United Farm Workers’ libel-suit threats

The United Farm Workers, the agricultural labor union that rose to prominence under the leadership of the late Cesar Chavez with the support of countless Sixties idealists, has recently been the subject of unflattering coverage in the Los Angeles Times, Bakersfield Californian and L.A. Weekly, among other places. Now journalist Marc Cooper, who wrote the L.A. Weekly piece, says the union has sent him a demand that he retract or correct his piece on pain of being sued. Cooper says the L.A. Times and Bakersfield papers have received similar threats. “Even some lonely bloggers who have recently written about the UFW have been contacted by the union or its hired PR agents and directly warned not to continue criticizing it.” (Marc Cooper, “Gag Me With a Grape”, L.A. Weekly, Feb. 8; Cooper blog entry and comments, Feb. 8) (via Romenesko). The UFW’s side of the underlying controversies is here.

Update: Dallas Observer doesn’t owe $1 billion

We reported on the story in September 2004:

“Joe Doe”, the HIV+ plaintiff in a Texas state lawsuit, is a member of the choral group “Positive Voices”—which has produced a CD with his photo and his real name. Nevertheless, when the alternative weekly Dallas Observer also identified “Doe” as HIV+ in passing in a larger December 4 story about a gay congregation titled “Fallen Angel,” “Doe” sued. The suit doesn’t allege that the Observer got its facts wrong, but argues that the story violates a Texas law prohibiting the disclosure of “medical test results,” with a fine of up to $10,000 for each disclosure. Since the Observer has circulation of 110,000, “Doe” figures he’s entitled to over a billion dollars.

Positive Voices is a group that advertises itself as consisting of HIV+ members. A Texas state court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court not to grant summary judgment, and entered judgment for the defendants. (John Council, “Texas Appeals Court Sides With Newspaper in $1 Billion Suit Over HIV Disclosure”, Texas Lawyer, Feb. 13; New Times Inc., et al. v. John Doe., No. 05-05-00705-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 24, 2006)).

The decision was limited to the facts of the case, however, and the state statute remains overbroad, and could easily be construed by future courts to apply to the media. Or even personal-dating websites: a strict interpretation of the statute, HSC § 81.103, would create a cause of action for a plaintiff who posts “I have tested negative for HIV” on a website that screens essays against that website. And the statute is conceivably even broader, given its definition of “test result”:

“Test result” means any statement that indicates
that an identifiable individual has or has not been tested for AIDS
or HIV infection, antibodies to HIV, or infection with any other
probable causative agent of AIDS, including a statement or
assertion that the individual is positive, negative, at risk, or
has or does not have a certain level of antigen or antibody.

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.

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).

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).