Tag Archive for 'lawsuit'Page 2 of 27

If You Drank Red Bull and Didn’t Get Wings, You May Have a Legal Claim

Everyone knows the slogan: “Red Bull Gives You Wings.” Most people would consider this slogan to be comical and would never expected to actually grow wings. But one man decided this was false advertising. Since he drank Red Bull and didn’t get wings, he was determined to make Red Bull pay.

Red-BullBenjamin Careathers sued Red Bull for false advertising. He complained he has been drinking the energy drink for 10 years and has never gained wings or improved his mind or athletic ability.

A Red Bull spokesman stated that the company “maintains its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability.” However, to avoid a time-consuming trial and immense funds to fight the claim, Red Bull decided to settle the case.

They agreed to a settlement of $13 million, including $6.5 for a fund to reimburse those who have purchased a Red Bull (estimated 1.4 million customers) between January 1, 2002, and October 3, 2014. The settlement  is yet to be approved by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. The hearing will occur on May 1 2015. If approved, Red Bull will have to hand over $6.5 million to a fund for consumers to collect their share.

Comical and ridiculous? Absolutely. But there’s nothing funny about a $13 million settlement. This case proves just how careful you have to be when involved in an advertising campaign. As a consumer, if you didn’t get wings from drinking a Red Bull, you can go online and submit a claim now!

Incoming search terms for the article:

Peeping Toms Can Legally Take Photos up Women’s Skirts

Hey ladies, you know that creepy guy who tries to peek up your skirt ? Well it’s now legal for him to take a photo of you as well.

upskirt photos legalOne such creep, Christopher Hunt Cleveland, was arrested last June at the Lincoln Memorial on two counts of attempted voyeurism. Park police were suspicious of Cleveland when they spotted him taking photos of women on the steps above him rather than the giant statute of the bearded man. When police searched Cleveland’s camera and car, they found several hundred photos of women’s “private parts.”

At this point, most would expect a plea bargain if not an outright conviction. Unfortunately for decent people, Cleveland’s lawyer convinced Judge Juliet McKenna to suppress the evidence. Judge McKenna ruled that Cleveland’s photographs could not be used as evidence against him because “there is no evidence Mr. Cleveland positioned his camera in any way or employed photographic techniques or illumination, so as to capture images that were not already on public display.” In other words, the photographs were inadmissible as evidence because somehow the women’s crotches were already visible to the naked eye. Score one for the perverts.

Halfway across the country, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals came to a similar, although slightly different, conclusion. Ronald Thompson was arrested in 2011 after he was caught taking underwater pictures of children in swimsuits. Although police couldn’t charge him with child pornography (the children were clothed), they did try to convict him under a statute which prohibited improper photography or visual recording acquired in public for sexual gratification.

In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the law banning improper photography for sexual gratification violated the free speech clause of the Constitution. The Court agreed that the law was trying to protect citizens from dirty sexual thoughts, but regulation of thoughts is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect against.

Is It Always the Woman’s Fault?

Although the two cases and the outcomes were similar, the two courts took two different paths to arrive at these disturbing results. Internet commentators have condemned both rulings as cases that destroy women’s privacy. The outrage is understandable, but criminal prosecution isn’t the route society should take to stop this kind of behavior.

The D.C. Court ruled that the voyeur’s photos were not evidence of a violation of the law because the pictures were not depictions of anything illegal. Judge McKenna didn’t rule that women have no privacy, but that their privacy had not been violated. Indeed, it would be odd if the judge had ruled that women have no privacy because Judge McKenna is only a trial level judge without the authority to make that kind of ruling. Moreover, Judge McKenna is a women; it’s hard to argue that “male privilege” was a factor when the decision comes from a judge who might one day be on the wrong end of her own ruling.

The Texas case is a different beast altogether. Unlike Cleveland, Thompson was already guilty of violating a law. The Appeals Court overturned the law his conviction was built on because the law itself violated free speech. The free speech argument is particularly clever because it subtly shifts the focus of the case from the women’s privacy to the defendant’s right to express himself. In D.C., women’s privacy wasn’t violated. In Texas, women’s privacy was a secondary concern.

What Now?

If criminal prosecution isn’t the answer, what is? Free speech only limits government action. If you feel your privacy has been violated, you’re free to bring a lawsuit yourself. Such a lawsuit could produce a court order to make the pervert stop. The problem is that the camera guy would have to take pictures of the same woman repeatedly for her to bring suit, and voyeurs like Cleveland target different women every day.

On the other hand, if someone like Thompson is taking pictures at a private facility like a water park, the business itself can ban the pedophile from entering. If someone is taking pictures of you or you see someone taking pictures at a restaurant or private park, you should definitely complain to management and/or the owners.

 

Incoming search terms for the article:

How Wellness Programs Might Result in Employment Discrimination Lawsuits

Employers beware: the EEOC is bringing lawsuits against businesses that use wellness programs to discriminate against disabled employees. The EEOC claims that employers are using wellness programs to subject employees to medical tests unrelated to job performance in an effort to discriminate against disabled employees.

wellness programsIn August 2014, the EEOC filed a suit against Orion Energy Systems for discriminating against Wendy Schobert. The EEOC alleges that Orion shifted premium costs to Schobert after Schobert refused to participate in Orion’s wellness program. When Schobert complained, Orion fired her. Earlier this month, the EEOC filed a second wellness program lawsuit against Flambeau, Inc. The EEOC alleges that Flambeau violated the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) by cancelling employee Dale Arnold’s medical insurance after he refused to complete biometric tests and health risk assessments.

Due to the popularity of wellness programs, the EEOC is expected to file more wellness program suits in the near future. Kaiser Family Foundation reports that about 94% of businesses with over 200 workers and 63% of smaller employers offer wellness programs. A RAND Employer Survey shows that 80% of employers with wellness programs screen their employees for health risks for program planning purposes.

Ironically, the federal government is partly responsible for the recent rise of wellness programs. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, offers 30% to 50% tax credits to employers who get their employees to meet health goals. Many employers believe the EEOC’s recent lawsuits constituted a bait and switch by the federal government: Obamacare incentives them to create these wellness programs for their employees, but then the EEOC sues the employers for implementing wellness programs in a manner that saves employers on insurance costs.

Doing the Right Thing without Being Punished for It

Health employees are obviously a good thing. The employee lives longer, the employer doesn’t have to change employees as often, and everyone saves money when people don’t need medical attention. The question becomes: how does an employer get ACA tax credits without triggering an ADA lawsuit?

First, an employer cannot defend against an EEOC lawsuit by claiming that the employer had to comply with the ACA. The ACA’s tax credits are completely voluntary. Employers aren’t mandated to create wellness programs. If an employer is slapped with a lawsuit after implementing a wellness program, the employer can’t argue that the employer was entrapped because the ACA is voluntary while the ADA is not.

Okay, so employers can’t argue that they can’t comply with both laws. Employers should probably avoid creating wellness programs that will result in a discrimination lawsuit. Let’s examine what Flambeau and Orion Energy System did wrong.

Flambeau and Orion both attempted to subject their employees to unwanted medical tests. An employer might want these tests to see what kind of program they need and to see how expensive their insurance will be. The problem is that the ADA only permits medical tests on employees if the tests are related to work performance. Insurance coverage and employee health are typically not work related. Employers cannot, and should not, compel employees to take medical exams.

In the EEOC’s collective minds, shifting medical insurance costs from the employer to the employee violates the ADA’s rule on medical tests. Raising costs on an employee who refuses to undergo an exam is viewed as employee retaliation because the employer is adversely affecting an employee who stands up for an ADA right.

If an employer decides to create a wellness program, the employer should make the program completely voluntary. The employer should avoid forcing employees to pay the premiums if the employees refuse to undergo a test. It is likely that health insurance might be higher, so the employer must consider the costs of a possible EEOC lawsuit against higher insurance if the employer implements a wellness program and an employee refuses to comply with medical exams. Obamacare might want employers to promote good health among employees, but no good deed goes unpunished.

Incoming search terms for the article:

Can I Be Sued for Writing Negative Reviews Online?

The technological advances of the last several years have made online shopping a way of life. At the heart of this new activity is the ability to broadcast consumer complaints. Sites like Yelp!, Angie’s List, and Amazon have turned the average consumer into an aficionado, giving nearly anyone the ability to publish opinions to a massive audience.

negative reviews onlineWhile buyers may be overjoyed by the wealth of consumer-driven reviews online, some sellers aren’t so happy. Some are so displeased that they have resorted to filing lawsuits against reviewers.

As a result, online shopping has added a new feature to the shopping experience: lawsuits against opinionated consumers.

How Can Sellers Sue?

One word: defamation. Defamation, specifically libel, is the communication to a third party of a false statement that damages or harms the reputation of another. The old saying about “words never hurting” is not true in the legal world.

Nonetheless, hearing about sellers initiating defamation lawsuits over bad reviews sounds outrageous, and has caused many to ask, “Why aren’t the websites hosting the comments liable?” and “What about the First Amendment?”

Well, the websites aren’t liable because federal law (specifically 47 U.S.C § 230) protects the websites from being sued for providing a medium through which defamatory statements may be published. The idea is to hold the author liable and not the website. Additionally, the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that is defamatory. That itself sounds ironic, because the text of the First Amendment quite literally says that “no law” shall abridge free speech.

Should Shoppers Stop Reviewing?

Absolutely not. The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that is defamatory, but even that comes with a caveat: truth is an absolute defense. So, if your review states the truth or states an unvarifyable opinion, then you won’t lose a libel suit.

Moreover, we have a pretty strong love for free speech in this country. So strong, in fact, that many states have drafted laws that protect individuals who are being sued simply for speaking their mind. An anti-SLAPP motion typically allows the defendant to collect attorney’s fees and costs for defending against a lawsuit they never should have had to answer for in the first place.

Although receiving a cease and desist letter for posting a review would be disconcerting and terrifying, to say the least, shoppers should take solace that the truth will protect them. At the same time, businesses should think twice before threatening consumers. Consider: one of the companies who recently threatened to sue a reviewer lost their Amazon seller account as a result of the ordeal.

The Future of Same-Sex Marriage May Be up to the Supreme Court

The states have an enormous amount of leeway when it comes to marriage. On occasion, however, a state’s laws regarding marriage may be called into question, requiring a high authority to step in and offer a well-reasoned answer. For example, Virginia outlawed interracial marriages for many years, until someone challenged the law and eventually had it overturned in the landmark decision of Loving v. Virginia.

same-sex marriageAs coincidence would have it, Virginia has recently become the third state to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on their gay marriage law. Joining Utah and Oklahoma, and undoubtedly more in the coming weeks, Virginia’s Attorney General is essentially asking the Supreme Court to answer one highly controversial question: do homosexual couples have a fundamental right to marriage?

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear any of the cases. Even if they do decide to weigh in, there is no real deadline facing the Court. Notwithstanding, the situation presents a daunting situation; nine unelected justices may ultimately be responsible for ending the most tumultuous debate in decades.

For proponents of gay rights, that may not be such a great thing.

Earlier this year, same-sex marriage made news when a California ballot initiative attempted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Reviewed by the Supreme Court, the appeal was shot down on jurisdictional grounds. What that means is that the court never really, officially reached the merits of whether same-sex couples can marry, but rather simply said the people challenging it didn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

In another victory for supporters of same-sex marriage came about in 2013, when the same Court held the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, is invalid, because the law offered no legitimate purpose that outweighed the discriminatory, damaging effect DOMA had on same-sex couples. The Court reasoned that “by seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

The initial inclination many may have is that the Court will make the same decision with respect to states. What makes this time different?

Unlike DOMA, which is a piece of congressional legislation, these laws are all unique to their respective state. As such, they are written differently, and may have provisions that could potentially satisfy the Court’s requirement for a legitimate purpose. Remember, DOMA was deemed to have no legitimate purpose, and, similar to bans on interracial marriage or same-sex marriage at a federal level, there also may not be any legitimate purpose of any of these states laws. However, and regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, the devil is in the details with respect to statutory construction. With so many different state laws the Supreme Court will have to choose form, it’s possible they may make a ruling based on the best written – or most poorly written – law that appears before them.

Which leads to the next issue: variety. With the copious amount of appeals reaching the Supreme Court’s door, the justices will have the option of picking one (or potentially several) cases on which to base their ruling. While variety may be a good thing, as it ultimately gives the justices more freedom to pick the best case to support their legal reasoning, it’s also not such a great thing for that exact reason – if the Supreme Court wishes to limit the impact of the decision, they can. If they want the decision to have the broadest impact as possible, they can do that too.

So, for example, the Supreme Court may only decide on Virginia’s case based on the unique challenges Virginia is facing, and decline to hear the other cases. In doing so, they could indirectly have an impact on every same-sex couple, without actually ever having to reach a final decision on the merits.

Finally, justices are not keen on recognizing new rights. They may not necessarily have to with respect to gay marriage if they simply do not find a legitimate purpose in any of the state’s laws. What that does, however, is perpetuate and stretch out the same-sex marriage battle, making each challenge and each appeal it’s own little constitutional rule instead of one, overarching definitive rule. That will result in a patchwork of ideology, legal reasoning, and doctrinal law, and ultimately confuse the issue even further.

It is entirely possible none of this may happen. The court may decline to hear any case until there is more of split between circuits, and they may make another victory or offer a crushing defeat for same-sex marriages. As more states appeal, one thing becomes clear: they’ll have to do something, and whatever that something may be, it seems to have more potential to further promulgate and muddle same-sex rights than it does to clear things up.