The Rutgers Law Record

Plant-based “meats” are products that mimic the texture, flavor, and appearance of meat that comes from live animals. Tofurky uses terms like “chorizo,” “hot dogs,” and “ham” to describe its products. All of their products unambiguously indicate that they are plant-based, meatless, vegetarian, or vegan. This note will analyze the constitutionality of Act 501, and substantially similar laws that may threaten the constitutionally protected rights of Freedom of Speech and Due Process guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It will also analyze the possible implication of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
…
This article is comprised of four parts. Part I will focus on the new perceived “threat” and emergence of plant-based products and its place in the agriculture and consumer market. Part II will discuss the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim and the prayer for relief that allegedly protects freedom of speech and expression, which extends to the good faith labeling of food products. Part III will cover the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation the plaintiffs assert in their complaint and memorandum in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits against vague statutes. This note will also discuss what constitutes a vaguely written statute, including an assessment of whether or not the plaintiff could prevail on their motion for a preliminary injunction on that claim and additionally, whether or not a court would find the statute unconstitutional. Part IV will cover the public policy implications of upholding Act 501, and substantially similar laws in the United States, and reasons for possibly allowing environmentally friendly companies like Tofurky to promote, advertise and sell their products to the general public.

View the entire article –>

On August 8, 2019, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued three opinion letters, which are official, written opinions composed by the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL, that interpret “how a particular law applies in specific circumstances presented by the individual person or entity that requested the letter.” Two of the letters released in August 2019 addressed compliance issues related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and the third letter addressed a compliance issue related to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). FMLA2019-2-A, the letter regarding compliance with the FMLA, responded to an employee’s request for an opinion on “whether an employee may take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to attend a Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to discuss the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of the employee’s son or daughter.” Based on the facts presented by the requesting employee, the Wage and Hour Division concluded that attendance at such meetings is indeed a qualifying reason to take intermittent leave under the FMLA.

This paper analyzes the conclusion presented in the above-detailed opinion letter and explores why a parent should undoubtedly be able to take leave under the FMLA to attend meetings concerning their child’s educational and special medical needs. Further, this paper seeks to explore why a parent’s attendance at such meetings constitutes essential care for a family member with a serious health condition within the meaning of the FMLA. Finally, this paper seeks to explain the implications of FMLA2019-2-A on employers. Although DOL opinion letters are not binding, it is essential for employers to treat this opinion as if it were in order to promote the well-being of employees with children who are entitled to special education services in public schools.

View the entire article –>

This note seeks to analyze the issue of whether, under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, willful infringement should be a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 USC § 1125. This note argues in favor of the bright-line rule requiring that a plaintiff prove willful infringement as a prerequisite for a court to grant the remedy of infringer’s profits in instances of trademark infringement arguing a likelihood of confusion. In doing so, this note will consider the legislative intent behind the Act, analysis of relevant precedential case law, and the effective outcome of such a decision. For the purposes of this note, “trademark infringement” is synonymous with a likelihood of confusion action.

View the entire article –>

The recent Johnson & Johnson case decided in Oklahoma is one where the courts decided that the solution to societies’ frustration over the opioid crisis was to give society what they wanted: a bad guy to blame and then hang.The court picked Johnson & Johnson, railroaded the company with questionable legal analysis and then made sure at the end of the trail the bad guy would be hung to the cheers of the crowds.This paper looks at the consequences of allowing the legal system to forego its duty and side with the mob simply to be a hero. This paper will examine how the courts mislead the mob and why they did it, and why by allegedly solving this crisis, they may have created an even bigger problem.

View the entire article –>

In New York City, the State of New Jersey and around the nation, the housing market has seen a general decline in home ownership. Due to a host of economic and cultural reasons, Millennials and other generations alike are choosing to rent more and buy less. With a likely economic recession looming ahead due to the COVID-19 global pandemic shutdowns, it is unlikely that this housing trend will reverse. This paper seeks to analyze various challenges and abuses that many tenants in tri-state area housing market encounter and the existing legal framework in place to resolve such challenges. The State of New Jersey has been a leader in advancing consumer protection since the 1970s and has adopted a strong stance towards tenants’ rights laws. The Truth-in-Renting, the Implied Warranty of Habitability and a developed statutory framework for individuals facing eviction proceedings are just a few examples of the advanced infrastructure which exists in New Jersey. This paper seeks to investigate the challenges that tenants may face from the formation of the lease contract to completion of a residential lease and post-tenancy procedures. While New Jersey has a protective legal structure to shield tenants from landlord harassment, there is a gap between the available rights and the tenants’ ability to defend themselves on the basis of these rights.
View the entire article –>