Author: gr-admin

County’s Refusal to Run Anti-Terrorist Bus Ad Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Washington county violated the First Amendment by refusing to run an anti-terrorism ad on the side of a public bus. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over several states’ courts including the district courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, and Hawaii.

The Background

The matter involved a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) against King County Metro (KCM). KCM had refused to run an advertisement featuring images of people who were exclusively of Middle Eastern and Asian descent that were placed directly under the words “Faces of Global Terrorism.” The AFDI modeled this advertisement after a similar one from 2013 that was run by the U.S. Department of State in the metro system. After receiving complaints from the general public of racial profiling in the community, the ads were taken down.

KCM has three requirements for advertisements that are placed on their transit system:

● The ad cannot make false statements
● The ad cannot contain disparaging or demeaning content
● The ad cannot foreseeably disrupt or cause harm to the transit system.

The first ad submitted by AFDI was rejected by KCM on the basis that it contained false statements. That initial ad claimed the FBI was offering a substantial reward for the capture of “these jihadis.” The AFDI removed the false statement and resubmitted, but was rejected a second time by the KCM for content and disruption.

The Decision

When analyzing the case, the Ninth Circuit noted that because KCM’s advertising is a nonpublic forum strict scrutiny does not apply. Instead, KCM’s rejection of AFDI’s advertisements must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral to be lawful. The court reasoned that given offense is a viewpoint, KCM’s non-disparagement criteria discriminates on the basis of view point on its face. KCM argued the non-disparagement criteria for its ads applies equally to all that are proposed; in other words, none may give offense regardless of the ad’s content. The court found, however, that because no one may express a particular viewpoint – in other words, the regulation does not allow for others to a viewpoint that gives offense – the regulation is viewpoint discriminatory.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The case is American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County.

If you or someone you know has questions regarding any legal matter, be sure to contact a knowledgeable and experienced Georgia attorney right away.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        October 19, 2018

Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting Acquires Ancillary Legal Corporation

With the new acquisition, Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting is offering more services, including
nationwide and international process serving.

ATLANTA – Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting continues to expand its services with its recent acquisition of Ancillary Legal Corporation. Ancillary is a reputable Atlanta-based litigation services company, which provides law firms from all over the world with full service legal support. Together, the two companies offer top-notch, start-to-finish litigation services.

“Our acquisition of Ancillary Legal Corporation will boost our services and create convenience for our clients,” said Elizabeth Gallo, Owner of Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. “Now, law firms can find all of their litigation services housed under one roof.”

With the new acquisition, Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting’s clients have even more services to choose from, including nationwide and international service of process. Clients can also take advantage of extended services such as skip tracing, obtaining evidence abroad, intake services, court filing, legal videographers, video editing, videoconferencing, translation services, asset searches, investigative services, trial preparation, and trial presentation services. Litigators who need court reporting services can depend on Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting for a high level of performance at competitive prices.

Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting is ready and available to help law firms streamline their legal practice by quickly and professionally providing them with the services that they need. The company prepares precise and clean transcripts with a fast turnaround and provides exceptional customer service. Clients can take advantage of online scheduling and they are granted secure online access to files through the company’s portal.

Over the last several years, Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting has expanded to include additional legal services. Now, EGCR will offer even more services with the purchase of Ancillary. To schedule litigation services, visit https://www.georgiareporting.com/.

About Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting, LLC

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting has worked with law firms of every size and has produced accurate and timely transcripts with exceptional customer service. Since EGCR was founded in 2006, the company has handled relatively simple and extremely complex matters of litigation with a high level of performance. The team of qualified court reporters has worked on various cases including patent law, personal injury, medical malpractice, construction litigation, insurance disputes, business matters, contract disputes, employment law, family law, worker’s compensation, and more. Visit https://www.georgiareporting.com/about-us/ to learn how Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting is transforming the litigation services industry.

###

While nursing mothers have had to endure shaming whilst breastfeeding in public – something that is likely not going to end any time soon – now they have the law on their side. Earlier this year, public breastfeeding became legal in all 50 states. This became possible thanks to two states – Idaho and Utah – that passed laws that protect breastfeeding mothers, according to a news report published by USA Today.

National Breastfeeding Month

August is National Breastfeeding Month. Accordingly, below is a list of rights and protections nursing mothers have in the United States.

• Mothers can now breastfeed anywhere, any time, in all 50 states, as well as the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.;
• 17 states have laws on the books that address breastfeeding mothers who are called for jury duty; some allow postponement of jury duty while others allow an outright exemption;
• Under ACA, the cost of breastfeeding pumps is covered at no cost to the mother, although the insurer can choose the brand and type (electric, manual or rental) that is covered under the policy;
• Lactation consultant costs are also covered at no charge by health insurance under ACA, including meetings with in-network consultants, domestic violence counseling, and gestational diabetes testing;
• Employers must provide break time for nursing mothers and a place to pump breastmilk, for up to one year after the baby’s birth, according to the Department of Labor;
• 29 states, in addition to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have laws on the books regarding breastfeeding in the workplace;
• Six states, in addition to Puerto Rico, have encouraged the development of or implemented breastfeeding awareness education campaigns. These include California, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi and Vermont.

Under Nevada law, the statutes note that breastfeeding a child is not considered a violation of indecent exposure laws, and that a mother may breastfeed in any private or public location, where the mom is otherwise allowed to be located.

Other Protections for Mothers

It is estimated that at least 180 countries across the globe have laws that guarantee some type of paid maternity leave. Only nine countries do not provide this benefit – Papau New Guinea, Surinam, six Pacific island nations, and the United States. In America, four states – California, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island – offer paid leave that is funded through payroll taxes.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BOL) reports that more than 41 million U.S. workers can not take a paid sick day to care for a child who is ill; moreover, a mere 12% have access to paid leave. According to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, the state of Georgia ranks 44th in the nation when it comes to working mothers. And, under Georgia state laws, maternity leave is not mandatory; neither mothers nor fathers have extensive rights under its laws. Moms generally have the option to buy short-term disability insurance before getting pregnant – and this is how they are able to earn maternity leave after the baby is born. That being said, dads are unable to file a short-term disability claim under these insurance policies for parental leave.

Earlier this year, Georgia’s Supreme Court overruled the state’s Board of Bar Examiners’ (BBE) denial of a military spouse’s request to waive the state bar exam and be allowed to practice law in the state.

The Issues

The attorney, Harriet O’Neal, filed a petition with the Georgia BBE asking to be allowed to practice law in the state without sitting for the Georgia bar exam and without meeting the typical requirements for admission without examination. O’Neal based her request for a waiver on her status as a military spouse, as her husband had just been transferred to Georgia. According to the court, the BBE denied the request without providing a reason; accordingly, the court vacated the decision and remanded it back to the BBE.

The court noted that O’Neal, who graduated from law school, passed the Louisiana bar exam, and was admitted to practice in the state in 2014, did not meet the general requirements for admission to the Georgia bar on motion without examination under the applicable rules. Specifically, Louisiana does not offer reciprocity with Georgia or any other state, and she had not been primarily engaged in the practice of law for the prior five years. The rules, however, do allow an attorney to petition for a waiver on the basis of being a military spouse. Specifically, the rules state:

For purposes of this waiver process and policy, a military spouse petitioner is a person who is:

(a)    An attorney at law who has been admitted by examination to membership in the bar of the highest court of another United States jurisdiction;

(b)    The dependent spouse of an active duty member, including but not limited to members called to active duty under Title 10 of the United States Code, of the United States Uniformed Services as defined by the Department of Defense of the United States (or, for the Coast Guard, when it is not operating in the service of the Navy, by the Department of Homeland Security); and

(c)    The spouse of a service active duty member who is on military orders stationed or home-ported in the State of Georgia.

Once a petition has provided documentation proving the above, the BEE will consider when determining whether or not to approve the waiver:

• The duration of the military spouse petitioner’s engagement in the active practice of law, as defined in Part C, Section 3 of the Rules;
• The military spouse petitioner’s employment history in the legal profession; and
• The career goals of the military spouse petitioner.

The court instructed the BBE to clearly apply the military waiver policy and explain why it came to its decision.

Important Issue

Statistically, there is a high unemployment rate among spouses of active duty service members due to the constant traveling by the family. Moreover, retention of active duty members can suffer when the families do not have enough income to repay a military spouse’s student loans. Difficulty being admitted to a state in which the military spouse was required to live due to the active service members’ orders is another hurdle for employment as an attorney. Many in the legal field support the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision because it requires the BEE to clearly explain its criteria and decisions.