Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 8
U.S. Constitution Archives - The National Law Forum https://nationallawforum.com/tag/u-s-constitution/ Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News. Tue, 05 Nov 2024 23:01:36 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://i0.wp.com/nationallawforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cropped-grey-temple-Converted.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 U.S. Constitution Archives - The National Law Forum https://nationallawforum.com/tag/u-s-constitution/ 32 32 111745018 Office Politics: The Basics for Private Employers https://nationallawforum.com/2024/11/05/office-politics-the-basics-for-private-employers/ Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:37 +0000 https://nationallawforum.com/?p=27642 In case you haven’t noticed the yard signs popping up like mushrooms, the constant barrage of television and radio advertisements, or the unsolicited text messages from unknown numbers, we are in the homestretch of election season. For those employers with questions on how to handle political speech in the workplace, especially during the last few … Continue reading Office Politics: The Basics for Private Employers

The post Office Politics: The Basics for Private Employers appeared first on The National Law Forum.

]]>
In case you haven’t noticed the yard signs popping up like mushrooms, the constant barrage of television and radio advertisements, or the unsolicited text messages from unknown numbers, we are in the homestretch of election season. For those employers with questions on how to handle political speech in the workplace, especially during the last few days before (and hopefully not much beyond) Election Day, here is a refresher on the basics for private employers.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from enacting laws to prohibit the free exercise of speech and assembly, among other liberties. It does not apply to private employers. Where there is no state action involved, there is no unfettered right to free speech in a private place of employment. Quite simply, a private employer can enact rules to keep political expression from its workplace. Some employers prohibit political speech in the workplace to avoid potential disruptions to business operations, customer relations, or employee morale.

If an employer adopts a policy concerning political expression and messaging, it must do so fairly and consistently, and it should be inclusive and consistent to avoid the perception of favoritism or discrimination. In other words, if an employer requires Meghan to remove her Kamala button, it should also direct Dennis not to wear his Trump t-shirt. Remote workers are still “in the workplace” when they participate in virtual meetings, so there are no separate rules for them.

When enacting rules about political expression and messaging in the workplace, private employers should of course remain aware of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which applies to both union and non-union settings, and among other things protects employees’ ability to engage in concerted activity or to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. Therefore, private employers must be mindful of a potential nexus or overlap between employees’ political speech and discussion of working conditions. Under the NLRA, for instance, employees may distribute information during non-working time about a candidate’s stance on a particular issue that may also constitute a complaint about the employees’ working conditions.

The post Office Politics: The Basics for Private Employers appeared first on The National Law Forum.

]]>
27642
Supreme Court to Consider First Amendment Protection for Parody Dog Toy https://nationallawforum.com/2022/11/30/supreme-court-to-consider-first-amendment-protection-for-parody-dog-toy/ Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:00:42 +0000 https://nationallawforum.com/?p=24975 The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to consider the scope of protection afforded by the First Amendment to commercial parody products that feature the unauthorized use of another party’s trademark(s). Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, Case No. 22-148 (Supr. Ct. Nov. 21, 2022) (certiorari granted). The questions presented are as follows: … Continue reading Supreme Court to Consider First Amendment Protection for Parody Dog Toy

The post Supreme Court to Consider First Amendment Protection for Parody Dog Toy appeared first on The National Law Forum.

]]>

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to consider the scope of protection afforded by the First Amendment to commercial parody products that feature the unauthorized use of another party’s trademark(s). Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, Case No. 22-148 (Supr. Ct. Nov. 21, 2022) (certiorari granted). The questions presented are as follows:

  1. Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims.
  2. Whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C), thus barring as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.

This is the second time Jack Daniel’s has filed a petition for certiorari in connection with this case. The Supreme Court first considered the matter in January 2021, following the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision to vacate and remand the district court’s finding of trademark infringement, reverse the judgment on dilution and uphold the validity of Jack Daniel’s trademark and trade dress rights.

The case then returned to the district court, which granted summary judgment to VIP Products. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and then Jack Daniel’s filed its second petition for certiorari.

The Supreme Court will seek to settle the long-standing split amongst the US Courts of Appeal regarding the proper analysis for parody in trademark infringement and dilution claims and the scope of protection afforded to it via the First Amendment.

For more Supreme Court and Litigation News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

The post Supreme Court to Consider First Amendment Protection for Parody Dog Toy appeared first on The National Law Forum.

]]>
24975