Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transfers and Pay Cuts: Pregnant Officers Accuse Border Agency of Discrimination

      by

      Under a $45 million settlement, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust its policy around pregnancy. Some women say the agency has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation.When Roberta Gabaldon was ready to share news of her pregnancy with her colleagues at Customs and Border Protection in 2015, she brought in pink and blue doughnuts with a sign that read: “Pink and blue. Pink and blue. Somebody’s pregnant, guess who?”But her palpable excitement, particularly after a miscarriage months earlier, quickly dissipated.“My boss came into my office and he’s like: ‘You have to leave. You have to get a note about your pregnancy, and you have to go on light duty,’” Ms. Gabaldon, an agriculture specialist in the El Paso office, recalled, describing how she was told she needed to be reassigned to a post with fewer responsibilities regardless of whether she or her doctor believed it was necessary.Her experience reflects that of hundreds of female employees at the agency who have filed suit against Customs and Border Protection, saying that since at least 2016, they were denied equal treatment once they disclosed they were expecting. No matter the physical demands of their jobs, many were transferred to another post, typically centered on administrative or secretarial work and usually unrelated to what skills they had developed in their existing roles. The policy, they say, hurt their opportunities for advancement, and others add that they weathered pay cuts because light duty meant no more overtime.But under a $45 million settlement reached on Monday, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust a practice that some employees say has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation as women try to hide their pregnancies at work for as long as possible.The agreement, which is not final until the end of September, requires C.B.P. to draft a new policy for pregnant women, and lawyers representing the women will monitor the agency’s compliance for three years. C.B.P. will also be required to train all managers and supervisors about the rights of pregnant employees.C.B.P. declined to answer questions about its policy toward pregnant women as described in the lawsuit and in interviews, citing its practice of not commenting on pending litigation. The terms of the settlement agreement state that the agency does not admit wrongdoing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Family of Titan Crew Member Sues OceanGate

      by

      Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French explorer, died along with four other crew members when OceanGate’s Titan craft imploded on its journey to the Titanic.The family of a French explorer who was aboard the Titan submersible, the vessel that imploded last year during its failed mission to explore the Titanic wreckage, killing all five people aboard, has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the craft’s manufacturer, OceanGate Expeditions.Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French explorer whose deep knowledge of the sunken ship earned him the nickname “Mr. Titanic,” was hired to assist OceanGate, a Washington State-based ocean exploration company, during the Titan’s journey to the Titanic.But the company and its founder, Richard Stockton Rush III, who also died aboard the vessel, misled Mr. Nargeolet about how the submersible was built, according to the lawsuit filed in King County, Wash.“Mr. Rush confessed to a ‘mission specialist’ on one Titanic voyage that he had ‘gotten the carbon fiber used to make the Titan at a big discount from Boeing because it was past its shelf life for use in airplanes,’” according to the lawsuit, which the Houston-based law firms Buzbee Law Firm and Schecter, Shaffer & Harris said was filed on Tuesday.The French deep sea explorer and Titanic expert Paul-Henri Nargeolet with a miniature version of the sunken ship.Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe lawsuit also accuses Mr. Rush of negligence for a variety of reasons, including falsely advertising a “crackling noise” that was said to be an advanced “safety” feature to alert crew members when to abort a mission. In reality, the lawsuit says that sound “is nothing more than the detection of a possibly imminent failure of the carbon fiber hull.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Maui Wildfire Plaintiffs Reach $4 Billion Settlement as Anniversary Nears

      by

      Hawaiian Electric is expected to pay the largest share — nearly $2 billion — but avoided a heftier price tag that could have forced the utility into bankruptcy.Nearly a year after a ferocious wildfire on Maui killed 102 people and leveled the historic town of Lahaina, Hawaii’s largest utility has agreed to pay the largest share of a legal settlement totaling just over $4 billion and compensating more than 10,000 homeowners, businesses and other plaintiffs.The proposed agreement was filed late Friday in a Maui-based state court, six days before the anniversary of the disaster. Fire victims and insurers have spent months in court-ordered mediation with the state, Maui County, large private landowners and utilities within the fire zone to resolve more than 600 lawsuits brought in state and federal courts by survivors of the catastrophe.The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, will cover less than half of the overall cost of the disaster — estimated at nearly $12 billion — which cut a path of destruction through one of the world’s most spectacularly beautiful destinations. More than 3,000 homes and other structures were damaged or destroyed, and thousands of residents were killed, injured or displaced.Gov. Josh Green had pushed for a single global agreement among all the parties to litigation to swiftly compensate fire victims, rather than extending negotiations for years without payment. State officials had also hoped to ward off a potentially devastating financial hit to Maui County and the bankruptcy of Hawaiian Electric, which provides electricity for more than nine in 10 of the state’s residents on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Hawaii Island.“Settling a matter like this within a year is unprecedented,” Mr. Green said on Friday. “And it will be good that our people don’t have to wait to rebuild their lives as long as others have in many places that have suffered similar tragedies.”Under the proposed terms, which do not include any admission of liability, the utility is expected to pay a little less than half of the $4.037 billion settlement, $1.99 billion, a considerable amount but less than the potential $4.9 billion liability that the investment research firm Capstone estimated last year would most likely bankrupt the company.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      N.F.L. Sunday Ticket Verdict Is Thrown Out by Judge

      by

      The decision, five weeks after a jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages in an antitrust case, is a reprieve for the league.The $4.7 billion verdict against the National Football League for colluding to raise prices for its Sunday Ticket television package was overturned late Thursday by a federal judge, who disqualified expert testimony used by the jury to determine damages.The judge, Philip Gutierrez of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, ruled a day after lawyers for the N.F.L. had asked him to exclude testimony from key witnesses for plaintiffs representing thousands of customers who bought Sunday Ticket, a season-long package that showed all out-of-town games and was sold by DirecTV.The jury’s verdict five weeks ago in favor of those plaintiffs threatened to upend the league’s strategy of selling exclusive television packages to broadcasters.In his 16-page decision, Judge Gutierrez said the plaintiffs’ two economic witnesses had used flawed methodology in their attempts to show that the league overcharged Sunday Ticket customers. The jury’s calculations of damages were thrown out because they were based on the witnesses’ testimony, which included comparisons to how college games are broadcast and unsubstantiated speculation on how the N.F.L. might sell games individually, the judge said.“The court finds that the jury’s damages awards were not based on the ‘evidence and reasonable inferences’ but instead were more akin to ‘guesswork or speculation,’” he wrote.Judge Gutierrez also said the jury had not followed his instructions for calculating damages, which in antitrust cases like this one are tripled and would have led to a $14.1 billion verdict against the league.“We are grateful for today’s ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the league said in a statement. “We believe that the N.F.L.’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television.”Calls and text messages to Bill Carmody, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, were not immediately returned.Before the judge’s decision, the N.F.L. said it was prepared to appeal the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs can potentially appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The monthlong trial featured testimony from the N.F.L.’s commissioner, Roger Goodell; Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys; and Sean McManus, who recently retired as the chairman of CBS Sports.Last season, the N.F.L. ended its relationship with DirecTV and sold the rights to the Sunday Ticket package to YouTube for as much as $2.5 billion annually. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Don Lemon Sues Elon Musk Over Canceled X Deal

      by

      The former CNN reporter said in a lawsuit that X had refused to pay him after a testy interview with its billionaire owner.Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor, sued Elon Musk and X on Thursday, arguing that the billionaire refused to pay him after a content deal with the social media platform fell apart.Mr. Lemon agreed in January to take his new show to X, which Mr. Musk owns, as part of the platform’s effort to create premium content to attract advertisers. Mr. Musk agreed to pay Mr. Lemon $1.5 million annually to produce videos exclusively on X, to give him a share of the advertising revenue from his videos and to award Mr. Lemon additional cash incentives as his account gained followers, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco.Mr. Musk also agreed to be Mr. Lemon’s first guest on the show. But the March interview quickly devolved as Mr. Lemon asked the billionaire about his drug use and politics. Shortly after, Mr. Musk canceled the deal.Mr. Lemon did not sign a contract cementing the agreement, which he believed would be a launchpad for his new show after CNN fired him last year, the lawsuit said. Mr. Musk told him during a phone call that there was no need to “fill out paperwork” and reassured Mr. Lemon that X would financially support the show even if he did not like the views Mr. Lemon espoused, according to the court filing.“X executives used Don to prop up their advertising sales pitch, then canceled their partnership and dragged Don’s name through the mud,” Carney Shegerian, a lawyer for Mr. Lemon, said in a statement.X and Mr. Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.After Mr. Musk bought X in 2022, advertisers fled in droves as he posted erratic messages to the site and researchers reported a surge of misinformation and hate speech on it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Oren Alexander, Top Real Estate Agent, Faces Another Claim of Sexual Assault

      by

      A fourth woman filed a lawsuit against Oren Alexander, once a star agent of luxury real estate.An actress and comedian says she was drugged and sexually assaulted by Oren Alexander, a top luxury real estate agent who is facing a string of accusations that he and his two of his brothers sexually assaulted women — allegations that had been whispered throughout the high-end real estate industry for years.Renee Willett, 31, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday accusing Mr. Alexander, 37, of attacking her in his apartment nearly nine years ago. She is the fourth woman to file a lawsuit this summer against Mr. Alexander. Two earlier lawsuits filed this year name Mr. Alexander and his twin brother, Alon, who does not work in real estate but often socializes with him. A third suit filed in June names Oren, Alon and their older brother Tal Alexander, 38, who is Oren’s longtime partner in real estate sales.Isabelle Kirshner, a lawyer for Oren Alexander, said she had no comment on the new allegation at this time. Oren, Tal and Alon have denied all previous allegations.Like other women who have said they were assaulted, Ms. Willett said she was prompted to file a lawsuit after reading articles about similar claims involving the Alexanders. Her lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, came two days after The New York Times published an article with accounts from several women about the brothers.“I felt a responsibility to come forward,” she said. “I have to do this not just for myself, but for everyone else.”Ms. Willett is an actress and comedian who is now working on a screenplay. She came forward, she said, after learning about other allegations of assault against the Alexanders.Vivien Killilea/Getty Images For Idol RocWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      City Illegally Fined Woman Over Profane Political Yard Sign, U.S. Judge Rules

      by

      A federal judge in Tennessee said that it was unconstitutional for the City of Lakeland, Tenn., to fine Julie Pereira for the sign she posted expressing disapproval of President Biden and Donald J. Trump.A federal judge in Tennessee ruled this week that it was unconstitutional for a city to fine a woman who had displayed a sign in her yard that used profane language to express disapproval of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.The woman, Julie Pereira, 40, of Lakeland, Tenn., who posted the sign, which said “Fuck Em’ Both 2024,” in January, was fined hundreds of dollars by the city. It told her that the political sign violated its municipal code because it was obscene.In June, Ms. Pereira sued Lakeland in federal court, arguing that she had a First Amendment right to post the sign in her yard.Judge Mark S. Norris of U.S. District Court in Memphis, said in an order issued on Tuesday that Ms. Pereira’s yard sign was not obscene, and that it was unconstitutional for the city of Lakeland to take action against Ms. Pereira over the sign.Judge Norris ordered the city to reimburse her for nearly $700 in fines and pay Ms. Pereira damages of $1 for violating her First Amendment rights, according to the order. Ms. Pereira was also awarded legal fees of $31,000. The judge also barred the city from taking any additional action against her.Julie Pereira’s sign in her yard in Lakeland, Tenn. She won her lawsuit against the city of Lakeland after they fined her hundreds of dollars for putting up the sign.Julie PereiraWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More