Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has asked the state’s Commonwealth Court to modify existing consent decrees for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Highmark, Inc., a Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance plan, to ensure that UPMC “abides by its charitable obligations to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
An applicant for 501(c)(4) social welfare status may not challenge the facial constitutionality of a Revenue Ruling relied upon by the Internal Revenue Service in denying its claim for (c)(4) status, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
An employee’s claim under a state whistleblower protection law is not defeated because an employer suspended both the employee who filed a criminal complaint for sexual assault and the accused co-employee from their jobs in a sheltered workshop.
A nonprofit providing services to persons with mental health issues and other disabilities sought to have the claim dismissed because it treated its two client employees equally. A trial court in Michigan agreed and dismissed the case. An appellate court has reversed.
The “ministerial exception” that protects churches and church-related entities from many employment suits does not protect a Catholic elementary school from suit by a fifth grade teacher who claims she was terminated in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, has reversed a District Court decision dismissing the case.
A member of an Illinois nonprofit corporation has standing to sue members of the board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty by establishing “an undisclosed side agreement among themselves” that he claims disenfranchises members by distorting their votes. But a federal District Court in Missouri has directed the member to show whether the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 minimum necessary to confer diversity jurisdiction on the court.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has refused to join several other jurisdictions in accepting a “good cause” inquiry to provide exceptions to the basic rule of attorney-client privilege in derivative action cases. It has held that providing such a “conditional privilege” would reduce the certainty of the attorney-client privilege.
