Tomorrow morning at 7:05 Central Time, I’m scheduled to join “Early Spin” on Milwaukee’s WISN to discuss lawsuits blaming Coke and Pepsi for marketing to kids (see Feb. 7, etc.).
Archive for February, 2006
Jury: “customer of size” not victim of airline bias
“A jury on Friday said Southwest Airlines did not racially discriminate against an overweight passenger when she was asked to buy a second seat on her flight.” Nadine Thompson of Exeter, N.H., CEO of a successful cosmetics company, claimed the airline applied its “customer of size” policy in a racially discriminatory manner. On Friday Joel Drake, a Southwest employee, testified that Thompson herself had “accused him of being a ‘motherf—— racist pig’ and wished that his family would die from cancer when he tried to explain the company’s policy to her. …Thompson testified that Drake was bullying her and she felt scared, so words were her only way to fight back. She said she felt cornered and powerless.” (Kathy McCormack, “Jury: Southwest didn’t discriminate against passenger”, AP/Boston Globe, Feb. 10; “Told to buy 2 seats, Exeter woman sues Southwest, claims racial discrimination”, AP/Manchester Union-Leader, Feb. 8). Earlier second-seat suits: Dec. 20, 2000, etc. More: Thompson says she won’t appeal (AP, Feb. 15).
Tribunes of privacy, cont’d: cell phone records
Another entry in our ongoing series about how unlikely it is for the U.S. legal profession to assume a convincing pose as guardians of everyone’s privacy:
Attorneys are among the top customers of the controversial Web sites [which sell access to cellphone records without customers’ consent], according to private investigators, privacy advocates and Web site operators who sell the phone records.
“Let’s put it this way, the legal profession is keeping it alive,” said Rob Douglas, a former private eye turned security consultant who has helped the Federal Trade Commission investigate and prosecute online operators that sell phone records.
“I’ve investigated them with the federal government and in private lawsuits … and in every single case, the overwhelming majority of users of these companies are attorneys,” Douglas said.
These attorneys include divorce lawyers, who want to know who feuding spouses are talking to; business lawyers, who want to know who their clients’ competitors are talking to; and employment lawyers, who want to know if employees are selling any trade secrets.
(Tresa Baldas, “Will Lawyers Get Hung Up in Quest for Cell Phone Records?”, National Law Journal, Feb. 10). A few earlier entries: Jul. 22, 2003; Apr. 14 and Jun. 15, 2004; Feb. 7 and Feb. 9, 2006.
$500 per car, Chrysler says
“The cost of lawsuits adds at least $500 to the price of every vehicle, according to Chrysler Group President Tom LaSorda, who said Thursday that Chrysler is stepping up its fight for tort reform.” (Dee-Ann Durbin, “LaSorda calls for lawsuit reform”, AP/Saginaw News, Feb. 9). More on suits against automakers at our automotive page.
Stitch & Bitch, trademarked
The phrase “stitch and bitch” has been in use for many years as a popular nickname for social circles that meet for knitting and conversation. Circa 1997 a company called Sew Fast, Sew Easy trademarked what it called its Stitch ‘n’ Bitch Cafe and since then has deployed lawyers to shut down use of the phrase by many local and online hobbyists’ clubs. A protest site, “Free To Stitch/Free To Bitch“, has traced earlier mentions of the phrase including by Anne Macdonald in her 1988 book No Idle Hands: The Social History of American Knitting, who describes it as having been used for such a club during World War II. (Catherine Elsworth, “It’s getting bitchy in knitting circles”, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Feb. 11)(more links).
Please, Mr. Trump, sue me
Update: No cameras in the delivery room
We had the story about lawsuit-averse obstetrics wards Oct. 18, 2000 and Apr. 9, 2005, and Newsweek has it this week (Karen Springen, “Hospitals: No Candid Camera”, Feb. 20).
Update: garden-center bird attack
Alton, Ill.: U.S. District Judge William Stiehl has thrown out Rhonda Nichols’ lawsuit (Apr. 14, 2005) claiming that she was attacked by a bird at a Lowe’s home improvement center, and that Lowe’s should have warned her about the hazard. Judge Stiehl ruled “that a ‘reasonable plaintiff’ either would have noticed the birds or understood that contact with them was possible in any outdoor area with plants.” (Jim Suhr, “Woman’s suit against Lowe’s for bird attack won’t fly”, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 5). Courthouse News has the opinion (PDF).
Update: Italian judge tosses prove-Jesus-existed suit
Latest newsletter
Our free periodic newsletter went out to subscribers last night, summarizing highlights of recent postings in terse yet wry style. To read the latest installment — or to join or leave the list, change your address, etc. — visit this page (requires Google registration).