First Let's Sue All the Lawyers
Lawyers suing lawyers sounds like material for a good joke. But this lawsuit leaves few trial lawyers laughing.
The renamed American Association for Justice ("AAJ") is suing a newly formed organization, titled The American Trial Lawyers Association ("TheATLA"). Last year, the nation's largest and most politically powerful organization of trial lawyers changed its name from the American Trial Lawyers Association to AAJ. Shortly thereafter, a group of lawyers formed a new organization to compete with AAJ and took over the abandoned name, adding "The" to its title.
In a recent membership recruitment letter, TheATLA boasted it is an elite organization whose attorney members "exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, leadership, influence, reputation, stature, and profile in the trial attorney community."
According to news reports, AAJ has filed suit in federal court in Minneapolis to force TheATLA to drop the name, contending that it was confusing AAJ members and infringing on a trademark. In addition to seeking a name change, the lawsuit also demands that AAJ get any profits that TheATLA collects in membership dues, as well as treble damages and attorneys' fees.
J. Keith Givens, TheATLA's main founder, maintains that AAJ freed up the use of its former name when it abandoned it in favor of the more politically-correct AAJ. Givens is optimistic that his group's name will remain unchanged by the courts, adding that "our group is going to exist, function and survive no matter what name it has."
—Source: The Washington Post
A Drain on the Legal System
A North Carolina woman has sued the City of Raleigh and Wake County demanding that they either drain her lake or buy it back from her.
Kristin Wallace, in her first real estate investment venture, purchased eight acres of land for $12,500 last year at a public auction of property with delinquent taxes. The "as is" sale was for land that is the bottom of a lake, something that is not in dispute.
Ms. Wallace now is suing to have both the water and a wooden footbridge (which conveyed with the property as part of an easement) removed, alleging that the city is "trespassing" on the land by allowing residents to use the footbridge for jogging and cycling. The lawsuit further claims that the county is acting "malicious" by keeping the land flooded; another easement that conveyed with the property stated that it was a flood-control lake.
All parties acknowledge that this is a case of first impression.
—Source: The News & Observer (North Carolina)
Dear Santa: Please Sign this Waiver
The times they are a changing.
For nearly 100 years, the U.S. Postal Service's Operation Santa program has been passing along children's Yuletide wishes to volunteers, charitable groups and corporations who want to help a deserving child.
This year, the Postal Service, on the advice of legal counsel, is now requiring all volunteers in its Operation Santa program to sign a legal waiver releasing the Postal Service from liability for "all causes of action, claims, liens, rights or interest of any kind or type whatsoever." Volunteers will have to present photo identification as well.
Sue Brennan, a spokeswoman for the Postal Service, says the change was made "to protect the children and to protect the integrity of the program and the Postal Service."
The letters often included home addresses and telephone numbers. "We were giving out information about these kids to people we didn't know," she says.
"This is absurd," says John Andrews, a former president of the Colorado Senate who specializes in tort reform at the Claremont Institute, a conservative public policy think tank in California. "You would think the North Pole is one place on Earth that is safe from the trial lawyers and the litigation experts."
—Source: USA Today
All Bark and No Bite
Pennsylvania dog owner Tyler Port faces up to $3,100 in fines because of his dog's obsession with bark — the kind off trees, not from the dog.
Port's pit bull, Rossman, had a habit of chewing bark off trees. This summer, Port allowed Rossman to run loose in a local park and the dog would rub up against the trees and hang on their limbs from her teeth. "The kids loved it, so I allowed it," Port said. "Once someone expressed concern, it ceased."
The end apparently did not come soon enough for the City of Altoona.
Port was cited for failure to keep his dog under control and John Iorio, the
city's dog law officer, also is seeking $3,100 to cover the cost of replacing
three honey locust trees, which a consultant said may die.
Reportedly, Port is optimistic that an agreement can be reached and the charges
will be dropped.
—Source: Associated Press
Judge Tossed for Flipping Coin and More
Former Virginia Judge James Michael Shull has been removed from the bench after, among other reasons, asking a woman to pull down her pants in a domestic violence hearing and flipping a coin to determine a child custody matter.
The Virginia Supreme Court ordered Shull's removal from the Wise County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for what it referred to as misconduct. According to court records, Shull admitted tossing a coin to determine which parent would have visitation with a child on Christmas. Shull defended his action, however, by noting that neither parent objected to the coin toss and that he was trying to encourage the parents to decide the issue themselves or be subject to a random coin toss.
In another complaint forwarded to the state Judiciary Inquiry and Review Commission and considered by the court, Shull allegedly told a woman that he would not issue a protective order unless and until she lowered her pants to display the wound on her upper thigh that she said her estranged husband inflicted. Judge Shull said he knew the woman had a history of mental illness and had engaged in self-mutilation. "By directing [the woman] to lower her pants twice in the courtroom, Judge Shull ignored the dignity of a litigant who was not represented by counsel and who had a clear history of mental instability," Justice Barbara Milano Keenan wrote in the court opinion.
"Such conduct may have a profoundly negative impact, not only on the parties' ability to accept the 'rule of law' imposed in their particular case, but also on the public's confidence in and respect for the judiciary. In order for our justice system to maintain the confidence and respect of the public, judicial decisions must be based on the evidence and pertinent law. The contrary actions of Judge Shull, reduced to their essence, were actions that denigrated the litigants whose case he decided and subjected our justice system to ridicule," the decision read.
Shull is only the second judge to be removed from office since Virginia's judicial disciplinary system was enacted in 1971.
—Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch and
inRich.com
Oh God, this Lawsuit is Legally Insane
A Kansas City man has sued God. Recently, Greg Rollins, 50 and unemployed, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging God was negligent in designing Rollins and his brother (both of whom allegedly suffer with schizophrenia) and his handling of the world. Rollins is demanding $1 trillion.
"I don't believe there is a god," Rollins said. "But if there is a god, I want him to come and defend himself. I want him to pay for my condition, my brother's condition, all the crippled people and all the people dying in this war that he could stop."
Judge Gary Fenner quickly dismissed Rollins' pro se suit. "For obvious reasons," wrote Judge Fenner. Rollins countered that perhaps the court was scared to move forward with a lawsuit against God.
This was the first time God has been sued in Missouri, but it is the second such lawsuit from the Midwest in as many months. Last month, Nebraska State Legislator Ernie Chambers filed suit against the Almighty for what he claimed were allegations of making terrorist threats and inspiring fear.
—Source: Daily Record (Kansas
City, MO)
Judge's Response Would Make Dr. Seuss Proud
New Hampshire inmate Charles Jay Wolff thought he'd get a little attention for his case when he included a hard-boiled egg with his court filing protesting his prison diet. What he got back from Federal Magistrate Judge James Muirhead was a little poetic justice.
Playing off the popular Dr. Seuss book "Green Eggs and Ham," Judge Muirhead's response stated, "I do not like eggs in the file. I do not like them in any style. I will not take them fried or boiled. I will not take them poached or broiled. I will not take them soft or scrambled. Despite an argument well-rambled."
Judge Muirhead then ordered the egg destroyed, writing "No fan I am of the egg at hand, of the egg at hand. Destroy that egg! Today! Today! Today I say! Without delay!" Daniel Lynch, deputy clerk at the U.S. District Court confirmed that the egg had been tossed.
Wolff, who says he is Jewish and suffers from heart, diabetes, and other medical conditions, alleges that prison officials refuse to feed him a kosher and medically-adequate diet. He seeks $10 million in damages from the state in addition to the proper foods.
Judge Muirhead previously ordered the prison to come up with a plan to better meet Wolff's dietary needs. Hard-boiled eggs are among the foods Wolff says he cannot tolerate and he mailed one to Muirhead after the prison served it to him.
Wolff's lawsuit against the prison remains pending.
—Sources: Concord Monitor
(New Hampshire) and The Wall Street Journal
Lactating Mother Tests Legal System
A Harvard medical student sued the National Board of Medical Examiners demanding more break time from taking the Board test in order to pump breast milk to feed her daughter. Earlier this month, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge rejected Sophie Currie's request for an additional 60 minutes of break time (beyond the 45 minutes allotted to all test takers), accepting the board's position that break time needed to be consistent.
Thereafter, Appeals Court Judge Gary Katzman overturned the lower court ruling, finding that the extra time simply put Ms. Currier on "equal footing" with the men and nonlactating women taking the test. On the eve of the test, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied the board's request for an expedited review.
Ms. Currier had argued that she would be uncomfortable taking the test and that it could possibly be harmful to her health if she did not have sufficient time to pump breast milk during the standard breaks. One of Ms. Currier's lawyers, Lauren Stiller Rikleen, added, "We took this case pro bono because we believed strongly in the legal positions that were set forth regarding a nursing mother's right in the workplace and by extension, a nursing mother's right to be able to become a doctor and take the medical exam without being at risk for physical harm."
In addition to the extra break time, Ms. Currier was granted permission to take the test over two days (rather than one) because of her dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. According to a letter to the editor from a Connecticut doctor, "Sophie Currier failed her medical-licensing examination in April when she first took the examination. She will now repeat her test with double the time and with extra breaks."
—Source: The Wall Street Journal
Here Comes the Bride ... to the Courthouse
Newlyweds Elana and David Glatt have filed a lawsuit against their wedding florist. The Glatts allege that Posy Floral Design breached its contract with the betrothed when it substituted pastel pink and green hydrangeas for the rust and green ones requested for the 22 centerpieces.
"The use of predominantly pastel centerpieces had a significant impact on the look of the room and was entirely inconsistent with the vision the plaintiffs had bargained for," Elana Glatt, a lawyer, said in the lawsuit, which named her mother-in-law, Tobi Glatt as a plaintiff as well because she paid for the flowers. Glatt contends that the flowers clashed with the linens, favor boxes, wedding cake and room décor.
The Glatts are accusing the florist of a "bait and switch" scheme and demand more than $400,000 in restitution and damages, which includes the $27,435.14 paid for the flowers.
Stamos Arakas, who owns the Manhattan florist, counters that he and his wife had done their best to match the color of the flowers from the picture provided by the bride, but that he had explained to the bride that they might not be an exact match as it depended on the vagaries of nature and the lighting at the reception. Mr. Arakas noted that they ignored the Glatts' e-mail messages demanding a partial refund because "we thought they were so insulting they didn't dignify a response" and they thought it "felt like extortion."
"My father used to tell me, 'don't deal with lawyers,'" Mr. Arakas said. "Maybe he was right, God bless his soul."
—Source: The New York Times
Hockey Lawsuit May Keep Players in Check
We've all heard the one about the group of guys who go to watch a fight and a hockey game breaks out. Well this one's about a group that goes to watch a hockey game and a lawsuit breaks out.
Recently the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving two Chicago-area hockey players accused of illegally back-checking an opponent. Player Benjamin Karas suffered a fractured vertebra after crashing into the boards. Karas is suing his opponents, Joseph Strevell and Russell Zimmerman, the Naperville Central Redhawk Hockey Association, the Amateur Hockey Association of Illinois and the Illinois Hockey.
Back-checking is prohibited in hockey - so much so in the junior varsity league that all players' jerseys had a "STOP" sign sewn onto the back, above or in between the players' numbers.
"Everyone understands hockey is a fast sport, but that doesn't mean players can't play within rules," said Patrick Provenzale, attorney for Karas.
Michael Resis, an attorney representing one of the accused players, counters that, "Just because you have a violation of the rules doesn't mean you have a cause of action. We're talking about the game of hockey. They assume certain risk. They're going to get hit, and yes ... once in a while, from the back."
A DuPage County judge dismissed the civil case citing a level of assumed liability when participating in contact sports. An appeals court reinstated the case, finding that "voluntary participants in contact sports are not liable for injuries caused by simple negligent conduct. ... Strevell and Zimmerman broke the rules of hockey, but they broke a rule of such special emphasis that players' jerseys were altered to reinforce it."
A decision from the Illinois Supreme Court is not expected for several months.
—Source: Daily Herald (Illinois)
New England Patriots Tackle Lawsuit
A New York Jets season ticket holder has filed a class action lawsuit against the New England Patriots football organization and its coach, Bill Belichick, for "deceiving customers."
Carl Mayer of New Jersey filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Newark, charging that the illegal videotaping of New York Jets coaches' signals by the New England Patriots was illegal, violated the contractual "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders, and resulted in a loss of value to the season ticket holders.
"They violated the integrity of the game," Mayer's attorney Bruce Afran said. "This is a way of punishing Belichick and the Patriots. ... You can't deceive customers."
The lawsuit seeks damages calculated based upon the cost ($61.6 million) of Jets season tickets for all games played in Giants Stadium between the Jets and Patriots since Belichick became head coach in 2000. The total amount sought in damages is tripled to $184.8 million under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
"Having been a lifelong Jets fan, as soon as I heard this, I was completely outraged," Mayer said. "The NFL just slapped them on the wrist. I'm a consumer lawyer, and this is consumer fraud."
Belichick was fined $500,000 by the NFL and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using video cameras on the sidelines. The Patriots also must forfeit a first round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second and third round if it doesn't.
—Source: The Chicago Tribune
Ladies' Night Challenged as Un-Kool
"Ladies' Night" was a hit single for the band Kool and the Gang in the '80s, but now it's become the subject of a lawsuit.
New York attorney Roy Den Hollander has filed a class action lawsuit against several Manhattan bars and clubs, alleging that their ladies' night practices are unconstitutional. Hollander charges that when they host ladies' night they are violating the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Hollander is seeking to be named class representative for all men charged more money or burdened by stricter time restraints than woman. He seeks nominal damages and an injunction to halt the practice of offering women either free or reduced fees, shorter waiting periods, or longer time windows for free or reduced admission that is not available to men.
According to news reports, Hollander justifies his case by stating that the ladies' night practices present difficulties for men. "It's either more money, more time or more burdensome," said Hollander.
Tim Gleason, general manager of defendant China Club, said that he found Hollander's grievance "ridiculous."
—Source: The National Law Journal
A Chicago area woman is suing a repairman and auto supply store after she drank battery acid from an unlabeled container that was brought to fix her sump pump.
After a "third party" moved the bottles out of the basement, Patricia Gabrysiak drank from one. Gabrysiak was taken to the hospital with severe burns after she discovered too late that the container was filled with battery acid.
According to court documents, J. Brady McCahey, the repairman, left three liquid-filled containers in Gabrysiak's basement because he intended to return and install a sump pump the next day. One was a gallon water jug, another a liter water bottle and the third was a bottle with a ginger ale label.
Gabrysiak is suing McCahey for leaving the containers, as well Master Automotive Supply and Parts Plus Auto Store, the outlet that allegedly sold McCahey the acid in unlabeled containers.
McCahey's lawyer argues that Gabrysiak should not have been drinking from the containers when she didn't know what was in them.
—Source: Chicago Tribune
Rah, Rah, Ree, Kick 'em in the Knee,
Rah, Rah, Rass, Kick 'em in the Other Knee
A Yorktown (Texas) High School student and her family plan to sue the local school district because the girl was cut from the junior varsity cheerleading squad.
Incoming freshman Wycoda Fischer didn't make the six-girl squad. Seven girls tried out. Wycoda's father, Billy Fischer, took his complaint to the Yorktown school board, which voted 5-1-1 to uphold the decision to keep six spots on the squad.
Billy Fischer argued that the junior varsity squad should be expanded to include one more girl, as was the case with the varsity cheerleading squad. At the hearing, Superintendent Deborah Kneese explained that the varsity squad was expanded due to a mistake made by the sponsor who mistakenly thought one of the 9 girls trying out for the 8-girl squad had dropped out. "The decision was made to allow nine cheerleaders on the squad despite the provision in the constitution. The district was not going to penalize the student for its own error," Kneese said. "No such mistake was made during the JV tryouts."
According to new reports, the Fischer family has hired San Antonio attorney Lisa Duke to file a lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to find out why Wycoda was singled out as the only girl not to make the squad and that because an exception was made for the varsity cheer squad, an exception should be made for the junior varsity squad.
In standing firm on her school's position, Kneese added, "If an exception was made in this case, I am concerned that there will be a slippery-slope affect, and I will find myself faced with more and more parents and students asking for exceptions to the rules that they do not like or are not convenient for them."
The Fischer's attorney disagrees. "The school district nor the superintendent has offered a satisfactory explanation as to why Wycoda was singled out," said Duke. "We have no other option but to move forward with the lawsuit."
—Source: Victoria Advocate (Texas)
No "Re-Joycing" for Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge
Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Michael Thomas Joyce recently announced that he is giving up his bid for re-election and resigning from the bench effective January 1st. Judge Joyce's plan to run for re-election changed when he was indicted on August 15th on charges of mail fraud and money laundering in what federal prosecutors allege is a scheme to bilk two insurance companies out of $440,000.
According to the federal indictment, Judge Joyce claimed the wreck of his new Mercedes-Benz in a low-speed accident in 2001 left him with "constant neck and back pain, excruciating headaches, serious discomfort and difficulty sleeping." Claiming that the debilitating injuries left him unable to golf, scuba dive, or exercise, and prevented him from pursing higher judicial office, Judge Joyce received $390,000 from his insurer, Erie Insurance Group, and $50,000 from State Farm Insurance, which insured the other driver.
In the meantime, prosecutors allege Judge Joyce played multiple rounds of golf, went scuba diving, renewed his diving instructor's certificate, bought a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, received his private pilot's license and bought an interest in a Cessna airplane. "The bodily injury he says he sustained we believe was fraudulent," U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has suspended Judge Joyce with pay, pending a final verdict.
— Source: The Associated Press
Errant Golf Ball Drives Lawsuit
A Chicago area woman was struck in the head by an errant golf ball while gardening in her back yard and is suing the golf course and the golfer who allegedly hit the ball.
According to legal documents, Lillian Demo is seeking more than $100,000 in damages for unspecified injuries sustained after being struck by golfer Raymond Kinney's ball. Demo's lawsuit alleges that Kinney failed to properly aim and execute his swing, failed to warn her that the ball was heading her way, and failed to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of others.
Demo lives just south of St. Andrews Golf & Country Club.
—Source: Chicago Tribune
A Cheesy Lawsuit
Move over coffee, now it is cheese that has McDonald's in hot water.
A West Virginia man is suing McDonald's for $10 million because he claims the restaurant failed to hold the cheese from his order. According to the lawsuit, Jeromy Jackson says he clearly ordered two Quarter Pounders without cheese because he is allergic, but had a severe allergic reaction after biting into a hamburger that had melted cheese on it.
The lawsuit alleges Jackson "was only moments from death" by the time he reached the hospital. His mother and her friend are parties to the lawsuit because they claim they risked their lives rushing Jackson to the hospital.
"We're interested in seeing McDonald's take responsibility and change a systemic quality control problem that endangers the lives of up to 12 million Americans with allergies," said Timothy Houston, the plaintiffs' lawyer. Houston said Jackson told the workers multiple times that he couldn't eat cheese, both at the ordering speaker and then face-to-face at the pick-up window.
The lawsuit seeks damages on two counts of negligence, one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress and one count of punitive damages.
News reports indicate that the plaintiffs turned down McDonald's offer to pay half of Jackson's medical bills, which totaled about $700.
—Source: Charleston Daily Mail (West Virginia)
The Scent of a Woman
It may have been a popular movie, but the scent of a woman soon may be unpopular in some workplaces. A Detroit city employee has filed a lawsuit claiming that her work environment violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because a co-worker's perfume is too strong and is making the employee sick.
Susan McBride, who works in the city's Planning Department, alleges she is severely sensitive to perfumes and that her co-worker's fragrance gives her headaches and nausea and keeps her from working. "This employee not only wore a strong scent, but also plugged in a scented room deodorizer," the lawsuit states. "Ms. McBride was overcome by the smell almost instantly, causing her to go home sick."
McBride wants her employer to ban co-workers from wearing fragrances. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit, seeks enforcement of a no-scent policy in the workplace to accommodate Ms. McBride's disability and unspecified damages for missed work and medical treatment.
—Source: FoxNews.com
Bar Dancing
An Illinois woman who tried to dance atop a bar claims she fell and shattered her ankle, resulting in three surgeries. Now, she is suing the establishment for "allowing [her] to climb upon the bar without a step-stool, ladder or other device used for safety."
Amy Mueller is seeking more than $50,000 in damages in her lawsuit filed against Samy's Bar and Grill. Mueller's attorney, Frank Cservenyak, Jr., is reported as saying, "They encouraged their patrons to dance on the bar - they cajole them, they yell at them, but they fail to take any safety precautions whatsoever."
L. Barrett Bodach, the attorney representing the bar and its owners, counters that any injuries suffered by Mueller were her own fault.
—Source: Chicago Tribune
Extreme Employee Benefits
An internal affairs report is expected this week in a matter involving a State of Michigan forensic scientist who admitted conducting DNA testing on her former husband's underwear.
Ann Gordon testified at her divorce hearing that she ran tests on her estranged husband's underwear for evidence of a sexual relationship with another woman. After the attorney for her ex-husband wrote to authorities and media outlets about the DNA tests, an investigation began by Michigan State Police, which oversees the forensics lab where Gordon has worked since 1999, to determine whether the state's policies on the care and use of property were violated.
According to Gordon, she ran the tests on her own time with expired chemicals that otherwise would have been discarded.
When asked by her former husband's attorney what she found when she ran the test on the underwear, Gordon answered: "Another female. It wasn't me."
—Source: Guardian Unlimited
I Scream, You Scream, We all Scream for Ice Cream
That popular tune may no longer ring true in New York City. According to news reports, in the first five days of a new noise ordinance, authorities in New York issued more than three dozen summonses, including one to an ice cream truck driver.
According to the Department of Environmental Protection, the city's new regulations, which took effect on July 1st, are the result of a steady increase in noise-related calls to the city's 311 hot line over the last several years. The new noise code governs a variety of sounds, including barking dogs, construction noise and loud music.
It includes, as well, the popular jingle emitted from Costas "Gus" Vamvakas' Mr. Softee ice cream truck. Vamvakas recently received a citation while on his rounds in Queens.
—Source: The Times-Union (Jacksonville,
FL)
Blow-Up Between Companies is Headed to Court
If you've seen "Million Dollar Baby," "Ocean's Thirteen" or "Be Cool," maybe you've noticed the crowds in the background of some scenes. You might be surprised to learn, however, that some of these extras are actually inflatable vinyl torsos, dressed up and placed in the background.
Now those inflatable actors are getting extra attention, of a legal sort. One maker, Crowd in a Box, is suing another maker, Inflatable Crowd, claiming that it holds 2 patents on the inflatable extras and that its competitor is violating the patents.
Inflatable Crowd owner Joe Biggins defends his product use by saying that he came up with idea several years ago while working on the crew of "Seabiscuit."
—Source: Wall Street Journal and
Fortune Small Business
Is Imitation the Sincerest Form of Flattery?
Apparently not to restaurateur Rebecca Charles, who has filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York City against Ed McFarland, chef and co-owner of Ed's Lobster Bar in SoHo, alleging intellectual property infringements.
Charles, owner and chef of Pearl Oyster Bar in West Village, charges that Ed's Lobster Bar copies "each and every element" of her restaurant, including the white marble bar, the gray paint on the wainscoting, the chairs and bar stools with their wheat-straw backs, the packets of oyster crackers placed at each table setting and the dressing on the Caesar salad. Before opening his own restaurant, McFarland served six years as sous-chef at Charles' restaurant.
Charles' lawyers claim that what Ed's Lobster Bar had done amounts to theft of her intellectual property. McFarland counters that, "I would say it's a similar restaurant. I would not say it's a copy."
Calling the lawsuit a "complete shock" and the allegation that he was a Caesar salad thief "a pretty ridiculous claim," McFarland adds that "I just find it interesting that she'd want to draw attention to the fact that she's bringing a lawsuit against me that's just going to bring more business my way. I personally have nothing to be concerned about, in my opinion."
Charles further claims that her intellectual property lawsuit may benefit the industry overall, particularly considering the high cost of opening a restaurant and greater competition. "I thought if I have success with this lawsuit, that could be an important contribution," she said. "If some guy in California is having problems, he could go to his lawyer and look at this case and say, 'Maybe we can do something about it.'"
—Source: Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and The New York Times
A Naked Claim for Attorney's Fees
A Florida woman has lost her case for reimbursement of $25,000 in legal fees. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Toni Anne Wyner, of Fort Pierce, Florida, making it harder in general for plaintiffs to recover legal fees from the government.
Wyner won a federal court ruling that allowed her and other individuals to move forward with their protest to form a peace sign in the nude at a Florida park on Valentine's Day in 2003. Following that decision, Wyner sought through a preliminary injunction $25,000 in legal fees.
After a federal judge ruled in her favor, the lawsuit continued as a broader challenge to a Florida law that bans nudity on beaches. Wyner continued to argue that the law violated her First Amendment right of free expression.
The Bush Administration and 24 states joined Florida in convincing the Court to reverse the award of attorney fees. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her opinion for the Court cautioned that the Court was taking no position "on the extent to which the First Amendment protects artworks that involve nudity" but did rule that "[h]ere, at the end of the fray, Florida prevailed in the suit. The state's bathing suit rule remained intact."
—Source: The Associated Press
A Real Kicker of a Lawsuit
A Chicago-area woman is being sued after her mare kicked a stallion, allegedly leading to the stallion's death. Defendant Ruth Kay claims her mare, Gabby, was reacting to an unwelcome romantic overture from the stallion, Vinny, when Gabby kicked him.
Kay's attorney referred to Vinny's behavior, which included approaching Gabby from behind and resting his head on her rump, as an unwanted violation of Gabby's "personal and private space," likening it to equine sexual harassment. The lawsuit, filed by Vinny's owner, Collette Sorenson, says Gabby "kicked, bit and otherwise battered the horse, Vinny."
Rita Hankins, the owner of Forest Trails, the stable that boarded both horses, claims Vinny was not put down until long after he was kicked. Forest Trails is being sued as well for allegedly failing to keep Vinny in a private turnout, as instructed.
The lawsuit seeks more than $50,000 in damages and will be heard next month in DuPage County Circuit Court.
—Source: Chicago Times
Lawsuit Could End in Stiff Penalties
A New York man sued Novartis AG, the maker of the health drink Boost Plus, charging that his consumption of the vitamin-enriched beverage resulted in multiple hospital visits.
Christopher Woods claims he had to seek medical treatment the morning after drinking Boost Plus in order to relieve a condition called severe priapism, the build up of blood in his private part.
According to the lawsuit, Woods underwent surgery for implantation of a Winter shunt, which moves blood from one area to another. Additionally, Woods claims he underwent another procedure to close off some blood flow to prevent engorgement and a recurrence of the event.
Woods seeks unspecified damages.
—Source: Law.com
Open Mouth, Insert French Fry
A Chicago area attorney, not licensed in the State of Florida but appearing with permission of the court, may think twice about opening his mouth next time he steps foot inside a Miami bankruptcy courtroom.
William Smith, a partner with Chicago-based McDermott Will & Emery LLP, appeared May 7th before Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff at a bankruptcy hearing on behalf of Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami. According to court documents, during the hearing Mr. Smith said, "I suggest with respect, Your Honor, that you're a few French fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what's likely to take place."
A hearing is scheduled for June 25 for Mr. Smith to appear and "to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice before [Judge Isicoff's] court."
In the order for Mr. Smith to appear, Judge Isicoff wrote that his "comment represents conduct that appears to be inconsistent with the requirements of professional conduct."
In response, McDermott Will & Emery issued a statement saying, "We expect our lawyers to observe established rules and protocols of professional conduct in the courtroom. Any departure from that standard is of concern to us and we look forward to a resolution of this matter."
— Source: ChicagoBusiness.com
School District Not Chipper over Lawsuit
A Contra Costa County (California) School District is anticipating spending more than $2.7 million to convert its playground wood chip play boxes to rubberized mats, following a federal district court ruling. The decision, by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, stated that the Mount Diablo Unified School District's use of wood chips makes it harder for boys and girls in wheelchairs to get to swings and slides and thereby violates the disabled children's rights.
According to recent court filings, the court's ruling comes despite the fact that district lawyer Gregory Widmer said there was "no evidence that any student with a mobility disability ever complained about the accessibility" of play boxes with wood chip surfaces. Moreover, playground designer Susan Goltsman of Oakland, California, confirmed that federal regulators have found that engineered wood fiber complies with accessibility standards if properly compacted and maintained and that although both products are safe, wood chips are more yielding and may cushion falls better.
Larry Paradis, executive director of Disability Rights Advocates, which represents the student who sued the district, reportedly said they "want districts to learn from Mount Diablo's mistake" and hopes the decision will lead to replacement of wood chips with firmer surfaces in public playgrounds at other schools and parks around the country.
— Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Hacker Sues to Erase Record
A high school senior honor student is suing his school district, a teacher, and multiple school officials after he was suspended and charged with hacking into his teacher's computer to gain access to an upcoming test.
Shi "Carl" Huang, 17, a student at Theodore Roosevelt High School in Kent, Ohio, hacked into his teacher's computer to gain access to an upcoming biology test. Carl got a 95% on the test, but he also got caught. He received a five day suspension, failed the class, and faces juvenile criminal charges for unauthorized use of property, which is a fifth degree felony.
Now Carl and his family have filed suit, alleging that Carl had asked the teacher for help in the class but was denied help or specialized counseling and that a web site set up by the teacher to help students study was later blocked for access by students. Although Carl admits he accessed the teacher's web page from his home computer and asked a friend to help him figure out the password, he claims he was set up.
"He [the teacher] changed the password to my son's name 'Carl' and he's sitting there waiting. He set a trap and a trap worked. I can't believe how a teacher would do this," says Housan Huang, Carl's father.
The family charges in their lawsuit that Carl is "receiving far harsher discipline" than other students and they seek to try to get the "F" and suspension deleted from Carl's record and to get the district to drop the criminal charges.
"I still regret doing it, every day, that was the wrong thing to do," says Carl. "I do believe I do deserve punishment but I don't think this should affect my whole future."
— Sources: www.recordpub.com
and www.wkyc.com
Return Address Returns Longer Jail Sentence
A Wisconsin inmate has received an extended stay at a prison in Green Bay after sending a threatening letter to the judge who originally sentenced him. Although the letter was unsigned, the inmate's name, inmate number and the address of the prison were marked on the envelope.
Anthony Dwane Turner was sentenced in 2004 to 15 years in prison on assault-by-a-prisoner and reckless injury charges. A year later, a jury convicted him of sending a death threat letter to the sentencing judge, Waukesha County (WI) Circuit Court Judge James Kieffer.
Turner appealed the additional six years added to his sentence for the threatening letter, arguing that prosecutors didn't present any evidence at trial that anyone saw him write the letter or that the handwriting was his. The Wisconsin state appeals court refused to overturn the conviction, noting that the return address sealed its decision.
— Source: The Associated Press
It will take Deep Pockets to Pay this Dry Cleaning Bill
An administrative law judge for the District of Columbia is making headlines, not because of his rulings, rather because of his lawsuit.
Judge Roy Pearson has filed a lawsuit against his neighborhood dry cleaner over a misplaced pair of pants. The original alteration work on the pants was $10.50. The lawsuit demands $65,462,500 from Custom Cleaners for the damages Pearson claims he suffered by not getting his pants back.
According to court papers, Pearson claims he deserves $65 million under the District's consumer protection law that provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson says he deserves millions for the more than 1,000 hours spent to represent himself in the battle, for his litigation costs, for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years, and for a replacement suit.
Settlement offers, ranging from $1,150 to $12,000, have not been successful. The case is set for trial in June.
--Source: The Washington Post
Walking Away Without a Medical Malpractice Judgment
A Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge recently tossed out a medical malpractice case after watching a videotape of the plaintiff, who claimed to be permanently paralyzed, walking down the street. Calling this "the worst case of misrepresentation, of outright fraud, that I have ever had in 22 years," Judge Gisela Cardonne Ely dismissed the case filed by medical malpractice plaintiff Wanda Davis-Johnson.
In 2004, Davis-Johnson filed a $3 million medical malpractice case, alleging that an improper delay in diagnosis and treatment of her spinal abscess led to her paralysis. In sworn testimony, Davis-Johnson repeatedly claimed she was unable to walk, stand or transfer herself from a bed to a chair. In April 2005, surveillance video shot by a defense investigator showed Davis-Johnson walking down the street using a cane. An unsolicited call from Davis-Johnson's sister-in-law confirmed that she was lying about her condition and that she could walk.
Now the plaintiff isn't the only one in trouble. According to news reports, lawyers on both sides are facing ethical questions. Last year plaintiff's lawyer John Lawlor moved to add an unusual punitive damages count to the case. Now, Lawlor defends the filing of the suit by claiming he was deceived by his client.
Defense lawyers, who could ask for sanctions and attorneys fees if they feel that the plaintiff's lawyer continued forward with the case unnecessarily after it was clear that his client was committing fraud, are accused of withholding the surveillance video for nearly two years. "If they had shown that videotape to us, we wouldn't have spent another 21 months of litigation time, cost, stress to the doctors involved and waste of the court's time," Lawlor said. "I don't have any clue what they were thinking or why anybody would go forward other than to try to set a trap for my law firm."
Following dismissal of the case, the hospital is seeking $225,000 in legal costs from plaintiff Davis-Johnson.
—Source: The Daily Business Review
All in the Name of a Bet
A Chicago Bears fan cannot change his legal name to Peyton Manning, according to Macon County (Illinois) Judge Katherine McCarthy. Recently, Judge McCarthy ruled that Scott Wiese can't legally call himself Peyton Manning because it might be too confusing and might infringe on the privacy of the Indianapolis Colts quarterback.
According to news reports, Wiese is pleased with the legal decision because he claims he was simply making good on a bet he lost when the Colts beat the Bears in the Super Bowl. "I had told the judge that I was not doing this because I wanted to change my name, but I was doing it because I was honoring a bet," Wiese said after the ruling. "I think she understood that."
Equally pleased with the decision were Wiese's parents. "Wiese is our family name, and we're proud of it," mother Debbie Wiese said.
—Source: Decatur Herald & Review (Illinois) and Suburbanchicagonews.com
Dancing With Stars
A Chicago-area woman has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court charging a local man with "negligent dancing." Lacey Hindman, 22, seeks damages for medical bills and lost wages for time missed from work in a suit filed against David Prange.
The incident allegedly took place at a mandatory company event for Shop Girl, a women's boutique owned by Prange's wife. According to news reports, Hindman claims she suffered a fractured skull and brain injuries after Prange grabbed her by the forearms, tossed her into the air and dropped her on her head in a jitterbug-style dance move.
"I was in the air, over him," Hindman said. "I fell hard enough you could hear the impact of me hitting the floor over the sound of the jukebox."
—Source: Belleville News-Democrat (Illinois)
Suing Until the Cows Come Home
A group of neighbors in the Palma Vista subdivision in New Tampa, Florida, are not asking "where's the beef?" That's because it's wandering through their streets, eating plants, leaving droppings and waking residents with sounds of "Moo."
For the past four months, cows have entered the gated subdivision either through holes in a fence or travel over lower portions of a fence, leaving residents angry. Now, the homeowners' association has filed a lawsuit against Abram Cuesta, who owns the cows and rents space on 640 neighboring acres. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the cows.
Tampa police said they have received more than a dozen calls related to the cows, but that the situation is outside their jurisdiction. "We don't really handle cows," Tampa police Capt. Tom Wolff said.
Same goes for the county. "We refer this to the city," said Homer Brown, an agricultural investigator with Hillsborough County's sheriff's office. "If they need us to come impound a cow because they can't contact the owner, all we can do is come out there with our trailer and basically put the cow in cow jail. But the cows are never there when we get there."
--Source: Pensacola News Journal
All Bark and No Bite
The North Dakota Supreme Court took a bite out of a man's lawsuit, rejecting his claim that a local ordinance against barking was unconstitutional. A Belfield ordinance declares that "excessive, continuous or untimely" dog barking is considered a nuisance.
In 2005, Belfield resident Fred Kilkenny received a $20 ticket after his neighbor complained that Kilkenny's dogs were outdoors barking after 8 p.m. Kilkenny claims he was not home at the time as he was in Mississippi helping Hurricane Katrina victims and the dogs' caretaker had left the dogs out until she got off work at 9 p.m.
According to court records, Kilkenny challenged the citation on grounds that the city ordinance violates his right to substantive due process because the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague on its face.
"The ordinance as it's written is so vague, that as a resident of the city, I cannot tell from that ordinance when I'm in violation of it," Kilkenny said. "What does untimely mean? Is it 8:00 in the morning? Is it 8:00 at night? ... They can essentially say that dogs are not allowed to bark at all, for any reason."
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that "the ordinance provides minimum guidelines for the reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with its enforcement and provides a reasonable person with adequate and fair warning of the prohibited conduct. ... Because the words excessive, continuous, or untimely have come within the knowledge and understanding of dog owners and their neighbors, they are not unconstitutionally vague."
News reports indicate Kilkenny may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
—Source: The Associated Press
Enough is not Enough
Over the last seven years, a Chicago-area man has filed 28 lawsuits, many of which would be called trivial or nuisance suits.
Recently, Derek Monroe sued an auto parts shop because it would not honor his $5 coupon. He won the case and was awarded $5 plus court costs. In another recent case, Monroe sued America's Best Contacts & Eyeglasses, claiming it sold him defective frames and refused to replace them. He won a judgment of $80.80 plus court costs.
Of the 28 lawsuits, Monroe has won eight, lost four and had 16 dismissed for various reasons, including reaching deals with the defendants who apologized in exchange for him dropping the lawsuit. Monroe, who files his own lawsuits, estimates he has spent about 150 hours overall on the cases and made less than $10,000.
Monroe claims it is not the money that matters; it's the principle. "It is about shaming the corporations into doing the right thing," Monroe said. "It's to show them that we as consumers are not sheep."
And he says his lawsuits are a last resort. First he tries to get an apology or his money back. If that doesn't work, he goes to court.
Yet Monroe recognizes that his tactics face an uphill battle. Some corporations ignore him and don't even show up to defend themselves in court.
"Is he going to make a difference in their [business] practices? I think the answer is no because he's not hurting them," Bruce Ottley, a law professor at DePaul University, said. "He's not even getting their attention with those small claims."
"Maybe I am like Don Quixote fighting against the windmills," Monroe said. "But the alternative is what? Do nothing?"
—Source: Chicago Tribune
The Importance of Dotting Your "I"s and Crossing Your "T"s
A Chicago-area man is suing a local tattoo parlor over an alleged misspelling. Michael Duplessis filed his lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against Jade Dragon Tattoo, Inc., claiming that the shop's tattoo artist mistakenly emblazed "CHI-TONW" (rather than "CHI-TOWN") above a rendering of a John Hancock Center-like skyscraper.
In his lawsuit, Duplessis charges that he has suffered "emotional distress from public ridicule" and the loss of self-esteem and psychological pain and suffering" as a result of the typographical error. He further alleges that tattoo parlor employees "fraudulently induced" him to sign a waiver of liability form for work performed on the tattoo and that they modified the form after the fact by writing "Chi-tonw" on it.
The complaint indicates that Mr. Duplessis underwent tattoo remediation procedures and seeks compensation for actual damages and legal costs.
A court date is scheduled for June 27th.
—Source: ChicagoBusiness.com
Bed Bugs Biting Brings Lawsuit
Residents of a Chicago-area apartment complex have filed a lawsuit against their landlord and its management company alleging that bedbugs have infested their apartments. According to the Cook County Circuit Court lawsuit, the plaintiffs complain that starting last fall they were bitten by insects in their sleep and the insects left "large burning and itching welts" on their bodies.
The plaintiffs, Susan Hult, Cory Hill and Stacy Knutte, are seeking class action status on behalf of themselves and other tenants. Although extermination work on the problem began in January, the plaintiffs contend that the landlord, President Towers, and its management company, The Habitat Co., failed to prevent or detect the infestation and failed to tell tenants about the problem.
The tenants are suing under the auspice that their landlord has a specific legal obligation to provide safe and habitable accommodations.
--Source: Chicago Tribune
Some Lawyers Find Cartoon No Laughing Matter
A cartoon that appeared in the Kentucky Bar Association's magazine, "Bench & Bar," is causing quite a stir among some Kentucky lawyers. The cartoon shows a down-and-out lawyer sitting on a sidewalk next to a sign that says "Will Sue for Food." The woman walking by tells her companion: "It's just the effects of tort reform, I suppose."
But some Kentucky trial lawyers found no humor in the cartoon. "There is absolutely nothing funny about the notion that the effect of tort reform is to reduce lawyers to the status of homeless beggars, when the real victims of these 'reforms' are the injured person who can no longer receive full compensation," Louisville plaintiff's lawyer Ann Oldfather reportedly wrote to the magazine's editor. The bar association received numerous other complaints about the cartoon.
The cartoonist, Kentucky Assistant Attorney General Jim Herrick, defends his creation by saying it was meant to sympathize with attorneys whose practices may be impacted by the business-backed effort to limit the number of lawsuits and the amounts awarded. "With all this in mind, the cartoon was trying to ask in a humorously provocative way whether 'tort reform' is really a good thing for the justice system," said Herrick.
The Kentucky Justice Association, formerly known as the Kentucky Academy of Trial Attorneys, has demanded an apology from the bar association.
Kentucky Bar Association President Bob Ewald conceded that, given the reaction, it was a mistake to run the cartoon. "I thought there was some humor there, but obviously some people didn't think this was funny," he said.
—Source: The Courier-Journal (Kentucky)
Judge for Yourself How Drinking Charges Should Be Resolved
On December 3, 2006, while returning home from a professional football game, Clair County (Illinois) Circuit Judge Patrick Young and his chief judge, Jan Fiss, were involved in an automobile accident. The crash sent the other driver to the hospital for several days, while Judges Young and Fiss were sent for court appearances.
According to news reports, police charge that Judge Young was driving under the influence when he drove his sport utility vehicle into the path of the other driver. Judge Young refused a Breathalyzer test. His next court date is February 26, 2007 before neighboring Madison County Associate Judge Janet Heflin.
Meanwhile, passenger Chief Judge Fiss has been charged this week with illegal transportation of alcohol in connection with the December 3rd accident after a police officer said he saw Judge Fiss conceal an open can of beer. When confronted on the issue, Judge Fiss said he dumped it and tossed the can away. Following the incident, Fiss stepped down as chief judge. A special prosecutor appointed to the case charged Fiss with a petty offense, stating Fiss "knowingly possessed an open container of alcohol within the passenger compartment of a vehicle." Acting Chief Judge John Baricevic has asked the Illinois Supreme Court to appoint a judge from outside the 20th Circuit to preside over Fiss' case.
—Source: Belleville News-Democrat (Illinois)
All in the Family
It's being hailed as unprecedented. A New Jersey family has filed a lawsuit to recover damages following the shooting death of the family dog, Maxie. To make their case, the Colbath family of Piscataway Township, New Jersey, claim their deceased dog deserves "family-member" status under the law and they should be compensated for the trauma of watching their dog die.
Last year, a Piscataway Township officer shot and killed the family dog while responding to a tripped burglar alarm at the family's home. The officer claims the dog charged him and he shot Maxie because he thought the barking dog was about to attack him. The family is suing the officer and the township.
The family cites a 1980 ruling that granted a woman money after she witnessed her son die in an elevator mishap. Later cases have granted expanded family-member status to boyfriends and girlfriends.
"Under these circumstances, the time is ripe for New Jersey courts to consider a companion animal to be a close family member under the context of this type of claim," said family lawyer Gina Calogero, who specializes in animal law. "It's just as traumatic to lose a pet as a close family member. The bond can be just as close."
"We still think about Maxie every day," said Jill Colbath, adding that her husband, who held Maxie as she died and asked the officer to shoot the dog again to end her suffering, still remains traumatized. "Brian is still having difficulty. Anything stressful triggers the pain. Maxie left a big void."
Piscataway Township attorney James Clarkin commented that the Township is vigorously defending the lawsuit.
—Source: Newark Star-Ledger (New Jersey)
Careful Who You Kiss this Valentine's Day
A criminal defense lawyer in Connecticut learned the hard way that you have to be careful who you kiss at the holidays. Ralph Crozier, 56, was charged with disorderly conduct after he allegedly inappropriately kissed a female judicial marshal on December 22, 2006.
Silent surveillance footage shows Crozier and Judicial Marshal Jaclyn Martinelli, 24, inside the lock-up area with other individuals, one of whom possibly was a prisoner, and Crozier kissing Martinelli.
Now a judge will examine whether the kiss was an uninvited kiss preceded by lewd sexual comments, or a benign holiday peck. According to the arrest warrant affidavit, Crozier allegedly had made sexual comments to Martinelli in the past and the kiss was an escalation that warranted a complaint.
"It was a Christmas greeting. I had no intention to annoy or harass anybody," Crozier said. "Every one of us knew we were on camera. This was a peck on the cheek. That was the extent. There was nothing here that was weird or sexual."
Martinelli claims that Crozier's unwelcome kiss was with an open mouth on the right side of her lips. Assistant State's Attorney John Malone of the Chief State's Attorney's Office described the kiss as more of a "lip lock," and said, "If it was simply a holiday kiss, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
Malone also expressed concern about jail security, noting "We can't have people kissing court marshals while they're transporting prisoners back and forth."
—Source: New Haven Register (Connecticut)
Choking on Your Words
An elementary school in Rhode Island has implemented silent lunches after at least three students choked temporarily on their food while eating lunch. Although no one was hurt, the principal of St. Rose of Lima School in Warwick explained to parents that they fear that noise levels may prevent staff from hearing a child choking.
Parent Christine Lamoureux recognized it as a safety issue, but questioned the reasonableness of the policy. "They are silent all day," she said. "They have to get some type of release."
Another mother, Thina Paone, does not mind the silent lunches, noting that the cafeteria "can be very crazy."
Lori Healey, a teacher at the school who also has a son in third grade, said "silent lunch" means students can whisper. "They know it's not for punishment."
Liability concerns may have prompted the policy. Joe Harrington, a former Warwick City Council member and parent who supports the rule said, "Can you imagine what the news would be if a child had choked to death? Do people really want to pick on a school where the spirit of a rule is to prevent tragedy? If you're proactive, you get tarred and feathered, when all we're talking about is children being quiet for five to ten minutes while they are eating."
—Source: The Providence Journal (Rhode Island) and Sun Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida)
The Cost of Topless Jumping Jacks
The City of Pensacola, Florida, is considering paying $35,000 to settle a claim filed by a female teenager who was forced to perform jumping jacks topless in front of a police officer to avoid arrest.
According to reports, officer Shawn Patrick Shields approached a parked car and found the 16 year-old teen and her 19 year-old male companion partially dressed. He threatened to arrest the teens for lewd and lascivious behavior and suggested exercise as a punishment. Shields shined his flashlight on the topless girl while she did five jumping jacks.
Shields pleaded no contest to a criminal charge of extortion. He was placed on probation for two years following the incident, ordered to write a letter of apology to the girl and later fired.
Now the city's finance committee is recommending that the full council vote for the $35,000 settlement. The victim's attorney, Robert Bleach, said that his client will be "glad to put this ugly incident behind her" and will use the money for her college education. "She certainly didn't want to go through a trial and relive the whole thing all over again," he said.
Regardless of the settlement amount, her attorney claims she will forever be scarred by the incident. "Anytime she gets pulled over by a cop, it's going to be something of an ordeal for her," Bleach said.
—Source: Pensacola News Journal
Labor Pains for Maternity Company
A maternity clothing store has agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging employment discrimination against applicants and employees who claim they were not hired or were terminated because they are pregnant. Mothers Work, Inc., a Philadelphia-based retailer with 1,500 stores throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico and which operates under the names of Motherhood Maternity, Mimi Maternity, A Pea in a Pod and Destination Maternity, will pay $375,000 to settle the federal lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, a Motherhood Maternity store in Florida refused to hire qualified applicants because they were pregnant, and then fired an assistant manager who complained about it. According to the suit, the assistant manager noticed a pattern of discrimination in October 2003 and complained. She later was fired after her boss told her that she believed she was pregnant.
"It is shocking that a corporation whose market is pregnant women would refuse to employ them and then retaliate against a woman who complained," Nora Curtin, supervisory trial attorney of the Miami District office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said in a statement.\
"This is horrifying to me," said company president Rebecca Matthias, who founded Mothers Work in 1982 when she was pregnant. "My whole world is about servicing pregnant women."
The company settled the lawsuit last week to avoid litigation costs, Matthias said.
—Source: Miami Herald
Slippery Slope Begins (or Ends?) in City of Omaha
Fearing increased exposure to lawsuits, the City of Omaha, Nebraska, recently announced that it is banning sledding at two local dams and ice skating and ice fishing on frozen ponds and lagoons throughout the city.
According to news reports, the city has been evaluating its parks and recreation areas for potential liability problems following a legal decision rendered last fall. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the state's Recreational Liability Act does not protect public entities from liability for injuries that occur at public parks and other recreation facilities. The September decision reversed a 25-year-old precedent of shielding liability.
While acknowledging that the precautions may be unpopular, Omaha City Attorney Paul Kratz noted that they are necessary to protect the taxpayers of Omaha. "The Supreme Court's ruling could essentially result in lawsuits that would cost the City of Omaha millions of dollars each year," he stated.
The extreme caution didn't sit well with one sledder, Rich Palmer, who has been bringing his boys to the facilities for seven years. "I understand the city's liability concerns," Palmer said, "but I've never seen anybody injured out there."
The same Supreme Court decision prompted surrounding cities to shut down their skateboard parks.
A bill is expected to be introduced this year in the state legislature to protect public entities from liability for injuries at parks. The Omaha City Council has voted to support legislation to restore its liability protection.
—Source: Omaha World-Herald
Yahoo Sued by Patriots Quarterback
The New England Patriots are headed to the playoffs; Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady is headed to court. In November, Tom Brady sued Yahoo Inc., claiming the Internet business used his image without his consent to advertise its fantasy football service.
In a federal lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, Brady complains that Yahoo ran the ads that prominently featured him without his permission in Sports Illustrated magazine and on its website. Brady complains that Yahoo's violation of his rights of publicity "was intentional, deliberate, willful and malicious" and demands Yahoo stop running the ads. The lawsuit also seeks unspecified damages.
A spokeswoman for Yahoo, which runs one of many fantasy football sites which can charge upward of $125 per season for access to the imaginary league websites and whose site generates more than 800 million page views a day during football season, declined comment.
—Source: ExtremeTech.com
• For more: Tales Stranger than Fiction, click here.