Time running out to roast chestnuts by an open fire: “Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ‘public hearings’ are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth. Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.” (Jeffrey Earl Warren, “Should fireplace fires be banned?”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 22; Jonathan Curiel, “Smog board wants to ban wood fires on bad-air nights in winter”, Nov. 6). This has been building for a while (Dec. 27, 2002; Dec. 24, 2001; Feb. 28, 2001). Related: Denis Cuff, “Air quality agency has beef with charbroiling smoke”, InsideBayArea.com, Nov. 28.
Posts tagged as:
Bay Area
They’re doing it again in California: “State and federal authorities have opened an investigation into a Norco housewife, alleging that her vitriolic protests against a high-risk group home in her neighborhood may constitute housing discrimination.” Federal officials asked state fair housing regulators to investigate Julie Waltz, 61, who had protested plans to open a group house next to her home for developmentally disabled residents; among those eligible to reside there under state law would be persons deemed not competent to stand trial on sex crime charges. In 2000, the Ninth Circuit ruled that three Berkeley, Calif. neighbors’ rights had been violated by an “extraordinarily intrusive and chilling” investigation of whether their protests had been contrary to housing discrimination law. In that episode, as in the latest one, housing advocates had set the investigation in motion by filing complaints against the neighbors.
A spokesman for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development acknowledged that in order to recommend the inquiry, it had to push aside internal guidelines that prohibit such an investigation because it infringes on the 1st Amendment.The rules require that complaints of housing discrimination be investigated only in cases in which the alleged victim’s safety has been threatened.
No such allegation has been made against Waltz, but HUD opened an investigation into her and state investigators ordered her to respond to the complaint in detail because a preliminary review showed that someone else in the neighborhood may have made a violent threat, said HUD spokesman Larry Bush.
(Garrett Therolf, “Protester of group home is targeted”, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20).
{ 6 comments }
A beloved San Francisco tourist attraction, the birds roost in two ancient 
cypress trees whose owner says he can no longer afford the liability risk should they topple or shed branches on spectators. The city is stepping in to spare the axe by taking responsibility for the chance of injury. (Charlie Goodyear, “Preserving perches for wild parrots”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14; “Buzz saws threaten home of Telegraph Hill parrots”, CBC, Nov. 3, 2005). A 2004 film about the parrots is available here on DVD.
{ 4 comments }
“A jury ruled Friday that a labor union defamed Sutter Health with a mass mailing of postcards and awarded the Northern California health care organization almost $17.3 million in damages. The Placer County jury found that Unite Here, one of the nation’s largest unions that represents hotel, restaurant and laundry workers, defamed Sutter Health early last year by sending postcards to women of child-bearing age in Northern California claiming the organization’s hospitals used unclean linens. The union was in a labor dispute with the laundry service that cleaned the linens at the time.” (“Jury: Union defamed Sutter Health”, InsideBayArea.com (Hayward Daily Review), Jul. 23; Mehul Srivastava, “Jury award stings union”, Sacramento Bee, Jul. 22).
{ 4 comments }
Readers may recall the brouhaha last year when a federally protected plant, the Sebastopol meadowfoam, was discovered growing on the grounds of a controversial proposed housing development in the Northern California community; state wildlife officials investigated and said it was apparently planted on purpose. (May 25, 2005). Now the plant has sprung up again on the site, and although opponents of the project have seized on the news, the developer says it’s just a result of the germination of seeds from the earlier illicit plantation. (Terence Chea, “Trouble in bloom at Calif. development site”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 17).
{ 1 comment }
Updating our Feb. 22 report: “A judge Friday suspended California’s high school exit exam, finding it discriminatory in a ruling that could allow thousands of students who failed the test to get their diplomas anyway.” Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman “agreed with the plaintiffs that the exam discriminates against poor students and those who are learning English. ‘There is evidence in the record that shows that students in economically challenged communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested,’ Freedman wrote.” It would appear that from now on a high school diploma is meant to signify not a student’s actual mastery of a certain body of material, but rather the mastery he or she would have attained had the breaks of life been fairer. Employers, and all others who rely on California high school diplomas in evaluating talent, would be well advised to adjust their expectations accordingly.
“Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said the state would immediately appeal the ruling, which he said creates ‘chaos’ for more than 1,100 high schools that are completing graduation preparations.” However, plaintiff Mayra Ibanez was gratified:
“It is hard to be poor. It is hard to grow up in a place where there is a lot of crime,” said the 18-year-old, a Mexican immigrant who attends school in the working-class San Francisco Bay area city of Richmond. “No one will be hurt if we get our diploma.”
(Juliet Williams, “Ruling Blocks Calif. High School Exit Exam”, AP/Forbes, May 12).
{ 8 comments }
Here’s a story about a public health intervention that:
1. Appears to have reduced the rate of sexually transmitted diseases.
2. Especially by encouraging people to have a check-up.
3. Appears to have been fairly inexpensive.
4. Involved no coercion.
The Bay Area Reporter offers a story about a costumed character who promotes sexual disease control (sort of like Smokey the Bear encourages people to prevent forest fires). But the particular costume would scandalize many people. Read the whole article before you make up your own mind.
{ 4 comments }
What a neat idea, so naturally it’s drawn cease-and-desist letters from the New York and San Francisco transit authorities (Wired, via Dennis Kennedy who got it from B.L. Ochman)(cross-posted from Point of Law).
…is now officially dead, reports Bill Quick (May 16)(via Instapundit)(see Apr. 6). The Federal Election Commission, on the other hand, remains a threat, according to Redstate.org (May 20)(also via Instapundit)(see Mar. 17, Mar. 31). More on campaign finance law and free speech: Jonathan Rauch, “McCain-Feingold at Rest”, National Journal/Reason Online, May 9.
{ 1 comment }
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote April 5 on a proposed campaign finance regulation that would define “electioneering communication” to include weblogs that receive more than 500 hits from San Francisco voters. There would be a disclosure requirement (that must be made in a 14-point typeface) and potential reporting requirements. (via Southern California Law Blog and Personal Democracy Forum).
{ 3 comments }
So, you’re a police officer and you see a Nissan truck zoom through a stop sign at 40 mph. You give chase, but the car speeds up and drives even more erratically. Do you:
(a) View this as a sign that this maniac driver must be stopped?or
(b) Stop the chase. The guy is driving dangerously!
Lawsuit after lawsuit posit that police act inappropriately by not stopping the chase — even though that effectively creates a policy that rewards, and thus encourages, miscreants who put other drivers at risk by trying to escape the police. Simply put, policy (b) is the policy that will guarantee that drivers try to drive dangerously to force police to peel off, while policy (a) encourages all but the most wildly irrational to pull over.
In California on March 16, 2003, Joseph Boldt, allegedly under the influence of meth, sped up in his stolen vehicle after running the stop sign, and Sergeant Mark Farber followed. Boldt decided to try to escape by going southbound in the northbound lanes of I-280, at speeds of up to 110 mph, causing three other accidents before smashing into an innocent driver, Girish Wadhwani, critically injuring him. Boldt’s passenger, Bobby Luke Kleinheinz, also wanted on an arrest warrant at the time, wasn’t wearing his seatbelt and was killed; the wheelchair-bound Boldt faces second-degree murder charges, though his trial has been postponed at least a couple of times because of crash-related health problems. Kleinheinz’s family is, of course, suing the police, rather than Boldt. The Association of Bay Area Governments paid Wadhwani $3.15 million for his broken bones. “Millbrae officials said they believed Farber acted appropriately but agreed to the settlement for fear of losing an even larger award during a civil trial.” (Ryan Kim, “$3.15 million settlement in high-speed crash”, San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 26; AP, Mar. 26; Amy Yarbrough, “Man awarded $3.15 million in damages after police chase”, San Mateo County Times, Mar. 19; “Crash trial postponed”, SF Examiner, Sep. 14; Ethan Fletcher, “Chase case heads for trial”, San Francisco Independent, Jul. 23; Michelle Durand, “Fatal wrong-way driver begins murder trial today”, San Mateo Daily Journal, Jun. 8; Michelle Durand, “Murder trial delayed for fatal wrong way driver”, Dec. 24, 2003; WPIX-5, Mar. 19, 2003; previous OL posts on high-speed chases: Mar. 15 & Sep. 21, 2003)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 12).
Winning a defamation case in the United States as a private person is thankfully and notably difficult. Winning a defamation case as a public person (someone well known in the relevant community or a public official) is extremely difficult unless there is an unmitigated lie, and nearly impossible if the case comes down to one person’s word against another’s.
Often defamation actions are covers — one person who may have done something wrong will protest his or her innocence, sue and accuser and use the pressure of a lawsuit to obtain a retraction of some sort. Those lawsuits are discouraged in California by the SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which penalizes plaintiffs for using defamation actions as swords to prevent defendants from exercising First Amendment rights.
The Monk won’t hazard a guess here about the merits of this lawsuit that former US track superstar Marion Jones filed against Vincent Conte, the founder of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative. That company is better known as BALCO, [alleged] steroid supplier to the superstars. Conte stated in interviews and in ESPN The Magazine that he personally witnessed Marion Jones inject steroids into herself and that he cut ties to her because she kept losing steroid paraphenalia on the road.
Jones has passed a lie detector test and testified to her innocence under oath before various athletic committees and in affidavits. But her ex-husband was thrown out of the 2000 Olympics for steroid use and her boyfriend is reputedly similarly dirty. On the other hand, Conte has never subjected his statements to the penalty of perjury.
Under California law, if school districts do not comply with public records requests within a stated period, they can be liable for requesters’ legal fees. In July and early August, as many officials were leaving for vacation, various Bay Area districts received requests for “school board members’ statement of economic interest — a document that details an elected official’s investments”. When the statements were not forthcoming within the prescribed period, lawsuits promptly followed demanding legal fees. The requesting organization, which calls itself Nolex Group, turns out to be run by a lawyer and to have no immediately visible purpose other than filing the requests. The Emery Unified district settled for a reported $2,500, but others resisted, with one defendant’s lawyer calling the action a “holdup lawsuit” and another saying that “These guys are trying to line their pockets at the expense of schoolchildren.” After the local news media took an interest, Nolex, which appears to be based from the Walnut Creek home of attorney Scott Hammel (with help from attorney Byron Done), “said it planned to drop six suits it had filed against San Mateo County school districts.” Hammel has vehemently denied improper motivations. (Jahna Berry, “Calif. Schools Blast Records Request as ‘Holdup Lawsuit’”, The Recorder, Nov. 24; “Lawyers Target Schools For Easy Money”, KRON, Oct. 21; Ethan Fletcher, “Alleged shakedown suit dropped”, San Francisco Examiner, Dec. 7).
I’ll be a guest Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. PDT on Napa, Calif.’s KVON radio 1440 AM. And then on Tuesday morning at 8 a.m. PDT I’ll be joining host Lee Rodgers on his popular show on KSFO 560 AM. In both cases I’ll be discussing my book The Rule of Lawyers, which came out in paperback earlier this month (more). To book a broadcast interview on the book, email me directly or contact Jamie Stockton at the St. Martin’s/Griffin publicity department: 212-674-5151, ext. 502. (bumped 6/28)
Latest newspaper account surveying the many, many ways schools get sued these days. This one is from the Tampa Bay area. (Melanie Ave, “Lawsuits drain school dollars”, St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 2)
Dragees–the silver-coated balls of sugar decorating many Christmas treats–have been withdrawn from the market in California, as wholesalers and bakers refuse to sell the popular product for fear of being named in a pending suit by a private Napa lawyer against Martha Stewart, Dean and DeLuca, and other purveyors. The low-cost product wasn’t worth defending in an expensive trial. State regulators saw no reason to act, but California law permits private citizens to bring suit.
“We are not aware of any health problems associated with this product,” said Lea Brooks of the California Department of Health Services. “Levels of the metal are extremely low — you’d have to consume massive quantities. We don’t know how much.”
Rebels may still purchase the product in the other 49 states of the Union. (Carol Ness, “Bay Area faces holidays without little silver balls on baked goods”, San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 23 (via Daily Legal Newswire); David Ryan, “Napa suit ends sales of cake decoration”, Napa Valley Register, Dec. 9).
{ 1 comment }
On Dec. 2 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous (7-0, two members not voting) decision in the much-watched Americans with Disabilities Act case of Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems (see Oct. 14, Oct. 7, Sept. 16-17, 2002. It held that notwithstanding the ADA’s protection of rehabilitated drug users, an employer is not obliged to rehire such drug users when it is following an otherwise neutral rule prohibiting the rehiring of former employees terminated for misconduct, provided it is not invoking such a rule as a mere pretext. The decision was widely reported as a straight-out victory for employers (see, for example, “US court rules for company on drug-use disability”, Reuters/Forbes, Dec. 2) but a closer look suggests a more complicated picture, with the door still open for legal attacks on many seemingly neutral employment rules (“Supreme Court Says No-Rehire Policy Is Not Discriminatory Practice Under ADA”, BNA, Dec. 8; “Supreme Court Dodges Question Whether Rehire Policy Barring Former Drug User Violates Disability Law”, Jackson Lewis, Dec. 3).
On the other coast, disabled-rights litigators suffered a significant setback last month that has been little noted in the national press, when a Bay Area judge rejected an suit attempting to hold the clothing discounter Mervyn’s liable for maintaining merchandise displays too crowded for wheelchair users to navigate. In his decision, Alameda Superior Court Judge Henry Needham “wrote that fixing Mervyn’s California stores to make all aisles conform with a 32-inch clearance for wheelchairs would cost the company $70 million in lost annual sales and $30 million in lost profits, according to the company’s estimates.” This exceeds the scope of “reasonable” accommodation, the judge ruled (Melanie Payne, “Judge backs Mervyn’s in disability suit”, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 5). Disabled-rights litigators had made wide-aisle mandates an important priority in lawsuits and protests: see Aug. 23 and links from there.
