In 1997, DuPont and ConocoPhillips sued the
The settlement comes one year after the Supreme Court decision in
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, DuPont agreed to indemnify the
Effective August 15, 2008, employers will no longer be able to prevent employees from carrying firearms onto employer property if those firearms are in locked, privately-owned vehicles. The change is the result of Senate Bill 51, which was sponsored by Sen. Joe McPherson and signed into law as Act No. 684 by Governor Bobby Jindal on July 2nd of this year. Under the new law, people who lawfully possess firearms cannot be prevented from carrying them onto any designated parking area, including garages and parking lots, as long as the firearm is stored in a locked, privately owned vehicle.
As written, all property owners are subject to the Act’s provisions, including employers who wish to prevent employees from carrying firearms onto employer property. Property where firearms are already prohibited under state or federal law is exempt, as are most employer-owned vehicles which are used by employees for business purposes. In addition, employers are allowed to prevent firearms from being carried in areas where access is restricted by such means as a fence or signage, as long as the employer provides temporary firearm storage facilities or an additional parking area that is unrestricted.
Although the Act provides property owners, tenants, employers and business entities with immunity from civil liability for any damages arising out of incidents involving firearms transported or stored on their property pursuant to the Act, concerns exist, particularly among the state’s industrial sector. The Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) and the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA) both opposed the bill, citing safety and liability concerns.
As businesses begin to sort through compliance issues and assess their firearm policies, questions abound. Companies are looking at constitutional and preemption issues, as well as similar laws that have been passed in states likeBy Clare Bienvenu
Pursuant to Act 547, passed by the Louisiana Legislature in the 2008 Regular Session and recently signed into law by the Governor, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) may now require Louisiana facilities exempt from air permitting requirements to maintain records showing that the actual or potential emissions of the facility meet the exemption. Under existing Louisiana law, a facility is exempt from air permitting requirements if its potential emissions are: (1) less than 5 tpy (tons per year) for each regulated air pollutant; (2) less than 15 tpy for all regulated pollutants combined; and (3) less than the minimum emission rate for each toxic air pollutant listed in LAC 33:III.5112, Table 51.1. See La. R.S. 30:2054(B)(2)(b)(ix) (as enacted by Act 918 in 2003). The original exemption did not authorize LDEQ to mandate the maintenance of emissions records for exempt sources. Act 547 additionally defines “potential emissions” as “the emissions the facility is capable of emitting considering all control measures in place, utilized and properly maintained and historical practices, including hours of operation and number of employees at the facility.” Act 547 itself does not require exempt facilities to maintain records, but allows LDEQ to promulgate standards or regulations to create such a requirement. As such, exempt facilities in Louisiana should be on the lookout for the implementing rule from LDEQ.
By: April Rolen-Ogden
Exxon Shipping Co., et al. v. Baker, et al. involved a class action that was filed by commercial fisherman and native Alaskans against Exxon and its tanker captain for economic losses suffered as a result of the now infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill that occurred in 1989.
Continue Reading...On July 1, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Act 312 of 2006 (“Act 312”) is constitutional and reversed the district court’s judgment declaring Act 312 unconstitutional and unenforceable under La. Const. art. V, § 16, La. Const. art. I, § 4 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2007-2371 (La. 7/1/08); ____ So. 2d ____.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
