As the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to spread, requiring businesses to close their offices and locations, employers must determine whether the elimination of jobs and facilities trigger notice requirements under the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

On March 23, 2020, Oregon’s Governor issued a "Stay Home, Save Lives" order, which closes much business, but allows others to continue operations if they take certain steps. This alert answers to some of the most fundamental questions about the impact of the order on business operations within Oregon.

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, the United States Supreme Court allowed for the creation of a private cause of action for damages arising from violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was novel because there was neither a statute nor provision in the Constitution for a cause of action for damages.

Reversing a distinction previously made, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on March 21 postponed until July 15 deadlines for both paying and filing federal income taxes normally due April 15. The postponed deadlines cover only federal income tax.

The term “fintech” is used to describe the application of new technology to improve the delivery and use of financial services and products in a more cost-effective way than is available in the traditional financial marketplace.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency responsible for enforcement of the employment discrimination laws. The Commission has issued two publications to assist employers and employees in interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the context of  dealing with pandemics.

On March 17, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends Cal-WARN’s 60-day notice requirement for covered employers conducting mass layoffs, plant closures or terminations during this emergency crisis.

On March 20, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court issued its greatly anticipated decision in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the case that examined whether an exception to the eight-corners rule existed. As most insurance practitioners expected, the answer was a resounding “No.”