In a widely awaited decision, the European Court of Justice has ruled that a Swedish woman can be fined about $500 for identifying and publishing personal details about fellow church volunteers on her personal web site in breach of “data protection” privacy laws. Bodil Lindqvist of Alseda parish had published online “some full names, telephone numbers and references to hobbies and jobs held by her colleagues. In relation to one lady, Lindqvist also revealed that the volunteer had injured her foot and was working part-time on medical grounds.” A Swedish court found that she had violated data-privacy law in posting the page and the European Court agreed. (“Identifying people on-line violates Data Protection laws, says European Court”, Out-Law (UK), Nov. 7). We originally reported on the case Sept. 20, 2000.
Archive for November, 2003
Specialized business courts
Through most of the 20th Century the preferred model in American court organization was that of the generalist court in which a given corps of judges applied a standard set of procedures to handle a wide, not to say bewildering, variety of cases. In the past couple of decades, however, there has been renewed interest in the idea of establishing specialized courts to handle some types of recurring or distinctive cases: intellectual property, complex mass torts, low-level drug offenses, and so forth. “More than a dozen states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, have introduced specialization into their courts to deal with business disputes. Some programs are recent and some, like those in New York and Delaware, have been operating for decades.” Removing complex commercial litigation to its own docket can assist in the development of greater judicial expertise, useful procedural innovation and more consistent law; it can also help unclog the schedules of courts that handle more conventional cases, according to its advocates. The success of specialized business courts is now encouraging other states to consider adopting the model, as is now the subject of discussion in Maine. (Andrew Grainger (New England Legal Foundation), “Business specialization in court system a good idea”, Portland Press-Herald, Oct. 31)(& letter to the editor, Dec. 6).
MTBE liability and the energy bill
Although there are plenty of outrages in the energy bill, argues Gregg Easterbrook at his New Republic weblog, one provision that is not outrageous is the waiver exempting oil companies from liability for using the gasoline additive MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) (Nov. 24). “Democrats are expressing outrage over the MTBE waiver because some enviro fundraisers see this chemical as the next one to get people really frightened over, while the tort bar has visions of big settlements dancing in its head.” But Congress mandated the use of MTBE in its 1991 Clean Air Amendments, Easterbrook says, and it is strange to punish petrochemical companies for complying with the wishes of both Republican and Democratic environmental officials. Coverage: H. Josef Hebert, “GOP lawmakers blame suits over gas additive for bill’s delay”, AP/Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 24; Michael Davis, “Energy measure hinges on MTBE dispute”, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 21; “Congress Debates Gasoline Additive Liability”, AP/Fox News, Oct. 7. And this morning it is being reported that the energy bill has died for this year in the Senate, in part because of irreconcilable disputes over the MTBE waivers (Dan Morgan, “Senate Energy Bill Dead for This Year”, Washington Post, Nov. 25)
Teenage assault: the taxpayers did it
“A King County jury [last week] awarded a Somali refugee $8.8 million, finding that negligence by state social workers contributed to a savage assault by a gang of teenagers living in a West Seattle foster home.” Attorney Jack Connelly, representing beating victim Aba Sheikh, said the state Department of Social and Health Services should have moved two delinquent teenagers from foster care to more restrictive and closely supervised custodial settings. “Assistant Attorney General Jeff Freimund said yesterday the verdict puts social workers in an untenable position — complying with laws that require foster kids be put in the least restrictive, most ‘family-like’ setting possible, while being held responsible if the children exploit their freedom and commit crimes.” DSHS officials called the ruling an “unprecedented” expansion of state liability and said if it is sustained the department “will have to institute extraordinary new constraints on children in foster care, interfering with their growth into successful citizens.” “Aba Sheikh also will be paid $300,000 by Shell Oil, because the attack occurred at a gas station franchised by the company”. (“Jury faults DSHS for attack by foster kids”, Seattle Times, Nov. 18). For another case in which attorney Connelly made the state of Washington pay dearly for imposing insufficiently custodial conditions on persons under its authority, see Sept. 13-14, 2000 (auto accident by convict serving community-supervision portion of sentence)(& letter to the editor, Dec. 6). Update Apr. 16, 2006: state’s high court overturns verdict.
Great moments in discrimination law
In Peterson v. Wilmur Communs., Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (E.D. Wis. 2002), a telemarketing firm demoted an employee when it discovered through a newspaper account that he was a “reverend” in the virulently racist World Church of the Creator, which preaches “racial holy war” and instructs its adherents that virtue consists in advancing the interest of the white race. The employee supervised eight workers, including three non-whites, and the employer said it felt that the latter employees would not be confident of having their work evaluated objectively under his supervision. A federal court held that although the man’s “church” professes no belief in a god, supreme being, or afterlife, what matters was that it holds itself out as religious and inculcates moral and ethical precepts which its adherents sincerely embrace with an intensity comparable to religious belief. The court concluded that the employer had violated federal law against religious bias. A law firm newsletter comments that henceforth employers “may risk allegations of religious discrimination if they fail to protect employees’ religious rights to believe in white supremacy. At the same time, they may risk allegations of race discrimination by nonwhite employees supervised by white supremacists. The decision also opens the door for other groups to reformulate themselves into religions.” (“White Supremacy Held To Be Religion Under Title VII”, McLane law firm newsletter, Nov. 2002 (PDF); Wimberly Lawson newsletter, Sept. 2002, GoogleCached; Holland & Knight Employment, Labor and Benefits newsletter, Jul. 29, 2002 (PDF); HRCalifornia.com (California Chamber of Commerce), “Can You Believe This? Truth Beats Fiction in Employment Law” (list of strange and unusual labor law cases), Nov. 2003) (via Employer’s Lawyer). An account from the Southern Poverty Law Center downplays the significance of the ruling (“Race as Religion“, undated).
Latest 17200 targets: drugmakers
Trial lawyers are hoping to turn California’s endlessly abused and abusive s. 17200 “unfair competition” law (Oct. 26, etc.) to rich new account by using it to sue pharmaceutical companies over a variety of marketing practices that the U.S. Congress and Food and Drug Administration have not seen fit to ban. The Ralph Nader operation is helping out, while the litigation effort is being handled by Seattle trial lawyer and tobacco-caper veteran Steve Berman of Hagens & Berman (see Sept. 9-10, 2002 and links from there). (Bernadette Tansey, “Citizens use law to pursue drug firms”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 23; plaintiff’s site (“Prescription Access Litigation”). Update: see Point of Law, Nov. 8, 2004.
“Couple’s lawsuit takes unexpected turn”
“An attempt to be compensated for being ‘hassled’ by an insurance company after a 1996 house fire backfired this week for a Helena area couple, after a jury decided the duo intentionally caused the blaze.” Unfortunately, the new evidence of arson that came to light in the civil trial can’t be used to prosecute Norm and Darlene Scott criminally, as the statute of limitations expired. (Eve Byron, Helena Independent Record, Nov. 23).
Anthropologist feud thrown out of court
Over the years, Professors Fikes and Furst have been feuding over their respective scholarship over the Huichol Indian community in northern Mexico, in a dispute reminiscent of the cliche referring to academic politics and small stakes. The two had threatened each other with libel lawsuits, but Fikes went through with his; it was litigated up to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which threw out the case Friday. (AP, Nov. 22; Simon Romero, “A real-life feud springs from peyote’s hallucinations”, Arizona Republic, Sep. 17).
Update: Christian Curry case
The New York Observer a little while ago followed up on some of the doings of celebrated ex-Wall Streeter Christian Curry. A few years back, it will be recalled, Mr. Curry filed an employment-bias case against Morgan Stanley, which had fired him after nude pictures of him were published in a sexually explicit magazine (see Nov. 20, 2000). At the time, one bit of mystery stirred comment, namely that Mr. Curry appeared to be flush with money shortly after the settlement even though the parties contended that “no payment” had been made to him for dropping his suit. According to the Observer piece, “several published reports that followed Mr. Curry’s free-spending post-scandal ventures indicated that he had gotten tens of millions of dollars — the figures have ranged from $15 million to $52 million — via some confidential arrangement (the scenarios have varied as well) with his former employer. The February 2001 issue of Brill’s Content, for example, cited ‘a source familiar with the agreement’ who claimed that Morgan Stanley ‘circumvented any direct payment to Curry by compensating three other litigants, all of whom were also suing the firm for discrimination in actions filed shortly after Curry’s, and all of whom were represented by Curry’s attorney Benedict Morelli.’ The source contended that it was left up to Morelli ‘to parcel out the money among his clients.'” (Frank DiGiacomo, “Where is Curry? Man Who Sued Morgan Vanishes”, New York Observer, Aug. 4). More on attorney Morelli: Robert Kolker, “Benedict Morelli Feels Your Pain”, New York, Mar. 13, 2000.
Update: N.J. pols plan revenge on docs
New Jersey doctors bet big and lost (see Nov. 4, Nov. 5) hoping that a $2 million investment in this fall’s campaign would lead voters to throw out the trial-lawyer-allied Democrats. And now their intended targets “are doing what winners do here: Gloating, and plotting revenge. … Now, chest-thumping Democrats plan to inflict some pain and suffering payback on the medical profession.” “It’s one of the basic rules of politics: If you’re going to engage in an all-out assault, you’d better make sure you’re going to win,” said Assembly Majority Leader Joe Roberts. “Deep down, [Marlton pediatrician Michael Falk] never believed the legislature would pass caps anyway. Why? Because many lawmakers are lawyers whose campaigns rely heavily on donations from fellow lawyers. But what really raises the doctor’s blood pressure is the suggestion that the MDs should have stayed silent. Since when, he asks, are democratically elected officials in the business of punishing their constituents for exercising their rights?” (Monica Yant Kinney, “Doctors paying price for exercising a right”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 16; Caitlin Gurney, “Campaigning costs state’s doctors”, Nov. 14)(& welcome readers of DynamoBuzz, a weblog about New Jersey politics and other subjects, which says some awfully kind things about us, calling us “one of the hidden gems of the Internet … chock full of information about our legal system run amok”)