Law Commons^™

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2135, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief. Staub V. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (No. 09-400), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1916, Patricia Ann Millet, Eric Schnapper, Julie L. Galassi

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioner, Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 Wl 3501186, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she engaged in certain protected activity. The questions presented are:

(1) Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, who is closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity?

(2) If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellant/Cross-Appellee New Life Art, Inc. And Daniel A. Moore And Affirmance In Part, Mark Mckenna, Michael T. Sansbury

Court Briefs

The District Court properly held that New Life Art’s (“New Life”) creative works do not infringe the University of Alabama’s (“the University”) rights in the trade dress of its football uniforms, including the their crimson and white colors. First, New Life’s realistic depiction of the University’s football games is not likely to confuse consumers about the source of New Life’s goods, or as to the University’s sponsorship of or affiliation with those goods. Confusion is actionable under the Lanham Act only when it relates to these types of source relationships, and not when consumers merely recognize the plaintiff’s mark. Second, …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Perez V. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (No. 09-1535), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4245, Eric Schnapper, Erika Deutsch Rotbart

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Where a discrimination plaintiff asserts that the ultimate decisionmaker who dismissed her was influenced by a different official who acted with an unlawful motive, must the plaintiff prove that the unltimate decisionmaker was a "mere conduit" for the motives of the unlawfully motivated official?

Supplemental Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2990, Eric Schnapper, David Suetholz

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.