Archive for News – Page 80

Settlement reached in fatal shooting of black man by Bridgeton police

The family of Jerame Reid reached a tentative settlement in a federal lawsuit filed after Bridgeton police officers shot and killed the 36-year-old black man.

During a 2014 traffic stop, Officer Braheme Days, who is black, fired the fatal shot that killed Reid. Officer Roger Worley, who is white, also fired at Jerame Reid but missed. The officers shot Reid after he refused to obey their orders to stay in his vehicle during a traffic stop. The family subsequently filed the suit, alleging deadly force and civil rights violations. Dashcam video recorded the shooting and although the dashcam shows the officers firing at Reid, a Cumberland County grand jury failed to indict either of the officers.

The Times Union reports details provided by David Porter of the Associated Press who says that under the settlement, Jerame Reid’s widow receives $200,000, including legal fees. His infant son receives periodic payments upon reaching the age of 18. Those payments total $1.5 million. Both Jerome Reid’s mother and the mother of his son receive $70,000 each.

This settlement is not the only settlement recently announced concerning the Bridgeton, N.J. Police Department and Jerame Reid. In 2015, New Jersey Online announced a $340,000 settlement reached as the result of a suit filed in U.S. District Court in January 2011 by Reid, alleging assault by police and corrections officers when Reid was in the Cumberland County Jail.

Reid claimed that officers kicked and punched him and threw a bucket of cold water on him, even as he lay curled up on the floor of his cell. As a result, he suffered broken ribs, nerve damage in his face and other injuries. Cumberland County awarded the $340,000 settlement to Jerame Reid’s widow.

The Jerame Reid lawsuits resulting in the injuries and death of Jerame Reid are just two in a series of lawsuits against Bridgeton, NJ police officers, including a lawsuit filed by 45 year-old Marella Lawson who settled her case for $690,000 in April 2016, says the Daily Journal. Bridgeton officers assaulted her during two separate arrests, both involving the same police officer. As in the case of the Jerame Reid lawsuits, Bridgeton officers continue to deny all liability.

FedEx and Company Driver are Named in Road Rage Lawsuit

Road rage can affect drivers of any size vehicle, including semis. It can also come back to haunt a driver years later. Such is the case that has just been filed for a 2014 incident between a Fed Ex driver and another semi driver. A truck driver by the name of George Reich has filed a lawsuit against FedEx and also one of their drivers, Rick Crum.

FedEx-driver-lawsuitIn the lawsuit, Reich claims that in November of 2014, FedEx driver Crum began tailgating him on Interstate 5 in Southern California. Crum continued to tailgate for several miles before passing Reich at speeds in excess of 55 mph. California has a 55 mph speed cap for semis.  While passing him, Crum obscenely gestured at Reich. After passing Reich, Crum abruptly swerved into Reich’s lane and slowed down to 45 mph, causing Reich to brake.   Both drivers then pulled over.

During the time the drivers were on the side of the road, Reich tried to photograph Crum’s license plate with his phone. Crum forcefully knocked the phone from Reich’s hand. Reich also stated that Crum punched him. It is unclear as to which blow was strong enough to knock Reich to the ground. Reich claims that during the time of the altercation, he tried to remain calm at all times.

Reich has filed his lawsuit with the Los Angeles Superior Court. In the suit, Reich alleges emotional distress caused by intentional and negligent infliction, negligence, assault, and battery. Since this lawsuit has become publicized, attorneys for either party have not been available for comment.

FedEx stated it “holds its service providers to high standards of safety and professionalism. We cannot comment on the specifics of these allegations while they are under review.”

It is unknown if any tickets or citations were issued at the time of the initial incident for reckless driving or the indicated assault.

Road rage is a catch-all phrase used to describe violent or aggressive behaviors of motorists. There is no set “road rage” law in California, but due to the nature of the behaviors of Crum, a lawsuit was permissible.

 

Microsoft Wins One For Privacy Advocates

Microsoft won a historic victory over federal prosecutors. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the computer company did not have to turn over information from its Irish data center.

The government had argued that the Stored Communications Act compelled Microsoft to release data regardless of its physical location. The court found the argument unpersuasive, ruling for the corporation. Since the data center resided in Ireland, the law of that land applies, rather than American law, cited the court in its decision.

Privacy is the Issue

This case has enormous implications for privacy issues. Various companies, including rivals, such as Apple and Verizon, supported Microsoft. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also sided with the tech giant.

Microsoft executives and legal counsel expressed concern for the privacy of cloud technology users. If data centers located wholly in foreign countries fall under American law, then that could mean citizens of those nations are subject to this authority as well.

Likewise, other nations could begin acting in a reciprocal manner concerning Americans. This loss of privacy and national autonomy proved too much for the court.

Local Companies Stood to Gain

Financially, Microsoft stood to lose money. If the court had decided the other way, local data centers could persuade residents of their countries to avoid using Microsoft. They could have argued that personal information would not be safe in American hands. Now that possibility has been curtailed, at least for the time being.

Microsoft-data-Ireland

The Case

The prosecution made a claim that since Microsoft executives could easily access its cloud technology, the stored data was still technically inside American borders. This assertion does broach an issue that future courts will have to deal with. Just how do we define location in an era of digitally stored information?

Microsoft won this case by opining that despite the American infrastructure, the data center was physically located in Ireland. On the other hand, prosecutors believed physical location should not matter. Who has control over the center does, they put forth.

The debate is far from over. Though Microsoft defeated federal regulators this time, the Supreme Court could still overturn the decision.

Nations Moving to Protect Internet Users

Many nations have begun to take action to protect their Internet users. Brazil, Russia and Germany all passed Internet localization laws. These statutes require data be stored within national boundaries. Thus, authorities in these lands can demand access to information according to local law; moreover, they can deny requests for access by foreign powers.

American Government Not Done Yet

Even if the Supreme Court does not reverse the ruling, Microsoft could one day be forced to allow the government to see the information. Congress might pass stronger legislation to buttress the Stored Communications Act.

Also, officials are currently working out deals with other governments to share data center information. Most prominently, the U.K. and U.S. have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (or MLAT) on the table. Both nations would be able to serve warrants on companies without having to go before a foreign court.

Georgia Woman Sues Body Armor Manufacturer

A Georgia widow has filed a federal lawsuit against a body armor manufacturer, alleging that the vest her police officer husband wore failed to stop bullets from piercing his back and killing him.

Tammy Jordan of Hampton, Georgia filed the lawsuit against the company, Armor Express, in a U.S. District court claiming a vest made by the Michigan-based company failed to save her husband’s life.

Officer Kevin Jordan, 43, of the Griffin Police Department was shot five times while intervening in a fight at a Griffin Waffle House, where he moonlighted as a security guard in 2014.

According to court documents, Armor Express has denied that the vest failed to meet standards. Attorney John Dixon wrote that the company has neither seen the vest, nor has it been given specific information about the way it was worn or exactly where Jordan was shot. He and the company were not available for comment Tuesday.

In her claim, the widow declared “the vest specifically physically covered” the areas of Officer Jordan’s back, where he was shot. It was designed to protect the officer “from bullet wounds or being shot by a .40-caliber handgun in his upper, middle and low back areas,” Tammy said.

According to its website, Armor Express, which is also known as Central Lake Armor Express, has contracted with several U.S. and international police forces, including the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy.

The company highlights examples where body armor saved officers from injury and death on its website. It specifically cites the April 2015 shooting of a sheriff’s deputy in Lockport, New York, and a shooting of a deputy in Lawrence County, Illinois.

Tammy Jordan filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the seven children she had with Officer Jordan. Originally filed in a Spalding County court, the suit was transferred to Georgia’s northern district of federal courts.

While working his side job as a security guard at the Waffle House on May 31, 2014, Jordan tried to detain a man who was fighting with customers. He was allegedly shot by Michael Dwayne Bowman, who was later indicted on charges of murder and aggravated assault of a police officer, among others.

No Liability for Save-A-Lot in Banana Slip and Fall Case

The classic comedic trope of slipping on a banana peel made a real-life appearance last March. A shopper by the name of Charles McDowell entered a Philadelphia Save-A-Lot store and slipped on a piece of banana that was on the store’s floor. But, McDowell wasn’t laughing about it. He claimed the fall caused him serious injuries. McDowell filed a lawsuit against Save-A-Lot, alleging that the store was negligent in failing to clean up the piece of banana.

Store owners have a duty to protect customers from foreseeable harm by cleaning up any dangerous conditions in a store. But, the claim ultimately failed because McDowell couldn’t prove that Save-A-Lot knew or should have known that the piece of banana was there. In other words, the harm wasn’t foreseeable because the risk wasn’t known. On June 13, 2016, Judge Robert Kelly of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Save-A-Lot.

Judge Kelly found that there was no evidence whatsoever that Save-A-Lot had actual knowledge that the piece of banana was there. Therefore, the dispositive issue in this case was whether Save-A-Lot should have known about it. Even if a store owner is unaware of a risk, constructive knowledge can be imputed to them if a reasonably prudent store owner would have been aware of it. If constructive knowledge existed, the harm is considered foreseeable.

Generally, in these types of cases the issue of constructive knowledge turns on how long a hazard was present. If McDowell could have shown that the piece of banana had been on the floor long enough that reasonably prudent store cleaning procedures would have noticed it and cleaned it up, he would likely have won his case. But, McDowell couldn’t show this.

The upshot of the case is that plaintiffs must provide evidence showing constructive knowledge in these types of cases. Courts will not presume it. Store owners will not be found liable for a customer slip-and-fall unless the customer can provide clear direct or circumstantial evidence that the owner should have known about it.

The case, McDowell v. Moran Foods, LLC, No. 15-4995 (E.D. Pa. Jun 13, 2016), and can be found in full here.

 

Class Action Suit Filed Due to Numerous Refrigerator Fires

Numerous owners of the gas absorption refrigerators filed a class action suit on June 24, 2016. These individuals filed class-action claims against Dometic Corporation, the company responsible for manufacturing these refrigerators. In the class-action claims, the owners stated that the refrigerators leak flammable gas. Allegedly, this leaked flammable gas has been the cause of many fires.

refigerator-firesIn the class action suit, the owners allege that the Dometic Corporation knew about the defective gas absorption refrigerators. These refrigerators are usually found on RVs and boats and they have caused more than 3,000 fires in the past two decades. Since 1997, these defective gas absorption refrigerators have allegedly caused $100 million in personal injuries and property damage. Despite the lengthy history of these defective refrigerators, the Dometic Corporation failed to address the issue and warn consumers about the risks.

However, it is important to note that not all named plaintiffs for the class action suit have actually experienced a fire due to the defective refrigerators. Some of the named plaintiffs claim that they suffered economic damages due to the Dometic Corporation’s failure to address the issue or provide adequate warning. The plaintiffs claim they paid far more for the boats and RVs than they would have if they knew about the defective refrigerators.

Zimmerman Reed, a law firm, claims that the plaintiffs should not be required to wait until they have experienced a refrigerator fire to seek compensation for the issue. According to the law firm, forgoing preventative action could cost the plaintiffs heavily. This is especially true if the plaintiffs were to experience a refrigerator fire in the future.

This is not the first time the Dometic Corporation has had issues with their manufacturer products. In 2006, the Dometic Corporation recalled refrigerators to replace the cooling units. The Dometic Corporation did so once more in 2008. However, the plaintiffs argue that this is irrelevant because the two recalls did nothing to address the defects of their refrigerators. According to the class action suit, the refrigerators have defective cooling unit boiler tubes, which can corrode and leak flammable gas.

Zimmerman Reed learned about the defective refrigerators of the Dometic Corporation during a three-year class action suit against Norcold, a competitor of the Dometic Corporation. This class action suit settled for $36 million early this year.

 

Advocates for the Disabled Taking Aim at Texas

A damning report released by the Statesman aimed at the leadership of Texas government reminds us all just how important human rights are, and why advocacy for the less fortunate is so vital. The article , uses language and terms such as the disabled being “warehoused in nursing homes,” or working under “slavery conditions” while citing several specific examples of individuals whose situations and experiences illuminate these accusations.

Advocates for many of these claimants argue that not only are the basic principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) being violated, but that offenses from being paid less than fifty cents an hour to even the occurrence of death for mishandled situations have resulted from the poor at best, efforts to provide for and protect disabled citizens.

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) levied charges against a Texas based turkey company, that are referred to in the Statesman report, in 2011. Yes, those alleged charges are from five years ago, which is one of the reasons why this story is so curious – these charges are still pending litigation.

In response, the State of Texas denies any wrong doing. It is presumably the failure to govern and police company practices that has the State of Texas under the spotlight at the moment. From the initial appearances, it seems somewhat apparent that the State did not with any particular malice put individuals in abusive or unfair positions. This is shaping up to be more of a case of neglect on the part of Texas, to ensure that the most needful of citizens are being taken care of in a manner that is both respectful and fair.

If these accusations and facts hold up, then it is unquestionably cruel and abusive treatment of the less fortunate. The hope is that perhaps this is a situation where policy and practices weren’t connected to people and lives. Sometimes the bottom line is seen without faces attached. It is almost evil to imagine people would intentionally hurt others in such a fashion. The level of abuse, the time it has taken to handle and litigate these charges in addition to who the alleged victims are will likely keep this issue from disappearing again.

This should result in answers, making right whatever it is that has been wrong and when the dust has settled, those neighbors, friends and loved ones will be treated as we all should be – with love, respect and dignity – for starters.

 

Discrimination in the Modern Age: 3 Black Teachers Take a Stand

Many would believe, given the long history of discrimination in the United States, individuals would do their diligence to honor the legacy and memory of those who fought for equal opportunity. However, that is not the case. It’s 2016 and Americans, citizens of the United States, still face discrimination. But the real question is why. Why do some people believe they can treat others unfairly because of such arbitrary differences like skin color or ethnic origins? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. Just like the long battle to equality, the complexities behind the systems that support this mindset are ingrained foundationally in the many who hold positions of power and authority.

Individuals who face such discrimination do have some hope, however. The federal government in recent years has played an integral role in holding individuals accountable for discrimination. One such case in seen with a lawsuit filed against the New York Education Department that is being accused of a pattern of discrimination and in this case against three black teachers who worked at Pan American International High School in Queens.

Black-Teachers-Discrimination-case-quoteThe government believes that the school’s principal, Minerva Zanca, targeted the three black teachers and plotted to against the to lose their jobs. Several witnesses in the case claimed that she made clear and intentional efforts to ensure this plan through. Furthermore, anyone who challenged or questioned her was met with harsh retaliation. The school’s assistant principal, Anthony Riccardo, was one such individual that claims she called school security to have him removed from the building. He reported that she planned to give two of the plaintiffs unsatisfactory evaluations on lessons she did not witness. He also said she would not meet with another to try and help her to improve on a subject she once taught.

The teachers filing the claim all express similar sentiments of discrimination, racial intolerance, and social unacceptance from Zanca. The teachers involved, John Flanagan, Heather Hightower and Lisa-Erika James, also filed complaints with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission that found there was reasonable cause to believe this was truly a case of discrimination.

Zanca claims these allegations are unbased and completely outside of her character. However, evidence from all other parties involved proved otherwise.

This is only one hundred of casing seeking justice for hardworking Americans who face discrimination. The hope is that the justice system will continue to work hard to foster lasting change.

 

 

Lichtenegger Victim’s Family: Church Knew History of Sexual Violence; Allowed Access to Children Anyway

The family of SM East student Kessler Lichtenegger’s latest victims have filed a lawsuit against the Westside Family Church in Lenexa this week, claiming that although church leaders were aware of his prior sexual misconduct and history of sexual violence, it did not deter them from allowing him unsupervised access to minors.

While a lawyer for the church states that Westside Family Church officials deny the allegation, the civil petition filed by lawyers Antwaun Smith and Rebecca Randles claims that Lichtenegger, who lived in Prairie Village, had an extensive history of sexual abuse which had previously resulted in the church requiring his father’s accompaniment as a condition of his presence at the church. Filed in Johnson County District Court Wednesday afternoon, the lawsuit alleges that the church didn’t even follow its own guidelines, allowing Lichtenegger to supervise and interact with young children.

Lichtenegger previously pleaded guilty to attempted electronic solicitation and attempted rape last year, in charges related to having a sexual interaction on church property with one of the defendants while a children’s church service was in progress. At the time, Lichtenegger was 17, and a volunteer at the church’s vacation Bible school during the summer of 2014 and the victim, identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe 31, was 13. Lichtenegger, has had past convictions as a juvenile, and is now serving a 17-year sentence for the crimes against the two plaintiffs. While past conviction records are closed, the lawsuit claims the defendant pleaded guilty to an earlier sexual felony as well as pleaded guilty to the assault of a 15-year-old developmentally disabled girl in 2012.

The lawsuit alleges that while the plaintiff’s parents trusted the church and thought their children were safe church while in attendance, the church knew of Lichtenegger’s previous extensive past crimes of sexual misconduct with kids, but nevertheless allowed him dangerous and unsupervised access to children in the congregation.

While the lawsuit alleges that “All key church leaders admitted to law enforcement officers that the church did not enforce its own protocols meant to prevent Lichtenegger from gaining access to children,” Brad Russell, an attorney for the church said, “Nothing specific was communicated to the church that suggested he had been adjudicated as a sexual predator or was a sexual threat to young people”, though he admits that even though church protocol previously had dictated that Lichtenegger was to be in his father’s supervision at the church, his father was not there and he was not supervised on the day of the assault. Police were originally contacted by church officials after discovering the existence of a “sexting incident” between the defendant and Jane Doe 32, and learned about Jane Westside-family-church-parents-quoteDoe 31’s sexual assault during that investigation.

One of the parents of victim Jane Doe 33 released a statement Thursday, saying: “We are hoping this lawsuit will bring awareness of the need for better sexual predator policies to be put into place and firmly administered at Westside as well as other organizations and venues where parents have a right to expect their children are safe.”

Randles stressed the importance of not allowing people with a known history of sexual misconduct with children to have access to kids, stating, “Pedophiles flock to places where children congregate.” The church has recently added more lighting, cameras and other safeguards; new members are screened to ensure they aren’t on Kansas’ sex offender registry, and background checks for family ministry volunteers have been expanded. Additionally, according to Russell, the church has adopted a policy of excluding people with sexual misconduct histories from church membership.

 

Dual Lyft, Uber Lawsuits Could Derail On-Demand Economy

Lyft and Uber, the two largest ride-hailing services are accused of violating labor law by shutting down their taxi-alternative services in Austin last month. According to twin federal proposed class-action lawsuits filed Thursday, the ridesharing companies closed shop without giving their drivers a federally required notice. Drivers for the Austin, Texas operation allege that, under federal law, the company owes them 60 days of back pay as well as other benefits.

The tandem suits challenge Uber’s and Lyft’s insistence that, as independent contractors, drivers are not employees and therefore not entitled to job protections or standard benefits. The suits were filed in San Francisco federal court, near both companies’ headquarters, brought by ex-Lyft driver David Thorton (Thornton v. Lyft) and former Uber driver Todd Johnston (Johnston v. Uber ). The plaintiffs’ cases invoke the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988, a federal law which requires most companies employing more than 100 workers to notify workers at least 60 days prior to any mass layoff. According to the lawsuits, their failure to do so entitles each driver back pay of up to 60 days as well as related health benefits.

Independent Contractor or Employee?

Lyft and Uber ceased their Austin operations on May 9, after they were unable to overturn city requirements that drivers submit to fingerprinting-based background checks, putting around 10,000 drivers out of work. The claim that the Austin Lyft and Uber drivers were “independent contractors”, and not regular employees is at the core of the companies’ defense. Classifying employees as independent contractors allows a company to avoid providing benefits such as job protections, providing healthcare and lyft-uber-lawsuitretirement benefits. The lawsuits allege that because the companies provided instruction videos, gave procedure manuals, controlled driver scheduling, set prices, and assigned riders to drivers, the drivers should be considered employees – the suit against Uber claims that “Uber and its (drivers) are not engaged in a distinct occupation or business, but instead, they “implement and are integral to Uber’s core business of providing ride-hailing services.”

Impact on On-Demand Service Providers

These two cases boil down to whether the drivers are actually considered standard employees or are only independent contractors. The cases are significant, as they relate to other on-demand services. If the court finds that the Austin drivers were not independent contractors, but were, in fact, employees, it would significantly impact Lyft’s and Uber’s bottom line by requiring them to provide health care and many other benefits to their drivers. It would also set precedence for other workers in similar on-demand environments to claim similar benefits, such as worker’s compensation, unemployment benefits, the right to unionize, as well as the right to seek tips and mileage cost reimbursements.