Archive for December, 2011

Employment law roundup

  • Age discrimination law (including my views) discussed [Reihan Salam, NRO] “3d Cir.: Employees Fired for Pornographic Emails Lose Age-Discrimination Case” [Molly DiBianca]
  • Will Obama administration lawsuit derail employer use of career-readiness certificates? [Charlotte Allen, Minding the Campus]
  • A warning for Gov. Cuomo: “The case against pension-financed infrastructure” [Edward Zelinsky, OUP]
  • EEOC is on the warpath and employers had better hope they escape unscathed [Hans Bader, CEI]
  • Since we know unemployment extensions have no incentive effects, this story from the Midwest is purely imaginary [Marietta, Ohio Times, related]
  • Court rejects “announcement of same sex marriage harassed me” hostile environment claim [Volokh] “Jobs with a higher risk of sexual harassment pay workers more” [WaPo] Half of all students harassed? Surprising it’s only half [Katie Roiphe, NYT]
  • Funny-sad “666” workplace suit: “The safety sticker of the beast” [Volokh]
  • “Do you know what an employment lawsuit costs?” [Jon Hyman]

Hands off that handsfree phone!

As Washington launches a new crusade against “cognitive distraction” behind the wheel, it no longer seems to matter whether your eyes and hands are in correct driving position. I explain in a new Cato post.

More: Glenn Reynolds (NTSB “distracted” by its own pre-existing agenda and oversimplifying causes of Missouri accident) and more, Chapman, Marc Scribner/CEI (even bans on texting don’t seem to have worked as intended), Amy Alkon, (two years back) Radley Balko, and Ira Stoll (per IIHS, quoted on NPR, “states with cellphone bans have seen no real decrease in accident rates”). And: drivers’ use of portable GPS and MP3 devices to be included in contemplated ban? [NMA]

The case against SOPA/”Protect IP”


My Cato colleague Julian Sanchez argues that a bill rapidly moving through Congress would give far too much power to authorities to close down websites without due process, yet would be readily circumvented by actual IP pirates. More: Sanchez/Cato, BoingBoing, Declan McCullagh (software execs blast proposal), Derek Bambauer/Prawfs (“Six Things Wrong With SOPA”), Stewart Baker/Volokh.

EEOC sues construction company for not hiring applicant with epilepsy to run heavy equipment

The EEOC’s press release is not entirely clear about the events giving rise to the dispute, but it appears that Georgia Power through its subcontractor requires that heavy equipment operators on a certain project be qualified to pass the federal Department of Transportation’s physical exam for truckers; that applicant Bryan Mimmovich cannot pass that exam because of his controlled epilepsy; and that the EEOC is now arguing that it is discriminatory for the employer to adopt the DOT physical requirements for the equipment operation job.

December 13 roundup

  • “The real cost of patent trolls” [Brad Feld, PoL on BU study] Survey finds patent litigation booming [Corporate Counsel, Reynolds Holding/Reuters] Company claiming patent on wi-fi-in-stores unlikely to sue retail customers “at this stage” [Patent Examiner] Retrospective on crustless-sandwich case [Peter Smith/Good, earlier]
  • Louisiana federal court holds severe obesity to be disability under ADA [Sam Bagenstos, related]
  • Florida: many cops remain on job despite evidence linking them to crimes [Balko on Sarasota Herald-Tribune investigation]
  • “FDA Regulation Could Doom Cigar Shops” [Jacob Sullum]
  • Ted Frank vs. Brian Fitzpatrick on class action fees [PoL, David Lat on Federalist Society panel]
  • Orange County keeps mum about partnerships it’s entered with plaintiff’s attorneys Robinson, Calcagnie and Thomas Girardi [Kim Stone, Fox & Hounds] Maybe like “private attorney generals”? Fannie/Freddie genre of government-sponsored enterprises called “monstrous moral hybrids” [Mark Calabria, Cato]

ABA “Blawg 100” — take a moment to vote for Overlawyered

I’m pleased to announce that Overlawyered has been named by the American Bar Association as one of its “Blawg 100” noteworthy legal blogs. It’s not our first appearance on the list, but it’s always gratifying when it happens.

And here’s the good part: you can vote for us. In particular, you can go to this page:

http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100

You’ll need to register (which only takes a few moments) and then vote for your favorite in each of a list of categories. (They put Overlawyered in the “Torts” category.)
ABABlawg100FiveVoteFor
The nominations include many of our favorite and most-linked blogs, including Lowering the Bar, Prof. Bainbridge, Volokh, Jon Hyman, Daniel Schwartz, Abnormal Use, Eric Turkewitz, and Russell Jackson, to name a few. A number of these are also in the “Torts” category which means you’ll need to resist the urge to vote for them and select Overlawyered instead. Please take a moment to vote now. Thanks in advance for your support!

Chick-Fil-A vs. “Eat More Kale,” cont’d

Paul Alan Levy finds it hard to sympathize with either side of the much-noted trademark dispute, and notes that before the restaurant chain sicced its lawyers on him, Vermont t-shirt silk-screener Bo Muller-Moore had himself sought to trademark the “Kale” version of the slogan: “why should Muller-Moore be able to prevent other members of the public from making T-shirts with the same slogan?” [CL&P, earlier]