Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as part of a wider campaign to pursue maximally feminist interpretations of Title IX, successfully litigate to prevent Quinnipiac University from naming competitive cheer as a varsity sport [American Sports Council “Saving Sports“] More: Richard Epstein on Title IX; background.
NYT on California food labeling suits
The New York Times reports on some experienced plaintiffs’ lawyers who are hoping to rip big sums out of food companies alleging mislabeling; one is particularly outraged at a yogurt maker’s use of the “evaporated cane juice” euphemism for sugar. “The lawyers are looking to base damages on products’ sales…. [They] are being selective about where these suits are filed. Most have been filed in California, where consumer protection laws tend to favor plaintiffs.” The Times article, which reads somewhat like a press release for the lawyers involved, flatteringly describes them as “the lawyers who took on Big Tobacco,” though in fact a much larger group of lawyers played prominent roles in the Great Tobacco Robbery of 1998, and no evidence is presented that most of that larger group are taking any interest in the food-labeling campaign. What’s more, the many efforts by the plaintiff’s bar to identify a suitable Next Tobacco in the intervening years have been full of false starts and fizzles, including such mostly-abortive causes as mass litigation over alcohol, slavery reparations, HMOs, and dotcom failures.
The Times does draw the link to Proposition 37, the lawyer-sponsored measure I wrote about last week, which could open up a basis for rich new suits based on failure to correctly affix labeling tracking the sometimes-fine distinctions between genetically modified foodstuffs and all others. The text of Proposition 37 proposes to base minimum damages on the total sales volume of a product sold out of compliance, not on any measure of actual harm to consumers (& Thom Forbes, Marketing Daily; Ted Frank, Point of Law). Earlier on Don Barrett here and on Walter Umphrey and Provost Umphrey here and here.
Volvo: “the ‘sexy Swedish models’ were cars, not escorts.”
ABC takes very seriously a complaint filed by a photographic model that Swedish automaker Volvo improperly degraded her image by allowing play-on-words copy into a promotion. She had signed broadly worded releases. [Good Morning America]
Draining of disabled and elderly persons’ estates
The San Jose Mercury-News has an investigative series. Among the highlights: “At some point, this endless wasting of Danny Reed’s trust assets must stop,” said Judge Franklin Bondonno, throwing out $30,000 in fees billed to the special needs trust of a 37-year-old brain-damaged man, and regretting that he could not reach $145,000 previously billed. The “judge — in a highly unusual gesture — implored a higher court to overturn his decision.” Among recurring problems: “fee on fee” billing in which lawyers charge fees to persons under conservatorship for the legal effort expended in defending earlier fee bills. [editorial and links to articles in the series]
Claim: smart meter wi-fi caused ear infection
A local woman says wi-fi emanations from new “smart” parking meters in Santa Monica, Calif., have caused her various health injuries including tightness in her neck and an ear infection that took antibiotics to heal. She wants $1.7 billion: “I know it seems a little big,” [Denise] Barton said, “but they can’t do things that affect people’s health without their consent. I think that’s wrong.” [Santa Monica Daily Press, LAist]
August 17 roundup
- Judge OKs settlement in Skechers shoe promotion suits, valued at $40 million [WaPo, earlier]
- “Philadelphia woman faces $600-a-day fine for feeding needy neighborhood kids” [Fox]
- “Minister Found Guilty of Aiding Miller-Jenkins Kidnapping” [BTB, my latest, earlier]
- Yes, the HHS waiver eviscerates welfare reform [Andrew Grossman, Kaus, more, yet more; Bader, more; Kay Hymowitz, City Journal (quoting Doug Besharov on the reversal: “The domestic policy staff doesn’t believe in ‘work first'”); contra, Josh Barro, Dave Weigel] USDA: Por favor, acepte food handout [Barton Hinkle, Bader, NR (backs off)]
- Reason “nanny of month” is New Jersey dog seat belt law [Ted Balaker, Hit and Run; our earlier coverage]
- “Malicious prosecution, unfair trials and the U.S. Constitution” [Alison Frankel, Reuters]
- Manchester, Conn.: “Mom Arrested for Letting Her Kids, 11 & 7, Walk to Pizza Shop” [Lenore Skenazy, Free-Range Kids] “Desperate Dad: ‘I Let My 12 y.o. Play Outside. Is that Criminal?'” [Skenazy, The Agitator; update on another case]
Zimmerman lawyer: “Stand Your Ground” isn’t our defense
Remember this past April, when I was telling anyone who would listen that Florida’s much-flayed “Stand Your Ground” no-duty-to-retreat self-defense doctrine was unlikely to be relevant in the Trayvon Martin shooting, even as much of the media was publishing piece after piece claiming the opposite? Bloomberg’s Ed Adams is kind enough to remember:
Zimmerman Backing Off ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense bit.ly/TC6yAR Walter Olson called it back in April youtu.be/y5h-f4h4Fvk
— Edward Adams (@edadams) August 14, 2012
Specifically, as AP now reports, “attorney Mark O’Mara now confirms that ‘The facts don’t seem to support a “stand your ground” defense,'” and that he will instead be advancing a conventional self-defense theory on behalf of client George Zimmerman. To add confusion, the preliminary hearing provided for by Florida law is colloquially known as a “Stand Your Ground” hearing, even if SYG itself is not the grounds on which dismissal is sought.
Particularly shameful were the organized campaigns in some quarters first to demonize Stand Your Ground as having somehow caused Martin’s death, and then to demonize the American Legislative Exchange Council for having promoted self-defense laws in other states. With little critical scrutiny in the media, the campaign even enjoyed a certain amount of success, though its factual flimsiness was apparent enough at the time.
Taking names and addresses
Shelby County (Memphis) has subpoenaed the identity of the authors of 10,000 anonymous comments at the city’s major newspaper, the Commercial Appeal. Some of the comments, on a school consolidation plan, exhibited racial animus, and the county may be planning to seek the striking down of a particular law on the grounds that the lawmakers who enacted it were influenced by citizens displaying improper animus. “It is hard to square this subpoena with long-established protections for the right to speak anonymously,” writes Paul Alan Levy [CL&P] After the subpoena, which the newspaper is resisting, touched off a controversy, two commissioners reportedly “placed partial blame on The Commercial Appeal for reporting the subpoena.” Eugene Volokh wonders why there would be anything wrong with the newspaper blowing the whistle: “I should think that anonymous commenters (past and future) deserve to know that their county government might try to do this to them.” [Volokh Conspiracy](& Alex Adrianson, Heritage Insider Online)
Labor and employment roundup
- $250,000+ payout for cardiac arrest at age 92? Stupendous giveaway for uniformed public employees is sailing through California legislature [Sacramento Bee via Hillel Aron]
- Those confidential workplace investigations won’t be so confidential any more if NLRB gets its way [Jon Hyman, Daniel Schwartz] And the EEOC too? [Hyman, Shannon Green/Corporate Counsel]
- Myths of the “pay gap” [Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg]
- Federal bailout of state pension funds? Don’t let it happen [Fergus Hodgson, John Locke]
- Former Indianapolis Colts cheerleader loses suit over nude body-paint photos [Staci Zaretsky, Above the Law, earlier]
- Some small businesses hope to dodge the employer mandate by getting below 50 employees [CNN]
- Obama names partner at class action powerhouse Cohen Milstein to EEOC vacancy [White House]
Harassment complaints by male Homeland Security employees
Harassment complaints filed by men are on the rise, up from 9 percent to 16 percent over the past two decades, according to the EEOC. Now male employees at the Department of Homeland Security have filed a complaint saying they were subjected to a hostile environment under female management. Alison Yarrow of Newsweek/Daily Beast has a new report that quotes me on several points.