JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, August 25, 2012

[JURIST] On Friday an inn in Vermont settled [text] a discrimination case brought by a same-sex couple who was turned away from the holding their wedding reception at the inn because of the owner's views on same-sex marriage. The Wildflower Inn was fined $10,000 in civil penalties and $20,000 to put in a charitable trust. The couple, Katherine Baker and Ming-Lien Linsley, said they will give the most money to the Trevor Project [advocacy website] and plan to give the rest to various other charities. The Alliance Defending Freedom [advocacy website], who represented the inn, claimed [press release] this case was discriminating against the owner of the inn's free expression. However, according to Vermont's Fair Housing and Accommodations Act [text, PDF], a public inn with more than five rooms that does not claim a religious affiliation may not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The debate over LGBT rights is an ever expanding issue. A recent JURIST Feature provides an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the topic. Earlier this week the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) [advocacy website] asked [JURIST report] the Supreme Court to review the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. In addition, JURIST has published two editorials related to DOMA earlier this month. The first focuses the potential constitutional flaws of DOMA [JURIST comment] and the second discusses the deeper federalism issues that are contained in the law [JURIST op-ed]. Late last month, a federal judge in Connecticut ruled [JURIST report] that DOMA was unconstitutional.

[JURIST] The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] approved an agreement [final order text, PDF] Friday between the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] and Virginia in a case dealing with the treatment of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Virginia was found to have violated the interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [official website] requirements in the Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. LC [opinion text]. The district court ruled that Virginia had been violating ADA regulations "to provide people with intellectual and developmental disabilities the opportunity to live and receive services in the community." In a statement [text], the DOJ explained the new agreement:

The settlement agreement will provide relief to more than 5,000 people by expanding community services and supports, including Medicaid-funded home and community-based waivers, crisis services, housing and employment supports and by establishing a comprehensive quality management system.

An independent party will be in charge of ensuring Virginia's compliance with the agreement and issuing regular reports. The settlement was originally submitted [PDF] for court approval in January. It was then pre-approved in March before it was opened up for public debate in June and ultimately approved as a final order on Friday.

The ADA has been the subject of much case law and has been amended since its adoption in 1990 [JURIST report]. In May, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] ruled that an employee with a claim under the ADA does not need to show that his or her disability was the sole reason he or she was fired, only that the disability was a "but-for" cause of the termination. In 2008 the US Congress amended the act [JURIST report] to make it easier for employees to bring a claim under the law, closing gaps that could have denied protection to employees with certain disabilities. At that time, Congress said the amendments were necessary to remedy the US Supreme Court's restrictive interpretation of the law in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams [opinion text] in 2002. The Supreme Court also ruled in 2006 that states have no immunity [JURIST report] under the ADA and must comply with its standards.

[JURIST] Japan's Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda [official profile] on Friday signed a resolution [Xinhua.net report] describing South Korea's control of islands in the Sea of Japan as an "illegal occupation." The resolution also calls for South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak [official website, in Korean] to apologize and renounce comments he made during an August 15 surprise visit [Al Jazeera report] to the disputed island territory. These comments included a request for Japan's Emperor Akihito to apologize for the nation's occupation of the Korean penninsula during World War II. The disputed islands, known as Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in South Korea, are believed to contain valuable natural gas deposits. Noda has threatened to refuse to meet with Myung-Bak at the of the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) [official website] summit in Vladivostok set for September.

The hostility between Japan and South Korea over the islands escalated since Myung-Bak made his surprise visit to the islands last week. On Monday, the government of Japan announced [JURIST report] that it will file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] in The Hague over the ongoing territorial dispute. South Korea immediately rejected the proposal [JURIST report]. In March 2005 Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro [official profile] mentioned [JURIST report] that the ICJ could be a good forum for resolving the dispute over the islands. Earlier in March 2005 a Japanese prefecture approved a symbolic resolution [JURIST report] calling for the creation of "Takeshima Day" to celebrate Japan's alleged sovereignty over the islands.

[JURIST] A jury in the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] ruled [verdict form, PDF] Friday that Samsung Electronics [corporate website] violated several smartphone and tablet technology related patents held by Apple [corporate website], awarding $1.05 billion in damages. The dispute covers everything from the shape and design of the competing companies' tablets and smartphones to the technology employed in the devices' software interface. The jury sided with Apple, who asked for damages of $2.5 billion. They rejected claims made by Samsung [WP report] that Apple had violated a number of its patents. Samsung responded to the decision [The Verge report] by suggesting that patent law is easily manipulated so even the most basic design structures can be patented. Apple CEO Tim Cook released a statement [The Verge report] commending the jury and emphasizing the value his corporation places on innovation. In addition to damages, Apple has requested an injunction against Samsung prohibiting them from selling any of its products that are found to infringe on Apple's patents. A hearing on the request for an injunction is scheduled for September 20. Samsung plans to appeal [CNN report] the verdict.

Earlier this month, a federal judge denied a motion [JURIST report] filed by Apple requesting that the court sanction Samsung for leaking evidence to the media, and declare an immediate victory in the patent infringement trial. In July, Judge Lucy Koh issued an injunction [JURIST report] in this case against Samsung to stop the sale of its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US. A week earlier the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had rejected [Bloomberg report; CAFC notice, PDF] Samsung's appeal of the decision that remanded the case to the district court, giving Apple another opportunity to ban Samsung's Galaxy products in the states after it partially reversed [JURIST report] the district court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction for Apple against Samsung. Apple's request for a temporary injunction was denied [JURIST report] by the district court in December. Apple filed a suit [JURIST report] against Samsung in April of last year alleging that Samsung committed ten patent infringements, two trademark violations and two trade dress violations by copying iPhone and iPad technology in making its "Galaxy" products.