In a self-parody of “comparable worth” theory (see also POL Aug. 17), the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Air Canada flight attendants may sue for gender discrimination on the grounds that they’re paid less than the male-dominated pilots union. Couldn’t possibly be because of supply and demand for differently trained and skilled groups, because the flight attendants and pilots work for the same organization in the same business. Air Canada will still be permitted to argue that flight attendants’ passing out of pillows is not “equal work” to the pilots’ flying the plane. The Court criticized litigation tactics that created “enormous expense” over the course of the 15-year litigation—but it was somehow Air Canada that was the target of the criticism, rather than the flight attendants for bringing the risible case. (Richard Blackwell, “Flight attendants win case against Air Canada”, The Globe and Mail, Jan. 26; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., 2006 SCC 1) (via Bashman).
Archive for January, 2006
Rose Marie Munoz and the $29-million limp
(Post updated on Jan. 30 to reflect confirmation that Munoz was a passenger.)
Here’s a case that could almost serve as a “spot-the-issues” model question for a law-school exam on the need for litigation reform. Rose Marie Munoz wasn’t wearing her seatbelt in 2002 when the spare tire on the 1992 Mazda Navajo (a rebadged Ford Explorer) failed and driver Derek Saenz rolled over the SUV; the other three occupants of the vehicle were uninjured. Munoz was ejected and temporarily paralyzed, has lost use of her right hand, and now walks with a limp. A Nueces County, Texas jury held Ford 75% (and Mazda another 10%) responsible for $29 million in damages, on the grounds that Ford should have done more to warn consumers about the dangers of ten-year-old tires—even though the tires in question were the notorious Bridgestone/Firestone tires that had actually been recalled in 2000, but had been left on the SUV. Jurors said they were influenced by the fact that Ford has since added a warning in their owners’ manual about replacing tires more than six years old. Firestone settled the case, allowing the plaintiffs to focus blame on Ford at trial. Ford blames the accident on driver error, and will appeal. (Sean M. Wood, “Ford hit with big judgment in Nueces”, San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 28; Karen Lundegaard, “Texas Jury Slaps Ford With $29 Million Verdict”, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27; AP, Jan. 27; plaintiffs’ lawyer press release).
Sample model answer to the spot-the-issues question after the jump. No press story mentions all of these factors, and many went unmentioned entirely.
(Update, Feb. 16: Plaintiffs’ attorney Roger Brough has an extensive discussion in the comments, to which I respond in detail. With one minor detail after the jump, I stand by my description of the case. It’s hard to follow the back-and-forth in the comments, but there is a post that combines his comments and my responses in direct point-counterpoint.)
Stupid class action of the day
Says a California appellate court: “[O]ffering discount admission prices to ‘baby-boomers’ to attend a musical about that generation does not involve an arbitrary class-based generalization protected by the [Unruh Civil Rights] Act.” Pizarro v. Lamb’s Players Theatre, 2006 WL 163612 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Jan. 24, 2006). Tim Sandefur comments that the court was reassured that
“Providing discounted theater admissions to ‘baby-boomers’ to attend a musical about that generation does not perpetuate any irrational stereotypes.” Well, perhaps not, but reading decisions like this perpetuate irrational stereotypes about non-Boomers and their bloodsucking lawyers.
Grand Theft Auto update
We told you about the first civil lawsuit Jul. 27 after predicting it Jul. 16. By popular demand, we note that the LA District Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, has jumped on the bandwagon, presumably for publicity for his campaign for state attorney general against Jerry Brown. Of course, lawsuits like this aren’t the way to persuade people that he’s any more serious a candidate than Governor Moonbeam, though it doesn’t hurt when not a single mainstream media outlet questions the legitimacy of the suit. Brian Doherty of Hit & Run comments. Lawsuits like this are an effective means of censorship: if politically unpopular speech can be bankrupted with a thousand paper cuts of trumped-up “consumer protection” suits, it will be as chilling as any libel action.
(Full disclosure: Delgadillo and I both worked at different times for O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, where Warren Christopher was Delgadillo’s mentor and once pointed me the right direction to the men’s room.)
Busted flush
Federal toilet-flow regulation, writes Andrew Ferguson, resulted from a successful collaboration between organized industry and environmentalists against the interests of the general public. (“Can Deregulating Toilets Revive Republicans?”, Bloomberg News, Jan. 24).
Mass amnesia at bus trial
Hey, remember that ludicrous lawsuit about a bus crash we wrote about last month where the passengers collected $17.5 million from the bus manufacturer on a trumped-up design-defect theory after swearing that they hadn’t sued the bankrupt bus charter company (Dec. 1)? Turns out there may be some perjury involved, and a federal bankruptcy judge is none-too-pleased at the attempted double-dip. (Tommy Witherspoon, “Bankruptcy judge outraged over bus crash testimonies”, Waco Tribune-Herald, Jan. 14 (via Prince)).
Frey grilled
James Frey admitted on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show that The Smoking Gun’s investigation into his book was “pretty accurate.” (Howard Kurtz, “Oprah Winfrey Says She is ‘Deeply Sorry'”, Washington Post, Jan. 26; Gawker liveblog). Which leaves us wondering whether anyone is going to apologize for the nastygram that lawyer Marty Singer sent to The Smoking Gun seeking to intimidate them out of publishing the story.
Madison County judge without a docket
In Madison County, Illinois, all of the circuit judges have been elected to the bench with the significant help of the plaintiffs’ bar, often going straight from a career at a plaintiffs’ firm (and then later retiring to a plaintiffs’ firm). Except one: Judge Don Weber was appointed to replace a retired judge in October 2005, and won’t stand for election until November.
Illinois law permits a party to move once as a matter of right for substitution of a different judge, and plaintiffs in at least thirty-five cases have done so in Weber’s case. “All the stars of the plaintiff’s bar – the Lakin Law Firm, SimmonsCooper, Stephen Tillery and Rex Carr – have joined the substitution blitz.” The Madison County Record quotes Jack Joseph of Chicago, a member of the civil practice committee of the Chicago Bar Association, as finding the practice “unfair to Judge Weber without giving him a chance to see if he is going to violate his oath in some way.” (Steve Korris, “Weber’s caseload yanked by plaintiff’s attorneys”, Jan. 25). But one might be suspicious that the true fear motivating the motions to substitute other judges is that Weber will uphold his oath.
Update: Belleville News-Democrat counts 53 plaintiffs and two defendants who’ve asked for substitution.
Socially unproductive
If ordinary workers and producers are having trouble sharing in the expanding economy, Steve Antler at EconoPundit thinks he may know one reason (Jan. 19).
I’m interviewed…
…at the blog of speechwriter and ghostwriter Jane Genova, who for the past two months has been liveblogging the Providence retrial of Rhode Island’s lawsuit against former manufacturers of lead paint. Among topics we touch on in the interview: the role of media hype and TV cameras in big trials today; problems with jury selection, and the treatment of jurors generally; two reasons I hope Rhode Island loses its lead paint case; and the case for patience on liability reform. (Jan. 25).