Access To Justice

Just over a year ago, President Barack Obama signed his first major piece of legislation. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act  overturned a controversial 2007 Supreme Court case, and made it easier for women who faced wage discrimination to sue their employers.

Here is what I said about Lilly Ledbetter at the time.

Basically, the Ledbetter Act revised the statute of limitations (SOL) for filing discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), so that each discriminatory paycheck essentially restarted the SOL clock for plaintiffs.

According to a recent article over at Law 360, here’s what that means for working women: 

“People challenging a wide variety of practices that resulted in discriminatory compensation are benefiting from the act’s passage,” EEOC said. “These practices include determining base pay or wages, deciding job classifications, denying career ladder or other noncompetitive promotions, denying tenure, and failing to respond to requests for raises.”

All told, during the past year, EEOC received more than 68,000 complaints of workplace discrimination, including 4,800 charges of wage discrimination, 1,900 of which were filed by women alleging sex discrimination in compensation.  Some of those women, depending on when they filed, may not have gotten their day in court if not for the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

The bottom line is this:  The Ledbetter Act is the latest part of a federal regime that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on gender.  We can expect to see more and more claims filed under its provisions.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of workplace discrimination, you should know your legal rights.

Investigators will begin their investigation this morning into a huge explosion at an unfinished power plant in Connecticut that killed five people and left around a dozen injured yesterday, reports the Associated Press.

The blast at the Kleen Energy Systems plant in Middletown shook homes miles away and damaged windows and foundations at nearby houses, according to news reports.

Fire marshals and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) are expected on the scene today to investigate the cause of the explosion. The AP writes that the facility’s gas line was being purged of air by workers for O&G industries when the Middletown explosion took place Sunday.  The under-construction plant is meant to produce energy using natural gas.

In a press release, that CSB says it issued urgent recommendations last week that the national fuel gas codes be changed to improve safety when gas pipes are being purged – cleared of air – during maintenance or the installation of new piping. The recommendations come in the wake of the CSB’s ongoing federal investigation into a natural gas explosion at a ConAgra Slim Jim factory in North Carolina that killed four people in 2009.

News developments that we’ll be watching at Sokolove Law:

CNN.com reports that Pentagon health officials now say that some troops exposed to military burn pits could develop long-term health problems, in a shift from previous statements on the matter. Military officials say that exposure to burn-pit smoke combined with other factors such as pre-existing conditions or genetic factors could lead to longer-term health effects, according to CNN.com.  Burn pits are used by the military on some bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military contractors will find it difficult to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts as a result of a provision in a newly signed law, according to a post at The Blog of Legal Times (BLT). BLT says the provision was tucked into the 2009-10 spending bill for the U.S. Department of Defense, which President Barack Obama signed into law last weekend. Contracts and subcontracts under $1 million are exempt from the provision.

Recent recalls

More than 114,000 pounds of shelled hazelnuts have been recalled after the Food and Drug Administration found salmonella during a routine sampling in a nut-processing plant in Oregon, according to an article in The Oregonian. No illnesses have been reported so far, but salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, according to the recall notice. Recalls have been issued by Willamette Shelling, Willamette Filbert Growers, Kunze Farms, Evonuk Oregon Hazelnuts, Whole Foods, and Harry and David.

Have a safe holiday. Count on Sokolove Law to protect your rights.

News developments that we’ll be watching at Sokolove Law:

Oil giant BP was ordered to pay $100 million in damages to contract workers after a federal  jury found that the company exposed the workers to toxic substances at its Texas City oil refinery in 2007, writes the Houston Chronicle. The story says that the plaintiffs alleged exposure to carbon disulfide while working on two refining units. BP said it will appeal the decision.

Tough new rules regarding the use of anti-psychotic drugs are being sought in the wake of a recent Chicago Tribune investigation that found the medications were sometimes used to “chemically restrain” elderly patients in Illinois nursing homes.  The Tribune reports today that health advocates are urging Gov. Pat Quinn’s Nursing Home Safety Task Force to target the problem.

People with pacemakers should think twice before undergoing an MRI scan.  ScienceDaily reports that FDA researchers have found that MRI scans may cause certain cardiac pacemakers to inadequately stimulate a patient’s heart due to the magnetic pulses from the MRI mixing with the electronic pulses from the pacemaker. This lack of stimulation could create a potentially dangerous situation for these patients, according to the article.

Industrial launderer Cintas has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay a living wage to some of its laundry workers, writes the Associated Press. The tentative settlement provides $3.3 million in back wages and interest for more than 500 Southern California Cintas laundry workers at the company’s Ontario, Pico Rivera, and Whittier locations, according to a Workers United/SEIU press release. Cintas doesn’t admit wrongdoing in the settlement, says the AP.

Recent Recalls: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that Dorel Juvenile Group is voluntarily recalling about 477,000 Dorel infant car seat/carriers. These carriers were also sold under the Safety 1st, Cosco, Eddie Bauer, and Disney brands. Dorel said it has received 77 reports of the carrier handle fully or partially falling off. At least three injuries to infants have been reported, including a head injury, bumps, and bruises. The product can still be used as a car seat when properly installed, according to the CSPC.

We’ll be watching these developments here at Sokolove Law.

News developments that we’ll be keeping an eye on at Sokolove Law:

Water, water, everywhere…and not all of it fit to drink. That’s the main thrust of a New York Times analysis of federal data that shows 20 percent of U.S. water treatment systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years — but only 6 percent have been fined or punished for it by state or federal officials.

Brain waved: The Associated Press reports the FDA is investigating reports of dangerous radiation levels associated with brain scans at two California hospitals, following its earlier probe of unsafe CT scans at a Los Angeles facility, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

Recent Recalls….About 24,000 Amby Baby Motion Beds have been recalled following two infant suffocation deaths this summer. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says that the side-to-side tilting of the hammock can cause an infant to roll and become trapped or wedged against the fabric or mattress pad, resulting in a suffocation hazard.

Life can be unpredictable – and full of risk. If you’ve suffered a personal injury, you can count on Sokolove Law to protect your rights.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay $40 million to 87,500 of its current and former Massachusetts workers in what is being called the largest wage-and-hour class action settlement in the state’s history.

The workers accused the world’s largest retailer of refusing to pay overtime, denying them rest and meals breaks, and manipulating their time cards, according to an Associated Press article.

The AP reports that under the terms of the settlement, any person who worked for Wal-Mart between August 1995 and this year will receive payments of between $400 to $2,500, depending upon their years of service. The settlement, which is subject to approval from the Middlesex Superior Court, bars both sides from commenting on the matter.

The class-action lawsuit was one of several similar complaints filed against Wal-Mart in 2001. The AP says that since last December, the company has agreed to pay as much as $640 million to settle 63 lawsuits over wage-and-hour violations.

Halliburton continues to flout legal and environmental regulations that govern its presence in Iraq.  Now Air Force Sgt. Sean Alexander Stough and former contractor Charles Hicks are suing the defense contractor and its subsidiary KBR in a proposed class-action lawsuit for exposing them to toxic fumes and ash from burn pits.

After breathing smoke from the burn pits, soldiers have reported a host of serious health problems, including lung disease and other respiratory issues, heart problems, and a range of cancers including brain cancer and leukemia.  “Burn pit syndrome” can encompass other issues as well: chronic coughs, pain, sleep apnea, bronchitis, and asthma.

This case is the latest in a string of more than 30 lawsuits on behalf of former military members and contract workers who claim Halliburton’s negligent waste management practices knowingly exposed them to toxins.  Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, announced recently that KBR continues to dispose of waste in burn pits that release toxic fumes, citing “frequent and unnecessary use of burn pits . . . [that] exposed thousands of US Troops to toxic smoke” at Balad Airbase in Iraq.

If you served in Iraq in a military or contracting capacity and believe you were exposed to Halliburton’s negligence, please contact us.

In a ruling that could have wide-ranging implications for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, a U.S. District Judge in New  Orleans ruled that it was the Army Corps of Engineers’ negligence that caused the major flooding and property damage that occurred there in 2005.

The four residents and one business were awarded $719,698 in damages by Judge Stanwood Duval, after they sued the US and the Army Corps of Engineers, arguing the defendants were negligent in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a navigational channel.  “Once the corps exercised its discretion to create a navigational channel, it was obligated to make sure that channel did not destroy the environment surrounding it thereby creating a hazard to life and property,” Judge Duval wrote in his decision.

The ruling means that potentially thousands of other New Orleans residents may be able to sue the government on the same grounds, leading to billions of dollars of liability for the government.

I recently celebrated my 65th birthday, and that may explain why I continue to be outraged that we tolerate age discrimination in this country.  When it comes to firing people because they are older, you might say I’m a little biased!

As I’ve written before,  in June, 2009, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a split 5 – 4 Supreme Court, held that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act would not apply if age was only one motivating factor behind an employer’s action.  The Court held that employees would have to show that age was the decisive factor behind the employer’s action to be successful.

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin is sponsoring the bill that would reverse the ruling.  Harkin’s bill should pass. Here’s why:
Prior to the SCOTUS decision, you could sue under ADEA, if part of the reason you were fired was because of age discrimination.  But the Court ruled that now employees would have to prove that age discrimination was the key reason why they were fired.  It essentially made the burden of proof in age discrimination case  extremely difficult to reach.

I recently came across a great editorial in the New York Times that makes the case for change quite nicely.  The piece quotes Justice Thurgood Marshall, a brilliant jurist and celebrated champion of civil rights:

“To be rejected on account of old age may or may not feel the same as being rejected on the basis of race or sex. But it is clearly unjust and dehumanizing, and the law should take it more seriously than it does.”

Amen Justice Marshall.  Age discrimination is wrong, and we should not be putting up barriers to people who have been discriminated against.  We should be throwing the court house doors open and encouraging them to bring suit.

Can you sue because of bad weather?  Turns out the answer could be yes.  A few weeks ago, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that plaintiffs could proceed with their case against big oil and gas companies for contributing to global warming, which they claim was the cause of Hurricane Katrina.

According to the WSJ’s Law Blog:

“The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.”

The Law Blog was also nice enough to include a link to the plaintiff’s complaint.  You can read it here.  And a link to the ruling, which you can read here.

To be clear, the case is at a very early stage, and there is still a long road to go.  Most difficult for the plaintiffs will be to prove the link of causation between companies whose carbon emissions pollute the atmosphere and the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.  The begins with proving that pollution leads to global warming, and in an interesting way, proving that global warming exists at all, which as we know is the subject of some dispute.

I wonder whether the defendants will cause known global warming apologist Rush Limbaugh to the stand to testify.