Peter Swanson (Aug. 1) has some further updates on the longstanding controversy over mandatory “anti-bias” training for lawyers practicing in Minnesota, reported on previously in these columns Dec. 18, 2001 and Nov. 21, 2003.
Posts Tagged ‘harassment law’
“Singles Shopping” Nixed
A Roanoke Wal-Mart cashier heard of, and convinced her manager to copy, German Wal-Marts’ practice of passing out “red bows” to singles on otherwise-slow Friday nights. Singles would put the bow on their carts to indicate their motive, and meet at specially designated “flirt points” in the store; the events attract hundreds of customers. Roanoke’s “Singles Shopping” program was also a huge success, attracting shoppers who would drive from hours away to attend—until corporate headquarters abruptly demanded the weekly event be cancelled. Alas, the chain doesn’t explain itself, and the AP doesn’t try to speculate, but I’d wager pretty good money that it was the fear of lawsuits like this one or this one that squelched the practice. The AP’s condensed version of the original Roanoke Times story is kinder to Dale Firebaugh, because it omits the fact that he was so heart-broken over the cancellation that he purchased a 26-cent red bow and stood by the door hoping someone would recognize the symbol. Is he another victim of the liability crisis, or is there a different economic reason we’re missing? Perhaps love-smitten shoppers purchase less, though one would think the increased traffic makes up for it given the success of the program elsewhere. Comments open for the limited purpose of inviting readers to use their imagination for what might have motivated this decision other than liability fears. (AP/MSNBC, Jul. 23; Marques G. Harper, “Apparently, the cost of love can’t be discounted”, Roanoke Times, Jul. 22; Courtney Cutright, “Find milk, soap – a mate? at the Roanoke Wal-Mart”, Roanoke Times, Jul. 15; Rex Bowman, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jul. 23 & Jul. 25; Pete Dybdahl, “Wal-Mart: ‘It was time to move on'”, Roanoke Times, Jul. 28; Parija Bhatnagar, “Lookin’ for a cheap date? Try Wal-Mart”, CNN/Money, Apr. 7; “Wal Mart to Hold Singles Shopping Night”, Chosun (English version), Jul. 7) (hat-tip to PG, whose link to the AP story gave me the idea).
Aguilar v. Avis and Janice Rogers Brown
Following up on Monday’s post about the controversy over nominee Janice Brown’s dissent from Aguilar, a California Supreme Court decision which extended the reach of harassment law at the expense of free speech: James Taranto notes (May 31) that at the time the court handed down its decision in Aguilar, the San Francisco Chronicle described it as a “blockbuster” that “stunned constitutional experts”. He wonders: “How can dissent from a decision that ‘stunned constitutional experts’ turn in a few years into a view that’s totally ‘out of the mainstream’ [the New York Times’ words]?” And Eugene Volokh (Jun. 1, crediting Hans Bader) points out that while the AFL-CIO now blasts Brown for her “troubling and extreme” refusal to go along with the Aguilar majority, “the National Writers Union — a member union of the AFL-CIO — proudly filed an amicus brief urging the same result that Justice Brown endorsed.”
Aguilar v. Avis, cont’d
Some years back, Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court wrote a dissent in the widely noted harassment-law case of Aguilar v. Avis, in which the court ordered the drawing up of a list of forbidden words that employees of a rental car franchise were to be prohibited from using to each other on the job even in private conversation (see Sept. 11, 2000). The other day a New York Times editorial (“Disarmament in the Senate”, May 25) assailed Rogers for her supposedly extreme position in dissenting from Aguilar (which was decided 4-3), and James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” quite appropriately rises to her defense (May 27). As Taranto notes (but the Times somehow fails to), Justice Stanley Mosk, regarded as the California high court’s most liberal member, joined Brown in dissenting from Aguilar as a prior restraint on speech rights. For more, see Tim Sandefur, Sept. 23, 2004.
“Spanish bosses must reveal ‘sleeping partners'”
This time it’s securities regulation, rather than sexual harassment law, that’s at odds with privacy: “In an attempt to crack down on insider trading, the directors of companies quoted on Spain’s stock exchange will have to come clean, on a twice-yearly basis, about anyone with whom they are having an ‘affectionate relationship’. … Company directors must also provide information about their wives or husbands and family, but it is the idea of a ‘lovers’ register’ — in which bosses could have to admit to having affairs or out themselves as gay — which has sparked reactions ranging from disbelief to fury among businessmen.” (Tony Jefferies, The Scotsman, May 12; Giles Tremlett, “Bosses told: list assets — including lovers”, The Guardian (UK), May 11; Amaya Iribar, “When love is a conflict of interest”, El Pais/INA Daily, May 16).
Claim: beer label a hate crime
The Lost Coast Brewery in Humboldt, Calif. says it will take off the shelves its Indica India Pale Ale, whose label currently depicts the Indian elephant-god Ganesh “holding a beer in one of his four hands, and another in his trunk”. Although brewery co-owner Barbara Groom said her Hindu friends don’t mind the label, a California man named Brij Dhir sued the brewery, along with other defendants such as the Safeway supermarket chain, claiming that it is offensive and intimidates Hindus from practicing their religion. “Dhir seeks at least $25,000 and his lawsuit mentions that $1 billion would be appropriate to compensate Hindus around the world.” “It’s a hate crime”, Dhir told the Contra Costa Times. (“Brewery pulls label showing Hindu god”, RealBeer.com, May 9). (& welcome visitors from Blog Mela, the periodic tour of India-related blogs, hosted this time by Shanti Mangala, and from Sepia Mutiny). And: reader Rich B. from Baltimore is reminded of the recent post (Mar. 17) on the theme of how we’re lucky we don’t have blasphemy laws the way Europe does, and asks: why make a law when you can just sue about it?
2004’s most bizarre employment suits
Attorney Gerald Skoning of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago does one of these roundups every year (see Apr. 1, 2003 and Apr. 13-15, 2001). Among his winners in this year’s compilation: the case in which the Seventh Circuit ruled punitive damages excessive following a supervisor’s history of remarks like “You’re being a blonde again today”; the Nova Scotia case in which a court of appeal found that a worker of Mi’kmaq tribal origins was not discriminated against by her boss’s having called her Kemosabe, “the oft-used word from the 1950s show The Lone Ranger”; and a case in which a manufacturing worker who’d engaged in flirtatious banter was reinstated after his dismissal, the arbitrator noting that so far as atmosphere goes “the shop floor is entirely unlike high tea at the Savoy”. (“The 10 Most Bizarre Employment Cases of 2004”, National Law Journal, Apr. 20).
EEOC v. Burger King operator
The agency insisted there was a “pattern and practice” of sexual harassment at a company that owned 350 Burger King restaurants in 13 states, but the judge was not impressed with the agency’s statistics, and neither is George of the eponymous Employment Blawg (Apr. 27)(via Blawg Review #4).
Dorothy Rabinowitz
…is raising questions about another sex abuse conviction, this time of a Catholic priest in New Hampshire named Gordon MacRae. (“A Priest’s Story”, Wall Street Journal/ OpinionJournal.com, Apr. 30). One detail worth recording: a would-be “sting” phone call to the priest, which it was hoped would get him on record making incriminating statements, was made not from police headquarters but from the office of the personal injury lawyer representing an accuser. The New Hampshire press, reporting on Rabinowitz’s articles, relays the views of many involved in the legal proceedings against MacRae who consider the accusations against him well-founded (Daniel Barrick, “Writer takes up convicted priest’s case”, Concord Monitor, Apr. 29; “A radical claim” (editorial), Apr. 29; Denis Paiste, “Judge stands by priest’s sex abuse sentence”, Manchester Union Leader, Apr. 29). Amy Welborn has a thread. More: Mar. 22, 2004, and links from there; earlier posts.
Plaintiff suing Harvard cites Summers remarks
Reason #45,219 for college presidents to zip their lips on a wide variety of controversial topics: their comments may be thrown back at the university in court. “In court documents filed recently in support of her lawsuit, Goodwin [Desiree Goodwin, the “too pretty” librarian whose widely publicized bias suit against the university is now at trial] cites controversial remarks made by Harvard President Lawrence Summers in January, when he suggested at an academic conference that intrinsic differences in ability are a key reason why fewer women are in the applicant pool for jobs at the highest levels of science.” (“‘Sexy’ library worker pursues discrimination case against Harvard”, AP/Boston Herald, Mar. 21; see Red State Law Blog, Mar. 22). For more on the lawsuit, see Nina L. Vizcarrondo, “Testimony Begins in Worker’s Lawsuit”, Harvard Crimson, Mar. 23; more news links.