Following urgings by prominent attorney and frequent Overlawyered mentionee Willie Gary, a jury in Pensacola, Fla. had awarded the sum to a road builder who said he was defamed by an investigative-journalism piece in the newspaper chain’s Pensacola News-Journal (Mar. 30-31, 2001; Dec. 23, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). The Florida appeals court “ruled that Joe Anderson’s case should have been dismissed because he mischaracterized his lawsuit as a ‘false-light claim’ to get around a two-year statute of limitations that applies in libel cases. The court said that since its decision was based on the statute-of-limitations issue, it did not rule on several other arguments for reversal raised by the newspaper.” (Ginny Graybiel, “News Journal suit reversed”, Oct. 21).
October 24 roundup
- I’m speaking at the National Press Club today on the Philip Morris v. Williams case. [Point of Law; Medill summary; Bashman analysis]
- How much skin color discrimination is there? [Somin @ Volokh]
- Latest in the Ninth Circuit follies. [Above the Law]
- Difficulty of making causal link between lung disease and 9/11 dust. [NY Times; TortsProf]
- Kirkendall on the Skilling sentence. [Kirkendall]
- Quelle surprise: ATLA dishonestly attacks me. [Point of Law]
- Ford seems to have settled, instead of fighting, the ludicrous Texas Garcia decision where they got blamed for a drunk-driving accident with unbelted passengers. [Point of Law; CFIF]
- Scalia: “The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent.” [AP]
- Richard Epstein on legislators v. Wal-Mart [EconTalk Podcast]
- Environmentalists v. private property rights. [CEI blog]
- Litigious Pennsylvania judge Joan Orie Melvin sues for a pay-cut. [Bashman]
- Why law firm associates work so hard. [Marginal Revolution]
Vegemite ban may be urban legend
News.com.au is starting to backtrack from its original claim, noting that the foodstuff is still sold in American stores. Moreover, the US Embassy tells an Overlawyered commenter there is no ban. Here’s our contribution to the discussion: the FDA regulation on folate, which at no point limits the addition of folate to breads and grains. We vote: “urban legend” leading from overenthusiastic border official, though the story is so widespread now, it may always stay an urban legend until Snopes gets around to refuting it.
Update: Giving the state a share of punitives
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.
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.