When your wedding reception gets a bad reception, a successful lawsuit may be the icing on the cake.  This case got started when an African-American couple decided to have their wedding reception at a hotel in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  They filled out an official sales and catering walk-in inquiry form, which had to be approved by the wedding specialist.  Although they made repeated telephone calls, visited twice more, filled out a second form and even got a tour of the facilities, they never heard back from the wedding specialist.  They finally gave up and booked another hotel.  They then complained to the Fair Housing Agency, which sent out four testers, three of whom were African-American, also unable to rent the facility.  The Sixth Circuit ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to see all of the hotel wedding contracts, and that the hotel’s behavior gave rise to an inference of discrimination sufficient for a jury trial.  So it’s a matter of black and white and when it comes to wedding receptions, hotels should probably say I do instead of we won’t.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

Skeck v. Graham Hotel Systems, Inc., Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-2024, May 21, 2009, Merritt, J., U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 46, Pg. 1728, 6-2-09

Podcast: Download

Stamping out food stamp abuse has turned out to be a real food fight.  The plaintiffs operate a small grocery store authorized to issue food stamps.  One day while a part-time employee was working alone, a man came in and asked if he could exchange $30 worth of food stamps for $30 in cash.  The employee said no problem.  Unfortunately, the person getting the cash turned out to be an undercover agent with the Food and Nutrition Service, and the store was charged with trafficking in food stamps and summarily thrown out of the food stamp program.  The store appealed stating the employee knew that exchanging food stamps for cash was prohibited, that it was just a momentary lapse of judgment and the store should not be thrown out of the program.  The Court that first heard the case ruled the store had no standing, but the Court of Appeals reversed holding that vendors didn’t have proper notice of the severity of punishment.  The Court noted that the regulation said, “It’s a good idea to have a written anti-trafficking policy,” and the Court said it’s a bad idea to punish what was not clearly required.  So in this food stamp case, it’s the government whose taken a licking.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

Affum v. U.S., U.S. District Court of Appeals, No. 08-5189, May 26, 2009, Edwards, J., U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 46, Pg. 1727, 6-2-09

Podcast: Download

Big tobacco has suffered a big defeat and the industry is reeling from RICO.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held that nine cigarette manufacturers could be found to have violated RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  In a 1,600-page opinion, the Court said the evidence showed that beginning as far back as 1953, the manufacturers met together to strategize a response to growing public concern about the health risks of smoking and engaged in a scheme to defraud smokers by falsely denying the adverse effects of smoking.  They also manipulated cigarette design to assure delivery of addictive levels of nicotine, conspired to market cigarettes to youth, to understate the effects of secondhand smoke, and to falsely represent that light and low tar cigarettes presented fewer health risks.  In a final blow, the Court held that the master settlement agreement with the states settled future tort cases but not future racketeering claims.  Let’s just say that tobacco industry is staring down the barrel of a smoking gun.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

U.S. v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 06-5267, May 22, 2009, per curiam, U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 46, Pg. 1737, 6-2-09

Podcast: Download

Fireworks may be fun, but are they a recreational activity?  This case got started when the Land O’Lakes Wisconsin Lions Club held its annual Fourth of July festivities, which included flag raising, a parade, a picnic and fireworks.  John, who was a volunteer, was told to clean out the firing tubes after each detonation with a stick with protruding nails.  Unfortunately, one of the tubes blew up in his hands causing severe and permanent injuries.  John sued the Lions Club, which defended on the grounds that the Recreational Immunity Statute protects landowners who make their property available for recreational activity, which is defined as any outdoor activity undertaken for the purpose of exercise, relaxation or pleasure.  The Court concluded that regardless of whether fireworks are recreation, John’s intent was to work and not relax or recreate, and negligent instructions given to him had nothing to do with recreational activity.  So be careful this July Fourth, for if the fireworks don’t work, liability is clearly in the air.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™
John “Jack” Kosky and Dorothy “Dolly” Kosky v. International Association of Lions Clubs, et al., April 29, 1997, Cane, J., 210 Wis.2d 463, 565 NW2d 260

Podcast: Download

If you’re sexually dangerous and you’re sentenced to prison, can they keep you locked up even though your sentence is up?  This case involved Roger, who pleaded guilty in federal court to violating a federal law making it illegal to cross state lines with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor.  Tom was sentenced to 120 months in prison, but when his sentence was up, the Bureau of Prisons moved to commit him under a new federal law that allows the government to commit civilly and indefinitely federal prisoners who’ve completed their sentence but who’ve been proven to be sexually dangerous by clear and convincing evidence.  Roger appealed arguing that while states may be able to adopt such laws, Congress does not have general police powers.  But the Court upheld the law on the grounds that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to deal with sex offenders who often travel between states.  The issue is headed for the Supreme Court.  But in the meantime, Roger will stand committed, done in by the Commerce Clause, which in the case of sexually dangerous persons means business.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

U.S. v. Tom, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-2345, 5-13-09, U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 45, Pg. 1719, 5-26-09

Podcast: Download

If you’re in trouble because of urine trouble, is there anything you can do about it?  This case involved new regulations requiring certain transportation workers, such as those involved in aviation, to submit to observed urine tests where somebody watches during the procedure.  Also those taking the tests have to raise their shirts and lower their clothing to prove the urine they’re submitting is really theirs.  After the workers sued, the Court acknowledged that direct observation testing is highly intrusive but ruled the regulations are necessary because of products that exist for the adulteration of urine, including a prosthetic device that is a dead ringer for real human anatomy, including being color matched.  The Court noted that undercover federal investigators regularly managed to adulterate their urine specimens and the inference that people were using cheating devices was eminently reasonable.  So when you’re in trouble because of urine trouble, you’re in plain view all around.  Let’s just call it a case of peer review.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

BNSF Railway Company v. Department of Transportation, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-1264, May 15, 2009, Tatel, J., U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 45 Pg. 1721, 5-26-09

Podcast: Download

If a radio talk show host calls you a liar, you may just have to take it lying down.  This case involved the Tom Martino Show, a nationally-syndicated talk show that tries to help consumers.  One day Tom took a call from Melissa, who was complaining that her jet ski kept overheating and for the entire boating season spent more time in the shop than on the water.  Tom concluded “they’re just lying to you.”  And after talking off air to the dealer and the manufacturer, Tom added “they admitted to us they lied and they went back on their word.”  The dealer and manufacturer sued for defamation, but the Court has found for the show saying the statements were not assertions of fact but were just opinion.  The Court also said radio talk shows contain many elements that reduce the audience’s expectation of learning objective facts, including drama, hyperbolic language and an opinionated and arrogant host.  Also, the plaintiffs were given the opportunity to call in, but chose not to do so.  So as far as lawsuits for lying, well, they’re all talk and no go.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

John M. Gardner, Susan L. Gardner and Mt. Hood Polaris, Inc. v. Tom Martino d/b/a The Tom Martino Show, Westwood One, Inc., No. 06-35931, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 24, 2009, Marshall, J.

Podcast: Download

You can go on the warpath about a lot of things, but taking away the name of the Washington Redskins isn’t one of them.  This case got started when a group of Native Americans asked the Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the trademark of the Washington Redskins on the grounds that the team name was disparaging towards members of their ethnic group.  After the PTO agreed, the team appealed to the Court, which reversed holding the Native Americans waited too long to challenge the Redskins name on which the league and the team had spent millions in promotion.  The Court accepted the defense of laches, which basically means if you wait too long to assert your rights you lose them.  The Court said, “equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.”  The plaintiffs also challenged the Redskins cheerleaders, the Redskinettes.  But the Court said since Redskinettes is derived from Redskins, laches latches on for them as well.  Another lawsuit is in the works, but for the moment the Redskins and the Redskinettes will keep on putting skin in the game.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Suzanne S. Hario, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 03-7162, May 15, 2009, Tatel, J.

Podcast: Download

Suits against gun manufacturers are still coming up empty.  This case got started ten years ago when Bufford Furrow shot and wounded five victims at a Jewish community summer camp in Granada Hills, California and later shot and killed a postal worker.  The shooting victims and the postal workers’ widows sued the manufacturers, distributors and sellers of the guns, claiming they knew the weapons would be obtained by illegal purchases for criminal purposes.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the case to proceed, but then Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which specifically requires that Federal Courts immediately dismiss civil actions for damages against manufacturers or sellers of qualified firearms, and the Court held it had no choice but to dismiss the case.  The plaintiffs argued the shootings occurred before the law was passed, but the Court said Congress can change the law while cases are pending.  The suit against one Chinese defendant will continue, but as for Glock and all the others, the cases, like the victims, have been blown away.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™
Ileto vs. Glock, Inc., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 06-56872, May 11, 2009, Graber, J., USLW, Vol. 77, No. 44, Pg. 1705 5-19-09

Podcast: Download

Our Courts are open to all, even to suspected terrorists, who sue the Attorney General and the head of the FBI.  Shortly after 9/11, Javaid Iqbal was one of 184 persons deemed to be of “high interest” and held at that the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.  After pleading guilty to immigration and fraud charges, he was returned to Pakistan.  He then sued Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director, Mueller claiming he subjected to unconstitutional treatment during his detention, that he was repeatedly kicked and punched, subjected to unreasonable strip searches and not allowed to pray.  The District Court and the Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that officials cannot be held personally liable for acts committed by others, that purposeful bias must also be proved and that mere knowledge of subordinates’ discriminatory action is not enough. So, in the end, the rule of law protects those who make the rules as well as those who break them.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™
John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al. v. Javaid Iqbal, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 07-1015, 5-18-09, Kennedy, J. USLW, Vol. 77, No. 44, Pg. 4837 5-19-09 (DIDN’T HAVE A PRAYER)

Podcast: Download