July 19 roundup

  • Federal court rules “shy bladder syndrome” an ADA-protected disability [World of Work via Hyman]
  • “Goldman Sachs Backs Down in Long Legal Battle With Blogger” [American Lawyer, WSJ Law Blog, Coleman, earlier]
  • San Diego: unforeseen consequences of “anti-blight” lender regulation [Outside the Box]
  • 1,000 lose jobs as environmental litigation halts Northern California refinery project [Wood, ShopFloor, update]
  • City of Detroit lawyers on ethical hot seat after former mayor’s texting coverup scandal [ABA Journal, earlier]
  • What happens when IP law firms breed homegrown patent trolls? [Ron Coleman]
  • “It’s kind of like the practice of law, except that the clients are more likely to leave happy.” [Glenn Reynolds being naughty on Instapundit]
  • U.K.: Owner of copyright to John Cage’s avant-garde “four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence” work sues later impresario whose album track includes one minute of silence [seven years ago on Overlawyered; New Yorker treatment]


  • The instapundit link goes to an article about Rhode Island’s attempt to define prostitution:

    “A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee. Sexual conduct means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, any digital intrusion or intrusion by any object into the genital opening or anal opening of another person’s body, or by the stimulation by hand of another’s genitals for the purposes of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either person.”

    For one thing, the definition of sexual condict simply doesn’t parse: “or by the stimulation by hand” doesn’t work with the rest of the sentence unless you delete the first “by”. But worse, under these definitions, a pap smear or proctoscopy is prostitution, since the “for the purposes of arousing” phrase does not appear to limit the “intrusion” phrase.

  • “I wrote my silence differently than yours.” should take care of that lawsuit.

  • As far as the shy bladder post is concerned, I’m in 100% agreement with it being a disability. I have the same problem. I’m not exactly thrilled with drug tests being a condition of employment. I find the tests insulting and rank them along with DUI checkpoints as an intrusion on my Rights. Every time I am required to take a drug test, I feel that I have been found guilty and have to prove my innocense. I know that it is a Federal law that certain professions must be tested and don’t fault the bus company for having to give them. I do fault the bus company for not being more flexable on how the sample is provided. I know that there are ways that people with “shy bladder” syndrome can give samples. The simplest being asked to change into a gown and being sent into a bathroom where the water has been turned off and a dye put into the toilet bowl. There was no cause for this driver’s suspension and demotion. It wasn’t like he was unwilling to provide a sample.

  • @Jim: I’m similarly unable to produce a sample in front of a witness, have been my entire life, and there are definitely ways to prevent fraud without someone watching.

    That said, I don’t object to the intrusion of a drug test at all. An employer wants to make it a condition of employment then you have two choices, take the job and comply, or don’t. If my employer, as part of my initial hiring, informed me of this policy then it is my choice to take the position.

  • If it is the employer’s choice, I agree with you. When it is mandated by Federal law as in this case I have a problem with it. The Department of Transportation mandates that people in the transportation industry be tested. The DOT even requires that the people who flag traffic at road construction and utility worksites be tested. I have held several jobs that required security clearances and manditory testing was required as a condition of employment.

  • […] say”. [Joe Mullin, IP Law and Business, via Alison Frankel, AmLaw Daily] Related here and here (sixth […]