On his popular HBO show, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen portrays various outrageous characters among them “Borat”, supposedly a TV personality from the (real) former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Now “Kazakhstan’s Foreign Ministry is threatening to sue him for portraying the central Asian state in a ‘derogatory way.'” (Buck Wolf, “Kazakhstan Not Laughing at ‘Ali G'”, ABCNews, Nov. 15).
Archive for November, 2005
Bulletin and other site matters
Yesterday afternoon our periodic newsletter went out to subscribers, in shorter-than-usual format due to time overcommitments. If you haven’t subscribed yet, you really ought to; sign up here (requires Google registration).
The site was down for about half an hour yesterday, which may or may not have had something to do with our meat-packing post getting Fark’d, bringing in a big surge of visitors. In general, traffic on the site has been up markedly since the redesign/rehosting a month and a half ago. Could be the more search-friendly URLs, could be the experiment with comments on some posts, could be increasing numbers of RSS/XML users — hard to tell exactly.
The comments experiment notwithstanding, the letters to the editor feature should be restarting before long. There are many good reader letters in the pipeline.
Shaw v. Jain
It’s not just plaintiffs’ attorneys who attempt to distract juries with irrelevancies. A Florida court of appeal has reversed a medical malpractice defense verdict in a case where the defense attorney made repeated reference to the plaintiff’s marijuana use—even though there was no evidence that that usage affected her injuries, treatment, or recovery. (Shaw v. Jain, No. 1D04-4178, Fla. App. Oct. 20, 2005 (via Conigliaro)).
Condition critical? A medical liability debate
Point of Law’s latest “Featured Discussion” is between Bill Sage, professor of law at Columbia and a prominent researcher on issues of medical liability, and the Manhattan Institute’s Jim Copland, discussing the Institute’s recent “Trial Lawyers Inc. — Health Care” report. It’s scheduled to run all week and should not be missed by anyone interested in malpractice issues (more).
Meatpacker to pay $3m for using strength test
At the Armour Star meat packing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, run by a subsidiary of the Dial Corporation, workers are expected to engage in “repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches.” Concerned about a high rate of worker injuries, the company foolishly thought that it could introduce (in 2000) a physical test which “required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches.” Wrong: sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the company is now going to be paying out $3 million for its troubles. The EEOC argued, and a court agreed, that the test had “disparate impact” on women because 97 percent of men but less than 40 percent of women passed, that it appeared some applicants who failed the test might nonetheless be able to handle the job duties (by standing on tiptoe while heaving the weights, for example, which the test did not permit), and that the company had not shown a “business necessity” to use the test since it could take other measures to improve safety. According to the EEOC, “52 women who were rejected for entry-level production jobs because they had failed a strength test will be offered jobs at Dial and will share approximately $3,390,000.”. (EEOC press releases, Feb. 8 and Sept. 29) (via George’s Employment Blawg)(& welcome Fark readers).
“Ontario mom faces $2M libel suit over website”
“SLAPP” suits sighted in Canada, too: Activa Holdings Inc., a large developer in the Waterloo, Ont. area, is suing stay-at-home mother Louisette Lanteigne for C$2 million because of a website she has put up complaining of allegedly hazardous environmental conditions. The company charges defamation. (CP/CTV, Nov. 14; Mike Oliviera, CP/Macleans, Nov. 13)(Slashdot thread)(cache of her now-overloaded site).
Ralph Nader and the Philadelphia Eagles
Ralph Nader is arguing that the Philadelphia Eagles’ decision to suspend star wide receiver Terrell Owens (for, inter alia, publicly criticizing the team and quarterback, shouting at coaches, a physical altercation with a teammate, and then failing to apologize) is consumer fraud because season-ticket holders had an expectation that Owens would play for the team, which barely lost the Super Bowl last year, and was an early favorite this year. (But what about all those New York Times subscribers who expected to read Judy Miller?) The suggestion rises to self-parody, though it exhibits the absurdity of modern consumer fraud law in that it isn’t crazier than suits that actually succeed. But I’m somewhat sanguine about Nader’s latest foray; if he’s tilting at the windmill of trying to make football coaching decisions litigable (Can a fan sue the Washington special teams coach for costing the team the game against Tampa Bay because it reduced the chance the team would go to the Super Bowl and the resale value of his season tickets?), it means he’s not spending time trying to wreck more important industries.
(Yes, I know that one shouldn’t blame the Washington special teams coach for losing the game. But it would be actionable under the Nader regime if a lawyer can find a fan who purchased tickets after hearing coaches say they were trying to avoid senseless penalties this season.)
The hidden costs of Sarbanes-Oxley
Instead of making investments that would create 75 jobs, Max & Erma’s Restaurants is spending half of its profits on Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. The company will go private to avoid the regulatory hassle, but that limits the company’s access to the capital markets—and everyday investors’ access to opportunity. (John Berlau and Anastasia Uglova, “Sarbanes-Oxley ‘reform’ harming economy”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 13). And Larry Ribstein sees SOx behind Georgia-Pacific’s decision to go private.
“People Over Profits”: ATLA Astroturf lobbying over vaccines
The trial lawyers’ lobby has a new technique for pressing its opposition to proposals that would reduce or eliminate liability for drug companies to manufacture vaccines.
Run a Google or Yahoo search for “bird flu” or “avian flu” and a sponsored link will pop up, leading to ads by a group called People Over Profits — which is actually a unit of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. They bear such headlines as “Bird Flu and Viagra: What do they have in common?” and “President Bush and Bird Flu: What Bush is not telling you.” (The group also purchased the search term “Rafael Palmeiro,” not because he has anything to do with the issue but because the ballplayer gets Googled a lot in the steroids controversy.)
Now even Web searchers aren’t safe from lobbying! And since sponsors can monitor the traffic, says ATLA spokeswoman Chris Mather, “you can change your message during the day if it’s not working.”
(Howard Kurtz, “CIA Article Sidebar: A Story of Deja Vu”, Washington Post, Nov. 14). Of course, it’s more important for trial lawyers to have lawsuit opportunities than for manufacturers to be able to make vaccines. More: Apr. 11, Oct. 19, 2004, Dec. 24, 2003.
“How to demonize a judge in twelve steps”
“…Never ever ever ever ever mention that the job of a lower judge is to apply the decisions of higher courts. Treat his opinions as if they represented his personal views of what the law should be.” David Nieporent’s (Jumping to Conclusions) commentary on judicial nomination fights is reprinted at Point of Law.