Not sure exactly how this one escaped our notice last year: a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled (or, really, observed) that whatever other advantages blonds may enjoy, they are not a protected class under Title VII federal employment discrimination law. Brigitte Shramban had sued Aetna claiming that her boss had made various tasteless and disparaging remarks which belittled her on account of her sex, race, national origin, religion and blondness. Aside from noting that the last-named flower could not properly be included in the Title VII bouquet, the judge dismissed the case as a whole because the improper remarks were not sufficiently severe, pervasive, or bothersome to a reasonable listener. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Offensive Behavior Not Necessarily Harassment”, The Legal Intelligencer, May 23, 2003). It seems doubtful that a case could be made out that discrimination against those with fair tresses operates as a “proxy” for bias against those of certain ethnic origins; thanks to modern technology, blonds (as the Census says of Hispanics) “may be of any race”.
Author Archive
Update: Abercrombie & Fitch settles
“Abercrombie & Fitch has agreed to settle a trio of employment discrimination suits for nearly $50 million,” according to an SEC filing. (Justin Scheck, “Abercrombie Agrees to Settle Discrimination Suits for Nearly $50 Million”, The Recorder, Nov. 10; Jenny Strasburg, “Abercrombie to pay $50 million in bias suits”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 10). Early allegations against the teen fashion retailer drew attention in part because complainants claimed to have lost job opportunities because they weren’t “pretty enough” or “All-American enough” (see Dec. 17, 2003). George, of the eponymous Employment Blawg, has his doubts (Nov. 10) about some of the claims’ merits. Plus: more posts at the same site, Nov. 10, Nov. 16, Nov. 17. Update Apr. 24: judge approves settlement.
“Friends” harassment suit, cont’d
Emotional distress from lawyer’s handling of divorce
Take a number dept.: on Sept. 23 we reported on an unusual case in which a court had ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. Now San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has allowed a suit to go forward in which client Vincenzo Rinaldi wants money to compensate him for the emotional distress he says he suffered as a consequence of lawyer Joseph Pisano’s alleged less-than-ideal handling of his divorce. An attorney for Pisano maintains his client “did nothing wrong in handling the divorce” and that, contrary to the suit’s allegations, there was never any doubt as to the validity of Rinaldi’s remarriage. Most courts have disallowed emotional-distress damages in cases alleging legal malpractice, perhaps in part from fear (as with the parallel case of IRS-inflicted emotional distress) of opening floodgates too vast to contemplate. (Pam Smith, “Malpractice Suit Says Divorce Doubt Led to Distress”, The Recorder, Oct. 22). Update Dec. 26: appellate court unwelcoming to emotional-distress claim.
Innocents behind bars
San Francisco magazine takes a long look at persons eventually exonerated and freed from prison after serving long stretches (“Innocence Lost”, Nov. (PDF)). Among them is the case of “John Stoll this past spring. After 20 years in jail for an infamous crime he did not commit, a judge said it had all been a mistake, and he was set free. ‘You win some, you lose some,’ the prosecutor shrugged, refusing to offer any admission of error or hint of an apology for all that her office had put Stoll through.” For the recent North Carolina case of Sylvester Smith, freed after 20 years in prison, see “Molestation charges dropped after victims recant allegations from ’84”, AP/Winston-Salem Journal, Nov. 6. (& letter to the editor, Dec. 20).
A Christmas tree for Natchez
“The longtime tradition of erecting a live Christmas tree downtown ended last year, when officials decided they couldn’t afford the liability of a live tree in the middle of an intersection.” However, a “group of Natchez business leaders is working to collect money to pay for an artificial tree on the site — just in time for Christmas this year. ‘If you grew up in Natchez, if you’ve lived any years in Natchez, the downtown tree is something magical that big cities don’t have,’ said Agnes Holloway, a Natchez Downtown Development board member who is working with the Christmas tree committee.” (Kerry Whipple, “Funds still needed to help Natchez Christmas tree”, Natchez Democrat, Nov. 8)(via Common Good “Society Watch”).
“Get your million dollars from Vioxx lawsuit”
That’s the banner headline of a website promoting litigation over the now-withdrawn arthritis drug. (William F. Hammond, Jr., “Merck Faces Flood of Vioxx Lawsuits After Drug Recall”, New York Sun, Oct. 27)($)(reprinted here, PDF)(I’m cited in article too). Here are some more highlights from the website in question:
…Experts estimate the class action lawsuit will award $5 billion, 50% of which will go to the top 1000 sufferers, or $2.5 million per person. Get your share. It is the easiest way to become a millionaire. (In 1997, the recall of a couple of diet therapies by Wyeth resulted in $16 billion so far paid out in claims) If you have heard of Million Dollar Awards from Tobacco Lawsuits, Vioxx cases are easier to win….
Lacking in symptoms? Don’t despair:
The chance of winning is much greater, if you had any heart attack in your medical record. Small heart attacks are untraceable. Many have this record without ever detected by doctors.
Lacking in any evidence that you ever took the drug? Hope is on the way:
We will show you how to prove you had taken Vioxx, to prove that you had related side effects, and to find a good lawyer to win your case. There are still places selling Vioxx after the recall, you can find them online. Merck is still 100% fully responsible for any side effect. If you purchase Vioxx now, not only you can sue Merck, you can also sue the pharmacy store for selling recalled products. The purchase is risk free, as Merck will pay you every penny you spend on Vioxx including tax and shipping fees.
The website’s sponsorship is not immediately apparent; though it is chock-full of Google ads for law firms, we saw no indication that it was itself posted by a member of the legal profession, though we may have overlooked something. A second page proposes that readers pay $100 to purchase a document if you “want to know something that no Vioxx Class Action Lawsuit Lawyers will ever tell you, want to get a bigger share of the award”. Remember, “Vioxx Lawsuit is the easiest way to make you a millionaire.” More: Nov. 18, Dec. 22.
“Lawyer sues ‘Law & Order’ over fictional attorney”
Well-known Brooklyn attorney Ravi Batra “sued the producers of the television show “Law & Order” for $15 million Friday, claiming they defamed him by portraying him as a crooked attorney in one “ripped from the headlines” episode.” (Samuel Maull, “Lawyer sues ‘Law & Order’ over fictional attorney”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 13). For some of the reasons why attorney Batra might be considered good copy, see “The judges’ friend and the $225,000 swivel chair”, Nov. 11, 2003. (& see Batra’s response: letter to the editor, Dec. 20, directing readers to this page (PDF)).
“Wedgwood: The First Tycoon”
I’m in the New York Times Book Review today with a look at a newly published biography of the great British potter Josiah Wedgwood (1730-95); there’s no legal angle, just a slice of business and social history. My first sentence even mentions Virginia Postrel (whose website is here). (Walter Olson, “Out of the Blue”, Nov. 14).
Update: more guilty pleas in fen-phen fraud
“Five of 12 Fayette residents charged in a joint FBI and IRS criminal investigation have pleaded guilty, and one more is expected to plead guilty this week, U.S. Assistant Attorney John Dowdy said. … Each resident received a $250,000 settlement from the drug maker. Court documents show some of the defendants purchased automobiles, including a new Jaguar, and one bought a mobile home.” One of the defendants — not the one who bought the Jag — is described by her lawyer as just your ordinary Sunday School teacher. (Jimmie E. Gates, “Fraud pleas may mean jail, forfeiture”, Jackson Clarion Ledger, Nov. 7). See Oct. 20 and links from there.