Nevada Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Tami D. Cowden : Nevada Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Today the Ninth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s exoneration of the Aladdin on certain anti-union charges, and found that Arizona’s specialty license plate program violated an anti-choice group’s First Amendment rights.

In Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas v. NLRB, the Ninth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s decision reversing the decision of the ALJ that had held Aladdin Gaming, LLC to have engaged in illegal surveillance of labor activities. The Court upheld the Board’s adoption of a three part test to determine whether activities constitute illegal surveillance that considers the indicia of coerciveness during observation, the employer’s distance from employees while observing, and whether the employer engaged in coercive behavior during its observation.  In this case, the conduct consisted of two individual members of management offering opinions and advice regarding union promises while union organizers were talking to employees.  The Board found there was no evidence of coercive conduct.

In Arizona Life Coalition,  Inc. v. Stanton, the Ninth Circuit held that the Arizona License Plate Commission violated the plaintiff’s first amendment rights when it denied the request for a special organization license pledge that contained the message “Choose Life.”  The Court found that Arizona had created a limited public forum for nonprofits by offering its specialty license plate program.  The Court rejected the claim that the license plate program created an endorsement by the state of the views presented on specialty plates.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On November 9, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued one published opinion and one published orders:

 In Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff has standing to challenge alleged ADA violations not personally experienced by the plaintiff, where the violations the plaintiff did experience prevented the plaintiff form personally discovering those violations. Thus, here, where the plaintiff’s was prevented access by inadequate disabled parking and wheelchair ramp, other violations discovered by his expert may also be challenged. The Court also affirmed a ruling that failure to allow a disabled patron access to an employee only restroom is not a violation of the ADA.

 In Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, the Ninth Circuit amended a typographical error, and  added a case number of one of the consolidated appeals, Hind v. Southwest Airlines, Case No,. 05-17181, to the opinion originally filed  October 4, 2007.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks