Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

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.

Trump Advisor Wants to Electronically Monitor Those on Terror Watch List

Rudy Giuliani wants to electronically monitor anyone on the terror watch list and, as an advisor to the Trump campaign, one can only assume Trump will soon take the same policy stance. Trump has faced scrutiny for wanting to ban all Muslims from the country and while his political stance has recently softened a bit from his original blanket ban, one can only wonder if this is masked as an attempt to specifically monitor Muslims.

The question came after news of an attack, claimed in the name of ISIS, on a French priest in northern France. One of the attackers was known as a jihadist sympathizer who was being electronically monitored by French officials after being caught twice trying to travel to Syria under a relative’s identification.

“I would think that’s an excellent idea,” said Giuliana. “If you’re on the terror watch list, I should you know you’re on the terror watch list.  You’re on there for a reason.” Monitor

This doesn’t come as much of a surprise, as Giuliani has a history of monitoring the Muslim community. In 1993, following the World Trade Center bombing, Giuliana put undercover agents inside mosques. Surveillance of the Muslim community only increased in New York after the 9/11 attacks, which included photo and video surveillance, police informants, and databases with personal information on innocent Muslims throughout the community.

Is This Type of Monitoring Even Legal?

Electronic monitoring isn’t a new concept. GPS tracking devices have been put on criminals when on house arrest, similar to the monitoring plan in France mentioned above. Sex offender registries are also electronically monitored. Although these type of registries don’t electronically monitor your every move and whereabouts, in depth personal information is included.

A major difference between those on house arrest and a sex offender registry versus those on the terror watch list is primarily a conviction—many on the terror watch list haven’t been convicted of anything and, even worse, many are put on there in error.

Today, approximately 680,000 people are included on the terror watch list. As with the no fly list, because of the number of errors and low standards of factual evidence required, there’s a lot of scrutiny surrounding the legality of these type of watch lists.  People can be listed even if they have no recognized terrorist group affiliation; it can even be something as simple as being associated with someone else the government deems a risk.

On top of that, the lists are notorious for ethnic and religious profiling, where American Muslims are disproportionately represented. Dearborn, Michigan, an area with the highest concentration of Arab Americans, has the second highest number of watch-listed individuals in the U.S.

So, Where Do We Draw the Line?

In 2012, the Supreme Court decided that GPS devices mounted to a vehicle qualified as a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, which called into question North Carolina’s law that requires convicted sex offenders to wear electronic GPS anklets for the rest of their life.  North Carolina needed to provide an explanation as to why the law did not violate the Constitution.  The 4th Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches, so, if this is the direction Giuliani and the Trump campaign wants to take, they’ll have to come up with valid and reasonable explanation as to why it’s reasonable to electronically monitor those on the terror watch list.

Reasonableness depends on the totality of circumstances and the extent to which a search intrudes on privacy expectations.  Obviously, the government is typically given broad discretion when it comes to topics like national security.  There’s a heavy argument that national security trumps privacy expectations, at least to a point, so it’s possible this would fly.  But, is it really reasonable?

When you consider the fact that the monitors track a suspect’s whereabouts, at the end of the day, that’s probably not really going to prevent much. The attack in northern France happened while the suspect’s anklet was turned off during a time he was allowed to go to work.  He headed into a church and, just as with any other public place an individual is allowed to be, that doesn’t really do much to alert the authorities you’re up to no good.

Even though terror threats are a strong argument, an otherwise discriminatory rule requiring only certain persons to wear the electronic tags would no doubt be unconstitutional.