This common and seemingly simple question can have a very broad-ranging set of answers. While every person’s circumstances will produce individual results, there are a few general considerations to keep in mind when storing genetic material.
Supreme Court Clarifies Meaning of “Operation” Regarding Immunity for Operation of Municipal VehiclesAugust 31st, 2018
Recent decision will have an impact for education involving cases where an injury is alleged to have occurred as a result of, or on, school-owned and operation vehicles such as buses or vans.
New Jersey Employment Case May Provide False Sense of Security Dealing with Pennsylvania Employees who Use Medical MarijuanaAugust 20th, 2018
Pennsylvania employers should be careful to avoid falling into a trap that would be created by an overly broad reading of the case of Cotto v. Ardagh Glass Packing.
Since most health insurance plans do not cover assisted reproduction, and most states also do not mandate insurance plans that cover fertility, most family formation options require financing for individuals to start families by assisted reproductive technology.
The case of Smith v. University of Scranton, provides some helpful hints for employers to avoid successful ADA employment retaliation claims.
Here are some areas where foster parents and adoptive parents may need to take a little extra time and planning before school starts.
KingSpry serving as collection site for Valley Youth House “Backpack Challenge” now through August 23, 2018, providing important supplies for kids going back to high school or off to college.
Even if a court were to decide that an adverse employment action due to infertility treatments was not sex or pregnancy discrimination, the employee could possibly have an argument that there is discrimination based on disability.
New federal law establishes an advisory council to address the physical and mental health needs of children as well as the needs of the grandparents or other older relative caregivers.
The students brought three claims, arguing that the policy constituted a violation of their constitutional right to privacy, a violation of Title IX, and a violation of state tort law.