“I fully realize that there are dangers and risks to which I may be exposed by participating in Cookie Decorating” begins the waiver and release required by the University of Pittsburgh for a particular extracurricular activity. (Tip of the Overlawyered hat to J.M.)
Perhaps this explains the real motivation behind the evisceration of the raison d’être of Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster; Jonah Goldberg explores the new political correctness.
In what an assistant U.S. Attorney said signals the start of a second wave of arrests in the Mississippi fen-phen fraud affair, Gregory P. Warren of Lafayette, La., is cooperating with authorities and is expected to plead guilty to charges arising from his role in recruiting fen-phen clients for the law firm of Schwartz & Associates in Jackson, which has not been charged. According to the AUSA’s office, Warren recruited claimants who had never in fact taken the drug; he “also is accused of failing to report on his tax return nearly $200,000 he was paid by attorneys in 2000 for recruiting Fen-Phen plaintiffs.” (Jimmie E. Gates, “More guilty pleas in Fen-Phen case”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, May 4). For more on the scandal, see Feb. 12, Jan. 9, etc. (& letter to the editor, May 10).
The U.S. Supreme Court, sending a case back to the Sixth Circuit, has kept alive Michigan school athletic directors’ hopes of proving that they have a rational basis for scheduling some girls’ sports in different seasons than the equivalent boys’ sports (see Dec. 24-27, 2001; Jul. 10, 2004). (“Supreme Court ruling delays decision”, Saginaw News, May 3; Hope Yen, “High Court Asks 6th Circuit to Reconsider Girls Sports Seasons Ruling”, AP/Law.com, May 3). Mick McCabe of the Detroit Free Press says that based on actual results, the schools deserve to prevail; Michigan has one of the nation’s highest rates of participation by girls in sports and disproportionately graduates girls who win athletic scholarships in the relevant sports of volleyball and basketball. (“Gender equity no-brainer as Title IX case”, May 6).
“What does a high-powered Harvard Law School professor do when he gets in a dispute with a neighbor? He sues, of course — even if that neighbor takes care of his young son after school every day.” The lawprof, for those who don’t want to follow the link, is executive-compensation-scourge Lucian Bebchuk, who’s joined with a few other Harvard-affiliated property owners to fight their neighbor, the nonprofit Agassiz Neighborhood Council, which would like to install a children’s art studio on its property. (Steve Bailey, “Sue thy neighbor”, Boston Globe, May 6).
Jack Chin at CrimProfBlog has a roundup.
Our email newsletter summing up what’s new on the site was significantly delayed this time around by technical difficulties we had with our old list administrator, Topica, so we’ve moved it over to Google Groups. To join or leave the list, visit this page (requires Google registration). Each issue summarizes a few weeks’ worth of postings in terse style. If you’re an existing subscriber and want to leave, you can also send email to Overlawyered-unsubscribe – [at] googlegroups [dot, com]. Thanks for bearing with us during this transition.
In Bexleyheath, Kent, England, Michelle Alabaster is celebrating her victory in a nine-year legal battle over a government mistake which led her private employer to undercalculate the amount of maternity leave owed her in 1995. The case ramified and went up to the appeals level before its recent resolution, under which Ms. Alabaster was found indeed entitled to the disputed £204.53; Her Majesty’s government estimates that it spent £350,000 defending its side of the dispute. The disproportion is not actually as irrational as it might seem, however, since the issues contested are likely to affect entitlement to maternity leave in many other cases (Becky Barrow, “Mother wins maternity case after nine years”, Daily Telegraph, May 4).
“There is some evidence that plaintiffs and their attorneys are profitably short-selling the stock of the companies they intend to sue,” writes Moin Yahya of the University of Alberta law faculty in a new paper called “The Legal Status of ‘Dump & Sue'” (SSRN, Mar. 9). Strategic litigants or their attorneys thus stand to capture two distinct strands of revenue: one from the eventual settlement of the suit, the other from the profits they capture after their adversary’s stock declines on the announcement of the suit. (Alternatively, some lawsuits might be rendered profitable by the gains from short-selling even though they never win settlements at all.) Does insider-trading law as it currently stands prohibit such goings-on? Not necessarily, since litigants and their lawyers don’t ordinarily count as “insiders” in conventional terms. But given securities regulators’ goal of upholding what they call market integrity, it’s hard to see why they would not want to prohibit the sleazy practice. For a dissenting view, see Larry Ribstein (Apr. 11).
Another Seattle case in which a merchant got in trouble for not admitting a dog which was accompanying its owner for purposes of psychological assistance (as distinct from the service provided by seeing-eye and hearing dogs for the physically disabled). This time the Wicker Basket grocery store in Ballard was fined $21,000 after owner Hojoon Park wouldn’t let the dog into the shop. (“Merchant fined $21,000 for barring service dog”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 3). For earlier cases, see Feb. 28 of this year; Oct. 25 and Dec. 2, 2004; and Jul. 9, 1999, from Seattle.
