News from North Dakota
|
North Dakota Supreme Court rules locked out employees are eligible for unemployment benefits
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
|
|---|
| In a split decision issued on February 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that over 400 employees locked out in a contract dispute with American Crystal Sugars should receive unemployment benefits.[5] This decision reverses a district court ruling which found the workers ineligible to receive benefits on the basis that unemployment insurance for workers involved in labor disputes is prohibited under state law.[6]
Members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union have been locked out by American Crystal Sugars, a company that processes sugar beets, since August 1, 2011. So far, the company has made four contract offers to the union, all of which have been rejected. While the labor dispute is ongoing, union members have not been allowed to work. They attempted to obtain unemployment benefits through Job Service North Dakota, but were denied. A district court judge ruled that Job Service North Dakota acted properly in denying benefits to the locked-out workers, and the union members appealed that decision to the state supreme court.[5]
In the high court's majority opinion, Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner wrote that by its language, North Dakota law "only disqualifies claimants from unemployment compensation for employee initiated work stoppages due to a labor dispute," not workers who have been locked out by their employers.[5] The opinion also claimed that the legislature only intended to prevent employees who choose to go on strike from collecting unemployment benefits.[5]
Writing in dissent, Justice Dale Sandstrom stated that the majority misinterpreted the intent of the legislature, asserting that the law was meant to bar employees involved in both strikes and lockouts from collecting unemployment benefits. In a separate dissent, Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle wrote that the legislative intent and the plain language of the law itself were both ambiguous, and that therefore the matter should be left to the legislature to decide.[5]
The case will now be sent back to Job Service North Dakota, whose unemployment insurance director, Darren Brostrom, previously stated that a court ruling in favor of the workers could result in payment of $4 million or more in benefits.[6] |
|
|
News from Kansas
|
Non-biological parents in same-sex relationships obtain parental rights in Kansas
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
|
|---|
| On February 29, 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court handed down a pivotal decision in the area of family law which affects non-biological parents, no matter their sexual orientation.
For the first time in the state, non-biological parents have been deemed to have parental rights. The case at bar involved two lesbian mothers. During their relationship, the biological mother, Kelly Goudschaal, gave birth to two children through the use of artificial insemination. Her partner, Marci Frazier, was a part of the decision to bring the children into the world and raise them together. When the couple split, they signed a parenting agreement wherein they agreed to "jointly and equally share parental responsibility".[7] Goudschaal moved with the children to Texas thereafter and began denying Frazier access to the children. As a result, she filed suit for enforcement of the parental agreement.
Goudschaal argued that Frazier had no right to bring the action as she was not a biological parent and therefore had no legal status to do so. Yet the court, using the best interests of the child(ren) standard frequently used in family law cases, held that biology is not dispositive in determining what is best for a child. Justice Lee Johnson, writing for the majority, stated:
- "[T]he coparenting agreement before us cannot be construed as a prohibited sale of the children because the biological mother retains her parental duties and responsibilities. The agreement is not injurious to the public because it provides the children with the resources of two persons, rather than leaving them as the fatherless children of an artificially inseminated mother. No societal interest has been harmed; no mischief has been done."[8]
Further, denying the enforcement of the agreement entered into between Goudschaal and Frazier would "deny the children the opportunity to have two parents."[7]
As one article observed in the wake of the ruling, "a child’s parents are the people that have legally committed to caring for them, not necessarily who they are biologically connected to."[9] Kansas is not the first state to make such a ruling.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights commented on the decision, stating,
| “
|
This ruling is significant not only for same-sex parents, but also for many kinds of families where non-biological parents are raising children.[10][4]
|
”
|
|
|
|
News from Indiana
|
Indiana Supreme Court may take up case of jailed blogger
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
|
|---|
| In 2009, Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey issued a ruling in the divorce case of Daniel Brewington that Brewington felt was unfair.[11] Subsequent to the ruling, Brewington took to the Internet to air his frustrations, making several posts on his website over a two year period about the judge and the ruling. Law enforcement eventually decided that the posts amounted to intimidation of a judge, attempted obstruction of justice, and perjury. In 2011, Brewington was convicted on these charges and sentenced to jail.[11]
Brewington has been pursuing an appeal since his conviction, and last month the Indiana Court of Appeals heard his case. The court upheld the more serious charges against Brewington, and now it seems as though the Indiana Supreme Court may take up the appeal. Many legal scholars, politicians, and advocacy organizations have become involved in the case, which many contest has significant implications for first amendment rights.[11]
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether to take up the appeal after the March 11th filing deadline. |
|
|
News from Pennsylvania
|
GPS tracking law confusion in light of U.S. Supreme Court decision
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
|
|---|
| The Pennsylvania Superior Court, on February 20, reversed a decision by a lower court and ruled that police placement of a GPS tracking device on a suspected drug dealer's car was legal.
The GPS tracking of Edwin Burgos in 2011 led to a discovery of 17 pounds of marijuana in his truck. When Burgos went to court, his attorney petitioned Judge Paul M. Yatron, of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, to suppress the evidence, which he claimed was illegally obtained. Yatron refused.
That was in December of 2011, a month before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement were required to obtain search warrants prior to installing GPS devices on suspects' vehicles. This was in conflict with Pennsylvania's Wiretap Law, but Yatron ruled that the state law no longer applied and suppressed the evidence.
In the appeal, the Superior Court pointed to limitations in the GPS tracking law. In tracking Burgos, police had followed the state's Wiretap Law, which the appeals court ruled to be the applicable law in this case. Additionally, it was agreed that police had probable cause for suspecting Burgos.
The Superior Court stated,
| “
|
It is evident that these wiretap orders serve as the functional equivalent of traditional search warrants.[12][4]
|
”
|
|
|
|
