Legislative & Judicial Updates

Proposed House bill 4727 would create a so-called “national hiring standard” for motor carriers which would preclude states from imposing liability on anyone arranging for transportation of goods, i.e. transportation intermediaries such as shippers, brokers and freight forwarders. The bill requires that no more than 35 days prior to pickup of an arranged shipment, such entities verify that a selected carrier: (1) is registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to operate as a motor carrier or household goods carrier; (2) has the minimum insurance coverage required by Federal regulation and (3) does not have an unsatisfactory safety rating issued by FMCSA in force at the time of the verification.

In a split decision announced earlier today (Utility Air Regulatory Group v.  Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1146, slip op. (June 23, 2014)) the United States Supreme Court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority in requiring sources of air pollution to comply with the Clean Air Act’s prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V major source permitting programs solely because of a source’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Further, the Court held that EPA is permitted to include greenhouse gas emissions in determining best available control technology (BACT) for sources that would be subject to PSD on the basis of emissions other than greenhouse gas emissions is a permissible interpretation of the Act.

While pressure mounts for the FAA to issue regulations to incorporate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into national airspace systems and the challenges to the FAA’s current positions on UAS are in judicial limbo [see Commercial Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems? Are they legal? and FAA Faces Recent Challenges Over Restrictions on Operation of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)] the FAA continues to move forward with the mandates set forth in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

In its 1984 decision in Hansome, the Missouri Supreme Court required an “exclusive causal connection” between the employee’s exercise of rights under the workers’ compensation statute and the adverse action the employee challenged.  No more.  Today, the Missouri Supreme Court swept Hansome aside and concluded the employee need only show that his exercise of rights under the workers’ compensation statute was a “contributing factor” to the adverse action. 

Yesterday a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held the Conflict Minerals Rules’ requirement that a company that issues stock disclose if its products are not “DRC conflict free” violated the First Amendment.

In an effort to de-finance parties engaged in violence and human-rights abuses related to the extraction of gold, tantalum, tin, and tungsten—so-called “conflict minerals”—from Democratic Republic of the Congo, Congress, through rules promulgated by the Securities Exchange Commission, required companies to disclose not “DRC conflict free” in reports filed with the SEC and on the company’s website if they determine upon due diligence that their products contain such minerals.  On appeal of the district court’s ruling in National Association of Manufacturers v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n upholding the law, the Association challenged the SEC’s disclosure requirement as unconstitutionally compelling speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Buck, which revolves around whether activities are “integral and indispensable” (and so compensable) or “preliminary or postliminary” (and so not). Integrity Staffing provides warehouse workers on a contract basis to its clients. The employees in question filled orders for retail goods.

Corporations conducting internal investigations need to be wary that information learned and materials generated in the course of these investigations may later fall into the hands of adversaries in litigation.

A recent decision by a federal district court, United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., 4 F.Supp.3d 161 (D.D.C., 2014)., demonstrates this pitfall.

The U.S. Supreme Court extended the whistle-blower protections provided in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to include employees of privately held companies that are contractors or subcontractors of a public company.  The high court’s ruling in Lawson v. FMR LLC, marks a significant expansion of the statute and opens the door for claims of a new class of workers from roughly 5,000 public companies to potentially 6 million private ones, including even the smallest “Mom and Pop” businesses.

On July 29, 2006 a De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter departed the Sullivan, Missouri Regional Airport on a local skydiving flight.  Shortly after liftoff the right engine failed, the aircraft lost altitude, and crashed about ½ mile beyond the end of the runway. All on board died.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the right engine turbine blades failed but could not determine the cause of the failure.