As of July 1, the new Florida law on the Preservation and Protection of the Right to keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008 is in effect. This new law gives employees with concealed handgun licenses the right to bring firearms to work, providing they keep them locked in their cars. 

This new law has several major opponents, one being Florida’s largest employer, Walt Disney World. According a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel by Scott Powers and Jason Garcia,  Disney is using a legal loophole in the new legislation to keep most of their property is exempt.  A few other heavy weights opposing this new firearms legislation, include the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation.

The blog, HR Bartender, chimed in on this subject, with an intro from the movie Scarface “Say hello...to my little friend.”  Also opponents of the new legislation, they mention the injunction that is before the courts and cleverly end with “Let’s hope the courts listen. Otherwise employers will have a whole bunch of new “friends” hanging out in the parking lot.”

Blogger, George_Teneyck, made an interesting point  in the blog post “Coming Soon In Florida, Bring Your Gun to Work Day?” , when he writes  “I'm not sure how legalizing the concealment of deadly weapons helps anything except CNN's news ratings.”

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle is quoted in an article by Adam L. Neal, for Treasure Coast Scripps Newspapers as saying that he thinks that the law is so badly written that it’s "stupid”. However, Judge Hinkle has declined to make a ruling until sometime in July.

Regardless of how employers feel about this new Florida gun law, they are not allowed to take action against or search the vehicles of their employees who have legal permits to carry concealed weapons. Everyone will have to wait and see how Judge Hinkle rules on this new law. Until then, let’s hope that there will not be a wave of violence at Florida work-sites in the meantime.

This is the third verdict regarding overtime wage disputes against the big box retailer, since 2005.  In 2006, a Pennsylvania Jury  awarded a verdict of   $78 million against Walmart and in 2005 a California Jury awarded a verdict of $172 million against Wal-Mart. Of course, both cases are on appeal. The giant big box retailer, allegedly stated " they'll never settle in a million years. ... and that 'They will try the cases until the cows come home", according to the Plaintiff Attorney in these cases. 

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.  I am certain that they will appeal the recent $6.5 million Judge verdict, in an effort to be consistent with their stance on not paying for these claims.

Click here to read more on this case in the article by Alison Frankel, "Wal-Mart Loses $6.5 Million Wage-and-Hour Class Action In Minnesota" in AM Law Daily.

The jury will now determine the punitive damages for Madison Square Garden.  They will determine how much money to award the Plaintiff, Browne Sanders.  The Plaintiff requested $10 million in punitive damages, while at MSG she was paid $260,000. Her claims of sexism, nepotism and crass language as the norm at MSG is despicable if this actually happened. At no time and under no circumstances is sexual harassment acceptable, even among jocks.

I am saddened that someone like Isiah Thomas would  be accused of such a crime. But if he is guilty, he is not above the law and should be punished accordingly.  That goes for MSG also. I do not necessarily agree with the legal counsel for Isiah Thomas when he said: "Punishment for the sake of punishment is not what this is all about".  The punishment for this and every other crime is about sending a message to the guilty party that is reasonable and just for the crime at hand. 

All eyes are on the New York Jury to see what they come back with for punitive damages for MSG. Stay tuned...

To read more on the case, click here for ABC News, Fox Sports,

The settlement ends a lawsuit that alleged Sprint had engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination by targeting for layoffs employees who were 40 years of age and older. The case was filed more than four years ago and attracted national attention because of its extensive computer-based document discovery. The AARP Foundation litigation group assisted the five law firms that represented the 1700 former employees.

According to Judge Lungstrum it was "remarkable” that in a case involving so many plaintiffs there were only two objections — both by former call center employees complaining not of the settlement but of the specific payments they are due to receive. And that no plaintiffs chose to opt out of the settlement.

The plaintiff settlements range from $4,226 for hourly call center employees to $35,738 for employees at the top of the settlement scale, according to court documents. The average settlement disbursement works out to about $20,330 per plaintiff who opted to be a part of the lawsuit.

The case focused on the Jack Welch “forced ranking,” employee-evaluation system. Other companies such as Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Ford Motor Co. and Capital One have been sued in recent years over such rankings.

This case sends a message to large employers such as Sprint that Age discrimination and flawed ranking systems will not be tolerated, otherwise, there will be stiff penalties to pay.  It is such a shame that a company with such a stellar reputation would engage in a practice like this.

Click here to read more about this case from the Kansas City Star.