Sued-if-you-do, sued-if-you-don’t dept.: “United Parcel Service tentatively settled a 10-year-old lawsuit Tuesday by agreeing to allow some deaf and hard-of-hearing employees to compete for jobs driving small delivery vans after special testing and training. …UPS argued that deaf drivers were more likely to get into accidents because they couldn’t hear sirens, screeching tires or other danger signals.” [Egelko/SF Chronicle] We covered the litigation in 2006.
Author Archive
June 23 roundup
- In case you were waiting for it: update on “toxic-bra” litigation [OnPoint News, Kashmir Hill, Above the Law (noting that rashes can have many different causes); earlier]
- Parts 5 & 6 of White Coat’s malpractice-suit saga [opposition’s expert witness; emotional support]
- “Global Insurance Fraud by North Korea Outlined” [Washington Post]
- British cops aren’t saying which famous buildings you can be stopped/searched for photographing [BoingBoing]
- FBI said to probe whether construction-defect lawyers have improper ties to Nevada homeowner associations that give them business [Carter Wood at Point of Law]
- With junk science in even criminal prosecutions, is there hope of keeping it out of civil cases? [Coyote]
- “Remember when you could fight with a sibling and not face arrest?” [Obscure Store, 10-year-old Texas girl]
- Australian man obtains patent on “circular transportation facilitation device”, otherwise known as “the wheel”, to make point about ease of obtaining weak patents [eight years ago on Overlawyered]
Update: FTC moves ahead with blog regulation
The Federal Trade Commission seems particularly interested in checking up after blogs that participate in affiliate programs like Amazon’s while making favorable mention of books and other products sold there. [Morrissey, “Hot Air”; Elizabeth Jacobson, CEI “Open Market”] “Do we seriously expect people to hire lawyers before launching a mommy blog? Apparently so.” [James Joyner via Instapundit; Ron Coleman] Earlier here and here.
More: Patrick at Popehat is feeling commercial.
High court on Voting Rights Act
The New York Times’s “Room for Debate” includes views by Richard Pildes, Jamal Greene and Hans von Spakovsky. Abigail Thernstrom and Edward Blum wrote on the case earlier.
House panel clears sweeping food-safety overhaul
Per CQ Politics, “A House committee approved a sweeping food safety overhaul bill Wednesday after tweaking it to address most remaining GOP concerns, including the bill’s effect on small food producers. …Republicans had expressed concerns about the effect of [a provision increasing frequency of inspections] on small producers, but were assuaged by language adopted as part of a manager’s amendment that would allow the FDA to modify that inspection schedule for some producers at its discretion.” An annual fee per establishment has also been cut from $1000 to $500. More: WSJ. Earlier here, etc.
California: medical marijuana must carry Prop 65 warnings
“Joints and baggies sold at California’s medical marijuana dispensaries will soon carry a new warning label” now that a state panel has added reefers to the long list of officially recognized carcinogens that must be warned about under Prop 65. [San Jose Mercury News via CalBizLit]
Canadian guards: securing border is too stressful
Most of the 37 guards who work at the Cornwall Island, Ontario border crossing have notes from doctors saying that tensions arising from relations with the local Mohawk Indian tribe make it too stressful to work there and could result in harmful health effects. [CanWest/Vancouver Sun]
Oakland: “City Council Members Settle Legal Dispute Over Right to Parking Space”
The issue generated a five-page legal memo from the City Attorney before being resolved in March. [Matier & Ross, SF Chronicle via Lowering the Bar, California Beat CBS5 with link to City Attorney opinion]
Complete federal tax code and regs in 8 volumes
What am I bid? $1.00? Not even that? (via Caron).
USAir Hudson-landing emotional distress, cont’d
Press coverage has been rather hostile toward AIG, which insures USAir, for its reluctance to cut large checks for therapy and the like to passengers aboard the miracle flight. (One major reason for it to balk may be the lack of any showing that the airline was negligent; also, passengers got $5,000 checks right after the rescue.)
Given the insurer’s status as public relations pariah, it’s interesting to note that at least one voice has been raised in its defense from a perhaps unexpected quarter: Ron Miller of Maryland Injury Lawyer. His “plea to every lawyer in the United States: please don’t file a lawsuit in these cases to get your name in the paper.” Earlier here and here.