No termination for refusing to sign confidentiality statement

An employer may not fire an employee who refuses to sign an illegal confidentiality statement, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.  It has affirmed a National Labor Relations Board order requiring reinstatement of an employee who refused to sign a confidentiality statement saying he wouldn’t discuss the terms and conditions of his employment or answer questions from the media about the workings of his employer.

Club Can’t Compel Arbitration Based on Notice on Back of Renewal Form

Court finds member had no actual notice of requirement to arbitrate disputes with organization

An appellate court in California has affirmed a trial court decision refusing to compel arbitration of a breach of contract, fraud and defamation claim brought by a member against the American Contract Bridge League.  The Court had held that the member had no knowledge of the requirement to arbitrate that was included on the back of his annual membership renewal form.

Parent-child centers qualify for tax exemption

The City of Rutland, VT, has lost its argument that a pair of parent-child centers offering a variety of state-funded programs for new and prospective parents and for families with small children should not be eligible for real estate tax exemption.  The City argued that they do not serve an “indefinite class” of beneficiaries and confer a benefit on the public as a whole.  The Supreme Court of Vermont has affirmed a trial court decision rejecting the claim and granting exemption for the parcels.

Foundation Director May Bring Derivative Suit Without Prior Demand on Directors

Court agrees that demand on majority of directors would be futile when claims involve their conduct and compensation

A trial court in North Carolina has refused to dismiss a corporate derivative suit brought by a private foundation director on behalf of the foundation and against the other four directors for breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement.  The director is seeking damages for the foundation and removal of the other directors from the board.  The defendants had claimed that the director did not meet the requirements of state law to make demands on them before filing the action.