#legalissue

See this thread on how Appian is now infringing IP and the CEO is hiding it under the rugs.

https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1k3rgscy7

Read the thread and see what your ex employee is doing with your IP...

https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1k3rgscy7?reply=%40pm%2B1k3rgscy7%20#comment_form

If you worked at U.S. Bank anytime since 2019 and had health insurance through them, you may have been charged extra fees — sometimes $50–$100 per month. These surcharges were added for things like smoking/vaping, keeping a spouse on your plan, or missing certain wellness checkups.
Attorneys are now investigating whether those charges were legal. Employees could be owed compensation if the surcharges violated federal or state laws.
https://openclassactions.com/investigations/us-bank-charging-employees-healthcare-insurance-surcharges.php

Shell fired white staffers at Houston offices for ‘weaker’ diverse hires in ‘discriminatory’ purge: lawsuit

https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/business/shell-ousted-white-security-staffers-for-weaker-diverse-hires-in-discriminatory-purge-lawsuit/

https://www.monkhouselaw.com/edward-jones-layoffs/

In the next couple of days, many of us will be presented with some form of a legal document from the firm that we need to sign. I know it is always advisable to get these documents reviewed by an employment attorney.

If you have worked with any employment attorneys in the past and recommend them, please share here. Also, share any negative feedback so we can stay away from such attorneys.

anyone hear of the manager in protein that was fired the minute they returned from medical leave after being out for months. if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about this company I don't know what will.

So, we have to use our cell phone on the floor for beauty, fine jewelry,and other associates. Sales floor App! Belk doesn't pay for that use nor is it in a contract with the associates. They dont compensate you for cell phone use that makes them money. But you get in trouble if you don't use it or actively using it? There has to be a law against this.

The White House has reached a preliminary revenue-sharing arrangement with Nvidia and AMD, requiring them to hand over 15 percent of their China AI chip sales in exchange for export licenses. However, officials concede that the deal’s legality and operational framework are still unsettled. Critics point to two major legal barriers: the U.S. Constitution’s Export Clause, which forbids taxes or duties on exports, and the Export Controls Reform Act of 2018, which explicitly bans fees for export licenses.

A Supreme Court ruling in 1998 struck down a similar export-related fee, reinforcing the potential vulnerability of the proposal. While the State Department does collect fixed fees from arms manufacturers under a separate law, the White House plan ties payments directly to export value, making it unprecedented and likely more controversial.

Supporters, including Trump, frame it as a way to raise government revenue while still allowing U.S. companies to sell advanced chips to China. Opponents warn it could be challenged in court by shareholders, state attorneys general, or other stakeholders, and that it sets a dangerous precedent for executive authority in trade policy. The Department of Commerce is still determining how to implement the arrangement, and officials have hinted it could be extended to other companies beyond Nvidia and AMD.