How to Handle the Co-Worker you can’t Febreeze
March 18th, 2010. By AbiK
Remember the one about the airline passenger that was booted off a Jazz Air flight because he smelled?
Hey, don’t underestimate that ol’ olfactory system. Think I’m kidding? One woman’s sense of smell just netted her a $100,000 settlement. How? As a Detroit city employee, Susan McBride had complained about a co-worker’s perfume and room deodorizer (must’ve been into fragrance layering)—that the smell of them made it difficult for her to breathe. She also complained of migraine headaches, nausea and coughing.
From a report on The Early Show (CBS), it seems McBride’s boss didn’t respond to her complaints, and apparently didn’t tell the co-worker with the love of all things aromatic that there was a teensy little issue that, quite frankly, she stunk and it was unbearable.
So, McBride sued.
Here’s the kicker—Detroit city employees in three buildings (yes, three!) are now being warned not to wear anything that delivers a scent—no top notes of jasmine, no undertones of sandalwood, skip the tea rose-scented potpourri, the eponymous Tim McGraw cologne, the Glade plug-ins, and by all means, leave the Red Door at the door. The Early Show report also mentions folks should leave behind the deodorant, though if you’re flying Jazz Air you may want to pack a travel size somewhere—just in case.
Seems the question here comes down to a question of rights. And, as labor and employment lawyer Joelle Sharman is quoted as saying on The Early Show, “A person doesn’t necessarily have a right to wear perfume, but the person does have a right to be able to breathe in the workplace. So if an employee comes into work and says to his or her boss, “I can’t breathe, this perfume is triggering a condition that is affecting my ability to breathe in the workplace,” and reports to his or her boss, the boss has to reasonably accommodate that person.”
Your First Clue Something’s Wrong with Fosamax
March 18th, 2010. By AbiK
Yup. There’s your very first clue. The website—usually chock-full of bright branding colors (Fosamax green and yellow, the colors of grass, trees and sunshine…ahhh) and salt-of-the-earth salt-and-pepper haired folks enjoying precious moments with the grandkids or out there gardening—all smiles because they’re taking Fosamax and feelin’ fine. No osteoporosis worries there.
Now, no, I can’t say for sure that the “official” Fosamax site has gone to straight black type on white because there are any problems… but I’m guessing the site’s “not currently available” for reasons beyond a pricing analysis going on over in the marketing department.
Yup. A non-existent website. It’s a marketer’s nightmare. A PR person’s problem to manage. And it’s your first clue that maybe, just maybe, something’s amiss…
(psssst—if you haven’t been clued in yet, read on…)
Lia-bil-ity…Easy as 1-2-3
March 17th, 2010. By Kristine B
Often in the media you’ll hear the word ‘liability’ thrown around. In fact, liability is a word that’s used all the time. However, while people may have an idea of what liability is, they may not know all the ins and outs of it. So, this Pleading Ignorance discusses liability and some of the forms of liability. Sound exciting? You bet it is!
Legal liability refers to a party’s legal responsibility for an act or omission. If that party fails to meet its legal obligations, it could be open to a lawsuit for any damages that resulted from a failure to meet those obligations. Hence (to use another fancy word) we say that the party is liable. By the way, it’s a “party” and not a “person” because a company or other entity can be held liable as well—not just a person.
Lawsuits involving liability must prove three things:
- That the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff
- That the defendant failed to fulfill the duty, and
- That the failure to fulfill the duty resulted in damages to the plaintiff.
Fail to prove all three and you’ve failed to prove liability.
For example, Stephen is driving a car and fails to stop at a red light. While in the intersection, he hits the car Sandra is in, which had the right of way. Sandra is injured in the accident. Sandra can argue that…
- Stephen had a duty of care to the other drivers on the road—including to Sandra
- Stephen’s duty of care was breached when he failed to stop at the red light, and
- Because Sandra was injured in the car accident she can prove that Stephen’s failure to meet his duty of care caused her injuries.
All three answered, so it’s sounding like Stephen’s pretty liable.
So you’ve got the gist of legal liability. But recently, there have been mentions in the news of joint and several
Grassley ticked at Backlog of Veterans Claims
March 17th, 2010. By AbiK
Yesterday, Senator Grassley fired off a letter to Eric Shinseki—Secretary of Veterans Affairs—sharing his outrage at the number of veterans benefits claims that have gone to appeal and have been unjustifiably denied. According to figures presented in a recent case before the Supreme Court, Astrue v. Ratliff, between 50 to 70 percent of veterans benefits appeals fall into what Grassley refers to in his letter as “not just wrong but unjustified” denials.
Words like “startling”, “dysfunctional”, “cause for concern”, and “alarming” in Grassley’s letter convey the extent to which he—and Chief Justice Roberts who presided over arguments in the Supreme Court case—feel the backlog on vet disability claims is severe, growing and unacceptable.
Grassley is seeking answers to the following questions in an effort to improve the quality of Veterans Administration (VA) claims decisions and to reduce the number of unnecessary appeals:
1. What is the accurate percentage of veterans claims appeals in federal court where the government’s position is found to be unjustified?
2. What is the VA doing to improve the quality of VA claims decisions and reduce unnecessary appeals?
3. What is the total amount of attorney’s fees paid by the VA under the Equal Access to Justice Act for each of the past 5 years?
4. What is the source of the funds for attorney’s fees paid by the VA and were funds diverted from another part of the VA budget to pay these costs?
And he’s looking for those answers by March 26th. Stay tuned.
Watch Your P’s and Q’s on Facebook and Twitter
March 16th, 2010. By janem
If you have a potential personal injury suit, the first thing a lawyer will tell you is to “Keep your mouth shut”. They should also add -and many already do– “Stay off Facebook, Twitter, and any other social networking sites, including your own blog.”
Not only are more people than ever turning to Internet sources for news, a recent study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project show that, of people who do get their news online, 75 percent of them have links sent via email or social media. And that percentage includes private investigators, insurers, defense lawyers and judges.
Insurance companies see social media as a monitor or search for information about claimants. They are looking for information a claimant has posted regarding an accident, such as how it happened, who caused it, or even the claimant saying it was their fault.
They also look for information which might contradict what the injured person says about their injury.
Here are a few examples:
- In Ontario a woman who claimed she was disabled had Facebook photos of her dancing. The judge allowed the photos to be admitted as evidence in her personal injury case.
- A Florida woman claimed a back injury and couldn’t work. She went on a cruise with friends and they videotaped her whooping it up, including a videotape of her doing the limbo. The insurance company had been on her Facebook site, downloaded the video and was ready to show it to the jury. The case didn’t turn out to her liking.
- A Supreme Court judge ordered the production of records showing how often a plaintiff claiming a brain injury uses Facebook.
- In a Twitter libel case, you would need to choose 140 characters-at the most–very, very carefully. The promoters of “the Cookie Diet” allegedly claimed that celebutant Kim Kardashian is a fan But Kardashian disdainfully tweeted she would never be on such an “unhealthy diet.” The Cookies filed a defamation case against Kardashian.
And insurance companies look for general information to profile what kind of a person you are. So if you have photos posted on FaceBook or MySpace in a bar or doing something arguably illegal, judgment evidence will be made against you–more negative fodder that a jury might frown on. Value judgments will be made about you–and even a lawyer you hire might decide not to take your case.
It has long been established that electronic documents can be relevant. In one Ontario case, a judge scolded the insurer’s lawyer for failing to ask the plaintiff to produce her Facebook page as part of a sworn affidavit, or to bring up Facebook in cross-examination. In another case, a judge ordered up the release of Facebook. So now some lawyers are demanding Facebook photos in every suit.
Typically, courts in civil cases can only demand private Facebook pages, or a twitter here and there if the material is directly related to the case. But just to be on the safe side, take Everything Down! Especially photographs and videos. The e-trail doesn’t stop there so be diligent: it’s also important that all your online friends purge you from their accounts. If a photo is tagged by someone else, it is still accessible by searching. And strengthen your privacy settings. It’s BIG BROTHER on the Social Media Highway!
Share this Page
Links
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Class Action (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Emerging Issues (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- lawsuits (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)