Renee Gaud and Trisha Hart were hired as “Borgata Babes” by the Atlantic City casino of that name, made to sign an agreement requiring them to maintain hourglass figures and weight proportionate to their height, and were outfitted in “cleavage-baring bustiers, high heels and tight-fitting bolero-style jackets”. Then they discovered that managers were serious about the weight requirement and kept “emphasizing looks over job performance”. What could be more shocking or unexpected? So of course they’re suing (John Curran, “Waitresses sue casino over weight policy, allege discrimination”, AP/Newsday, Jan. 31; Dan Gross, “Ex-servers sue Borgata”, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 31).
Archive for 2006
Don’t know much about property
Authorities have finally cracked the largest burglary ever reported from a Massachusetts residence, the 1978 theft of a Cezanne and six other paintings from the Stockbridge home of collector Michael Bakwin. And who’d been holding on to the paintings all these years? Retired criminal defense attorney Robert M. Mardirosian, 71, who came into their possession soon after their theft when the burglar — whom Mardirosian was representing in an unrelated matter — left them at the lawyer’s residence. (The burglar had intended to fence the paintings right away, but Mardirosian had advised him he might get caught doing that.) Not long thereafter the burglar was slain by criminal associates. Mardirosian created dummy corporations and accounts to hold the paintings and at least twice tried to sell them, but was blocked when the Art Loss Register, which intervenes to prevent the sale of stolen art, took steps to stop that from happening. Mardirosian, who now lives in a gated community in Falmouth on Cape Cod, says he acted from legitimate motives: “My whole intent was to find a way to get them back to the owner in return for a 10 percent commission.” (Stephen Kurkjian, “1978 art heist solved”, Boston Globe, Feb. 1). Plus: updates February 2011 (on attorney’s conviction and return of paintings to owner).
Phila. judge: no right to anonymous online disparagement
Watch what you say about lawyers (and everyone else), cont’d: a “Philadelphia judge has ruled that a valid defamation claim trumps any right to speak anonymously on the Internet….Common Pleas Judge Albert W. Sheppard Jr. ordered the operator of two now-defunct Web sites to turn over the identities of the anonymous authors of comments on the sites that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm….In the suit, the Klehr Harrison firm complains that its reputation was severely disparaged by comments on the two sites that falsely accused its lawyers of being ‘thieves,’ committing ‘fraud’ and ‘lying’ to a judge.” Although courts in some other states have protected anonymous online commenters from demands that their identity be disclosed, Sheppard said Pennsylvania law was not obliged to follow that path. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Law Firm’s Defamation Claim Found to Trump Critics’ Internet Anonymity”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jan. 23). For more on the legal hazards of criticizing Pennsylvania lawyers and judges, see Nov. 30, 2003, Mar. 16, 2004, and Oct. 24-25, 2001.
Comments are open (be very careful, please).
Tree protection laws and their perverse consequences
Thom Lambert explains how such laws can lead to more trees being cut down. I discussed a similar problem on Point of Law back on Jan. 27, 2005.
Jury selection, while you wait
The Lay-Skilling Enron criminal trial will be one of the highest-profile Houston trials in many years, but in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Sim Lake the process of jury selection was over within a day. That should be a lesson to judges elsewhere — especially in state-court proceedings — who allow lawyers to turn voir dire into a manipulative process that can last weeks or even months. Tom Kirkendall and Norm Pattis comment.
P.S. The Wall Street Journal’s news side covers the issue today: Paul Davies and John Emshwiller, “Split Verdict on Selecting Juries Quickly”, Feb. 1 (sub only). Washington U. (St. Louis) law dean Kent Syverud says, “I think Enron ought to be a wake-up call to show everyone that it can be done”. Among those complaining of a too-short process is Christopher Seeger, the attorney for the plaintiff in the New Jersey Vioxx case recently won by Merck, who “said the case was lost in the jury selection. ‘If I had an opportunity to flesh out some of the biases I believe I would’ve been able to talk some of those people off the jury'”. P.P.S. The New Yorker has more about the jury questionnaires and consultants (Mimi Swartz, “Talk of the Town: Enron Multiple Choice”, Jan. 30).
Baseball: Anaheim vs. the Angels
As the city’s $100 million lawsuit unfolded in court, a “dispute that a year or so ago seemed goofy — Arte Moreno’s decision to rename his baseball team the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim — has lost its humor content.” (Dana Parsons, “Can Angels Name Spat Have a Winner?”, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 15)(more).
“Tainted trials, stolen justice”
Criminal prosecutions often go seriously wrong in the Santa Clara County, Calif. courts, according to an investigative series in the San Jose Mercury-News.
Support Denmark
Today it’s their freedom of speech and the press under attack; tomorrow it could be ours. (SupportDenmark.com; Malkin, Jan. 30 and Jan. 31; Andrew Sullivan, and again; Brussels Journal; Judith Apter Klinghoffer; Stephen Pollard, Daily Telegraph; Stuttaford; Althouse; Danish food shop).
Welcome Forbes.com readers
I’m quoted and this site is mentioned by a Daniel Fisher Forbes.com article on the James Frey class action litigation. (“A Million Little Lawsuits Over Frey”, Jan. 30). The article refers to our January 12 post correctly predicting the “inevitable free-riding class action.” We had further coverage Jan. 17, Jan. 25, and Jan. 27. See also this site’s collection of class action posts, as well as that of our sister site, Point of Law, which also has extensive discussion of class actions.
Update: New York Daily News reports two more class actions in New York, including one filed in state court where it will be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. One advantage of the Class Action Fairness Act is that, before, a defendant would face multiple suits, and would have to settle eventually, because winning one didn’t prevent another suit from moving forward. Plaintiffs could play “Heads I win, tails don’t count.” Now, all of these suits will be consolidated, and a defendant with a legally meritorious case has a chance of winning a case dispositively in court.
Turning over the e-mail
Under current civil procedure rules, parties, upon request, and with very few limits, must turn over all relevant documents to the opposing party. In the twenty-first century, that includes e-mail. Failure to turn over enough e-mail can cost a company a billion dollars in de facto sanctions (Dec. 17); turning over too much e-mail can waive the attorney-client privilege. Thus, unless parties can come to an agreement otherwise, teams of attorneys have to review every single e-mail, at great expense.
But in a typical tort action, with an individual plaintiff and one or more corporate defendants, there are asymmetric discovery burdens. An individual plaintiff has no incentive to agree with a corporate defendant to limit the corporate defendant’s burden, because (1) increasing the expense to the corporate defendant increases the likelihood of a nuisance settlement and (2) there’s no telling what stray e-mail might be able to be taken out of context to make a case to a jury unfamiliar with corporate communications that a defendant is worthy of punitive damages. (Numerous plaintiffs have successfully used decades-old back-of-the-napkin sloppy cost-benefit analyses by individual Ford and GM engineers to obtain millions of dollars of punitive damages for entirely different vehicle designs; an e-mail by Kay Anderson, a low-level Wyeth administrator who expressed frustration that her career was mired in dealing with complaints from what she called “fat people scared of a silly little lung problem” cost the company tens of millions, if not more, in fen-phen litigation when plaintiffs tarred the whole company with it.) This Wired story (via Bashman) about Enron e-mail made public provides a good reminder that any e-mail you send or receive at work is likely to end up in the hands of multiple lawyers one day.