Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Falmouth – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court – Cert. Petition
NFIB Legal Center filed in this case, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to provide better guidance as to how lower courts should review regulatory takings claims. The amicus brief argues that the test pronounced in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York needs clarification, especially on the question of how courts should address the economic impact of regulation.
Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board – First Amendment/Labor
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
NFIB Small Business Legal Center filed a brief arguing that Massachusetts’ exclusive representation requirements violates the First Amendment.
Massachusetts River Alliance v. Pruitt – Regulatory Reform
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Section 705 of the Administrative Procedures Act authorizes federal agencies to stay enforcement of a rule that have not yet gone into effect where it remains subject to legal action. But in this case environmental activists argued that the Environmental Protection Agency must effectively satisfy the stringent standard for which a court reviews a preliminary injunction before issuing a stay. The NFIB Legal Center filed an amicus brief arguing that EPA should be allowed to delay rules subject to litigation without having to prove that those rules are likely to be struck-down in a court of law because Congress intended Section 705 to give flexibility.
Barbuto v. Advantage Sales, Inc. – Employment (Medical Marijuana)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The NFIB Legal Center filed an amicus brief supporting an employer’s right to maintain a drug free workplace and terminate an employee who tested positive for marijuana. NFIB argued that there was no obligation under state law to accommodate such medicinal marijuana use and pointed to federal precedent holding that disability discrimination does not extend to medical marijuana use because such use remains illegal under federal law.
Universal Health Services v. United States – Regulatory Reform
U.S. Supreme Court
Congress passed the False Claims Act to discourage fraud in government contracting. The FCA authorizes private parties to initiate suit and to collect treble damages when a government contractor is found to have committed fraud. But plaintiffs’ attorneys have aggressively sought to expand the reach of the FCA. Now some courts hold that businesses may be sued under the FCA for minor regulatory violations on the theory that when engaged in business with the federal government they’ve made a fraudulent affirmation that they’ve complied with all relevant laws. But this contorts the law Congress passed. As we argued in a coalition brief to the Supreme Court, Congress did not intend for the FCA to authorize suit over minor regulatory violations.
D’Agostino v. Patrick – Labor
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
This case asks whether a state may compel home care workers to join a union against their will by classifying these workers as public employees. NFIB’s amicus brief argued that—in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn-the state’s attempt to compel unionization is inappropriate because Harris makes clear a state cannot simply pronounce workers “public employees.”
Lawson v. FMR – Sarbanes-Oxley Application to Privately-Held Companies
(originated in Massachusetts)
U.S. Supreme Court
In this case the Supreme Court will have to decide whether an employee of a privately held contractor or subcontractor of a public company is protected from retaliation by Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. NFIB’s amicus brief argues that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was never intended to apply to privately held companies and that imposing the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections on private companies would add unbearable costs and regulations to small businesses.
Lalli v. GNC – Employment
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
NFIB’s amicus brief argues that when an employer pays an employee a fixed salary for variable hours (a fluctuating workweek), the employer is also permitted to pay the employee a bonus (whether based on hours, performance, or any other metric), and to calculate overtime based on the “wages divided by hours equals regular rate.”
~
If you have a case that impacts small business, please contact us at: 1-800-552-NFIB as we are actively looking for opportunities to weigh in on important issues in this state. NFIB Small Business Legal Center is involved in many cases that impact this state and others; to see our complete list of Supreme Court cases click on Washington, DC on the interactive map.
Thank You
