
• Iowa judge says a sheriff denied the applications of a father and son for concealed weapons permits in retaliation for their political activism. "This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views." Dorr v. Weber
• 5th Circuit rules that a school district violated the religious freedom of a Native American boy by requiring him to wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. The boy "has a sincere religious belief in wearing his hair uncut and in plain view." A.A. v. Needville Ind. Sch. Dist.
• 11th Circuit denies a challenge to an ordinance restricting handouts of food to the homeless in Orlando parks. "[W]e are unpersuaded that the conduct of simply feeding people ... is expressive for First Amendment purposes." First Vagabonds Church v. City of Orlando
• Boston judge slashes a jury award in an illegal music downloading case from $675,000 to $67,500. "The award in this case ... lacks any rational foundation and smacks of arbitrariness." Sony v. Tenenbaum
• Iowa Supreme Court suspends a voyeuristic attorney indefinitely for peeping on women through windows. "[W]e cannot overlook the serious, egregious, and persistent nature of [Mark] Templeton’s misconduct and the effect it had on his victims." Disciplinary Board v. Templeton
• Pennsylvania judge strikes down the state's blasphemy law in a case brought by a film producer who wanted to name his company "I Choose Hell Productions." "'Choosing hell' may be an irreverent choice for a corporate name, but under the Constitution, this fact alone cannot be the basis for its suppression from the public debate." Kalman v. Cortes
• Cancer patient sues Wal-Mart for firing him after discovering that he uses medical marijuana for pain relief. "[N]o corporation doing business in Michigan should be permitted to flout state laws protecting patients who use medical marihuana in accordance with state law." Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores
• 11th Circuit rules that the operator of an Internet porn dorm was engaged in illegally operating a business in a residential zone. "Business objectives are the sole reason individuals are paid to live and engage in sexual activities at the 27th Street residence." Flava Works v. City of Miami

|
|
Ex-Maid Can Sue Kobe for Domestic Worker Rights |
|
|
In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind decision, a California judge has ruled that Kobe Bryant's former housekeeper can use a law protecting people from “personal insult” to sue the NBA star and his wife for wrongful termination.
 |
The Bryants
The ruling was a preliminary victory for Maria Jimenez in her lawsuit against the Bryants but the case is anything but a slam dunk since California courts have taken quite a narrow view of the “public policy” exception to an employer's right to terminate at-will employees.
Under California Supreme Court precedent, the exception applies only when the policy in question “involve[s] a matter that affects society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer” and a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must be based on a statute or constitutional provision.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Kirk H. Nakamura last week dismissed Jimenez's claims for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. But he also ruled she has a viable claim for wrongful termination based on Civil Code Section 43, which says “every person has ... the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.”
The case genuinely involves a matter of public policy, Nakamura said in partially denying the Bryants' demurrer to the complaint, because
Ms. Jimenez's assertion of her rights potentially benefits all domestic workers who are subject to abusive actions by their employers.
Jimenez, 48, alleges Vanessa Bryant subjected her to a “continuing pattern” of verbal abuse and demeaning behavior after she began working for the Bryants at their Newport Beach home in September 2007. “Among other abusive comments, Vanessa called Maria 'lazy,' 'slow,' 'a f---ing liar' and 'f---ing sh-t,'” the complaint says.
The final straw, the suit says, was when “Vanessa demanded that Maria put her hand in a bag of dog feces” to retrieve the price tag for a $690 blouse she had mistakenly put in the washing machine.
After quitting in March 2008, Jimenez sued for wrongful “constructive discharge,” meaning she was forced to resign because of “intolerable working conditions.”
The allegations against Vanessa Bryant certainly fit the term “personal insult” and shielding domestic workers from abusive employers is a worthy goal. But there appears to be no precedent for a wrongful discharge claim based on Section 43 and, in cases where courts have applied the “public policy” exception, the claim has been based on a more specific statute.
In Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal. 4th 1083 (1992), the California Supreme Court said a man fired for supporting a co-worker's sexual harassment claim could sue for wrongful discharge because state discrimination law “specifically enjoins any obstruction of a [harassment] investigation.”
Nakamura rejected Jimenez's claims that she was discharged in violation of a criminal harassment law and a statute which requires employers to provide a safe and healthful work environment. “Dog feces are not specifically listed” as a hazardous substance in the Labor Code, he noted.
He also said Jimenez coud not sue for infliction of emotional distress since the allegedly abusive behavior of Vanessa Bryant “is, unfortunately, part of many types of employment, and is to be expected as a risk inherent in the employment relationship.”
But Nakamura's ruling on the wrongful discharge claim would open employers up to liability under Section 43 for terminating employees whom they have insulted –- which is surely beyond the scope of the “public policy” exception.
The Bryants have countersued Jimenez for breaching a confidentiality agreement by talking to the press about their private affairs. Nakamura allowed that claim to proceed because Jimenez “has not shown [her] statements concerned a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
|
UPDATE
As On Point reports here, Jimenez's suit and the Bryants' countersuit were dismissed April 19, 2010 after the parties reached a settlement.
|
By Matthew Heller 9/25/09
|
|
-
Sex Harassment Claims Hit Actor Affleck, 'Bones' Star
A producer of a film about actor Joaquin Phoenix, an extra on the set of the TV show “Bones,” an assistant property master, and a makeup artist are among the plaintiffs in a recent epidemic of lurid Hollywood lawsuits.
Read more...
-
Jury Goes 'Wild' in Woman's Privacy Case Over Video
A Missouri jury has gone wild in a case of involuntary nudity, finding that a woman consented to appearing topless in a “Girls Gone Wild” video by playing to the camera before another person pulled her top down.
Read more...
-
Actress Facing $750K Award to Therapist
Soap opera star Hunter Tylo may have to pay more than $750,000 in damages and attorney fees to a psychotherapist whom she sued more than four years ago for negligent treatment of her children, On Point has learned.
Read more...
-
Reporter Sues Hotels Over Peephole Videos
In an unusual premises liability case, ESPN reporter Erin Andrews has sued the operators of three hotels for allowing a stalker to surreptitiously videotape her naked through peepholes in the doors to her rooms.
Read more...
-
Students Challenge Rubber Fetus Ban
The suspensions of seven pro-life students at two Roswell, N.M., high schools for distributing rubber fetuses have given birth to a lawsuit that takes the First Amendment protections for student speech into uncharted territory.
Read more...
-
Distress Claim Barred in Hotel 'Ménâge à Trois' Case
A former employee of a luxury Miami Beach hotel who says her billionaire boss invited her to join him in a “ménâge à trois” cannot sue him for infliction of emotional distress, a judge has ruled, finding his alleged behavior, while “obnoxious,” was not “objectively outrageous.”
Read more...
-
Chuck E. Cheese Settles Molesting Mascot Suit
A Missouri woman who claimed a Chuck E. Cheese mascot groped her breast has settled her lawsuit against the operator of the restaurant chain, On Point has learned.
Read more...
|
Stovell v. James Subject: LeBron's paternity Document: Complaint
U.S. v. Arizona Subject: Illegal immigration Document: Complaint
Rosenberg v. Google Subject: Negligent navigation Document: Complaint
Smith v. Hooters Subject: Weight discrimination Document: Complaint
City of Ontario v. Quon Subject: Text-message privacy Document: Opinion
more
|
|
Rosenberg v. Musical Arts Assn. Court: Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Subject: Defamation, age bias
Mecozzi v. City of Los Angeles Court: L.A. Superior Subject: Police brutality Verdict: $1.7 million
more
|
|
Jose Padilla v. John Yoo Date: 6/14/10 Court: 9th Circuit Hearing: Oral arguments in human rights case.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger Date: 6/16/10 Court: USDC, N. Calif. Hearing: Closing arguments in trial of challenge to gay marriage ban.
more
|
|
|