“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.
Posts Tagged ‘workplace’
New at Point of Law
If you’re not reading our sister site PointOfLaw.com, you’re missing out on a lot. I’ve been doing about half my blog writing over there, on topics that include: a powerful new St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation of asbestos litigation in Madison County, Ill. (here, here and here, with more to come, and note this too); the busy borrowings of Harvard’s Larry Tribe; when “not-for-profits” organize employment suits; Erin Brockovich’s respectability; crime without intent; experts and the CBS scandal; stay open through a hurricane, go to jail; suits over failure to put warnings on sand (yes, sand); West Virginia legal reform; Merrill Lynch/Enron trial; Hayek and the common law, reconsidered; getting creative about tapping homeowners’ policies; AdBusters sues to have its ads run; plaintiff’s lawyers represent criminal defendants to put drugmakers behind the eight ball; update on the law firm that competes on price; Spitzer and investors; Ohio med-mal crisis (and more); a welcome Schwarzenegger veto; dangers of firing your lawyer; ephedra retailer litigation; churchruptcies (if banks can do it…); and hardball in nonprofit hospital litigation.
Plus Ted Frank on tort reform in Mississippi and Jim Copland on California’s Proposition 64 (which would reform the notorious s. 17200 statute); the federal tobacco trial and Boeken; gender bias at work; and Rule 11 revival.
Better bookmark PointOfLaw.com now, before you forget.
Oz: “Policeman gets $500,000 after tripping”
Senior constable Terence William Hall, 43, tripped on an unlit footpath on a rainy night at Narrabri Police Station in New South Wales. He got a hematoma from the bump “and was later told he was suffering from deep vein thrombosis”, and now he has A$500,000 to show for it. (AAP/Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 7).
To protect, and serve, and sue
The traditional “firefighter’s rule” holds “that firefighters, police and rescue personnel accept an inherent risk of injury or even death in their jobs and generally cannot sue those they’re hired to protect. Their recourse is worker’s compensation claims, according to the rule. But lobbying by powerful unions and court decisions have led some states to limit the rule’s scope or rescind it altogether.” I’m quoted in the article criticizing recent moves away from the rule. “New Jersey is one of 11 states that allow police officers, firefighters and rescue personnel to file civil lawsuits when they’re injured through the negligence of individuals or entities.” (Tim Zatzariny Jr., “Police officers sue over injuries on job”, Camden (N.J.) Courier-Post, Aug. 30). For more, see Sept. 30, 2003; Apr. 1 and Jul. 16, 2004.
Germany: pub owner wrong to sack 100-beer-a-day worker
“A German waiter who was sacked for drinking up to 100 bottles of beer every day has won a case for unfair dismissal. The 50-year-old, who had worked at the Unter Taschenmacher pub in Cologne for eight years, admitted that his managers had repeatedly warned him not to drink at work.” The unnamed man conceded drinking the beer but said he had been traumatized by losing his “dream” job. The tribunal agreed and awarded him three months’ salary plus ?3,000. (“German pub owner left crying into his beer by tribunal ruling”, Personnel Today (UK), Aug. 24).
Birthday spanking remedies limited
“It had been a long-standing tradition at Loram Maintenance of Way Inc. for employees to be wrestled to the ground and spanked on their birthday. But a 2001 spanking with a two-by-four sent Jeremy Meintsma to the emergency room with cuts, abrasions and muscle spasms.” On Jul. 29 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Meintsma’s legal remedies were confined to the combination of workers’ compensation and personal suits directed against his co-workers; his employer had no intent to injure him even if it was aware of the horseplay. (National Law Journal “Court Decisions”, Aug. 9, not online; opinion in PDF form courtesy Cousineau McGuire Anderson).
New at Point of Law
Over at our sister website Point of Law there are new posts galore, including Jim Copland on “light” tobacco suits and Ted Frank on second-guessing of the FDA by liability actions; links to MedPundit on asbestos, Robert Samuelson on the AGs’ global warming lawsuit, David Bernstein on the “Friends” harassment suit, and a not notably favorable review of the new documentary “The Corporation”; and employment law topics ranging from Wal-Mart litigation to Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowing to the Griggs disparate-impact standard. And, of course, the centerpiece is the featured discussion now underway between Profs. Lester Brickman and Richard Painter on contingency fee reform.
U.K.: terrors of the magazine intern
Want to spend a bit of your summer holiday helping out around the office of a venerable British periodical? Before you can start filing or photocopying, you’d better prepare for a government-mandated mini-seminar in workplace hazards. “The fact remains that the only job her week at The Spectator prepared Lucy for was that of a health and safety officer, or a serial bringer of law suits against employers with loose telephones and no barrier creams.” (Mary Wakefield, “Work experience is all about health and safety”, Daily Telegraph, Jul. 26).
Calif. scales back sue-your-boss law
Ending a standoff, Democrats and Gov. Schwarzenegger have agreed to scale back but not eliminate the already-notorious SB 796 or Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, signed by recalled Gov. Gray Davis as a favor to trial lawyers during his waning days, which allows all and sundry to sue over labor code violations whether or not any worker was injured by the violation or complained. The compromise will eliminate most suits over non-posting of signs and will give employers a grace period to respond to allegations of a violation before exposing them to suit. (Dale Kasler, “Labor law was budget blocker”, Sacramento Bee, Jul. 29; Calif. Labor & Employment Law Blog, Jul. 29; Jul. 30). For our previous coverage, see Oct. 20, 2003.
Update: DoJ off overtime hook
Updating our report of Aug. 30, 1999: “A federal appeals court [last month] threw out a class action seeking overtime pay for more than 9,000 government attorneys because the lawyers didn’t get the proper written approval before putting in extra hours. … The largely anonymous class sought $500 million in overtime pay for work performed between 1992 and 1999, when Congress passed a law barring overtime pay.” We have observed before that the antediluvian overtime-pay mandates of federal labor law are easy to break inadvertently, and this would seem to be an illustration: neither the government agency charged with making everyone else obey the laws, nor its highly skilled lawyer-employees, seemed to have their eyes on the ball with regard to overtime obligations until the possibility of a retroactive claim came up. (Jeff Chorney, “Federal Circuit Says No Back Pay for DOJ Lawyers”, The Recorder, Jun. 24).