Remember the legislation proposed in California by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Jun. 2, 2004), and passed amid much hoopla, asserting a claim by the state to 75 percent of punitive damage awards? It’s raised “not even a penny” for the state’s Public Benefit Trust Fund, reports John Howard for Capital Weekly (“Behind-the-scenes shell game marked punitive-damages plan”, Sept. 7). This is pretty much what I predicted in my WSJ op-ed at the time; it’s just too easy for lawyers to escape the law’s reach by settling cases before final judgment (if necessary, characterizing the sums that change hands as compensatory only). Decs and Excs Sept. 20 also points out peculiarities in the law’s specified time span of coverage that would have encouraged evasive action. Schwarzenegger has now vetoed a renewal of the law, but on grounds that the renewal had been saddled with amendments added without adequate discussion; he left the door open to reconsider the issue next year.
Archive for 2006
EEOC challenges Exxon’s pilot age limit
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued ExxonMobil last month over its policy of requiring pilots of its planes to retire at age 60. The federal agency prefers individualized assessments of age-related inability to handle the duties of the job — which in this case might mean that an employer would start the removal process for an elderly pilot only after a legally bulletproof file had been assembled documenting the pilot’s decline in capabilities.
Exxon Mobil spokesman Russ Roberts said the company’s policy addressed the issue of safety and was modeled after Federal Aviation Administration guidelines. He said the policy is long-standing and consistent, not arbitrary and discriminatory.
“Our pilots face the same challenges commercial pilots do flying large, complex, high-speed jets,” he said. “We told the EEOC that we would not change our safety practices in response to complaints filed by pilots.”
(Steve Quinn, “Suit Accuses Exxon of Age Discrimination”, AP/CBSNews.com, Sept. 23). At the Denver Post, columnist Al Lewis discusses this and other recent age-bias lawsuits (“Gray hair + pink slip = lawsuit”, Sept. 27). More on the subject: Oct. 19, etc.
Role of the judiciary: overseeing the girls’ basketball team
A threat of litigation forced the Castro Valley High to fire two assistant coaches, have an “ombudsman” attend practice, and allow a six-person committee including parents choose a starting line-up for the girls’ basketball team.
Attorney Andrew Sweet, who is speaking for the parents, said the program was out of control last year. “These kids were coming home from practices and leaving games crying,” Sweet says.
Sweet admitted that Nibarger wasn’t screaming at the players, playing favorites or subjecting them to physical abuse. It was more a matter of “communication” and “utter vindictiveness.” That sounded pretty vague, so Sweet went back to the parents and came up with some specific allegations.
Sweet says Nibarger once threw the girls out of the gym when a practice was not going well. (The parents’ group says it was 45 minutes early; Nibarger says it was “10 to 15.”) She didn’t attend picture day. (Neither do other Castro Valley coaches.) She cut the playing time of anyone who complained about her coaching decisions. (She’s proud of her record of playing 9 to 10 players a game.) Once, Sweet says, Nibarger was in a restaurant, saw the players and left without saying anything. (She says she wanted to respect the privacy of what appeared to be a players-only meeting.)
A local judge whose daughter is a senior on the team is thought to be spearheading the protests, though Sweet denies this. (C.W. Nevius, “Parents vs. coach: Battle goes wild”, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22; Deadspin blog (h/t B.C.)).
“We’re Google. So Sue Us”
The company almost seems to base its business plan on stepping into legal trouble (Katie Hafner, New York Times, Oct. 19).
“Consent”
With echoes of the debate over campus “sexual consent” policies, here’s a funny short film that has been around for a while, but which I didn’t hear about until lately. It’s directed by Jason Reitman, who went on to do Thank You For Smoking. Adult content (original from Atom Films/YouTube version)(h/t: reader M.C.).
Law firm extracts $200 million in class action
…and gets sued for malpractice by a second law firm contending that even more would have been extracted had the winning lawyers thrown in a claim under California’s wide-open unfair competition law. Result: San Francisco’s Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff has agreed to pay $1.5 million to resolve the claims (whether “for nuisance value” or “in contemplation of losing” will have to be left for others to decide), malpractice insurance rates for plaintiff’s lawyers may experience upward pressure, and class action lawyers have been sent a lesson, namely that they’d better throw in every colorable charge to play it safe in future. The underlying lawsuit was an overtime action against the Farmers Insurance group. (Matthew Hirsch, “Rudy Exelrod Settles Malpractice Suit”, The Recorder/Law.com, Oct. 11; Internet and Class Action Law Blog, Oct. 11).
Latest Nanny State ban: Vegemite
Australians are particularly unhappy. (Kelvin Healey, “US bans Vegemite”, The Courier Mail, Oct. 22; News.com.au, Oct. 21; Tim Blair via Dylan). If you’re an American fan, act fast before Ebay shuts down the auction.
Update: The Australian press and bloggers appear to have fallen for a new urban legend.
Patenting tax avoidance strategies
Notes New York Times columnist Floyd Norris: “Now you may face a patent infringement suit if you use a tax strategy someone else thought of first. …a federal appeals court ruled in 1998 that business methods can be patented, and since then the Patent Office has issued 49 tax-strategy patents, with many more pending.” Paul Caron has more (Oct. 20; Floyd Norris, “Patent law is getting tax crazy”, NYT/IHT, Oct. 19; Slashdot).
P.S. At Slashdot, commenter msobkow writes: “Patience. It’s a matter of time before the remains of SCO patent the use of patent lawsuits as a business model. The hope would be to get into a lawsuit over that patent, creating a potential infinite recursion and thereby an infinite revenue stream out of thin air.”
U.K.: “Force muzzles dogs to protect suspects from bite injuries”
“Police dogs are being muzzled to prevent them from biting criminals. Instead of clamping their jaws around the legs of suspects, the dogs are trained to leap at their targets and disable them with a flying butt. … The policy follows a rise in compensation claims against forces from members of the public, and even serving officers, who have been bitten by police dogs. One force, in Greater Manchester, has paid out £59,000 in five years to 36 bite victims.” (Ben Leapman, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 15).
Jack Thompson, officer of the court
When anti-videogame crusader and perennial Overlawyered favorite Jack Thompson (Sept. 26, Oct. 15, etc.) lost his case over “Bully”, he dashed off the following letter to the judge who ruled against him:
Dear Judge Friedman:
Now that you have consigned innumerable children to skull fractures, eye injuries from slingshots, and beatings with baseball bats, without a hearing as to the danger, let me tell you a few things, with all respect for your office and with no respect for the arbitrary way in which you handled this matter. I can handle an adverse ruling by a judge. I’ve had plenty of those in my lifetime, and that’s fine. But the way you conducted yourself today helps explain why a great Dade County Judge, the late Rhea Pincus Grossman, could not abide you. She was not the only one . . . .
Next time you promise a “hearing,” I’ll bring a parent with me whose kid is in the ground because of a kid who trained to kill him or her on a violent video game. Try mocking that person, I dare you.
Full text of the letter here courtesy GamePolitics; via Lat who got it from ACSBlog. And a commenter at ACSBlog writes:
Jack Thompson did his part to inspire me to go to law school. I knew that if people of his mental capacity could succeed in the profession, I certainly could.
More: GamePolitics.com reports that lawyers for the game company are seeking to have Thompson held in contempt of court (further update here; h/t RebeccaFrog).