Litigation Trends

Subscribe to Litigation Trends

The Supreme Court’s May 14, 2018, decision in Murphy v. NCAA was focused on sports betting, however, the case at its core served as a stress test on the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty. No. 16-476, 2018 WL 2186168 (U.S. May 14, 2018). Constitutional law prohibits the federal government from “commandeering,” or compelling the states to take regulatory action that the Tenth Amendment would otherwise reserve to them. In Murphy v. NCAA, consolidated with its companion case, New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. NCAA (referred to herein collectively as “Murphy”), the Supreme Court held that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. Id. at *20. Its decision not only allows states to legalize sports betting, but if applied broadly, could be construed as conferring substantially more power on states, in general, on issues ranging from gun control to legalization of marijuana.

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

When the original states declared their independence from England, they did so with an aim toward dual sovereignty — granting sovereign powers to both the federal government and the states. Consistent with dual sovereignty, the framers etched into the Constitution that Congress cannot issue orders directly to the states. The addition of the Tenth Amendment solidified this basic premise by declaring, “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The anti-commandeering doctrine represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.

Before 2018, the anti-commandeering doctrine had only been addressed twice by the Supreme Court. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).  In New York, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that ordered the state to regulate in accordance with federal standards. Similarly, in Printz, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that compelled state officers to enforce federal law.

In both opinions, the Supreme Court explained that the Constitution “confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992). “No Member of the Court ha[d] ever suggested” that even “a particularly strong federal interest” “would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulation.” Id. at 178 (emphasis in original). “We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” Id. at 166.

Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act

In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”).  PASPA makes it illegal for states to “authorize” “a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based” “on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate.” 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq. PASPA grandfathered in four states – Delaware, Montana, Nevada…
Continue Reading

The overwhelming majority of courts (including all seven federal circuits that considered the issue) have rejected the so-called “innovator liability” doctrine.[1]  In 2017, however, the California Supreme Court in T.H. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.[2] unanimously recognized the doctrine holding that brand-name prescription drug manufacturers owe a duty to warn to consumers who use generic drugs.[3]  In March of 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) considered the issue, and took a middle ground.  Specifically, in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc.,[4] the SJC held that plaintiffs who ingest the generic form of a drug may bring failure to warn claims against the brand-name manufacturer of the drug if the brand-name defendant acted recklessly by “intentionally fail[ing] to update the label on its drug while knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use.”[5]  In so doing, the SJC reasoned that a plaintiff is, in fact, injured by a brand-name product’s label despite never having used said product because statutes require identical labeling of the generically manufactured version.[6]

The Facts

In 2010, a physician prescribed Finasteride, the generic version of the brand name drug Proscar, to treat Rafferty’s enlarged prostate.[7]  Rafferty experienced anticipated temporary side effects from the drug, causing him to stop taking the medication.[8]  Rafferty, however, continued to experience these side effects and his physician informed him that they could actually continue “indefinitely.”[9]  The potential lifelong side effects of this drug were not disclosed within the brand-name manufacturer’s nor the mirrored generic manufacturer’s warning label.[10]  Rafferty presented evidence that the brand-name manufacturer became aware of these potential long-term side effects by 2008, when it updated Proscar’s warning label in select European markets to include this risk.[11]

Rafferty filed suit against the brand-name manufacturer in 2013, asserting a claim of negligence for, inter alia, failure to warn and for violation of the Commonwealth’s Consumer Protection Statute, G.L. c. 93A.[12]  The Superior Court dismissed Rafferty’s claims, “ruling that [the brand-name defendant] owed no duty of care to [him].”[13]  The SJC took over the case by its own motion from the Appeals Court.[14]

The SJC Weighs In

Traditionally, Massachusetts has not recognized liability for products manufactured by others.[15]  However, the SJC noted that The Restatement (Third) of Torts allows a modification to this general rule in exceptional cases.[16] The SJC considered innovator liability to require such a modification given the certainty that a user of a generic drug will rely on the label fashioned by the brand-name manufacturer and as state law shields failure to warn claims from generic manufacturers, leaving plaintiffs without recourse for their injuries.[17] However, the SJC also recognized that imposing innovator liability could impact the public policy of encouraging innovation in the drug market and a potential increase in drug pricing.[18]

Balancing these competing interests, the court held that, “a brand-name manufacturer…
Continue Reading

On April 16, 2018, a Rhode Island court addressed for the first time whether an entity owes a duty of care to protect non-employees from exposure to the asbestos-tainted work clothes of the entity’s employee.  In a decision denying the defendant Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment in the matter of Carolyn Nichols, as Executrix of the Estate of Iva Pearl Jones, et al. v. Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust, et al., C.A. No. PC-2008-1134, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter held that while the existence of such a duty is determined on a case-by-case basis, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Crane Co. had a duty to protect against such “secondary” or “take-home” exposure.  The decision is significant in that the Court demonstrated a willingness to impose such a broad duty upon an employer if certain factors are met through the plaintiff’s evidence.

In the Jones matter, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent, Iva Pearl Jones (“Ms. Jones”) was exposed to asbestos from the clothing of her brother-in-law, Stanley Nichols (“Mr. Nichols”) while Mr. Nichols was employed by Crane Co. from 1979 to 1980 and resided in the same home as Ms. Jones and other family members.  The testimony also established that Ms. Jones “always” did the laundry, including Mr. Nichols’ work clothes.  Ms. Jones was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2005 and passed away in 2007.  The plaintiffs alleged that Crane Co. failed to take adequate precautions to prevent asbestos fibers from leaving the work site and failed to warn employees of a foreseeable risk of take-home exposures to their cohabitants. Following discovery, Crane Co. moved for summary judgment on all counts asserting that it had no duty of care to Ms. Jones, its employee’s sister-in-law, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the alleged exposure to asbestos from Mr. Nichols’ clothing caused Ms. Jones’ disease.

The Court, noting that an employer’s duty to protect against “take-home” exposures is an issue of first impression in Rhode Island, recognized the division of existing authority in other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue in NY, MD, GA, TN, NJ, IL, and ND. The Court held that it need not find a “special relationship” between Crane Co. and Ms. Jones to impose a duty because the plaintiffs allegations were based upon Crane Co.’s own alleged misfeasance in utilizing asbestos-containing products and not on an alleged failure of Crane Co. to protect against the actions of a third-party tortfeasor.  Instead, the Court held that under Rhode Island law, the existence of a duty of care is determined on a case-by-case basis considering the following factors: (1) the foreseeability of the harm; (2) the degree of certainty of injury; (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury; (4) the policy of preventing future harm; (5) the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community in imposing a legal duty; and (6) the relationship between the parties.

After considering the above-factors, the Court…
Continue Reading

A March 22, 2018, denial of a defendant’s summary judgment motion in the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) signals a drastic lowering of the product identification standards in that venue (and a possible strategic adjustment necessary in future defendants litigating there).

In Trumbull v. Adience, Inc., a former brewer sued Stavo Industries (“Stavo”) as a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiff was allegedly exposed.  Stavo made, among other products, filters used in breweries. The plaintiff listed Stavo in his interrogatory responses, but not during his deposition testimony.  At his deposition, the plaintiff recalled exposure to filters generally, but only named one specific manufacturer—Cellulo.  However, the plaintiff also referred back, on the record, to his interrogatory responses for the list of filter brands that he supposedly encountered.

From Stavo’s perspective, the plaintiff’s general interrogatory mention of Stavo and reference back to those interrogatories during the deposition failed the requirement for product identification. Stavo moved for summary judgment.  Justice Manuel Mendez denied Stavo’s motion, and ruled that a reference back to the interrogatory responses during his deposition did “sufficiently identify” Stavo filters as an exposure source.  The Court found that Stavo’s liability could be inferred from the plaintiff’s testimony that he worked near filters being removed and replaced, considered with Stavo marketing materials from the time at issue claiming widespread usage of Stavo products in the brewing industry.  For the Court, this provided enough evidence to survive summary judgment.

After this decision, the bar for product identification in the NYCAL appears dangerously low.  This standard encourages plaintiffs to make blanket references to their vague interrogatory responses in depositions where actual recollection is impossible. It also forces prudent defendants to cross-examine during depositions with or without a specific mention of the defendant’s product occurring. If the NYCAL proceeds with this standard, the number of identifications stands to increase.
Continue Reading

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Federal circuits are currently split on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation falls within the scope of discrimination based on sex (and therefore within the scope of Title VII’s prohibition). On February 26, 2018, the en banc Second Circuit Court of Appeals found in Zarda v. Altitude Express that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex does in fact cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, overturning its own precedent holding from almost twenty years prior. This result signals increased viability for challenges advocating a broader interpretation of Title VII to remedy sexual orientation discrimination, as well as a potential pushback by the Jeff Sessions-helmed Justice Department as these challenges arise.

Zarda involved a skydiving instructor (Zarda) who alleged that his employer (Altitude Express) fired him in response to a customer telling them of his sexual orientation. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Altitude Express on Zarda’s claim, finding that Title VII failed to cover sexual orientation discrimination, and that Zarda failed to establish the type of gender-stereotyping claim covered by the act. The District Court considered itself bound by the Second Circuit’s 17-year-old decision in Simonton v. Runyon, and held that, absent an en banc review by the Second Circuit reversing Simonton, Second Circuit precedent required dismissal. Zarda appealed the summary judgment to the Second Circuit, which granted an en banc review. Writing the majority opinion, Judge Robert Katzmann wrote in the majority opinion that sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves sex discrimination, as it means discrimination against someone based on their own sex in relation to the sex of those to whom they are sexually attracted. Katzmann noted that although Congress had not sought to address sexual orientation discrimination in Title VII, laws like Title VII “often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils,” which in this case included sexual orientation discrimination. The Second Circuit thus reversed Simonson, vacated the summary judgment, and remanded the Title VII claim to the District Court.

By allowing such a claim to proceed under Title VII, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit, which found last April that Title VII covers sexual orientation discrimination in its decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. Hively concerned an adjunct professor who alleged that her employer passed her up for full employment because she was openly gay. Hively argued that she faced discriminated for failing to conform to female stereotypes, and because she publicly identified as a lesbian. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of her employer. It found that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination” and that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth…
Continue Reading