Author Archive for Jen Petersen – Page 12

Black Nurse’s Lawsuit against Mary Free Bed Dismissed

On August 6, 2015, a judge dismissed a black nurse’s discrimination lawsuit against the Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital. The black nurse filed the lawsuit because she was prohibited from caring for a white patient. The nurse also made the allegation that she was passed over for a promotion due to her race. Foster was the second nurse to sue Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital in response to a racial discrimination claim. Foster worked at the hospital for a total 12 years, ranging from 2001 to 2013. In May 2013, she left the position for a nursing job in Phoenix.

discrimination-claimAccording to Foster, on December 3rd, 2010, a nursing supervisor prohibited her from going into a room because they “[didn’t] want any black people in there.” The patient, who had suffered a traumatic head injury, had been hospitalized for about a week. Foster called a supervisor to complain because she had not been allowed to treat the patient, even though she had worked for about four nights while the patient was hospitalized. In response to the demands of the nursing supervisor, Foster did not enter the patient’s room.

According to MLive, Foster reported that the experience led her to feel both devalued and humiliated. Due to her education and hard work, Foster believed she should be permitted to care for any patient the hospital receives, regardless of requests by a patient’s family.

According to the U.S. District Judge Janet Neff, the lawsuit against the hospital was dismissed because she could not prove that she suffered adverse employment action to support her claim of racial discrimination. In an opinion publicized on Thursday, August 6th, Foster suffered no materially adverse change in any aspect of her employment that is significant. Also, according to the hospital’s records, black workers had cared for the patient during his one-week stay at the hospital. The judge also agreed with the hospital when it came to Foster’s claim of adverse employment action. The white woman who was hired over Foster showed more leadership and experience, according to the hospital.

 

Justice Department Issues Statement on Homeless Civil Rights Lawsuit

illegal-public-sleepOn Aug. 6, 2015, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division issued a statement on the civil rights lawsuit filed in 2009 by several homeless people in Boise. The department is asking a federal judge to block a city law on sleeping in public from being enforced. The law makes it illegal to sleep in a public area instead of a homeless shelter, as long as the shelter has space available.

The department criticized the law for unfairly punishing the homeless for not having a place to stay. Those in favor of the law argue that there is usually enough room in the shelters to accommodate Boise’s homeless population, making it unnecessary for them to sleep in public places. They also point out that the City Council voted in 2014 to amend the law so that homeless people will not be ticketed for sleeping in public when the shelters are full. For those who support enforcing the law, public safety is cited as the main issue.

Those who oppose the law argue that the city’s homeless population is larger than the amount of space available overall in Boise’s homeless shelters. Attorney Howard Belodoff, who represents the plaintiffs involved in the 2009 civil rights lawsuit, also stated that many of Boise’s homeless people have disabilities that prevent them from being able to stay in shelters.

Seven homeless people filed the lawsuit in question, Bell v. City of Boise, after being convicted for breaking the law by sleeping in public. At the time, the law allowed police to ticket homeless people regardless of whether or not there was enough space in homeless shelters. The 2014 amendment to the law prohibits police from ticketing the homeless if there is no space available in shelters.

The Department of Justice’s statement claims that the Boise law is in violation of the Eighth Amendment since it criminalizes an activity that is necessary and unavoidable. The department argues that the homeless should not be punished by the law for sleeping, regardless of where that activity occurs. A U.S. District Court judge is expected to issue an official ruling on the lawsuit in late 2015 or early 2016.

 

Dairy Lawsuit Settled with $50 Million Payout

Farmer-paymerntAccording to the Burlington Free Press, on August 5th, Dairy Farmers of America agreed to pay a sum of $50 million to about 9,000 Northeastern dairy farmers. The farmers filed a lawsuit against Dairy Marketing Services, accusing the marketing cooperative of working with Dean Foods to drive down the price of milk and monopolize the raw milk market. Each farmer would receive a payment of about $4,000. Some Northeastern dairy farmers are opposed to the deal. A judge, who had rejected a previous settlement proposed in March, still needs to approve the settlement.

In 2011, Dean Foods, a Dallas-based dairy processor, agreed to a $30 million lawsuit settlement payment. The money was paid to farmers in numerous states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

The previous settlement was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss on the grounds that some farmers opposed the deal. Based on the reasoning for the rejection of the previous deal, it is deemed likely by many that this settlement will be rejected as well.

The farmers opposing the deal argue that the $4,000 per farmer was insufficient financial compensation for the damages suffered. They also deemed the money not worth the possible retaliation they may face from both Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America. The farmers argued that the proposal’s injunctive relief left room to allow the two companies to continue trying to create a raw milk monopoly. For the farmers to agree to the deal, there would need to be a significant change in the way the defendants do business.

DFA-denies-wrongdoingIn the first lawsuit settlement proposal, the farmers’ attorneys requested $16.6 million plus expenses. The settlement payment amount remained $16.6 million plus expenses after negotiation. However, both sides agreed to address some of the concerns of the farmers by amending the settlement.

Kit Pierson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, stated that he believed the new settlement was in the best interest of the farmers. However, many farmers, including dairy farmer Jonathan Haar, continue to oppose the deal on the grounds that the primary beneficiaries were counsel.

When requested to comment, Dairy Farmers of America did not respond immediately. In a later statement, DFA denied any wrongdoing under the previous settlement’s terms. They argued that the cost to defend against the lawsuit had become too great, which is why they agreed to the second settlement.

 

Student’s Rape Lawsuit Settled by University of Oregon

In March 2014, a female student attending the University of Oregon accused three players on the university’s basketball team of rape. Due to the university’s transfer policies, the female student filed a lawsuit against the University of Oregon. On August 6th, 2015, the University of Oregon settled the lawsuit.

During a police investigation following the accusations of rape at an off-campus party, Dominic Artis, Brandon Austin, and Damyean Dotson were suspended. Two months later, the students were removed from the basketball team and suspended from the University of Oregon. However, according to the female student’s attorney, the three students were not criminally charged due to a lack of evidence. Coach Dana Altman was named as a co-defendant on the suit, but his name was later removed from the lawsuit.

The suit against the University of Oregon stated that Coach Altman and other staff recruited Brandon Austin, despite their knowledge that he had been suspended from Rhode Island’s Providence College due to accusations of sexual misconduct.

According to The Register Guard, a spokeswoman for the attorney of the plaintiff stated that the female student settled for lawsuit settlement payment of $800,000, paid tuition for all four years at the university, and a pledge from the University of Oregon to change the way in which the school evaluates transfer students. Attorneys representing “Jane Doe,” the female student, declined to comment further on the settled lawsuit.

When asked to make a statement on the settlement reached on August 6th, University of Oregon President Michael Schill noted that the rape allegations led to the prevalence of mistrust on the campus as well as a division of community. He expressed his hopes that the approval of the settlement would ease the tensions on campus, help students feel more secure against the possibility of experiencing sexual violence, and begin the healing process for all those involved in the case. Schill’s hopes appear to be somewhat realized, as the female student commented that she was pleased to have the case behind her so that she can focus on her education.

Officials representing the University of Oregon stated that the settlement in no way indicates that the university admits to wrongdoing. However, the university is currently hiring new staff and creating new policies and programs to prevent on-campus sexual assault and harassment, according to Schill.

 

Counts Dismissed in Michael Brown Wrongful Death Lawsuit

michael-brown-The highly publicized Michael Brown wrongful death lawsuit suffered a setback recently, as four counts were dismissed by a federal judge.  This piece sheds light on the details of this highly controversial dismissal. Four counts in the Michael Brown wrongful death lawsuit were dismissed by a federal judge. The highly publicized wrongful lawsuit was brought against the city of Ferguson, Missouri by the parents of Michael Brown. Brown, a black teenager, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson, last year.

The shooting catalyzed nationwide demonstrations and an emotional dialog regarding the excessive use of force by white police officers against young urban minorities. While the country’s urban centers experienced a number of racially charged police attacks against minorities throughout the past two years, the shooting of Brown is considered to be especially egregious.

The Michael Brown wrongful death lawsuit was filed by Brown’s family against the city of Ferguson, Missouri back in April. The family filed the lawsuit in an attempt to obtain $75,000 in compensation as well as unknown punitive damages. The lawsuit even called for a specific court order that disallows the use of certain police techniques that Brown’s family alleges are meant to”…demean, disregard, or underserve [the city of Ferguson, Missorui’s] African-American population.”

Federal judge, E. Richard Webber, is responsible for dismissing the four counts. He stated that two of the counts can stand for the time being though they may fall at a later point as certain claims cannot be made on behalf of Brown by his parents. Brown was considered to be an adult at the time of his death due to the fact that he was 18 years old michael-brown-3when officer Wilson shot him to death.

It is important to note that two of the four dismissed counts were not in dispute as they pertain to claims relating to state issued civil rights. The two counts relating to former police officer Wilson and Ferguson’s former Police Chief, Thomas Jackson, were dismissed after the judge determined that they were redundant.

Wal-Mart Lawsuit Alleges Discrimination Against Gay Employees

gay discrimination lawsuit has been filed in Boston federal court against Wal-Mart on the grounds that the walmart-lkawsuitcorporate monolith failed to extend health insurance to the spouses of homosexual employees. The Wal-Mart lawsuit is poised to pit the United States’ largest retailer against social justice warriors across the globe. The timing couldn’t be worse for Wal-Mart as same-sex marriage was legalized across the country less than a month ago.

The class-action complaint was filed by Wal-Mart employee Jacqueline Cote. She states the retailer refused to extend health coverage to her wife for a number of years. Cote, 52, believes that this alleged transgression is a clear violation of Massachusetts’ fair-employment law as well as a violation of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act.

Although Wal-Mart did provide benefits to same-sex couples back in January of 2014, it was too late in Cote’s wife’s case. Her spouse, Diana Smithson, had accumulated medical bills of over $150,000 while combating ovarian cancer. Smithson paid all of her medical bills out of pocket as she was not provided with Cote’s healthcare insurance due to Wal-Mart’s previous policy that barred same-sex spouses from receiving coverage.

Cote argues that Wal-Mart should have immediately provided healthcare benefits to her spouse as the federal Defense of Marriage Act had been overturned in 2013 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Act defined marriage as a unison of strictly heterosexual couples. However, it is worth noting that Wal-Mart did alter its healthcare insurance policy within two months of the high court’s ruling. By January of 2014, the retailer offered health coverage to same-sex spouses throughout the United States. Wal-Mart will argue that its benefit coverage prior to the 2014 update was compliant with the law.

Cote believes that she has a strong case as she previously took her argument before the U.S. Equal Employment walmart-lawsuit-2Opportunity Commission. This group issued a determination last January stating that the retailer’s treatment of Cote and her spouse amounted to illegal sex discrimination. Cote’s Wal-Mart lawsuit is important as it is is the first of its kind to be filed in the aftermath of the nationwide legalization of gay marriage. If she obtains a court order that legally requires Wal-Mart to provide benefits, it will set an important precedent that has the potential to impact thousands of other employers and same-sex couples.

 

Uber Resolves New Year’s Eve Death Case

Uber, a taxi service that offers customers access to drivers via mobile phone, settled a lawsuit from a child’s death that occurred because of one of their drivers in San Francisco. One of the company’s driver’s hit a six-year-old girl who was walking through a crosswalk. They formed an agreement with the plaintiff, which was the child’s family.

uber-settlementUber gave the family an undisclosed amount of money for the girl’s death. This results in the company being able to avoid a trial in regards to the responsibility Uber has on its drivers. Papers filed with the Superior Court requested that the settlement be kept classified. They don’t want the family to be subject to financial abuse due to the sum.

On New Year’s Eve 2013, Anthony Liu (five years old) and Sofia (six years old) were crossing with their mother, Huan Hua Kuang. A driver of an SUV from Uber didn’t yield, and the family was just crossing Polk Street near the Civic Center. In addition to the vehicular manslaughter, the mother was also injured. She was hospitalized for several weeks. She even had to undergo eye surgery.

The driver of the SUV was 57-year-old, Union City Resident, Syed Muzzafar. He’s a contractor who no longer has the privilege to drive for Uber. His court date concerning the misdemeanor charge of vehicular manslaughter is set for August 5th, as noted by his attorney John Hamasaki.

At the time of the accident, he was logged onto the company’s app, which goes by the name of the UberX app. He was waiting to receive a ride request at the time. When the incident occurred, he wasn’t providing services since he didn’t uber-3have any passengers in his vehicle at the time. The family’s attorneys disputed Uber not being responsible. They stated that Muzzafar’s conduct may have branched from dealing with the company’s phone-based interface. The company didn’t have insurance that covered the driver and the damage done.

The mother of Sofia stated that the death of her daughter forever changed their family and that they just want to move forward privately from this point on. Uber’s statement stated that their hearts go out to the Luis, and they hope the settlement will aid in them moving forward.

 

$10 Million Civil Lawsuit Filed Against Nick Gordon

The details surrounding the Bobbi Kristina Brown case are shocking. If you have not followed the Bobbi Kristina Brown saga very closely due to its depressing nature, it is now worth paying attention to based sheerly on its new-bobbi-kristina-brownfound legal component. Nick Gordon, Bobbi Kristina Brown’s significant other, was recently served with a $10 million civil lawsuit at a Longwood, Florida Starbucks. The domestic violence lawsuit was filed on behalf of Bobbi Kristina Brown. Bobbi Kristina, 22, is the late Whitney Houston’s only daughter. Her father is former nineteen nineties pop and R&B sensation, Bobby Brown.

The civil lawsuit served upon Gordon, 25, alleges that he committed an array of violent acts against Bobbi Kristina before she was found unconscious in a bathtub. She was recently transferred to an Atlanta hospice due to her worsening condition. Bedelia Hargrove is currently acting as court-appointed conservator. She filed the domestic violence lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court last month.

The civil lawsuit will likely be an uphill battle due to the fact that Gordon has hired some savvy superstar attorneys to help him in the upcoming legal clash. He has recruited acclaimed defense attorney Joe Habachy, who will act as Gordon’s lead lawyer. Rounding out Gordon’s legal team is attorney Jose Baez. Baez who is most famous for his role as Casey Anthony’s lead defense attorney. Gordon will also tap into the legal knowledge of private investigator TJ Ward. Ward is notable for his work on the highly publicized Natalee Holloway disappearance case.

civil-lawsuit-bobbi-kristina-brownWhile the brunt of the civil lawsuit alleges that Gordon is guilty of domestic violence against Bobbi Kristina, it also attacks Gordon’s character. Gordon is not currently facing criminal charges yet the suit raises suspicions of foul play. It states that Bobbi Kristina coordinated an urgent meeting with an unnamed individual on January 31 to confide that Gordon was “not the man she thought he was”. Later on that same day, Bobbi Kristina was found face down in a bathtub with a swollen mouth and a missing tooth.

UPDATE: Bobbi Kristina Brown, died at age 22, on Sunday, July 26, 2015. She never regained consciousness to explain what happened to her. More to come.

 

Conspiracy in Academia: Big Money behind Alzheimer’s Research

When you hear of massive conspiracies aimed at purloining the latest data and information from leading national institutions, the imagination understandably trends towards envisioning secret foreign agents slipping through dark alleys in search of their dead-drop spots to relay critical information. Rarely however, do those thoughts conjure up images of the nation’s leading medical academics plotting to pilfer cutting-edge technology, scientific talent, and millions of dollars in research funding. Yet, that is exactly what Regents for UC San Diego allege in a conspiracy lawsuit leveled against rival University of Southern California (USC), and the nation’s leading Alzheimer’s disease researcher, Paul Aisen.

Alzheimer’s Research Data Goes AWOL

The court documents filed in San Diego County Superior Court, UC Regents charge that Aisen, along with eight of his fellow UC San Diego colleagues conspired to remove data and assets with them when they accepted new positions at university-unspecified-amountUC’s new Alzheimer’s facility based in San Diego. The suit alleges that Aisen, slated to head up the new institute, conspired to commit illegal acts including various computer crimes, contract interference, and actively engaged in a civil conspiracy to deny UC San Diego access to Alzheimer’s data resulting from the project.

According to the complaint, this action placed UC San Diego at risk of losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in private and governmental funding, and the university is requesting an unspecified amount from the defendants in a jury trial. At the heart of the motivation, the suit notes that Aisen’s actions were aimed at supplanting his former employer’s position in the field of Alzheimer’s studies.

Big Money and Big Stakes

While advanced educational institutions are notorious for poaching promising faculty-members from one another, the lawsuit accuses Aisen of making false or misleading statements to his team to induce them to follow him to the national-institute-agingnew USC institute. Additionally, Aisen intimated that the study’s major funder, The National Institute on Aging, which is underwriting the study to the tune of $55 million, would accompany him to the new research facility. The National Institute on Aging denies that funding moved with Aisen and his team.

For its part, USC denies any wrongdoing and regrets the UC San Diego decision to instigate the suit against Aisen and his team, citing the long held tradition of academic recruitment in which both institutions work collaboratively together during any transition.

 

Navigating Forest Trail Politics

Battles over land use are not new in the American West.  Indeed, not counting the obvious examples documented between pioneers and Native Americans, at various times, our western heritage has witnessed conflicts exploding between all manners of groups.

Cattle barons and sheep ranchers fought over foraging areas, gold miners and farmers disputed water allocations between their two respective industries, and loggers and fishermen battled over erosion conditions in forest streams as each group attempted to dominate the environment in a seeming zero-sum game that could only see one victor to cite just a few.

Seemingly, the echoes of those battles continue to this day in the recreational realm as a new contest of wills has shaped up in the Evergreen State over who should have access to the off-road trails of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Washington Lawsuit Halts Forest Service Off-Road Plan

wa-at-vlawThe United States Forest Department’s decision to open up six routes available to wheeled ATVs (WATV), has sparked a lawsuit aimed at baring street-ready, all-terrain vehicles from the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Under Washington law, WATVs are ATVs modified and designed to be street legal.  As such, these vehicles are equipped with state issued license plates, and drivers must conform to all licensing requirements while complying with all applicable road rules.

The move, which would have opened up 350-miles of forest roads to WATV use, is opposed by an array of environmental groups including the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, Sierra Club, and the Kittitas Audubon Society.  Their suit alleges that the federal forest department violated not only the National Environmental Policy Act, but they also bypassed their own Travel Management Rule before more a proper, comprehensive, public process has occurred.

Potential Impact of Increased Trail Usage

watv-routesThe forest service action is designed to link new WATV routes to existing ATV trail usage, which has the potential of dramatically increasing traffic that has the real possibility of degrading the quality of existing habitat through overuse, and impairing the other recreational uses of other outdoor enthusiasts.

While forest officials claim that the proposed routes honors the forestry service’s goal of providing public access to as wide a group of people as possible.  For their part, the early opening of the park routes without proper environmental impact studies upset environmentalists.