parker, writing for the majority, stated, “Our role is not to determine for ourselves whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the Commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator’s procedural rulings.”  He continued, “Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act.”

Courts are loathe to upend an arbitrator’s decision, unless for example, there was some type of fraud or corruption on the part of the arbitrator. The parties agree by contract to arbitration in lieu of bringing their case to court.

Brady can appeal to the entire Second Circuit (en banc) and to the United States Supreme Court, however, his chances either take the case are slim.

The opinion can be found here: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/98c62698-d29a-4b91-98a0-5a5af0c19e88/1/doc/15-2801_complete_opn.pdf

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Uber is considering leaving the state of New Jersey if a proposed bill passes. This proposed bill’s main objective is to implement tough regulations regarding commercial insurance.  There is currently an ongoing debate whether there is a gap in the insurance coverage of Uber drivers. Insurance industry experts and New Jersey law makers argue that Uber’s operations are not covered sufficiently. Currently Uber’s commercial coverage, which it buys for its drivers, kicks-in the moment the driver accepts a ride request. Lawmakers want to change this and require that the insurance is in place from the point which the driver logs onto the Uber Application. They argue that there is commercial benefit whilst the driver is waiting for someone to request a ride.

Furthermore, lawmakers assert that the personal insurance cover of the driver often does not cover any incident that occurs if the driver is logged-on to the application. They argue that it is vital that the driver is insured between the time that he logs-on and the time he or she gets a ride request. Uber disagrees.

Uber states that more often than not, personal insurance will pay for any incident that occurs between the time the driver logs-on and waits for a ride. Uber furthermore states that they have insurance in place in the event that the personal coverage of the driver does not pay. If this is true, one would not know at this stage. Uber does however claim that “rides on the platform, beginning to end, from when the driver turns on the app to when they drop a person off is insured. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect” (Mohrer). Christine O’Brien, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, states that “It is clear under New Jersey law that people who engage as an UberX driver are not covered by their private passenger auto policy. That is a very clear conclusion.”

I believe the problem here is to find out what the actual truth is. We need to determine whether these drivers are sufficiently covered or not. If not, then extra commercial insurance would most definitely be needed. If Uber claims that they provide insurance for the time frame in controversy, then they should provide proof of this insurance.

I understand that law makers are only trying to protect the common citizen, however, I also understand Uber’s argument that the proposed law is burdensome. Uber claims that the level of coverage proposed is higher than that of what is expected from taxi operators. Furthermore, Uber states that four states, including Washington D.C., have passed transport network regulation, and that these regulations are not nearly as burdensome as those proposed in New Jersey.

Uber is many people’s livelihood, and I understand their frustration as it can easily be seen as a vendetta against Uber drivers. New Jersey lawmakers should take into consideration what other states have done and see how they can accommodate both parties.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.”  However, this may not be correct.

“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”

Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.

The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.

Posted by Ashley Torres.

In July of 2012, Marissa Mayer became both the President and Chief Executive Officer of Yahoo!. During her time within the company, she has found herself involved in many lawsuits, and is yet hit with another. Recently, in the San Jose District, a former media executive known as Scott Ard filed the lawsuit against Mayer. He is accusing her of running a campaign that discriminates against male employees, specifically. His reason behind this alleged accusation includes Mayer’s implemented “use of the employee performance rating system to accommodate management’s subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees.” Mayar states the employee performance rate system has improved their overall performance, but Ard believes he was fired not because of his performance, but because of his gender.

Besides just accusing Mayer, Kathy Savitt, former chief marketing office, and Megan Liberman, editor in chief, are also involved in the lawsuit for discriminating against men. As evidence of this accusation, the lawsuit alleges that 14 of the 16 senior-level editorial employees were female whom were purposely hired by Savitt, while firing men because of their gender.

In February of 2016, there was another filed lawsuit with similar accusations. A former employee by the name of Gregory Anderson was fired, while he attended a fellowship at the University of Michigan. Anderson too believed that he was fired because of his gender and not his performance because when he asked to view his documentations with his performance that supposedly resulted in his termination, Anderson was denied. Both Anderson and Ard are represented by the same attorney, Jon Parsons, in which he declined in making any comments.

Ashley is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Natalie Kenny.

Amazon just received a major success in a lawsuit against them. Amazon was being sued over a book sold on their website. This book was based on New England Patriots star, Rob Gronkowski. Greg McKenna, a middle-aged man, took up the pen-name Lacey Noonan and wrote a book called A Gronking to Remember. This book gained a lot of media attention and was even featured on the show Jimmy Kimmel Live. On the cover of the book, there is a photo of a couple. McKenna used this photo on the cover but did not legally obtain the rights to use the photo.

The couple shown in the photo sued Amazon for selling the book with the illegally obtained photo of the couple. The question of the lawsuit was whether or not third-parties like Amazon should be responsible for what their users distribute using their platform. After hearing the case, an Ohio district court judge said that Amazon is not responsible for what its users distribute using their website. The judge cited the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This rule goes the same for Amazon and Barnes & Noble when selling books.

I think that the decision made in this case to side with Amazon was the right decision to be made. Amazon and other book sellers should not have to check every single thing that is sold to make sure that there are not copyright issues. The person who should be getting sued in this particular case should have been Greg McKenna–the one who used the picture without permission. It was wrong of him to use this photo without permission but it should not be Amazon’s responsibility to make sure that whoever is selling products through their platform is doing everything they are supposed to be doing.

Natalie is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Katherine Gurski.

The Supreme Court had spent an hour debating when a design of clothing becomes eligible to be copyrighted, and this issue is particularly a problem in the cheerleading uniform industry. Varsity Brands Inc., which is a leading producer of cheerleader uniforms, claims that its designs are unique and original to the uniforms. The company sued another leading manufacturer, Star Athletica, for copyright infringement back in 2010. Star Athletica responded by claiming that the striped and zigzag designs were signals to the public that those wearing the uniforms were cheerleaders. Star Athletica accused Varsity of “improperly seeking a century-long copyright monopoly on cheerleader-uniform designs” (Kendall).

Chief Justice John Roberts responded to this argument by giving an example and comparing the issue at hand to a lunchbox. Roberts stated, “The design on a lunchbox doesn’t make the lunchbox a lunchbox. It’s still a lunchbox. But the design on a cheerleading uniform is what makes it a cheerleading uniform, as opposed to a plain dress.” However, from another perspective, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg believed the designs to just be “two-dimensional artwork.” The designs are not crucial to the uniforms because they are simply printed on.

Fashion designers support Varsity Brands by stating that copyrights protect creativity. On the other hand, library associations and costume hobbyists support Star by stating that copyrighting extensively for just the appearance of an item could potentially harm creativity and put a limit to expression.

There is no ruling to the issue yet, and one will be expected by the end of June; but a few justices have commented on the potentially lasting consequences that the case could result in. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “If suddenly in this case we say that dresses are copyrightable, and they are because every one of them has some design, perhaps we’ll double the price of women’s clothes.” Justice Sotomayor also commented on the consequences by stating, “We are now going to use copyright law to kill the knockoff industry.”

Katherine is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.”  However, this may not be correct.

“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”

Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.

The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.

Posted by Ivanna Klics.

There has been quite a ruckus at Wells Fargo as they made headlines for causing fraudulent transactions that have not been authorized by the customers themselves. Wells Fargo is being accused for creating banking and credit card accounts without the permission of its customers. Who are the customers more to blame then the CEO, John Stumpf; however, in his defense, he is not capable of overlooking every branch in the bank. Stumpf’s leaders have not only stepped out of their comfort in the company but the reputation of the company, as well as opening up the door to a criminal investigation case.

The investigation has put the company to shame. Stumpf appears to be clueless of what has been going on literally right under his nose. Because it is almost impossible for these events to occur overnight, management should have known about it for a long time. Whether Stumpf admits it or not, Charles Gasparino stated “he and the bank will still face numerous civil and criminal inquiries for years to come.”

Although the company does not mean all harm, Wells Fargo is still one of the most profitable banks worldwide; however the company’s perception has had a dramatic change. Currently the company is facing a congressional investigation, and who knows if they will be able to build back their reputation.

Ivanna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Uber is considering leaving the state of New Jersey if a proposed bill passes. This proposed bill’s main objective is to implement tough regulations regarding commercial insurance.  There is currently an ongoing debate whether there is a gap in the insurance coverage of Uber drivers. Insurance industry experts and New Jersey law makers argue that Uber’s operations are not covered sufficiently. Currently Uber’s commercial coverage, which it buys for its drivers, kicks-in the moment the driver accepts a ride request. Lawmakers want to change this and require that the insurance is in place from the point which the driver logs onto the Uber Application. They argue that there is commercial benefit whilst the driver is waiting for someone to request a ride.

Furthermore, lawmakers assert that the personal insurance cover of the driver often does not cover any incident that occurs if the driver is logged-on to the application. They argue that it is vital that the driver is insured between the time that he logs-on and the time he or she gets a ride request. Uber disagrees.

Uber states that more often than not, personal insurance will pay for any incident that occurs between the time the driver logs-on and waits for a ride. Uber furthermore states that they have insurance in place in the event that the personal coverage of the driver does not pay. If this is true, one would not know at this stage. Uber does however claim that “rides on the platform, beginning to end, from when the driver turns on the app to when they drop a person off is insured. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect” (Mohrer). Christine O’Brien, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, states that “It is clear under New Jersey law that people who engage as an UberX driver are not covered by their private passenger auto policy. That is a very clear conclusion.”

I believe the problem here is to find out what the actual truth is. We need to determine whether these drivers are sufficiently covered or not. If not, then extra commercial insurance would most definitely be needed. If Uber claims that they provide insurance for the time frame in controversy, then they should provide proof of this insurance.

I understand that law makers are only trying to protect the common citizen, however, I also understand Uber’s argument that the proposed law is burdensome. Uber claims that the level of coverage proposed is higher than that of what is expected from taxi operators. Furthermore, Uber states that four states, including Washington D.C., have passed transport network regulation, and that these regulations are not nearly as burdensome as those proposed in New Jersey.

Uber is many people’s livelihood, and I understand their frustration as it can easily be seen as a vendetta against Uber drivers. New Jersey lawmakers should take into consideration what other states have done and see how they can accommodate both parties.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Uber is considering leaving the state of New Jersey if a proposed bill passes. This proposed bill’s main objective is to implement tough regulations regarding commercial insurance.  There is currently an ongoing debate whether there is a gap in the insurance coverage of Uber drivers. Insurance industry experts and New Jersey law makers argue that Uber’s operations are not covered sufficiently. Currently Uber’s commercial coverage, which it buys for its drivers, kicks-in the moment the driver accepts a ride request. Lawmakers want to change this and require that the insurance is in place from the point which the driver logs onto the Uber Application. They argue that there is commercial benefit whilst the driver is waiting for someone to request a ride.

Furthermore, lawmakers assert that the personal insurance cover of the driver often does not cover any incident that occurs if the driver is logged-on to the application. They argue that it is vital that the driver is insured between the time that he logs-on and the time he or she gets a ride request. Uber disagrees.

Uber states that more often than not, personal insurance will pay for any incident that occurs between the time the driver logs-on and waits for a ride. Uber furthermore states that they have insurance in place in the event that the personal coverage of the driver does not pay. If this is true, one would not know at this stage. Uber does however claim that “rides on the platform, beginning to end, from when the driver turns on the app to when they drop a person off is insured. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect” (Mohrer). Christine O’Brien, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, states that “It is clear under New Jersey law that people who engage as an UberX driver are not covered by their private passenger auto policy. That is a very clear conclusion.”

I believe the problem here is to find out what the actual truth is. We need to determine whether these drivers are sufficiently covered or not. If not, then extra commercial insurance would most definitely be needed. If Uber claims that they provide insurance for the time frame in controversy, then they should provide proof of this insurance.

I understand that law makers are only trying to protect the common citizen, however, I also understand Uber’s argument that the proposed law is burdensome. Uber claims that the level of coverage proposed is higher than that of what is expected from taxi operators. Furthermore, Uber states that four states, including Washington D.C., have passed transport network regulation, and that these regulations are not nearly as burdensome as those proposed in New Jersey.

Uber is many people’s livelihood, and I understand their frustration as it can easily be seen as a vendetta against Uber drivers. New Jersey lawmakers should take into consideration what other states have done and see how they can accommodate both parties.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

In a Fortune interview, Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, indicated he may replace Fed chief, Janet Yellen, although it appears he likes it when interest rates are low. Speaking from a business standpoint, he would be correct. On the other hand, he acknowledges that low rates are not good for savings accounts, “The problem with low interest rates is that it’s unfair that people who’ve saved every penny, paid off mortgages, and everything they were supposed to do and they were going to retire with their beautiful nest egg and now they’re getting one-eighth of 1%,” says Trump. “I think that’s unfair to those people.”

Trump is in favor of taking power away from the Fed and have more Congressional oversight.