It looks like there may be competing voter initiatives relating to California’s Unfair Competition Law (see Aug. 27, Jul. 22). While bipartisan legislative attempts to reform the notoriously overbroad Section 17200 have failed, the Civil Justice Association of California is looking into a possible voter initiative for reform. In response, a trial lawyers’ organization is threatening a voter initiative to expand ? 17200 liability to individual executives. The lengthy San Francisco Chronicle story includes extensive discussion of the Trevor Law Group scandal, where a law firm used ? 17200 to shake down thousands of businesses for $20 million with frivolous lawsuits (see Aug. 4, Jul. 28). (Bernadette Tansey, “Battle brews over consumer protection in state”, Sep. 28). Update Oct. 26: initiative campaign launched.
Posts Tagged ‘s. 17200’
Employment law roundup
Newsweek purports to discern a renewed boom in workplace suits, though the strength of its evidence for that proposition is open to question (Jennifer Barrett, “‘I Have Never Seen Such a Fever Pitch'” Jul. 21). In one remarkable bit of stimulation to the employment litigation sector, a California court of appeals has ruled that a litigant can turn an age discrimination claim into a lawsuit under the state’s famously broad unfair-competition statute, s. 17200, on the grounds that an employer who commits age discrimination gains an unfair competitive advantage over employers that don’t (Alexei Oreskovic, “Nestle Ruling Paves Way for New Work Discrimination Cases”, The Recorder, Jun. 16). The EEOC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Mormon employee who says he was fired for refusing to drink alcohol, prompting blogger Michael Fox to observe that “one of the fascinating things about employment law is how almost any issue that could arise in the workplace, seems to ultimately lead to a possible claim of some sort”. (“Fired for not drinking, suit alleges”, Jewish World Review, Aug. 3; Employer’s Lawyer, Aug. 26). And the EEOC has gotten its hand slapped by a court after overreaching in one of those much-publicized “noose” racial harassment cases (EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 11th Circuit, Aug. 7 (PDF), via Employer’s Lawyer, Aug. 7).
Why doesn’t Arnold…?
…tell us what he thinks about California’s bounty-hunting s. 17200 law? Timothy Sandefur wonders (Aug. 27)(see Jul. 28, Aug. 4, Jul. 22). And the Manhattan Institute (with which our editor is affiliated) has just published the proceedings of an Oct. 24, 2002 conference on state unfair competition statutes, of which California’s s. 17200 is perhaps the most extreme. Among the conferees: prominent attorneys Sheila Birnbaum and Elizabeth Cabraser, Duke law prof Francis McGovern, and Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel president Robert V. Dewey, Jr. Our editor moderated a panel (“Unfair Competition and Consumer Fraud Statutes: Recipe for Consumer Fraud Prevention or Fraud on the Consumer?“)(PDF)
Nike v. Kasky
Professor Volokh, of the Volokh Conspiracy, on the Nike v. Kasky case. Under a 4-3 California Supreme Court decision, Nike is potentially liable to any California citizen if its response to political speech criticizing Nike is deemed “misleading.”
(Full disclosure: Walter Dellinger of my law firm filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief on behalf of Nike.)