At least for its employees: the London borough of Barnet admonishes staff that mother-in-law jokes, “as well as offensively sexist in their own right, can also be seen as offensive on the grounds that they disrespect elders or parents.” [Telegraph]
P.S. Notes SiouxsieLaw, in reference to this case: “In the US, we sue over mother-in-law jokes.”
Ted Frank has a speech on the perennially popular subject of lawsuits, hot-coffee-related and otherwise, against the giant burger chain. [Point of Law]
“It depends on your whole interpretation of what a weapon is,” said the superintendent of the Jamesburg, New Jersey district. “It’s not a weapon as a knife is a weapon. But a weapon is anything that has the potential to cause harm.” Better watch out for kids who bring knuckles and fists to school, especially if they try to smuggle them in in the form of innocent-looking hands. [Free-Range Kids]
The Los Angeles lawyer springs another surprise on a gubernatorial candidate in the run-up to an election, this time Meg Whitman, who allegedly didn’t fire a housekeeper fast enough as her illegal status emerged, or perhaps fired her too fast, it’s not entirely clear. [Jim Treacher] More: Legal Ethics Forum (“As always, some question if Allred’s publicity-seeking actions are in the best interests of the client,”), Coyote (“What Kind of Freaking Lawyer is This Lady?”).
The University of Windsor wasn’t quite as independent as it imagined, not in the face of a discrimination suit over its choice of law dean. [National Post, earlier]
Lawyers “argued that Pizza Hut was responsible for the collision because they hired [deliverer Nicole] Fisk, who had a driver’s license for only three months and had a history of suffering blackout spells and staring episodes.” Pizza Hut countered (unsuccessfully) that Fisk’s epilepsy was diagnosed only after the crash, which seriously injured a mother and daughter in another vehicle. [San Diego Union-Tribune via Lipman, Legal Blog Watch] And yes, it does call to mind the case I wrote about more than a decade ago:
You may think I’m making this up unless I offer a verbatim quote, so here’s exactly what the Washington Post reported in a front-page story on April 8 [1997]: “In January, a former truck driver for Ryder Systems, Inc., won a $ 5.5-million jury verdict after claiming, under the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], that Ryder unfairly removed him from his position after he suffered an epileptic seizure, saying his health condition could be a safety hazard. During the time he was blocked from his job at Ryder, the driver was hired by another firm, had a seizure behind the wheel and crashed into a tree. Ryder is appealing the verdict.”
Now released from prison, the former class-action baron “declined to say whether he regretted his actions.” Weiss — once acclaimed as the plaintiff’s bar’s top spotter of financial fraud — also turns out to have lost a ton of money to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The report is balanced, and cites Michael Perino’s work finding evidence that Weiss’s lies to judges worked to his own benefit as opposed to that of class members. It also recalls the heated claims by Democratic U.S. Reps. Charles Rangel, Gary Ackerman, Carolyn Maloney and Robert Wexler that Weiss was being railroaded on political charges — before he admitted the scheme and pleaded guilty, that is. [Jewish Week]
I was just on Mike McConnell’s show to talk about the ADA and its abuses on its 20th anniversary. For more on ADA repeat complainants and their lawyers, check this category; a couple of older pieces about the law’s outlandish results in the workplace are here and here.
British attorney Nick Freeman “is notorious for using legal loopholes to successfully defend celebrity clients accused of motoring offenses. But Mr. Loophole, as he is nicknamed, last week refused to use his expertise to get his daughter off a speeding charge…. ‘Sophie had to understand the consequences of breaking the law,’ [he said].” [Patrick Kingsley, Guardian]