Search

Do not discriminate against older persons. It seems like a simple mandate. However, the statute creating that mandate, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), has been anything but simple to implement. The details of the ADEA--who can bring a claim, and what kind of claim they can bring--have been extensively litigated since its inception. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, decided that an employer could discriminate against older applicants by having a policy of not hiring people who have been out of college for a certain number of years, or who have a certain number of years of work experience. This has created a rift within that circuit and is a departure from the governing agency's interpretation. This Comment explores the case law and legislative history leading up to the critical Eleventh Circuit case, Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which addresses the following question: can applicants for employment bring disparate impact claims under the ADEA? This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should hold that the ADEA does cover applicants for employment making disparate impact claims and that arbitrary agebased hiring policies are discriminatory. Regardless of any Supreme Court decision on the question, this Comment also suggests that Congress should amend the ADEA to include language that would allow applicants for employment to bring disparate impact claims, bringing the ADEA in line with Title VII. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the United States v. Telephone and Telegraph Corp., the United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. and the Hartford Fire Insurance Co., and the United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. cases are cited among others.

The article discusses the legal aspects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in America in the wake of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between 46 American states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and four cigarette manufacturing firms including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Legal restrictions on cigarette advertisements are addressed, along with tort liability claims and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The article offers information on decision of the judicial decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in cases of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA and American Meat Institute v. USDA, in which the Court addressed constitutionality of laws regulating the government-mandated health warnings in the U.S. It discusses the commercial speech jurisprudence under the First Amendment protection with reference to ruling in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel case.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration passed a rule revising compelled disclaimers on tobacco products pursuant to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The rule required that tobacco warnings include something new: all tobacco products now had to bear one of nine graphic images to accompany the text. Tobacco companies filed suit contesting the constitutionality of the rule, arguing that the government violated their right to free commercial speech by compelling disclosure of the graphic content. Yet First Amendment jurisprudence lacks a doctrinally consistent standard for reviewing such compelled disclosures. Courts' analyses typically depend on whether the regulation compels or restricts speech, how far that regulation extends, and why the government chose to regulate in the first place. This Note seeks to articulate a coherent standard--a disclosure-focused approach--for reviewing compelled commercial speech under the First Amendment. Under this disclosure-focused approach, courts would adopt a lenient standard of review for compelled disclosures of factual, uncontroversial information while reserving more exacting scrutiny for restricted speech or compelled ideological disclosures. This approach centers on the structure and content of the regulation rather than the governmental motive. Accordingly, the disclosure-focused approach aligns with the goal of commercial speech protection--namely, maximizing the information available to consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the constitutionality of American graphic-image cigarette warning labels and other commercial disclosure requirements as of November 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the commercial speech-related case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA is addressed, along with the marketplace of ideas theory and the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution. Deaths from cigarette smoking in the U.S. are examined.

The article focuses on judicial review of the case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA by the U.S Supreme Court. Topics discussed include the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), the Graphic Warning Rule enacted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that requires tobacco manufacturers to use graphic warning labels on cigarette packages, and the case Central Hudson Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.

The article discusses the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products as of August 2013, focusing on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's ruling in the case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA which determined that packaging-related graphic image warnings violate freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and cigarette-related laws are assessed.

The article discusses the 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which deals with American constitutional law, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and compelled commercial speech in relation to cigarette packaging. The strict scrutiny judicial standard of review is mentioned, along with an examination of the government's interest in discouraging cigarette smoking.

The article discusses the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's implementation of several changes to cigarette warning labels as of July 2012, including information on the U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, lung cancer prevention, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's ruling on graphic label requirements in a case involving the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Company. Commercial speech and the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution are also examined.

The article discusses the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice on the case R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Others v. Commission on September 12, 2006. The case addresses the issue of admissibility in actions for annulment initiated by private parties. Specifically, it focuses on the condition that the challenged measure must entail binding legal effects capable of altering the legal position of the applicants. The ruling of the Court was an appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance in Philip Morris and Others v. Commission. That ruling found the applications brought against the Commission's decision to bring proceedings in the U.S. courts inadmissible.

The article discusses the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. versus Shewry case which focuses on the banning of cigarette advertising filed in California. It provides an overview on the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1998, the Tobacco Control Program and the Tobacco Education Media Campaign (TEMC). The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the First Amendment allows the government to use funds from taxes to preserve its policies. It summarizes the influence of TEMC on U.S. legislators.

Discusses the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court on a product liability case filed against cigarette company R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Facts of the case; Reasons behind the ruling of the court; Arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendant.

Presents an account of the author's legal battle against the R.J. Reynolds (RJR) Tobacco Co. regarding his research findings on the effect of cigarette advertising on teenagers. Details on the subpoena; Resolution adopted by the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) faculty senate; Excerpts from the American Association of University Professors's (AAUP) deposition on the case.

The authors discuss the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., on the claims that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) warnings on cigarette packs violated the First Amendment. Attorney General Eric Holder states that the FDA should conduct research in support of new rules pursuant to the Tobacco Control Act. They add that the Justice Department's decision provided an opportunity to discuss how FDA founded its rules.

The article recounts the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case R.J. Reynolds v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which deemed unconstitutional FDA regulations requiring similar graphic warnings depicting the health effects of smoking. The Court found that the mandated packaging violates cigarette companies' right to free speech. It was noted that the history of tobacco-industry deception needed an innovative strategy.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff, medical professor Robert Proctor, is fighting to keep his unpublished book manuscript from the U.S. tobacco company R.J. Reynolds (RJR). Proctor testified as an expert witness for Florida smokers who were suing RJR. Topics include why Proctor's manuscript was subpoenaed, why he is a popular witness, and a brief overview of his manuscript “The Golden Holocaust: How Cigarette Makers Engineered a Global Health Catastrophe.”

The article focuses on a Florida ruling of 23 billion U.S. dollars in the case of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) v. lung cancer death of a 36-year-old smoker Michael Johnson Sr. It states that, in the case, RJR's attorneys claim that the ruling is more than three times the company's net worth, and the widow of the deceased filed the lawsuit. Topics include reduction in smoking due to rise in cigarette cost, tobacco products' advertising, and regulatory requirements of U.S. tobacco firms.

The article reports on the amicus curiae brief filed by the U.S. Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) in support of the lawsuit of the Department of Justice against tobacco companies. The ONS joined other five national organization in backing up the lawsuit against Philip Morris USA, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. The amicus curiae was filed by ONS to criticize the tobacco companies from using light and low tar and nicotine descriptors just to dissuade smokers from quitting.

Reports on monetary damages received by a Tampa, Florida widower for the smoking-related death of his wife. Financial details of the decision against the RJR Reynolds tobacco company; Details of the jury's finding that the company was negligent in its failure to warn Suzanne Jones of the dangers of smoking, thus contributing to her death from lung and colon cancer.

Describes the implications of the settlement between the United States tobacco industry and 46 states. Price increase for cigarettes made by R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris; Average cost of a pack of cigarettes; The US Federal Trade Commission dropping its lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds; Contention over how the settlement money should be divided between the states and the federal government.

Mentions the start of a trial brought against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco by the family of Jean Connor who died of lung cancer. The use of documents on the company's research.