Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Ken Taber, Julia Judish and Keith Hudolin published their client alert titled New York City Largely Bans Employers from Considering Consumer Credit History. The Alert discusses New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio‘s recent signing into law of a bill barring employers in New York City from discriminating against employees and applicants based on their consumer credit histories. The Alert explains, among other things, that the exceptions to this new law are much more limited than the exceptions found in similar laws in other states. It encourages New York City employers to review their employment policies to ensure that their employment policies and decisions do not give employees or applicants potential claims of “consumer credit history” discrimination.

Additional Source: New York Int. 0261-2014

Recently, New York Senate Bill 5043 was introduced by Senator Tony Avella. It was read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development. If signed into law, the bill would amend the administrative code of the City of New York to add Section 28-118.22 to read that “all new building construction or alterations of current buildings in an R1, 2, 3 or 4 zoning areas shall complete construction and/or alterations and obtain a certificate of occupancy within four years of the initial permit for such construction and/or alteration. If such construction is not complete and a certificate of occupancy [] is not obtained within four years, the Department may demolish the structure and return the site to a clean and safe condition at the property owner’s expense.” The bill also proposes to amend Section 28-214.1 of the administrative code of the City of New York to read that “[a]fter a period of two years, if no attempt is made to rehabilitate the ‘sealed’ status of such building pursuant to subdivision one of this section, such building may be demolished at the property owner’s expense pursuant to Section 28-214.1.5 of this Article.” If signed into law, the bill would take effect immediately.

In a companion case decided on April 24, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Act) can apply to private as well as public communications. In its per curiam opinion in Lippincott and Parks v. Whisenhunt, the Court held that controversial private communications on a matter of public concern, here the adequacy of medical services, can also trigger the protective provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the allegation made in the complaint must be measured against the evidentiary standards clarified in the decision in In re: Steven Lipsky.

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Steve Becker and Elizabeth Moeller published their client alert titled Unusual Bipartisanship Makes New Free Trade Agreements More Likely. The Alert discusses major new free trade agreements that are on the horizon. For the past several years, the Obama Administration has been negotiating two new major free trade agreements: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Partnership Agreement (TTIP). Because of divisions within the Democratic Party regarding trade agreements, previously it was uncertain whether the President could garner the support necessary to obtain Congressional approval. With both Houses of Congress now controlled by the Republican Party–which historically has supported trade agreements–the prospects for ultimate approval have significantly improved. Action on the TPP in particular is possible during 2015.

On April 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an interesting opinion in another challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the case of Steven F. Hotze, M.D., et al., v. Burwell, the Court of Appeals considered a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)–based on an alleged violation of the Constitution’s Origination Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 1, which requires that all revenue raising legislation must originate with the U.S. House of Representatives.
Continue Reading ›

On April 24, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion clarifying the evidentiary standards that will govern the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“Act”). The Court balanced the need for open and vigorous discussion of important public issues–such as hydraulic fracturing–against a litigant’s right to defend itself against unwarranted attacks. The law enacted in 2011, writes the Court, “protects citizens who petition or speak out on matters of public concern from retaliatory lawsuits that seek to intimidate or silence them”. If a lawsuit amounts to an attempt to stifle a defendant’s ability to communicate to the public on a matter of public concern, the trial court’s duty under the Act is to dismiss the lawsuit unless the plaintiff’s “prima facie case” is supported by “clear and specific evidence”–a complicated formulation for the courts to administer. The case is In re: Steven Lipsky. This was a unanimous opinion by the Texas Supreme Court, written by Justice Devine.
Continue Reading ›