Leading employment law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP has issued its annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, covering a charged national landscape of "bet the company" employment disputes fueled by an aggressive plaintiffs' bar, invigorated federal and state enforcement regimes, a sluggish economic recovery, and several groundbreaking rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 that are certain to reverberate in the year ahead and beyond.

Seyfarth notes that the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, handed down last June, has already been cited more than 260 times in federal and state court opinions, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion 215 times -- remarkable figures for rulings less than a year old. Dukes, which established a new standard for certifying class actions, and Concepcion , which held that federal arbitration law supersedes limitations imposed by individual states, opened the floodgates to a wave a new case law in class actions, which will continue to evolve in the coming year and impact litigants for years to come.

Released this week, Seyfarth's 8th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report examines the theoretical and strategic uncertainties stemming from the Supreme Court's employment law rulings in 2011, and the challenges they pose for companies and their defense counsel. The new Report is the most comprehensive yet, examining 976 class action decisions rendered in the past 12 months by federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The number of case rulings covered by Seyfarth climbed 15% over last year's total of 849 -- a direct result of issues raised by Dukes and Concepcion that have loomed over workplace litigation since those landmark decisions last spring.

Seyfarth's Report remains the sole compendium dedicated exclusively to labor and employment class action litigation in the U.S. Regarded as "the definitive source on employment class action litigation" (EPLiC Magazine, Spring 2011), it has become the "go-to" research and resource guide for businesses and corporate counsel facing complex litigation. Corporate counsel routinely depict the prospect of large workplace class-actions as especially worrisome for companies, as well as a significant burden for in-house legal budgets.

Seyfarth Shaw has over 750 attorneys located in 10 offices throughout the United States , including: Atlanta , Boston , Chicago , Houston , Los Angeles , New York , Sacramento , San Francisco and Washington, D.C. , as well as internationally in London . Seyfarth Shaw provides a broad range of legal services in the areas of labor and employment, employee benefits, litigation, corporate and real estate. The firm's clients include over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies, and our practice reflects virtually every industry and segment of the economy. For more information, please visit www.seyfarth.com.

The Utah Court of Appeals has refused to dismiss charges against a couple accused of killing their baby in 2006 by sleeping with him — their second child to die in bed with them.

The appeals judges sided with a lower court in a pair of opinions released Friday concerning the death of 3-month-old Kayson Merrill. The infant died while in bed between his father, Trevor Merrill, and mother, Echo Nielsen, both 28, of South Jordan.

The judges said that while a state medical examiner listed the official cause of death as "undetermined," there was enough evidence that "co-sleeping" caused the baby to suffocate to put the parents on trial.

The parents, whose first child also died while sleeping with them in 2003, have been charged with child-abuse homicide and reckless endangerment. They have pleaded not guilty.

Defense attorneys argued there wasn't enough certainty to go to trial after the medical examiner also cited illness and low birth weight in his report.

California's highest court is hearing a precedent-setting case that could expose California's Roman Catholic dioceses to another round of clergy abuse lawsuits.

The case being argued Thursday before the California Supreme Court involves six brothers in their 40s and 50s who allege they were molested by an Oakland priest during the 1970s. The priest, Donald Broderson, was forced to retire amid abuse allegations in 1993.

The Oakland Diocese maintains the men are barred from suing because they did not do so during the one-year window the state Legislature opened in 2003 for such complaints to be filed.

The brothers' lawyers contend the time limit does not apply to them because they did not make the link between their psychological problems as adults and what happened to them as children until 2006.

A federal court Friday put on hold a controversial Obama administration regulation aimed at reducing power plant pollution in 27 states that contributes to unhealthy air downwind.

More than a dozen electric power companies, municipal power plant operators and states had sought to delay the rules until the litigation plays out. A federal appeals court in Washington approved their request Friday.

The EPA, in a statement, said it was confident that the rule would ultimately be upheld on its merits. But the agency said it was "disappointing" the regulation's health benefits would be delayed, even if temporarily.

Republicans in Congress have attempted to block the rule using legislation, saying it would shutter some older, coal-fired power plants and kill jobs. While those efforts succeeded in the Republican-controlled House, the Senate — with the help of six Republicans — in November rejected an attempt to stay the regulation. And the White House had threatened to veto it.

The international law firm King & Spalding announced today that international arbitration expert Jan K. Schäfer has joined as a partner in its Frankfurt office.

Schäfer comes to King & Spalding from the Frankfurt office of Allen & Overy, where he focused on complex post-M&A arbitration matters as well as foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes. He brings deep experience in arbitration under ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration) and ICSID rules in multiple venues as well as ad hoc proceedings under both German and Swiss arbitration law. He regularly sits as chairman, party-appointed and sole arbitrator in ICC and DIS arbitration proceedings, and advocates before the German courts on behalf of clients in commercial litigation and arbitration-related matters.

King & Spalding has significantly expanded its global footprint in international arbitration in recent years. The firm opened an office in Paris, a key hub for international commercial arbitration, in 2009 with the hiring of former Dewey & LeBoeuf partners Eric Schwartz, the former secretary-general of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, and James Castello. Former Shearman & Sterling arbitration partner John Savage joined in 2010 to lead the firm's international arbitration practice in Asia from a new office in Singapore, while Tom Sprange joined from Steptoe & Johnson in 2011 to anchor its London arbitration and litigation practice. Former ICC International Court of Arbitration general counsel Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez also joined the firm in New York, further strengthening King & Spalding's global bench in both commercial and treaty arbitration.

About King & Spalding

Celebrating more than 125 years of service, King & Spalding is an international law firm that represents a broad array of clients, including half of the Fortune Global 100, with 800 lawyers in 17 offices in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The firm has handled matters in over 160 countries on six continents and is consistently recognized for the results it obtains, uncompromising commitment to quality and dedication to understanding the business and culture of its clients. More information is available at www.kslaw.com

Mike Sackett remembers what he thought when he saw the eye-popping fines of more than $30,000 a day that the Environmental Protection Agency was threatening to impose on him over a piece of Idaho property worth less than one day's penalty.

"If they do this to us, we're going to lose everything we have," Sackett said.

The EPA said that Sackett and his wife, Chantell, illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.

They say they considered walking away from the property, near scenic Priest Lake, and a difficult fight with the federal government. Instead, they went to court and now the Supreme Court is hearing their case, with implications well beyond their property.

The justices are considering how and when people can challenge the kind of order the Sacketts got. The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they're doing and repair the harm they've caused.

Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.