Wow Twitter blocked as sensitive content my tweet about a bill the CT legislature is debating on employment law and wages. I think its a bad bill, but not that bad twitter...

CT Gen. Assembly discussing a bill that requires ERs to disclose wage range for a position (could be what you have budgeted) when you offer a job and once a year. I am pretty moderate, and this strikes me as overlegislating. And I am understating. https://t.co/Sxrz4zJcFl

Bloggers beware. In this case, be thankful. Yesterday the DC district court of appeals reversed denial of SLAPP special motion to dismiss where blogger published alleged defamatory statements uttered by someone else.

SCOTUS ruled yesterday Muslims can sue FBI for placing them on no-fly list as retaliation for refusing to cooperate with counterterrorism investigations. Interesting balance on religion and governmental immunity.

Kind of the way a lawyer should prepare his/her client.

The rush from the cities (NYC mostly) to rural Connecticut and upstate New York is bringing back that lovely old equitable remedy SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE!! Oh I love contracts. And specific performance even more.

With jobless claims so high, more small businesses are fighting unemployment. "Refusing suitable employment," is the biggest issue per DOL. Employers should be prepared with proof of PPE compliance if they want to defeat a claim because they offered the employee their job back. https://t.co/L5kM4L6qCF

With jobless claims so high, more small businesses are fighting unemployment. "Refusing suitable employment," is the biggest issue per DOL. Employers should be prepared with proof of PPE compliance if they want to defeat a claim because they offered the employee their job back. https://t.co/xoBslJOgLc

DE Sup. Court, epicenter for biz litigation, answered yesterday a certified question from 9th Circuit.LP must prove reliance and causation when suing GP for failure to disclose material info in one-time request for capital contribution. LP does not get benefit of per se rule.

Wow. Maybe this isn't that much of a big deal. What was the underlying evidence? With the "but for" standard under federal law this surprises me a bit.