Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Organizer of World Economic Forum in Davos Accused of Discrimination

      by

      A former employee sued the nonprofit, accusing it of denying professional opportunities because of her race and gender.A former employee of the World Economic Forum, the nonprofit organization behind the glittery annual gathering of business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland, sued the group and its founder, Klaus Schwab, on Monday, accusing them of workplace discrimination.In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Topaz Smith, who is Black, said the organization embraced a “scofflaw approach to anti-discrimination laws” and oversaw a hostile atmosphere toward women and Black workers.She added that it denied her and other Black employees opportunities to advance professionally.The accusations are the latest black eye for the nonprofit, whose conferences — particularly the one in Davos in January — have become destinations for the global elite to meet and network under the auspices of saving the world. (The theme of this year’s forum in Davos was “Rebuilding Trust,” while last year’s was “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.”)An article in The Wall Street Journal last month, citing internal complaints and interviews with current and former employees, said workers had accused the organization of sexual harassment and racism.Those behaviors extended all the way to Mr. Schwab, the outgoing executive chairman of the organization, according to the article.The report was cited in the lawsuit by Ms. Smith, who said she had directly experienced discriminatory acts in her two years working for the group’s consulting arm. One executive told her to consider her boss “her master,” she said, and the organization did not pay for her to travel to the Davos conference to participate in panels she had organized. But, according to the lawsuit, it paid for white employees to do so.Ms. Smith accused the organization of essentially firing her this year after she returned to work from federally protected maternity leave, and of replacing her with a white woman who was not pregnant.In a statement, a representative for the World Economic Forum said, “While it’s disappointing to see such false claims being made, now that these matters are in court, the falsity of these claims will become evident.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Exxon Suit Over Activist Investor’s Climate Proposal Is Dismissed

      by

      A federal judge ruled that the case was moot after the investor, Arjuna Capital, withdrew the proposal with a promise not to try again.A federal judge in Texas on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that Exxon Mobil had filed against an activist investor, Arjuna Capital, over a shareholder proposal that called for cuts in the oil giant’s greenhouse gas emissions.Judge Mark T. Pittman of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that because Arjuna had withdrawn its proposal and had vowed not to submit similar proposals, Exxon’s claim was moot.“The trend of shareholder activism in this country isn’t going anywhere,” Judge Pittman wrote, but he added that “the court cannot advise Exxon of its rights without a live case or controversy to trigger jurisdiction.”Exxon sued Arjuna and another investor, Follow This, in January to stop their nonbinding resolution from going to a vote of shareholders. A month earlier, Arjuna had filed a proposal for the resolution, which called on Exxon to accelerate its plans to reduce its carbon emissions “and to summarize new plans, targets and timetables,” according to Exxon’s complaint. Follow This then joined in support, the complaint said.In its complaint, Exxon said the proposal “does not seek to improve ExxonMobil’s economic performance or create shareholder value.”“Defendants’ overarching objective is to force Exxon Mobil to change the nature of its ordinary business or to go out of business entirely,” the company said.Judge Pittman dismissed Follow This, which is based in the Netherlands, from the lawsuit in May but allowed the case against Arjuna to continue.Arjuna withdrew the proposal and moved for a dismissal of the lawsuit, which the judge denied “because the proposal’s withdrawal didn’t foreclose the same conduct moving forward.” Arjuna then promised not to put forth similar proposals and said its pledge “forecloses even the remotest chance of another proposal” related to Exxon’s carbon emissions.Judge Pittman’s ruling followed a hearing held on Monday to determine whether Arjuna’s promise made Exxon’s complaint moot.Alain Delaquérière More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Did You Buy a Disneyland ‘Dream Key’? Disney May Owe You Money.

      by

      Disney owes a total of $9.5 million to customers who bought a $1,400 Dream Key pass over the course of two months in 2021. The payments, about $67, are going out this month.People who paid nearly $1,400 for an annual pass to Disneyland will begin receiving checks in the mail this month from a $9.5 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit that accused Disney of misleading customers into believing that the program carried “no blockout dates.”More than 100,000 people who bought the Dream Key annual pass between Aug. 25 and Oct. 25, 2021, will each receive about $67.41, a small fraction of what they paid for the pass. The payments were to begin arriving by mail or electronically starting in mid-June, according to the settlement agreement.The lawsuit was filed in November 2021 by a California woman who said she purchased a Dream Key pass to Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., under the impression that the pass would allow her to make reservations for any day of the year. But when she tried in October 2021 to make a reservation for dates in November, she found that she was unable to do so, according to the lawsuit.The lawsuit said Disney “appears to be limiting the number of reservations available to Dream Key pass holders in order to maximize the number of single-day and other passes” that it could sell to Disneyland visitors.In addition to park admission, the Dream Key pass, which has since been discontinued, offered up to 15 percent off “select dining” and up to 20 percent off “select merchandise.”The plaintiff, Jenale Nielsen, paid $1,399 for the pass, the lawsuit said. She will receive a $5,000 payment, according to the agreement. Her lawyer did not comment on the settlement.The two parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in July 2023 to avoid a trial. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts denied any wrongdoing or liability in agreeing to the settlement. Disney and Disneyland Resort did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Settlement administrators will automatically send checks to the last known mailing addresses for members of the class. Some pass holders may have elected to receive payment digitally; the process to elect payment type closed in January. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Clearview AI Used Your Face. Now You May Get a Stake in the Company.

      by

      The facial recognition start-up doesn’t have the funds to settle a class-action lawsuit, so lawyers are proposing equity for those whose faces were scraped from the internet.A facial recognition start-up, accused of invasion of privacy in a class-action lawsuit, has agreed to a settlement, with a twist: Rather than cash payments, it would give a 23 percent stake in the company to Americans whose faces are in its database.Clearview AI, which is based in New York, scraped billions of photos from the web and social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram to build a facial recognition app used by thousands of police departments, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. After The New York Times revealed the company’s existence in 2020, lawsuits were filed across the country. They were consolidated in federal court in Chicago as a class action.The litigation has proved costly for Clearview AI, which would most likely go bankrupt before the case made it to trial, according to court documents. The company and those who sued it were “trapped together on a sinking ship,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing proposing the settlement.“These realities led the sides to seek a creative solution by obtaining for the class a percentage of the value Clearview could achieve in the future,” added the lawyers, from Loevy + Loevy in Chicago.Anyone in the United States who has a photo of himself or herself posted publicly online — so almost everybody — could be considered a member of the class. The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, which is valued at $225 million, according to court filings. (Twenty-three percent of the company’s current value would be about $52 million.)If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview’s revenue, which it would be required to set aside.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Backs Starbucks Over ‘Memphis 7’ Union Case

      by

      In a blow to the National Labor Relations Board, the justices cited inconsistent standards for courts to order employers to reinstate fired workers.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks on Thursday in a challenge against a labor ruling by a federal judge, making it more difficult for a key federal agency to intervene when a company is accused of illegally suppressing labor organizing.Eight justices backed the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion concurring with parts of the majority opinion, dissenting from other portions and agreeing with the overall judgment.The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a closed store, while the workers said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of violating.After the firings, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint saying that Starbucks had acted because the workers had “joined or assisted the union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.” Separately, lawyers for the board asked a federal judge in Tennessee for an injunction reinstating the workers, and the judge issued the order in August 2022.The agency asks judges to reinstate workers in such cases because resolving the underlying legal issues can take years, during which time other workers may become discouraged from organizing even if the fired workers ultimately prevail.In its petition to the Supreme Court, the company argued that federal courts had differing standards when deciding whether to grant injunctions that reinstate workers, which the N.L.R.B. has the authority to seek under the National Labor Relations Act.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

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Disney and DeSantis Reach Agreement, Ending Protracted Fight

      by

      The deal locks in a 15-year expansion plan for Disney World and clears a path for Disney to restart political donations in Florida.Disney and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida have finally ended their feud, clearing the way for $17 billion in planned development at Walt Disney World near Orlando.On Wednesday night, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District — an entity that Mr. DeSantis took over in 2022, ending 55 years of Disney control and sparking multiple lawsuits — gave the company a big part of what it wanted all along: a locked-in, long-term plan for expanding Disney World. At least for the next 15 years, the length of the new agreement, Disney can develop the resort without worrying about interference by Florida politicians.Put bluntly, state leaders can no longer use growth at the 25,000-acre resort as a political weapon, as Mr. DeSantis did two years ago after Disney said it would fight to repeal a state education law that opponents called anti-gay.Jeff Vahle, the president of Disney World, said in a statement that the agreement would support “the growth of this global destination, fueling the Florida economy.” It gives Disney the ability to build a fifth theme park, add three small parks, expand retail and office space and build 14,000 hotel rooms, for a resort total of nearly 54,000.Disney has earmarked $17 billion to expand the complex over the next decade, growth it has said will create an estimated 13,000 jobs.The district noted that, under the agreement, Disney is obligated to spend at least $8 billion. The company also must expand an affordable housing initiative and carry out a “buy local initiative,” with at least 50 percent of its total spending in expanding Disney World going to Florida businesses.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Sued by Former SpaceX Employees

      by

      The eight workers say they were wrongfully fired after circulating a memo raising concerns about sexual harassment at the rocket company led by Elon Musk.Eight former employees of Elon Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, sued the company and Mr. Musk on Wednesday, contending they were wrongfully fired for raising concerns about sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.The employees were fired in 2022 after they circulated an open letter urging SpaceX executives to condemn Mr. Musk’s comments on Twitter, later renamed X, which amounted to “a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us.” After being made aware of the letter, Mr. Musk ordered the terminations, according to the complaint.“Our eight brave clients stood up to him and were fired for doing so,” Laurie Burgess, a lawyer representing the former SpaceX employees, said in a statement. “We look forward to holding Musk accountable for his actions at trial.”The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The lawsuit, filed in California state court in Los Angeles, called SpaceX’s workplace an “Animal House” filled with inappropriate and sexually suggestive behavior. Several plaintiffs said they had experienced harassment from other SpaceX employees that “mimicked Musk’s posts,” which created “a wildly uncomfortable hostile work environment.”The lawsuit contends that executives at SpaceX were regularly made aware of grievances about Mr. Musk’s explicit social media messages, but that the complaints were routinely dismissed, even after a “sexual harassment internal audit” conducted by Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer.After the employees were fired, Ms. Shotwell wrote in an email to SpaceX employees that there was “too much critical work to accomplish and no need for this kind of overreaching activism,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The New York Times.The same eight employees are already pursuing charges against SpaceX with the National Labor Relations Board. In January, SpaceX sued the labor board to dispute the charges, arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because the structure of the agency is unconstitutional.The lawsuit was filed a day before Tesla shareholders are expected to conclude a vote on a pay package for Mr. Musk that’s worth about $45 billion. It also followed a Tuesday report in The Wall Street Journal detailing Mr. Musk’s history of sexual relationships with co-workers.The lawsuit is the latest in a list of grievances between employees and Mr. Musk. In 2022, Business Insider reported that SpaceX had paid $250,000 to settle a claim that he exposed himself to an employee on a private plane. (Mr. Musk later denied the “wild accusations.”) In 2022, he laid off roughly half of Twitter’s work force after acquiring the company, later firing another two dozen of the company’s internal critics. And last August, the Justice Department sued SpaceX for discriminating against refugees and asylum seekers in its hiring.“We hope that this lawsuit encourages our colleagues to stay strong and to keep fighting for a better workplace,” Paige Holland-Thielen, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. More