Attorney Gerald Skoning of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago does one of these roundups every year (see Apr. 1, 2003 and Apr. 13-15, 2001). Among his winners in this year’s compilation: the case in which the Seventh Circuit ruled punitive damages excessive following a supervisor’s history of remarks like “You’re being a blonde again today”; the Nova Scotia case in which a court of appeal found that a worker of Mi’kmaq tribal origins was not discriminated against by her boss’s having called her Kemosabe, “the oft-used word from the 1950s show The Lone Ranger”; and a case in which a manufacturing worker who’d engaged in flirtatious banter was reinstated after his dismissal, the arbitrator noting that so far as atmosphere goes “the shop floor is entirely unlike high tea at the Savoy”. (“The 10 Most Bizarre Employment Cases of 2004”, National Law Journal, Apr. 20).
Guestblogging opportunities
With the warmer weather (and some real-world writing projects that will be demanding my attention) it’s time for me again to remind readers that there’s fun to be had in volunteering for a guestblogging stint here (or at Point of Law, which also could use guestbloggers). Blogging experience is preferred but not necessary, and the technology is easy to learn. Drop me a line at editor – at – thisdomainname.com.
Legal hazards of rating air safety
From a Forbes article on safety problems in charter aviation:
Businesses pay [Joseph Moeggenberg’s] company, Aviation Research Group/U.S., or “Argus” in the trade, as much as $20,000 per month for full access to ratings reports on 848 charters, or $249 for a single report. Argus provides specifics about a flight, the jet’s history, the owner, whether the plane is double-booked from another charter, the pilot’s record and so on. It assigns a red, yellow or green light on safety (36% receive reds or yellows).
One charter outfit got a prescient “Does Not Qualify” rating from Argus: Aviation Charter of Eden Prairie, Minn., which flew U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota in a Beechcraft King Air A100 as he campaigned for reelection in October 2002. When a newspaper later reported that Aviation Charter got a bad rating, the company sued Argus for defamation but lost the case on summary judgment; the case is pending on appeal. The flight crashed at the Eveleth, Minn. airport in October 2002, killing all eight people aboard, including the senator, his wife and their adult daughter. Says Argus attorney Eric Heiberg of Minneapolis: “I can’t imagine we’re going to lose.”
(Seth Lubove, “Flight of Fear”, Forbes, May 9). An online summary of the case (Aug. 2004, courtesy Cousineau McGuire & Anderson; scroll to “Federal Courts — Defamation”) indicates that the court agreed that the rating contained inaccuracies which harmed Aviation Charter’s reputation, but found no proof that Argus had acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Update Mar. 15, 2006: Eighth Circuit (in summer 2005) dismissed suit, ruling ratings subjective.
Federalism and consistency
Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO “The Corner” punctures a weak op-ed on the subject, and incidentally points to an interesting and new-to-us paper by Michael Greve on Justice Brandeis and the “laboratories of policy experimentation” trope.
Elsewhere in the blogosphere
Evan Schaeffer is a plaintiffs’ lawyer, but he’s made it to the Overlawyered blogroll with an entertaining weblog about balancing a real life with a law firm career; law students’ contributions to blogs; law and literature; and clever, if fallacious, anti-litigation-reform posts and attacks on this site’s positions. Now on the site is an e-mail interview with me about my new job. And don’t miss the discussion in the comments about whether consumers are smart enough to make their own economic decisions in response to my answer to Evan’s last question. More: Blawg Review #6 takes note.
Winn-Dixie, up North
According to UCLA lawprof Lynn LoPucki, about 60 percent of recent big corporate bankruptcies have been filed in courts away from the companies’ hometowns. Although not all motives for selecting a distant bankruptcy venue are improper, forum-shopping can assist incumbent managers in finding a court that will cede them broad control during a reorganization (including the payment of large “retention” bonuses), while lawyers and other professionals may seek to steer filings into courts that are indulgent about approving fee requests. Among the losers: many creditors, which in some cases may include the companies’ workers. An opponent dismisses the charges as “baseless and offensive”, but some judges agree that the indictment holds merit. The Southern supermarket chain Winn-Dixie filed in New York City, then after a furor agreed to move the proceedings to its home state of Florida. (Pamela A. MacLean, “Forum Shopping Alleged in Chapter 11 Cases”, National Law Journal, May 3). See, among other posts, Mar. 8, 2004. More: Larry Ribstein (Jun. 22) has some thoughts on the market for jurisdiction-shopping.
Batch of reader letters
Four more missives from our ever-interesting readers appear on our letters page. Among the topics this time: caprice in the workings of the death penalty, lawyers’ fees and fen-phen fraud, gamblers suing casinos, and pharmacists’ rights.
Norway: porn-surfing on the job not a firing offense?
The Norway Supreme Court has ruled that Conoco Phillips owes two workers about $40,000 each for firing them for looking at Internet porn on the job. (Jonathan Tisdall, “Final porn decision”, Aftenposten English, Apr. 22).
The Aftenposten story has been widely repeated on the web, but it’s worth noting that the supposed decision has not yet been catalogued on the English version of the Norges Høyesterett website, though that site is only up to date to March 31. That said, this page looks suspiciously like the decision in question, though my Norwegian language skills are decidedly limited. I further note that it is utterly charming that Norway is sufficiently non-litigious otherwise that its Supreme Court apparently has the time to regularly decide appeals of speeding tickets. (& letter to the editor, Jul. 13).
Two more thoughts on the $45,000 cat
There’s an unspoken implication of a decision valuing a housepet at $45,000. If one is driving a vehicle of average value in Washington state, and sees a pet dart out in front of the car, the state would apparently prefer that you total your car to avoid hitting the animal. Just make sure that the tree or wall or parked car you hit instead doesn’t also have non-economic sentimental value.
And why isn’t it contributory negligence to leave a housecat outside? The press coverage doesn’t say if this was raised in the litigation.