Amid worldwide publicity, the commissioners of rural Rhea County, Tennessee, quickly rescinded their call for legislation allowing the county to prosecute gays and lesbians for “crimes against nature”; Commissioner J.C. Fugate had asked the county attorney to find a way to “keep them out of here.” (“Rhea County Commission Rescinds Gay Ban”, The Chattanoogan, Mar. 18; “Tennessee county reverses ban on gays”, Ellen Barry, “County Rescinds Vote to Ban Gay Residents”, L.A. Times, Mar. 18; AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 19). By contrast, there’s been much less attention paid to a proposed statute nearing enactment in supposedly civilized Virginia which might serve almost as effectively in sending a “don’t live here” message to gays.
Archive for March, 2004
“Mexico urges Latino janitors to join class-action suit”
Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB barred illegal-alien workers from suing over the loss of jobs it was unlawful for them to accept in the first place (see Apr. 3-4, 2002), our enterprising bar continues to regard illegals as a promising clientele for employment litigation. For example, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has filed a class-action lawsuit against California grocery chains Albertson’s, Ralphs and Vons alleging that the stores violated the law by hiring independent-contractor firms to provide janitorial services; it claims they owe janitors who worked for these firms various retroactive benefits to which they would have been entitled had they been direct employees of the grocery chains. On Monday the Mexican consulate in San Diego lent its support to the campaign and urged janitors to sign up for the lawsuit, which is expected to go to trial in June. It is considered likely that many of the workers are illegals, but “Steven Joaquin Reyes, an attorney for the Mexican American legal aid group, said the workers do not have to be fearful because the judge in the case has already ruled that the workers’ immigration status is not relevant to the issue of whether they were paid fairly” — wink-wink, nudge-nudge (Edward Sifuentes, “Mexico urges Latino janitors to join class-action suit”, North County Times, Mar. 15). For more on the many-pronged legal campaign to make Southland grocery chains sorry they won their recent dispute with the United Food & Commercial Workers union, see Feb. 1.
Remedy for sending coupons: send more coupons
In the latest from the world of junk fax litigation (see Jul. 19, 2003, and links from there; Dec. 8), the bowling company AMF Bowling Centers has agreed to give out up to $1 million cash and $1.5 million in coupons to settle a class action alleging that it sent out as many as 352,000 unsolicited faxes. In addition, attorneys Lance McMillian and Stephen Camp of McMillian & Camp in Newnan, Ga. “will get a total of $250,000, while the lead plaintiff, James Michael Moore of Satellite Specialists in Jonesboro, will get $15,000.” AMF agreed to pay $500 to class members who actually kept a copy of an offending fax, while those who merely swear in an affidavit that they received one will get a less exhilarating prize, $250 in bowling coupons. Critics of the settlement say AMF is getting off too easily: under the terms of federal law, the company might have been liable for fines of between $176 million and $528 million if the charges were proven (see Oct. 22, 1999 for more on this calculus). Another Georgia attorney who had settled lawsuits with AMF over 141 junk faxes sent to his clients was also critical of the coupon aspect: “Sending similar coupons through junk-faxing is the conduct that got AMF in trouble. This is a settlement that enriches AMF and doesn’t provide a meaningful benefit to the consumer.” (Steven H. Pollak, “Junk Faxes Could Cost Bowling Co. $1 Million”, Fulton County Daily Report, May 2).
“Blair ally attacks British ‘culture’ of compensation”
“Britain suffers from a ‘compensation culture’ that deprives schools and hospitals of nearly ?700 million a year that could be spent on extra teachers and nurses, a close ally of Tony Blair says today. Stephen Byers, the former Trade Secretary who advises the Prime Minister on policy, is calling for sweeping legal reforms to stop funds being diverted from public services to those who ‘blame, claim and gain’ if things go wrong.” In a speech in Birmingham, Mr. Byers called for a national debate on claim payouts that have reached ?200 million a year for schools and ?477 million for claims against the National Health Service, enough to hire 8,000 teachers and 22,700 nurses, and have encouraged excessive caution in service provision, as with teachers’ reluctance to lead field trips (see Mar. 2). Among possible remedies: no-fault compensation, use of alternate dispute resolution, curbs on “no fee, no win” legal practice, and tighter scrutiny of misleading advertisements by lawyers. (Toby Helm, Daily Telegraph, Mar. 10). For many related posts, see our UK category.
Your laptop? Hand it over
Yet another hazard of modern divorce: the judge may forbid you to use, alter or even turn on your personal computer — work files and all — lest you erase or overwrite some email or spreadsheet that your hubby might want to hold against you. “Stamford Superior Court Judge Kevin Tierney recently took the highly unusual step of ordering Mary Ranta to stop using her laptop altogether and immediately turn it over to the court clerk’s office. … Tierney said his goal was to preserve electronic data for discovery.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Lockdown Ordered for Laptop”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 16).
Arizona wildlife: when in doubt, take it out
Arizona court decisions have recently eroded the state’s historical immunity from being sued over the actions of wild animals, and wildlife managers have been hit with two big liability payouts: a $2.5 million settlement for a girl mauled by a bear, and a $3 million jury verdict payable to a motorist whose vehicle struck an elk. Tucson attorney Mick Rusing, who defended the state in the bear case, says the cases influenced a recent decision to order mountain lions hunted in Sabino Canyon. “The default position of Game and Fish is now, ‘When in doubt, take it out,’ ” Rusing said. “If the courts and the Legislature are not going to protect these agencies and the people who make the decisions, that’s the way it’s going to be.” Rusing drafted a bill that would have provided immunity to game managers but the bill died “after trial lawyers opposed it and the Game and Fish Commission declined to support it.” (Tom Beal, “Bear, elk lawsuits influence lion hunt”, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Mar. 13)
New batch of reader letters
We’ve posted four more entries from our alarmingly backed-up pipeline of reader letters, on our letters page. Among topics this time: the oddly divergent views of Wisconsin’s governor on the protection of lawful activities, with special reference to cheeseburger-selling and helmetless cycling; the recently announced class action settlement in Lamb v. Wells Fargo; complaints that some Texas jury pools are now “tainted” against lawsuits; and U-Haul’s role as bystander in the Ford Explorer litigation frenzy.
Does business sabotage tort reform?
One of the more noteworthy contributions to the recent Business Insurance symposium on tort reform (Feb. 16, not online — see Mar. 15) came from Yale law prof George Priest, who wrote as follows: “The single worst development in modern tort law is that many businesses are now adopting the tactics of the trial lawyers — litigation, including class action litigation — to pursue competitive interests. The recent antitrust class action by Wal-Mart and hundreds of the nation’s retailers against Visa and MasterCard [see Aug. 22 — ed.] was only successful because Wal-Mart convinced the courts to expand class action availability. There are many other examples of businesses seeking an expansion of liability to promote their own interests. Some years ago, MetLife sought an unjustifiable expansion of insurance coverage law in its pursuit of recovery against Aetna. When business pursues a short-term advantage by joining the trial lawyers, the tort reform cause is truly lost.” (& letter to the editor, Apr. 2)
Likely offer for teen who jumped off school bus: $200,000
School district officials have recommended that the Palm Beach County School Board approve an offer of $200,000 to teenager Reyna Francisco, who jumped off the back of a school bus and was injured in a February 2001 incident. Francisco and a friend “had been fighting with another student earlier that day. They pushed through the bus emergency exit and jumped because they were afraid they were being taken back to school to be punished.” District officials have recommended paying a settlement rather than taking chances before a jury on Francisco’s suit charging negligent hiring and supervision of the bus driver, although neither the district nor Florida Highway Patrol investigators blame the driver for the jump. (Marc Freeman, “School Board may give $200,000 to Lake Worth teen who jumped off school bus”, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Mar. 10).
“BBB pulls ad after flak from attorney groups”
The Denver and Colorado bar associations have succeeded in getting the local Better Business Bureau to yank from the airwaves a 15-second ad premised on the notion that there might actually be some attorneys out there who exploit their clients. “You inherited a fortune … You hired a lawyer … Now it’s his fortune,” the announcer says in the ad. Declaring the ad offensive, the bar associations demanded a hearing before the BBB’s own unfair-advertising panel. Jean Herman, president and chief executive of the Denver/Boulder BBB, agreed to pull the ad, saying, “I don’t agree with them … but I don’t want to go around ticking people off”. Ad spots warning about bad plumbers, mortgage lenders and limousine drivers will continue as usual in the BBB’s “Check With Us First” campaign. Interestingly, Greg Martin, deputy executive director of both bar groups, said the groups would not agree to a suggestion that the offending line be amended from “You hired a lawyer” to “You hired the wrong lawyer.” “Obviously, our goal was not to have that ad on TV anymore,” Martin said. (John Accola, Rocky Mountain News, Mar. 13). David Giacalone (Mar. 16) has an excellent analysis. Of course, it remains perfectly normal and acceptable for lawyers’ own ads to promote the idea that other people’s professions and businesses are injurious and not always aboveboard.
Be sure to check out the last few sentences of the Rocky Mountain News article, in which Martin, the bar official, blasts the whole idea of applying to lawyers the BBB approach of documenting a record of complaints so that consumers can see for themselves which operators have numerous unresolved grievances outstanding. Martin says the BBB lacks any “special knowledge about attorneys” and says the profession is already highly regulated by its own (with emphasis, as we might add, on its own) disciplinary committees. Now suppose that some other profession or industry — medicine, say — were to assert that its mysteries are so esoteric, and its success in self-regulation so complete, that lay observers should not presume even to compare notes with each other on their bad experiences with it. Hard to imagine, these days, isn’t it?