The NLRB's update for this week includes 5 cases:

Post-Tribune Co. dismisses a complaint against a company for unilaterally increasing the dollar amount of health ins. premiums that employees had to pay; the Board said that there was a past practice of such increases whenever premiums went up (keeping the employees' percentage share of the premium constant, as the dollar amount went up), so this instance was lawful even without bargaining with the union about it.

Agar Supply is about whether an employee was eligible to vote in the election, where he was out on sick leave. The answer is "yes" under prevailing precedent (Red Arrow), says the Board; but one recess-appointee Member indicates that this precedent should be overruled. Remember, again, how lawless management said it was when the "Clinton Board" overruled precedents?

Coinmach Laundry rejects an effort to show that a union couldn't be certified to represent employees on the grounds that some union officials had criminal records. Good decision (though all we have to go on is the Board's description on its website – the case itself isn't online) – though again one Member would like to overrule the long-standing precedent to this effect. The case is made all the more remarkable, if I'm reading correctly, by the fact that the Teamsters were the one trying to get the pro-union precedent overruled, to the detriment of a rival union.

Finally, in two cases here and here, IBEW Local 98 was slammed by the Board in broad orders in jurisdictional disputes.

NLRB Only two cases in this week's update. Goodless Electric obeys the First Circuit's mandate to dismiss the case; and St. Edmund's High School declines to assert jurisdiction over a unit of maintenance employees at a church-operated Catholic school.

Eleventh Circuit The following cases have been issued by the Eleventh Circuit since last update:

Hope v. Pelzer (not in Findlaw), without any substantive discussion, accedes to the Supreme Court's reversal of the Eleventh Circuit's former decision in this case (the qualified immunity case about the hitching post, remember). Likewise, in Grady v. Haley, the Court summarily rejects qualified immunity in a bunch of other cases that apparently also had to do with the hitching post, based on Hope. It's amazing to me that the Eleventh Circuit still hasn't spoken substantively about what the Supreme Court's decision does to the Circuit's longstanding strict qualified immunity jurisprudence. Soon enough, Judge Edmondson will issue an opinion on this; just wait.

US v. Edgar affirms the convictions and sentences of officers of a hospital who took money from the hospital. The only substantial discussion is of 18 U.S.C. 666, regarding theft from an entity receiving government funds. The Court holds, inter alia, that the Congress does have the power to enact criminal legislation under the Spending Clause, in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Cumulus Media v. Clear Channel affirms a trademark-infringement preliminary injunction against Clear Channel. Clear Channel wanted to call its radio station "The Breeze," but the plaintiff had already used that name for a radio station in the market and the District Court found that plaintiff had not abandoned the name. It's appalling to me, as a music snob, that people would fight over such an awful nickname for a radio station with an awful format.

Arriaga v. Fla. Pacific Farms rules (for the most part) in favor of migrant farmworkers against their employer, holding that the employer was required to pay for various things (visas, travel from their homes in Mexico to Florida, etc.) under DOL regulations under the FLSA, and under the workers' contracts with the employer. The basic point is that (in the Court's words) "Workers must be reimbursed during the first workweek for pre-employment expenses which primarily benefit the employer, to the point that wages are at least equivalent to the minimum wage." The opinion includes a great deal of discussion that may be useful in other FLSA cases outside the farm-work context, in determining what expenses the employer must pay for.

Univ. Commons v. Universal vacates a decision confirming an arbitrator's award, and remands for discovery and an evidentiary hearing on whether the arbitrator was impartial. The Court holds that the party seeking to vacate the award had sufficient evidence to warrant such a hearing, where (among other things) there were apparently extensive contacts in other matters (including one ongoing matter) between one of the arbitrators and counsel for one of the parties to the arbitration, and the arbitrator had not sufficiently disclosed those facts.

Hyman v. Nationwide holds that a judgment for violation of the Lanham Act was covered under a company's insurance policy.

In US v. Paul, Paul was convicted of crimes arising from the operation of a savings and loan. His contention on this appeal was that the resulting forfeiture of a "Winstar" claim that he had against the U.S. Government in the Court of Claims was an excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment, because that claim was so valuable. He loses, because during the pendency of the appeal the Court of Claims had rejected his Winstar claim, so the claim wasn't worth anything, so (says the Eleventh Circuit) ipso facto its forfeiture wasn't excessive.

Balogun v. Attorney Gen'l dismisses the appeal of a deportation order, for lack of jurisdiction, where there is (the Court says) no substantial constitutional issue and where he was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.

Maharaj v. Dept of Corrections holds that a federal habeas claim was premature – and therefore properly dismissed without prejudice – where resentencing in the state court on one of his convictions had not yet occurred.

Pharmaceutical Research v. Meadows upholds – against an attack by the pharmaceutical industry – a State of Florida program that attempts to reduce Medicaid prescription costs by trying to convince docs to prescribe less expensive drugs. Complicated Medicaid-statute stuff, not very exciting in its details.

Thostesen v. US holds that Thostesen, a corporate officer, was properly held liable for the company's failure to pay federal payroll taxes. The Court holds that the burden is on the government to prove that he was a "responsible person" for the taxes, and then the burden shift to him to prove a lack of willfulness. The Court also clarifies the law for each of those steps ("responsible person" and "willful"). Long story short: Thostesen doesn't succeed in putting the blame on his former, now-disappeared, business partner, even if that other guy was more at fault than he.