Controlled substances, political ads and employee transfers

Controlled substances, political ads and employee transfers

Petitions of the Week

By Andrew Hamm

at 4:31 pm

This week we highlight petitions asking the Supreme Court, among other things, to consider whether doctors can use “bona fide” arguments in prescribing pain relievers to violate the Controlled Substances Act and the Philadelphia transit system Ban political advertising on its website can penalize, and whether an employee who is transferred to a new job with the same salary and benefits as before can claim discrimination in the workplace.

In Ruan against the United States, Dr. Xiulu Ruan asked the judges to rule that “good faith” can be a defense for a doctor charged with violating the controlled substances law in his prescription for pain relief. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied this defense, so the District Court in Ruan’s case only instructed the jury to determine whether Ruan’s actions were “not for a legitimate medical purpose” or “outside the normal course of professional medical care Practice “were. (The jury condemned Ruan). On appeal, Ruan asserts that good faith distinguishes civil liability for misconduct from criminal liability, that six cycles allow defense and that the 11th circle approach discourages the legitimate practice of pain medicine.

In the case of 2018 Minnesota Voters Alliance versus ManskyThe Supreme Court has opposed a ban on political clothing at polling stations in Minnesota in violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled that the Philadelphian public transportation system’s ban on political advertising was also unconstitutional. The case arose out of the Center for Investigative Reporting’s interest in advertising on buses with a 10-panel cartoon protesting against systemic racism in the mortgage market. On the grounds that Mansky agreed to an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court allowing transit authorities to prohibit such advertising, the transit system is asking for a review by the court. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v Center for Investigative Reporting.

In Cole v Wake County Board of Education, Wanza Cole alleges that the Wake County Board of Education moved her from a headmistress position to one in the headquarters of the school system because she was black. In the latter job, she had the same salary and benefits as before, but with a new title, responsibilities, supervisor and a new job. The District Court, upheld by the US Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed her Civil Rights Act Title VII complaint of workplace discrimination on the grounds that a side transfer was not a “prejudicial employment measure.” Seeking review by the judges, Cole argues that the circuits are broken down into the types of employer actions that qualify as discrimination [an employee’s] Compensation, conditions or privileges of employment. “

These and other petitions of the week are listed below:

Cole v Wake County Board of Education
problem: Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against any “conditions or privilege of employment” or whether its scope is limited to discriminatory conduct on the part of the employer which the courts find materially detrimental to workers.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v Center for Investigative Reporting
problem: Whether the Supreme Court decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance versus Mansky the involvement of the court suspended or revoked Lehman versus City of Shaker Heights It is at the discretion of the transit authorities to categorically prohibit political advertising.

Savage versus United States
problem: Whether the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals – contrary to decades of federal practice advocating flexible procedures for creating a full record of appeals – has properly ruled that an appellant seeking a full record of appeals must overcome procedural obstacles that have a basis in the federal rule lacks the text of complaint procedure 10: If a complainant lacks a “means” to “prepare a statement” of a non-transcribed “procedure” under Rule 10 (c), the district court is not obliged to assist in the reconstruction of this procedure unless the complainant first filed a statement stating that he does not remember what happened and that if a complainant wishes to review the transcript and supplement it with uncovered judicial correspondence in the possession of the district court, must first prove how the correspondence would lead to such a difference[s]”About whether the tape really reveals what happened in the district court.”

Sportswear Inc. v Savannah College of Art and Design Inc.
Problems: (1) whether the scope of a nationwide registered service mark extends to unrelated goods bearing that service mark; and (2) whether the defendant’s copying of a trademark without evidence of consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ goods or services creates trademark infringement simply because consumers recognize the trademark.

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v Patreon Inc.
Problems: (1) Whether the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted correctly Kessler v. Eldred to create a free-standing exclusion doctrine that can apply even if this is not the case and an exclusion exists; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit has properly extended its Kessler Doctrine to cases where the previous judgment was voluntary dismissal.

Ruan versus United States
problem: Whether a doctor who allegedly prescribed controlled substances outside of normal professional practice can be under-convicted of illegal distribution 21 USC § 841 (a) (1) regardless of whether he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” in good faith that his prescriptions fall within this professional practice.