Over dissents from two justices, the New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to disbar an attorney who made “repeated, demeaning and offensive suggestions to his clients” in “an effort to barter his professional services for sexual favors.” The punishment instead: suspension for a year and required sensitivity training. Solangel Maldonado at Concurring Opinions thinks the court was too lenient, arguing that an employer charged with similar conduct toward an employee would have faced extensive liability under sexual harassment law.
Posts Tagged ‘harassment law’
“National Sexual Harassment Registry”
Daniel Schwartz doesn’t think much of this private venture.
P.S. A moving target, it seems.
The fatal workplace joke
Harassment and sex-bias charges on campus
Tony Judt reflects on many bemused years in a history department, and commenters have their say [NY Review of Books Blog via Amy Alkon]
March 24 roundup
- Jury orders Dutchess County, N.Y. school district to pay $1.25 million for not adequately addressing classmate harassment of “very dark skinned” half-Latino student; district protests that it had extensively pursued diversity/sensitivity programs [Poughkeepsie Journal]
- More unwisdom: “Oklahoma House of Representatives Proposes Ban on Use of Foreign Law in Oklahoma Courts” [Volokh, earlier on Arizona bill]
- Update: California environment czars won’t ban black cars, but watch out for what reflective-layer window mandates might do to cellphones and tollgate transponders [ShopFloor, earlier]
- “Firm Sanctioned for ‘Perfect Storm’ of Improper Practices in Debt Collection” [NYLJ]
- Critic of lie detector technology says U.K. libel law has silenced him [Times Online] Science journalist Simon Singh says fighting chiropractors’ libel suit is so draining that he’s quitting his column for the Guardian [Guardian, Citizen Media Law]
- Florida: father who lost wife, son in murder/suicide at gun range drops lawsuit against the store [Orlando Sentinel]
- Appeals court declines to overturn Mary Roberts sextortion conviction [MySanAntonio.com, opinion, related, earlier]
- Corporation for Public Newspapering? Stimulus bucks go to “public-interest investigative journalism” [SFWeekly]
“It’s for – what’s it called?” “Pain and suffering”
A new book on the Paula Jones/Bill Clinton legal mess [Janet Maslin, New York Times; my views back when]
February 15 roundup
- “U.S. Still Won’t Join International Criminal Court” [Julian Ku, Opinio Juris via Adler] International jurisdiction is a bit of a crime in itself [Stuttaford, NRO “Corner”]
- “Tourette’s Sufferer Sues Starbucks for Discrimination” [Seattle Weekly]
- Colorado: “Science Fair Bans Most Science” [Free-Range Kids]
- For best results in lawsuit against “Girls Gone Wild” producer, it helps not to have made X-rated films [OnPoint News]
- New Mexico revolt against Feds’ takeover of community bank [Bank Lawyer’s Blog, more]
- Citizen’s United decision continued: “Yes, money is speech” [Rick Esenberg, Point of Law] “When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don’t Lose Their Rights” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato at Liberty]
- Thomas Lenard and Paul Rubin, “In Defense of Data: Information and the Costs of Privacy” [SSRN last year]
- Sex-harassment charge against six-year-old boy will cost Brockton, Mass. taxpayers $180,000 [Brockton Enterprise]
New frontiers in racial harassment law?
Williamsburg County, South Carolina: “$150,000 Settlement for Black Public School Students Harassed by Other Black Students for ‘Acting White'” [Volokh]
Illegal fee-splitting, “outrageous” courtroom behavior
They’ve contributed to a recommended three-year suspension for San Francisco attorney Philip Kay. “Kay rose to fame with the Baker & McKenzie suit, earning him a reputation as the go-to plaintiff lawyer for sexual harassment suits.” [Mike McKee/The Recorder, California Civil Justice]
More: Via a commenter, this is said to be the official statement released by the office of Philip Edward Kay:
“This decision admits it used default, as punishment, in violation of Business & Professions Code §6068(i), because I asserted constitutional and statutory rights of attorney client privilege and work product before answering questions, and demanded the right to have these issues heard and determined by an article VI court of general jurisdiction to determine whether the questions sought privileged information, pursuant to State Bar Rules. The State Bar Court did this knowingly to allow the Office of Chief Trial Counsel the ability to lie about what the Superior Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found in their orders and opinions regarding these important civil rights cases.
In these matters, only after the trial judges were reversed on appeal and disqualified, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§170, et seq., did they claim misconduct. So, either these judges lied in their orders denying misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §657(1) – “irregularities in the proceedings,” OR they lied in their testimony in the State Bar trial. This will create an uncertain and chilling effect by allowing unfit and disgruntled judges to lie about the record and impugn lawfully obtained civil rights verdicts, which have been upheld by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The State Bar Court has allowed these disqualified judges to attack and undermine the very verdicts, which, they could not touch in the trial court under statutory and case law in California.”
“Sexual Harassment: Are We Now Too Sensitive?”
I’m quoted by Ben Brody in this month’s Westchester Magazine in an article about fear of harassment charges in the workplace.