Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Trump Faces a Record Amount of Lawsuits for a President

In a mere two-week period, Trump faces a slew of lawsuits that already amount to 10 times the average of the three presidents who preceded him.  Over 50 lawsuits have been filed and, at the rate he’s going, it doesn’t look like it will slow down any time soon.  Plaintiffs from 17 different states include religious groups, state attorneys general, doctors, professors, students, refugees seeking help, and Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. military.  While most lawsuits are in reference to Trump’s immigration ban arguing civil rights violations, the President is also facing a financial conflict of interest suit and a lawsuit regarding federal funding.

Trump Lawsuits

Travel & Refugee Ban

Civil rights cases starting flying out of the wood works once Trump signed his executive order restricting travel.  The immigration ban not only restricts access into the United States for those from select black-listed countries, but it halts entrance for refugees seeking political asylum.  Although a federal judge has temporarily blocked the executive order from taking effect, Trump has appealed the lawsuit.  Here’s a closer look at what the executive order will do if Trump prevails his appeal:

  • Suspend the entire U.S. refugee admissions system for at least 120 days.
  • Suspend the Syrian refugee program indefinitely.
  • Ban entry from 7 majority-Muslim countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for at least 90 days. This includes dual-nationals that hold passports from other countries as well.
  • Prioritize refugee claims on the basis of religion, with a strong implication that non-Muslim religions would get preference.
  • Lower the total number of refugees to be accepted in 2017 from any country.

The lawsuits allege violations of the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, citing religious inequality, due process and equal protection violations, denials of asylum, as well as discriminatory visa processing practices.  Here’s a closer look at the expanding list of who’s suing Trump based on this executive order:

  • Washington state has brought suit on a national level and claims the ban violates both the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The state of Minnesota joined in on the lawsuit, as well as 16 other states who have joined as friends of the court to argue against the ban. At least 127 tech companies have also filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in opposition to the ban.
  • The ACLU brought multiple lawsuits by different plaintiffs arguing the ban discriminates against Muslims. Among the plaintiffs are two Iranian national University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth associate professors were detained while returning from an engineering conference and an Iraqi soldier (with a valid visa) was detained in New York while trying to join his family.
  • The Council on American Islamic Relations also brought suit alleging the ban discriminates against Muslims and is unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds because it disfavors groups based on their religious faith.

Conflicts of Interest

We’ve been hearing about the numerous ways Trump’s business dealings present conflict of interest issues since his election.  The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) brought a lawsuit against Trump alleging he violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which basically says those holding office can’t profit from their power in office.

CREW’s lawsuit alleges because of the payments Trump receives from foreign organizations as through his many businesses, he’s profiting from his presidency.  The argument rests on the notion that these profits limit his ability as President to make unbiased decisions for the benefit of the United States over the betterment of himself.  Although, there’s a good argument CREW doesn’t have standing to win their case, it doesn’t negate the legitimate conflicts of interest.

Withholding Federal Funding

Cracking down on sanctuary cities is a campaign threat Trump followed through on.  In addition to his immigration ban, Trump issued an executive order that would cut federal funding from sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials.  San Francisco, a sanctuary city, has taken a stance and brought a lawsuit arguing the order violates the 10th Amendment.  While the federal government can put conditions on the money they give out, the conditions cannot be coercive, which gives San Francisco a strong argument.

What Happens When a President is Sued?

Qualified immunity can be tricky.  On a general level, public officials are protected from lawsuits alleging they violated a plaintiff’s rights.  Exceptions come into play when there’s an allegation that the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.  If cases were brought against a president for actions not related to their official capacity, the case would most likely be postponed until their term is over.

There are numerous lawsuits pending against Trump that were filed before his inauguration and don’t relate to his presidency.  The fraud lawsuit regarding Trump University was settled, but most of the other cases will resume once Trump’s time in office is over.   All of the cases filed within the past couple of weeks relate to Trump’s actions as President and pose constitutional violations, so they’ll be able to move forward through the judicial process.

Can a Catholic Hospital Refuse Medical Treatment For Religious Reasons?

What happens when a hospital refuses vital medical treatment due to the hospital’s religious beliefs?

In the United States, Catholic hospitals have come under scrutiny when reports emerged of women denied treatment due to their “ethical and religious directive.” In almost every case, it was a woman who was either pregnant and/or wished to prevent pregnancy.

How can hospitals, especially Catholic hospitals, deny necessary treatment? Regardless of religious affiliation, hospitals are there to treat and serve their community. How can the hospital be allowed to operate if they refuse necessary, life-saving treatment for those in need?

What Does the “Ethical and Religious Directive” Say?

In the United States, Catholic hospitals must follow the “ethical and religious directive” set by the Church. The Directive instructs that hospitals should treat all patients, including (but not limited to): the poor, those without insurance, single parents, the elderly, children, and “the unborn.”

The Directive states that a pregnant woman can undergo treatment or care, even at the risk of the fetus’s life, so long as their illness is “proportionately serious” in comparison to the loss of the fetus. In fact, the Directive uses the term “proportionately serious” when describing the health of a pregnant woman and an unborn fetus.

For these hospitals, the life of the unborn fetus is as important as the life of the pregnant woman in distress. In essence, the fetus is as much a patient as the mother. In fact, the directive also forbids the hospitals from sterilizing women, so they also treat the hypothetical “unborn.”

The doctors at the Catholic hospitals refused to perform an abortion, since the fetus’ heart was beating. Even after the women were bleeding heavily, in excruciating pain, developing an infection, and were told that their is no way for their child to survive.

Can a Hospital Refuse to Give Necessary Treatment?

No, a hospital cannot refuse to give a patient necessary treatment. However, the question is whether the treatment is necessary.

An abortion is not always necessary if the pregnancy would become a miscarriage. However, it is a common medical practice in the United States to perform a medically necessary abortion when a patient begins to show signs of infection and/or severe pain.

Many of the women in the report were experiencing severe pain and showing signs of infection. Instead, the Catholic hospitals turned away each patient and told them to wait in pain, discomfort, and fear until the fetus no longer had a heartbeat. In fact, to fight the pain and infection, they were given some aspirin and sent home.

It is easy to say that these women should have gone to a different hospital or facility; someplace that does not follow the Ethical and Religious Directive. But Catholic hospitals are growing in number, and in some states they account for 40% of available hospital beds. This means that for many of these women, finding a place that is not a Catholic hospital may mean hours of travel to receive treatment.

So Why is This Still Going On?

The state and federal government have not addressed the gap in treatment options that are due to religious directives. The government wants to encourage the creation and running of non-government run hospitals, but they cannot tell these hospitals how to operate.

Currently, hospitals may be required to have emergency services and not turn away impoverished patients. But women’s health and abortion issues are still heavily debated, in the government and around the dinner table. If the government cannot take a stand on abortion, then it would be hard to impose any requirement on hospitals.

But what can we do about women who are falling through the cracks of the system? These women are not seeking an abortion to end a healthy and viable fetus. They are seeking an abortion to help end the agony of a miscarriage after being told that their child will not survive.

Given the current landscape of women’s health, it seems like this issue will not be resolved any time soon. But for the health and safety of 50.8% of the United States population, we can only hope that it will stop being a question of politics and instead a question of public health and well-being.

ITT Tech’s Sudden Shutdown Brings New Legal Woes

ITT Technical Institute became a household name for many people who remember seeing the commercials on daytime tv during soap operas and daytime talk shows. However, ITT Tech is now becoming known for a business move that is as shocking as anything on the television programs that it once advertised. That move was to abruptly close its educational centers without much, if any, warning.

The for-profit educational juggernaut is now finding itself in legal trouble after suddenly shutting the company doors. Three employees have filed lawsuits against ITT Educational Services, Inc., the company in charge of the ITT Tech educational centers, over the fact that the company failed to provide an adequate warning to its employees before closing.

Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, companies with 100 or more employees are required to provide 60 days notice to their employees in the event of a plant closing that results in a mass layoff. A mass layoff is defined as a layoff of 50 or more employees. ITT

When the details of the WARN Act are applied to the facts of the ITT Tech situation, it does appear that ITT Educational Services, Inc. did owe its laid-off employees a warning. The mass closings of the ITT Tech educational facilities occurring all at once can equivocate to a major plant closing despite occurring at different locations instead of a singular location.

Also, the aggregate number of employees working at the various shuttered educational facilities was around 4100 employees, which means that the shutting down of the ITT Tech facilities did lead to a mass layoff if viewed as a singular action.

ITT’s Defense

However, there are two arguments that ITT Educational Services, Inc. may be able to use to successfully defend itself. First, the company could argue that the closures cannot be treated as a singular closure that triggered a mass layoff because the facilities are located all across the country with many facilities employing less than 50 employees.

Closing several smaller offices rather than one large office has a different impact on a community than if a single location employing several people in that community shuts down without warning. The court can choose to look at each facility closure as a single instance instead of choosing to aggregate all of the closures and employee numbers into a single event. If the court does choose to look at the different closures as unique events, then the number of employees lost at each educational facility may not be enough for the employment loss to count as a mass layoff.

In the event that the court does choose to look at the closures as a single event, ITT Educational Services, Inc. may still be free to argue that it should be exempt  because the closures were a result of an unforeseeable business circumstance. Under the WARN Act, a company is not required to provide a 60-day notice to its employees if an unforeseeable business circumstance is what caused the plant closing.

In the case of an unforeseeable business circumstance, the company only needs to provide as much warning as is reasonably possible. ITT Educational Services, Inc. could potentially argue that the imposition of sanctions by the federal government was an unforeseeable circumstance that made it impossible to continue operations. On its website, ITT Educational Services, Inc. claims that it had no intention of closing the ITT Tech educational services until the sanctions prohibiting it from accepting federal loans were imposed.

Danger Was Foreseeable

However, the company had been evaluated and monitored by the federal government with the threat of sanctions if certain changes were not implemented by a certain date. Also, Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit education company similar to ITT Educational Services, Inc., shut down operations just over a year ago after going through the same evaluation process and being given the same sanctions as ITT Educational Services, Inc. Thus, it could be argued that ITT Educational Services, Inc. should have been able to foresee that they may be put into a position of having to shut down operations shortly after the deadline provided by the government, and should have provided its employees with a warning of a probable closure.

Even with the availability of two possible defenses, it does appear that ITT Educational Services, Inc. may have owed its former employees a 60-day warning for the educational facility closures. If the court does find that the employees were owed a warning, then ITT Educational Services, Inc. will owe its laid-off employees wages and benefits for the amount of time in which they were owed a warning, which would be 60 days in this case. ITT Educational Services, Inc. may owe even more money beyond the wages and benefits if the court determines that the company should have also provided notice  to local governments of the intention to close its educational facilities.

Mass layoff and plant closures have a seriously negative economic impact on local communities when they happen. If a large employer such as ITT Educational Services, Inc. fails to provide an adequate warning about a mass layoff, then the economic impact cannot be mitigated by the former employees finding new employment to replace their former employment with little to no gap between periods of employment.

Thus, it is important to enforce laws such as the WARN Act. If you have recently been laid off suddenly without warning, you may be entitled to back wages under the WARN Act or another federal law.  To find out if you are entitled to such compensation, contact an employment lawyer today.

Stephen Colbert Asked to Change Television Persona

Stephen Colbert, known for his political satire and witty social commentary, has inadvertently run into some intellectual property issues regarding his persona. Formerly of “The Colbert Report” which was the intellectual property right of Viacom, Colbert is now the host of “The Late Show” on CBS. Viacom insists that the Stephen Colbert persona and image no longer be used, as it is their intellectual property. Colbert aimed to create an alternate persona by identifying himself as “Stephen Colbert,” a twin identity to his well-known and celebrated image. This is not likely to hold much weight in court if a lawsuit is initiated.

The “Character” of Things

There are many different angles to this issue. For one, there is an obvious copyright implication. In the copyright world, stock characters generally are not given protection. Under the Copyright Act, before something is given copyright protection, the work must meet a certain level of creativity. A stock character, such as a cliché action hero is not given protection because it is generic and lacks the threshold creativity to warrant protection.

However, in this case, the Stephen Colbert persona is quite unique and is associated with the satirist himself and not a particular genre or other individuals in the same field. Of course, this is a matter that would be decided by the jury. If the jury associate the Stephen Colbert persona with Stephen Colbert himself and not that genre, then Viacom has a strong claim of intellectual property over the persona. Colbert

When it comes to a character, such as Bart Simpson or Batman, the question of whether there is copyright over that particular character depends heavily on the medium. Copyright law treats literary characters quite differently from visual characters. The standard is higher for a literary character. A literary character such as Tom Sawyer will be protected as a copyright work only if that character is essential to the story being told. In other words, if a character is merely an afterthought, then that character will not receive copyright protection. On the other hand, a visual character does not require the same standard.

For example, the xenomorph from the movie Alien will only have copyright over it if it is delineated; in other words, if it is fleshed out enough to be identified on its own. This is a lower standard and is easily met. Here, as Colbert is a visual character, it only has to meet this lesser standard. It goes without saying that the Colbert persona is a character with enough depth and substance to stand on its own, and as a visual character nonetheless, Viacom will be able to meet this standard.

Hence, Viacom might have a good shot at claiming copyright over the original persona developed on “The Colbert Report.” At the same time, Colbert might be able to create his own persona, a la this twin cousin. If the original persona and this doppelgänger of sorts can be viewed as separate concepts by everyday viewers, then Colbert can claim that it is a different character altogether. This will be difficult to do of course as both characters seem quite similar and not enough distinction is between them to set them apart.

Another side to all of this is the work-for-hire doctrine. Under copyright law, if a work has been done on behalf of someone else, the rightful owner of the copyright is the person who requested for the work to be done. In other words, the author or creator of the work doesn’t actually have ownership rights; instead it is the person who commissioned the work. If Viacom can establish that they in fact commissioned the work, which is likely the case as they funded the show and put Colbert on the seat, then they will have copyright over the persona.

Trademark Law

Aside from copyright implications, there are potential trademark issues here as well. Can the Colbert persona be viewed as brand imaging? Is there consumer confusion? There can be a potential trademark to the Colbert persona if it is viewed as a consumer brand. Trademark is easier to establish than copyright, as it is rather easy to place a trademark on something. If Viacom can establish that the Colbert persona is a trademark and that consumers identify with that persona when investing their time or money on it, then it will be deemed a trademark that belongs to them.

Change of Hands

Licensing is a big part of this kerfuffle. If licensing terms are clearly laid out, then it will become quite clear who owns the intellectual property rights to the Colbert persona. Even if Colbert decides to invent an alternate persona, there might be restrictions to this that are expressly stated in the license. Ultimately, this is something that will be addressed if the issue is taken to court.

Pokémon Go Now Catching Lawsuits

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably have heard about Pokémon Go.

Pokémon Go has become a popular national pastime. It is an augmented reality game made for iPhone and Android devices. Once people download the app, they are asked to travel to a fictional world so they can collect every Pokémon creature. What they end up doing is traveling to public places, but also to private properties and places of business in order to “catch them all.” There have also been stories of people getting severely injured, even falling off cliffs or getting hit by cars, while playing the popular game. Now, the creators of Pokémon Go are fielding a slew of lawsuits.

Class Action Lawsuit for Personal Injury

The creators of Pokémon Go may be looking at a class action lawsuit as the amount of people who suffer various personal injuries while playing the game increases. As if texting and driving weren’t bad enough, many players play Pokémon Go while driving, and it’s only a matter of time before one of those players causes a horrific accident.

In Florida, two teenagers playing the game in a car parked in a residential area were shot at by a man who believed they were burglars. A group of young kids playing in Hawthorn, Wiltshire, became lost in caves and had to be rescued. And there are numerous other instances of personal injuries sustained while playing the game.  March of the Pikachu

How does Niantic, Pokémon Company, and Nintendo, the creators of Pokémon Go, avoid liability? The creators included a friendly welcome that warns players to abide by local laws. The game’s terms of service also explicitly state the following:

Players should be “aware of your surroundings and play safely. You agree that your use of the App and play of the game is at your own risk, and it is your responsibility to maintain such health, liability, hazard, personal injury, medical, life, and other insurance policies as you deem reasonably necessary for any injuries that you may incur while using the Services.”

There is legal precedent which establishes no liability for the makers of video games. The most famous lawsuit against a video game company was filed by the widow of a teacher who was killed in the Columbine High School massacre. The widow sought $5 billion in damages. The judge ruled that none of the defendants named in the lawsuit were liable for the slain teacher, primarily because “the harm is intentionally caused by a third person and is not within the scope of the risk created by the actor’s conduct.”

But a case against Pokémon Go creators is different. The game very clearly puts people in harm’s way by making them collect characters in these dangerous places – while driving, on private property, in the middle of the street, etc. Nevertheless, they have a very well-crafted statement which states that the players assume the risk of playing the game and that the players are responsible for any personal injuries sustained while playing.

Only time will tell whether a lawsuit against Pokémon Go for personal injuries will hold water.

Invasion of Use and Enjoyment of Private Property

A Michigan couple recently filed a class action lawsuit against Niantic, Pokémon Company and Nintendo, claiming the game has turned their neighborhood into a “nightmare.” Evidently a Pokémon gym and Pokéstop is located near their private cul-de-sac. Players are blocking driveways and parking their cars on private lawns. According to the complaint, players also peer into their windows and even cuss at them when they ask the players to leave.

The lawsuit alleges the placement of Pokéstop and Pokémon Gyms on or near private property constitutes invasion of use and enjoyment. The couple requested that the gym and Pokéstop be removed as stops near their home, but their request was met with generic responses via the company website.



<