California Coffee Retailers Now Required to Serve Their Coffee with Cancer Warnings
If you plan on visiting a California Starbucks shop or other coffee roaster or retailer in the near future, you'll likely notice something new with your order. According to a recent court ruling from a Los Angeles judge, coffee roasters and retailers “must serve up a cancer warning with coffee sold in California.” The judge, Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle, published the ruling earlier this week after determining that “other coffee sellers did not show that the risk from consuming acrylamide, a possible cancer-causing byproduct created during coffee roasting, was offset by benefits from drinking coffee.” The post California Coffee Retailers Now Required to Serve Their Coffee with Cancer Warnings appeared first on Legal Reader.
Read more detail on Recent Products Liability posts –
- Out-of-state Online Retailers Now Required to Collect California Sales Tax
- New California Prop 65 Warnings Required by August 30, 2018 – Is your business ready?
- California Judge Says Coffee Must Carry Prop 65 Warning Label Because of Acrylamide.
- California Court Does Not Side With Coffee
- Supreme Court Rules Consular Warnings Not Required
- Upon permanent appointment to a position in the classified service the officer or employee is typically required to serve a specified minimum period of probation, but not to exceed a specified maximum period of probation.
- Third Roundup Cancer Trial Begins on March 25 in Oakland, California
- California Stem Cell Agency Steps Up Public Access to Key Meeting This Week; Brain Cancer and Parkinson's On Tap
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- Is a circular logo for coffee confusingly similar to the Starbucks’ one? Yes, says the General Court