Afternoon Briefs: Law firm settles age bias suit; SCOTUS reviews Oracle’s $9B copyright claim

News Roundup

blocks with bias words

Image from Shutterstock.com.

Pryor Cashman settles associate’s age bias suit

Pryor Cashman has settled a lawsuit by an associate who said the firm violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when it fired him after 18 years on the job. The associate, Alan Laufer, was 61 when he was fired. The law firm had claimed that Laufer’s performance was “adequate” during most of his time at the firm, but it worsened when he displayed a negative attitude and “oddly arrogant” conduct. (Law360)

Supreme Court to hear copyright battle between Google and Oracle

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether copyright protection extends to a software interface that allows software applications to interact with each other. Oracle claims that Google violated its copyright when it copied its Java programming language for its mobile operating system. It is seeking $9 billion in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that the code could be copyrighted and Google’s conduct was not fair use. (The New York Times, CNBC, SCOTUSblog here and here)

Arnold & Porter probed by agency that investigates immigration bias in employment

A court filing has revealed that Arnold & Porter is being investigated by the agency that probes employment discrimination based on immigration bias. The revelation was in an administrative case filed by a lawyer alleging that Arnold & Porter told a legal staffing firm to discriminate against noncitizens and dual citizens in hiring for a discovery project. Initiation of the review by the Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section does not mean that there has been a finding of fault. (Law360)

Oregon chief justice requires warrants for ICE arrests at courthouses

Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Walters adopted a new rule Thursday that requires agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to get warrants signed by a judge before making civil arrests at state courthouses. Previously, ICE relied on administrative warrants. ICE released an unclear statement that said it will “continue to carry out its mission to uphold public safety and enforce immigration law and consider carefully whether to refer those who obstruct our lawful enforcement efforts for criminal prosecution.” (OPB, the Oregonian)