Archive for September, 2003

He led them out with silver and gold

Since the latest bizarre reparations-suit project seems to be a favorite among our readers, we suppose we can’t pass it by: “Nabil Hilmi, dean of the law school at Egypt’s University of Al-Zaqaziq, is suing ‘all the Jews of the world’ for stealing ‘from the Pharaonic Egyptians gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, clothing, and more, leaving Egypt in the middle of the night with all this wealth, which today is priceless,’ according to the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram Al-Arabi (translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute).” (Ted Olsen, “The World’s Most Outrageous Biblical Lawsuit”, Christianity Today weblog, Sept. 2; MEMRI Special Dispatch #556). More commentary: Judith Weiss, Kesher Talk, Aug. 22; Mona Charen, “Sue the Jews”, TownHall, Sept. 2; Rabbi Avi Shafran, “A truly historic lawsuit”, Jewish World Review, Sept. 3.

Excerpts from The Excuse Factory online

Speaking of our editor’s books, we notice that Amazon.com has recently posted some 49 sample pages’ worth of our editor’s 1997 book on employment law, The Excuse Factory (Free Press), on its page for the book. This means that some portions of the book can now be read in online form for the first time, which we hope will serve as an inducement for many of you to want to buy a copy of the whole thing. The book is still highly relevant for anyone wishing to make sense of the legal mess we’ve made of hiring and firing in this country.

Welcome new contributor Ted Frank

We are delighted to welcome Ted Frank as an ongoing contributor to Overlawyered.com. As he put it when he dropped by for a guestblogging stint in July (scroll down to Jul. 8 and earlier dates), he’s a former clerk for Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit who now practices law with a major firm (O’Melveny & Myers) in Washington, D.C. on behalf of clients dealing with some of the sorts of lawsuits chronicled in this space.

Needless to say, Ted and I will not always agree and should not be seen as speaking for each other. He’ll soon have his own email address at overlawyered.com perfect for readers who want to send him leads or react to posts. Please join in welcoming Ted aboard.

Oz: A$100K for prisoner who fell out of bed

“A prisoner who injured himself in a fall from his bunk bed has won more than $100,000 compensation from taxpayers. Craig Ballard, jailed for a vicious assault on a woman, successfully sued the State of NSW after he fell out of the bunk in his cell at Grafton Correctional Centre.” (Tony Wall, “Ex-prisoner awarded six-figure sum”, Daily Telegraph (Aust.), Sept. 1; Melbourne Age, Sept. 1; “Payout to prisoner who fell from bed ‘ludicrous'”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 1). “The Opposition leader, John Brogden, said it was ludicrous the payout to Mr Ballard was double the amount available to a victim of crime.” A new liability statute will make it harder for prisoners to file similar actions, but Ballard’s claim was resolved under the earlier law (“Prisoner who fell from bunk could have got more: minister”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 2; “Prisoner who fell from bunk could have got more: minister”, The Australian, Sept. 2; Tony Wall, “Word is out: sue the prison”, Daily Telegraph, Sept. 2).

Boom in ads to sue

Lawyer advertising on TV seems to be losing its stigma: “According to data provided by the Television Bureau of Advertising, a television industry trade group, lawyers spent $311.3 million on television commercials in 2002, a 75 percent increase from the $177.2 million spent in 1999.” The boom is led by mass tort advertising, notably ads urging persons who have consumed recently recalled drugs to consider filing suit. The result, charges Chicago lawyer Philip Beck, who represents the drug firm Bayer, is to allow “lawyers to be able to sign up huge volumes of claims even though they know the vast majority of them don’t have any merit”. (Alexei Oreskovic, “Regularly Scheduled Programming”, The Recorder, Sept. 3).

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).