Phillips V. Starbucks Corporation

This legal case involves Ms. Phillips' allegations against Starbucks Corporation for violating Title VII, Section 1981, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Starbucks has denied these allegations and has put forth affirmative defenses, including that Ms. Phillips failed to state any claims upon which relief may be granted and that her claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, Starbucks has denied specific allegations related to discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, breach of contract, broken promises, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Starbucks is requesting that the court rule in its favor and deny Ms. Phillips' relief, while also awarding costs, attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper. The document was filed and served on August 27, 2020.

Full Screen

Yelp Inc. v. Ken Paxton

Improved Summary: Yelp has proactively initiated legal action against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to forestall a possible lawsuit that might contest Yelp's right to categorize crisis pregnancy centers on its platform as entities that do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers. Yelp maintains that any such lawsuit would violate its First Amendment rights, asserting that its labels accurately represent the services these centers provide. The potential lawsuit from Paxton's office, hinted at last week, could aim to penalize Yelp for purported breaches of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Yelp's legal action seeks judicial affirmation that its labels are not misleading and a ban on Texas initiating future lawsuits regarding these labels.