Legal News for Weds 11/6 - SCOTUS Reviews Overtime Exemptions under FLSA, Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Risk, Trump Cases Halted and NVidia/Facebook Securities Fraud Suit

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: New York Grants Women Right to Vote

On November 6, 1917, New York became one of the first eastern states to grant women the right to vote, a pivotal victory for the suffrage movement in the United States. The state’s voters approved a constitutional amendment that extended suffrage to women, marking a significant shift in public opinion and advancing the national push for equal voting rights. New York was the most populous state to enact such a measure, lending critical momentum to the cause and demonstrating that widespread support for women's suffrage was achievable in even the largest urban areas.

This victory was the result of decades of persistent activism and organizing by leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt, who spearheaded the Empire State Campaign Committee, and countless local suffragists who canvassed tirelessly for public support. Women in New York had actively campaigned, held rallies, and built coalitions, especially focusing on mobilizing working-class women and men. The successful vote was seen as a clear mandate for gender equality and significantly influenced other states and Congress.

New York’s decision to enfranchise women not only energized the movement but also helped propel the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, which granted voting rights to women nationwide. This milestone in New York underscored the growing acknowledgment of women's role in public and political life, laying groundwork for further social and political reforms across the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case concerning whether a heightened standard of proof is necessary for employers claiming that workers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Currently, there is a split among federal circuits on this issue, with the Fourth Circuit requiring a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, while other circuits apply the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which means the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies. The case has significant implications for both workers’ rights and business costs.

Representing E.M.D. Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt argued that the default civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, should apply to FLSA cases, as imposing a stricter standard would burden employers and potentially lead to layoffs. Conversely, Lauren Bateman, representing employees and supported by Public Citizen, contended that because FLSA regulations protect critical worker health, safety, and economic welfare, a higher standard is warranted to ensure these protections are meaningful.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored that the FLSA aims not only to provide fair pay but also to ensure a safe workplace and expand employment, suggesting the importance of potentially adopting a stricter standard. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about why the FLSA should receive special treatment over other laws that also protect essential rights, such as those addressing discrimination.

The case attracted varied views on the potential broader impacts of raising the standard of proof. Some justices, like Samuel Alito, questioned how the court would measure the relative importance of rights across federal laws. The Justice Department, represented by Aimee Brown, supported the employer’s position, noting that Congress enacts many laws with public benefits, yet courts rarely apply a heightened standard of proof in such cases.

The Supreme Court's eventual decision could standardize how proof requirements are applied in overtime cases and influence both worker protections and business practices across the country.

US Supreme Court Leans Toward Business in Overtime Dispute (1)

A new lawsuit accuses Pfizer Inc. of failing to warn patients that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, could increase the risk of brain tumors. Plaintiff Taylor Devorak filed the complaint in California, alleging that Pfizer and other manufacturers had a duty to research and disclose potential links between Depo-Provera, as well as similar progesterone-based drugs, and intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and misrepresentation.

Devorak’s case follows similar lawsuits filed recently in California and Indiana. Her complaint notes that although the drug has been FDA-approved for over 30 years and widely used, Pfizer has not updated the U.S. labeling to reflect these risks, even as health authorities in the EU and UK now include warnings about meningioma for such medications. A 2024 study published in the *British Medical Journal* found a substantial increase in risk for brain tumors with prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.

In response, Pfizer asserts that Depo-Provera has been a safe option for millions and plans to “vigorously defend” against the claims. The case has brought renewed attention to safety and disclosure practices in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly around long-established medications.

Pfizer Accused of Hiding Contraceptive's Brain Tumor Link (1)

Following Donald Trump’s recent election as U.S. president, the criminal cases against him are likely to be halted for the duration of his term. Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, had four active prosecutions, including charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, a hush-money payment linked to Stormy Daniels, and unlawful retention of classified documents. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the cases as politically motivated, has stated he would immediately dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith, responsible for the federal prosecutions on election interference and document retention.

While Trump can halt federal cases, he has less control over state cases, such as the New York hush-money and Georgia election interference cases. However, his presidency could still effectively delay or complicate these proceedings. Legal experts expect delays in his New York sentencing, which had already been postponed, citing potential presidential immunity arguments.

In Georgia, Trump’s lawyers are working to pause proceedings under the argument that a sitting president should not face criminal prosecution. Additionally, his team has challenged Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's involvement, aiming to disqualify her based on alleged misconduct. Ultimately, experts believe Trump’s presidency will prevent the state-level cases from moving forward until his term concludes.

Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Facebook's effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who claim the company misled investors about the misuse of user data. The lawsuit, initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018, argues that Facebook violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose the 2015 Cambridge Analytica data breach, which affected over 30 million users and contributed to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Shareholders allege that Facebook presented data privacy risks as hypothetical even though the breach had already occurred.

Facebook contends that it was not legally required to disclose the prior breach and that reasonable investors would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit Court revived it, noting that Facebook’s statements misrepresented an already-realized risk.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by June, could influence the standards for securities fraud cases, making it harder for private parties to pursue claims. This case, along with a similar appeal by Nvidia, could further limit the liability of companies for nondisclosure of past risks. Past Cambridge Analytica fallout has led Facebook to settle related SEC and FTC actions, paying $100 million and $5 billion, respectively.

US Supreme Court to hear Facebook bid to escape securities fraud suit | Reuters

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe