<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge Allyson K. Duncan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-allyson-k-duncan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:49:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Local Carriers Win Telecomm Case Against Sprint&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit upholds judgment for “CenturyLink” plaintiffs, a group of 19 local exchange carriers that entered into interconnection agreements with defendant Sprint Communications under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in plaintiffs’ breach of contract action filed after Sprint began to withhold payments under the agreement; the appellate court also upholds the district court judge’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reclassified Sex Offender Can’t Sue Over School Access&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/reclassified-sex-offender-cant-sue-over-school-access/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/reclassified-sex-offender-cant-sue-over-school-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A defendant who, in 1993 was convicted of carnal knowledge of a minor without use of force, for a relationship with a student under her supervision, does not have standing to challenge changes to Virginia law after 2008 classifying her as a violent sex offender who may not enter her children’s school without permission from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/reclassified-sex-offender-cant-sue-over-school-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud Claim Not Preempted by HOLA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/fraud-claim-not-preempted-by-hola/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/fraud-claim-not-preempted-by-hola/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who defaulted on her home loan and complained about an inflated appraisal, unfair loan terms and a rushed loan closing may sue the lender for fraud under state law, as that claim is not preempted by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Act, but her unconscionability claim is preempted under 12 C.F.R. § 560.2 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/fraud-claim-not-preempted-by-hola/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Holiday hug from boss was not ‘battery’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/21/holiday-hug-from-boss-was-not-battery/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/21/holiday-hug-from-boss-was-not-battery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A female employee who complained that males could wear ripped jeans, but she was sent home to change, lost her suit alleging she was fired in retaliation for her complaint. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Karen B. Balas failed to prove she was fired because she complained about sex discrimination,  and not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/21/holiday-hug-from-boss-was-not-battery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fired for False Records, Retaliation Claim Fails&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/fired-for-false-records-retaliation-claim-fails/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/fired-for-false-records-retaliation-claim-fails/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A woman terminated for falsifying time records cannot win her Title VII case alleging she was fired in retaliation for complaining about not being allowed to wear ripped jeans, although men could wear ripped jeans; the 4th Circuit also says her supervisor’s thank-you hug for Christmas cookies she gave him was not assault and battery. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/fired-for-false-records-retaliation-claim-fails/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal Waiver Covers Change in Law&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/appeal-waiver-covers-change-in-law/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/appeal-waiver-covers-change-in-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although this court issued a new decision after defendant’s sentencing, under which he no longer qualified for the sentencing enhancements he received under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and USSG § 4B1.1, the 4th Circuit says his appeal waiver was valid and covered this claim and others he asserts on appeal, and the court dismisses his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/appeal-waiver-covers-change-in-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Psychic Counselor Subject to License Law&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/psychic-counselor-subject-to-license-law/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/psychic-counselor-subject-to-license-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Virginia county may require a “spiritual counselor” who offers psychic readings to obtain a business license and follow local zoning laws; the 4th Circuit says she is entitled to some First Amendment protection, but the county has not unconstitutionally abridged her free speech rights, nor has it violated RLUIPA or plaintiff’s right to equal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/psychic-counselor-subject-to-license-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Panhandlers’ First Amendment Claim Survives&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/panhandlers-first-amendment-claim-survives/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/panhandlers-first-amendment-claim-survives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72854</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to a Charlottesville city ordinance that restricts panhandling in certain areas; the 4th Circuit says plaintiffs have nudged their claim across the line from “conceivable” to “plausible.” The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a cognizable First Amendment claim. The court reasoned [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/panhandlers-first-amendment-claim-survives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Pregnancy Discrimination in UPS Driver Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-pregnancy-discrimination-in-ups-driver-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-pregnancy-discrimination-in-ups-driver-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71988</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff UPS driver alleges the company was liable for pregnancy discrimination because it had a policy that accommodated some disabled employees but not similarly situated pregnant workers, the 4th Circuit upholds summary judgment for UPS, based on its pregnancy-neutral policy. Under UPS policy and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a pregnant employee can continue [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/17/no-pregnancy-discrimination-in-ups-driver-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Standing to Challenge Firearm Sales Limits&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/no-standing-to-challenge-firearm-sales-limits/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/no-standing-to-challenge-firearm-sales-limits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71829</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Appellants, including the Second Amendment Foundation, lose their pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute restricting interstate transfers of handguns (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3)); a federal regulation implementing that statute (27 C.F.R. § 478.99); and a Virginia law prohibiting Virginia firearms dealers from selling handguns to non-residents of Virginia; the 4th Circuit says [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/08/no-standing-to-challenge-firearm-sales-limits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
