Atlanta Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Another interesting case has come out of the world of professional sports which is surely to interest breach of contract attorneys, employment lawyers and sports and entertainment professionals in Atlanta and beyond. The case involving the Pittsburg Steelers running back, Rashard Mendenhall, tackles on issues such as free speech, so-called "morality clauses" in contracts and the role that corporate sponsorship plays in shaping the world of professional athletics. If you or your Atlanta business are in need of an Atlanta employment lawyer, Atlanta breach of contract attorney or Atlanta business litigation attorney, The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with legal advice regarding your business needs, including breach of contract and related matters.

In July 2011, Mendenhall sued Hanesbrands, Inc. for terminating his seven-figure endorsement contract to promote Champion Sportswear. Hanesbrands took this action after Mendenhall sent a series of politically charged tweets including one after 9-11 and another after Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Special Forces troops. In that tweet, Mendenhall chastised those who celebrated bin Laden's death, asking how people can hate a man they have never heard speak. Public outrage over this and other controversial comments by Mendenhall caused Hanesbrands to quickly pull the trigger on Mendenhall's endorsement deal, cited the "morality clause" in his contract. Mendenhall sued. At the initial stages of the case, the United States District Judge in North Carolina ruled that Hanesbrands owed Mendenhall a duty of good faith and fair dealing not to act arbitrarily or unreasonable in exercising its discretion to invoke the morality clause and terminate the contract. So the case proceeded through discovery with an eye toward trial centered largely around this issue of Hanesbrands conduct and its decision-making process.

To that end, Mendenhall's attorney came forward with novel evidence involving a famous actor to show Hanesbrands' conduct toward Mendenhall was arbitrary. Specifically, Mendenhall's legal team argued that Hanesbrands actually hired actor Charlie Sheen, after he had made similar comments and despite a whirlwind of questionable comments and conduct by Sheen. For example, Sheen was quoted as saying in an interview that "it seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets feels like a conspiracy theory." Thus, Mendenhall sought to show that Hanesbrands treated him in a disparate manner when compared to its conduct toward Sheen.

Continue reading "National Football League Player Settles Breach of Contract Lawsuit With His Former Corporate Sponsor" »

As an Atlanta, Georgia employment litigation attorney and Atlanta non-compete lawyer, I am always looking for new cases discussing employment law and litigation. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which governs federal appeals cases in states such as Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Oklahoma and Wyoming recently demonstrated the common burdens of proof needed to establish a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and provides a good discussion piece. If you or your Atlanta small business are in need of an Atlanta employment defense attorney, or Atlanta small business attorney contact a Georgia attorney to assist you. The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with legal advice regarding your business needs, including defense of employment related matters.

In Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., Plaintiff Willie Barlow filed suit alleging that Defendant C.R. England, Inc. ("C.R. England") wrongfully discharged him on the basis of his African-American race and in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. He also claimed that he was not paid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Barlow had previously worked for C.R. England as both a security guard and janitor in Colorado. He provided the janitorial services as an independent contractor. During his employment in 2007, Barlow was injured on the job when a gate securing the entryway to the facility fell on his head. He thereafter filed for workers' compensation benefits. Barlow alleged that ultimately, the Company became skeptical of his claim believing he was a "malingerer."

In late 2007, the Company terminated Barlow's janitorial services in part because the Company had caught him performing those services when he was on the clock as a security guard and in part because of concerns over his injury. Ultimately, Barlow was fired from his security job position after two trailer doors were stolen from the Company's premises during Barlow's shift. Barlow filed suit alleging that his termination was on the basis of his race and in retaliation for having filed a workers' compensation claim. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado subsequently granted summary judgment to C.R. England and dismissed the claims. Barlow appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Continue reading "Atlanta Business Litigation Attorney Comments on Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision on Discrimination and Retaliation Claim" »

As an Atlanta, Georgia Business Litigation Attorney and Atlanta Employment Defense Attorney, I am always interested in cases involving the alleged unauthorized used of a celebrity's name. In fact, I have successfully defended such suits in California. Now, a case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has been sent back to California where it belongs. This should be an interesting case to follow to its conclusion as it works its way through the federal legal system in California. If you or your Atlanta business are in need of an Atlanta business litigation lawyer or Atlanta employment attorney, the Golden Law Firm, LLC may be able to assist you. Contact an attorney to learn more about your rights and responsibilities.

The lawsuit involves a dispute over use of the name of the late chef, Julia Child, known for her award winning cooking show and best-selling cookbooks. The Julia Child Foundation for Gastronomy and the Culinary Arts (the "Child Foundation") has filed suit against BSH Home Appliances Corporation ("BSH"), the maker of Thermador ovens, alleging that BSH unlawfully used Ms. Child's name and image without express or implied permission. Specifically, according to the lawsuit, BSH has used pictures of Ms. Child and has referred to her use of Thermador products in its advertising campaign. BSH, however, alleges that it is merely making factual references and statements to Child's use of its products and is not unlawfully using her name or image.

The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts. Oddly enough, it was not filed by the Child Foundation, but instead, by BSH seeking a declaration regarding the rights of the parties. The Child Foundation did, however, separately file suit in both state and federal Court in California seeking to enjoin BSH from using Ms. Child's name and image. The Child Foundation alleges that it has exclusive ownership rights and control over Child's name, image and likeness along with certain copyrights and trademarks related to her, and that BSH violated both copyright and trademark law in its use of her name.

Continue reading "Business Litigation Lawsuit Involving Use of Julia Child's Name Sent Back To The West Coast" »

As an Atlanta, Georgia Minimum Wage, Unpaid Overtime and Employment Attorney, I closely watch court decisions discussing the Fair Labor Standards Act and its numerous exemptions to the minimum wage and overtime requirements. If you or your Atlanta business are in need of an Atlanta employment lawyer, Atlanta unpaid overtime attorney or Atlanta business litigation attorney, the Golden Law Firm, LLC may be able to assist you. Contact an attorney to learn more about your rights and responsibilities.

In Henry, et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit examined an appeal by the plaintiffs of a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Quicken Loans, Inc. on the plaintiffs' claim that they were entitled to overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 during a given workweek. The plaintiffs were employed by Quicken Loans as mortgage bankers. They alleged that they were essentially inside salespersons, not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements. Quicken Loans, however, asserted that its mortgage bankers were exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements under the so-called "Administrative Exemption." At trial, the jury agreed with Quicken Loans. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that jury verdict.

The dispute boiled down to whether the plaintiffs and those similarly situated were mere salespersons or something more. The issue was dispositive because, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees must be compensated at time and one half their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek, unless they fit within one of the FLSA's narrow exemptions. 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(2). One such exemption is the Administrative Exemption. It exempts from the FLSA's overtime requirement, those employees: (1) Compensated...at a rate of not less than $455 per week...; (2) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers; and (3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. 29 C.F.R. §541.200(a).

Continue reading "Atlanta Unpaid Overtime Attorney Discusses Court of Appeals Decision Regarding Administrative Exemption" »

Employment and workers compensation claims are on the rise. As an Atlanta, Georgia business litigation lawyer, Atlanta employment law attorney and Atlanta sports lawyer, I am especially interested in these types of cases that arise out of professional sports situations. The Maryland Court of Appeals has just recently made such a ruling in a breach of contract and workers compensation case involving a former Washington Redskins professional football player. If you, or your Atlanta business are in need of an Atlanta employment lawyer, Atlanta small business attorney or Atlanta business litigation lawyer, contact an Atlanta lawyer to assist you. The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with legal advice regarding your business needs, including breach of contract and related matters. Contact an Atlanta business lawyer for advice and representation.

Pro-Football, Inc. T/A The Washington Redskins, et al., v. Thomas J. Tupa, Jr., involved a claim for workers compensation benefits filed by Tom Tupa, a former Washington Redskins punter. In 2004, Tupa signed a four-year professional football contract with the Redskins. The Redskins' stadium, known as "FedEx Field" is located in Landover, Maryland. Pro-Football, Inc., however, has its corporate offices and its practice facilities in Virginia. In the contract, the parties agreed that any workers compensation disputes would be filed in Virginia, not Maryland, and resolved by the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission.

In August, 2005 during the pre-game warm-up at FedEx Field, Tupa injured his lower back. However, eight months earlier, Tupa had been diagnosed with spondylitis and stenosis, which are lower back conditions. After the pre-game injury and despite a treatment regime during the entire 2005 season, Tupa continued to suffer back pain and in January 2006 was diagnosed with a 90 percent disc collapse. Tupa's career effectively ended with this diagnosis. In March, 2007 Tupa filed a claim for workers compensation benefits with the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission, alleging that his back injury and resulting inability to play football were the result of the August 2005 pre-game warm-up at FedEx field. The Redskins contended, however, that the injury was degenerative in nature, occurring long prior to this incident and that the August 2005 warm-up was simply when this longstanding condition manifested itself. Thus the fight over whether Tupa was injured "on the job" began.

Continue reading "Atlanta Employment Attorney Comments on Maryland Court of Appeals Ruling Regarding Former Washington Redskins Punter" »

As an Atlanta, Georgia business litigation lawyer and Atlanta employment law attorney, I have been watching to see if courts would be willing to expand on the traditional at-will employment doctrine that most states follow. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs federal appeals cases in states such as Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky recently held in favor of the at-will employment doctrine in a case involving the corporate giant, Wal-Mart. If you or your Atlanta small business are in need of an Atlanta employment lawyer, Atlanta small business attorney or Atlanta noncompete lawyer contact an Atlanta business litigation lawyer to assist you. The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with legal advice regarding your business needs, including breach of contract and related matters. Contact an Atlanta business lawyer for advice and representation.

In Berrington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Plaintiff, William Berrington filed suit alleging that Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"), unlawfully refused to hire him because he filed for unemployment benefits. Berrington had previously worked for Wal-Mart in Kalamazoo, Michigan. During that employment, Berrington went on a number of leaves of absence. Berrington was ultimately terminated for failing to return to work after his leave of absence. Berrington alleged that he was told that he would have to wait ninety days after his termination, at which time, he could reapply for his position. During the interim period, Berrington applied for unemployment benefits, which Wal-Mart opposed. After the ninety-day period, and while the dispute over unemployment benefits was on going, Berrington reapplied at Wal-Mart but was not offered a position. Berrington filed suit alleging that the failure to rehire him was in retaliation for his filing for unemployment benefits.

Continue reading "Atlanta Business Litigation Attorney Comments on Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Upholding Decision on Retaliation Claim" »

As an Atlanta, Georgia breach of contract attorney and intellectual property lawyer, I realize that the United States Copyright Act is the main legal avenue that plaintiffs travel when pursuing claims over stolen works. But it is not the only avenue. The Second Circuit has made clear that, in some cases, a simple breach of contract claim can work just as well as a complicated, and often more expensive Copyright Act claim. If your business has questions regarding the unauthorized use of your intellectual property, if your works have been stolen or if you have been accused of breaching a contract, contact an Atlanta business litigation attorney to provide you with counsel and advice. Remember that the statute of limitations is ticking on your claims. Similarly, if you have been sued, you may only have a short time to respond. The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with legal advice regarding all of your business needs, including breach of contract and related matters. Contact an Atlanta employment lawyer for advice.

In Forest Park Pictures v. USA Network, Inc., Forest Park pitched a reality television show entitled "Housecall" to Defendant, USA Network. The concept was straightforward. A physician, after being expelled from the medical community for treating patients who could not pay, moved to Southern California to become a concierge doctor for the rich and famous. USA Network did not pick up the concept.

Continue reading "Atlanta Breach of Contract Lawyer Comments on Preemption Claims Over Allegedly Stolen Reality Television Show " »

As an Atlanta, Georgia breach of contract, intellectual property and sports attorney, the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision regarding a lawsuit involving University of Alabama football paintings is an important example of federal courts' views toward the licensing of college football memorabelia. If your business has questions regarding the unauthorized use of your intellectual property or if your business is contemplating a contract for such use, contact an Atlanta business litigation attorney to provide you with counsel and advice. The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with timely legal advice regarding all of your business needs, including breach of contracts, and related matters. Contact an Atlanta business lawyer for advice.

In University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life, Inc. a fight ensued between the University of Alabama and a local artist known for painting his renditions of Crimson Tide football games. The matter arose when the University stopped allowing Daniel Moore to sell paintings that included University of Alabama uniforms because they were trademarks. Moore and his company, New Life, Inc. refused to stop and a lawsuit ensued.

During discovery, it was learned that the parties had entered into prior licensing agreements through which Moore would sell some of his products. The University alleged that the use of Alabama football scenes violated these licensing agreements. However, the Eleventh Circuit (which governs federal cases originating in Georgia, Florida and Alabama) held that the prior licensing agreements did not require that Moore receive permission to portray the University's uniforms because they were not included within the agreement's definition of "licensed indicia." The court examined the definition of this phrase as it was defined in the licensing agreements as well as the parties' prior course of conduct. Here, the parties behavior during and after the time they entered into the licensing agreements was highly relevant. The evidence indicated that Moore's portrayal of uniforms in unlicensed paintings, prints and calendars would not violate the licensing agreements as Moore had previously produced several new paintings and prints without objection that featured the University's uniforms.

Continue reading "Eleventh Circuit Issues Ruling on University of Alabama Football Paintings " »

As an Atlanta, Georgia noncompete attorney, I have been closely anticipating the Eleventh Circuit's decision on Georgia's new non-compete law. It has now arrived. This ruling directly addresses the ongoing debate about exactly when Georgia's new noncompete law actually became effective. As I had predicted, the Court determined that the law did not become effective until May 11, 2011, long after the bill cleared a voting referendum. If your business has been putting off the important task of redrafting your non-compete agreements, non-solicitation agreements or confidentiality agreements, or if you are a business executive, manager or employee who has questions about your non-compete agreement, we recommend you contact an experienced Georgia non compete lawyer. The Golden Law Firm, LLC can provide you with advice and counsel regarding all of your business needs, including non compete, non solicitation, confidentiality and other restrictive covenant agreements. Contact an Atlanta non-compete lawyer for advice.

In Becham v. Crosslink Orthopaedics, LLC, No. 11-14495, the United States Court of Appeals reviewed Georgia's new restrictive covenant law. Becham signed a restrictive covenant agreement in December 2010, which contained a non-compete agreement, non-solicitation of customers agreement, non-solicitation of employees agreement and a confidentiality agreement. After leaving the company and taking a new job with a competitor, Becham filed suit against Crosslink seeking a declaration that the covenants were invalid under Georgia law.

Continue reading "Federal Appeals Court Issues Important Ruling on Georgia's Non Compete Law" »

As an Atlanta business litigation attorney and Atlanta employment litigation lawyer, I closely follow rulings from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs federal cases originating out of a number of southern states, including Georgia. The Eleventh Circuit has just issued an important decision regarding the relevant level of proof necessary to establish a racial harassment claim. This decision is very important to Georgia businesses hoping to steer clear from embarrassing lawsuits that may harm your business's reputation and cause your legal budget to sky rocket. If you find yourself in need of an Atlanta employment lawyer or Atlanta business litigation attorney, the Golden Law Firm, LLC may be able to assist you in navigating the litigation and prelitigation waters. Contact us for a consultation.

The case, Reginald Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, District Court Docket No. 2:09-cv-01321-WMA originated out of a federal court lawsuit in Mississippi. Jones was originally hired by Defendant UPS Ground Freight as a freight haul driver. Because Jones lived in Birmingham, Alabama, but worked in Mississippi, UPS allowed Jones to park his truck during off-duty hours at its facility located in Trussville, Alabama. Jones alleged that he was subjected to a pattern of racial harassment while parking his truck at the end of his shifts and picking it up at the beginning of his shifts. The incidents that Jones complained of included (1) remnants of bananas being left on his truck's flat bed or leading to his cab; (2) the wearing of confederate shirts and hats by employees at the Trussville facility; (3) two white employees who were wearing confederate attire, one with a crow bar, approaching Plaintiff to ask why he complained to management about their attire; and (4) other general comments that he perceived to be based on his race. The District Court agreed that there were multiple interpretations of the nature of this conduct and that it simply did not rise to the level of an objectively hostile environment. Thus, it dismissed the claims.

Continue reading "Atlanta Employment Litigation Attorney Comments on Title VII Harassment Case" »

As an Atlanta small business attorney, the Golden Law Firm has been awaiting a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court in a closely watched case involving Circle Y Construction and a local school district. On May 29, 2012, the Court finally ruled. This decision is important to Georgia small businesses that may seek to enter into contracts with state government as it makes clear that to be enforceable, contracts entered into with the state must follow strict statutory guidelines. Small business owners should be mindful of this case. If your Atlanta small business finds itself in need of an Atlanta lawyer to either prosecute or defend a Georgia breach of contract action, contact an experienced Atlanta business litigation attorney to discuss your case. At The Golden Law Firm, LLC we handle all types of business and employment matters, including acting as an Atlanta breach of contract attorney or Atlanta noncompete lawyer.

In Green County School District v. Circle Y Construction, Inc., the School District entered into a contract with Circle Y in which Circle Y was to provide construction management services for certain construction projects undertaken by the School District. In 2009, the School District terminated the contract and Circle Y filed a breach of contract action. In response, the School District claimed that the contract was void because it constituted an illegal, multi-year contract in violation of O.C.G.A. §20-2-506(b). The trial court ruled against the School District's Motion to Dismiss and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court has now weighed in, agreeing with both the trial court and the Georgia Court of Appeals.

O.C.G.A. §20-2-506(b) provides that a Georgia school system may enter into a multi-year agreement for the purchase of goods, material, real and personal property, services, and supplies. However, the agreement must contain a number of specific provisions. Counties and municipalities have similar restrictions, all for the purpose of ensuring that governmental agencies do not incur new debt without voter approval in violation of Georgia's constitution. Thus, a multi-year contract incurring new debt obtained without voter approval is void.

Continue reading "Georgia Supreme Court Rules in Breach of Contract Case" »

Tonight is the start of Major League Baseball's annual amateur draft, also called the Rule 4 draft, in which eligible high school and college baseball players may hear their name called to the professional ranks. As Atlanta sports and entertainment attorneys, we closely follow not only the Rule 4 draft, but the changing rules associated with the draft. In fact, this year, a number of significant new rules have been put in place through the signing of the most recent collective bargaining agreement between the owners and players. These rules are designed to lower the signing bonuses provided to draftees and to provide more certainty to the draft. If you are in need of legal representation, contact an Atlanta sports lawyer or Atlanta entertainment attorney for advice.

Given changes to the collective bargaining agreement between the owners and the players, a number of new rules have been put into effect this year. First and foremost, the draft has been shortened. Previously, the draft was a whopping fifty rounds long. This year, it has been shortened to forty. Although, as has been the case in prior drafts, teams are not required to use all draft selections. But once a team passes, the team is done for the remainder of the draft and cannot later opt to jump back into and continue its selections.

Continue reading "Atlanta Sports and Entertainment Attorney Comments on 2012 Major League Draft Rule Changes Under the Latest Collective Bargaining Agreement" »

As an Atlanta employment lawyer and Atlanta business litigation attorney I realize that wrongful termination cases are not always cut and dry. One may believe that simply being "discriminated against" is enough to prevail in a lawsuit. Well, that is not necessarily the case. Because most states are "at-will" employment states, federal and state law strictly proscribes the type of conduct that is unlawful. Being discriminated against because of the color of your hair, the way you talk or your personality is simply not unlawful. Rather, the discrimination must be based on a protected characteristic, such as, for example, one's race, gender, religion, national origin, age (over 40) or disability. If your business has been accused of discriminating against an employee, you may have multiple legal defenses, one of which may be that the allegations themselves, even if true, do not state a cause of action because the alleged conduct is simply not unlawful. When faced with this situation, consider protecting your business immediately by contacting an experienced Atlanta employer lawyer or Atlanta business litigation attorney.

The recent cast of Kristi J. Cortezano v. Salin Band & Trust Company, No 11-1631 decided on May 21, 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit illustrates this very point. In Cortezano, Kristi Cortezano filed suit against her former employer alleging discrimination based on national origin - namely her marriage to a Mexican citizen. Notably, it was not Cortezano's national origin that was at issue, but that of her husband, Javier. But even more, as it turns out, it was his status as an alien that was really at issue.

Continue reading "Atlanta Business Litigation Attorney Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling on National Origin Discrimination" »

Atlanta business litigation attorneys and intellectual property lawyers are certain to closely follow a new copyright infringement lawsuit with broad implications across the Internet photo sharing and blogging space. This case is a stark reminder to businesses of all shapes and sizes that financial success often rests, in large part, on protecting intellectual property. Indeed, your company's intellectual property may be its most precious asset. Are you taking sufficient steps to protect it? If not, you should consider consulting an Atlanta business lawyer to provide you with advice on how to do so.

In what is shaping up to be an epic battle, publisher of risqué photos Perfect 10, Inc. has filed suit against Tumblr, Inc. in federal court in Manhattan, styled Perfect 10, Inc. v. Tumblr, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that Tumblr violated the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. by refusing to remove over 200 unauthorized photos of naked women posted by Tumblr's users.

Perfect 10 designs, creates, produces markets and sells adult entertainment products, including photographs of nude models through its website, Perfect10.com. It previously also sold photographs through its print based magazine. Tumblr is a social networking and blogging website that allows users to post images, blog and related content. It is fast becoming one of the web's hottest social networking websites.

Continue reading "Atlanta Business Litigation Attorney Comments on Closely Watched Copyright Infringement Case" »

Atlanta employment attorneys are often searching for procedural avenues to obtain dismissal of employment cases filed against their clients. The recent case of Willie E. Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a good reminder that plaintiffs who have previously filed for bankruptcy may be judicially estopped from continuing an employment lawsuit against their former employer. Employers finding themselves in a dispute with a former employee should make sure that they fully research whether the employee has recently filed bankruptcy as it may provide an additional defense to these claims. If you have any doubt, do not hesitate to contact an Atlanta employment lawyer to assist you.

Willie Love was first employed by Tyson Foods as a truck driver in July 2007. But his employment initially lasted only three days. He was fired by Tyson when he revealed during orientation that he had tested positive for drug use six years earlier. Tyson, however, subsequently rehired him but required Mr. Love to take monthly drug tests. He was fired again in 2008 after testing positive for drug use. Love contended it was a false positive test based on certain antibiotics he was taking. He ultimately filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") asserting race discrimination and retaliation. After receiving a notice of right to sue, he filed suit in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

However, at the time Love filed his EEOC charge and his lawsuit, he was a Chapter 13 debtor, having filed a petition for bankruptcy on May 1, 2008. As such, the Bankruptcy Code and Rules imposed a duty on Mr. Love to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims. The disclosure requirement pertains not only to current causes of actions, but potential causes of action as well. However, despite this affirmative duty, Mr. Love did not disclose his claim against Tyson during the bankruptcy proceeding. As a result, Tyson moved for summary judgment on all of the claims by Love against Tyson arguing that Love should be judicially estopped from pursuing his claims against Tyson because he did not disclose those claims to the bankruptcy court. The district court agreed, dismissing his claims. Love appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Continue reading "Atlanta Employment Attorney Comments on Judicial Estoppel: Fifth Circuit Shows No Love For Willie" »