Archive for News – Page 83

IPS Settles Lawsuit Alleging Sexual Misconduct by Corey Greenwood

It was announced at the end of February that the Indianapolis Public Schools has settled a lawsuit filed by a former student who alleged sexual abuse against a former school administrator. The settlement totaled $490,000.

What the Student Alleged

The student, whose name is being withheld, alleged that they had a sexual relationship with Corey Greenwood, a former IPS teacher. The sexual relationship took place when the student was just 16 years old. Corey Greenwood was placed on administrative leave when the allegations came to light and terminated shortly thereafter. Corey Greenwood was criminally charged in the case and pleaded guilty. He received a brief jail sentence and is currently on probation. His admission of guilt helped solidify the students claims.

Why the Student Sued the Indianapolis Public Schools

In addition to suing Corey Greenwood, the student decided to file this suit against the school district. The reason the suit was filed against the district is because the student alleged that Mr. Greenwood had a history of inappropriate relationships with students dating back approximately 10 years. It was alleged that school officials knew that the teacher was a predator and went after students, yet they still allowed him to teach and even promoted him. If the school district had taken appropriate action and terminated him, as they should have if these allegations were true, this student never would have been a sexual victim of Mr. Greenwoods.

What the Settlement Entails

On February 10, the student and the Indianapolis Public Schools board of commissioners reached a settlement. The terms of the agreement stated that the school district agrees to pay the student $490,000. Corey Greenwood agreed to pay the student $10,000. As part of the settlement agreement, the student agrees to drop the lawsuit and the claim is being dismissed with prejudice and a release of all claims. This means that the student cannot attempt to bring another lawsuit against the school district regarding this matter. Lastly, the settlement states that each party will split the cost of mediation and pay for their own court costs and attorney fees.

When releasing details of the settlement, the district wanted to make it clear that it does not condone employee misconduct and that allegations of inappropriate behavior are taken seriously.

Lawsuit Against Prestigious J.Walter Thompson Advertising Agency Alleges Racism and Sexism

Erin Johnson, Chief Communications Officer for the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency, has filed a lawsuit accusing chairman and CEO Gustavo Martinez of making “constant racist and sexist slurs” demeaning to women and people of color. She also alleges that Martinez touched her inappropriately and made threatening references to rape. According to the lawsuit, which seeks back pay and punitive damages, the company responded to her repeated complaints by reducing her pay and job responsibilities and placing her on paid leave. Further, she contends that the advertising agency retaliated against a top female executive for complaining about his “abusive” behavior.

Johnson-quoteIronically, the agency is credited with having hired the first female copywriter in the industry, Helen Lansdowne Resor, who later went on to become a creative director. Johnson began working for the company in 2005, and said that after Martinez took over in 2015, she found it “virtually impossible” to present the agency in a positive light due to his behavior. Other allegations listed in the 28-page complaint include Johnson’s claim that no action was taken after she repeatedly voiced her concerns to company leaders at both JWT and WPP, including Laura Agostini, global chief talent officer and head of HR.

Martinez, born in Argentina and raised in Spain, is fluent in five languages and the first Hispanic CEO of a global advertising agency. In response to Johnson’s allegations, he said “I want to assure both our clients and my colleagues that I believe I lead this company with a collaborative and collegial style and did not create the kind of working environment that has been described in the complaint.”

JWT’s parent company, British-based WPP, which represents clients such as Coca-Cola, HSBC, Johnson & Johnson, Nestle, Shell and Wal-Mart, reported profits of 11.53 billion dollars in 2014. On February 25th, attorneys for the company began conducting an enquiry of potentially relevant correspondence regarding these issues, but say they have found nothing to substantiate her claims.

Johnson warned that if Martinez’s “comments were publicized, JWT would suffer serious consequences, including losing important clients.” Attempts have been made to gauge client response to the allegations. However, Johnson & Johnson and Shell Oil declined to comment, while calls to other clients, including Kellogg’s, Unilever, and Coca-Cola were not returned.

Whatcom County’s First LLLT, wait…what’s that?

By Jen Petersen, LLLT – Family Law

 

After years in the making, Washington has licensed nine (9) Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT – pronounced “triple-L-T”).  Whatcom County is one of only a few counties to have its very own a practicing LLLT, Me.  In November 2015, I became the fourth person to be licensed as an LLLT in Washington.  Many Whatcom County attorneys and legal professionals are familiar with me, and I was fortunate to have their encouragement on my LLLT journey.  For those who don’t know me, I was the paralegal to family law attorney Liz Balas from 2000 until her retirement in 2010; during my years with Liz, I also had the great fortune to work with Penny Henderson and Paula McCandlis.  Since 2008, I have been a paralegal at Shepherd and Abbott, where I continue in that capacity, as well as in my new role as an LLLT in family law.

A little background for those unfamiliar with the LLLT program.  In 2012, the Washington Supreme Court Ordered adoption of APR 28, the Limited Practice Rule for Legal Technicians.  The proposed Rule was initially submitted to the Court in 2008, following a 2003 Civil Legal Needs Study which revealed that in excess of 80 percent of Washingtonians of low to moderate incomes encountered a civil legal issue in which they needed legal assistance, but went without because they did not know how to get or could not afford help.  The purpose of APR 28 is to allow qualified, trained, licensed legal practitioners to provide limited legal assistance in approved practice areas, with the intention of helping to meet the unmet civil legal needs in Washington.  Family law is presently the only approved practice area, however, practice areas under consideration for future approval include elder law, landlord-tenant issues and immigration.

It usually surprises attorneys when they ask me about the process I went through to get licensed.  Under APR 28, one must meet the following requirements: obtain an Associate’s Degree or higher; complete 45 credit hours of core curriculum through an ABA approved legal program; complete the LLLT practice area classes offered through the University of Washington School of Law (a 1 year program including twice weekly 2.5 hour live online interactive lecture classes, plus extensive reading and written homework assignments); complete 3,000 hours of paralegal experience involving substantive legal work under the supervision of a licensed attorney (the attorney must submit an declaration re: supervision); pass the full day Legal Technician exam, which covers the practice area and ethics/professional responsibility; and, fulfill all of the other licensing requirements (i.e. be of good moral character, submit an FBI background check, provide proof of malpractice insurance coverage, etc.).  I sat for the September 2015 LLLT exam.  Including myself, 15 applicants sat for the exam, 10 passed (seven of nine examinees passed the first exam in the spring).

 

So, what is an LLLT permitted to and prohibited from doing?  In a nutshell, an LLLT may assist a pro se party with self-representation, as follows:

  1.   I applied for and was granted a limited time waiver of the education requirement (my Whatcom Community College paralegal program was not ABA approved), after I met additional requirements.  The waiver required passing a national paralegal certification examination and submitting declarations by attorneys who would attest that I had 10 years of substantive law-related experience (thank you Penny, Paula and Doug!)
  2. Important definition: APR 28 B(7): “Substantive law-related work” means work that requires knowledge of legal concepts and is customarily, but not necessarily, performed by a lawyer.
  • Obtain relevant facts, and explain the relevancy of such information;
  • Provide information regarding applicable procedures, including deadlines, documents which must be filed, and the anticipated course of the legal proceeding;
  • Provide information regarding applicable procedures for proper service of process and filing of legal documents;
  • Provide self-help materials which contain information regarding relevant legal requirements, case law basis, and venue and jurisdiction requirements;
  • Review and explain documents or exhibits received from a client’s spouse and/or his/her attorney;
  • Select, complete, file, and effect service of forms and advise a client of the significance of the selected forms to their case;
  • Perform legal research;
  • Advise a client as to other documents that may be necessary to their case, and explain how such additional documents or pleadings may affect their case; and,
  • Assist in obtaining necessary documents, such as birth, death, or marriage certificates.

 

If needed, an LLLT can provide additional services drafting legal letters and documents, if the work is reviewed and approved by a Washington attorney.  For LLLTs in private practice, it will be important to find an attorney willing to team up on issues that are permissible with attorney assistance.

An LLLT may not represent clients in court, they cannot negotiate on behalf of a client, and they cannot attend or participate in taking a deposition.  An LLLT cannot assist a dissolution client if one party is in bankruptcy without the assistance of a bankruptcy attorney.  LLLTs are also prohibited from assisting with disputed major parenting plan modifications, non-parental custody petitions, and relocation actions if they are objected to.  Presently, LLLTs are prohibited from advising or assisting clients regarding the division of real estate, formal business entities or retirement plans that require a supplemental order or QDRO.  To clarify, LLLTs can assist divorce clients who own real estate, but an attorney or LPO will have to prepare any documents necessary to divide or transfer the real estate.  See APR 28 for the complete list of LLLT dos and don’ts.

LLLTs are required to adhere to APR 28 and the LLLT RPCs.  We must complete continuing education credits each year, so unless and/or until seminars are offered specific to LLLTs you will likely begin to run into LLLTs at attorney CLEs.  LLLTs are also required, unlike attorneys, to maintain malpractice insurance coverage and have a signed fee agreement before performing any services for a fee.

LLLTs are frequently being likened to nurse practitioners and certified physician’s assistants in the medical field – a compliment to physicians not a replacement for.  I am hopeful the local legal community will adopt a similar stance on LLLTs and that LLLTs will help cut down on the unauthorized practice of law in our area.  I am excited to be a Limited License Legal Technician, as Washington pioneers the move to allow qualified, trained, licensed legal technicians to engage in the limited practice of law in specific practice areas. I’m happy to discuss the LLLT program and answer any questions you might have, please feel free to contact me at (360)733-3773 or jen@saalawoffice.com.

Final Settlement Approval Granted for Electrolux Home Products Ice Makers Case

U.S. District Judge Noel Hilman gave the final approval for the settlement in the Electrolux Home Products Ice Makers case, which is a class action litigation. The settlement may be worth as much as $20 million. The class for the Electrolux Home Products case is made up of about 100,000 members. These members purchased Electrolux ice maker and claimed that the product was faulty.

class-members-reimbursementAccording to advertisements and promotions, the Electrolux ice maker is able to offer “ice at your fingertips” to consumers. However, these 100,000 members claimed that the product failed to produce ice as marketed and instead caused major damage to their refrigerators. Many of the members reported that the product leaked only a few months after they purchased it.

Mariusz Kuzian, who happens to be the named plaintiff, claimed that the product she purchased from Electrolux Home Products only worked for a year. One year after purchase, the ice maker of the Electrolux French Door Bottom Freezer Refrigerator stopped working. She had the ice maker repaired and after six months, both the ice machine and the front electronic display of the refrigerator stopped working. Kuzian also said that the interior light of the refrigerator did not turn off after closing the doors. This interior light caused the refrigerator’s internal temperature to increase and the food in the refrigerator to spoil.

According to the members of the class, the problems with these refrigerators are a result of design defects. The class members claimed that either the defendant sold the products while fully aware of the defects, or the defendant did not know about the defects due to carelessness in the testing of the products.

Based on the settlement’s terms, the class members will receive $100 in cash as well as a $100 rebate. This rebate can be used to go towards the cost of any Electrolux product that costs $499 or more.

Class members who paid for repairs with their own money will receive reimbursement from the quarter of a million dollar reimbursement fund. The named plaintiffs in the case will receive service payments worth $32,500. The counsels will receive a total of $2.75 million for attorney fees.

South Dakota nursing home facing litigation for employee actions

A South Dakota nursing home is facing a civil lawsuit after an employee took nude photos of a resident and posted them on social media.

The employee, a nurse’s aid named Callie Jones, undressed the resident, took nude photos of her, and posted them on social media. The civil suit, filed against the Golden Living Center in Pierre, South Dakota, seeks unspecified damages from the nursing home due to the physical and emotional injury to the victim caused by the incident. The suit, in which the victim’s representative asks for a jury trial, was filed on Jan. 29 and served by a sheriff’s deputy on Feb. 2. The nursing home has yet to file a response.

nursing-home-background-checksThe lawsuit accuses the Golden Living Center of negligence in hiring, training, and supervising Jones, failing to maintain the well-being of the victim, and failure to promote quality of life for the victim. A spokesperson for the facility stated that background checks are run on employees. However, these checks do not always account for unpredictable behavior following employment.

This is frequently a concern in nursing homes, which often face overcrowding and insufficient staffing to accommodate the ongoing needs of residents. In addition, older adults are at higher risk for abuse. Advocates for quality health care seek stricter policies of hiring and training to ensure that nursing home residents are treated with care and dignity.

Jones was charged in relation to this event. In June 2015, Jones faced a charge of misdemeanor for photographing the victim. She pleaded guilty to secretly recording the body of a person. She was sentenced to three days in jail.

The unnamed victim was a resident at the nursing home from Feb. 6 to June 25, 2015. She passed away on Aug. 5, 2015. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the victim by her family and estate.

The victim’s lawyer and the director of the Golden Living Center have not released statements at this time. The Golden Living Center has not indicated whether Jones is still employed at the facility. However, Jones’s social media pages do not list Golden Living Center as her place of employment.

 

Staten Island Hoverboard Accident Leads to Negligence Lawsuit

This past Christmas every kid wanted a hoverboard. The idea of gliding through the air like Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future proves appealing to them. Some parents bought the $400 boards to keep pleading kids happy.

Though many find this product too expensive, those who do make the purchase will find they now have the most popular kid on the block. Everybody wants to be friends with the owner of a futuristic hoverboard. That cultural relic known as the skateboard does not cut it any longer.

hover-board-lawsuitHoverboard Accidents Causing Concern

A ride on a hover board, a contraption straight from the sci-fi movies, can be a dream come true. That is until there is an accident. Then flying around on a hoverboard loses some of its appeal. Such was the case in New York when a hoverboard began emitting smoke, causing injuries to a 12 year-old boy and damaging the house.

Michael Cerullo, a Staten Island resident, received a Swagway X1 hoverboard as a Christmas gift from his grandmother. Perhaps his months of pleading wore down her resolve.

On January 3, Michael and his younger brother were playing with the Swagway X1 when smoke, fire and batteries began shooting from it.

A neighbor had to come help put out the flames. A few days later the boy experienced breathing problems. A doctor diagnosed him with severe smoke inhalation. His mother also claims her son suffers from trauma.

The family filed a lawsuit to recover for the physical damage to their home. They accuse Swagway of negligence. There was a safety misrepresentation, according to the court paperwork. Swagway placed a Underwriters Laboratories certificate on the Swagway X1 hoverboard box. Unwitting customers believed the device safe. It turns out the certification was not official.

Federal Recall Possible

Even the federal government has gotten involved. It sent a letter to Swagway demanding compliance with safety regulations. Between December 2015 and February 2016, Swagway hoverboards caused at least 52 fires. Families have lost up to $2 million as a result.

As for now, the hoverboards remain available for purchase. Only time will tell whether the authorities will recall the vehicles. Meanwhile, users should be aware of the possible danger.

Anyone hurt should contact a personal injury attorney to discuss just compensation.

 

Black Sunday Firefighters Receive Justice

On January 23, 2005, a fire in a Bronx apartment building located on E. 178th St. broke out. The New York Fire Department was called to the scene, where members of the department worked to rescue the people trapped inside the building. Unfortunately, six firefighters died or were seriously injured during the fire.

fire-fighters-diedDuring the subsequent investigation, of the fire, now known as the Black Sunday Fire, multiple sources cited the lack of safety ropes as the main reason why the firefighters died. The investigation also revealed that the landlord had illegally subdivided the apartment, making it next to impossible for rescue teams to navigate through the building. The poorly constructed dividing walls were not only difficult to navigate through, but also made it impossible for the firefighters to reach the exits of the building. Six of the firefighters on the scene choose to jump out of a window on the 5th story of the building rather than burn to death.

Two of the firefighters were immediately killed upon impact. A third firefighter, Joseph DiBernardo, had his feet and heels crushed from the impact. He died in 2011 from the physical and psychological impact of his injuries, according to court documents. Three other firefighters sustained injuries but survived.

As a result of the fire, families of the firefighters filed suit against the city and the landlord of the building. While one family settled out of court, the other five pressed forward with the suit.

During the trial, it was revealed that the firefighters had been issued safety ropes in the past, but all of the ropes had been removed from fire stations in 2000. The city claimed this was part of an attempt to reduce the weight of equipment carried by firefighters into the building, but was unable to show any documentation that this was, in fact, the reason the ropes were removed.

This week, a jury has awarded $183 million to the five plaintiffs. The ruling found that the city was 80% responsible for the deaths and injuries.

Chicago is No Flint: Citizens Fight Back Over Water Contamination

In the wake of the Flint water crisis and close scrutiny of municipal resource use, Chicago residents filed a huge class action lawsuit against the city. These residents allege that the city of Chicago began many construction projects knowing that they would increase the likelihood of lead in the drinking water supply. The city allegedly did not warn its residents of this increased risk, nor did they try to educate the populace on ways to reduce the risk of being contaminated by lead.

Drinking Chicago Water is Like Playing Russian Roulette?

Chicago-water-lawsuitMunicipal resource expert Marc Edwards made the above reference in response to the allegations of Chicago residents against the city. His statement seems to coincide with the behavior of city officials stated in the lawsuit. Chicago apparently gave inaccurate information to its residents about the ongoing construction, even as studies showed that the projects could actually release lead into the water supply for years after the construction had been completed.

The city currently states as policy that simply running the water through a tap in a household is enough to combat the release of lead into the supply. However, they fail to mention the corrosion of the pipes that the construction would likely cause according to the lawsuit.

Did the City Know the Risks?

The lawsuit is seeking medical compensation for residents of Chicago that have been affected. There is also a fund created specifically to educate Chicago about the hazards that the city’s construction projects are causing.

Are You Yuriy Ropiy?

Yuriy Ropiy is one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ropiy suffered unexplained issues with his health including symptoms of a heart attack. Not surprisingly, Ropiy and his wife lived next to a construction project that the city recently conducted.

Steven Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, is the firm that is taking the class action to court. If you are a resident of Chicago and you believe that you are at risk of lead poisoning because of recent construction around the city, you are advised to contact Hagens Berman.

Woman from Hamilton County files $1.75 million lawsuit for excessive force

A woman from Hamilton County filed a lawsuit for $1.75 million. In this lawsuit, Nancy Mason, a 61-year-old woman, claims that six law enforcement officer used excessive force against her while she was in custody.

According to Nancy Mason, she cooperated with the law enforcement officers when they booked her on March 21, 2015 into the Hamilton County Jail. According to her, they patted her down, found no weapons, and began to take away her possessions. Nancy Mason refused to allow them to take her earrings and she told Sgt. Rodney Terrel that she would report the incident.

Jury-trial-

According to the lawsuit, Sgt. Rodney Terrell unholstered his taser and shot her without warning. Mason claims she fell to the floor and fractured one of her wrists in the process. As she was on the floor, Terrell still had the taser trained on the frail woman, according to the lawsuit. He then asked Terrell once more to give the earrings to them for safekeeping.

In the lawsuit, Nancy Mason claims that she was tazed after less than 25 seconds of talking to Sgt. Rodney Terrel. According to the lawsuit, the county has yet to take any action against Sgt. Rodney Terrell or the deputies for condoning the use of excessive force. Matt Lea from the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office says the five deputies are on duty still. However, they have been assigned to the department’s Corrections Divisions.

According to Kyle Miller, who represents the Chattanooga Police Department, Nancy Mason made no complaints against Greg Tate, who is the police officer who initially arrested her. Mason was arrested for charges of theft of property of a value over $500. According to court records, Mason pleaded guilty and was put on house arrest for six months.

Robin Flores, Mason’s lawyer, declined to make a comment. The lawyer claimed that the lawsuit more than speaks for itself. The lawsuit claims that the city and county inadequately trained its law enforcement officers. The lawsuit mentions a few examples of abuse at the hands of law enforcement, such as the Adam Tatum case. The suit calls for a jury trial and compensatory and punitive damages of at least $1.75 million.

OxyContin Lawsuit Costs Manufacturer $24 Million in Settlement Agreement

OxyContin has been linked with drug abuse for years, and the prescription painkiller’s manufacturer is finally being held financially responsible for it. Purdue Pharma now has to pay a total of $24 million to the state of Kentucky as part of a legal settlement.

24-million-settlementKentucky officials sued Purdue Pharma back in 2007 after claiming that the manufacturer falsely marketed OxyContin as non addictive. While the drug was designed to be released gradually over a 12-hour period, it didn’t take long for some people who took it to find a way to get high from it. These users crushed OxyContin pills before taking them instead of swallowing them whole as the directions stated, making them instantly high. Kentucky officials stated that this discovery caused a large number of addictions in the state, especially among coal miners with injuries, which resulted in skyrocketing medical costs.

Although Purdue Pharma tried to settle the Kentucky lawsuit quickly with a proposed payment of $500,000, the state would not accept the offer. Instead, the state moved forward with the lawsuit, which officials believed to be worth millions of dollars or even close to one billion at the time. While the lawsuit continued, Purdue Pharma took steps to make OxyContin safer for consumers to take for pain relief. In 2010, the company released a newer version that is designed to prevent abuse.

Despite the recent settlement agreement, which was reached in late 2015, the drug manufacturer still has not admitted to doing anything wrong while marketing OxyContin. Instead, the company has been working on developing additional painkillers that deter abuse and offer safe forms of pain relief. Under the settlement agreement, Purdue Pharma must make two payments of $12 million to Kentucky. The company has a total of eight years to make these payments, which the state will then use to set up addiction treatment programs to help those who have been affected by this drug.