The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“MASJC”) heard oral argument on December 8, 2021 in a case of substantial importance to franchise owners. 

On December 7, 2021, U.S. District Judge R. Stan Baker issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration, preventing any further acts to enforce Executive Order 14042 (“EO 14042” or “Mandate”) and the associated Safer Federal Workforce Task Force Guidance, the Executive Order requiring most workers on federal contracts to be vaccinated, pending further action from the Court. The case, Georgia v. Biden, was brought by the states of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia (the “States”), along with several state agencies and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

On November 30, 2021, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana placed a nationwide preliminary injunction on the enforcement and implementation of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) COVID-19 vaccination mandate applicable to healthcare workers (“CMS Vaccine Mandate” or “Mandate”).

President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates are being attacked on multiple fronts and have suffered significant setbacks in the past two weeks.  Courts in multiple jurisdictions have issued preliminary injunctions halting vaccine mandates that the Biden Administration has imposed on private employers, health care workers, and government contractors.

As reported earlier, O’Hagan Meyer, led by lawyers Jim Cosby and Brandon Sieg, represented Gemstone Solutions Group, Inc. (f/k/a Gymboree Group, Inc.), certain officers and reorganization consultants, and six corporate affiliates, in claims brought against them by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas. Deutsche Bank appealed the dismissal of its claims to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on June 22, 2020. After briefing by the parties on appeal, the U.S. District Court, Judge Hannah Lauck, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of all claims, by 22 page Memorandum Opinion published August 16, 2021.

On November 4, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued the long-awaited emergency temporary standard (“ETS”), which provides a roadmap to the Biden Administration’s private sector vaccine mandate.  Specifically, the ETS requires large employers—those with 100 or more employees— to either mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their employees or require COVID-19 vaccinations along with an option for unvaccinated employees to receive weekly testing and wear a mask in lieu of being vaccinated. 

O’Hagan Meyer is expanding its Labor & Employment and Commercial & Business Litigation practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware with the addition of new partners Jackie Gallagher and Kevin Golden, senior associate Michon Crawford and legal assistant Amy Haag in our Philadelphia office and with Of Counsel Steve Dargitz joining our Wilmington, Delaware office.

California trade secret litigators are familiar with the requirement that plaintiffs alleging trade secret misappropriation must identify the alleged trade secrets with particularity before discovery begins. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently applied the identification requirement to a case which did not arise under the CUTSA.

O’Hagan Meyer is proud to join midsize law firms across the country in an important effort to diversify law firm leadership. The Mansfield Rule, modeled after the NFL’s “Rooney Rule”, is named after Arabella Mansfield, the first woman admitted to the practice of law in the United States. The program, administered by Diversity Lab, seeks to measurably increase diversity among candidates considered for growth opportunities.  

On September 29, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ Petition for Leave to Appeal.  Previously, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court of Cook County’s decision granting summary judgment for the Defendant on all claims in a highly contested class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs were seeking damages in excess of $25 Million against a Chicagoland Senior Living Community for alleged fraud, breach of contract, and breach of the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act and the Security Deposit Return Act.