Thomas is suing American Airlines over an incident in Chicago where an American Airlines plane ran off the runway at O’Hare International Airport. The Boeing 757 was flying cross-country from Seattle to New York and made an emergency landing at O’Hare. She says that she is so traumatized that, despite previously being a frequently flier, she is now afraid to travel by airplane. Thomas argues that American Airlines was negligent in the incident. According to Thomas, the plane had electrical problems and was on a backup battery. Therefore, she alleges that the crew was negligent not to divert the flight sooner before the battery ran out. It does not seem that American Airlines completely disagrees with Thomas.

Vickie Norton, a captain with United Airlines, said that the American Airlines pilot’s decision to continue the flight was incorrect. “There was a primary lack of systems knowledge,” she said and added that the pilot should have made the emergency landing sooner, The Seattle Times reports.

Negligence requires a duty, a breach of the duty, causation (factual and proximate) and damages. In this case, the duty of the airlines to protect the safety is not in dispute, but American Airlines is certain to challenge the negligence allegation based on the breach and causation. Depending upon Jewel Thomas’ medical records, they could conceivably challenge her damages as well.

In the end, while many say that Thomas should simply be thankful that she is alive, she is entitled to her day in court. Despite the frequent chatter about “frivolous lawsuits,” the United States is fortunate to have a system that lets a person who has gone through a troubling ordeal have their day in court.

Related Resources:

• Twilight Star Taylor Lautner Sues Over Trailer ‘Emotional Distress’ (FindLaw)
• Emotional Distress (FindLaw)
• Aviation Accidents – Overview (FindLaw)
• Personal Injury Legal Glossary (provided by Miller Law, Inc.)
• Sample Personal Injury Verdicts and Settlements (provided by Law Offices of Wesley Malowitz)

“I met someone the other night who’s 28 years old, and he hasn’t worked a day since he left college because he’s pursuing a dream he’ll never, ever realize: He thinks he’s a great singer. Actually, he’s crap.” -Simon Cowell

The hosts of American Idol have been known for this kind of tough criticism. Cowell was, of course, famous for his occasional critical rants. Eventually the ill will was likely to turn back at him and now American Idol is facing a $100 million lawsuit. Ian Berardo, a former Americal Idol reject, originally sued for $300 million but withdrew that lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges federal violations of workplace discrimination law as well as sexual harassment. Ian Berardo, who came on stage and stole the microphone from Dane Cook during the live Idol finale and caused controversy, claims the show told him to “gay it up.” Benardo filed the withdrawn suit with the NY State Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Benardo, American Idol reject, also claims Dane Cook personally threatened him when the show was over and that a producer told Benardo that Dane wanted to “shove this mic up your ass but you would like it,” TMZ reports.

Workplace discrimination and sexual harassment claims are common causes of action filed against businesses, both large and small. Businesses, including law firms are wise to have a clear workplace policy in effect that forbids any harassment. Routine reminders and training programs are another tool available to help prevent discrimination and harassment lawsuits.

Related Resources:

• Workplace Discrimination (FindLaw)
• Job Discrimination Claims On The Rise (FindLaw)
• Sexual Harassment: What is it? (FindLaw)

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the holiday is, “dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well being of our country.” The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on September 5, 1882 in New York City, and it became a national holiday in 1884.

Labor Day is often marked by parades, speeches, and other celebrations. And for sports fans, the Labor Day marks the beginning of the professional and college football seasons. The American workforce is also strengthened by champions for employment rights. Labor laws, labor unions, and litigation all has its place in securing the rights of working Americans.

One negative side effect of people taking advantage of the holiday — the yearly increase in accidents. Drunk driving numbers rise on almost every holiday, and labor day is no exception. The law also does not give an exception to offenders cited on the holiday. And no, the police do not take the day off from enforcing the laws. So thank you to all the people out there who work hard every day to help make the country a better place to live, and be safe in your celebrating.

Related Resources:

• Labor Day (Wikipedia)
• Labor Laws (FindLaw’s LawBrain)
• The Fair Labor Standards Act (FindLaw)

This is the first time in the last 30 years that a police or sheriff’s agency has refused to cooperate with a Title VI investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman told the Arizona Republic. The Department is seeking to compel the sheriff’s office to allow access to the documents and facilities it needs to pursue its case. At stake for Maricopa County are millions in federal funding, according to county records. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, programs receiving federal funds may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has always maintained his immigration sweeps are not based on racial profiling as his critics say. Arpaio’s office claims that half of the 1,032 people arrested in the sweeps have been illegal immigrants. In traffic stops, Arpaio claims people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they’ve committed crimes. It’s only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.

Arpaio made an initial decision not to co-operate with the DOJ probe, but says the Republic, had appeared to change course in recent weeks, even implying that his office is trying to cooperate with federal civil-rights investigators. “Can’t they wait another week?” Arpaio asked. “Why can’t they give us a little more time. I thought we were really close to getting this thing resolved.”

Resolved or not, Arpaio will still have other things to occupy him. A separate investigation by a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Sherif Joe Arpaio has abused his powers with such tactics as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends.

Related Resources:

• U.S. sues Arizona sheriff in immigration probe (Reuters)
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Non-Discrimination in Federally-Assisted Program (FindLaw)
• Sheriff Joe Arpaio Christmas Music Playlist for Inmates (FindLaw’s Legally Weird)
• What Do You Know, Joe? Sheriff Joe Arpaio Deposed (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)

US v. Taylor, 10-1750, concerned a challenge to the district court’s imposition of an enhancement for physically restraining a teller in sentencing defendant to 110-months’ imprisonment, in a conviction of defendant for armed bank robbery.  In affirming, the court held that, whether a pointed gun is used to move a person into an unlocked room and keep him there, or used to move a person from one part of the robbery scene to another, the person’s freedom of movement is restrained as effectively as by shoving or dragging him into a room and locking the door.  However, the judgment is modified as the district court erred in ordering the defendant to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, as the participation is voluntary.

US v. Slaight, 10-1443, concerned a challenge to a conviction of a defendant for receipt and possession of child pornography shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and a sentence of a mandatory minimum of 15 years by reason of a previous conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor.  In reversing, the court held that defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements that he had made when questioned by federal officers at a police station should have been granted as facts are incontrovertible and show that the average person in defendant’s position would have thought himself in custody, and any other conclusion would leave Miranda in tatters.

US v. Rea, 09-2652, concerned a challenge to the district court’s conviction of defendants for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine and other related offenses, and their sentences.  The court vacated in part the district court’s judgment with respect to one of the defendants because, the government concedes defendant’s argument, that the conspiracy alleged in his indictment is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that, along with a special assessment for each, his concurrent sentences thus amount to cumulative punishment not authorized by Congress.

The court affirmed in all remaining aspects where: 1)  the evidence presented against defendant was sufficient to justify his continuing criminal enterprise conviction; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements made by defendant’s co-conspirators and any error related to an agent’s testimony was harmless; 3) district court did not plainly err by imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement upon the defendant as the government demonstrated that the guns were found in close proximity to drug paraphernalia and that defendant dealt in large quantities of meth on a frequent basis; 4) sufficient evidence supported co-defendant’s conviction for conspiracy as  based on the evidence, any reasonable juror could find that the relationship between the defendants exceeded that of a buyer-seller relationship; and 5)  district court’s calculation errors did not affect co-defendant’s substantial rights.

US v. Hernandez, 10-1374, concerned a challenge to the district court’s imposition of a 120-month sentence, in believing that it was required by U.S.S.G. section 5G1.3(c) to impose the sentence as part of the federal sentence, because defendant’s state offense (for which defendant had already served 18 months of at the time of his federal sentencing) was unrelated to his federal offense, in a conviction of defendant for distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base.  In vacating the sentence, the court remanded for resentencing as, section 5G1.3(b) does not apply to this case as the governing statute for these purposes is 18 U.S.C. section 3584(a) which gives a district court the discretion to impose a term of imprisonment either concurrently or consecutively to a prior undischarged term, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).

Goldhamer v. Nagode, 09-2332, involved plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging violations of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and under state law, challenging a city ordinance’s failure-to-disperse provision of section 8-4-010(d).  In vacating the district court’s judgment permanently enjoining the city from enforcing the provision on the ground that it imposes too great a burden on protected free speech and is unconstitutionally vague, the court remanded the matter as, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the facial validity of the ordinance at issue as they were not even arguably violating the failure-to-disperse provision when they were arrested for demonstrating against military recruitment, and plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable prospect of future arrest for again violating that same provision.

Carlson v. Bukovic, 09-2578, concerned a challenge to the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants, in a plaintiff’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against an officer for excessive force and the city for failure to train the officer.  In affiirming, the court held that a mere physical contact by an officer, although significant factor, does not automatically qualify an encounter as a Fourth Amendment seizure.  The court held that the district court correctly submitted the question of whether a seizure took place to the jury.  The court also held that the jury was entitled to determine that, at the time the officer touched plaintiff’s arm, officer’s action was more exhortatory than commanding.  And, because plaintiff’s section 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim failed, her failure-to-train claim against the city fails as well.  Lastly, plaintiff’s claim that the district judge was biased need not be addressed as recusal was unnecessary in this case.

Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc., 09-1892, involved a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord.  In affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant, the court held that Article 4 of the parties’ contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France – provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff’s supply channels for four years.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Weber v.Universities Research Ass’n, Inc., 08-1957
• Full text of US v. Taylor, 10-1750
• Full text of US v. Rea, 09-2652
• Full text of US v. Slaight, 10-1443
• Full text of US v. Hernandez, 10-1374,
• Full text of Goldhamer v. Nagode, 09-2332
• Full text of Carlson v. Bukovic, 09-2578
• Full text of Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc., 09-1892

Lin v. Holder, 09-3090, concerned a Chinese couple’s petition for review of a BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s decision that petitioners were not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal and are eligible to be deported.  In denying the petition, the court held that the petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating past persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution that if they return to China they will be persecuted on account of their opposition to and failure to comply with family planning policies.

Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh, 09-1102, involved a Catholic student group’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against University of Wisconsin for refusing to reimburse any of the group’s expenses.  In affirming the district court’s declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff in concluding that reimbursing the expenses of religious speakers, through a program equally available to secular speakers, does not violate the Establishment Clause, and that, having established a public forum, the University must not exclude speakers who want to use the forum for worship, the court held that, underwriting a religious speaker’s costs, as part of a neutral program justified by the program’s secular benefits, does not violate the Establishment Clause even if the religious speaker uses some of the money for prayer or sectarian. instruction.

Related Resources:

• Full text of US v. Lupton, 09-2710
• Full text of Lin v. Holder, 09-3090
• Full text of Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh, 09-1102

Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 09-1225, involved a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs).  The court affirmed the district court’s judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement, but reversed and remanded district court’s determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law. 

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 10-1005, involved a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis.  In affirming the judgment of the district court, the court held that the record amply supports the district court’s conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis.  Also, because the district court’s conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well.  The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement, nor in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 10-1005
• Full text of Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 09-1225
• Full text of Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 10-3030

US v. Ellis, 09-1485, concerned a challenge to the district court’s decision to sentence the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on defendant’s three previous convictions for a violent felony, including a previous juvenile adjudication for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.  In affirming, the court held that it was not blatant error for the sentencing court to take defendant’s juvenile adjudication into consideration for the purpose of applying the ACCA, as given that the state law provides that juvenile adjudications are not “set aside’ for the purpose of imposing sentence is later criminal proceedings against the defendant, it is far from clear that Massachusetts juvenile convictions should never be treated as predicate offense under the ACCA.

Related Resources:

• Full text of US v. Gentles, 09-1431
• Full text of US v. Ellis, 09-1485

US v. Ellis, 09-1485, concerned a challenge to the district court’s decision to sentence the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on defendant’s three previous convictions for a violent felony, including a previous juvenile adjudication for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.  In affirming, the court held that it was not blatant error for the sentencing court to take defendant’s juvenile adjudication into consideration for the purpose of applying the ACCA, as given that the state law provides that juvenile adjudications are not “set aside’ for the purpose of imposing sentence is later criminal proceedings against the defendant, it is far from clear that Massachusetts juvenile convictions should never be treated as predicate offense under the ACCA.

Related Resources:

• Full text of US v. Gentles, 09-1431
• Full text of US v. Ellis, 09-1485

US v. Ellis, 09-1485, concerned a challenge to the district court’s decision to sentence the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on defendant’s three previous convictions for a violent felony, including a previous juvenile adjudication for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.  In affirming, the court held that it was not blatant error for the sentencing court to take defendant’s juvenile adjudication into consideration for the purpose of applying the ACCA, as given that the state law provides that juvenile adjudications are not “set aside’ for the purpose of imposing sentence is later criminal proceedings against the defendant, it is far from clear that Massachusetts juvenile convictions should never be treated as predicate offense under the ACCA.

Related Resources:

• Full text of US v. Gentles, 09-1431
• Full text of US v. Ellis, 09-1485