Archive for News – Page 64

North Dakota Construction Firm Ordered to Pay for Sexual Harassment Suit

In order to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a North Dakota civil construction company has been ordered to pay $59,000.

The lawsuit alleged Keller Paving Landscaping Inc., operating in Minot, was creating a hostile work environment for a female employee that included numerous incidents of sexual harassment. Based on the tough working conditions, she was forced to resign.

The company employed Jennifer Gerard, from June to October 2013, as a truck driver. During the short time she was employed, she was sexually harassed by several male coworkers. Some of the harassment included telling Gerard that she should be at home taking care of her kids instead of at the workplace. One incident alleges that a male coworker touched her on the shoulder and leg. Another incident included a male coworker asking Gerard to perform oral sex on him.

Even after complaining to both owners and her site manager, the harassment continued. When the conditions became too intolerable, Gerard quit.

The allegations Gerard had against the company are a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act helps protects employees facing discrimination based on their sex, color, religion, race, or national origin, and it also includes protection against sexual harassment.

When a pre-litigation settlement could not be reached, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, and on June 4, 2018, a U.S. District Judge signed the order. The $59,000 includes monetary relief to Gerard. As part of the settlement, Keller also has to revise its policies and include in the company handbook a way to complain about sexual harassment. In addition to having complaint procedures that are clearly outlined in the employee handbook, there will be required training. The company will need to train its management on Title VII. The training will include prohibitions against sexual harassment. Non-management employees will be trained on their rights under Title VII, which include being able to file discrimination charges with the EEOC. The company must report on any complaints of sexual harassment during a two-year period in order to comply with the EEOC.

 

Same-Sex Marriage Plans Cause Problems at Work for N.C. Man

Once word spread that Gregory Hannah, an employee of WestRock Services Inc., was to wed his partner in a same-sex marriage in April of 2016, the homophobic comments and behavior began in earnest at the Rutherford County manufacturing plant, claimed Hannah in new court documents.

According to the lawsuit, after learning of Hannah’s decision to marry his partner, Hannah’s boss, Danny Lynch, falsified complaints from other employees, made crude remarks regarding his sexual orientation, wrote Hannah up for poor performance based on unfounded allegations, and allegedly propositioned a truck driver to allow Hannah to perform a sexual act on him.

A company investigation into the matter confirmed one of Hannah’s several claims with an employee of the company confessing they were compelled by Lynch to falsify complaints of sexual harassment against Hannah.

In another allegation of employer misconduct, Hannah was fired by Lynch in May of 2017 after sending an empty box out for shipping. A later investigation found that the parts that were supposed to be in the box went missing during shift hours when Hannah was not scheduled to work.

As a result of the continued mistreatment, Hannah contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and accused his employer of gender discrimination and employee mistreatment. Earlier this year in March, the federal agency gave Hannah the right to sue.

The lawsuit maintains that Lynch was fired by WestRock Services Inc. for his ill behavior and mistreatment. This was not, however, enough for Hannah who has asked for a jury trial and damages against WestRock. He is also demanding his job back in addition to back pay.

Hannah became a full-time employee of the company and began working at its Forest City plant in 2015, just as the debate over marriage equality for same-sex couples began to heat up around the state and the country.

The company has declined to comment due to a policy that prevents commenting on ongoing legal issues, according to a spokeswoman at the company’s Atlanta headquarters.

The website for WestRock Services Inc. states that “diversity and inclusion” are among company values and claim to foster “an environment where everyone feels valued and respected.”

 

Walgreens Facing a Lawsuit over Seizure-Related Death of a Teen

A family has filed a lawsuit against Walgreens following its alleged negligence that led to the death of their 19-year-old girl. They argue the prescription could not be filled without express permission from her insurance carrier.

On June 7, the Massachusetts top court said that pharmacies owe a legal duty of care to their customers. Pharmacies must take reasonable steps to notify customers and their prescribing doctors of the need to seek authorization from their insurance companies every time they want a prescription refill.

Speaking to Bloomberg Law June 8, the family lawyer, Thomas M. Greene of Greene LLP had something to say. He says that this marks the first decision in the US to recognize a duty in the underlying circumstances. Walgreens refused to comment on the decision.

Why Is a Prior Notice Important?

Judge Barbara A. Lenk wrote for the court. Health insurance companies require that the prescribing doctors submit authorization forms that prove the medical importance of certain prescriptions and their cost-effectiveness,

Lawyer Greene argued that it’s vital to make sure the doctors are notified. He went on to add that a physician is the only one with the necessary qualifications to fill the prescription pre-authorization paperwork.

An advocacy group that represents the wellbeing of the Massachusetts low-income residents in need of proper health care agreed with Greene’s sentiments.

In a statement sent by its lawyer, Wells, G. Wilkinson, the Health Law Advocates in Boston argued. They asserted that the duty to share the said information with their customers’ physicians would help streamline the communication between professionals without leaving out the patients.

Additionally, the advocacy group filed a brief supporting the lawsuit filed by the family against the pharmacy.

The court said that prior authorization was crucial so Yarushka Rivera could obtain insurance coverage for the life-threatening seizure control medication, Topamax. Besides court added that Rivera couldn’t afford the medication without insurance meaning she didn’t take the medication months before suffering fatal seizures.

In a summary judgment for Walgreens, a trial court argued the pharmacy had no duty to notify Rivera’s physicians regarding the need to seek authorization for the prescription.

The Supreme Judicial Court Reversed the Trial Court’s Ruling

When reversing the initial ruling on the case, the supreme judicial court said the new notification duty is limited. That would mean the pharmacy was not under obligation to follow up on its own, confirm that the prescribing physician received a notification or had completed a prior notification form.

But Justice David A. Lowly differed asserting that majority imposed a ‘nebulous duty’ on drugstores to notify the prescribing physicians that authorization is required for particular medications to obtain insurance coverage.

The American Association of the Justice, the country’s largest plaintiff lawyers group, is in support of the family’s position.

Mark Zuckerberg’s In A Lawsuit Over Facial Recognition Tags

Facebook faces a lawsuit in regard to their facial recognition “suggested tags” feature with the state of Illinois. When a Facebook user uploads a group photo, Facebook tries to guess the names of the people in the photo and will provide a name suggestion as you hover your cursor over faces. The lawsuit alleges that Facebook violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act for this facial recognition feature. The Biometric Information Privacy Act protects personal information like fingerprints, retinal scans, and facial recognition data.

Facebook is able to recognize faces by referring to a user’s archive, so it tends to identify friends who you’ve been in several pictures with before. (People you tagged so many times that Facebook can guess from a few standard features which friend it is.) If you have a photo with new friends who you’ve never previously tagged, Facebook cannot make a suggestion or they’ll make incorrect suggestions. The Illinois users who sued Facebook claim Facebook needs to obtain written consent from users before creating templates of their faces from photos. Facebook maintains that there’s no violation of privacy and that users have to be “aggrieved” or suffering a serious injury or harm as a result.

Why Illinois users only? Isn’t this a feature across the nation? Because it’s Illinois user, Nimesh Patel, who pursued the lawsuit and focused on Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Patel thinks that Facebook collects intricate details of facial features that could be used against us if they got into the wrong hands. Knowing facial details could be recreated for crimes or framing or all sorts of wrongdoing. The problem in Patel’s case is that he’s posing what-if consequences and despite their merit, may not be enough to show potential harm.

The lawsuit notifications go to Facebook users who lived in Illinois for at least 60 consecutive days from June 2011 to April 2018. Illinois users who receive lawsuit information can press charges or not. But if this Illinois case ends up nabbing Facebook, then other states and ultimately other countries could also take Facebook to court, resulting in Facebook losing billions of dollars. The class action case goes to court in July and Facebook continues fighting it vigorously.

N.J. Schools Among U.S.’ Most Segregated Schools. Lawsuit Filed

New Jersey has a legal matter that’s creating a lot of attention. The state is being challenged for the statewide desegregation of its public schools.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Thursday, wants to challenge New Jersey’s school system as “unconstitutional” and that the school should take immediate action to end segregation. Thursday was also the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education section that banned racial segregation in schools.

Currently, New Jersey is the sixth most segregated state for black students, and seventh for students who are Latino, according to a 2017 analysis that was conducted by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.

“The fight to integrate New Jersey’s schools is the great unfinished civil rights struggle of our time,” said Christian Estevez, president of the Latino Action Network, one of the plaintiffs in this suit. “This lawsuit is the next step in building a future where all children get the chance to succeed.

Mercer County, who filed the complaint, is asking that the court remove two key parts of state law: that students are required to attend the school district they live in, with a few exceptions. The other is the requirement that charter schools give priority to students in the school’s district.

The New Jersey Coalition for Diverse and Inclusive Schools, a new nonprofit organization chaired by former state Supreme Court Justice Gary Stein is spearheading this lawsuit. Stein’s son, Michael and Lawrence Lustberg are representing the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in the case also include nine children and the United Methodist Church of Greater New Jersey.

The suit is asking that the state education commissioner create a desegregation plan that includes a large variety of tactics currently used in different communities. Some of these options could include the consolidation of school districts, voluntary transfer programs so students in minority districts can attend other schools, according to the lawsuit.

“It is brought in the state’s own interest to require New Jersey to deal with its unfinished business – ending segregation by race and poverty in its public schools,” Gary Stein said.

 

Female Law School Faculty in Denver Win a $2.66 Million Pay Equity Lawsuit

As a professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, Lucy Marsh has an impressive record as a teacher and researcher. Her advocacy for student leadership in the field of law began in the mid-1960s when she attended the University of Michigan and helped to create the first clinical program at that institution’s law school. Marsh joined the University of Denver (DU) faculty in 1973 and earned promotion to full professor in 1982. She has won awards for teaching excellence and many community honors as a member of the DU faculty.

In early 2012, a female colleague named Ann Scales challenged the law school to address pay inequalities for female faculty. Despite additional funding, pay gaps persisted. Full-time male faculty in the DU law school earned nearly $16,000 more than their female colleagues. After Scales passed away in June 2012, Marsh took up this cause.

Marsh discovered that she had also received substantially less pay than her male peers in the Sturm College of Law. Despite her impressive record of scholarship and teaching, she earned $40,000 less than the college’s median salary. Even though she served for four decades on the faculty, Marsh was the lowest-paid full-time professor in DU’s law school. She launched a lawsuit in 2013 seeking redress for this salary disparity. Six female peers on the DU Sturm College of Law’s faculty joined her as plaintiffs.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission joined the suit in 2015, largely due to the strength of Marsh’s claim. On May 17, 2018, news reports announced that DU has agreed to settle with the seven Sturm College of Law faculty by paying $2.66 million and awarding them salary increases that will ultimately eliminate the gender pay gap. In announcing the settlement, DU officials claimed they had a strong case but decided to offer a settlement to “heal our community and move forward together.”

This settlement moves DU’s law school forward in offering pay transparency for faculty. Salary information will be available for Sturm faculty through an intranet site that they can access. In addition, the settlement calls for annual pay studies to assure equity, as well as the presence of an external consultant for six years to assure that retaliation against the female faculty members does not occur.

 

Lawsuit Claims First Responders Delayed Rescue of Fallen Mount Hood Climber

John Thornton Jenkins ascended Mount Hood on May 7, 2017. Located approximately 50 miles east of Portland, Mount Hood rises 11,249 above sea level as one of the prominent summits of the Cascade Range in Oregon. As Jenkins, a 32-year-old experienced mountain climber approached the Pearly Gates area near the summit around 10:40 a.m. he lost his footing and fell nearly 600 feet along the snow-covered terrain. He came to a rest in an area known as Devil’s Kitchen, a high, remote, and cold area on the mountain face.

Jenkins landed in an area difficult to reach. In intense pain, he immediately needed emergency services. Another climber came to his side within eight minutes and called 911. They awaited the arrival of a rescue team. With Jenkins suffering and in terrible pain, every moment lost made the situation worse.

In a $10 million lawsuit filed by members of his family, they claim that emergency personnel mishandled the 911 call. The delay that resulted from these missteps contributed to Jenkins’s death. A 911 dispatcher routed the call to the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office. An employee there mistakenly told the person who made the call to contact the ski patrol teams at Timberline Ski Resort, even though Jenkins was a climber, not a skier, and on a different part of the mountain far above and away from any ski areas

Nearly 45 minutes after Jenkins first fell, a staff member at Timberline called 911 and they were directed back to the Sheriff’s Office. This series of delays kept first responders from requesting a rescue helicopter from the Oregon Army National Guard until 12:29 p.m. The helicopter did not reach the scene until 3:11 p.m. When rescuers tried to fasten Jenkins to the basket, his lungs started to fail and he perished.

The lawsuit claims that judgment errors led to a delay of more than four hours between the time of the fall and the arrival of the rescue team. The dispute involves disagreements about whether ground crews could have arrived more quickly and whether various agencies handled these calls with enough urgency. Even though the helicopter arrived very quickly after getting the call, the delays beforehand certainly complicated the situation.

An Ex-Trooper Is Ordered to Pay $6 Million for A DUI Death

A Common Pleas Court judge in Bucks County has ordered an ex-trooper to pay over $6million in damages to Robin T. Williams, a 21-year-old woman in Philadelphia who was killed when her car was hit by a truck in 2012. This pickup was driven by a Pennsylvanian trooper who was already off-duty. The ex-trooper later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence.
This ruling was provided on Wednesday by Judge James M. McMaster asking Barry Searfoss to pay a total sum of $6.26 million for compensatory damages, including compensation for punitive damages totaling to $100,000 to Robin T. Williams estate.
The defense attorney who represented Searfoss during the case, Athena Pappas, refused to say if Searfoss would consider appealing this ruling.
The former ex-trooper Searfoss of Coatesville was sentenced to 6-23 months in prison in 2014. The 46-year-old had served 5 months when he was released for good behavior as stated by Raymond Bily Williams’s estate lawyer. Searfoss was off duty when he became intoxicated after attending a charity event on May 18, 2012, at the municipal golf course in Warminster. After a blood test, it was concluded that Searfoss’ blood had 0.08 percent of alcohol content which was twice the set legal limit for driving. The event was held in memory of a woman who was slain by a drunk driver.
On that fateful night, Mr. Searfoss was driving his Toyota pickup truck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike’s westbound side at Willow Grove. His truck crashed into a Lincoln Town Car’s rear, a car that Williams was driving. The Town Car, which was manufactured in 1997, had suffered an engine failure and Williams was driving it at about 11mph on the left lane. Williams died of burns, smoke inhalation, and blunt-force injuries. Searfoss was driving the truck at 71 mph.
Williams was a college student who offered services as a caregiver in a retirement home in Warminster at the time of her demise. Even though Warminster was also sued, it was removed as the case’s defendant due to an immunity statute.

 

Betty Lozano’s Family receives a $1.9million Settlement from San Bernardino County after Her In-County Death

San Bernardino County recently awarded an Adelanto woman’s family a $1.9million settlement. Betty Lozano died while in the High Desert Detention Centre. She didn’t receive proper health care after experiencing a medical emergency.

Counsels representing Betty’s mother, Maria Stofflet and two young children sued the San Bernardino County Sherriff Department for negligence. Also, they accused the department of denying Betty vital medical attention while in the detention center. The lawyers filed a civil rights case in Riverside, last February.

A federal court agreed on the settlement on March 6 and later dismissed the case. Betty’s family lawyers, Dale Galipo, Sharon Brunner and James Terrell termed Betty’s case as being tragic. James accused the sheriff department of failing to learn from past lawsuits that other people had filed against it. He said that the deputy sheriff had low regard for life hence allowing Betty to die in her cell.

Also, Terrell emphasized the need to reform the department. Christina Montes, Betty’s sister, explained her mixed emotions regarding the settlement. She stated that a person’s life can’t be compared with any amount of money. However, she assured the court that the family would use the settlement to take care of Betty’s children. Christina pledged to push for a transformation on how the sheriff treats people.

She explained how many inmates in various correctional and detention centers need quality healthcare due to their mental health and health complications. Instead, the detention officers ignore their needs. Christina emphasized the need to hold people accountable for the department’s transformation. Moreover, Christina intends to mobilize other people who have lost their loved ones in detention centers.

Betty Lozano, 34, had a bipolar disorder. Police officers arrested her on July 26, 2017, at 4:27 p.m.The sheriff’s deputies thought she had taken drugs. As they were transporting her at the back of their patrol car, Betty fainted. The officers abandoned her in a cell for several hours until her demise that night.

According to the suit, there was a video record at the facility which was vital in confirming Betty’s health condition and its decline after her detention. She passed out at 8:50p.m.the detention officers took her to Victor Global Medical Centre where she died at 11:11 pm.

Sharon thanked the county court for the settlement. She said that although it wouldn’t make up for the loss of Betty, it will support her children. Also, she is eager to witness a transformation in jail policies and how the facilities will implement them. Sharon stated that she still receives numerous complaints from families whose loved ones have died in several San Bernardino County detention centers.

Oakland SRO Lawsuit Settled for $1 Million

In 2015, an investor named Green Group LP purchased a single room occupancy (SRO) building at 524 Eight Street in Oakland’s Chinatown district. SROs are small, one-room rentals where tenants share bathrooms and kitchens as common areas. The rent is generally inexpensive, making SROs a popular option for low-income individuals and families.

The tenants of the Oakland hotel filed a lawsuit in June 2016, claiming that the new owners were attempting to force them to vacate the property by making the building uninhabitable. According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, the owners of the building publicly announced that the building would be renovated to attract higher-income tenants who would be charged higher rents. The suit claims that Green Group LP started renovating the building by demolishing common areas, including kitchens and bathrooms, leaving them unusable for tenants. Some of the renovations lasted for months, with little to no notice for residents. The suit also claims that, though the residents are almost exclusively Chinese, demolition notices were in English and the tenants could not read what the notices said. Residents were also without hot water for long periods of time.

In addition, the residents claim the owners threw out private property, including clothing, children’s toys, Chinese New Year decorations, and other personal items.

The case has been settled for $1 million. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman approved the settlement. The 14 tenants who filed the suit will receive $795,000, while the remaining $205,000 is awarded to the city of Oakland for their legal expenses.

In addition to the settlement, Judge Seligman approved a permanent injunction that requires Green Group LP to provide adequate bathroom facilities for tenants, provide a standard policy for personal belongings within common areas of the building, and notify the city of Oakland in the event of future rent adjustments or evictions.

The city’s attorney, Barbara Parker, stated,“This lawsuit puts unscrupulous property owners on notice that Oakland will hold them accountable for violations of tenants’ rights and will not tolerate owners who make living conditions so miserable that tenants are compelled to move out. Displacing tenants from their homes frequently plunge families into poverty and homelessness and uproots them from the community. Every family that pays rent in Oakland is entitled to decent housing free from harassment and exploitation.”