Summary: Lawsuit filed by Iranian American Legal Defense Fund Allegations of ICE sharing asylum files with Iranian government Department of Homeland Security denies information sharing claims   A lawsuit filed on July 7 alleged that President Donald Trump's administration illegally shared confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with Iran's government, allegations the Trump administration denied. Lawyers with the left-leaning Public Citizen Litigation Group were representing the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund in the suit. The lawsuit alleged that the Trump administration adopted a policy last year of providing Iran "with confidential information from the immigration files of Iranians seeking asylum in the United States." "Many of the asylum seekers are pro-democracy protestors, members of religious minorities such as Evangelical Christians, or members of the LGBTQ community who seek refuge in the United States because of the grave dangers they face in Iran," it added. The policy continued despite last year's U.S. strikes against Iran during the Israel-Iran war, Iran's crackdown on protesters and the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran that was launched on Feb. 28, the lawsuit alleged. "These allegations that ICE shared asylum application records with the Iranian government are FALSE," the Department of Homeland Security, of which the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is a part, said in a statement. "ICE is committed to ensuring that illegal aliens are informed of their right to communicate with their consular representatives." ICE has been the face of Trump's immigration crackdown and deportation drive, which has been widely condemned by human rights groups as being in violation of free speech and due process rights. Rights groups also say the crackdown has created an unsafe environment in the U.S., particularly for ethnic minorities, who have raised concerns about racial profiling. Trump casts his policies as aiming to reduce illegal immigration and improve domestic security. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It alleged that Iranian detainees who met with an "Iranian Interest Section official" had said the official had knowledge of their immigration cases, including the details of their asylum applications. Since there is no Iranian consulate within the United States, consular functions for Iran "were handled by the Iranian Interest Section housed within the Embassy of Pakistan," the lawsuit said. The suit is seeking appointment of an independent monitor to prevent any disclosures to Iran and halt any alleged information sharing with Iran's government, according to the filing.

Summary: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed lawsuit Plaintiff Kimberly Marasco failed to show protectable expression Dismissal with prejudice bars further amendments to complaint   A federal judge on July 6 dismissed a lawsuit accusing the newly married pop megastar Taylor Swift of plagiarizing phrases from a Florida woman's poems for more than a dozen songs. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon said the plaintiff Kimberly Marasco failed to show that her poems constituted protectable expression, or that Swift had seen the poems and an average person would deem her songs substantially similar. Marasco represented herself. Reached by email, she said she disagreed with the decision and will appeal. Lawyers for Swift and the other defendants, including Republic Records and Universal Music Group, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Swift, 36, was accused of copying details from Marasco's poetry books for songs including "Down Bad" and "I Can Do It with a Broken Heart," both from Swift's 2024 album "The Tortured Poets Department." But the judge said any commonality between Marasco's poems and Swift's songs consisted only of "unprotectable ideas, themes, metaphors, and isolated words." Cannon gave many illustrations, including confronting adversity, being "gaslighted" and being "submerged" under water. The judge dismissed an earlier version of Marasco's lawsuit last September. She said that where Marasco made new allegations, "the works are not even substantially similar -- a point plaintiff effectively concedes by characterizing the alleged copying as 'paraphrase,' 'rephrase,' and copying with 'minor word substitutions.'" The dismissal on July 6 was with prejudice, meaning Marasco cannot amend her complaint. Cannon's chambers are in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Summary: EEOC files lawsuit against Paycom in Oklahoma City federal court Paycom fired employee after multiple anaphylactic reactions to onions Lawsuit seeks backpay and permanent injunction for disability accommodations   The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Paycom, alleging the company fired an employee who had a severe onion allergy rather than providing “reasonable workplace accommodations.” The agency contends the Oklahoma City payroll software company violated disability discrimination laws by failing to protect the employee, who repeatedly suffered anaphylactic reactions from exposure to food brought in by coworkers. According to the lawsuit filed in Oklahoma City federal court, the employee told her supervisors and the human resources department about her life-threatening allergy and provided medical documents recommending she work either in a secluded space or from home. The government alleges Paycom provided only temporary adjustments and declined to allow the employee to work remotely. Company officials also did not tell people who worked near her not to bring food containing onions to the office. The employee experienced multiple allergic reactions when exposed to food in nearby breakrooms and hallways, the lawsuit contends. In two of those instances, she was taken by ambulance to the hospital. The day after her most severe reaction in June 2024, the company fired her, stating it could not accommodate her disability, according to the EEOC’s complaint, according to the lawsuit filing. The employee began working at Paycom on May 20, 2024, and according to the government's lawsuit, she explained her severe onion allergy to Paycom officials. On May 23, 2024, coworkers carrying onion burgers passed near her cubicle. The plaintiff smelled the onions and suffered an anaphylactic reaction that required her to leave work and use emergency medication. The next day, she was again exposed to onions in the workplace, and she required treatment from paramedics onsite, according to the filing. Several days later, she sent an email to human resources requesting accommodation, explaining her allergy and rehashing her recent anaphylactic reactions. Company officials approved the plaintiff’s temporary use of a private workspace from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the lawsuit claims. She then submitted records from her doctor that underscored the danger of onion exposure and recommended moving her to an enclosed office away from food or permitting her to work from home. The lawsuit contends company officials responded by telling the plaintiff to wear a mask and carry an EpiPen. She was relocated to a room on a different floor with fewer employees, but a breakroom where employees routinely had food was approximately 15 feet away. She experienced another severe reaction after moving floors. On June 19, 2024, Paycom terminated her, saying it was for the sake of her own “health and wellness,” according to the filing. The EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Paycom from refusing to employ a qualified person with a disability because he or she “needs a reasonable accommodation to perform the duties” the position requires. The lawsuit also asks the court to order Paycom to develop and carry out practices and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for qualified people with disabilities. The suit seeks backpay for the plaintiff, as well as other relief and damages from Paycom.