Appeals court will decide sick leave lawsuit
Legal News Center
Both sides of Milwaukee's sick leave ordinance say they're confident they will prevail now that the lawsuit over the ordinance is heading to a state appeals court.
The state Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 today on whether to uphold a circuit court ruling overturning the ordinance and sent the case to the appeals court for review.
In June 2009, a Milwaukee County judge struck down the ordinance, which was approved by 70 percent of voters. He found the ballot question didn't contain enough information explaining the ordinance, including details such as how much sick leave employers would be required to provide and when the leave could be used. The appeals court asked the justices to take the case directly, saying it was a matter of first impression.
Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser and Pat Roggensack voted to uphold the lower court ruling tossing the ordinance, while Justices Shirley Abrahamson, Ann Walsh Bradley and Pat Crooks voted to overturn the decision. Justice Annette Ziegler did not participate in the case.
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC) president Tim Sheehy said he was pleased the injunction blocking implementation of the ordinance remains in place.
"While we would have preferred a decision from the Supreme Court, we remain confident in our position that this mandate is in violation of both federal and Wisconsin statutes and the Wisconsin Constitution," he said. "We look forward to making that case persuasively to the Court of Appeals, keeping the injunction in place, and having the threat of this costly burden on Milwaukee employers lifted once and for all.”
The Wisconsin director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women said the group remained confident in its case as it heads back to the appeals court.
"Seventy percent of local voters approved one of the nation’s first paid sick leave ordinances, and now cities and states around the country are pursuing similar policies," Amy Stear said in a statement from the group that led the charge for the 2008 ballot initiative. "We’re confident in our legal case and look forward to the long overdue implementation of the ordinance."
Related listings
-
Federal appeals court upholds Texas pledge wording
Legal News Center 10/14/2010A federal appeals court has rejected a Dallas-area parent's bid to have "under God" removed from the Texas pledge of allegiance that is recited every day by public schoolchildren.Attorney General Greg Abbott says Wednesday's ruling is a victory for t...
-
SEC watchdog blunts accusations on Goldman timing
Legal News Center 10/13/2010The watchdog of the Securities and Exchange Commission has found no hard evidence that the SEC timed the announcement of its fraud case against Goldman Sachs to eclipse negative news about a separate case.Inspector General David Kotz's report Wednesd...
-
Court won't stop hormone replacement lawsuits
Legal News Center 10/12/2010The Supreme Court won't reconsider a decision to reinstate more than 100 lawsuits filed by women who claimed that hormone replacement therapy caused breast cancer.The high court refused on Tuesday to hear an appeal from Wyeth LLC and other pharmaceut...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.