Stand back! Get the principal on the line! Call the cops! The kid’s got a broken pencil sharpener! (Hilton Head, S.C. Island Packet, Sept. 11) (more, principal’s letter, police report in PDF — via Never Yet Melted).

This doesn’t pretend to be anything more than a bit of unattributed circulating email humor, but it still made me laugh:

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1958 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2008 – School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers. …

Full thing at Never Yet Melted.

• Florida trial lawyers have funneled millions to Gov. Charlie Crist and GOP state legislators; now guess why Orlando isn’t going to get commuter rail [Bousquet/St. Petersburg Times; Sentinel]
• What his ex-law firm told the world was “extremely inappropriate personal conduct” was in reality no more than a “brief, consensual kiss” with co-worker, charges attorney in $90 million defamation suit; Kasowitz Benson says it was following zero tolerance policy [American Lawyer]
• SCOTUS, 9-0, Thomas writing, narrows scope for money-laundering charges over hiding unexplained cash — but will that curb forfeiture abuse? [Grits for Breakfast, Greenfield]
• After West Virginia high court refuses to review $405 million royalty dispute jury verdict against Chesapeake Energy and another defendant, company scraps plans to build $30 million headquarters in the state [PoL]
• Even after discounting anti-corporate rhetoric, there does seem to be a story here about aggressive seed patent litigation tactics used by agri-giant Monsanto, a firm known to our readers [Barlett & Steele, Vanity Fair; earlier]
• Medical liability consequences of much-promoted concept of hospital “never events” [Buckeye Surgeon]
• Cellphone rage update: Judge Robert Restaino ousted for jailing 46 people after one of the annoying devices rang out in his Niagara Falls, N.Y. courtroom [Buffalo News, earlier]

In Winchendon, Mass., ten-year-old Bradley Geslak brought to school an empty bullet casing he’d brought home from the town Memorial Day celebration, in which blanks were fired. Although an empty casing is, of course, empty, he was charged with a weapons offense and after his five-day suspension may be assigned a probation officer. (Gail Stanton, “Souvenir rifle shell gets 4th-grader suspended”, Worcester Telegram, May 29; “Silence on lock and load”, May 30)(via Zincavage).

• Telemarketers working for lawyers and chiropractors “line up every day” at police and public records offices to buy car-crash records [Dallas Morning News]
• Nice work if you can get it: Bernardine Dohrn’s terrorist-to-lawprof career track [Kass, Chapman @ Chicago Tribune, Ed Morrissey/HotAir, PoL, Horowitz/DtN, Daily Northwestern/FrontPage, Malkin, Power Line]
• Mystery of embattled Florida debt-relief law firm Hess Kennedy (Mar. 6) deepens as whereabouts of lawyer Edward Kennedy are questioned [ABA Journal]
• Criticism mounts of Calif. AG Jerry Brown’s lawsuits using global warming theories to force higher-density development [Stewart/LA Weekly, Walters/SacBee, via Kaus, scroll]
• Kevin Pho (KevinMD.com) on defensive medicine [USA Today]
• Colorado firm says lawsuit’s “settlement mill” allegations are concocted “by a competitor who doesn’t like (Azar’s) advertising.” [Colorado Springs Gazette]
• Hey, you can rig up a disposable camera to give you a little shock; it might also give you a D felony record under school zero tolerance [WTNH via Greenfield]
• One good thing about those anonymous snitchlines for domestic abuse, you don’t have to worry about bogus calls or anything like that [Colorado Springs Gazette on Texas polygamist raid backstory]
• Lawyers get $2 million in fees in Netflix class action [WSJ law blog; earlier]
• Supreme Court refuses cert on that very curious $112 million (originally $1 billion) land-contamination verdict from Louisiana [Exxon v. Grefer, Dow Jones/Fortune; CalPunitives link roundup; earlier; more background at Laura Hart/Louisiana Law Blog]
• Cow-pie bingo event falls victim to liability fears [three years ago on Overlawyered]

Last month the New York Times ran a front-page story about the plight of a Fayetteville, Ark. high school student named Billy Wolfe, who had been “a target of bullies for years”, physically and verbally brutalized by fellow students despite his family’s repeated pleas to a seemingly heedless school district for his protection. (Dan Barry, “A Boy the Bullies Love to Beat Up, Repeatedly”, Mar. 24). Billy’s parents had sued teens they said had harassed their son, and were also considering legal action against the school district.

The article generated a big reaction, especially after young Wolfe himself appeared on the Today show to discuss his plight. Most observers seemed to agree that the harrowing tale lent credence to the whole idea of using lawsuits as a way of responding to bullying in schoolyards, Facebook, etc. — an idea that, coincidentally or otherwise, is the subject of an increasingly visible campaign these days. Even as level-headed an educational observer as Joanne Jacobs wrote on her blog, “Normally, I’m anti-lawsuit, but this may be the only way to bully the bullies and the principal to crack down.” Huffington Post writer Jonathan Fast cited the article as evidence that schools should adopt “zero tolerance” policies on bullying. Some of the many other blog reactions are assembled here (e.g.: Marcotte, Greenfield, DadTalk, The Common Room).

Could there be another side of the story, you may wonder? Well, as a matter of fact, there is. To find it you need to consult the local paper, the Northwest Arkansas Times (Scott F. Davis and Dustin Tracy, “Who’s the bully?: Police, school records raise questions about claims made by Fayetteville High student”, Apr. 3)(via Childs). One may argue about whether Wolfe’s own alleged exploits in victimizing other kids, as catalogued in the NWAT article, will or should affect the disposition of his family’s legal claims. What seems beyond dispute is that the NYT’s story would have been very different in the emotional reactions it evoked — and much less effective in promoting the particular “cause” it was advancing — had it included that other side of the story.

More/updates: Word Around the Net, Val’s Bien, Pennywit @ Likelihood of Success, Joanne Jacobs, Crime & Consequences, Kierkegaard Lives. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette notes that Arkansas already has an unusually strong anti-”cyberbullying” law which “requires school districts to adopt discipline policies banning harmful and disruptive online behavior”, despite misgivings from civil libertarians about official penalties based on students’ out-of-school speech: Evie Blad, “School bullies move online; rules tricky to write, enforce”, Apr. 6. And Scott Greenfield minces no words:

…what is the New York Times thinking? To have its knees cut off by its Northwest Arkansas namesake is humiliating, but to be shown up as deceptive fundamentally undermines its credibility. Without credibility, the Times is just a dog-trainers best friend and a tree’s worst nightmare. …

The failure of the New York Times to present a full and accurate account of the Billy Wolfe story is disgraceful and unacceptable. … If you’re going to put an article on the front page with a big picture, don’t blow it. The Times did. They should be ashamed.

And in our comments section, Ole Miss lawprof Paul Secunda provides the Wolfe family’s response to the NWAT coverage. Update Apr. 24: Jay Greene weighs in.

All-automotive edition:

• Court won’t unseal settlement arising from $105 million Aramark/Giants Stadium dramshop case for fear girl’s father will try to get his hands on money [NJLJ, NorthJersey.com, Childs; earlier]
• Great moments in insurance defense law: you mean it wasn’t a good idea to infiltrate that church meeting to investigate the crash claim? [Turkewitz first, second posts]
• Columnist Paul Mulshine rejoices: Ninth Circuit decision “if it stands, will lead to the end of the SUV as we know it” [Newark Star-Ledger]
• Is it unfair — and should it be unlawful? — for insurers to settle crash victims’ claims too early? [Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog]
• If Ron Krist prevails in shoot-out of Texas plaintiff titans, he vows to have sheriff seize John O’Quinn’s Batmobile [American Lawyer; see also Ted's take earlier]
• In much-watched case, Australian high court by 3-2 split upholds highway authority against claim defective bridge design was blameworthy after youth’s dive into shallow water [RTA NSW v. Dederer, Aug. 30]
• Redesigning Toyota’s occupant restraint system? Clearly another job for the Marshall, Texas courts [SE Texas Record; Point of Law; more]
• Bench trial results in $55 million verdict against U.S. government after Army employee on business runs red light and paralyzes small child [OC Register]
• Vision in a purple Gremlin: her Yale Law days shaped Hillary in many ways [Stearns/McClatchy]
• Zero tolerance for motorists’ blood-alcohol — are we sure we want to go there? [Harsanyi, Reason]
• Driver falls asleep, so of course Ford must pay [two years ago on Overlawyered; much more on our automotive page]

If the Cape May, N.J. school district was really going to punish a 7-year-old just for making a drawing of such a thing, with no actual water gun in sight, shouldn’t maybe the punishment have been to make him draw a stick figure of a little boy getting an overly-harsh suspension? (Zincavage, Oct. 21; Charles Sykes, “I Have Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance Policies”, American Thinker, Oct. 30).

“Amber Dauge was by all accounts a good student at Goose Creek High School” in South Carolina, until the fateful toast-assistive implement got her busted under the school’s zero-tolerance-for-weapons policy. (Chris Francescani, “Expelled for Possession of a Butter Knife”, ABCNews.com, Oct. 22). See Oct. 23-24, 1999 (knife to cut cake), Aug. 25, 2003 (bread knife). Related: May 2, 2005.

• Criminal charges dropped against Oregon 13-year-olds over fanny-swatting in school corridors [CBSNews.com, Malkin, KGW.com and AP; earlier]


• Elasticity of “medical error” concept: Medicare will stop paying hospitals for treatment of “reasonably preventable” injuries that happen in hospitals, such as patient falls — we all know those are preventable given enough duct tape [NCPA, Right Side of the Rainbow; and before assuming that bed sores invariably result from negligent care, read this](more: Turkewitz)


• Yale University Press beats back libel suit in California court by Muslim charity over allegations in book scrutinizing terrorist group Hamas [Zincavage]


• Law firms, including Philadelphia’s senatorially connected Kline & Specter, already advertising for clients following Mattel toy recall [Childs]


• First class action against RIAA over its scattershot anticopying suit campaign [P2PNet]


• Four Oklahoma inmates claim copyright to their own names, demand millions from warden for using those names without permission, then things really start getting wild [UK Telegraph and TechDirt via Coleman]


• UCLA’s Lynn LoPucki, scourge of corporate bankruptcy bar, has another study out documenting soaring fees [WSJ Law Blog]


• Man who knifed school headmaster to death is expected to win right to remain in Britain on grounds deporting him would violate his human rights [Telegraph]


• Among targets of zero tolerance bans: jingle of ice cream trucks in NYC, screaming on Sacramento rollercoasters [ABCNews.com]


• Does California antidiscrimination law require doctors to provide artificial insemination to lesbian client against religious scruples? [The Recorder]


• Alabama tobacco farmers got $500,000 from national tobacco settlement, though fewer than 300 acres of tobacco are grown in Alabama [five years ago on Overlawyered]

• Okla. AG says scam artists are sending out bogus “you’ve won a class action settlement” notices that could hook unwary recipients [Consumer Affairs]


• Rough on marriages, jobs, and tempers: life as a juror on a thirteen-month trial [Times Online]


• “In some ways, that story represented everything about America: sex, money, and litigation.” [Tina Brown on Anna Nicole saga]


• Baby steps toward consumer protection? When lawyers “go bare” without professional liability insurance, some in Calif. bar think clients should be told [The Recorder]


• Norwalk, Ct. cop who won reinstatement after snatching body part (Jan. 23) is back in the news, and not in a favorable way [Jeff Hall; Advocate, Citizen-News]


• Why RIAA probably needn’t worry that its scattershot suit-filing will expose it to RICO liability [Ars Technica]


• Come to think of it, maybe shooting your husband is worse than serving beer to 16-year-olds [Bader @ WashPost; earlier]


• Michigan woman “slain in the Spirit” at Pentecostal religious service wins suit alleging church was negligent and broke promise by not providing usher to catch her as she fell; defamation claims also figured in suit [Lansing State Journal, Lawyers' Weekly; compare this case from Australia]


• “Backlash Forms Against ‘Zero Tolerance‘” — well, we can hope [Associated Press]


• New at Point of Law: State Farm moves to disqualify Scruggs in Katrina litigation; honest expert witness spotted?; proposed federal habitat regulation might dwarf current wetlands and species laws; and much more;


• Auctioning off the right to handle a civil case… on eBay? [Five years ago on Overlawyered]

Back in 1999, in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court laid down a test for when sexual harassment rises to the level of “discrimination” for purposes of Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools. Recognizing the fact that students frequently insult and tease one another in ways that would be intolerable in the workplace, the court set the bar higher for plaintiffs suing schools rather than employers. Instead of having to show just that harassment was “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile or offensive environment,” as employees do, students have to show that harassment was severe and pervasive enough to interfere with access to an education.

Oddly, this protection against lawsuits has been overlooked not just by some lower court judges, but also by the very schools that benefit from it. In Jennings v. University of North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is rehearing en banc a recent panel decision which ruled 2-to-1 against a harassment claim based on inappropriate sexual discussions between a male coach and female athletes, which the plaintiff witnessed.

The panel majority argued that the conduct was not “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile environment,” since the discussions were seldom aimed at the plaintiff. (Courts have typically given little weight to such “second-hand harassment”). The dissent argued that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment. The University seems not to have disputed that the “severe or pervasive” standard applied, or that the plaintiff could prevail merely by showing the existence of a “hostile environment,” even though other courts have recognized that harassment of students by school employees must be both severe and pervasive enough to interfere with access to an education.

But the standard for harassment claims against schools is more exacting, by design. In the higher education context, there are additional reasons for a more demanding standard. As Justice Kennedy observed in his dissent in the Davis case, the lower courts have repeatedly invalidated college harassment codes on First Amendment grounds. Most of the cases Justice Kennedy cited involved codes that banned speech that creates a hostile environment, much like workplace harassment law.

While a single offensive utterance doesn’t create a hostile work environment all by itself, a complainant can allege a hostile environment based on the offensive utterances of many different speakers, even if none of them individually make many offensive statements or intend to create a hostile environment. That effectively forces many employers to adopt “zero tolerance” policies banning racist or sexist speech.

By contrast, the Fourth Circuit’s own ruling in Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, 993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993), prevented a university from prohibiting racist and sexist student speech that allegedly created a “hostile and distracting learning environment.”

Moreover, students routinely have R-rated discussions in college dorm rooms that might give rise to a sexual harassment claim under the PG-rated standards of the workplace. As the Eleventh Circuit observed in Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, 830 F.2d 1554, 1561 n.13 (11th Cir. 1987), “most complaints of sexual harassment are based on actions which, although they may be permissible in some settings, are inappropriate in the workplace.”

By relying on workplace standards, the university may well lose a case it would otherwise win. As a result, colleges in the Fourth Circuit may end up having to police private sexual conversations among students in ways that are difficult to enforce, especially if the full Fourth Circuit rejects the panel’s reasoning and treats comments overheard by a plaintiff, but not aimed at her, as harassment.

It’s one of the premises of the anti-fizzy-drinks campaign (and presumably, after that, the anti-coffee and tea campaigns): when your kids drink Coke or Pepsi, they’re ingesting (shudder) a drug. Is it being taken seriously? Well, caffeine is now turning up as a prohibited substance in school zero-tolerance policies. (van Bakel, May 26). Can suspensions for possession of Dr. Pepper be far behind?

That was apparently all it took to get an eighth-grader thrown out of East Central Junior High in Stronghurst, Ill. Naturally, it’s a zero-tolerance case: “In the post–Columbine massacre environment, [superintendent Ralph] Grimm said it is appropriate to err on the side of caution in these circumstances.” The student also faces possible criminal charges of disorderly conduct. (Craig T. Neises, “Student faces discipline over ‘list”, Burlington (Ia.) Hawk Eye, Nov. 30)(via Taranto)(more zero tolerance).

More zero tolerance madness: “Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is calling for a new law that would make any drinking and driving illegal — even if the driver is not impaired.” (Becky Pallack, “Dupnik wants to outlaw any drinking at all by drivers”, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Nov. 24)(via Radley Balko). More: DUIBlog, Dec. 1.

You’d think one advantage of electing a Texas oil guy as president would be that, when prices at the pump react to a genuinely massive supply disruption as supply and demand predict they will, he’d know better than to direct public anger toward the ill-defined offense of “price gouging”. Apparently you’d be wrong, though:

“I think there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency such as this -– whether it be looting, or price gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking advantage of charitable giving or insurance fraud,” Bush said. “And I’ve made that clear to our attorney general. The citizens ought to be working together.”

(Adam Nossiter, “More National Guardsmen are sent in”, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 1). More: Mark Kleiman got there first (Sept. 1)(via Julian Sanchez). See also Dan Mitchell of Heritage at C-Log (Aug. 31). And Don Boudreaux, after thanking Hawaiian pols, wonders (Aug. 29):

Would it make sense to haul before Congress a group of real-estate agents, or a few homeowners, or some home-builders to accuse them publicly of causing the recent surge in real-estate prices?

Yet more, this time from Jane Galt (Sept. 1): “Prices of everything rise after a disaster, and a good thing too, since that encourages people and material to flood into the damaged area, where they’re needed most.”

Good news for a change: a bill awaiting the signature of Texas Gov. Rick Perry would restore some discretion to school boards, reducing the chances that students will be expelled over inadvertent violations of zero tolerance rules. In particular, according to a newspaper report quoted at Zero Intelligence (Jun. 6),

If the bill becomes law, students still could face severe sanctions for serious offenses, such as bringing a weapon onto a campus or a school-sponsored activity off campus. But if the bill passes, administrators would be able to consider the student’s intent or lack of intent, disciplinary history, a disability that substantially impairs the student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct and whether the action was done in self-defense.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers took active roles in support of the bill. (Helen Eriksen, “Discipline bill on Perry’s desk”, Houston Chronicle, Jun. 4).

Researchers at the Yale Child Study Center led by Walter S. Gilliam have found that a surprisingly large number of 3 and 4 year olds are expelled from community and private preschools, perhaps 5,000 or more annually. Zero tolerance and liability fears may be among the factors at work: “The study did not gather information on why the children were expelled. But Dr. Gilliam said a wide range of behavior could lead to expulsion: aggression toward the teacher or other children; actions that violate a zero-tolerance policy, like taking a toy gun to school; or anything that might cause a teacher to worry about injury and liability, like running out of the classroom to the parking lot.” (emphasis added) (Tamar Lewin, “Research Finds a High Rate of Expulsions in Preschool”, New York Times, May 17). Last December the Times reported (Dec. 7) on how liability fears sometimes drive colleges’ decisions to impose involuntary leave on students; colleges, like preschools, generally enjoy greater flexibility in expulsion and discipline than do conventional K-12 public schools.