Turned down by all 150 (or however many) Denver bakers in their quest for a wedding cake, this couple had no choice but to sue. Oh, not really: they had an endless supply of perfectly good alternative options, but they apparently wanted to make a point by suing, as did the ACLU which represented them. [Associated Press; earlier here, here, etc.]
Findings: “there exists an epidemic of naughtiness among the nation’s children…”
Whence Congress enacted and President Obama signed the NOEL law (Naughtiness Obliteration and Elimination Law of 2012):
…(1) Imposes a naughtiness “fee” of $50 upon each American child for every documented instance of their “naughtiness.” Revenues from this “fee” are to support the Federal Nice Fund (FNF), a newly created fund for public-works projects in NOEL-compliant states. (NOEL, § 3(a).)…
(4) To ensure full compliance, the NOEL bars any “person, group, or agency” that receives “funding, or any benefit from the federal government” from making a “material naughtiness determination” contrary to rules promulgated by the NRB, with the consequence of such a contrary determination being withdrawal of the federal funding and/or other benefit. (Id., § 22(z)(12)(F)(vii)(¥)(‰) (LOL)(¿)(?)(D).)…
Relax. It’s not real (yet). It’s just Prof. Kyle Graham’s constitutional law exam holiday card.
Employers mull email curfews
Why would an employer adopt a rule forbidding employees from using company email after hours or on weekends? Simple enough: lawyers have been busily organizing class actions alleging that employees are owed millions for overtime spent on such tasks. And it doesn’t matter whether the employee wants to do his or her job that way or is responding to an emergency customer request: the legal entitlement to sue isn’t ordinarily waivable by consent. Hence “email curfews.” [Brianne Pfannenstiel, Kansas City Business Journal via Jon Hyman]
Bad global trends the U.S. is lucky not to be joining, part umpteen
Gender governance quotas [Darren Rosenblum, Prawfs]
“The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance”
Kevin from Lowering the Bar has a new book out on odd laws (more on how to buy it).
City pays $100K over cop’s conduct, now faces claim from him
Washington: “A Lake Stevens police officer who was at the center of a civil rights lawsuit that cost the city $100,000 filed a claim Monday alleging city officials mishandled the lawsuit and tarnished his reputation. … ‘The cumulative result of the City’s errors is that Warbis has been continually portrayed as a rogue and hot-headed cop, something that is completely contrary to the truth and case facts,’ according to the claim. … The claim does not spell out how much money the police officer is seeking, however, it says ‘a seven-figure-damages judgement is not unreasonable.'” [Everett Herald]
House passes Goodlatte patent troll bill
The vote was 325 to 91, with Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Mel Watt (D-N.C.) leading the opposition. Timothy Lee discusses in the Washington Post. While I haven’t tried to get into the details, the general drift looks quite good to me. One major provision requires those filing suits to plead with some specificity what the infringement is; another provides for losing parties to compensate prevailing parties toward the cost of the litigation in more cases; yet another attempts to forestall expensive discovery in cases destined to fail on other grounds. Readers who recall my first book, The Litigation Explosion, will recall that I recommended procedural reform as the most promising way to address the incentives to overlitigiousness in our legal system and in particular identified lack of fee shifting, anything-goes pleadings, and wide-open discovery as among the system’s key deficits. So, yes, developments like this make me feel I was on the right track.
Equal time dept.: Richard Epstein takes a different view.
Class action roundup
- Whichever way high court rules in Hood v. AU Optronics, new Fifth Circuit decision will fuel parens patriae actions by AGs in state courts [Alison Frankel, earlier]
- Justice Alito blasts federal district judge Harold Baer for insisting on race quotas for class action lawyers [Michael Greve/Liberty Law, Tom Goldstein/SCOTUSBlog]
- “Unfortunately, even if SCOTUS does away with fraud on the market, plaintiff lawyers will still bring omission cases” [Bainbridge, earlier]
- Ted Frank’s adventures, as documented at Point of Law [Pampers Dry Max (earlier), L’Oreal salon hair products, Korean Air, Wyeth]
- Does it cost too much to provide class action defendants with due process? [Andrew Trask] Related on Mark Moller’s work [same] Should class actions be understood as creating trusts? [same]
- Avery v. State Farm billion-dollar aftermarket-parts class action seeks RICO resuscitation, in Monty Python echo [Chamber-backed Madison County Record]
- If you didn’t know distinguished proceduralist Arthur Miller as a Milbergian, you might detect it from his writing [Trask]
Emotional-distress damages for pet injury
Why the courts have properly kept a leash on them:
The article concludes that keeping emotion-based damages out of pet litigation is, ultimately, what is best for pets themselves. Adding new, uncertain liability to pet litigation would cause the price of pet welfare services and products prices to rise. If owners cannot afford to pay these higher costs, then many pets will not get the care they need.
“Americanized Labor Policy Is Spreading in Europe”
And a good thing too:
In 2008, 1.9 million Portuguese workers in the private sector were covered by collective bargaining agreements. Last year, the number was down to 300,000.
Spain has eased restrictions on collective layoffs and unfair dismissal, and softened limits on extending temporary work, allowing workers to be kept on fixed-term contracts for up to four years.
The New York Times being the New York Times, the trend story is largely anchored by the views of critics who detest the trend and view it as ushering in (new Times preoccupation) American levels of economic inequality, but it still more or less admits that labor market liberalization in Germany has contributed to that nation’s relatively strong economic performance in recent years. Comedy bonus: a description of the United States as a place “where the government hardly interferes in the job market.” [Eduardo Porter, New York Times]