Which Laws Apply to Broker-Dealers? Federal Laws? State Laws? Both? General Principles Leading to an Answer

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel explains the law of preemption as it pertains to broker-dealers and their investor clients. She predicts, among other things, that either the clients will demand that broker-dealers adhere to a fiduciary duty, or else that states will impose that duty on them.

Read More

United States v. Hamm

Dockets: 17-6383, 18-5121

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: Danny Julian Boggs

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Hamm, addicted to opioids, drove from Mt. Sterling, Kentucky to Cincinnati daily, to buy fentanyl. In Mt. Sterling, he and his wife used some of the drugs and gave the rest to their roommate, Myers, a drug dealer. Myers diluted, divided, and sold her share. Hamm found a new Cincinnati supplier: Shields. A few hours after Hamm returned from visiting Shields and giving Myers her share, Myers sold three packets of opioids. The customer died that night from an overdose. Police traced the drugs to Myers and arrested her and Hamm. After her arrest, Myers smuggled her remaining drugs into the jail and gave them to her cellmates, who lost consciousness but survived. Myers died by suicide a week later. A jury convicted Hamm and Shields of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and two counts of distributing carfentanil, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846. On the latter two counts, the jury applied a statutory sentencing enhancement for distribution resulting in death or serious bodily injury, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C), triggering a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for Hamm and a mandatory life sentence for Shields (who had a prior felony drug conviction). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejecting challenges to a remark in the prosecutor’s closing argument and to the sufficiency of the evidence. The court vacated the sentences. The jury instructions on section 841(b)(1)(C)’s sentencing enhancement misstated the law.

Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc.

Docket: 19-3291

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: Nalbandian

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

Tchankpa suffered a serious shoulder injury while employed by Ascena Retail Group. Tchankpa contends that Ascena violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not accommodating his injury and constructively discharging him. Tchankpa’s claim centers on his request for a work-from-home accommodation. He argues that Ascena failed to accommodate his disability by not allowing him to work from home three days per week. Tchankpa did not provide documentation outlining his medical restrictions for several months and no documentation explained why Tchankpa needed to work from home. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the rejection of Tchankpa’s claims. Employees cannot mandate a particular accommodation and an employer may request medical records supporting the employee’s requested accommodation. After finally providing a doctor’s note, Tchankpa resigned before Ascena fully responded. “The ADA is not a weapon that employees can wield to pressure employers into granting unnecessary accommodations or reconfiguring their business operations."