Sears says it fired 50-year-old Gunnar Steward because of poor performance. Steward claims it was age discrimination, and sued. Sears noted that Steward’s job tasks were split amongst a 60-year-old, 45-year-old, 35-year-old, and 33-year-old. Notwithstanding a jury verdict of $241,000, Judge Rueter threw out the case because the 43.25 year age average was less than seven years younger than Steward, insufficiently younger to constitute discrimination based on age. (Rueter also noted the lack of evidence that Sears’s reason for firing Steward was pretextual.) Plaintiff’s attorney Carmen R. Matos suggests there will be an appeal; the Third Circuit has previously held nine-year and eight-year age differences to constitute possible discrimination. (Shannon P. Duffy, Legal Intelligencer, Jun. 20). Such hair-splitting demonstrates a general problem with the age discrimination laws.
Archive for 2006
Deep pocket files: landlord’s fault apartment resident let in a stranger
Shortly after 7 am on July 11, 1992, Y.M.’s doorbell rang in her Lefrak City project apartment. Y.M. opened the door without asking who was there or checking her peephole. Unfortunately for her, at the door was one Lawrence Toole, who (allegedly?) raped and beat her at knifepoint. This was, according to Y.M.’s suit, the fault of her landlord and its security service for allowing Toole into the building. The Court of Appeals of New York (the high court of that state) held that Y.M. stated a cause of action. “More discovery is warranted to discern how foreseeable a risk [Toole] was and what measures defendants had in place to deal with him.” Mason v. U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp. was decided in 2001: anyone know how this case was resolved on remand?
“Meddlesome busybodies” of the CSPI
Steve Chapman finds that the “science” of the misnamed Center for Science in the Public Interest in its KFC suit isn’t actually the sort that should be relied on too heavily, and observes:
…the health dangers of an occasional Extra Crispy drumstick are anywhere from negligible to nonexistent. But letting CSPI decide what’s best for all of us? Now, that’s risky.
(“Extra crispy chicken and deep-fried panic”, syndicated/Tracy (Calif.) Press, Jun. 19).
Meanwhile, carried along on a tide of credulous press coverage, CSPI says it’s thinking of suing Starbucks over its overly calorie-laden wares (“Starbucks May Be Next Target of Fatty-Fighting Group”, Reuters/FoxNews.com, Jun. 19). Amy Alkon is not impressed (Jun. 19), while Radley Balko (Jun. 17) picks up on perhaps the ripest absurdity in the report:
The union contends that Starbucks staff gain weight when they work at the chain. They are offered unlimited beverages and leftover pastries for free during their shifts.
“This is why organized labor is so important,” he adds. “Otherwise, who’s going expose Starbucks’ exploitive practice of giving its employees free stuff?”
Watch what you tell your hairdresser, cont’d
The official recruitment of cosmetologists as informants (and as intermediaries steering customers to approved “domestic-violence” programs) continues, with programs reported in Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia, Ohio and Maine, as well as Nevada and Connecticut (see Mar. 16 and Mar. 29, 2000). It’s not just black eyes or lacerations that the salon employees are supposed to be on the lookout for, either. A customer’s protestation that “he would not like that”, as a reason to turn down a new hairstyle, might be a sign of “controlling behavior” that needs watching. (“Salons join effort to stop violence”, Bangor Daily News, Jun. 15) (via van Bakel).
Gambling advice columns
It could be dangerous to publish them in the state of Washington, which has passed a new statute barring the use of the Internet to transmit “gambling information”. “”My suggestion to you is to remove from your paper any advice about online gambling and any links to illegal sites,” state gambling commission director Rick Day told a Seattle Times columnist. (Danny Westneat, “This column may be illegal”, Seattle Times, Jun. 15)(via Balko). Related: Apr. 21 and Aug. 9, 2004; Nov. 18, 2005.
RICO for illegal-alien-hiring? Not so fast
The Supreme Court’s decisions earlier this month on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act are generally good news for business defendants that have been seeking to narrow the statute’s application, reports Marcia Coyle at the NLJ. The Court stuck to its previous position that plaintiffs must prove that a defendant’s RICO violation was the proximate cause of their injury, and it sent the Mohawk case (see here, here and here), alleging that a manufacturer’s use of illegal immigrant workers amounted to racketeering, back to the 11th Circuit with instructions to apply that test, vacating the existing judgment against the company (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Squeezing John Torkelsen
Justin Scheck at The Recorder reports that prosecutors are putting a renewed squeeze on John Torkelsen, former star witness for Milberg Weiss, in another sign that the probe of the firm may have considerably farther to run. (“Federal Prosecutors Put Pressure on Milberg Weiss’ Star Expert”, Jun. 9). For our previous coverage of the colorful Torkelsen, who is preparing to serve a five-year federal prison sentence on unrelated charges, see Oct. 10, Nov. 5, and Nov. 18, 2005.
Who those wacky warnings are for
On May 2, Bill Childs’ blog covered the litigation over Wolfgang Puck self-heating latte cans, a bad business idea gone worse when the cans never quite worked right. A June 17 commenter, however, perhaps demonstrates why some people need lessons in natural selection rather than attorneys (all misspellings in original, emphasis added):
When will there be a class action suit against WP Gourmet Lattes? In this microwave society and Campbell Soup’s TV ads on microwavable soup in a can, WP’s self-heating can was negligent in it’s small, hidden warning against heating in a microwave (which causes a severe explosion in a matter of seconds). Our microwave was destroyed, our kitchen covered in dried latte and most important, my wife required 7 stiches above her eye.
Some skepticism is warranted; on the Internet, noone knows if you’re a dog, or an especially subtle prankster. I almost hate to publicize this: there’s some chance it’s fake, and if it’s real, it’s likely that this post will help Mr. Edwards find a lawyer who thinks Wolfgang Puck should be held liable when people put a self-heating can in the microwave because its warnings against it weren’t sufficiently idiot-proof.
Update: video store owner off hook
Following up on our May 2 account: the Arlington County, Va., Human Rights Commission has reversed itself and dismissed a complaint against the conservative Christian owner of a video store who declined to duplicate a customer’s gay-rights videos (“This week in Arlington”, Arlington Connection, Jun. 14; Elizabeth A. Perry, “Fight over Arlington gay video not over yet”, Washington Blade, Jun. 16).
Deep pocket files: 1st Security Self-Storage
In June 2004, a jury found Edward James Egan guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Egan had asked the victim to mop out a storage shed and raped her in an apartment; she also had a sexual encounter with him in an empty storage unit. This was, according to the follow-up lawsuit filed a month later, the fault of 1st Security Self-Storage, which employed Egan. Egan passed a background check, including references from previous employers, but the defendant paid a $150,000 settlement. The article quotes me, as I note the hidden costs of penalizing employers for their employees’ crimes committed outside the scope of their employment. (Mike Allen, “Self-storage company agrees to pay $150,000 settlement”, Roanoke Times, Jun. 7).