Posts Tagged ‘ Settlement ’

Are you Gay Enough to Play Ball? Prove it

November 29th, 2011. By AbiK

Sexual preference has long been a hot-button discrimination topic in the courts. Only typically, it tends to be a straight v. gay/bi/lesbian/transgender type of situation. Not a intra-LGBT thing. They’re supposed to all be on the same team, right? Which is why this latest lawsuit settlement makes you take pause.

Seems there was a lawsuit filed by three gay softballers after they were disqualified from a softball competition—the 2008 Gay Softball World Series (sidenote: the New York Times ran a priceless headline on the story: “Three Straights and You’re Out in Gay Softball League“)

Why? Because the men were thought to be too—don’t utter the word!—heterosexual. And, as the name of the Gay Softball World Series denotes, one must be gay—and gay enough—to play ball. Not hetero. Not even bi.

So the men—who claim to be varying degrees of gay—filed a discrimination lawsuit against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance and sought not only to have their team’s second place standing in the Series restored, but also each sought $75,000 in damages for emotional distress.

The whole thing raises some interesting questions. For one, it puts the honor system of labelling oneself as “gay” in question. Well, is he or isn’t he? How can we be sure? In other amateur sports it’s common to self-declare your skill level—and you may indeed be challenged on that if, say, you declare yourself to be a much less-skilled player merely to boost your W-L ratio. But self-declaration in such instances is about the obvious—it’s about skill; and skill as such is fairly conspicuous.

But your level of gayness? That’s a behind-closed-doors type of thing—at least as far as proof is concerned.

It also presents a pretty ugly side of discrimination—”it’s not ok to treat me differently because I’m gay, but since you’re only half-gay (aka, “bi”), well, that’s different”. Uh-huh.

At the time of the 2008 Gay Softball World Series, there had been a “straight cap” that limited the number of heterosexual players a team could have to two—otherwise you had to be gay, as in 100% gay. (A bit odd that hetero’s were allowed at all, no?) However, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has since changed how it defines “gay”. Gay now includes bisexual and transgender people. How nice to be included.

The lawsuit, filed by San Francisco team members Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ, has settled according to an NYT update, with the three men receiving an undisclosed sum—and their team will recoup their second place finish.

Tags: Discrimination Lawsuit, Gay Softball World Series, LGBT, North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, Settlement
Posted in Discrimination, lawsuits | 9124No Comments »2011-11-29+19%3A00%3A02AbiK

Week Adjourned: 11.4.11

November 4th, 2011. By LucyC

Top Class Actions

Could this mean resolution for thalidomide victims?…New research suggests that thalidomide—a drug that caused thousands of horrific cases of deformities in children—caused far more deformities in the U.S. than were reported during the height of the pharmaceutical crisis of the early 1960s.

Invented by German drug company Grunenthal, thalidomide was widely used throughout Europe during the late 1950s and early 1960s, resulting in thousands of deaths and extreme, disfiguring birth defects when used by women during pregnancy. The drug was never approved in the United States, but the new lawsuit filed late October 2011 alleges that as many as 2.5 million doses of the drug were distributed by more than 1,200 doctors to more than 20,000 people, including pregnant women.

Newly discovered and translated documents reveal that Smith, Kline and French (SKF), now owned by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)conducted a trial of the drug in 1956 and 1957, but buried the evidence, allegedly resulting in a missed opportunity to save thousands of lives.

Instead, according to the filed lawsuit, brought on behalf of 13 men and women with severe birth defects, SKF concealed the results of its trial from the public, allowing another company, Richardson-Merrell, now owned by Sanofi-Aventis to move ahead with large-scale “clinical trials” that involved more than 20,000 people, including pregnant women.

The lawsuit also claims that conclusions made in the early 1960s about the types of birth defects caused by the thalidomide were incorrect.

According to legal counsel, researchers concluded that thalidomide causes bilateral birth defects, such as two missing or shortened arms or hearing loss in both ears. As a result, babies born with unilateral defects, such as one deformed limb, or hearing loss in only one ear were not deemed thalidomide victims, even when their mothers were given the drug while pregnant.

However, new research involving thalidomide as part of a treatment regimen in cancer patients show that many of the assumptions used in the 1960s are incorrect. The thalidomide lawsuit alleges that this new understanding of the drug means that many individuals who experienced unilateral defects may have been misdiagnosed when their doctors told them thalidomide could not have been the cause.

“Among other things we intend to show in court that thalidomide does not work through a neural mechanism as previously thought, but affects the vascular system,” a lawyer for the plaintiffs said.

The complaint claims that the defendants are either guilty of or liable for a civil conspiracy, failing to report and covering up evidence that thalidomide was harmful, especially when taken during the early stages of pregnancy. The lawsuit also says that the defendants were negligent in continuing to manufacture, test and distribute the drug.

Top Settlements

Motrin SJS Verdict. This is one for the books. Let’s hope it makes a difference. On October 3, 2011, a Los Angeles jury returned a record-setting verdict against Johnson & Johnson and their fully owned subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare for $48.2 million—with pre-interest and cost of judgment it’s expected to reach $60 million. The lawsuit alleged that Motrin caused SJS/TENS or Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS), also known as Erythema Multiforme, Leyll’s Syndrome, and in its later stages, Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN). SJS/TEN is a serious and potentially life-threatening disease that causes large areas of the skin to become detached and lesions to develop in the mucous membranes.

The verdict was based on findings of malice towards the consumers of the over-the-counter drug Motrin, specifically for not putting a warning label on the product that could have spared Trejo’s and others’ health. This is believed to be the first verdict of its kind involving punitive damages associated with this over-the-counter temporary pain reliever.

At age 16, Christopher Trejo, who is now 22 years old, took some Motrin as directed on the label for less than one week, but contracted TEN. It caused a severe inside-out exfoliating reaction affecting all of his mucosal membranes, which is equivalent to second- and third-degree burns over 100% of his body. The TEN reaction also caused severe pulmonary damage, near-blindness, infertility, whole-body scarring and a hypoxic brain injury. Trejo’s abilities to see, hear, smell, taste and touch have been severely diminished.

After hearing the evidence, the jury found that the labeling on Motrin was inadequate and should have been changed years earlier to properly educate and alert consumers to the developing signs of severe reactions, which include skin reddening, rash and blisters. Early detection and treatment of these symptoms can prevent TEN or SJS.

Apple Playing the Same Old tune? Apple, Inc., has agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action lawsuit that could amount to over $50 million dollars in payouts—but before you get all excited know this “Apple has agreed to provide an iTunes® Store credit in the amount of $3.25 to all settlement class members who qualify and submit a valid claim form. ” That’s the skinny.

The lawsuit claimed that Apple advertised and sold gift cards which stated that if one purchased and used the gift card, all songs purchased at Apple’s online iTunes® Store would cost 99¢ per song. The lawsuit further claimed that in April, 2009, Apple raised the price of certain songs at the iTunes® store, yet refused to honor the promised 99¢ price when the gift cards were redeemed. In addition, the company continued to sell iTunes® gift cards with the phrase, “Songs are 99¢” printed on them.

Consumers who were overcharged for iTunes songs while using iTunes® 99¢ gift cards are now eligible to receive an iTunes® Store credit in the amount of $3.25 after completing the simple iTunes® class action lawsuit online claim form. Millions of e-mails are currently being sent to persons who may have used affected gift cards to purchase songs from the iTunes® Store.

You can find out how to make an Apple iTunes lawsuit claim here.

Ok—That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar—don’t forget your iPod.

Tags: Apple, birth defects, Class Action Lawsuit, Glaxo Smith Kline, iPod, iTunes, iTunes Gift Card Lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson, Motrin, Motrin Verdict, Settlement, SJS, Smith Kline French, Stevens Johnson Syndrome, Thalidomide, Thalidomide Lawsuit
Posted in Class Action, Drugs/Medical, lawsuits, Settlement, Week Adjourned | 9009No Comments »Week+Adjourned%3A+11.4.112011-11-04+23%3A01%3A16LucyC

Can I still File a Lawsuit if there’s already a Settlement?

January 18th, 2011. By Kristine B

Good question—and this week, Pleading Ignorance answers it. It’s a question a lot of people have: Can I still file a lawsuit if there’s already a settlement? I spoke with attorney J. Benton Stewart of Stewart Law, P.L.L.C. to better understand the in’s and out’s of class action settlements and when it’s best to file your lawsuit.

Before we can answer that question, we have to first understand how class action lawsuits and settlements work.

Class action lawsuits can be opt-in or opt-out lawsuits.

Opt-in Class Action Lawsuit

If they are opt-in, then you have to ask to be part of the lawsuit. Typically, with an opt-in class action, you have to submit a claim form indicating that you wish to be a part of the class action—you have to officially “opt in”. If on opt-in class action lawsuit settles and you weren’t part of the class, you’re still free to bring about your own lawsuit. If you were part of the class, then you can’t bring one of your own.

Opt-out Class Action Lawsuit

In an opt-out lawsuit, you’re automatically part of the class regardless of whether or not you meant to be—you have to tell the claims administrator that you don’t want to be part of the class before you’ll be taken out. In this situation, if you haven’t told them that you do not want to be part of the class and the lawsuit settles, you can’t bring your own lawsuit. Basically, if you’re included in a class that settles, either because you chose to be or because you didn’t opt-out, you can’t bring your own lawsuit.

Bottom line, if you think you may want to file your own lawsuit against the defendant in the class action lawsuit, you cannot have been a member of the class (ie, the plaintiffs) of the class action. Still with me?

Of course, there’s more to it than that because of how settlements normally work.

Class Action Lawsuit Settlements

Once a settlement is announced, usually a pool of money is set aside to pay all the claims. Instead Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Attorney J Benton Stewart, Ben Stewart, Class Action, File Lawsuit, Pleading Ignorance, Settlement
Posted in Emerging Issues, Pleading Ignorance | 6532No Comments »2011-01-18+20%3A29%3A45Kristine+B

Ever Wonder if Lawsuit Settlements and Verdicts are Taxable?

July 8th, 2010. By Kristine B

It’s probably one of the biggest questions people involved in lawsuits ask. Is my settlement money taxable? (In other words, how much of this money do I get to keep and how much of it goes to the government?) This week, Pleading Ignorance examines settlements/verdicts, and how much of the money really is yours.

Like everything in life, what is and isn’t taxable is complicated. Whether or not the money in a settlement is taxable depends on a number of factors, because nothing in income tax is ever simple. According to Jeff Schnepper at moneycentral.msn.com (12/04/09), there must be a physical injury for the settlement to be free from tax. So, an award for wrongful termination would be taxable because there is no physical injury.

In fact, there are two requirements to ensure a settlement (or a verdict) is tax-free. The first, as mentioned before, is that there must be a physical injury (which includes illness). Without physical injury, you’re paying taxes.

The second is that the injury must have been caused by a wrongful act. This means that the other party must have committed a wrongful act, which caused your injury. So, if someone was negligent and injured you, your award or settlement would be tax-free. But, if the lawsuit was caused by a dispute that didn’t involve wrongdoing, the award would be taxable.

Punitive damages are taxable, regardless of whether or not they are related to a physical injury. The government taxes citizens on income and punitive damages; because they are not compensating the plaintiff for money lost, those damages are seen as above and beyond what would be needed to make the victim whole.

Emotional distress is not considered a physical injury. So, even if emotional distress results in your feeling ill, emotional distress on its own is taxable. Emotional distress is tax-free when it is linked to a physical injury. For example, if you injure your neck and this results in emotional distress, your award for emotional distress is tax-free.

If, however, you were wrongfully terminated from your job and this resulted in emotional distress, any award for emotional distress is taxable.

Awards for lost wages are, in most cases, taxable because they replace income that would have been taxable.

Tags: Pleading Ignorance, Settlement, Settlement Money, Tax
Posted in Emerging Issues, Pleading Ignorance, Settlement | 4337No Comments »2010-07-08+18%3A58%3A51Kristine+B

A Settlement, a Verdict and a Judgment walk into a bar…

March 4th, 2010. By Kristine B

beer2 A Settlement, a Verdict and a Judgment walk into a bar... (Let me preface this by saying this isn’t a legal joke—more of a little vignette. My apologies to those of you “legal purists” out there…this is Pleading Ignorance and it’s for the rest of us lay folk.) Back to the story…

After a few drinks, a hot chick (I’m a woman, so I can write that) walks up; seems she’s looking for romance—and a husband.

She approaches the Verdict first. He’s game, but he has to ask his mother first—he’s a momma’s boy at heart and momma’s the judge. She doesn’t have time for that, so she heads over to the Judgment. They chat a bit, but then she realizes he may want to bail early on—he wants to keep his options open—and she’s wanting more of a final commitment—no chance of an appeal, so to speak. So she starts chatting up the Settlement. She likes that he sounds like he’s “settled” and he’s upfront about things—no baggage—he hasn’t been through the rigmarole. Yup, the Settlement’s her guy. She buys him a drink, and off they go into the sunset.

Love story though it may be, I use the above bit of fiction to describe three legal terms that are often used interchangeably—and incorrectly so: Settlement, Verdict and Judgment.

So let’s do some ‘splaining. pleading ignorance copy A Settlement, a Verdict and a Judgment walk into a bar...

What is a Settlement?

You hear a lot about settlements because, hands down, they win the popularity contest when it comes to lawsuit outcomes. Why? A few reasons. First, they happen before anyone actually goes to trial—so you avoid the possibility of a case being dragged on and on as it goes through the courts. Secondly, as a settlement arises from negotiation, both parties must agree to the terms of the settlement—and that includes the dollar amount of the settlement and terms of the settlement such as whether or not the amount of the settlement is confidential. And third, a settlement is final—there’s no Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Judgment, Pleading Ignorance, Settlement, Verdict
Posted in Pleading Ignorance, Settlement | 28586 Comments »2010-03-04+21%3A18%3A24Kristine+B